Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox

[Peter_J]

Since the Orthodox were members of the Catholic Church (that name having first been recorded by Ignatius of Antioch), it stands to reason that ALL Catholics (including those who now choose to go by another name) would have been perfectly content with Sheed’s description prior to 1054 (or whatever date you prefer).

To be fair, we also choose to call them by another name.

 

[Randy_Carson]

To be fair, we also choose to call them by another name.

 

[RyanBlack]

Really? The idea is absurd - or should I say, “adolescent”.

Someone needs to go look in the mirror.

But let’s be clear: some put their fingers into their ears saying, “Lalalalalalalalalal…I’m not listening…lalalalalalala” because the ecclesiological implications of this are profound.

Now who’s being adolescent? How much listening to those whose ideas don’t move in lock-step with yours do you do?

 

[spina1953]

IAgree with both the #135 post and tghe #131 post it seems to me to make a lot of sense and good history to boot!!

 

[frjohnmorris]

MB-

There is the confirmation of what Soloviev said. Unfortunately, it flies in the face of reason. As Frank Sheed pointed out,

[The Catholic Church] not only repeated what the apostles had been taught: she thought about it, meditated on it, prayed by it, lived it. And, doing all this, the Church came to see further and further depths of truth in it. And, seeing these, she taught these too. Everything was contained in what Christ had given the apostles to give the Church: but though everything was there, it was not all seen explicitly–not all at once.

No I as an Eastern Orthodox Christian cannot accept that statement. That kind of thinking leads to the kind of theology that has led the liberal Protestants to ordain women and bless same sex unions. We may have to refine doctrine to express it more clearly, but we cannot change doctrine or adopt what is in fact completely new doctrine that contradicts what the Church has always taught. We can study history and can discover for ourselves what the ancient undivided Church taught and how it lived its Faith. We have a sacred obligation to preserve the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church without change or distortion.
Besides universal papal jurisdiction and infallibility was not given to the Church. When Pope Nicholas I went too far in his papal claims at the council of 869, his legates were told that they were wrong and that the Bishop of Rome does not have authority to set the doctrine for the whole Church. When Cardinal Humbert in the name of Leo IX went too far Patriarch Michael I refused to submit to the demands of the Cardinal especially since the Cardinal had no authority because once a Pope dies, the authority of his legates ceases. Four of Five Patriarchs rejected the papal claims. That can hardly be called agreement by the Church. If the papal claims had been given to the Church, the whole Church would have accepted them.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

You still haven’t answered the question of how we have ossified. I know Rome’s understanding of development but we too have gone through the Centuries…there is no stagnation here.

At least you recognize that the modern papacy is the result of development rather than something that has always existed. That is progress. Perhaps you can now see our point of view that it was not a good development to abandon the ancient conciliar principle of decision making in the Church in favor of concentrating all power in the hands of one man who is unaccountable to any other higher authority like an Ecumenical Council, the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate and the rest of the Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

MB-

There is the confirmation of what Soloviev said. Unfortunately, it flies in the face of reason. As Frank Sheed pointed out,

[The Catholic Church] not only repeated what the apostles had been taught: she thought about it, meditated on it, prayed by it, lived it. And, doing all this, the Church came to see further and further depths of truth in it. And, seeing these, she taught these too. Everything was contained in what Christ had given the apostles to give the Church: but though everything was there, it was not all seen explicitly–not all at once.

Since the Orthodox were members of the Catholic Church (that name having first been recorded by Ignatius of Antioch), it stands to reason that ALL Catholics (including those who now choose to go by another name) would have been perfectly content with Sheed’s description prior to 1054 (or whatever date you prefer).

However, in order to avoid the obvious implications of doctrinal development of the papacy, the modern day EO are forced to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say, “We will go this far and no farther.”

Can you imagine this principle at work in the early Church? An early Christian might have argued, "No, I cannot accept (the canon, the hypostasis, the theotokos, the trinity, etc.) because THAT did not come directly from Peter, Paul, Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, or Irenaeus. Really? The idea is absurd - or should I say, “adolescent”.

The Church spent a LOT of time considering the revelation delivered once for all to the Apostles, etc., and they - what’s that? - they DEVELOPED their understanding of that revelation as needed. The papacy is no different. It has developed as the need for understanding has arisen. The papacy is different because the world is different.

But let’s be clear: some put their fingers into their ears saying, “Lalalalalalalalalal…I’m not listening…lalalalalalala” because the ecclesiological implications of this are profound.

But the Church did not develop the doctrine of papal supremacy. Only one part of the Church did, the Western Church, which ignored the fact that the other 4 Patriarchs were also in the Church and had a say on what was a correct development and what was a false development. Instead, Rome tried to force the other 4 Patriarchates to give up their historic rights to self administration and submit to Roman authority. If the papacy were a legitimate development, the rest of the Church would have accepted it. The fact that the rest of the Church rejected the papal claims shows that they were not a legitimate development based on the past, but were a new and novel belief that contradicted all that the Church had accepted and taught since Christ and His Apostles.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

At least you recognize that the modern papacy is the result of development rather than something that has always existed. That is progress. Perhaps you can now see our point of view that it was not a good development to abandon the ancient conciliar principle of decision making in the Church in favor of concentrating all power in the hands of one man who is unaccountable to any other higher authority like an Ecumenical Council, the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate and the rest of the Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

But ALL doctrine has developed. Do you believe that Peter would have been able to explain transubstantiation? Did Clement know about spirations? Did Paul have the same canon that you have?

Don’t misunderstand…I’m not talking about theological terminology…those are just our words to describe what we think is going on. What I’m saying is that the ancients had the faith delivered once for all to the saints…but it was somewhat like a jigsaw puzzle still in the box. Over the centuries, the Church built its understanding by connecting all the border pieces, and then started filling it in piece by piece.

The full authority of the papacy was always there, but Peter and the other Apostles didn’t really see how it all fit together. Nevertheless, when Peter walked into the room, everyone knew that he was there. Even Paul, the greatest student of the great Gamaliel, checked his doctrine with the fisherman from Capernaum.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But the Church did not develop the doctrine of papal supremacy. Only one part of the Church did, the Western Church, which ignored the fact that the other 4 Patriarchs were also in the Church and had a say on what was a correct development and what was a false development. Instead, Rome tried to force the other 4 Patriarchates to give up their historic rights to self administration and submit to Roman authority. If the papacy were a legitimate development, the rest of the Church would have accepted it. The fact that the rest of the Church rejected the papal claims shows that they were not a legitimate development based on the past, but were a new and novel belief that contradicted all that the Church had accepted and taught since Christ and His Apostles.

Archpriest John W. Morris

If you had not separated from the Church, then ALL parts would be under the authority of the Royal Steward. Kinda like Judah and Israel, I guess. Not what God intended, but He allowed them to co-exist side-by-side.

As for the rest of the Church rejecting the papacy, well, we all know that those decisions were clouded by petty jealousies and political intrigues, don’t we?

 

[Novocastrian]

As for the rest of the Church rejecting the papacy, well, we all know that those decisions were clouded by petty jealousies and political intrigues, don’t we?

And Rome was above these?

 

[Randy_Carson]

And Rome was above these?

Of course not. But Rome didn’t hive off from itself, did it? And the Chair of Peter is the source of unity as St. Cyprian teaches:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . .** If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”** (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

 

[josie_L]

Even you accept this reasoning (and I’m not sure that I do), it does not change the fact that your statement needs to be qualified with the word “some.” It’s a matter of historical that not everyone who presided over an ecumenical council was a papal delegate.

I was simply elucidating the standard/custom.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Of course not. But Rome didn’t hive off from itself, did it? And the Chair of Peter is the source of unity as St. Cyprian teaches:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . .** If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”** (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

You need to read the rest of the Unity of the Catholic Church. St.Cyrian also makes it clear that Rome only holds a primacy of honor as first among equals. (Quasten, Patrology, vol. II. pp. 377-378

At the 7th Council of Carthage St. Cyprian said, “For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.”

St. Cyprian had no hesitation in expressing his disagreement with Pope St. Stephen on the matter of the Baptism of heretics. If St. Cyprian believed in the right of the Bishop of Rome to determine the doctrine of the Church, the North African Saint would have accepted the judgment of the Pope, but he did not. He openly disagreed with Pope St. Stephen. Thus the example of St. Cyprian shows that the ancient undivided Church gave Rome a primacy of honor, but did not allow the Pope to force local Bishops to obey him or recognize anything like universal jurisdiction or the power to determine on his own the doctrine of the Church. He actually revised his On the Unity of the Catholic Church to show that each Bishop has the right to shepherd his own flock without papal interference. Unfortunately, I have my copy of his final edition in my office.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[josie_L]

But the Church did not develop the doctrine of papal supremacy. Only one part of the Church did, the Western Church, which ignored the fact that the other 4 Patriarchs were also in the Church and had a say on what was a correct development and what was a false development. Instead, Rome tried to force the other 4 Patriarchates to give up their historic rights to self administration and submit to Roman authority. If the papacy were a legitimate development, the rest of the Church would have accepted it. The fact that the rest of the Church rejected the papal claims shows that they were not a legitimate development based on the past, but were a new and novel belief that contradicted all that the Church had accepted and taught since Christ and His Apostles.

Archpriest John W. Morris

If one bases their beliefs on Scripture and Sacred Tradition, then it is impossible of you to say that the doctrine of papal supremacy is a new and novel belief that “contradicted all that the Church had accepted and taught since Christ and His Apostles.” The Bible is very clear in singling out Peter, and since the Bible is a sacred account of Salvation history, then one should start with the Bible to confirm the doctrine of Papal supremacy. Let us begin with Matthew 16 verse 17-20:

“17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.” **

The keys represent the power to loose and bind or the legislative (teaching) authority to permit and forbid, which Jesus handed over to Peter in a singular and unique manner, because the keys that were handed to him also represented his role as chief steward within the kingdom of God. St. Ephraem the Syrian (circa 350-370)wrote:

“And that our Lord might show that He received the keys from the former stewards, He said to Simeon: To thee I will give the keys of the doors.(63) But how should He have given them to another, had He not received them from another? So, then, the keys which He had received from Simeon the priest, them He gave to another Simeon the Apostle; that even though the People had not hearkened to the former Simeon, the Gentiles might hearken to the latter Simeon.”

“There were both the prince of the Old Testament and the Prince of the New testament confronting one another. There the saintly Moses beheld the sanctified Simon the steward of the Father, the procurator of the Son. He who forced the sea asunder to let the people walk across the parted waves, beheld him who raised the new tabernacle and built the Church.”

It is clear that when Jesus handed over the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to Peter, it was a reference to Isaiah 22:22. The royal/chief steward’s role as described in Isaiah is such that what “he shall open, no one shall shut; what he shall shut no one shall open.”

to be continued . . .

 

[frjohnmorris]

If one bases their beliefs on Scripture and Sacred Tradition, then it is impossible of you to say that the doctrine of papal supremacy is a new and novel belief that “contradicted all that the Church had accepted and taught since Christ and His Apostles.” The Bible is very clear in singling out Peter, and since the Bible is a sacred account of Salvation history, then one should start with the Bible to confirm the doctrine of Papal supremacy. Let us begin with Matthew 16 verse 17-20:

The keys represent the power to loose and bind or the legislative (teaching) authority to permit and forbid, which Jesus handed over to Peter in a singular and unique manner, because the keys that were handed to him also represented his role as chief steward within the kingdom of God. St. Ephraem the Syrian (circa 350-370)wrote:

The Eastern Orthodox Church has never denied the role of St. Peter as chief of the Apostles. However, if one studies how the Church operated in the post-Apostolic age, one finds no evidence that Rome inherited any special authority over the other Churches from St. Peter. If the ancient Church believed that Rome had universal jurisdiction as an inheritance from St. Peter, one would find that in the canons and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Yet one finds not one hint that Rome had anything more than a primacy of honor in the canons and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.

Archpriest John W. Morris

It is clear that when Jesus handed over the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to Peter, it was a reference to Isaiah 22:22. The royal/chief steward’s role as described in Isaiah is such that what “he shall open, no one shall shut; what he shall shut no one shall open.”

to be continued . . .

 

[josie_L]

If the chief steward’s decisions could not be shut when opened or opened when shut (terms signifying loosing and binding) with regard to the whole of the kingdom, how is this different from the pope’s power of loosing and binding as confirmed by Catholics through Sacred Tradition?

Although the tradition of the Fathers has assigned so great an Authority to the Apostolic See, that no one should dare to dispute about a Judgment given by it, and that See, by laws and regulations, has kept to this; and the discipline of the Church, in the laws which it yet follows, still pays to the name of Peter, from whom that See (or discipline) descends, the reverence due, — for canonical antiquity, by universal consent, willed that so great a Power should belong to that Apostle, a Power also derived from the actual promise of Christ our God, that it should be his to loose what was bound, and to bind what was loosed, an equal state of Power being bestowed upon those who, by His will, should be found worthy to inherit his See… (St. Pope Zosimus, AD 417, p. 253)

catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

We exhort you, honourable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from the consent of the Bishop of Rome… (St. Peter Chrysologus, circa AD 432, p. 328)

catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

The canons themselves willed the appeals of the whole Church to be referred to the examination of this See. From it they decreed also that no appeal whatever ought to be made; and thereby that it judged of the whole Church, and that itself passed under the judgment of none…Therefore, we are in no fear lest the Apostolic judgment be reversed, which both the voice of Christ and the tradition of the fathers, as also the authority of the canons support, in such wise that rather it always may judge the whole Church." (St. Pope Gelasius, circa AD 492, p. 339)

catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

We know who is in charge in the Church of Christ to the extent that we reverently, humbly and devoutly profess more especially to give due obedience in all things to the Roman Pontiff as God’s Vicar. Whoever proudly resists this principle, we
decree, is altogether outside the fellowship of the faithful, as a heretic. (St. Isidore of Seville, AD 620, p. 351)

catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

No one can doubt that there is in the Apostolic See a great unfailing fountain, pouring forth waters for all Christians; whence rich streams proceed, bountifully irrigating the whole Christian World; to which See also, in honour of blessed Peter, the decrees of the Fathers gave special veneration in searching out the things of God, which ought by all means to be carefully examined; and above all, and justly, by the Apostolic Head of Bishops, whose care from of old it is, as well to condemn evils as to commend the things that are to be praised. For by the ancient discipline it is ordained that whatsoever be done, even in provinces remote and afar off, shall neither be treated of nor accepted, unless it be first brought to the knowledge of your August See, so that a just sentence may be confirmed by its authority, and that the other Churches may thence receive the original preaching as from its native source, and that the mysteries of saving faith may remain in uncorrupt purity throughout the various regions of the world. (Three Councils of Africa, in their Synodical letter sent to Pope Theodore, and read in the Council of Rome under Martin I, AD 646, pp. 353f)

catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world. (St. Maximus the Confessor, of Constantinople, AD 650, pp. 354f)

catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

The understanding is that the bishop of Rome who also acts as steward does have universal jurisdiction, and that his judgment when given cannot be reversed.

 

[josie_L]

The Eastern Orthodox Church has never denied the role of St. Peter as chief of the Apostles. However, if one studies how the Church operated in the post-Apostolic age, one finds no evidence that Rome inherited any special authority over the other Churches from St. Peter. If the ancient Church believed that Rome had universal jurisdiction as an inheritance from St. Peter, one would find that in the canons and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Yet one finds not one hint that Rome had anything more than a primacy of honor in the canons and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Why do you assume that Rome’s universal jurisdiction is within the confines of canon law and/or ecumenical councils, i.e., Catholics have been forever stating that the premise of universal supremacy lies in the words of Christ to Peter? Pope Damasus (382 A.D.) explained this very well when he said:

“Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.”

I view all of Church history through the eyes of Sacred Tradition and Scripture as they compose the whole of our faith, and if not through the eyes of Sacred Tradition and Scripture than what? Also, I find it interesting that in your replies you have never mentioned the canons of Sardica/Trullo?

Canon 3

Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add—that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity.

And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province.

But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.

Canon 4

Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which you have pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.

Canon 5

Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right— that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.

The bishops answered: What has been said is approved.

newadvent.org/fathers/3815.htm

What was written in the canons of Sardica/Trullo was not something novel but rather what had already been customary since the time of the apostles (think of St. Paul going to St. Peter to determine whether his doctrine was sound), and it very much implies universal jurisdiction.

 

[spina1953]

I find it odd that the Easterns count Constantine as an Eastern emperor when he was originally emperor of the Western division and then sole emperor after that.

Anyway, being convoked by the Byzantine emperor is not the same as being convoked by the East, because the Byzantine empire was both Western and Eastern. That is one reason those councils were ecumenical. And all of those Councils were confirmed by a pope. If being comvoked by an emperor was enough to make it ecumenical, then the whole Church has fallen into heresy numerous times, because many heretical councils have been convoked by emperors. What counts is for the Bishop of Rome to ratify it. Or else how do you explain the Robber Council?

It is my understanding that Constantine was born in the east and that was why he wanted to found a city after his name. I think that there was three emperors and Contantine got one of the emperors to resign so he could defeat the other emperor as Constantine wanted to uniter the whole empire. So in a sense it was not the east per say but Constantine I believe convined the Council.

 

[Novocastrian]

Of course not. But Rome didn’t hive off from itself, did it? And the Chair of Peter is the source of unity as St. Cyprian teaches:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . .** If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”** (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

I don’t think that you really get Cyprian. Aside from what Fr. John has already said, I think an honest reading of the De Unitate (in both major surviving versions) leaves very open the question as to whether the chair of Peter is that of the Bishop of Rome, or that of the local bishop, or (perhaps) that of the regional metropolitan, i.e. Carthage.

 

[Novocastrian]

I find it odd that the Easterns count Constantine as an Eastern emperor when he was originally emperor of the Western division and then sole emperor after that.

Anyway, being convoked by the Byzantine emperor is not the same as being convoked by the East, because the Byzantine empire was both Western and Eastern. That is one reason those councils were ecumenical. And all of those Councils were confirmed by a pope. If being comvoked by an emperor was enough to make it ecumenical, then the whole Church has fallen into heresy numerous times, because many heretical councils have been convoked by emperors. What counts is for the Bishop of Rome to ratify it. Or else how do you explain the Robber Council?

Nicaea was probably the least Eastern of the Eastern Councils! Constantine’s family was Illyrian, his father was based at Trier in Germany, and he had been proclaimed emperor at York; the major episcopal politician (not the major theological influence, granted) at the council appears to have been Ossius (or Hosius) of Cordoba, a Spanish bishop. Even so, the vast majority of the Nicene Fathers were from the predominantly Greek-speaking East.