The Counsel of Niceae Was Nothing More Than A Political Agenda!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Disciple_of_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Greetings to all!

One of the very best books that I know of to have been written on this subject was a book entitled THE CHURCH AND THE JEWS: THE BIBLICAL RELATIONSHIP by Dan Gruber.

Blessings
You might try finding some more primary sources, because from what you say, this book is probably not the best or even one of the best books about the Council of Nicea. If you are interested in truth, don’t give so much weight to the opinion of one author who contradicts so many other sources.
 
I am a former Mormon, now Catholic. I keep up on the Mormon stance on what they call “the great apostasy”.

Mormons approach Nicaea in two ways. One, from the blurb you got from a Mormon, that is, it they believe Constantine directed the council of Nicaea and that he is the author of the Creed. In effect, they believe that the Church fell under the control of political leaders.

The other argument they use often is that the council introduced Greek philosophy, ideas and religious thought that did not exist in Christianity to that point. Thus, corrupting Christ’s Church (in particular, the doctrine of the Trinity, which, they do not believe.)

The proof they have is that it came out of a prophet’s mouth (someone they believe to be a prophet).

This blog, which is widely read by Mormons, has a post that covers this topic fairly well. The post references a talk given at the Mormon General Conference by Jeffrey Holland. Mormons believe this man to be a modern-day apostle and prophet. This talk can be found here. (Mormon’s call their homilies, “talks”.)

Hope this background is helpful.
 
I am a former Mormon, now Catholic. I keep up on the Mormon stance on what they call “the great apostasy”.

Mormons approach Nicaea in two ways. One, from the blurb you got from a Mormon, that is, it they believe Constantine directed the council of Nicaea and that he is the author of the Creed. In effect, they believe that the Church fell under the control of political leaders.

The other argument they use often is that the council introduced Greek philosophy, ideas and religious thought that did not exist in Christianity to that point. Thus, corrupting Christ’s Church (in particular, the doctrine of the Trinity, which, they do not believe.)

The proof they have is that it came out of a prophet’s mouth (someone they believe to be a prophet).

This blog, which is widely read by Mormons, has a post that covers this topic fairly well. The post references a talk given at the Mormon General Conference by Jeffrey Holland. Mormons believe this man to be a modern-day apostle and prophet. This talk can be found here. (Mormon’s call their homilies, “talks”.)

Hope this background is helpful.
Thanks for the info and the links. Everyone has a different version of the great apostasy, don’t they
 
Thanks for the info and the links. Everyone has a different version of the great apostasy, don’t they
This isn’t so much the Mormon version, as, their “support” of their version.

But yes, it seems there are more than few religious sects who must discredit the Catholic Church first in order to validate themselves.
 
I appreciate the attention to historical detail of Mr. Chance, though he did not recognize the details that I tried to communicate, namely, that the fact that my initial postings had qualifications. Nevertheless, he attributed my mistakes to Gruber. I KNOW that I am not nearly the scholar as is Gruber, and admittedly I was shooting somewhat from the hip because I’d loaned Gruber’s book to a friend. For the sake of your edification, however, and, hopefully, intellectual honesty, I went and got Gruber’s book back so that I could directly reference it. the following is not only a quote from Gruber’s book but the footnote from where he got the reference.

As a prelude to Constantine’s letter to the Churches after the close of the Counsel of Nicea, Gruber writes…

‘What the Emperor said had great weight. After all, Constantine was the one who had ended the persecution of the churches. He was the founder of the holy Roman Empire. He openly, personally professed the Christian faith. He had convened the council. The churches, therefore, were more than willing to hear whatever he had to say to them.

What he had to say to them is a clear presentation of the sentiment and theology that ruled in the Council of Nicea. It expresses what then became the nearly universal sentiment and theology of the Church. So, though the letter is long, it is well worthwhile to look at the complete text of the Emperor’s personal exhortation to all the churches. It was a major force in changing the nature of the Church and of subsequent Western and world history. There are some very significant elements in it (of which Gruber expounds…)

My next post will be the entirety of Constantines letter. I will highlight the important parts so that you won’t have to read the entire letter if you don’t want to.
 
“Constantine, august, to the Churches.
“Having experienced, in the flourishing state of public affairs, the greatness of the divine goodness I thought it especially incumbent on me to endeavor that the happy multitudes of the Catholic * Church should preserve one faith, be united in unfeigned love, and harmoniously join in their devotions to Almighty God. But this could not otherwise be affected in a firm and solid manner, than by an examination, for this purpose, of whatever pertains to our most holy religion, by all the bishops, or the greater part of them at least, assembled together. Having therefore convened as many as possible, I ,myself being present, and, as it were, one of you (nor do I deny that I exceedingly rejoice in being your fellow-servant,) every thing was examined, until a unanimous sentiment, pleasing to God, who sees all things, was brought to light; so that no pretense was left for dissension or controversy respecting the faith.

“When the question arose concerning the most holy day of Easter, it was decreed by common consent to be expedient, that this festival should be celebrated on the same day by all, in every place. For what can be more beautiful, what more venerable and becoming, than that this festival, from which we receive the hope of immortality, should be suitably observed by all in one and the same order, and by a certain rule. And truly, in the first place, it seemed to every one a most unworthy thing that we should follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this most holy solemnity, who, polluted wretches! Having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are justly blinded in their minds.

“It is fit, therefore, that, rejecting the practice of this people, we should perpetuate to all future ages the celebration of this rite, in a more legitimate order, which we have kept from the first day of our Lord’s passion even to the present times. Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews. We have received another method from the Saviour. A more lawful and proper course is open to our most holy religion. In pursuing this course with a unanimous consent, let us withdraw ourselves, my much honored brethren, from that most odious fellowship.

“It is indeed in the highest degree preposterous, that they should superciliously vaunt themselves, that truly without their instruction we cannot properly observe this rite
. For what can they rightly understand, who after the tragically death of our Lord, being deluded and darkened in their minds, are carried away by an unrestrained impulse wherever their inborn madness may impel them. Hence therefore it is, that, even in this particular, they do not perceive the truth, so that continually wandering in the grossest error, instead of duly reforming their calculation, they commemorate the Passover twice in the same {Roman} year. Why then should we follow those who are acknowledged to labor under a grievous error? For we will never tolerate the keeping of a double Passover in one year.

“But if what I have said should not be thought sufficient, it belongs to your ready discernment, both by diligence and prayer, to use every means,** that the purity of your minds may not be affected by conformity in any thing with customs of the vilest of mankind**. Besides, it should be considered that any dissension in business of such importance, and in a religious institution of so great solemnity, would be highly criminal. For the Saviour has bequeathed us one festal day of our liberation, that is, the day of his most holy passion; and it was his pleasure that his Church should be one; the members of which, although dispersed in many and various places, are yet nourished by the same spirit, that is by the will of God.

‘Let the sagacity of your holiness only consider, how painful and indecorous it must be, for some to be experiencing the rigors of abstinence, and others to be unbending their minds in convivial enjoyment on the same day; and after Easter, for some to be indulging in feasting and relaxation, while others are occupied in the observance of the prescribed fasts. Wherefore, that a suitable reformation should take place in this respect, and that one rule should be followed, is the will of divine providence, as all, I think, must perceive.

“As it is necessary that this fault should be so amended that we may have nothing in common with the usage of these parricides and murderers of our Lord; and as that order is most convenient which is observed by all the churches of the West, as well as those of the southern and northern parts of the world, and also by some in the East, it was judged therefore to be most equitable and proper, and I pledged myself that this arrangement should meet your approbation, viz. That the custom which prevails with one consent in the city of Rome, and throughout all Italy, Africa and Egypt, in Spain, Gaul, Britain, Lybia, the whole of Greece, the diocese of Asia, Pontus and Cilicia, would be gladly embraced by your prudence, considering that not only the greatest number of churches exist in the places which have been already mentioned, but also that it is most religious and equitable that all should wish what the strictest reason seems to require, and to** have no fellowship with the perjury of the Jews.**

“And, to sum up the whole in a few words, it was agreeable to the common judgment of all, that the most holy feast of Easter should be celebrated on one and the same day. Nor is it becoming that in so sacred an observance there should be any diversity; and it is better to follow that decision, in which all participation in the sin and error of others is avoided.*
 
The remainder of the letter continued…

“This being the case, receive with cheerfulness the heavenly and truly divine command. For whatever is transacted in the holy councils of the bishops, is to be referred to the divine will. Wherefore, having announced to our beloved brethren what has been already written, it is your duty to receive and establish and arguments already stated, and the observance of the most holy day; that when I shall come into your beloved presence, so long desired by me, I may be able to celebrate with you, on one and the same day, the holy festival, and that in all things I may rejoice with you; seeing that the cruelty of the devil is taken away by divine power, through my instrumentality, and that your faith, you peace and concord is everywhere flourishing.

“May God preserve you, my beloved brethren.”1

1 Following the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, pp 51-54

Gruber does point out in his book that the Counsel also discussed the issue of the Arian Heresy, however, the issue over the Passover/Easter debate was also put to rest here.

Constantine’s letter marks a dangerously anti-Judaic turn in Church theology. Gruber writes…

That Constantine should reign over the earth for God was seen as a high spiritual truth. That Jesus, the King of kings, should reign over all the earth from Jerusalem was derided as carnal and unspiritual. Under Constantine, Eusebius wrote a history of the Church that pointedly eliminated any positive reference to the restoration of Israel and the earthly reign of Jesus (doctrines held by the first and second century church but since, abandoned).

In summary, the Counsel of Nicea established a first draft of a relatively sound theological treatise, 'though the heart of it’s authors was, in spite of their protestations, far from pure. The counsel was politically motivated so as to establish world power in Rome by controlling the Church. Furthermore, it set Christian theology on a fundamentally anti-Judaic course which has snubbed the Pauline admonition in Romans 11… “(you Gentiles…) Do not boast against the natural branches (the Jews) of God’s Olive Tree) for the next 1683 years.
 
It’s too late for me to read all the posts now, but for one thing, if it hasn’t been mentioned, is the FACT that the supporters of Nicea were persecuted for it for over 50 years after the Council. Athanasius contra mundi passed into proverb.
 
You might try finding some more primary sources, because from what you say, this book is probably not the best or even one of the best books about the Council of Nicea. If you are interested in truth, don’t give so much weight to the opinion of one author who contradicts so many other sources.
Thank you for the suggestion. However, to be honest, your suggestion falls into a “bandwagon” sort of thinking. Gallileo did not hold a particularly popular view concerning the makeup of the Solar System. Nor did everyone agree with Columbus that the Earth was a sphere.

Grubers books, as a whole, are very compelling and endorsed by very credible Evangelical theologians, many of whom have, nevertheless, not to date, held his view.

I must confess, however, that my BUNGLED recollections of the facts does Gruber a disservice and for that I beg your forgiveness. In the meantime, I have posted Constantine’s own letter which I extracted from Gruber’s book whose source he’s footnoted. It’s a most worthwhile read.

Blessings
 
I was talking with my brother recently about the differences between Catholics and Protestant and why I converted to the Catholic Church. I explained that the Catholic Church is the only Church you can trace back to the Apostles when all of a sudden a gentleman in my office suddenly appeared and said that there are two churches you can trace back, Catholic and Mormon.

Mormons can’t trace anything “back.” They frankly base their claims on alleged new revelation. They claim to be a “restoration” of early Christianity, plus the new revelation given to Joseph Smith. But the starting point in a discussion with them needs to be establishing the fact that Mormonism as we know it today is a modern religion based on new revelation. Then you can discuss their claims about early Christianity from a position of strength.
To make a long story short, he proceeded to say that the counsel of Nicaea was nothing more than a political agenda and that if you were to study the individuals involved you would see why.
Indeed. Read the work of St. Athanasius, particularly *On the Incarnation, *and tell me that he was just motivated by a “political agenda.” Dare your Mormon acquaintance to do this. The work is easily available on the Internet.

Of course there were political agendas at work in the Nicene Council. But do Mormons really think that Joseph Smith’s record is any cleaner? Doesn’t it look very much as if he was motivated by a desire for power? Didn’t he die with guns in hand? I don’t think this discredits Mormonism (Mormonism doesn’t need to be discredited–there is simply no good reason to believe it in the first place), but it is rather laughable when Mormons, of all people, start claiming that orthodox Christianity is tarnished by its links with power. If there is one religious group in this country that has most consistently functioned as a power-hungry theocracy, it’s Mormonism (or perhaps Catholicism–I really don’t know which of the two is most characterized by this kind of behavior, but neither has a right to point fingers at others in this regard).

One can listen to this kind of thing from a Mennonite (since the Mennonite tradition originates not only in the rejection of established state churches, but in the rejection of earlier Anabaptist bids to establish an apocalyptic theocracy), or a Baptist, or maybe even a Jehovah’s Witness. But a Mormon? You’ve got to be kidding.

Edwin
 
One of the very best books that I know of to have been written on this subject was a book entitled THE CHURCH AND THE JEWS: THE BIBLICAL RELATIONSHIP by Dan Gruber.

As I recall, according to Gruber, the Counsel of Nicea was convened by Constantine to yes, consolidate the Church under his Governorship but also as a reaction to the Jewish Community. Not too much earlier, the Roman Empire had quashed the bloody Jewish Bar Kochba rebellion.
200 years earlier. You might as well say that Vatican II was called in response to the French Revolution. (Indeed, that would be more defensible, inasmuch as the Revolution ushered in changes to Western society that led to the situation in the later 20th century that prompted Vatican II).
During that time, the Jewish Christians ended their participation in the rebellion because the Rabbi Akiba had declared Simon Bar Kochba to be the Messiah, and the menim (Jewish Christians) knew otherwise. Nevertheless, the Bar Kochba Rebellion created a Roman disdain for the Jews.
I don’t think it created it, but it didn’t help. However, as I said, the vast distance of time involved makes the claim that Nicea was a *direct *response to Bar Kokhba ridiculous. No one who had any serious knowledge of history would make a claim like this. It treats chronology as a joke. Now if you want to say that the attitude toward the Jews evinced by Christians in the fourth century was shaped by the Bar Kokhba revolt, then sure, that makes sense.
Hence many of the decisions made at the Counsel of Nicea were a reaction to the Bar Kochba Rebellion. 1. No Jewish Christians were represented.
Because distinctive “Jewish Christianity” had either ceased to exist or ceased to have any direct connection with orthodox Christianity some time before this (and that did very likely have something to do with Bar Kokhba).
  1. It was decided that Easter should replace Passover.
The two festivals had long been separate. There was a big debate in the 2nd century over whether Christians in Asia Minor should be allowed to celebrate Easter at the same time as Passover. The conclusion was that this should not be a cause for breaking fellowship, but nonetheless this “Quartodeciman” practice died out. Again, *that *debate may well have been shaped by the political climate in the aftermath of Bar Kokhba, but that was long before Nicea.
  1. It was decided that Sunday should be called “the Lord’s day” and replace the Saturday Sabbath.
There is no evidence that Christians had been worshipping on the Sabbath for some time before this. Constantine simply made the established Christian day of worship a national holiday.

Edwin
 
Because distinctive “Jewish Christianity” had either ceased to exist or ceased to have any direct connection with orthodox Christianity some time before this (and that did very likely have something to do with Bar Kokhba).
 
After the Bar Kochba rebellion, remaining Jews were banished from the Land. The Jewish ekklesia were replaced by Gentile ekklesia who legitimized the hermeneutics of Origen, which were, for the most part, regarded as heretical by the church overall. Origen and Eusebius, who followed, led the church down the path of an anti-Jewish, post-millenial perspective that finally centered the church in Rome and eventually marginalized (if not made heretical) the pre-millenial, Jerusalem centered theology held by the original Apostles all of whom (which the church seemingly has forgotten) were Jewish.

Nevertheless, 'though a vast minority, there was a Jewish “remnant” of believers in Jesus at the time of Constantine as their always have been throughout history.

Paul, in the 1st century, saw this coming. However, he said "So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.(Rom 11:6)
 
The two festivals had long been separate. There was a big debate in the 2nd century over whether Christians in Asia Minor should be allowed to celebrate Easter at the same time as Passover. The conclusion was that this should not be a cause for breaking fellowship, but nonetheless this “Quartodeciman” practice died out. Again, *that *debate may well have been shaped by the political climate in the aftermath of Bar Kokhba, but that was long before Nicea.
 
The letter of Constantine, which I posted, I think adequately addresses this. It pretty well confirms that the debate between Passover and Easter was most definitely an issue at the Counsel of Nicaea.
 
There is no evidence that Christians had been worshipping on the Sabbath for some time before this. Constantine simply made the established Christian day of worship a national holiday.

Edwin
 
You could be right. I probably misquoted Gruber on this. However, I’m pretty sure that there were discrepancies within the church… probably along East vs. West lines. One of the points that one gets from Constantine’s letter, however, was that he was trying to make everything uniform. He succeeded. He made everything uniformly anti-Judaic and, from a personal perspective… as far as cultural manifestations of the Christian faith are concerned… anti or, at the very least, non biblical.
 
Chazn,

You’re right that Constantine sought to establish uniformity within Christianity, including the Easter Question. As this extract from the Catholic historian Hefele points out, however, Constantine did not succeed–the controversy continued and indeed continues to this day (East and West don’t celebrate Easter on the same day). And as I already said, the impulse to celebrate Easter on a different day from Passover long predated Constantine. It looks as if Mr. Gruber is playing on the longstanding impulse within radical Protestantism to blame Constantine for everything, creating the false impression that Constantine brought about a fundamental shift in the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. I don’t deny that the official recognition of Christianity by the Empire (as you note, it did not become *the *official religion until later, but it received recognition and support) helped cement the division between Christianity and Judaism. But it was one moment in a long and complex story. Mr. Gruber’s reasons for highlighting this particular moment appear to be propagandistic rather than scholarly. (Indeed, as far as I can tell Mr. Gruber is not a scholar of early Christianity, although that of course doesn’t mean that he should not be listened to.)

Edwin
 
I appreciate your reply Edwin. The section in Dan Gruber’s book re: Constantine and the Counsel of Nicaea takes up about 4 or 5 pages in a 400 page book.

He does quite a run up to Constantine and then discusses the development and errors in Historic as well as contemporary theologies.

It was not he but I who highlighted this particular moment in history as an address to the question posed in this thread, namely “The Counsel of Niceae Was Nothing More Than A Political Agenda”.

I assure you. Dan Gruber is not merely a typical Evangelical Theologian!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top