The Council opened, according to Socrates (*Hist. eccl.*, 1, 8), on 20 May 325 in the great hall of the imperial palace at Nicaea in Bithynia. About 300 bishops were present (according to Eustathius, about 270; according to Eusebius, 250; according to Constantine, more than 300). The traditional number of 318, given by Athanasius (*Ad Afros*, 2) and not without biblical reminiscences, has remained customary, so that in the East the Council of Nicaea is often called that of the “318 Fathers.” The bishops were mostly Orientals from all provinces; among them were St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Eustathius of Antioch, St. Leonitus of Caesarea in Cappadocia, St. Athanasius, then a deacon and later bishop of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Marcellus of Ancyra. Among the Westerners, Hosius of Córdoba, the Pope’s trusted representative, stood out, together with the papal legates, the priests Vito and Vincent. There were also Cecilian of Carthage, a Gallic bishop, and another from Calabria. A Persian bishop was also present.
The presidency of the Council was twofold: an honorary one held by Constantine, who, seated in the midst of the assembly on a golden throne, directed the proceedings by urging concord; the other, the legitimate ecclesiastical presidency, was exercised in the name of Pope Sylvester (in *Vita Constantini*, 3, 7) by Hosius and the Roman legates (Gelasius of Cyzicus, *Hist. Conc. Nic.*, 2, 5). The Council was inaugurated by Constantine with a brief address in which he urged all to unity in the faith (*Vita Constantini*, 3, 12). Then the work began. The Symbol and the canons were immediately discussed. The schism provoked at Alexandria by Meletius of Lycopolis, who claimed to be the bishop “of the Church of the Martyrs” and had set up a small hierarchy of his own at Alexandria, was resolved (cf. the synodal letter preserved by Socrates, *Hist. eccl.*, 1, 9) by confining Meletius to Lycopolis and suspending all his episcopal functions. As for his clergy, they could, after reordination, take rank after the existing clergy. Regarding the celebration of Easter (q.v.), it was decreed (cf. the same letter) that all should abandon the Jewish custom of keeping it on 14 Nisan, even if before the equinox, and instead follow the Roman and Alexandrian usage of always celebrating it after the equinox. However, contemporary sources do not show whether it is true, as St. Leo asserts in a letter to Marcian (*PL* 54, 1055), that the Council of Nicaea entrusted the Alexandrian see with fixing the date of the equinox for the whole Church in each year.
The Council appears to have closed on 19 June. Before separating, the Fathers attended Constantine’s vicennalia, and the Emperor honored the bishops with a solemn banquet. The recalcitrant Arius, Theognis of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais were exiled to Illyricum.
It cannot be admitted that the Council of Nicaea was convoked and held a second time in 327. Such a great event would have been reported by contemporary authors, who, however, make no mention of II. Some texts in which there might seem to be hints of it must be interpreted otherwise (Bardy).
2. The Symbol
The “Faith of Nicaea,” as attested by Eusebius, Athanasius, and Marcellus of Ancyra, by the very ancient Latin and Syriac versions, and by the constant usage of the Church, ran as follows:“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας) of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father, by whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and shall come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit.
But those who say: ‘There was [a time] when He was not,’ and ‘He was not before He was begotten,’ and who venture to affirm that He was made of nothing, or of another hypostasis or substance, or that the Son of God is created or mutable or subject to change (τὸ πνεῦμα ἦν ἀναλλοίωτον), these the Catholic Church anathematizes.”
A false interpretation of a letter of St. Basil (*Ep.* 244: *PG* 32, 924) and of a text of St. Hilary (*Fragmenta historica*, 2, 33: *PL* 10, 658 AB) has led to the erroneous conclusion that the Symbol was composed respectively by a certain Hermogenes and by St. Athanasius. The Arians (*Historia Arianorum ad monachos*, 42) more correctly attributed it to Hosius. But the truth seems to be that the formula was composed by all the bishops together or perhaps by some committee.
First a formula of faith was proposed, probably by Eusebius of Nicomedia, which, on account of its errors, was immediately rejected with indignation. Eusebius then proposed the baptismal Symbol of Caesarea, which was accepted as a basis. There is, however, no sure evidence of any dependence of the Nicaean Symbol on that of Jerusalem.
The Symbol of Caesarea did not appear sufficiently clear, and after lively discussions anti-Arian additions were introduced, namely: 1) “of the substance of the Father,” to emphasize the true generation of the Word, who does not proceed from the will of the Father as the Arians maintained; 2) “begotten not made,” to reject the error that made the Word a “creature” of the Father; 3) “being of one substance with the Father,” an expression especially opposed by the Arians and semi-Arians throughout the 4th century and therefore a token of orthodoxy. “Consubstantial” means that the Son is of the same divine nature as the Father. Note the absence of any development concerning the Holy Spirit.
The “Faith of Nicaea” was upheld by the 4th-century Popes: Julius (*Apologia*, 23–25), Liberius (*Historia ecclesiastica*, 4, 12; *Hilary, Opera historica fragmenta*, V, 6: *PL* 10, 686), and Damasus (*PL* 13, 353), as well as by Sts. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hilary, and was reaffirmed by the ecumenical Councils of Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), etc. It constitutes the first dogmatic definition of the ecclesiastical magisterium.
3. The Canons
Of the 20 canons issued by the Council, the majority concern clerical discipline. It is decreed: that one who voluntarily mutilates himself is to be excluded from the clergy (can. 1); that Holy Orders are not to be conferred too hastily on converts (can. 2); that clerics are not to cohabit with women who are not members of their household or beyond all suspicion (can. 3); that the election of a bishop is to be made by all the bishops of the province and then confirmed by the metropolitan, while consecration is to be performed by at least three bishops (can. 4); that the ordination of an unworthy priest, ordained without prior inquiry, is not to be recognized (can. 9); that those who lapsed and were ordained priests are to be suspended (can. 10); that bishops, priests, and deacons are not to be translated to another church (can. 15–16); that deacons are not to administer Communion to priests (can. 18).Other canons regulate the admission into the Church of apostates—particular indulgence is shown to those who yielded during the persecution of Licinius—and of the Cathari or Novatians and the Paulianists. For the former, public penance is established in the category of the “audientes” and the “substrati.” Communion is not to be denied even in danger of death (can. 13). Usury is severely punished (can. 17), and prayer at the foot of the altar on Sundays and during Eastertide is prescribed (can. 20).
Of particular importance are canons 6 and 7. The first canon establishes the exceptional status of the bishop of Alexandria, who holds metropolitan rights over Egypt and also over Libya and the Pentapolis, provinces that are civilly distinct from Egypt. Antioch and the other eparchies likewise retain their ancient rights. Canon 7 prescribes that the bishop of Aelia (Jerusalem) should have honorary presidency without prejudice to the rights of the metropolitan. These canons reflect the initial organization of the Eastern hierarchy into metropolitans and simple bishops, generally according to the civil province. Alexandria and Antioch are the principal sees, followed by Jerusalem. Constantinople had not yet been founded.
In later times, the canons of the Council of Sardica were also attributed to Nicaea. Moreover, there exist pseudo-Nicene canons, namely those approved probably as “Nicene” at the initiative of St. Maruthas of Maiperqat for the Persian bishops gathered at the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (410; V. O. Braun, De sancta Nicaena Synodo, Münster 1898; id., Das Buch der Synhados, Stuttgart 1900; J. B. Chabot, Synodicon Orientale, Paris 1902, pp. 17–36, 253–75). These same canons enjoyed wide diffusion in the East, where they were translated into Arabic and hence called “Nicono-Arabic.”
II. SECOND COUNCIL OF NICEA — THE SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL AND THE LAST ACCEPTED BY DISSIDENT ORIENTALS
4. Historical events
The Second Council of Nicaea was convoked to put an end to the iconoclastic persecutions that, initiated by the Byzantine emperors, had raged since 726 and had been approved by the conciliabulum of Hieria in 754. Finally, the empress Irene, who opposed iconoclasm, secured the election of Tarasius as patriarch of Constantinople in 784; he immediately invited the empress, regent for her minor son Constantine VI, to convoke a general council (Mansi, XII, 986–98). On 29 August Irene summoned Pope Adrian I to a synod to be held in Constantinople—she stated “decrevimus ut fieret universale concilium”—in order to confirm the traditional veneration of images (ibid., XII, 1984–86). Adrian accepted the invitation (26 October 785), announcing the dispatch of legates—namely Peter, archpriest of St Peter’s, and Peter, archimandrite of St Sabas—on condition that, in their presence, the conciliabulum of Hieria be rejected and that both the council and the legates be granted freedom, including a safe and honorable return in the event of failure to reach agreement (ibid., XII, 1055–71). The actual convocation of the synod by Irene is confirmed repeatedly by the council fathers themselves (ibid., 1051, 1113, 1001; XIII, 1, 130, 374). Tarasius invited the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, who at that time were subject to the caliphs. The patriarchs’ envoys succeeded in contacting only some Egyptian monks, two of whom came to the council as representatives of the three patriarchs, bearing a synodal letter from the late patriarch of Jerusalem, Theodore, in favor of the veneration of images.A first attempt to inaugurate the council in the church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople (17 August 786) was thwarted by an iconoclast riot. Later, once calm was restored, the council opened in more tranquil Nicaea on 24 September 787.
The acts of the Council of Nicaea have been edited from three Greek manuscripts of the acts, two of which are in the Vatican Library. The first Latin version, commissioned by Adrian I, survives only in fragments in the Libri Carolini. It was so erroneous that Anastasius the Librarian composed another in the ninth century, omitting, however, the account of the eighth session, either because he deemed it of lesser importance or to conceal the fact that a woman, Irene, had addressed the fathers. A further Latin version (Cologne 1540) is less accurate than that of Anastasius.
The fathers assembled at Nicaea numbered about 350. Eight sessions were held (seven in the church of Hagia Sophia, the eighth and most solemn, under the presidency of Irene, in Constantinople on 23 October in the Palace of Magnaura). Tarasius occupied the first place, but the papal legates were always the first to sign. Beside the ambo sat the imperial commissioners: the patrician Petronas and the logothete, or chancellor, John.
In the first session, after a brief address by Tarasius, a letter from Irene was read in which she guaranteed the freedom requested by Hadrian and ordered the reading of the papal letters and those of the Eastern Churches under the rule of the caliphs. Several cases of iconoclast bishops who now sought reconciliation were then discussed. The debate, complicated by questions regarding the validity of ordinations of heretics, did not reach a favorable resolution until the third session. In the second session, the letters of Hadrian I to Irene and to Tarasius were read; however, the first was not read in its entirety, as the final part was omitted, in which the Pope demanded the restitution of certain Roman possessions seized during the iconoclast struggle, protested against the title of "ecumenical" assumed by the patriarch, and complained that a layman had been chosen to fill that office. The first part of the Pope’s letter, after asserting the primacy of St. Peter inherited by his successors, declared that the Roman See had always favored the veneration of images. In this regard, Hadrian recounted the legends about Constantine, largely drawn from the *Gesta Sylvestri*, and adduced examples from the Old Testament and patristic testimonies in support of images. The Pope’s letter to Tarasius repeated much of the same content. In response to the question posed by the papal legates, Tarasius declared himself in favor of the veneration of images.
In the third session, a synodal letter from Tarasius was read in which he acknowledged the six ecumenical councils, anathematized all heretics, including Pope Honorius, and accepted the veneration of images. A similar declaration was shortly afterward confirmed in the synodal letter of Theodore of Jerusalem, which was read subsequently. The fourth and fifth sessions were devoted to demonstrating the utility of the veneration of images by citing similar cases from the Old Testament, testimonies from the Fathers, and recent miraculous instances. In the sixth session, the iconoclast decree of the conciliabulum of Hieria was refuted at length. Finally, in the seventh session (October 13), the dogmatic decree was promulgated. It was signed by all, and all anathematized the iconoclasts. Tarasius, in a letter to Irene (Mansi, XIII, 404–405), informed the Empress of the happy outcome of the Synod, and the same was done by all the Fathers in a synodal letter to the clergy of Constantinople (ibid., 407–414). No official letter from the Synod to Pope Hadrian I is known to exist.
In the solemn eighth session, Irene delivered a brief address and ordered the dogmatic decree to be read. Upon receiving the assurance that all had accepted it—including herself and her son—she likewise subscribed to II. After a second reading of certain patristic texts, the Council closed with the usual acclamations.
5. Dogmatic and disciplinary decisions
In the seventh session, the Fathers unanimously promulgated the dogmatic decree, which, after professing the Constantinopolitan Creed and anathematizing all heretics, including Honorius, declared that images of the Lord, the Virgin, and the saints were to be displayed everywhere.“More one gazes upon these images, the more the viewer will recall Him who is represented and strive to imitate Him, and will be moved to show Him reverence and honorable veneration (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τῇ μητρίτῃ προσεκύνησιν), without, however, offering Him the true latria (τὴν ἀληθινὴν λατρείαν) that belongs to God alone; rather, one will offer incense, lights, and such signs of veneration as are customarily given to the image of the Holy Cross, the Holy Gospels, and sacred vessels. Such was the ancient practice, for the honor shown to an image is directed to the one it represents. Whoever venerates (προσεκυνεῖ) an image, venerates the person depicted therein.”
The decree concluded by excommunicating those who thought otherwise and condemned the traditional veneration of the Church for images of the Cross and the saints, the Gospels, and the relics of the martyrs. The decree clearly distinguishes two degrees of veneration: one of latria, or adoration, reserved for God, and another, inferior and relative, given to the images of the saints. The latter is expressed by the term προσεκυνεῖν, which in earlier times signified rather true adoration. Yet Tarasius himself, in his letter to Irene (Mansi, XIII, 404–405), affirms the equivalence between προσεκυνεῖν and ἀσπάσμὸν καὶ τῇ μητρίτῃ προσεκύνησιν and a greeting.
The twenty-two disciplinary canons, apparently issued in the eighth session, are, in form as well as content, somewhat reminiscent of monastic rules, prefacing evangelical teaching to be put into practice. The canons address many matters and generally aim at restoring discipline, particularly among bishops, which had been relaxed during the iconoclast controversy.
The bishop must know the Psalter by heart (can. 2); he will be deposed if appointed by civil authority (can. 3); he may not seek precious metals for himself (can. 4); he will be deposed if chosen through simony (can. 5); he may not wear luxurious garments or use perfumes (can. 16) nor may he permit women to reside in his house (can. 18). A provincial synod shall be held once a year (can. 6). The practice of placing relics in churches shall be restored (can. 7), and all iconoclast writings shall be collected in the episcopal residence of Constantinople (can. 9). Economes shall be appointed in both metropolitan sees and monasteries (can. 11). No reception shall be given in Constantinople to clerics who abandon their own churches (can. 10). Jews may be accepted provided they do not continue to observe the Sabbath or Jewish customs deemed objectionable (can. 8). Donations of ecclesiastical property made by bishops or hegumens in favor of princes are invalid (can. 12). Those who have converted church buildings into caravanserais must restore them to the Church or face excommunication (can. 13). Clerics who are not yet “readers”—for in the East, the lectorate, along with the subdiaconate, was the only minor order—are forbidden to read from the pulpit during the liturgy (can. 14). No cleric may have charge of two churches (can. 15). Monks may not abandon their monastery to escape obedience (can. 17). No monetary payment may be required for entry into the clerical or monastic state (can. 19). Double monasteries of men and women are prohibited (can. 20). No monk may transfer to another monastery on his own authority (can. 21). Canon 22 provides regulations for monks and clerics regarding dining with women or in private homes.
Hadrian I, writing in 794, declared that he had accepted the Synod of Nicaea (“ipsam suscepimus synodum”), though nearly ten years later he had still sent no reply to the Byzantine authorities “metuentes ne ad eorum reverterentur errorem” (Jaffé-Wattenbach, 2483): words that must be understood as indicating that the Pope did not wish to give full approval to all the acts of the Council until the requested restitution of Roman possessions had been effected. The Franks did not immediately accept the decisions of Nicaea, both because they misunderstood the text of the acts and for political reasons. Even in the East, the resurgence of iconoclasm prevented a peaceful general acceptance of the Council of Nicaea until 842. The Eighth Ecumenical Council regarded that of Nicaea as a universal synod.