Nicaea

NICEA. — Ancient city of Bithynia, today merely a village, founded in 316 B.C. under the name of Antigoneia, in Hellespontine Phrygia, on Lake Ascania.

It was the seat of the kings of Bithynia and came under Roman domination in 74 B.C.; in 29 B.C. a temple was erected there in honor of Rome and Augustus. Pliny the Younger resided there as governor in the year 111. Destroyed by an earthquake ca. 112, it was rebuilt by Hadrian ca. 120. It was burned by the Scythians in 259 and restored by Claudius Gothicus. The group of martyrs Cosconius, Zeno, and Melanippus is commemorated at N. on 19 January in the Epitome siriaca and in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum; Polycarp in the Martyrologium Syriacum is commemorated on 27 January; on 9 June the Martyrologium Hieronymianum places “in Nicaea civitate Diomedis,” as does the Synax. Constantinop. (p. 739); the same Passio recalls the city of N. (BHG, 2, 548–52). The group of the martyr Theodota and her sons also seems to belong to N.; on 2 August and 2 September the Martyrologium Hieronymianum gives “in Bithynia civitate Nicaea Theodota cum tribus filii,” as does the Passio (BHG, 2, 1781). Traces of the cult of the martyr Neophyte, commemorated in the Synaxarium of Constantinople on 21 January, have been found at N. (O. Wulff, Die Koimesis-hirche in Nicaea und ihre Mosaiken, Strasbourg 1903, pp. 20, 182). Its bishops before the Constantinian peace are unknown. The ecumenical Councils of 325 and 787 were held at N. It was finally occupied by the Turks in 1333. The ruins of the three-naved church of St Sophia indicate at least four different building phases; the oldest masonry belongs to the original construction in which the Council of 787 was held; the second period seems to date from the 10th century; the third period belongs to the 11th–12th centuries; the fourth period to the age of the Palaiologoi (13th century).

The Church of the Dormition of the Virgin (Κοίμησις τῆς Παναγίας) was built with domes, in imitation of the Church of St Sophia in Constantinople. The date of its

foundation has given rise to much discussion, and whereas it was initially thought to have been built after the earthquake, between 1059 and 1067, following the studies of Ch. Diehl, O. Wulff, H. Grégoire, Th. Schmitt, and G. De Jerphanion, the date has been moved back to between the 8th and 6th centuries. The ruins, however, suffered greatly during the Greco-Turkish War. On the arch opening onto the apse, within a large circle, rises the throne with a footstool; a mantle and the jeweled book rest on the cushion; above, in the center of a cross from which seven rays issue, the Holy Spirit, haloed and in the form of a dove, hovers (insignia Christi). Guarding the throne, two on each side, are the majestic figures of four haloed, winged angels, each holding a labarum on which the Trisagion is written (ΑΓΙΟC, ΑΓΙΟC, ΑΓΙΟC). The apse had a double mosaic decoration. At first, it had a large cross at the center; later, from the upper part of the apse, a triple ray issued from the divine hand and fell upon the veiled Madonna standing on a rich footstool, holding before her the Child with a cruciform halo. In the floor, behind the altar, an inscription from the time of Michael III (858) was reused. The inscription could be read in seven monograms, or ligatures: “Mother of God, remember your servant, monk, presbyter, hegumen.” Some held that the monk’s name was Hyacinth, others Naucratios. In the nave, the mosaic decoration dated from the 9th or 10th century. The floor was decorated with marble inlays and mosaics; the narthex was adorned with 11th-century mosaics.

1. Historical notes. — The acts of the

Council have not been preserved, but it is impossible that the minutes of so solemn an assembly, presided over by the Emperor and destined to have effects also in civil legislation, were not drawn up.

There are, moreover, allusions to such acts in St. Jerome (Dial. c. Lucifer., 20), in Theodoret (Hist. eccl., 1, 6), and in Sozomen (Hist. eccl., 2, 21). The official documents that remain today are: the Creed, the canons, the list of bishops arranged by provinces (ed. H. Gelzer-H. Hilgenfeld-O. Cuntz, Patrum nicaenorum nomina, Leipzig 1898), and a synodal letter addressed to the Churches of Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, preserved by Socrates and Theodoret (ed. L. Parmentier [CB, 19], p. 38). Other important sources for the Council of N. are Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Rufinus, Socrates, and Sozomen.

Constantine, having become emperor of the East after his victory over Licinius (autumn 323), found himself Arianism (v.), which had arisen a few years earlier in Alexandria but had by then infiltrated many eastern provinces. Always desirous of concord, Constantine, who was little instructed in the Christian religion, wished to settle the dispute by enjoining silence both on Arius and on Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. For this purpose he wrote two letters (Eusebius, In Vitam Constantini, 2), one of which was carried to Alexandria by the bishop of Cordova, Hosius, Constantine’s adviser. This attempt at concord having failed, the Emperor, still regarding himself as Pontifex maximus, summoned on his own initiative a Synod to be held at N., to which all the Christian bishops were to travel using the imperial courier service (ibid., 3, 4-5; Socrates, Hist. eccl., 1, 5).

That it was Constantine himself who summoned the Council without seeking the consent of the Roman See may be inferred: 1) from the fact that, both before and after N., he likewise summoned other Synods on his own initiative (Rome, Arles, Tyre, Jerusalem); 2) from the positive testimonies of the Council itself (Theodoret, Hist. eccl., 1, 9), of Constantine (In Vitam Constantini, 3), of Socrates (Hist. eccl., 1, 8), and of Sozomen (Hist. eccl., 1, 17). Rufinus says that Constantine took the decision « ex sacerdotum sententia » (Hist. eccl., 1, 1), probably alluding to the imperial ecclesiastical advisers. The Arian Philostorgius says that the idea passed from Alexander of Alexandria to Hosius and from Hosius to Constantine (Hist. eccl., 1, 7). The first, and late, document to involve Pope Sylvester in the convocation of the Council is the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, I, p. 171; V. also p. 75). The same is said of the assertion made by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) at N. One should also add the almost material impossibility, given the shortness of time, of sending an imperial mission from Nicomedia to Rome to request papal approval. In Paris. cod. svr. 62 (8th-9th century) there is a Syriac version of a letter attributed to Constantine, who indicates N. as the site of a Synod accessible also to Westerners. This is a document of very doubtful authenticity. In any case, no Byzantine author alludes to this writing.

The Council opened, according to Socrates (Hist. eccl., 1, 8), on 20 May 325 in the great hall of the imperial Palace of N. in Bithynia. Approximately 300 bishops attended (according to Eustathius, approximately 270; according to Eusebius, 250; according to Constantine, more than 300). The number 318, given by Athanasius (Ad Afros, 2), which is not without biblical reminiscences, became traditional, so that in the East the Council of N. was very often called that « of the 318 Fathers ». The bishops were predominantly Easterners from all the provinces; among them were St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Eustathius of Antioch, St. Leontius 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 Cordova, the Pope’s trusted representative, held first place, together with the papal envoys, the presbyters Vitus and Vincentius. There were also Caecilian of Carthage, a Gallic bishop, and another from Calabria. Nor was a Persian bishop absent.

The presidency of the Council was twofold: one honorary, held by Constantine, who, seated in the midst of the assembly on a golden throne, directed the proceedings while urging concord; the other, the legitimate ecclesiastical presidency, was held in the name of Pope Sylvester (In vitam Const., 3, 7) by Hosius and the Roman legates (Gelasius of Cyzicus, Hist. Conc. Nic., 2, 5). Constantine inaugurated the Council with a brief speech in which he urged all to concord in the faith (In vitam Const., 3, 12). The proceedings then began. The Creed and the canons were discussed immediately. The schism provoked in Alexandria by Meletius of Lycopolis, who claimed to be the bishop « of the Church of the martyrs » and had established his own small hierarchy in Alexandria, was resolved (v. Socrates, Hist. eccl., 1, 9) by confining Meletius to Lycopolis and suspending him from every episcopal function. As for his clergy, they could, after reordination, take their place after the clergy already existing. Easter (v.) it was established (v. the same letter) that all should abandon the Jewish custom of celebrating it on 14 Nisan, even when this preceded the equinox, and instead follow the Roman and Alexandrian practice of always celebrating it after the equinox. The contemporary sources do not show, however, whether it is true, as St. Leo asserts in a letter to Marcian (PL 54, 1055), that the Council of N. entrusted the Alexandrian See with determining the date of the equinox for the whole Church in each individual year.

The Council closed, apparently, on 19 June. Before separating, the Fathers attended Constantine’s vicennalia, and he honored the bishops with a solemn banquet. The recalcitrant Arius, Theognis of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais were exiled to Illyricum.

It cannot be accepted that the Council of N. was summoned and assembled a second time in 327. So great an event would have been reported by contemporary authors, who make no mention of II. Certain texts that might contain some allusion to the event must be interpreted otherwise (Bardy).

2. The Creed

« We believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Only-begotten, begotten of the Father, that is, from the substance (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας) of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father (ὁμοσύουν τῷ Πατρὶ), through whom all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth; who for us human beings and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit.

But those who say that there was [a certain period] when he was not (ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), and that he did not exist before being begotten, and who dare to say that he was made from nothing or from another hypostasis or usia, or that the Son of God was created, or mutable or changeable (τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀναλλιωτὸν), are anathematized by the Catholic Church ».

Una falsa interpretazione di una lettera di s. Basilio (Ep. 244: PG 32, 924) e di un testo di s. Ilario (Pragm. hist., 2, 33: PL 10, 658 AB) ha indotto alla sbagliata conclusione che il Simbolo sia stato composto rispettivamente da un certo Ermogene e da s. Atanasio. Gli ariani (Atanasio, Hist. arian. ad monachos, 42) l'attribuirono con più ragione a Osio. Ma il vero sembra essere che la formola sia stata composta un po' da tutti i vescovi o forse da qualche comitato.

Fu proposta prima una formola di fede, probabilmente da Eusebio di Nicomedia, la quale per i suoi errori fu subito respinta con sdegno. Successivamente Eusebio propose il Simbolo battesimale di

Cesarea, il quale fu accettato come base. Non è invece sicura una dipendenza del Simbolo di N. da quello di Gerusalemme.

Il Simbolo di Cesarea non apparve sufficientemente chiaro e dopo vivaci discussioni furono introdotti incisi nettamente antiariani, e cioè: 1) «dalla sostanza del Padre», per rilevare la vera generazione del Verbo, il quale non procede dalla volontà del Padre come volevano gli ariani; 2) «generato non fatto», per respingere l'errore che faceva il Verbo «creatura» del Padre; 3) «consostanziale (v.) al Padre», espressione specialmente avversata dagli ariani e dai semiariani durante tutto il sec. IV e quindi tessera di ortodossia. «Consostanziale» significa qui che il Figlio è di natura così divina come quella del Padre. Si noti l'assenza di ogni sviluppo intorno allo Spirito Santo.

La «fede di N.» venne sostenuta dai papi del sec. IV: Giulio (Atanasio, Apol., 23,25), Liberio (Socrate, Hist. eccl., 4, 12; Ilario, Op. hist. fragm., V, 6: PL. 10, 686) e Damaso (PL. 13, 353), oltre che dai ss. Atanasio, Basilio, Gregorio Nazianzeno, Ambrogio, Ilario, e riconfermata dai Concili ecumenici di Costantinopoli (381), Efeso (431), Calcedonia (451), ecc. Si tratta della prima definizione dogmatica del magistero ecclesiastico.

3. I canoni. — Dei 20 canoni emanati dal Concilio la maggioranza riguarda la disciplina del clero. Viene stabilito: che sia escluso dal clero colui il quale volontariamente si mutila (can. 1); che non si diano troppo affrettatamente gli Ordini sacri ai convertiti (can. 2); che i chierici non coabitino con donne che non siano della famiglia o al riparo di ogni sospetto (can. 3); che l'elezione di un vescovo venga fatta da tutti quelli dell'eparchia e poi confermata dal metropolita, mentre la consacrazione va fatta almeno da tre vescovi (can. 4); che non sia tenuta in considerazione l'ordinazione del sacerdote indegno ordinato senza previ informazioni (can. 9); che i lapsi ordinati sacerdoti vengano sospesi (can. 10); che i vescovi, sacerdoti e diaconi non vadano trasferiti in un'altra chiesa (cann. 15-16); che i diaconi non amministrino la Comunione ai preti (can. 18).

Altri canoni regolano l'ammissione nella Chiesa degli apostati — si mostra particolare benevolenza verso quelli che hanno ceduto durante la persecuzione di Licinio — e dei cathari o novaziani e dei pauliniani. Per i primi viene stabilita la penitenza pubblica nella categoria degli audientes e dei substrati. Non deve essere negata la Comunione in pericolo di morte (can. 13). Viene severamente punita l'usura (can. 17) e si prescrive la preghiera in piedi la domenica e durante il tempo pasquale (can. 20).

Di notevole importanza sono i cann. 6 e 7. Il primo consacra l'eccezionale situazione del vescovo di Alessandria, che ha diritti metropolitani sull'Egitto e anche sulla Libia e la Pentapoli, provincie civilmente diverse da quella egiziana. Anche Antiochia e le altre eparchie conservano gli antichi diritti. Il can. 7 prescrive che il vescovo di Aelia (Gerusalemme) abbia la presidenza onoraria senza pregiudizio dei diritti del metropolita. Questi canoni rispecchiano l'iniziale organizzazione della gerarchia orientale in metropoliti e vescovi semplici, generalmente sulla falsariga delle provincie civili. Alessandria e Antiochia sono le principali sedi, seguite da Gerusalemme. Costantinopoli non era stata ancora edificata.

In tempi posteriori anche i canoni del Concilio di Sardica furono attribuiti a N. Inoltre esistono canoni pseudoniconi, quelli cioè approvati probabilmente come «niceni», per iniziativa di a. Mărută di Majferqat, dai vescovi persiani radunati nel Concilio di Seleucia-Ctesifonte (410; V. O. Braun, De sancta Nicaena Synodo, Münster 1898; id., Das Buch der Synhodos, Stoccarda 1900; J. B. Chabot, Synodicon Orientale, Parigi 1902, pp. 17-36, 253-75). Questi stessi canoni hanno avuto larga diffusione nell'Oriente, sono stati tradotti in arabo e chiamati quindi «niceno-arabici».

II. SECOND COUNCIL OF N

1. Historical events. — The Second Council of N. was held to put an end to the iconoclast persecutions which, initiated by the Byzantine emperors, had raged since 726 and had been approved by the conciliabulum of Hieria in 754. Finally, the empress Irene, opposed to iconoclasm, had Tarasius elected Byzantine patriarch (784); he immediately invited the Empress, regent for her minor son Constantine VI, to convoke a general council (Mansi, XII, 986-89). In fact, on 29 August Irene summoned Pope Hadrian I to the Synod that was to be held at Constantinople—she said, «decrevimus ut fieret universale concilium»—in order to confirm the traditional veneration of images (ibid., XII, 1984-86). Hadrian accepted the invitation (26 October 785), announcing that he would send legates—Peter, archpriest of St Peter, and Peter, archimandrite of St Saba—on condition that the conciliabulum of Hieria be rejected in their presence and that both the Council and the legates be granted freedom, including an honorable return should agreement not be reached (ibid., XII, 1055-71). Irene’s actual convocation of the Synod is repeatedly confirmed by the Council Fathers themselves (ibid., 1051, 1113, 1001; XIII, 1, 130, 374). Tarasius invited the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, who were then subject to the caliphs. The patriarch’s envoys were unable to make contact with anyone except a few Egyptian monks, two of whom came to the Synod as representatives of the three patriarchs, bearing a synodal letter from the deceased 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 at Constantinople (17 August 786) failed because of an uprising by the iconoclasts. Later, once calm had been restored, the Council opened in the more peaceful N. on 24 September 787.

The editions of the Council of N. were prepared from three Greek manuscripts of the acts, two of them from the Vatican Library. Of the first Latin version commissioned by Hadrian I, several fragments survive in the Libri Carolini. It was so faulty that Anastasius the Librarian composed another version in the ninth century, although omitting the account of the eighth session, both because he considered it less important and in order 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 N. numbered approximately 350. Eight sessions were held (seven in the church of St Sophia, and the last, more solemn one, under the presidency of Irene, at Constantinople on 23 October, in the Palace of the Magnaura). The first place was occupied by Tarasius, but the papal legates were always the first to sign. Near the ambo sat the imperial commissioners: the patrician Petrona and the logotheta, or chancellor, John.

At the first session, after a brief address by Tarasius, a letter from Irene was read, in which the freedom requested by Hadrian was guaranteed and the reading of the papal letters and of those of the Eastern Churches dominated by the caliphs was ordered. Several cases of iconoclast bishops who were now seeking reconciliation were then discussed. The discussion, complicated by questions concerning the validity of the ordinations of heretics, was not resolved favorably until the third session. At the second session, the letters of Hadrian I to Irene and to Tarasius were read; the former, however, was not read in its entirety, since its final section was omitted. In that section the Pope requested 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 hold that office. The first part of the Pope’s letter, after emphasizing the primacy of St Peter inherited by his successors, declared that the Roman see had always favored the veneration of images. In this connection Hadrian recounted the largely legendary narratives about Constantine contained in the Gesta Sylvestri and cited examples from the Old Testament and patristic testimonies in favor of images. The Pope’s letter to Tarasius repeated part of the same content. In response to the papal legates’ question, Tarasius declared himself in favor of the veneration of images. At the third session, a synodal letter of his was read in which he recognized the six ecumenical councils, pronounced anathema against all heretics, including Pope Honorius, and accepted the veneration of images. The same position was confirmed shortly afterward in the synodal letter of Theodore of Jerusalem, which was then read. The fourth and fifth sessions were devoted to demonstrating the usefulness of the veneration of images, adducing similar cases from the Old Testament, the testimonies of the Fathers, and recent miraculous occurrences. At the sixth session, the iconoclast decree of the conciliabulum of Hieria was refuted at length. Finally, at the seventh session (13 October), the dogmatic decree was promulgated. It was signed by everyone, and all pronounced anathemas against the iconoclasts. In a letter to Irene (Mansi, XIII, 404-405), Tarasius communicated the Synod’s happy outcome to the Empress; all the Fathers did the same in a synodal letter to the clergy of Constantinople (ibid., 407-14). No official letter from the Synod to Pope Hadrian I, however, is known. In the solemn eighth session Irene delivered a brief address and ordered the dogmatic decree to be read; when she received the reply that everyone had accepted it, she and her son also signed II. After a second reading of several patristic texts, the Council ended amid the customary acclamations.

2. Dogmatic and disciplinary decisions. — At the seventh session the Fathers unanimously promulgated the dogmatic decree which, after professing the Constantinopolitan Symbol and pronouncing anathema against all heretics, including Honorius, declared that images of the Lord, the Virgin, and the saints were to be displayed everywhere.

«The more frequently one looks at these images, the more the viewer will remember the person represented and strive to imitate him, and will feel moved to show him reverence and honorable veneration (ἀστασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν) without, however, rendering him the true latria (τὴν ἀληθινὴν λατρείαν) which belongs to God alone; rather, as a sign of veneration, he will offer incense and lights, as is done for the image of the Holy Cross, for the Holy Gospels, and for the sacred vessels. Such was the pious custom of the ancients, for the honor paid to an image is directed toward the person whom it represents. Whoever venerates (προσκυνεῖ) an image venerates the person represented therein.» The decree concluded by excommunicating those who thought otherwise and condemned the veneration traditionally given by the Church to images of the Cross and of the saints, to the Gospels, and to 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 images of the saints. The latter is expressed by the term προσκυνεῖν, which in earlier times meant rather true adoration. Yet Tarasius himself, in his letter to Irene (Mansi, XIII, 404-405), affirms the equivalence of προσκυνεῖν and ἀσταξέσθαι, which Anastasius translated respectively as «adorare» and «salutare».

The 22 disciplinary canons, apparently issued during the eighth session, resemble somewhat, even in form, the style of the Monastic Rules, in which evangelical teaching is set forth first and then applied in practice. The canons concern many questions and generally seek to restore discipline, especially among the bishops, which had become lax during the iconoclast controversy.

The bishop must know the Psalter by heart (can. 2); he shall be deposed if he is elected by the civil authorities (can. 3); he may not ask for precious metals for himself (can. 4); he shall be deposed if he was chosen through simony (can. 5); he may wear neither luxurious clothing nor perfumes (can. 16), nor may he allow 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). There shall be stewards both in the metropolises and in the monasteries (can. 11). In Constantinople, clerics who leave their own churches shall not be given hospitality (can. 10). Jews shall be accepted provided that they do not continue to observe the Sabbath and Jewish customs (can. 8). A donation of ecclesiastical property made by the bishop or the igumens in favor of princes is invalid (can. 12). Under pain of excommunication, the buildings now converted into caravanserais must be returned to the Church (can. 13). Clerics who are not yet «readers»—the readership, in addition to the subdiaconate, was the only minor Order in the East—are forbidden to read from the ambo during the liturgy (can. 14). No cleric may have charge of two churches (can. 15). Monks must not abandon their monastery in order to escape obedience (can. 17). The delivery of a certain sum of money must not be imposed as a condition for entering the ecclesiastical or monastic state (can. 19). Double monasteries for men and women are forbidden (can. 20). No monk may, on his own authority, transfer to another monastery (can. 21). Canon 22 lays down rules for monks and clerics concerning eating in the company of women or in private homes.

Adrian I, writing in 794, declared that he had accepted the Synod of N. («ipsum suscepimus synodum»), although even then (after almost ten years) he had sent no reply to the Byzantine authorities, «metuentes ne ad eorum reverterentur errorem» (Jaffé-Wattenbach, 2483): words that should be interpreted as meaning that the Pope did not wish to give complete approval to all the Council’s actions before the requested restitution of the Roman properties had been carried out. The Franks did not immediately accept the decisions of N., both because they had not understood the text of the acts and for political reasons. In the East itself, the resurgence of iconoclasm prevented the Council of N. from receiving peaceful general approval until 842. The Eighth Ecumenical Council regarded that of N. as a universal synod.