Nicaea

NICAEA. - Ancient city of Bithynia, today a mere village, founded in 316 B.C., under the name of Antigoneia, in the Hellespontine Phrygia, on Lake Ascanius.

It was the seat of the kings of Bithynia and passed 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. Ruined by an earthquake ca. 112, it was rebuilt by Hadrian ca. 120. It was set on fire by the Scythians in 259 and restored by Claudius Gothicus. The group of martyrs Cosconius, Zeno and Melanippus are commemorated at N. on 19 January in the Syriac Epitome and in the Jeronymian Martyrology; Polycarp in the Syriac Martyrology is on 27 January; on 9 June the Jeronymian Martyrology 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.; the Jeronymian Martyrology on 2 August and 2 September gives «in Bithynia civitate Nicaea Theodota cum tribus filii», as does the Passio (BHG, 2, 1781). Traces of the cult of the martyr Neophytus, commemorated in the Synaxarion 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 prior to the Constantinian peace are unknown. At N. the ecumenical councils of 325 and 787 were held. It was definitively occupied by the Turks in 1333. The ruins of the church of St. Sophia, with three naves, indicate at least four different building phases; the oldest masonry dates back to the original construction in which the Council of 787 was held; the second period seems to be of the 10th century; the third period goes back to the 11th-12th centuries; the fourth period to the age of the Palaeologi (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 while at first it was believed to have arisen after the earthquake, between 1059-67, 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 from the Greek-Turkish war. On the opening arch of the apse, within a large circle, rises the throne with a footstool; on the cushion are placed a mantle and the jewelled book; above, in the middle of a cross from which seven rays emanate, hovers the Holy Spirit, nimbed in the form of a dove (insignia Christi). Guarding the throne, two on each side, stand the majestic figures of four angels, nimbed and winged, each holding a labarum on which the Trisagion is written (ΑΓΙΟC, ΑΓΙΟC, ΑΓΙΟC). The apse had a twofold mosaic decoration. At first it had a large cross in the center; later, from the top 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 the cruciform nimbus. In the pavement, behind the altar, an inscription from the time of Michael III (858) was reused. In seven monograms, or ligatures, the inscription read: «Mother of God, remember your servant, monk, priest, hegumen». Some held that the monk's name was Hyacinth, others Naucratios. In the nave the mosaic decoration was of the 9th or 10th century. The pavement was of marble inlays and mosaics; the narthex was decorated with mosaics of the 11th century.

Enrico Josi

I. FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA

It was held in 325 to define the faith against Arianism, to settle the schism provoked by Meletius in Egypt, and to establish definitively the date of Easter.

1. Historical notes

The acts of the Council are not preserved, but it is impossible that no minutes were taken of so solemn an assembly presided over by the Emperor and which was also to have effects on civil legislation.

Moreover, there are allusions to such acts in St. Jerome (Dial. c. Lucifer., 20), in Theodoret (Hist. eccl., 1, 6) and in Sozomen (Hist. eccl., 2, 21). Of the official documents there remain today: the Creed, the canons, the list of bishops arranged by province (ed. H. Gelzer-H. Hilgenfeld-O. Cuntz, Patrum nicaenorum nomina, Leipzig 1898) and a synodal letter addressed to the Churches of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis preserved by Socrates and by 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 of 323), found himself faced with the spread of Arianism (v.), which had arisen some years earlier in Alexandria but had by then infiltrated many eastern provinces. Always desirous of concord, Constantine, little instructed in the Christian religion, wished to settle the dispute by inviting both Arius and Bishop Alexander of Alexandria to silence. To this end he wrote two letters (Eusebius, In Vitam Constantini, 2), one of which was carried to Alexandria by the bishop of Cordoba, Hosius, Constantine's adviser. When this attempt at concord failed, the Emperor, still feeling himself the Pontifex maximus, convened on his own initiative a Synod to be held at N. and to which all Christian bishops were to travel, making use of the imperial courier service (ibid., 3, 4-5; Socrates, Hist. eccl., 1, 5).

That it was Constantine himself who convened the Council without asking the consent of the Roman See is deduced: 1) from the fact that he also convened other Synods on his own initiative, before and after N. (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 came from Alexander of Alexandria to Hosius and from Hosius to Constantine (Hist. eccl., 1, 7). The first and late document that has Pope Sylvester intervene in the convocation of the Council is the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, I, p. 171; see also p. 75). The same is said of the statement made by the VII Ecumenical Council (787) at N. One may add the almost material impossibility, given the scarcity of time, of sending an imperial mission from Nicomedia to Rome to ask for pontifical approval. In cod. Parisinus syr. 62 (8th-9th century) there is a Syriac version of a letter attributed to Constantine, who indicates N. as the place of a Synod, accessible also to the Westerners. It is a document of very doubtful authenticity. Moreover, no Byzantine author alludes to such a 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. About 300 bishops attended (according to Eustathius, about 270; according to Eusebius, 250; according to Constantine, more than 300). The number of 318, given by Athanasius (Ad Afros, 2), not without biblical reminiscences, has remained traditional, so that very often in the East the Council of N. was called that « of the 318 Fathers ». The bishops were predominantly Easterners from all the provinces; among them, 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 the foremost was Hosius of Cordoba, the Pope's trusted representative, together with the pontifical envoys, the presbyters Vitus and Vincent. There were also Caecilian of Carthage, a Gallic bishop and another from Calabria. A Persian bishop was not lacking either.

The presidency of the Council was twofold: one honorary, held by Constantine, who, seated in the middle of the assembly on a golden throne, directed the proceedings while counselling concord; the other presidency, the legitimate, ecclesiastical one, 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). The Council was inaugurated by Constantine with a brief speech, in which he invited all to concord in the faith (In vitam Const., 3, 12). Then the proceedings began. The Creed and the canons were immediately discussed. The schism provoked in Alexandria by Meletius of Lycopolis, who claimed to be the bishop « of the Church of the martyrs » and had set up in Alexandria a small hierarchy of his own, was resolved (see 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, it could, after being reorganized, rank after the clergy already existing. For the celebration of Easter (v.) it was established (see the same letter) that all should abandon the Jewish custom of celebrating it on the 14th of Nisan, even if this fell before the equinox, and instead follow the Roman and Alexandrian custom of celebrating it always after the equinox. It does not appear, however, from contemporary sources whether it is true, as St. Leo affirms in a letter to Marcian (PL 54, 1055), that the Council of N. charged the Alexandrian see with fixing for the whole Church the date of the equinox in individual years.

The Council closed, it seems, on 19 June. Before separating, the Fathers attended the vicennalia of Constantine, who honoured the bishops with a solemn banquet. The recalcitrant Arius, Theognis of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais were exiled to Illyricum.

It is not to be admitted that the Council of N. was convened and assembled a second time in 327. So great an event would have been reported by contemporary authors, who instead do not speak of it. Certain texts, in which there would be some hint of the fact, must be interpreted otherwise (Bardy).

2. The Creed

The « faith of N. », as is learned from the witnesses Eusebius, Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra, from the very ancient Latin and Syriac versions and from the constant usage of the Church, ran thus:

« 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 (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί), through whom all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and became flesh, became man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens, will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit.

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

A false interpretation of a letter of St. Basil (Ep. 244: PG 32, 924) and of a text of St. Hilary (Pragm. hist., 2, 33: PL 10, 658 AB) led to the mistaken conclusion that the Creed was composed respectively by a certain Hermogenes and by St. Athanasius. The Arians (Athanasius, Hist. arian. ad monachos, 42) attributed it with more reason to Hosius. But the truth seems to be that the formula was composed a little by all the bishops or perhaps by some committee.

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.

The Creed of Caesarea did not appear sufficiently clear, and after lively discussions sharply anti-Arian insertions were introduced, namely: 1) "from 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 wanted; 2) "begotten not made," to reject the error that made the Word a "creature" of the Father; 3) "consubstantial (v.) with the Father," an expression especially opposed by the Arians and the Semi-Arians throughout the 4th century and therefore a badge of orthodoxy. "Consubstantial" here means that the Son is of a nature as divine as that of the Father. Note the absence of any development concerning the Holy Spirit.

The "faith of N." was upheld by the popes of the 4th century: Julius (Athanasius, Apol., 23, 25), Liberius (Socrates, Hist. eccl., 4, 12; Hilary, Op. hist. fragm., V, 6: PL. 10, 686) and Damasus (PL. 13, 353), as well as by Sts. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, and Hilary, and reconfirmed by the ecumenical councils of Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), etc. It is the first dogmatic definition of the ecclesiastical magisterium.

3. The canons

Of the 20 canons issued by the Council, the majority concern the discipline of the clergy. It is established: that anyone 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 live with women who are not members of their household or beyond every suspicion (can. 3); that the election of a bishop is to be carried out by all those of the eparchy and then confirmed by the metropolitan, while consecration must be performed by at least three bishops (can. 4); that the ordination of an unworthy priest ordained without prior inquiry is not to be taken into consideration (can. 9); that the lapsi ordained as priests are to be suspended (can. 10); that bishops, priests and deacons are not to be transferred to another church (cann. 15-16); that deacons are not to administer Communion to priests (can. 18).

Other canons regulate the admission into the Church of apostates — particular benevolence is shown toward those who yielded during the persecution of Licinius — and of the cathari or Novatians and the Paulinians. For the former, public penance is established in the category of the audientes and the substrati. Communion must not be denied in danger of death (can. 13). Usury is severely punished (can. 17), and standing prayer is prescribed on Sundays and during the paschal season (can. 20).

Of notable importance are canons 6 and 7. The first consecrates the exceptional situation of the bishop of Alexandria, who has metropolitan rights over Egypt and also over Libya and the Pentapolis, provinces civilly distinct from the Egyptian one. Antioch and the other eparchies likewise preserve their ancient rights. Canon 7 prescribes that the bishop of Aelia (Jerusalem) hold the 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 along the lines of the civil provinces. Alexandria and Antioch are the principal sees, followed by Jerusalem. Constantinople had not yet been built.

In later times even the canons of the Council of Sardica were attributed to N. Moreover, there exist pseudo-Nicene canons, that is, those probably approved as "Nicene," on the initiative of Marutha of Mayferqat, by the Persian bishops gathered in the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (410; v. O. Braun, De sancta Nicaena Synodo, Münster 1898; id., Das Buch der Synhodos, Stuttgart 1900; J. B. Chabot, Synodicon Orientale, Paris 1902, pp. 17-36, 253-75). These same canons had a wide diffusion in the East, were translated into Arabic and were therefore called "Nicene-Arabic."

Ignazio Ortiz de Urbina

II. SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA

The seventh ecumenical council and the last accepted by the dissident Easterners.

1. Historical events

The Second Council of N. was held to put an end to the iconoclast persecutions which, on the initiative of the Byzantine emperors, had raged since 726 and had been approved by the conciliabulum of Hieria in 754. At last the empress Irene, opposed to iconoclasm, had Tarasius elected Byzantine patriarch (784), who immediately invited the Empress, regent for her minor son Constantine VI, to convoke a general council (Mansi, XII, 986-89). Indeed on 29 Aug. Irene summoned Pope Adrian I to the Synod that was to be held in Constantinople — she said «decrevimus ut fieret universale concilium» — to confirm the traditional cult of images (ibid., XII, 1984-86). Adrian accepted the invitation (26 Oct. 785), announcing the sending of legates — these were Peter the archpriest of St. Peter, and Peter the archimandrite of St. Saba — on condition that in their presence the conciliabulum of Hieria be rejected and that freedom be granted both to the Council and to the legates, including for an honorable return in the event of a failure to reach agreement (ibid., XII, 1055-71). The actual convocation of the Synod by Irene is confirmed again by the Fathers of the Council themselves on several occasions (ibid., 1051, 1113, 1001; XIII, 1, 130, 374). Tarasius invited the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, then subject to the caliphs. The patriarch's messengers succeeded in making contact only with some Egyptian monks, two of whom came to the Synod as representatives of the 3 patriarchs with a synodal letter of the deceased patriarch of Jerusalem, Theodore, in favor of the cult of images.

A first attempt to inaugurate the Council in the church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople (17 Aug. 786) failed because of a riot of the iconoclasts. Later, once calm was restored, the Council opened in the quieter N. on 24 Sept. 787.

The editions of the Council of N. have been made from three Greek manuscripts of the acts, two of which are from the Vatican. Of the first Latin version commissioned by Adrian I, some fragments are preserved in the Libri Carolini. It was so faulty that Anastasius the Librarian composed another in the 9th century, omitting however the account of the 8th session, both because it seemed to him of lesser importance and in order to veil the fact that a woman, Irene, had delivered a speech to the Fathers. A further Latin version (Cologne 1540) is less perfect than that of Anastasius.

The Fathers assembled at N. numbered about 350. Eight sessions were held (seven in the church of St. Sophia, the last, more solemn, under the presidency of Irene, in Constantinople on 23 Oct., in the Palace of the Magnaura). The first place was occupied by Tarasius, but the papal legates were always the first to subscribe. Near the ambo sat the imperial commissioners: the patrician Petronas and the logotheta or chancellor John.

In the first session, after a brief speech by Tarasius, a letter of Irene was read out in which the freedom requested by Adrian was guaranteed and the reading of the pontifical letters and of those of the Eastern Churches dominated by the caliphs was ordered. Then some cases of iconoclast bishops who now sought reconciliation were discussed. The discussion, complicated by questions about the validity of the ordinations of heretics, was not resolved favorably until the third session. In the second, the letters of Adrian I to Irene and to Tarasius were read, the first however not in its entirety since the last part was omitted, in which the Pope demanded the restitution of certain Roman possessions torn away during the iconoclast struggle, protested against the title of «ecumenical» assumed by the patriarch and complained that a layman had been chosen to cover this office. The first part of the Pope's letter, after noting the primacy of St. Peter inherited by his successors, declared that the Roman see had always favored the cult of images. On this point Adrian recounted the narratives about Constantine, largely legendary, contained in the Gesta Sylvestri, and adduced examples from the Old Testament and patristic testimonies in favor of images. The Pope's letter to Tarasius partly repeated the same content. To the question of the pontifical legates Tarasius replied by declaring himself in favor of the cult of images. In the third session his synodal letter was read, in which he acknowledged the 6 ecumenical councils, launched the anathema against all heretics, including Pope Honorius, and accepted the cult of images. The same was confirmed shortly afterward in the synodal letter of Theodore of Jerusalem which was read next. The fourth and fifth sessions were devoted to demonstrating the usefulness of the cult of images by adducing similar cases from the Old Testament, the testimonies of the Fathers and recent miraculous cases. In the sixth session the iconoclast decree of the conciliabulum of Hieria was refuted at length. Finally in the seventh session (13 Oct.) the dogmatic decree was promulgated. It was subscribed by all and all launched anathemas against the iconoclasts. Tarasius in a letter to Irene (Mansi, XIII, 404-405) communicated to the Empress 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., 407-14). No official letter addressed by the Synod to Pope Adrian I is known, however. In the solemn eighth session Irene delivered a brief speech and gave orders to read the dogmatic decree, and having received the answer that all had accepted it, she too and her son subscribed it. After the second reading of some patristic texts the Council closed amid the usual acclamations.

2. Dogmatic and disciplinary decisions

In the seventh session the Fathers promulgated unanimously the dogmatic decree, which, after professing the Constantinopolitan Creed and launching the anathema against all heretics, not excluding Honorius, declared that the images of the Lord, of the Virgin and of the saints be exposed everywhere.

«The more the beholder will gaze upon these images, the more he will remember him who is represented and will 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; but he will offer him in token of veneration incense and lights, as is done for the image of the Holy Cross and for the Holy Gospels and for the sacred vessels; such was the pious custom of the ancients, since the honor done to an image is directed to him whom it represents. Whoever venerates (προσκυνεῖ) an image venerates the person represented therein». The decree ended by excommunicating those who thought otherwise and condemned the cult given traditionally by the Church to the images of the Cross and of the saints, to the Gospels and to the relics of the martyrs. The decree clearly distinguishes two degrees in the cult; one of latria or adoration reserved to God and another lower, relative, given to the images of the saints. The latter is expressed by the term προσκυνεῖν which in earlier times meant rather true adoration. But Tarasius himself in the letter to Irene (Mansi, XIII, 404-405) affirms the equivalence between προσκυνεῖν and ἀσταξέσθαι and that Anastasius translated them respectively as «adorare» and «salutare».

The 22 disciplinary canons, issued apparently in the eighth session, are, even in form, somewhat in the style of the monastic Rules in which the evangelical teaching to be put into practice is premised. The canons concern many questions and generally tend to restore discipline, especially among the bishops, relaxed 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 power (can. 3); he may not claim precious metals for himself (can. 4); he shall be deposed if he has been chosen through simony (can. 5); he may not wear luxurious clothing or 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). Let the practice of placing relics in churches be restored (can. 7), and let all iconoclast writings be collected in the episcopate of Constantinople (can. 9). There shall be stewards both in the metropolises and in the monasteries (can. 11). Clerics who leave their own churches shall not be received in Constantinople (can. 10). Jews shall be accepted provided they do not continue to observe the Sabbath and Jewish customs (can. 8). The donation of ecclesiastical property made by a bishop or by hegumens in favor of princes is invalid (can. 12). Under penalty of excommunication, buildings now converted into caravanserais must be restored to the Church (can. 13). Clerics who are not yet "readers" — the lectorate being, besides the subdiaconate, the only minor Order in the East — are forbidden to read from the ambo in the liturgy (can. 14). No cleric may have two churches under his care (can. 15). Monks shall not abandon their own monastery in order to escape obedience (can. 17). The handing over of a certain sum of money must not be made a condition for entering the ecclesiastical 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 gives norms to the monk and the cleric regarding eating at the homes of women or in private houses.

Adrian I, writing in 794, declared that he had accepted the Synod of N. ("ipsum suscepimus synodum") although still (after almost 10 years) he had sent no reply to the Byzantine authorities "metuentes ne ad eorum reverterentur errorem" (Jaffé-Wattenbach, 2483): words that must be interpreted in the sense that the Pope did not wish to give complete approval to the entire work of the Council 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 recrudescence of iconoclasm prevented a peaceful general approval of the Council of N. until 842. The Eighth Ecumenical Council regarded that of N. as a universal synod.

Ignazio Ortiz de Urbina