Protestants And The Nicene Creed...

[T-Shirt]

I think these are historically unsupportable claims.

I would agree with CKS on this. From what I can tell, it wasn't until the late 6th century that the bishop of Rome started to gain central authority free from the influence of the Emperor. Of course, even at this time, the East and the West didn't always see eye to eye.

T-Shirt

[cksalmon]

I would agree with CKS on this. From what I can tell, it wasn't until the late 6th century that the bishop of Rome started to gain central authority free from the influence of the Emperor. Of course, even at this time, the East and the West didn't always see eye to eye.

T-Shirt

Wow. We agree? Then I've changed my mind.

I think one might even be able to push back the emergence of a recognizable RCC into the late fifth C. But not back to AD 325.

Best.

CKS

[T-Shirt]

Wow. We agree? Then I've changed my mind.

I think one might even be able to push back the emergence of a recognizable RCC into the late fifth C. But not back to AD 325.

Best.

CKS

That is possible. Although it seems to me that the Emperors had more power over the Church than the Roman bishops did. In addition, During the fifth century it seems, to me anyway, that the bishops of Rome were attempting to spread their authority throughout the Empire, but many sees were not too quick to recognize this authority. I think Gregory (AD 590) was the first to achieve this with any degree of success.

T-Shirt

[PacMan]

Rhino, CK, T, etc.,

Yes, alas...I'm moving (to Vienna, VA actually-not far from you Rhino). And thanks to Verizon's systems, my account got "stuck," meaning it got in the system but not past to the installers. To skip the weepy story, instead of having internet last Monday, I'm stuck until a week from Saturday ( )!

Real quick though (my wife thinks I'm looking up directions to Maggianos); I don't suggest that the RCC was officially organized under the terms of "Catholic," nor "Apostolic," but that there was certainly an entity that was acceptable for all things Christian, known to be "Catholic," and "Apostolic." Within that context, the Pope certainly had his place. In other words, is it your position (CK and T-) that the Pope had limited power, not recognized by the other Bishops and for the most part, non-consolidated? Did the rest of the Bishops see him as one of them and nothing more? Are you suggesting that other Bishops did not recognize 'Rome' as authoritative (although many years removed from Peter)?

CK: I appreciate the PM and will get to it as soon as I'm able (although I figure much will be discussed here). We're 98% moved in, but the 2% is driving the wife nuts.

Peace,

PacMan

[cksalmon]

(1) In other words, is it your position (CK and T-) that the Pope had limited power, not recognized by the other Bishops and for the most part, non-consolidated? (2) Did the rest of the Bishops see him as one of them and nothing more? (3) Are you suggesting that other Bishops did not recognize 'Rome' as authoritative (although many years removed from Peter)?

Hey Pac--

(1) Sort of. My position would be that the bishop of Rome in 325 was not a singular authority figure for Christendom.

(2) I get the idea that the bishop of Rome was something of a more-equal equal among equals. I'll have to do some digging, but off the top of my head, the bishop of Rome had a sphere of influence that increased and became more significant and far-reaching as the decades rolled on.

(3) Yes, I think that's what I'm suggesting: the majority of bishops in the Empire would not have recognized Rome's bishop as finally authoritative in AD 325 (or for some time afterward, though such eventually came to be the case). Constantine wielded much, much more power and influence than Sylvester could have dared hope for during that period.

But that would change soon enough.

Best.

CKS

[T-Shirt]

In other words, is it your position (CK and T-) that

1 - the Pope had limited power, not recognized by the other Bishops and for the most part, non-consolidated?

2 - Did the rest of the Bishops see him as one of them and nothing more?

3 - Are you suggesting that other Bishops did not recognize 'Rome' as authoritative (although many years removed from Peter)?

1 - There was no Pope in AD 325. Pope was a title that was created centuries later and projected back on the bishops of Rome since Peter. In AD 325 the only central authority was Constantine.

2 - Pretty much just as another bishop, although, a bishop in a significant city. There were debates over which See was more important. Some thought Alexandria, some thought Antioch, some thought Jerusalem, some thought Rome, etc.

3 - Pretty much, yes.

I see CKS and I continue to agree on much. This is getting to be a bit frightening.

T-Shirt

[rhinomelon]

2) I get the idea that the bishop of Rome was something of a more-equal equal among equals. I'll have to do some digging, but off the top of my head, the bishop of Rome had a sphere of influence that increased and became more significant and far-reaching as the decades rolled on.

The Eastern Orthodox use the phrase "first among equals" to describe what you're touching on here. They hold that the bishop of Rome was the most preeminent among the bishops, but still had no more authority than any other bishop. I tend to think of it like the Speaker of the House of Representatives or something. They have their own title, get to hold the gavel, but in the end, they only get one vote like all the other reps. The EO would also agree with you, I think, in that over time the bishop of Rome gradually gained more and more power (no doubt the fracturing of the Roman Empire soon after Constantine contributed to this as well), until the Great Schism of 1054 separated the Pope from his eastern peers. Then it became much easier for the Pope to gain more oversight over the western church.

Yeah, T-shirt and cksalmon agreeing on stuff, several times in a row, is getting rather spooky...

Take care, everyone

[PacMan]

T-; CK; Rhino:

I understand that there was no Pope as of 325 AD (I think I added a caveat for this anachronism), but I may have been considering more due influence than necessary. All the same, a â??more-equal equal among equalsâ? and a â??first-among equalsâ? certainly adds separation between the â??Popeâ? and the other Bishopsâ?¦but were these definition also post-dated and after the fact?

Certainly, Constantine was the mover and the shaker; but I have understood (perhaps via RCC explanation) that the Bishop of Rome was represented, not solely for the purposes of having eyes and ears but to add certain authority. It seems as if yaâ??ll donâ??t see it the same.

More frustrating is whether there are truly the sources to weed this out. I take it that it is not, since both the Protestants and RCCers have two different understandings, fairly critical to there claims of Romeâ??s authority, or lack thereof.

One last question: what was the relationship between the Pope and Constantine? As I understood it, there was a pretty close association between Constantine and Arius, but thatâ??s neither here nor there. Did Constantine buddy-up to Rome?

PacMan

P.S. You all agreeing reminds me of the Verizon (?) commercial, with inflamed parents and children arguing in harsh tones with such things said as, â??Life is fair!â? and, â??I raised you to talk to me like this!â?

[cksalmon]

One last question: what was the relationship between the Pope and Constantine? As I understood it, there was a pretty close association between Constantine and Arius, but that’s neither here nor there. Did Constantine buddy-up to Rome?

PacMan

Hi Pac--

Several years ago, Robert M. Grant wrote an interesting article entitled "Religion and Politics at the Council of Nicaea" (Journal of Religion, 1974--I'll track down the volume number if you're interested). I photocopied it when I was in New Orleans a couple weeks ago. It's just a short twelve-page article, but, interestingly, Sylvester, bishop of Rome, gets nary a mention at all.

Ossius of Cordoba (a prominent bishop from Spain and personal adviser to Constantine) played a much larger role in the proceedings, apparently, than Sylvester did. Now, there were at least two Roman representatives (as far as I can tell) at Nicaea (acting as "papal legates" according to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia). They readily sided with Ossius's Constantine-backed position on homoousios. Some scholars suggest that the term and concept was presented to Constantine by Ossius himself.

At any rate, it would appear that Ossius was the major player from the West at Nicaea--not Sylvester. He and the two Roman representatives were apparently the only western bishops in attendance. All others were from the East, including both the main disputants (Alexander and Arius).

Another interesting tidbit: Constantine wrote an imperial letter to Alexandria during the build-up to Nicaea pleading with both sides to essentially stop nagging one another about the issue. To him, it was a trifling matter that should never have been brought up to begin with and the bishops would do well to agree to disagree and move on. When that approach failed, the emperor assumed a more direct control of the matter and had the council convened.

As to Constantine buddying-up with Rome...I'm not sure how to answer. Constantine ruled in the West already. That meant, ultimately, imperial oversight of western Christendom, I'd suppose. He didn't rule in the East until July of 324. In that sense, then, he inherited the Alexandrian problem from his brother-in-law Licinius (who was apparently more laissez faire, theologically, than Constantine). Even the tolerant Licinius (who'd remained hands-off with regard the Marcionite split) had eventually taken action against the intractable bishops involved in the Alexander-Arius debate.

At any rate, it seems that Ossius (rather than Sylvester in Rome) was the definitive western player at Nicaea. I'm just not sure that there was any great need or desire to buddy up to Sylvester in Rome at that stage in ecclesiastical development.

Best.

CKS

PS. D'you get moved?

[PacMan]

Hey there CK,

So, embarassingly enough...I'm starting to forget my original PM...gotta go back and read it. All the same, I do remember the interesting interplay between a RCC and Protestant interpretation of the counsel, that being Rome's influence is key. I do want to follow up on it with further reading when I've got the time.

What question still does nag a bit, is why do you believe the judgments of the counsel? Why do you accept them? I don't suppose you need believe Arius, but had it not been for Constantine then such defining (and squashing of other such heretical beliefs) would have never have occured. Again, I don't think all was fair with the voting...and think it's reasonable to believe that these philosophical discussions could have simply been wrong. As such, I find it difficult to hang my belief on a most disputable point without any additional authority outside those theologic philosophers (don't you love strawmen)?

Anyway.

And we're 99.9% moved. A couple more pictures to hang, etc. I hate moving, and am thinking of opening a trust fund strictly for paying for future moves. I ain't doing it myself anymore. A couple grand to the movers will work just fine next time!

Laters,

PacMan