Church historian: Why the Council of Nicea was groundbreaking

Around 2,000 people are thought to have gathered in the year 325 in Nicaea in what is now Turkey to discuss and decide on important theological issues. The council was convened by Emperor Constantine - the "bishop for external affairs", as he considered himself. In an interview with katholisch.de, Erfurt church historian Notker Baumann talks about the background to the Council - and its significance for today.

Question: Mr Baumann, why was a council convened in Nicaea 1,700 years ago?

Baumann : At the time, there were a number of theological issues that needed to be clarified in the Roman Empire. And it was also in the political interests of Emperor Constantine to organise such a council. Until shortly before his reign, such a meeting convened by an emperor would have been unthinkable. Even in the third century - when there were already smaller local and regional synods - Christians were still being persecuted at times. This only changed in the fourth century under Emperor Galerius, who was succeeded as emperor by Constantine in 306. Under him, there was initially a two-track religious policy in the west of the Roman Empire, in that he did not make an abrupt switch from paganism to Christianity and used terms and symbols that were equally acceptable to pagans and Christians. In 324, Constantine defeated his ally Licinius in the East and thus became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. This made it possible to organise a council for the entire empire.

Question: What significance did Emperor Constantine have for the council?

Baumann: A very great one: He convened the council. He also provided the necessary means of transport and infrastructure. Ultimately, he opened his summer residence in Nicaea and invited bishops from all over the Roman Empire to attend.

Question: Why was the Council so important to him?

Baumann : It was important to him that in an empire ruled by an emperor, there should also be unity in matters of Christian controversy. In this respect, it was important to him that the bishops, and therefore the Church, were united on key theological issues.

Question: What role did he play at the Council?

Baumann : There is the question of which source we are referring to. He is said to have given the opening speech. Whether he also chaired individual sessions himself is difficult to say today. He probably attended some of the meetings himself and had some of them chaired by officials. It was certainly important to him - and this also corresponds to his self-image as a "bishop for external affairs" - that the council proceeded calmly and found solutions. In this respect, he will have taken care of the process.

Question: What about the Pope? Why didn't he convene the council?

Baumann : In the early history of the Church, the Bishop of Rome did not yet hold such a prominent position as he does today. The Roman bishop Silvester (314-335) refused to attend the Council of Nicea in person, citing his advanced age, and instead sent two legates, the presbyters Vitus and Vincentius, to represent him at the Council.

Question: How many people attended the Council in total?

Baumann : Emperor Constantine probably invited the 1,800 or so bishops of the Christian world at the time to take part, presumably by letter. However, not all of them accepted this invitation because the journey was simply too far and too arduous for some or they were already too old for it. A total of around 200 to 300 bishops travelled to Nicaea. The number 318 was later circulated - although this refers to a passage in the Book of Genesis. There were also presbyters and deacons, of whom each bishop brought around two or three. Presumably up to 2,000 people took part in the council.

Question: What about the laity? Were they also involved in the Council?

Baumann : We have evidence that a few lay people were also present at other synods in the third century, albeit without any great theological influence. It is likely that they were also present at Nicaea. However, one should not imagine that these were "simple" believers from the average population. They were nobles or other influential personalities.

Question: The 200 to 300 bishops mainly came from the eastern part of the empire. Why was that? Was it just for geographical reasons or also for reasons of church politics?

Baumann : There were certainly many interested and very good theologians in the eastern part of the empire. That will have played a role, as did the distance and the roads that led to Nicaea. And when it came to the issue at stake, some bishops from the East were geographically more involved than others. One of the main triggers was the dispute over Arius, a priest from Alexandria on the Nile delta.

Question: If you like, this Arius was the loser of the Council, whose doctrine was not adopted by the Church ...

Baumann: Yes, exactly. The Council of Nicea makes a decision and adopts a creed. It states that people believe in the one Lord Jesus Christ, who was "begotten of the Father as the only begotten", "God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, of one being with the Father". This last statement is decisive: homoousion to patri - of one essence with the Father. But this was not the only thing formulated against Arius. Following the creed, anathematisms were also written, i.e. sentences that were condemned. Anyone who believed in such doctrines was directly excluded from the Catholic Church. Arius is therefore the loser - but only for the time being.

Question: What does that mean?

Baumann : The emperor, who was concerned with unity and peace in the Church, began to disseminate the resolutions after the end of the Council. Two years later, however, he brought back to their episcopal sees those bishops who had been sent into exile because of the results - with a view to unity. In this respect, the question of Nicaea is actually largely open again soon after the Council and the struggle lasts until 381, when the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is formulated, which takes up the statements of Nicaea and supplements them with statements on the Holy Spirit.

Question: From today's perspective, the Council of Nicaea is referred to as an ecumenical council. What is ecumenical about it?

Baumann : A synod of the early church becomes an ecumenical council through its reception, i.e. through the subsequent recognition and appropriation of the results. The term "ecumenical" refers to the fact that the decisions of the Council of Nicea form the basis of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which today unites almost all Christian churches and communities. I consider this to be significant. The question of Christian unity also applies to another moment: the Council of Nicea also discussed a common date for Easter. Whether a binding regulation was made or whether it was more of a recommendation can no longer be reconstructed today due to the source situation. In any case, the aim was for all churches to celebrate Easter on the same day. In addition, the Council of Nicea was also ecumenical in the literal sense: Oikumene means "inhabited world" - and representatives from many areas of the then Christian-inhabited world took part in the Council, at least according to the idea.

Question: At the Council of Nicaea, theological issues were discussed and decided in a large assembly. Today, there is a lot of talk of synodality in the church. To what extent is Nicaea a model for this?

Baumann : The Council is definitely a role model in that, at the invitation of the emperor, an attempt was made to include bishops from different regions of the Roman Empire. In my view, it is also important today to listen to and involve people from different areas when dealing with issues that affect the universal church. Regular meetings to discuss issues in general also seem to me to be an important indication. We know, for example, that in the third century the bishops of the Roman province of Carthage sometimes met twice a year - similar to what the German Bishops' Conference does today. However, we should not imagine these synods from the early church too picturesquely: It was already clear there in which directions solutions were being sought and who had something to say. But I think the attempt to involve different people and to ensure that what was decided was also accepted in many places was right and groundbreaking.