Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 01-06-2009, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Erm, can we have a reference? What is being translated?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Extrait du Dictionnaire universel et complet des conciles (deux tomes) du chanoine Adolphe-Charles Peltier, publié dans l'Encyclopédie théologique de l'abbé Jacques-Paul Migne (1847), dont il constitue les tomes 13 et 14.
Tome II, colonnes 63 à 98.

Thanks! To me, Migne tends to mean PL or PG, of course, but not so here. This was not an ancient text at all, then?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-06-2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Extrait du Dictionnaire universel et complet des conciles (deux tomes) du chanoine Adolphe-Charles Peltier, publié dans l'Encyclopédie théologique de l'abbé Jacques-Paul Migne (1847), dont il constitue les tomes 13 et 14.
Tome II, colonnes 63 à 98.

Thanks! To me, Migne tends to mean PL or PG, of course, but not so here. This was not an ancient text at all, then?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Note the distinguishing in this text between excommunication (ἀκοινώνητον),and being "anathematized" (ἀναθεματίζοντες).

Note too the testimony within it that the persons who were either excommunicated at Antioch or anathematized at Nicea thought themselves to be, and were regarded by those who did the excommunication and anathematizing at Antioch and Nicea as, Christians -- those who believed that the God of Israel had made himself, his will, and his salvation known in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Jeffrey

gentleexit · 01-06-2009, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Note too the testimony within it that the persons who were either excommunicated at Antioch or anathematized at Nicea thought themselves to be, and were regarded by those who did the excommunication and anathematizing at Antioch and Nicea as, Christians -- those who believed that the God of Israel had made himself, his will, and his salvation known in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

What's interesting about Nicea's Anathema are the words

Quote:

But the holy Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes those who say ...

Did Nicea inaugurate the notion of a singular, universal Church, Church as more than the traditional "community of spirit", Church as a defined administrative body with the power to exclude? Did it begin "you can call yourself Christian if you like but if you aren't in the Church then ...". Before it, I think, being "Christian" and being "in the Church" were synonymous and equally vague.

Related is Orthodox. When did Christians get to be that, rather than ... (fill in your own "heresy")? Does anyone know when that label was first used to distinguish true Christians from their errant brethren?

andrewcriddle · 01-06-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As I understand it, three people (Theodotus of the Laodicean church, Narcissus of the church in Neronia, and Eusebius from the church in Caesarea of Palestine) were specifically excommunicated at the Synod of Antioch some months before Nicea.

In fact, from what they were asked and what they asked in turn, they clearly were proven to agree completely with Arius’s party, and to hold opinions contrary to what was established by our synod. For this reason, that their hearts are so hardened, and that they have no regard for the holy synod which rejected and disapproved of their ideas in these matters, we all fellow-ministers in the synod have ruled not to practice fellowship with these men, not to consider them worthy of fellowship, since their faith is something other than that of the catholic church. from here

At least Eusebius was at Nicea, something must have happened, eg some dispensation from Constantine in an effort of conciliation.

spin

The letter of the Synod of Antioch goes on to say about Eusebius of Caesarea et al

Quote:

You should also know this, that on account of our great brotherly love, we of the synod have established a place for them to repent and recognize the truth: the magnificent and sacred synod to be held at Ancyra.

It is generally held that the original plans for a synod at Ancyra were later modified to hold the synod at Nicea (IE the council of Nicea was originally going to be the council of Ancyra). If so, then Eusebius of Caesarea et al were intended from the beginning to be at Ancyra/Nicea to defend themselves against the charges of heresy. Constantine's involvement probably meant that Eusebius of Caesarea was treated more leniently at Nicea than might otherwise have happened.

Andrew Criddle

spin · 01-06-2009, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As I understand it, three people (Theodotus of the Laodicean church, Narcissus of the church in Neronia, and Eusebius from the church in Caesarea of Palestine) were specifically excommunicated at the Synod of Antioch some months before Nicea.

..

At least Eusebius was at Nicea, something must have happened, eg some dispensation from Constantine in an effort of conciliation.

The letter of the Synod of Antioch goes on to say about Eusebius of Caesarea et al

Quote:

You should also know this, that on account of our great brotherly love, we of the synod have established a place for them to repent and recognize the truth: the magnificent and sacred synod to be held at Ancyra.

It is generally held that the original plans for a synod at Ancyra were later modified to hold the synod at Nicea (IE the council of Nicea was originally going to be the council of Ancyra). If so, then Eusebius of Caesarea et al were intended from the beginning to be at Ancyra/Nicea to defend themselves against the charges of heresy. Constantine's involvement probably meant that Eusebius of Caesarea was treated more leniently at Nicea than might otherwise have happened.

Thanks for that, Andrew.

spin

Roger Pearse · 01-07-2009, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Thanks! To me, Migne tends to mean PL or PG, of course, but not so here. This was not an ancient text at all, then?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Note the distinguishing in this text between excommunication (ἀκοινώνητον),and being "anathematized" (ἀναθεματίζοντες).

Note too the testimony within it

Um, but this text is a modern text!

Roger Pearse · 01-07-2009, 01:32 AM

[QUOTE=gentleexit;5735106]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

What's interesting about Nicea's Anathema are the words

Quote:

But the holy Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes those who say ...

Did Nicea inaugurate the notion of a singular, universal Church, Church as more than the traditional "community of spirit", Church as a defined administrative body with the power to exclude? Did it begin "you can call yourself Christian if you like but if you aren't in the Church then ...". Before it, I think, being "Christian" and being "in the Church" were synonymous and equally vague.

Erm, the last idea is a modern one, and highly misleading. The idea of a single universal church -- as against the confused and ever-changing teachings of heretics -- is found in Tertullian, and Cyprian goes to town on it. Indeed do we find in the NT or the second century fathers any trace of a period where what you believed didn't matter? Think of all the anti-heretical works of the second century, of the testimony of Irenaeus? Christianity united around what you believed, rather than around class or race; that was its defining characteristic.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Huon · 01-07-2009, 05:51 AM

What is the difference between excommunication and anathema ?
Here is the answer of the specialists (catholic encyclopedia) :
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

Quote:

Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two. A Council of Tours desires that after three warnings there be recited in chorus Psalm cviii against the usurper of the goods of the Church, that he may fall into the curse of Judas, and "that he may be not only excommunicated, but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven". This distinction was introduced into the canons of the Church, as is proved by the letter of John VIII (872-82) found in the Decree of Gratian (c. III, q. V, c. XII): "Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church." This distinction is found in the earliest Decretals, in the chapter Cum non ab homine.

Excommunication separates somebody from the society of the brethren.
Anathema separates somebody from the body of Christ, which is the Church.
Somebody who is anathematized may be stricken by the sword of Heaven.
(Heaven can be a nickname for King, or Emperor, probably...)
Usurping the goods of the Church deserves anathema...

gentleexit · 01-07-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

Did Nicea inaugurate the notion of a singular, universal Church, Church as more than the traditional "community of spirit", Church as a defined administrative body with the power to exclude? Did it begin "you can call yourself Christian if you like but if you aren't in the Church then ...". Before it, I think, being "Christian" and being "in the Church" were synonymous and equally vague.

Erm, the last idea is a modern one, and highly misleading. The idea of a single universal church -- as against the confused and ever-changing teachings of heretics -- is found in Tertullian, and Cyprian goes to town on it. Indeed do we find in the NT or the second century fathers any trace of a period where what you believed didn't matter? Think of all the anti-heretical works of the second century, of the testimony of Irenaeus? Christianity united around what you believed, rather than around class or race; that was its defining characteristic.

I realize the notion of universal Church is early (look at "the Shepherd") as in "body of Christ". And that every movement has boundaries and that Christianity's narrowed with time - exclude Marcion (the "old testament" does matter), accept Jesus is God (in some way) ... But before Nicea, you were Christian if you celebrated Easter on Nisan 14, you were Christian if you held Jesus inferior to his father, you were Christian if you excluded those who lapsed in the persecution and if you accepted them back. All were in one Church.

Not that groups didn't argue or name call. Presumably all groups claimed the word "Orthodox". Only they were on the straight and narrow. And presumably all claimed others were not. Were deviant in some way. There was no "Arian bishop of" or "Donatist bishop of". Each claimed to be THE orthodox. I assume.

The Nicean creed embodies this. "The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ..." One group claims to be THE Orthodox. Later histories - nearly all Nicean - have the Orthodox (not "Athanasians") against "Arians" and "Donatists" etc, labeling that elevates one group and marginalizes others. They characterize Nicea as a conference of the Orthodox, judging the errant, rather than a Church conference, dominated by one of her groups.

Without the state, would "Church" have remained a broad concept (yes limits but large flexibility) and "Orthodox", a term up for grabs by anyone with a coherent doctrine? Would we write of "Athanasians" as much as we now write of "Arians"? (presuming the movement survived at all!)

andrewcriddle · 01-07-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It is generally held that the original plans for a synod at Ancyra were later modified to hold the synod at Nicea (IE the council of Nicea was originally going to be the council of Ancyra). If so, then Eusebius of Caesarea et al were intended from the beginning to be at Ancyra/Nicea to defend themselves against the charges of heresy. Constantine's involvement probably meant that Eusebius of Caesarea was treated more leniently at Nicea than might otherwise have happened.

Thanks for that, Andrew.

spin

This Letter of Constantine refers to changing the location of the council from Ancyra to Nicea

Quote:

Letter of Emperor Constantine summoning the bishops from Ancyra to Nicaea

I believe it is obvious to everyone that there is nothing more honorable in my sight than the fear of God. Though it was formerly agreed that the synod of bishops should meet at Ancyra in Galatia, it seemed to us for many reasons that it would be well for the synod to assemble at Nicaea, a city of Bithynia, both because the Bishops from Italy and the rest of the countries of Europe are coming, and because of the excellent temperature of the air, and in order that I may be present as a spectator and participator in those things which will be done. Therefore I announce to you, my beloved brothers, that all of you promptly assemble at the said city, that is at Nicaea. Let every one of you therefore, as I said before, keep the greater good in mind and be diligent, without delay in anything, to come speedily, that each may be physically present as a spectator of those things which will be done.

God keep you my beloved brothers.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.