Nicaea 1 split both Church history and theology into two
Did the first Council of Nicaea split history and theology in two, thereby enhancing unity? It has been asked time and time again whether Nicaea I simply confirmed a state of affairs that had long been factually present in the Church, as with the four leading Churches it mentions: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, with Jerusalem having the consolation prize of being given a certain place of honor in canon 7, or was it a fresh start over again in a completely new fashion? This paper claims that Nicaea I did both – that it split history and theology into two parts, but the end effect was to set an agenda for the Church at large. Is this Constantinian agenda over, or are we still living in a Constantinian age – maybe in a post-Constantinian age, but still conditioned by him? This would show that that his age is not completely over, though the problems raised by Constantine continue to grow and change. In a paradigm shift in theology, Nicaea I is known for its Trinitarian doctrine. But after it, looking backwards, one can start noticing differences which become particularly tangible after the death of Emperor Theodosius I in 395, when the Roman Empire definitely split in two. Differences become noticeable in Trinitarian doctrine, with Augustine for example. In our own time, Karl Rahner (d. 1984) claimed that he was only reverting to the pre-Nicene theology when he wrote: “Only the Son of God can become man.” This he said against the tendency of contemporary Jesuits and theologians at the Pontifical Gregorian University who claimed that: any one of the three Persons of the Trinity can become God. By now, Rahner’s position is the prevalent one in Catholic theology, and one close to what Orthodox call deification when it comes to the relation of the three persons of the Trinitarian God to man. Now for a paradigm shift in history. In the time before the council and at the beginning, Yves Congar (d. 1995) expressed the view that we must rub off the Constantinian dust from the throne of Peter. Certainly, the situation before and after the Council in what regards the relation of Church and State has greatly changed in, for example, predominantly Catholic states, but not everywhere. An Orthodox problem: Since Byzantine Orthodox speak of “symphony” and treat of autocephaly in such terms, are we sure that the problem is no problem but a solution, or is it a problem that has to be faced? For example, even after the fall of communism, those among the Orthodox who tried to restore the Church-State relation, as it was before, realized that this is hardly possible any longer – not to mention the millions-strong diaspora. What are we to do? Did Nicaea I enhance unity or initiate a period of – ecumenical – perturbance, known as ecumenical councils?