From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Councils and canons (was Innerancy (sic))
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:00:50 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <Sep.27.21.32.11.1992.919@athos.rutgers.edu>, Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) writes:

> On <22 Sep 1992 21:13> Jeff Carroll said to All :

>  JC>Unless my memory fails me, the epistles were declared 
>  JC>Scriptural at the Council
>  JC>of Nicaea some centuries later; and since Nicaea was produced 
>  JC>under the auspices
>  JC>of the Roman Catholic Church, Protestantism tossed out a 
>  JC>healthy chunk of the
>  JC>Nicene canon at the time of the Reformation (by whose fiat? 
>  JC>Someone please help me out here...) 

> I think your memory may have failed you <grin>. I'm sure others will be able 
> to give details on the formation of the caon of holy scripture. I believe it 
> was the British and Foreign Bible Society that decided (in the nineteenth 
> century) to print Bibles with some of the books left out. 

> The Council of Nicaea was not held under the auspices of the Roman Catholic
> Church, but under the auspices of the emperor Constantine.  

Ecumenical councils are always held under the auspices of the universal church.
They are not secular affairs.

> His motoives were probably mainly political - he saw a major fight developing
> among the Christians and thought this would be source of social disruption
> that he would rather avoid, so he sponsored a meeting in a similar way to the
> United Nations, or groups of countries, sponsor meetings between warring
> factions and countries today. In my own country (South Africa) nowadays it is
> the other way round. Church leaders are trying to get political leaders to
> hold "talks".

You are incorrect.  Ecumenical councils are called to solve doctrinal disputes.
The issue at hand at the Council of Nicaea was the whether Christ was created
or uncreated.  The result of the Council of Nicaea was the Nicene Creed, still
said by Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans today (maybe a few others).  The
issues were doctrinal, not political.

> The Roman Catholic Church did not exist in A.D. 325.  The Church of Rome
> certainly existed, and was the most influential church in the West. But the
> churches of Alexandria (whose bishop was the first to use the title "pope",
> and still does today) and Antioch were at least as influential.

I don't think you have a clear understanding of the structure of the church at
the time.  If there was a Church of Rome, it was most certainly the Roman
Catholic Church, for even in 110 A.D., we see that the Christian Church called
itself "Catholic."  The church in Antioch would be called the Antiochean
Catholic Church.  Today the Catholic church in Ukraine is called the Ukrainian
Catholic Church, yet it is still a Catholic Church.  Hence the church in Rome
-- and all churches under its jurisdiction, and using its rite -- was called
the Roman Catholic Church.  The Catholic church then, as now, was not composed
solely of Roman Catholics -- there were Catholics of many different Rites and
patriarchates.  This is somewhat lost on us today, because the Roman Catholic
Church is so massive that people think that the Roman Catholic Church is
equivalent to the Catholic Church.  Not so, never has been, never will.

Churches are named according to the rites they use and the patriarches they are
subject to.  There is the Melkite Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Catholic
Church, the Marionite Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and many
others that are all Catholic and all in communion with one another.  Since
there was a Roman rite at the time of Nicaea, and since the church had long
since adopted the title "Catholic", meaning Universal, there was in fact a
Roman Catholic church in existence.

> The Council of Nicaea also recognized the Churches of Jerusalem and
> Constantinople as influential - Jerusalem because it was where the Church
> started and was the scene of Christ's death and resurrection, and
> Constantinople because it was the new capital of the empire. I don't remember
> offhand, but I don't think there were any bishops from the Church of Rome at
> the Council of Nicaea, though the Roman Church accepted its decisions.

Considering that the council was an ecumenical one, representatives from the
Roman Catholic Church most certainly would have been present, otherwise it
would not have been an ecumenical council.

> the unworthy servant of God

> Steve
> --  
--
/===========================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer   For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment, Maynard MA     pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com        they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==========================- 2 Th 2:15 -====================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.

[According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,
representation of the West was a bit thin, but not entirely absent.
Of the estimated 220 to 250 attendees, the only from the West were
Hosius of Cordova, who presided once Constantine had finished the
opening, two priests representing the Pope of Rome, and the bishops of
Carthage, Milan, Dijon, and two others.  Apparently there was some
discussion as to whether Rome would accept the results, because of the
way some E/W issues were dealt with, but it was accepted by Rome.
--clh]