- Feb 5, 2002
- 180,510
- 65,053
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Arianism was condemned at Nicaea, but its modern form persists in sentimentalized, watered-down Christianity.
One of the most famous stories about the Council of Nicaea is the legend that St. Nicholas slapped the heretic Arius in the face for his impudence and heretical teaching. Whether this event actually happened or not is a matter of debate. Some Catholics love it, while others do not.
Either way, the Council of Nicaea — whose 1,700th anniversary we celebrate this year — remains deeply relevant to the Christian Church today, as its ancient controversies still echo in the divisions we see now. At its core, the divide is between the Church of Nicaea and the Church of “Nice.”
To understand what I mean by this contrast, we have to check the history. In the fourth century, the heresy of Arianism was rampant. It was part of the great, long-running debate over the divinity of Christ and therefore the definition of the Holy Trinity. At the core of Arianism was a denial of orthodox Christology. Put simply, the Arians believed that Jesus was not the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who took human flesh of his blessed mother. He was, instead, a created being — a demigod — and therefore subordinate to God the Father.
Arianism was not just a theological problem — it developed into a major schism. The Arians had their own churches, appointed their own bishops, and even had the support of temporal powers like Emperor Theodoric. St. Athanasius, who famously battled against Arianism, noted that the Arians were subtle theologians. They used ambiguous language and spoke in vague terms. They were more interested in pastoral care than dogma. They were also, for the most part, better educated and largely drawn from the ruling classes.
Continued below.
www.ncregister.com
One of the most famous stories about the Council of Nicaea is the legend that St. Nicholas slapped the heretic Arius in the face for his impudence and heretical teaching. Whether this event actually happened or not is a matter of debate. Some Catholics love it, while others do not.
Either way, the Council of Nicaea — whose 1,700th anniversary we celebrate this year — remains deeply relevant to the Christian Church today, as its ancient controversies still echo in the divisions we see now. At its core, the divide is between the Church of Nicaea and the Church of “Nice.”
To understand what I mean by this contrast, we have to check the history. In the fourth century, the heresy of Arianism was rampant. It was part of the great, long-running debate over the divinity of Christ and therefore the definition of the Holy Trinity. At the core of Arianism was a denial of orthodox Christology. Put simply, the Arians believed that Jesus was not the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who took human flesh of his blessed mother. He was, instead, a created being — a demigod — and therefore subordinate to God the Father.
Arianism was not just a theological problem — it developed into a major schism. The Arians had their own churches, appointed their own bishops, and even had the support of temporal powers like Emperor Theodoric. St. Athanasius, who famously battled against Arianism, noted that the Arians were subtle theologians. They used ambiguous language and spoke in vague terms. They were more interested in pastoral care than dogma. They were also, for the most part, better educated and largely drawn from the ruling classes.
Continued below.
Church of Nicaea or Church of Nice: Which One Are You In?
Arianism was condemned at Nicaea, but its modern form persists in sentimentalized, watered-down Christianity.
