Buckle up, people: it’s theology time! At the end, I’ll share the two reasons for this essay.
In the year 325, the Emperor Constantine (who had legalized the Christian religion some ten years earlier) convened a Council. He was distressed to see that debates on the nature of Jesus (God or creature?) were breaking out into serious civic disruptions. This Council met in a town named Nicaea. The principal proponent of Jesus’ full divinity was St Athanasius, then a deacon in the Patriarchal See of Alexandria. His principal opponent was the priest Arius, whose claim was that the Son of God was “first-born of all creation,” but still a creature. Both sides could claim Scriptural support for their views (see, for example, John 1:1 and Colossians 1:15, or Philippians 2:11 and Acts 2:22).
What was at stake? Making Jesus fully divine lapsed into polytheism, it was claimed; this side (that of Arius) thought their theology better protected the absolute one-ness of God. They were also influenced by a current philosophical view that held “God and matter do not mix.” The other side (that of St Athanasius) was convinced that unless Jesus is fully divine the Atonement was not complete. The Council finally affirmed Jesus’ full divinity. In formulating a Creed it referred to Jesus as “’homo-ousion to Patri,” or “of the same substance as the Father.” After more disagreements, the Council called in Constantinople in the year 381 expanded that Creed and gave us the form we recite at Mass on Sundays—almost… But now, let’s fast-forward about 400 years.
Let’s ignore the political in-fighting and name-called that became a calling card for the rival claims to precedence between Rome and Constantinople (the only two of the “Big 5” of the ancient Patriarchal sees remaining, after Muslim conquests of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch). Instead, we turn to the times of the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne. I will also ignore the events in Constantinople that led to the granting of this title to him by Pope Leo III. What is important is that the Arian heresy was still alive and well, and especially in parts of Charlemagne’s territories. He wanted to be fully orthodox and so he allowed the addition of a phrase to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, describing the Holy Spirit as proceeding “from the Father” (the original wording) “and the Son” (Filioque, in Latin). This was intended to emphasize the divinity of the Son (who would share in the “sending” of the Holy Spirit), though it was added at Rome only in the 12th century. But it violated the principal that nothing can be added to this Creed. It became a mark of anger in the Eastern Churches as a sign of Western (Roman) arrogance, and it became a theological “burning issue” especially after the disaster of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. It remains a point of division to this day.
Now—why do I mention all this? First of all, this is the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, and second of all, this is the ending of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. How nice it would be of the Church of Rome, which unilaterally authorized this addition, might unilaterally delete it and bring this issue to an end in the name of unity. After all, it is not a question of the orthodoxy of the addition but only its appropriateness. I have been hoping and praying for this for years—let’s take another step toward making the “Sister-Churches” one in our profession of the Faith. Let’s let the whole Church “breathe with both lungs” again, as Pope St John Paul II so beautifully expressed it.