The Council of Nicaea 325 AD WAS a Catholic Council
Sometimes the absurd claim is made that the church of Nicaea in 325 was not the Catholic Church. These are the typical arguments, and the appropriate Catholic refutation.
Objection 1.) The council was not called by the Pope. Pope Sylvester sent two presbyters to the Council and there is no proof they had authority to confirm anything. The only proof is that they signed first as approving the canons.
Furthermore, the fact that a council was needed to solve the disputes proves there was no papacy with universal jurisdiction. If there had been a papacy, why not appeal to Rome to solve the dispute?
Response 1. There exists positive documentary evidence that two representatives of the Pope signed themselves as such in the records of the Council of Nicaea, and Bishop Ossius (Hosius) of Cordoba, who signed ahead of them, was in all probability designated by the Pope to preside over this council. See the excellent biography of Ossius, “Ossius of Cordoba” (Washington, 1954) by Victor De Clercq.
At Nicea, Pope Sylvester did indeed send two priests as his legates, who helped preside over the sessions and ho did sign the canons on behalf of the Pope.. Needless to say, there is no way two priests would have been permitted to preside over a synod of bishops and been allowed to sign the cannons first if they had not been representing the recognized leader of the Catholic Church.
Regarding Pope Sylvester’s (314-335) not leaving Rome ot attend the Council of Nicaea , it should eb brne in mind that the Pope likewise did not attend the Council of Arles (314), thinking it improper for him to leave Rome. He repeated this example at Nicea (325), which his successors followed in the councils of Sardica (343/344), Rimini (359), and the Eastern ecunmenical councils. After the Council of Arles, the bishops present commended the Pope for not leaving the place "where the Apostles daily sit in judgement."
Objection 2.) Barrow's 1836 work “Discourse on the Unity of the Church” against the papacy claims that the historical evidence points against a universal primacy in the early Church. One example the author cites is that if the Pagans had known of a papacy they would have opposed it but there is no record of oppositions.
Response 2. The pagans were indeed aware of the Papacy, at least by the third century; the Emperor Decius began his persecution of the Christians in 250 by martyring Pope Fabian and said he would rather hear of a rival claimant to his throne than of the election of a new Bishop of Rome (see W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, [Oxford: Blackwell, 1965], pp. 300-302, also John A. P. Gregg, The Decian Persecution [Edinburgh, 1897], pp. 70-81, 94-96)
Objection 3.) On the issue of Arianism the position of Rome was known. Why didn't that end the controversy? Because no one believed the Bishop of Rome was the Universal Head of theChurch.
Response 3. We have evidence from as early as the ened of the first century to show this is not correct. Around 96 A.D., Pope St. Clement I wrote a letter to the church in Corinth, whose text still exists , cautioning them among other things that to disregard his words would be a serious sin, indicating he must have an overarching authority (see the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, 59,1, translated in Michael M. Winter, St. Peter and the Popes [1960] London: 1960 / Westport, CN: 1979, pp. 119-121)
There are plenty of other examples of the pre-Nicene popes exercising universal jurisdiction over the Catholic Church, among them Clement (88-97), Sixtus (115-125), Anicetus (155-166), Calixtus (217-22), Cornelius (251-253), Stephen (254-257), and Dionysius (260-268).
Further, there are lots of proud liberal Catholics who know the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Universal Church but they do not let that fact swing their wayward decisions.
Objection 4.) The 6th canon of Nicaea makes it plain that Rome had no jurisdiction beyond its own territory. The same Cyprian said at the Council of Carthage 80 years earlier: "For neither does any of us set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compell his collegues to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop...has his own proper right of judgement, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another".
Response 4: About 180 St. Irenaeus of Lyons in Gaul wrote:
"By pointing out the apostolic tradition and creed which has been brought down to us by a succession of bishops in the greatest, most ancient and well-known church, founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul at Rome, we can confute all those who in any other way, either for self-pleasing or for vainglory or blindness or badness, hold unauthorized meetings. For with this church, because of its stronger origin, all churches must agree, that is to say, the faithful of all places, because in it the apostolic tradition has always been preserved." (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," III, 3.2, translated in Michael M. Winter's St. Peter and the Popes (1960), p. 126).
After Nicea, Pope Julius I (337-352) decided that Athanasius, rather than Pistus, should be the bishop of Alexandria. So the 6th Canon of Nicaea did no t speak against papal authority.
Objection 5.) In the decades after Nicea Rome did not lead the way against Arianism. Liberius caved and signed theArianized Sirmium Creed and was Athanasius in Alexandria the one tolead the way.
Response 5: Pope Liberius (352-366), imprisoned by Emperor Constantius and threatened with torture, condemned the great defender of orthodoxy against Arianism, St. Athanasius (the issue of papal infallibility was not involvd as this charism does not extend to judgments on individuals) but refused to sign the clearly Arian Second Formulary of Sirmium. He did sign the equivocal Third Formularly of Sirmium but attached a postscript to it saying that he still anathematized "all those who did not believe that the Son is like the Father in substance and in all things." Thus papal infallibility was preserved.
CONCLUSION
Nicaea (325) was certainly a Catholic Council and has been cited as the first council since the apostles by every Church historian, even the schismatics and the heretics. In contrast, there were no fundamentlists at Nicaea (or anywhere else before or after Nicaea until the Baptists were founded in 1609).
With acknowledgements to Drs. Carroll and Sippo.
Return to Sean’s Faith Website
For further info on this topic, please see Pope Silvester and the Council of Nicaea (Dave Armstrong)