"Ukrainian Orthodoxy": "Aryan, presbyter of Constantinople." Patriarch Kirill confused the identity of Aryan with the fierce controversy surrounding his teachings
Arius (256 - 336 AD) - an outstanding theologian of Greco-Egyptian or Berber origin. We know almost nothing about his genealogy, but it is known, for example, that his father’s name was Ammonius. He studied at the theological school (presbyterium) in Antioch (now it is Turkish Antakya) under the guidance of the famous Greek anti-trinitarian theologian, presbyter and martyr Lucian of Antioch. Arius is often considered the founder of “Arianism” as a kind of “heretical” teaching, new to the Christian world and subsequently refuted by the First Ecumenical Council of Nika in 325. However, the teachings of Arius were in no way new to Christianity; Moreover, Arius’ system largely summed up many trends in theological thought of the 1st – 3rd centuries, dating back in one way or another to apostolic times. Arius and his like-minded people tried to prevent heretical tendencies that were alien to the Christian apostolic faith, but the efforts of Emperor Constantine the Great, who until the end of his life remained the “great pontiff” (i.e., in fact, a pagan high priest) and, ironically, was baptized on his deathbed Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia actually took away the true apostolic faith underground, replacing it with a kind of chimera of “imperial Christianity,” which was in fact a Christo-pagan sect.
Already by the beginning of the 4th century. Arius became well known for his strong and uncompromising theological views. His name was closely associated with Lucian of Antioch and with Meletius, the Egyptian bishop who led the church dissident movement against the Alexandrian Archbishop Peter I and, although subsequently accepting the Nicene Creed, remained unrecognized by Alexandria and Rome. In the course of further theological disputes, Arius was deprived of church communion by Archbishop Peter I, but subsequently became close to Peter’s successor Achilles. Later, Arius was restored to church communion and ordained a presbyter by Achilles, who occupied the archbishop's see for one year (312-313). While in the rank of presbyter, Arius was made dean for the district of Baucalis in the diocese of Alexandria, but soon Achilles died, and Arius again became the object of fierce attacks - this time from the newly elected Archbishop of Alexandria Alexander I, in whom Arius' supporters rightly saw a hidden follower of the Sabellian heresy.
Arius's most important work was the Thalia (which can be translated as "The Banquet"), a cross between a theological treatise, a fictional narrative, and a poem. “Thalia” alternated both prose and poetry, but it is almost impossible to draw any clear conclusions regarding the composition, structure and poetics of “Thalia”, since only completely unrepresentative fragments have reached us in the retelling of Arius’s opponents, and all copies of “Thalia” "were burned at the Council of Nicaea
Despite the condemnation of the First Ecumenical Council (which in its content was not Ecumenical - according to the most optimistic estimates, no more than 318-322 bishops gathered there, and these were bishops only from the Eastern half of the Roman Empire, and even then not all), Arius continued his struggle against the heretical innovations that the Trinitarian doctrine carried. His defrocking in Egypt in 321 was not recognized by the overwhelming majority of eastern bishops, and in particular, his views were recognized as Orthodox in Asia Minor, where Arius visited in 323, and this recognition was not hindered by either the anathema of the Ecumenical Council or condemnation by Emperor Constantine I in the same year 325. Moreover, the post-Nicene recognition of Arius and the subsequent revenge of Arianism both in the East and in the West of the Empire (recall that only a few of the Western bishops were present at the Council of Nicaea) led to the fact that the number of followers of Arius among clergy and laity throughout the empire even exceeded number of champions of the newly proclaimed Nicene “orthodoxy.” All this was the reason that even members of the imperial family, and subsequently the emperor himself, began to show interest in Arius and Arianism. Soon, Constantine ordered Athanasius of Alexandria, Arius’s main opponent in the East, to urgently reconcile with Arius and restore communication with him. However, almost immediately after the audience that Arius was granted with Constantine in the imperial palace, the disgraced Alexandrian presbyter died suddenly on his way home. The followers of Arius, not without reason, believed that their spiritual teacher was actually poisoned.
Despite the secondary condemnation of Arianism, as well as its secondary version - Macedonianism - at the Council of Constantinople in 381 (which later became the Second Ecumenical), the legacy of Arius continued to live and enjoy popularity - both among the laity and the lower clergy, and among the highest episcopate and the emperors themselves. In a sense, Arianism was rehabilitated by one of its actual persecutors - Emperor Constantine I the Great, who, already on his deathbed, was baptized by an Arian bishop. Arianism was subsequently supported by his son and successor, Emperor Constantius II, who even approved the installation of Pope Felix II as the Arian bishop of Rome. In general, the Arian disputes lasted for 250 years - until Arianism, having been officially destroyed and outlived, went underground. During the “dark ages” of the Middle Ages, more and more new heirs of the Arian faith and actual spiritual successors of Arius appeared on the historical arena in the struggle to return the Church to its original, apostolic appearance. The Trinitarians repeatedly attempted to put an end to any remnants of Arianism, but even the Spanish Inquisition failed to destroy those who, under difficult conditions, were destined to become the spiritual heirs of Arius. When the Roman Catholic Church began to experience a severe organizational crisis and began to lose its position in Central and Northern Europe, Arianism was reborn like the mythical Phoenix; this time in the English Church. Currently, the protagonist of the modern Arian movement in Christianity is the Arian Catholic Church, which is led by Archbishop Primus Inter Pares (First Among Equals) Reverend Brian Michael-John Mackenzie-Hanson.
Arius is revered by Arian Catholic Church like a saint and martyr. The glorification of Arius took place on June 16, 2006, and now this day is considered the day of his memory.
Arius was never an official heretic! This interesting detail is often not taken into account by anyone, but, nevertheless, Arius was officially restored to church communion shortly before his death in 336 as a result of the corresponding sanction of Emperor Constantine I.
Despite fierce pressure from the Roman Catholic Church, Arianism did not lose its position for almost 250 years and continued to exist in full or partial underground, away from the church “mainstream”, among the so-called “church fringes” - until it was again not strengthened by an honest and impartial search for Truth among caring Christians, for whom the most important thing in spiritual life was not submission to an official hierarchy, but the search for the living Word.
St. Arius of Alexandria (256-336 AD)
Born: 256, Libya..
died: 336, Constantinople.
canonized: 2006, England.
The beatification of St. Arius by the Arian Catholic Church occurred on July 1, 2005. Arius was canonized less than a year later, on June 16, 2006. From that day on, his official name was Saint Arius of Alexandria, presbyter and martyr.
Reviews
Edgar, thank you for your feedback. For those who study the topic, these facts are indeed not news. For me they are associated with interesting story. I painted an intuitive portrait with charcoal in a group. Everyone had Pushkins, self-portraits, beauties or machos... I had a face on the sheet that had nothing in common with our modernity. Either a Jew, or an Armenian, or a Babylonian. And, a couple of months later, I was looking for something on the internet, maybe on an Aryan theme, and found a page with a portrait and biography of Aryan. You won’t believe it, but it is his face that is depicted in my portrait.
Best regards.
Natasha Ko.
Arius was an important Alexandrian presbyter. Contemporaries describe him as a learned dialectician and an eloquent preacher. In his personal life he adhered to strict asceticism. Arius' theological views reflected the influence of Philonism, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Origen's subordinationism. Arius taught about the creatureliness of the Son of God, that the Son of God was created by God the Father before all ages, that is, he completely subverted the teaching of the Church about the Holy Trinity.
The doctrine of Arius can be reduced to the following basic principles:
a) The Son was created by the Father from nothing and, therefore,
b) The Son is a creature and has the beginning of His existence. Thus,
c) the natures of the Father and the Son are fundamentally different, and
d) The Son occupies a position subordinate to the Father, being the Father’s instrument for the creation of the world, and
Bishop Alexander of Alexandria ordered Arius to stop spreading his false teachings. The false teacher, having found like-minded people among some bishops, presbyters and deacons, began to gather gatherings, expounding on them his heretical teaching. Then ep. Alexander, with the consent of his fellow servants, about a hundred people, excommunicated Arius in 323. The latter was generally embittered against Vladyka Alexander, since he was elected bishop in his place.
Arius, considering himself unjustly condemned, turned with complaints against his bishop to some bishops previously known to him, asking for intercession. He especially hoped to find protection from the bishop. Eusebius of Nicomedia, a fellow member of the Lucian school, close to the emperor’s court. He really supported him, as did some other bishops.
Emperor Constantine the Great then drew attention to the unrest in the Church. He tried to reconcile Bishop Alexander with Arius by sending them a message from the bishop. Hosea Kordubsky. Hosea's journey turned out to be unsuccessful and it is believed that it was Bishop. Hosius was the first to give Constantine the idea of convening an Ecumenical Council in 325 to organize church affairs.
The Emperor himself appears at the Council, which met in 325 in the Asia Minor city of Nicaea and presides over it, although at that moment he not only had not yet been baptized, but was not even among the catechumens. At the cathedral, zealots of Orthodoxy distinguished themselves: the deacon of the Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius, St. Spyridon of Trimifuntsky, St. Nicholas of Myra (not on the lists).
When the main controversial issue about the teachings of Arius is discussed, and a long debate leads nowhere, in the end, the bishop is invited to speak. Eusebius of Caesarea. He is charged with reciting the baptismal creed of his Church. When Bishop Eusebius read the symbol of his Church, many people liked it, but not because it brought clarity to a controversial issue, but precisely because it did not contain a clear resolution of the controversial issue and, thus, could be the basis for a compromise , i.e. could satisfy both sides. Then St. took the floor. Konstantin. He said that it was very good to accept this symbol, but one addition must be made: it must be noted that the Son consubstantial To my father. Obviously, this word was advised to him by Hosius of Corduba, who had previously agreed with Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius. This is the word "consubstantial" and this is the answer that the Church gave to the false teaching of Arius, and at the same time - the most important result of the First Ecumenical Council. In addition to the doctrinal issue, the Council of Nicea led to uniformity in calculating the date of Easter. A calendar reform was carried out and it was decided that the Annunciation should always be celebrated on the vernal equinox - March 25
The word “consubstantial” was at one time discredited in the East by the fact that it was used Sabellians, i.e. those who merged the faces of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, the eastern bishops not only could not have proposed this term, but even when it was proposed by St. Konstantin, treated him very reservedly. However, submitting to the pressure of St. Constantine, the bishops who gathered at the First Ecumenical Council accepted the creed in the wording proposed by the emperor. So St. Konstantin brought the Ecumenical Council to a successful conclusion, that is, before the condemnation of Arius and before the positive doctrine, and then, naturally, he tried to ensure that everyone accepted the acts of this Council, although this was not at all easy - Arius turned out to have a lot of friends and supporters.
The Fathers of the Council did not give a precise explanation of the term “consubstantial.” For this reason, shortly after the Council, an intense theological controversy broke out that shook the Church for more than 50 years. Essentially ultimate goal all trinitarian disputes of the 4th century and there was an Orthodox explanation of the meaning of the term “consubstantial”. This task was brilliantly solved by the great Cappadocians
Consubstantial means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three independent Divine Persons, but these are not three special separate beings, not three Gods, but One God. They have one and indivisible Divine nature, inseparably possess all Divine perfections, have one will, strength, power and glory, each of the Persons of the Trinity possesses the Divine nature perfectly and completely.
We confess that the three Persons of God are of one essence, i.e. each Divine Person has in its entirety the same essence and each Person conveys His essence to the other two, thereby expressing the fullness of His love. Essence (usiya) is what constitutes the content of personality.
This topic is NOT for the faint of heart.
If you are not spiritually strong enough, do not read this.
Because it can damage your psyche.
I caught myself being uneducated... on the issue of early Byzantine heresies.
For some reason, I believed that Arius ended his life in exile and lived far from Alexandria, somewhere in Gaul - where his teaching spread, as a result of this.
It turned out that everything was wrong, and I turned out to be too naive and gullible... And I had too good an opinion about early Byzantine Christianity.
In reality, it was Byzantine Christianity that turned out to be the PROMOTE of the Catholic Inquisition.
As soon as Christianity became state religion Byzantium - the first persecutions occurred against heretics, who turned out to be the Arians at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Constantine. And then their opponents were subjected to retaliatory persecution...
This is how Socrates Scholastic described the death of Arius - http://theologian.msk.ru/history/235-smert-eretika-ariya.html
But it is not Full description, there's more detailed description The joy of Emperor Constantine at such a remarkable death of Arius was also indicated. And how great God strengthened the throne of Constantine by eliminating church schism...
What was the guilt of Arius (presbyter of the Alexandrian Church) and what was charged to him?
In addition to the Arian heresy, namely, NOT RECOGNIZING the Ever-Essential Holy Trinity, the Arians were also charged with disrespect for the basileus (emperor), and blasphemous texts were attributed to Arius (which were not preserved because they were destroyed). In particular, such a work as the Feast, half-poetic, half-prosaic.
Let's first figure out who Arius was and what danger he could pose for Emperor Constantine...
(since soon after the painful death of Arius, the persecution of the Arian heresy ended - for a couple of generations of subsequent emperors). And it was precisely the persecutors of the Arians who were expelled....
So Arius himself was from the Berbers (Libyans). This means that his ancestors professed Judaism and lived in the territory of Carthage.
And therefore, he could have a completely negative attitude towards Rome (and Byzantium). And even more so, to slavery. Because the word Berber itself meant “free man”.
In addition, in early Christianity there were two branches - from Peter (Jewish) and from Paul (Hellenistic).
And these branches were periodically in confrontation. To the point that even Paul himself was not very well respected at first in the chief apostolic church and was considered the 13th apostle - the apostle of the Gentiles. This is even despite the fact that God himself commanded Peter to preach to the pagans (by sending a vision of a cup of uncleanness, which he cleansed, God himself)... But what Paul preached often plunged the minds of the Apostles into confusion. Even though they were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. And Paul was also called to ministry by Christ himself, but in a different way - through blindness and subsequent miraculous healing..
So, at first the Jerusalem Church took a tougher position than the Hellenistic churches.
Including on the issue of Monotheism. After all, according to the Old Testament, there is ONE GOD. And Yahweh (God the Father) and Elahim (the Holy Spirit) are different names his. But at the same time there is ONE (single) essence. And this did not need to be explained to the Jew - it was already clear to him.
It was enough for him (the Jew) to accept Christ as the Mission and the son of God, and this was quite enough to consider himself a Christian. Whether the Son is equal to the Father or not was not even discussed by those coming out of the Old Testament. Because discussing God, as well as remembering him in vanity, was prohibited in principle. Therefore, in the very Old Testament- there is no word Trinity, no mention of the trinity of the Divinity. Because God is One. And although the words Gods appear somewhere in the text, this is perhaps not a completely canonical interpretation. And even the famous phrase of Christ on the cross “Either, Or! lama sabachthani? (Eloi, Eloi! lama sabachthani?)” is not quite accurately translated according to the canon. This replacement of Ili with Eloi translates the language as if into Aramaic - close to the Galileans... But those who heard did not fully understand Jesus - asking if he was calling Elijah. In Sumerian, Ili means Gods (plural), and Il means God in the singular. This also relates to the question of where Jesus was from the ages of 12 to 30. No, not in India), but presumably in the region of Sumer, namely Ur of the Chaldeans, where Abraham was from. And from where the Magi supposedly came (from the East), who visited the baby Christ. And it was there that the center of the origin of our civilization was located (antediluvian paradise), where the faith in the One God was initially formed... Where the descendants of Noah lived before God divided the nations. At the same time, languages and beliefs were divided, and before that, according to the Biblical Canon, people on earth not only believed in the One God, but even personally communicated with him in a number of cases... This was the case according to Sumerian mythology, from which the Old Testament was largely borrowed.
So for the Hellenists, the question of Monotheism was not so important. They are used to many gods. And the term son of God itself did not bother them in any way, so what - Hercules is the son of Zeus, and Perseus). This is the norm for Greek mythology- demigods-heroes who, performing feats, reached Olympus.
Therefore, the Greeks could easily accept Christ as one of the sons of Zeus. But for the triumph of Orthodoxy over paganism, something more was needed. Therefore, it was the Greeks, with their polytheism, who confessed Christ as God. God the Savior. But the number of gods was reduced to 3 (the inextricably linked Trinity), although in reality, in the pantheon, there are much more saints and saints.
Was there heresy in Alexandria? philosophical school the time of Origen? Of course there was. Even by a large number modern (found) non-canonical Coptic gospels show this. And in that era it was much more... Since the Library of Alexandria burned down only during the Arab conquest.
So, Arius probably read all the Neoplatonics and heretical non-canonical gospels. But we don’t know how he felt about this, since his works and the most famous of them, “The Feast,” were destroyed.
But we can assume that there was quite sharp criticism of early Byzantine Christianity.
What contemporaries perceived as blasphemy against Christians (and therefore against God, since the church is the body of Christ), as well as disrespect for the basileus (emperor).
But what was early Byzantine Christianity really like...? It did not abolish slavery, but actually legalized it...
I don’t know where from - but in Rus' the first code of law - which legalized torture - named himself judge Tsar Constantine...
And many tortures, such as impalement, pouring boiling oil and lead into the mouth, came from the east and were used first in Assyria, and then in Byzantium.
So let's return to how Emperor Constantine returned Arius and exile, and then (seeing that this did not prevent a church schism) summoned him to his palace.
He decided to "test him". Words and try
and torture in the language of the ancients were practically synonymous.
Torture was considered only a test of faith, since it was believed that the Lord protects the saint and the righteous. So this is what happened to Arius. Invited to the court of Constantine, at the time of the test (or soon after it) without hesitation, he signed a waiver his
heresy, and then he also swore that he did it sincerely - and still, for some reason, the emperor did not believe him. Considering his behavior impertinent. After leaving the palace, accompanied by a bodyguard (or guards), Arius headed to the church, where he was to be received and continue his repentance. But for some reason I didn’t get there.To the great joy of Tsar Constantine Arius"
Arius had a stomach ache, the back of his body fell off and his insides spilled out... And all this was presented to the people as God’s punishment for a false oath. And the medically illiterate people of that era believed it...
In reality, something similar happens in two cases - when they are impaled, and even more likely - when molten lead is poured into the mouth... It is then that the back part of the body falls off - under the weight of molten lead...
But it is surprising that Arius himself reached the square... And did not die on the way...
Therefore, the most likely thing is that Arius was given only a laxative - having precisely calculated the dose and time of action (and there were good doctors in Byzantium), and already in the toilet near the market square - where everything was noisy and no screams could be heard - Arius was brought there under escort by guards They poured lead into his mouth so that he would not say any nonsense. Then"
the ass fell off"
, as bones break under the weight of lead. Naturally, the guards hid the lead (throwing it into the toilet), and the fallen organs were presented to the people as God’s punishment.
This, perhaps, was the first Inquisition in the history of Christianity, as well as the first practice of “wetting in the toilet” - purely Byzantine.
This plunged the supporters of Arius into despondency... However, Emperor Constantine, after stormy but short-lived joy over the miraculous death of Arius, then for some reason came to his senses and abruptly went over to the side of the Arians. And he sent Athanasius of Alexandria into exile.
Perhaps it was on Athanasius that Constantine placed all the blame for the death of Arius in the narrow circle of his associates. And also when he realized that Arius’s painful death did not stop his followers.
Only on his deathbed, after repenting to an Arian priest, Constantine accepted the Arian faith. And thereby established Arianism in Constantinople for a couple of generations of subsequent emperors.
As a result, Constantine the Great, who legalized both Christianity and slavery and torture, was CANONIZED.
And the heresiarch Arius, whose faith Constantine accepted, died a bad death and a heretic.
Arius's works disappeared without a trace. Being a student of many famous personalities, mastering dialectics, he quite possibly could not have been understood by his contemporaries because he was far ahead of his time.
What Arius preached is most likely closest to modern neo-Protestantism. Although, without having it at Dov, and having only references to them is his opponent e n t oh - it's hard to judge this...
My opinion about the heresiarch Arius.
In my opinion, his heresy is a neophyte heresy, despite his brilliant education.
Because he appealed, after all, to reason, and not to faith. This is exactly how one can understand the ridicule of Socrates Scholasticus, who clearly described the life of Arius in an ironic form, calling it “not without knowledge of dialectics” - while suggesting that the knowledge of dialectics was not the most brilliant...
The heresy of Arius was not something special - ordinary Neoplatonism (against which the Apostle Paul warned)
"
To the son in theology Aria the role of the Demiurge, the organizer of the world, was given. Being a creation of God, the Son Himself is the creator of all other beings, and His creative attitude towards them justifies the name God. God adopted Him as a son, but from this sonship there follows no real participation in the Godhead, no true likeness to Him. The Father creates through the mediation of the Son-Word, because the Divinity Itself cannot come into contact with the finite world. The Son is the Father's instrument in creation. And although the Word was the highest of His creations, He is still a “creature,” that is, something that happened. "
see prisnis.narod.ru/proroki/araii.html
In modern theology, Christ is supposed to play the role of NOT the Demiurge-creator.
Dennitsa was in this role - Satan who fell away from God. Betrayed the Creator.
Jesus, having atoned for the sin of Adam, takes away from Satan"
keys" - becoming the High Priest of the whole Earth according to the rank Melchizedek.
" Error "The aria is childish (neophyte) - to confuse God and Satan. And this means that he did not have the Holy Spirit. Which allows one to see the Truth.
But one cannot blame him for this - it is God’s will - who is given the Holy Spirit and who is not.
And Arius died - not as a Saint, but as a philosopher who knew the bitterness of the world. The Lord did not allow him to die a holy death.
And although there is no miracle in this I see (and I see just real lead that burned through the stomach), but it’s still clear that this was God’s will.
However, I am not a sorcerer, or a clairvoyant, or a perspicacious old man. This is all just my speculation based on the deductive method,
described by Arthur Conan Doylem ).
I conducted only a mental investigation into what could have happened to Arius.
Having learned about this teaching, Bishop of Alexandria Alexander forbade Arius to preach his teachings. But Arius showed disobedience and as a result part of the Alexandrian clergy joined him. Arius had a very attractive appearance - both a scientist and an ascetic.
Bishop Alexander convened the Council of the Egyptian District and in 323 g The council condemns Arius and excommunicates him from church communion. But this Council did not stop the unrest. After his conviction, Arius wandered throughout Syria and Asia Minor, seeking support among the influential clergy.
Arius belonged to the Lucian school of Antioch. Lucian before 311 in Antioch he left many disciples, the so-called Solukianists. Then he accepted repentance, became a presbyter and died a martyr’s death.
Arius began to write letters to the Solukianists of Antioch, in particular to two bishops: Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea to gain influence at the court of Emperor Constantine. And soon Arius achieves his goal. After his conviction, Arius and his followers were expelled from Alexandria. But Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea insisted on his return to Alexandria, convening their Council, where they demand that Alexander of Alexandria recognize the teachings of Arius. Alexander sent other bishops to help him.
It all came down to Emperor Constantine, who experienced church unrest very painfully. Emperor Constantine writes letters to Alexander and Arius asking them not to quarrel over trifles, over sophisms. Emperor Constantine sends Hosea of Kardubsky, his confidant, to Alexandria. Hosea realized that this was not a matter of trifles, he went to Antioch, where then it was necessary to elect a bishop, and a spontaneous Council took place there, which took upon itself this whole difficult situation. This Council condemns Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea. Returning to Emperor Constantine, Hosea told him that Arius was wrong. Emperor Constantine decides to convene an Ecumenical Council.
Before this, it was customary for the Church to deal with Local Councils. But the idea of an Ecumenical Council came to the mind for the first time to Emperor Constantine. This idea seemed unusual to many. IN 325 g. all bishops, mainly from the eastern part of the empire, and some representatives of the western, as well as bishops from the non-Roman Empire: Scythia, Armenia, Persia, were invited to this Council. When most of the bishops, about 300, arrived in Nicaea, the Council was inaugurated.
There were 3 main parties before the Council:
1.like-minded with Arius(Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea and some others)
2.Orthodox(Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Hosea of Kardub, Eustathius of Antioch)
3.rest did not join either party. They did not understand how serious the theological question faced the Council.
The Arians agreed with all the conclusions of the Orthodox, but reinterpreted them in their own way. After the debate reached a dead end, Eusebius of Caesarea spoke. He suggested using his baptismal Creed so that the word of God would be sealed through it. Emperor Constantine agreed that this “Creed” be accepted as a basis, but demanded two clarifications: "Consubstantial" and "Uncreated". After Emperor Constantine agreed to this “Creed,” most of the bishops agreed with him. These two terms made the Arian interpretation of the Son of God impossible. “It-musios” is consubstantial.
Next came anathematism, which prohibited the teachings of Arius. This oros- a doctrinal definition - was signed by almost all the bishops, except Arius and two who sympathized with him. Most bishops never realized the importance of this problem. Arius and Eusebius of Nicodemus were sent into exile. But the problem was not solved; this was just the beginning.
Next topic: Spread of Arianism
Tomorrow the Church will celebrate the memory of the holy fathers of the First (Nicene) Ecumenical Council. It was at this council that the heresy of Arius was exposed and the first Creed was compiled; Saints took part in it. Nicholas of Myra and Spyridon of Trimifunt.
The First Ecumenical Council was convened in 325 in the city of Nicaea under Emperor Constantine the Great. His main task was to expose the false teaching of the Alexandrian priest Arius, who rejected the Divinity and the pre-eternal birth of the Son of God from God the Father and taught that Christ is only the highest creation.
Arius was supported by the Bishop of Nicomedia (Palestine) Eusebius, who was very influential at the royal court, so the heresy became very widespread at that time. And to this day, the enemies of Christianity, taking the heresy of Arius as a basis and giving it a different name, confuse the minds and lead into temptation of many people.
At the First Ecumenical Council, 318 bishops participated, among whom were:, and others. The false teaching of Arius was brilliantly refuted by Archdeacon Athanasius, who, being an assistant to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, eventually replaced his teacher in this very influential Christendom department
The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Arius and affirmed the immutable truth - the dogma: the Son of God is the true God, born of God the Father before all ages and is as eternal as God the Father; He is begotten, not created, and is of one essence with God the Father. So that all Orthodox Christians can know for sure true teaching faith, it was clearly and concisely stated in the first seven articles of the Creed. At the same Council, it was decided to celebrate on the first Sunday after the first spring full moon, it was also determined that priests should be married, and many other rules were established.
The memory of the First Ecumenical Council has been celebrated by the Church of Christ since ancient times. The Lord Jesus Christ left a great promise to the Church: “I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against It” (Matthew 16:18). In this joyful promise there is a prophetic indication that, although the life of the Church of Christ on earth will take place in a difficult struggle with the enemy of salvation, victory is on Her side. The holy martyrs testified to the truth of the Savior's words, enduring suffering for the confession of the Name of Christ, and the sword of the persecutors bowed before the victorious sign of the Cross of Christ.
Since the 4th century, the persecution of Christians ceased, but heresies arose within the Church itself, and the Church convened Ecumenical Councils to combat them. One of the most dangerous heresies was Arianism. Arius, the Alexandrian presbyter, was a man of immense pride and ambition. He, rejecting the Divine dignity of Jesus Christ and His equality with God the Father, falsely taught that the Son of God is not Consubstantial with the Father, but was created by the Father in time.
The Local Council, convened at the insistence of Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria, condemned the false teaching of Arius, but he did not submit and, having written letters to many bishops complaining about the determination of the Local Council, spread his false teaching throughout the East, for he received support in his error from some eastern bishops.
To investigate the troubles that arose, the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine (May 21) sent Bishop Hosius of Corduba and, having received from him a certificate that the heresy of Arius was directed against the most fundamental dogma Church of Christ, decided to convene an Ecumenical Council. At the invitation of Saint Constantine, 318 representative bishops gathered in the city of Nicaea in 325 Christian Churches from different countries.
Among the arriving bishops there were many confessors who had suffered during the persecution and bore marks of torture on their bodies. Participants in the Council were also the great luminaries of the Church - (December 6 and May 9), (December 12), and other holy fathers revered by the Church.
Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria arrived with his deacon Athanasius, later Patriarch of Alexandria (May 2), called the Great, as a zealous fighter for the purity of Orthodoxy. Emperor Constantine, Equal to the Apostles, attended the meetings of the Council. In his speech, delivered in response to the greeting of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, he said: “God helped me to overthrow the wicked power of the persecutors, but incomparably more regrettable for me is any war, any bloody battle, and incomparably more destructive is the internal internecine warfare in the Church of God.”
Arius, having 17 bishops as his supporters, held himself proudly, but his teaching was refuted and he was excommunicated from the Church by the Council, and the holy deacon of the Alexandrian Church Athanasius in his speech finally refuted the blasphemous fabrications of Arius. The Council Fathers rejected the creed proposed by the Arians. The Orthodox Creed was approved. Equal to the Apostles Constantine proposed to the Council that the word “Consubstantial” be added to the text of the Creed, which he often heard in the speeches of bishops. The Council Fathers unanimously accepted this proposal.
In the Nicene Creed, the holy fathers formulated the apostolic doctrine of the Divine dignity of the Second Person Holy Trinity- Lord Jesus Christ. The heresy of Arius, as a delusion of a proud mind, was exposed and rejected. After resolving the main dogmatic issue, the Council also established twenty canons (rules) on issues of church government and discipline. The issue of the day of celebration of Holy Easter was resolved. According to the resolution of the Council, Holy Easter should be celebrated by Christians not on the same day as the Jewish one and certainly on the first Sunday after the vernal equinox (which in 325 fell on March 22).
The heresy of Arius concerned the main Christian dogma, on which the whole faith and the entire Church of Christ is based, which constitutes the only foundation of the entire hope of our salvation. If the heresy of Arius, which rejected the Divinity of the Son of God Jesus Christ, which then shook the entire Church and carried away with it a great multitude of both shepherds and flocks, had overcome the true teaching of the Church and become dominant, then Christianity itself would have long ceased to exist, and the whole world would have plunged into the former darkness of unbelief and superstition.
Arius was supported by the Bishop of Nicomedia Eusebius, very influential at the royal court, so the heresy became very widespread at that time. To this day, the enemies of Christianity (for example, Jehovah's Witnesses), taking the Arius heresy as a basis and giving it a different name, confuse the minds and lead into temptation of many people.
Troparion of St. to the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, tone 8:
Most glorified are you, Christ our God, / who founded our fathers as a light on the earth, / and taught us all to the true faith, / Most gracious, glory to you
Since the times of the apostles... Christians have used "articles of faith" to remind themselves of the basic truths of the Christian faith. IN ancient Church There were several short creeds. In the fourth century, when false teachings about God, the Son and the Holy Spirit appeared, the need arose to supplement and clarify the previous symbols. Thus, the symbol of faith now used by the Orthodox Church arose. It was compiled by the Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. The First Ecumenical Council accepted the first seven members of the Symbol, the Second - the remaining five. Based on the two cities in which the fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils gathered, the Symbol is called Nicene-Constantinopolitan. When studied, the Creed is divided into twelve parts. The first speaks about God the Father, then through the seventh inclusive - about God the Son, in the eighth term - about God the Holy Spirit, in the ninth - about the Church, in the tenth - about baptism, in the eleventh and twelfth - about the resurrection of the dead and eternal life.
SYMBOL OF FAITH of the three hundred and ten saints, father of the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea.
We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were, even in heaven and on earth; For our sake, man and for our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became human, suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and will again come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. Those who say about the Son of God, that there was a time when it was not, or that it was not born before, or that it was from those who do not exist, or from another hypostasis or essence, saying that it was, or that the Son of God is transformable or changeable, these are anathematized by the Catholic Church and Apostolic Church.
SYMBOL OF FAITH (now used in the Orthodox Church) of one hundred and fifty saints by the father of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople.
We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, visible to all and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, who was born of the Father before all ages, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, by Whom all things were; for our sake, man, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became human; crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and rose again on the third day according to the scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and again the one who comes will judge the living and the dead with glory, and His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the life-giving Lord, who proceeds from the Father, who is with the Father and the Son, is worshiped and glorified, who spoke the prophets. Into one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. Tea resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century. Amen.