The Council of Nicea as theological Rorschach Test
As most Catholics know, Vatican II was held 40 years ago and in many quarters is still controversial. But this should surprise no one; the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea, was held almost 1700 years ago and it is still controversial today. It has been upheld as the standard of orthodoxy, derided as an intervention of the state into Church affairs, and accused of being the origin for both a belief in Christ’s divinity and the pope’s primacy. The Vatican II Fathers had nothing on the bishops at Nicea when it comes to controversy!
Even after all these centuries, Nicea is still important. Not only did it express in clear language the divinity of Christ (something believed before the Council, of course), but also it demonstrates the authority of the Church to make such authoritative declarations. By attacking Nicea, those who wish to reshape the Church or change her doctrines know that they can make great progress in their cause.
With that being said, blogger Darrell Pursiful has a great – and fun – test to determine what your religious beliefs are, all based on your attitude towards the Council of Nicea:
How would you complete this sentence? “The Council of Nicea…”
1. “…was a genuine work of the Holy Spirit, codifying for all time the true apostolic teaching on the person and nature of Christ.”
You are a conservative Catholic or Orthodox Christian. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
2. “…was a good thing, and it may even be said that the Holy Spirit was in it, leading the church to affirm Christ’s full divinity and humanity in terms that have stood the test of time. Shame about those anathemas at the end.”
You are a run-of-the-mill conservative Christian. If you’re Protestant, you can probably recite the Four Spiritual Laws. If you’re Catholic or Orthodox, I bet you’ve had some interesting discussions with some of your fellow parishioners.
3. “…contextualized the Christian message for a Greco-Roman audience. In those terms, I have no problems with it, although I do cross my fingers at certain points when (if) I recite the Creed in church.”
You are a centrist or liberal Christian in a mainline denomination. You probably subscribe to The Christian Century and wear a jacket with elbow patches.
4. “…is irrelevant to my faith. It was just some bunch of Catholic bigwigs asserting their authority over plain, Bible-believing Christians like me. Of course I believe in the Trinity, why do you ask?”
You are a fundamentalist Christian. And you need to take a church history course.
5. “…is irrelevant to my faith. It was just some bunch of Catholic bigwigs asserting their authority over plain, Bible-believing Christians like me. Of course I deny the Trinity, why do you ask?”
You are a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, or similar. And you need to take a church history course.
6. “…was the final nail in the coffin of the inclusive spirituality of Jesus, replacing theological diversity and egalitarianism with patriarchal regimentation and the silencing of all dissent. Oh, and they wrote the New Testament.”
You are a pagan or Gnostic who appreciates the teachings of Jesus—at least the ones that conform to your religious presuppositions—although you distrust most traditional, institutional forms of Christianity. You need to take a church history course, and you need to quit reading Dan Brown books.
7. “…was the final nail in the coffin of the Judaic faith of Yeshua ha-Mashiach, replacing Torah-observance and traditional Jewish piety with syncretistic pagan mythology. Oh, and they wrote the New Testament.”
You are an Ebionite. You appreciate the teachings of JesusYashuaYehoshuaYeshua—at least the ones that conform to your religious presuppositions—but want nothing to do with Christianity or the New Testament as classically defined. The Greek language probably makes you break out in hives.
Hopefully, readers of this blog should know how I answered this quiz. I’ll give you a hint, however: it didn’t take me long to find my answer.
Apparently I am a conservative Catholic, according to this little test. It is interesting that I have been a non-denominational Protestant all my life. If this test is any indication, it is no wonder I have been drawn to Catholicism for several years now.
Another Rorschach test for orthodoxy (and orthopraxy) from the Council of Nicaea:
What did canon 20 of the Council of Nicaea decide concerning standing and kneeling during the liturgy?
- No one should kneel during the liturgy on Sundays and during the 50 days between Easter and Pentecost.
OR
- Everyone should kneel to receive communion.
Even though the making of the Mass into a more communal worship service was a great thing for me there are many aspects of Vatican II that has led to the demise of the church. There was an attempt to make the church more proactive in social justice which was good, but we forgot to teach what the church is about. Ask people today tell you about the sacraments or what are the parts of Mass, and they look at you with a blank expression.
I know what my children were not taught and these are the parents of todays children.
We do not need to go back to the dogmatic answers of the Baltimore Catechism but we do need to teach the essence of it.
Honestly, you should have included response like the following:
* Never heard of it. I don’t follow the politics of France.
* Council of Nicea? Is that where they set the value of the euro?
* Council of Nicea? Sorry, I don’t believe any crazy conspiracy theories about secret councils of Jews running the world and whatnot.
* This must be something new — I’ll look for it on CNN tonight. Does it have something to do with pedophilia?
Archangel wrote: “Another Rorschach test for orthodoxy (and orthopraxy) from the Council of Nicaea…”
There is a meaningful difference between doctrinal orthodoxy and matters of discipline. There is also a place for legitimate differentiation of the outward forms of piety between different cultures and under different circumstances.
If you believe “No kneeling on Sundays” is on the same level as “Jesus’ consubstantiality with the Father”, then I suggest you tell us where we might find a bishop who obeys and enforces every canon ever proposed by an Ecumenical Council– because, clearly, the presupposition behind the argument you’ve implied is that all of them are binding and applicable to all Christians under all circumstances.
The Council of Nicea?…more accurately referred to as “The Great Apostasy”…which should tell you that I in no way ascribe to the ‘primacy’ of the Whore of Rome.
“Whore of Rome”? Such Christian charity!
The fruits of these councils should be the question. Nicea today ‘s fruit is the authority of the church and Jesus’ divinity, spelled out and carried out by all but heretics, V2 proclaimed Him in the Blessed Sacrament as the”source and summit”, yet the fruit is the neglect of His holy presence in the tabernacle, which was not the case before V2. Perhaps the implementation was the problem.