COUNCIL OF NICAEA – A UNIFYING MOMENT IN THE LIFE OF THE EARLY CHURCH
WITH ITS CONTINUED IMPACT ON DIVERSE REALITY OF THE PRESENT-DAY CHURCH
Lecture at the Christian Study Centre in Rawalpindi
(Pakistan, 27 March 2025)
The 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council in the history of the Church, which took place in Nicaea in 325, will also be celebrated in the middle of the Holy Year 2025, which Pope Francis has proclaimed and which is dedicated to revitalising Christian hope. In his Bull of Proclamation for the Ordinary Jubilee of 2025, Pope Francis describes this Council as a “milestone in the history of the Church”, as the Council was given the task of preserving the unity “which was seriously threatened by the denial of the full divinity of Jesus Christ and hence his consubstantiality with the Father.”[1] For this reason, the Council and its anniversary also have an ecumenical dimension from various perspectives.
1. Common Christian confession of faith
From an ecumenical perspective, the doctrinal questions addressed by the Council and expressed in the “Declaration of the 318 Fathers” are of primary importance. [2] With it, the Fathers confess the “one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Father as only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things in heaven and on earth have come to be”.[3] And in the Synod’s letter to the Egyptians, the Fathers stated that the very first object of investigation was the “hostility to the faith and unlawfulness of Arius and his followers”, and that they had therefore unanimously decided “to condemn with the anathema his doctrine hostile to the faith as well as his blasphemous statements and designations, with which he reviled the Son of God”.[4]
a) Dispute over the confession of Christ and its resolution
These statements outline the background to the Creed formulated by the Council regarding Jesus Christ as the Son of God, who is “consubstantial with the Father”. The historical background consisted of a fierce dispute that had flared up within Christianity at the time, particularly in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, and documented the fact that, at the beginning of the fourth century, the question of Christ had become a “problem case of Christian monotheism”.[5] The dispute centred primarily on the question of how the Christian confession of Jesus Christ as the Son of God can be reconciled with the equally Christian conviction of the one and only God in the sense of the monotheistic confession.
In particular, the Alexandrian presbyter Arius advocated a strict monotheism in the sense of the philosophical thinking of the time and, in order to be able to maintain such a strict monotheism, excluded Jesus Christ from the concept of God. From his point of view, Jesus Christ cannot be the “Son of God” in the true sense of the word, but only an intermediary being that God uses in the creation of the world and in his relationships with people. This model of strict philosophical monotheism propagated by Arius was rejected by the Fathers at the Council of Nicaea with the confession of faith that Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, is “consubstantial with the Father”.
The Christological confession of Nicaea represents an important, albeit not yet completed, stage on the way to the great confession of faith of Nicaea-Constantinople in 381. While the Council of Nicaea defined faith in Jesus Christ, it only mentioned faith in the Holy Spirit in general terms – “and in the Holy Spirit” – and it was not until the Council of Constantinople that the confession of faith in the Holy Spirit was described in more specific terms, thus enabling the formulation of the dogma of the Divine Trinity in the specifically Christian form of monotheism. The symbol of Constantinople is therefore to be understood as a binding definition of the faith of Nicaea, which found its final form in the symbol of Constantinople. The special significance of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed lies in the fact that, as the Protestant ecumenist Wolfhart Pannenberg has emphasised, it was “associated with a claim to universal church validity and was also received by the early Church as binding for all Christians.”[6]
The basis of the common Christian faith can already be perceived in the Christological confession of Nicaea. This important significance is due to the fact that the Council took place at a time when Christianity had not yet been wounded by the many later divisions. It is therefore not only common to the Oriental and Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church, but also to the churches and ecclesial communities that emerged from the Reformations in the 16th century, as evidenced above all by the Confessio Augustana of 1530, which considers itself completely rooted in the Council decisions of the early Church and therefore claims that there is nothing in this confession “that deviates from the Holy Scriptures and from the universal and Roman Church as we know them from the Church writers”.[7]
The creed of Nicaea can therefore not be underestimated in its ecumenical significance. It consists above all in the fact that the recovery of the Church’s unity requires agreement on the essential content of faith, not only between the Churches and ecclesial Communities of today, but also agreement with the Church of the past and, above all, with its apostolic origins. For the unity of the Church is rooted in the apostolic faith that is given and entrusted to every new member of the body of Christ at baptism. It is therefore an ecumenical imperative that the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea be commemorated by all Christian churches and ecclesial communities and that its Christological creed be renewed in ecumenical fellowship.
b) Foundation of spiritual ecumenism in Christ
The Council of Nicaea reminds us that unity can only be found in common faith. His confession of Christ therefore lays the foundation for spiritual ecumenism. Of course, this is a pleonasm. For Christian ecumenism is either spiritual or it is not. This can already be observed at the beginning of the ecumenical movement, with the introduction of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, which itself was an ecumenical initiative. The ecumenical movement has been a prayer movement from the very beginning. It was the prayer for Christian unity that paved the way for the ecumenical movement, which Pope Benedict XVI expressed with the vivid image: “The ship of ecumenism would never have put out to sea had she not been lifted by this broad current of prayer and wafted by the breath of the Holy Spirit.”[8] In the clear awareness that prayer for unity must be at the centre of all ecumenical efforts, the ecumenical decree of the Second Vatican Council “Unitatis redintegratio” described spiritual ecumenism as the “soul of the entire ecumenical movement”.[9] The centrality of prayer reveals that the ecumenical endeavour is above all a spiritual task, carried out in the conviction that the Holy Spirit has begun the ecumenical work and will complete it, showing the way.
In this way, Christian ecumenism most profoundly corresponds to the will of the Lord, common to all Christians, who in his High Priestly Prayer prayed for the unity of his disciples: “that all may be one” (John 17:21). In Jesus’ prayer, it is immediately apparent that Jesus does not command his disciples to be united and does not demand it of them, but rather prays for them with a prayer addressed to his heavenly Father. This prayer is the best example of what the ecumenical search for regaining the Church’s unity in the light of faith consists of and must consist of.[10] Since the disciples’ unity was Jesus’ central prayer concern, Christian ecumenism can only be the attunement of all Christians to the Lord’s High Priestly Prayer by making his heartfelt concern for unity their own. If ecumenism is not simply interpersonal and purely philanthropic, but truly Christologically motivated and founded, it can be nothing other than “participation in the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus”.[11]
This shows that spiritual ecumenism is understood and realised as ecumenism of Christ. For the heart of Christian ecumenism consists in the common conversion of all Christians and churches to Jesus Christ, in whom unity is already predetermined. Christian ecumenism can only make credible progress if we return together to the source of faith, which we can only find in Jesus Christ, as confessed by the Council Fathers in Nicaea.
Spiritual ecumenism in the sense of Christ ecumenism consists more precisely in allowing ourselves to be drawn into Jesus’ prayer movement to his Father and focusing our inner eyes on how Jesus prayed. Then it becomes clear that Jesus lived so much in prayer and from prayer that we can say that his whole life and work was a single prayer. In the New Testament, it is above all the evangelist Luke who portrays Jesus in his earthly life as a thoroughly praying Son of God, whose existential centre is the dialogue with his heavenly Father, with whom he lives in innermost unity and repeatedly withdraws into prayer, especially when important decisions are made in his earthly life.[12] Jesus’ preaching, his healing work, his suffering and death and his resurrection were anchored in his prayers. Jesus’ prayers permeated his entire life, so that without this attitude to life, the figure of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be understood at all.
c) The Church’s confession of Christ as interpretation of Jesus’ prayer
The mystery of Jesus’ prayer constitutes the biblical basis of the Nicaean confession of Christ. For it is the prayer of Jesus in which he appears most clearly as the Son of the heavenly Father, so that in the designation of Jesus as the Son, the innermost centre of the historical figure of Jesus comes before our eyes. This mystery of Jesus as Son is, in turn, the innermost centre of the Church’s dogma about Jesus Christ, insofar as the word “homoousios” of the Council of Nicaea provides the authentic and normative interpretation of what the biblical title of Son implies.
In his book on “Jesus of Nazareth”, Joseph Ratzinger - Benedict XVI provided exemplary and convincing proof that the Council’s statement that Jesus, as the Son, is of the same substance as his heavenly Father, contains the utmost condensation of the mystery of the Son of the praying Jesus.[13] With this work, which he wrote during his pontificate, he attempted “to present the Jesus of the Gospels as the real Jesus, as the <historical> Jesus in the true sense”, in the hope that readers “will also be able to see that this figure is much more logical and historically much more comprehensible than the reconstructions we have been confronted with in recent decades”.[14] Benedict XVI sees the heart of the biblical view of the person of Jesus in his constant prayerful communication with the Father, which is why the Pope identifies as the central point of his work: “It sees Jesus through his communion with the Father, which is the true centre of his personality, without which nothing can be understood, and from which he is also present to us today.”[15]
It was important for Pope Benedict XVI to point out that the innermost mystery of Jesus testified to in Holy Scripture - that he is the faithful Son of the Father - was expressed at the Council of Nicaea with the word “homoousios”. For with this statement, the Council offers an adequate interpretation of Jesus’ prayer: “The core of the dogma defined in the early Church councils consists in the statement that Jesus is the true Son of God, consubstantial with the Father and, through the Incarnation, equally consubstantial with us. This definition is ultimately nothing other than an interpretation of the life and death of Jesus, which was always determined by the dialogue between the Son and the Father.”[16]
It is therefore to be understood that Pope Benedict XVI places great value on the fact that the Council of Nicaea, with the word “homoousios”, in no way “hellenised the faith or burdened it with a foreign philosophy, but rather recorded precisely that which was incomparably new and different”- that which “appeared in Jesus” conversation with the Father”.[17] In the judgement of Pope Benedict XVI, Arius rather adapted Christian faith to the enlightened mind and thus also reshaped it, while the Council of Nicaea, on the other hand, used the philosophy of the time to unequivocally express the distinctive features of Christian faith. In the Confession of Nicaea, the Council therefore spoke to Jesus again with Peter: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). Pope Benedict XVI therefore sees in the Christological definition of the Council the “most magnificent and boldest simplification of the complicated, extremely multi-layered findings of tradition to a single centre that supports everything else: Son of God, of the same substance as God and of the same substance as us.”[18]
d) Arian currents in Christianity today
The Council’s decision could have settled the dispute in the fourth century regarding the theological compatibility between the confession of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the monotheistic conviction. A look back at subsequent history, however, shows that the dispute over whether Jesus Christ belongs on the side of God or on the side of creation flared up again after the Council—so much so that Basil, the eminent bishop of Caesarea, compared the post-conciliar situation to a naval battle in the night, in which all fought against all. He observed that, as a result of the conciliar disputes, there was “terrible disorder and confusion” and “incessant chatter” in the Church.[19] However, these fierce disputes were overcome with the help of credible witnesses to the Nicene Creed such as Athanasius and the work of the Asia Minor theologians Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus at the Council of Constantinople in 381, which confirmed the Christological creed of Nicaea and supplemented it with the confession of the Holy Spirit, thus defining the dogma of the divine Trinity.
This is certainly not the place to further outline the history of that time. However, a look at history should draw our attention to the fact that even in today’s ecclesial and ecumenical situation, Arian heresy is by no means a thing of the past, but that Arian tendencies can still be observed today.[20] In the 1990s, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger already recognised the real challenge facing Christianity today in a “new Arianism” or, more mildly, at least in a “rather pronounced new Nestorianism”.[21] The ecumenical community must also confront these challenges, especially in the anniversary year of the 1700th commemoration of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea.
A certain Arianisation of the belief in Christ can firstly be observed in certain Christian-Jewish dialogues. As the Jewish religion is characterised by a strict monotheism, there is often a fear that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity could endanger Jewish monotheism and that the Jewish ground of the Christian faith would be abandoned.[22] In contrast, however, it should be remembered that it was not Christians from the people, but rather Jewish Christians—firmly rooted in the faith of Israel—who first reflected on and formulated the belief in the Triune God in the early Church. The Jewish Christians had already experienced, within the people of Israel, that Yahweh is a close, saving, and helpful God towards his people. Based on such experiences, they came to the conviction that God had become definitively present among his people in Jesus of Nazareth, so that they could perceive in him the definitive Word of God. As the Catholic New Testament scholar Gerhard Lohfink rightly states, these experiences took place “in the midst of Israel, that is, in the realm of the strictest conceivable monotheism”.[23]
In conceptual terms, it can also be demonstrated that the Trinitarian idea of God does not contradict monotheism but, on the contrary, represents its true fulfilment. For only the Trinitarian concept of God can overcome an inherent dualism between God’s transcendence and immanence, and thus also between God and the world. It enables and permits one to think that God, as the Creator, is not only the God who transcends the world, but also—precisely in his infinity beyond the world—the God who is immanent in it, as the Protestant theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg emphasises: “The Trinitarian God, without blurring the difference between Creator and creature, lifts this contradiction in the idea of the reconciliation of the world. Only the Trinitarian God is all in all, without erasing the difference between God and creature, but precisely by recognising this difference on both sides.”[24] The Trinitarian concept of God proves to be a concise formulation of the nature of the God revealed in the particular historical event of Jesus. By naming the God revealed in the history of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity also articulates God’s relationship to history as a whole. In this respect, the Christological and Trinitarian dogma may have somewhat “concealed its Jewish roots, but it has not forgotten them; rather, it has emphasised them in a specific way”.[25]
Secondly, Arianising tendencies are even more evident today in interreligious dialogues. In today’s societies, which are characterised by multiculturalism and religious diversity, the question arises with particular urgency as to how the Church’s faith in Christ can be justified in the face of today’s wide range of religious options without reducing it to a mere humanistic Jesus-logy. This is especially relevant in view of the most radical form of interreligious dialogue, which is found in religious pluralist theology.[26] It no longer assumes that God’s revelation as such took place in Jesus Christ. Rather, it considers Jesus to be just one form of revelation among many others, based on the assumption that the mystery of God can never be fully revealed in any form of revelation. Accordingly, it is emphasised that there is not only a diversity of religions, but also a plurality of God’s revelations, whereby Jesus Christ is regarded as merely one religious genius among others in the postmodern polytheistic Olympus. For this reason, there is a tendency to minimise the belief in Christ in encounters with other religions. This tendency is reflected, for example, in the pointed question posed by the Protestant theologian Reinhold Bernhardt: “Do we have to disarm Christologically in order to engage in interreligious dialogue?”[27]
The religious pluralist denial that Jesus Christ is the one and only, and therefore universal, mediator of salvation for all people is touching on what is certainly the most central and fundamental point of the Christian faith, as recognised by the Council of Nicaea. The identity of Christianity and the Christian Church is at stake here, as the Christian faith revolves around the fundamental confession of the historical incarnation of God in Jesus of Nazareth. As the Protestant theologian Eberhard Jüngel puts it precisely: “At the centre of Christianity is the confession - which now also separates Judaism and Christianity - that God comes not only into the world, but that God became man, that He came into the world in the person of Jesus of Nazareth in an unsurpassable way.”[28]
e) Enduring relevance of the Council of Nicaea
It is easy to understand that the aforementioned currents have a clear influence on the general faith consciousness of Christians even within the churches, promoting an Arianisation of the faith in Christ. This is particularly evident in the phenomenon where many Christians today are certainly moved by the human dimensions of Jesus of Nazareth, yet struggle with the profession of faith that Jesus of Nazareth is the only begotten Son of the heavenly Father, who is present among us as the resurrected one, and that in this respect, the Church’s faith in Christ causes them great difficulty. Even within the Church and in ecumenism, it often seems impossible today to perceive the face of God in the man Jesus of Nazareth and to recognise him as the Son of God, rather than simply seeing him as a human being, albeit one who is particularly good and outstanding. However, this reduces the sonship of Jesus Christ to the level of a holy man, as Eberhard Jüngel aptly judges with theological clarity: “A Christology that only emphasises the exemplary nature of Jesus... reduces the significance of Jesus Christ to the role of a saint who is also able to sacrifice his life, but who can only appeal through his own life sacrifice, and is not able to effectively change the life of humanity. The life of humanity is only effectively changed by changing humanity’s relationship with God.”[29]
The fact that mankind’s relationship with God can be changed and has been effectively changed is precisely what the Christian faith confesses about the Christ event, as attested by the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the Council of Constantinople in 381. The Christian faith stands or falls with this fundamental Christological confession. For if Jesus were only a man who lived two thousand years ago, as many Christians today assume, he would have irrevocably receded into the past, and only our own memory would be able to bring him back, more or less clearly, into our present. But Jesus could not be the only Son of God in whom God himself is present with us. Only if the Church’s confession is true—that God himself became man and that Jesus Christ is true God and true man, thus sharing in the eternal presence of God, which embraces all time—can Jesus Christ be our real contemporary, not only yesterday but also today, whom we confess to be “of the same substance as the Father”.
Only if Jesus was not only a man two thousand years ago, but is also alive today, can we experience his presence and can we experience through Jesus Christ who and how God is. Whoever has to do with the man Jesus therefore has to do with the living God himself, who has shown his face in his Son. This sheds light on the deepest reason why the Christological dogma of the Church formulates the mystery of the incarnation in a classical way by saying of Jesus Christ that he is “perfect in Godhead and perfect in humanity” and that in him the two natures exist “unmixed, untransformed, undivided, and unseparated”.[30]
Both dimensions of the existence of Jesus Christ must be taken equally seriously, as Pope John Paul II pointed out in a remarkable way: “If today the rationalism that is spreading in a large part of modern culture causes problems above all in the belief in the divinity of Christ, in other historical and cultural contexts there has been a tendency to diminish or disperse the historical concreteness of the humanity of Jesus.”[31] Even a brief glance at the history of Christianity shows that there have indeed been times and epochs in which the confession of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the incarnation of God in him has been so clear that people struggled to see Jesus as a concrete and historical figure. In modern times, however, the situation is largely reversed, with the historical man Jesus of Nazareth taking centre stage in the Christian consciousness while access to the divinity of Jesus Christ is largely impeded.
From this perspective, the enduring significance of the Council of Nicaea and its culmination in the Council of Constantinople becomes clear once again in light of today’s faith situation. The study of these councils is not merely of historical interest; rather, their Christological confession remains profoundly relevant, particularly in the present context of the Church and ecumenism, where a strong resurgence of Arian tendencies can be observed, influencing various theological and pastoral issues.[32] In this situation, the revitalisation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of Christ emerges as an ecumenical challenge of the highest order.
2. The crucial question of the Easter date
From an ecumenical perspective, the Council of Nicaea is also relevant because, in addition to the Christological confession, it also addressed canonical and disciplinary issues, which are presented in twenty canons and provide a good insight into the pastoral problems and canonical concerns of the Church at the beginning of the fourth century. These include questions relating to the clergy, jurisdictional conflicts, cases of apostasy and the situation of the Novatians, the so-called “pure ones”, as well as the followers of Paul of Samosata.
The most significant pastoral issue was the date of Easter, which revealed that the timing of Easter had already been a matter of dispute in the early Church, leading to the existence of various different dates.[33] The decisive reason for this is undoubtedly that, according to the New Testament, the Christian Easter is closely linked to the Jewish Passover. In the synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—Jesus’ Last Supper is described as a Passover meal, while in the Gospel of John, Jesus himself dies on the cross on the day of the Passover feast, precisely at the hour when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Jerusalem temple. According to the Bible, the Jewish Passover was celebrated on the “14th day of the first month”, which is called “Nisan” and begins with the spring new moon.[34] This means that the Jewish Passover was celebrated on the first full moon after the spring equinox and was therefore a moveable feast.
As early sources indicate, this scheduling led to Christians in different regions celebrating Easter on different dates: Christians, particularly in Asia Minor, always celebrated Easter on the 14th of Nisan, in parallel with the Jewish Passover, regardless of the day of the week; they were therefore called Quartodecimans. In contrast, Christians, especially in Syria and Mesopotamia, celebrated Easter on the Sunday following the Jewish Passover and were thus known as Protopaschists.
In view of this situation, it is to the credit of the Council of Nicaea that it found a common regulation, which it reported in its “Letter to the Egyptians” with the words: “As good news, we also inform you of the agreement on the sacred passover: Thanks to your prayers, a happy solution was reached on this point as well. All brothers and sisters in the East who have celebrated with the Jews up to now will from now on celebrate the Passover in agreement with the Romans, with you and with all of us who have held fast with you since time immemorial.”[35] In terms of a common date for Easter for all Christian communities in the empire at the time, the Council thus provided a decisive impetus, particularly in two directions: Firstly, the Council set the date for the celebration of Easter as the Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox. Secondly, the Council determined that the calculation of the exact date of Pascha should not be dependent on the Jewish calculation and that Easter should therefore be celebrated later than the Jewish Pascha festival, which of course means that the temporal similarity with the Jewish Pascha festival has been abandoned.
With regard to the date of Easter, a new situation arose in the history of Christianity when Pope Gregory XIII introduced a fundamental calendar reform in the 16th century, establishing the Gregorian calendar named after him, according to which Easter is celebrated on the Sunday after the first full moon of spring. This new calendar became necessary because the Julian calendar had become inaccurate over the centuries. However, this new and more accurate calendar has led to a break in the calculation of the date of Easter between the East and the West, in the sense that two different dates for Easter are now used: Since then, churches in the West calculate the date of Easter according to this calendar; in contrast, churches in the East still largely celebrate Easter according to the Julian calendar, which is named after Gaius Julius Caesar, who carried out a reform of the Roman system of reckoning time in 46, and which had been in use throughout the Church before the Gregorian calendar reform.
In the meantime, several proposals for a common Easter date have been discussed.[36] The simplest solution would be to adopt 7 April 30 as the date of Jesus’ death, so that Easter would always be celebrated on the second Sunday in April. Various leaders of Protestant communities have proposed a fixed date for Easter. In 1997, the Faith and Order Commission, in co-operation with the Middle East Council of Churches, held a consultation in Aleppo, Syria, which resulted in the adoption of the declaration “Towards a Common Date for Easter” with two concrete proposals. Firstly, it is proposed to adopt the rule of the Council of Nicaea, which stipulates that Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon of spring. Secondly, the most accurate scientific methods should be used to calculate the necessary astronomical data and the meridian of Jerusalem should be used as a reference point. A more recent proposal is for the Catholic Church to retain the Gregorian calendar for fixed feast days such as Christmas and Epiphany, but to celebrate the cycles of pre-Easter Lent and Easter according to the Julian calendar.
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, it has already expressed its position at the Second Vatican Council in an annex to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium” promulgated in 1963, in which it attributes “no small importance” to “the desire of many to set Easter on a particular Sunday and to fix the calendar”.[37] The Council declared its openness to “fixing Easter on a particular Sunday in the Gregorian calendar”, on condition that “all those to whom it concerns, especially the brothers separated from communion with the Apostolic See, agree”. With the same openness to finding a common Easter date on the condition that all Christian churches will agree, Pope Francis has also repeatedly stated: “The Catholic Church is ready to accept the date that everyone wants: a date of unity.”[38]
The 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea provides a special opportunity to address this issue again, especially as in 2025 the churches in East and West will once again be able to celebrate Easter together on the same day, namely 20 April. It is therefore understandable that the desire has arisen to take the great anniversary of the Council as an opportunity to revisit the endeavours to establish a common Easter date in ecumenical communion in the future and to reconsider the decision of the Council at that time in today’s circumstances. From another perspective, the relationship between the date of Easter and the Jewish Passover should be reconsidered. Since the Council of Nicaea decided that the Christian calculation of Easter should not be dependent on the Jewish calculation of Passover, it should be noted today - in view of the significant turning point that the Second Vatican Council achieved in its relationship with the Jewish people with its declaration “Nostra aetate” - that the Jewish roots of Easter must not be ignored when resolving the calendar issue today.
The endeavour to find a common date for Easter is an important pastoral concern, especially in marriages and families of different denominations and in view of the great mobility of people. A common Easter date would also, and above all, enable to articulate more credibly the deep conviction of the Christian faith that Easter is not only the oldest, but also the most important feast of Christianity.
3. Theory and practice of synodality
At the Council of Nicaea, the then heated debate over the Orthodox confession of Christ was settled, and the pastoral and disciplinary issue of the Easter date was agreed. The Council thus also documents the way in which controversial questions concerning the understanding of faith and the discipline of the Church were discussed and resolved in a synodal style. Of the 1,800 bishops from the ancient world who were invited, 318 bishops took part in the Council of Nicaea, including Nicholas of Myra and the later Doctor of the Church Athanasius, who was probably the most bitter opponent of Arius. The church writer Eusebius, who was himself a council father and saw the Council of Nicaea as a new Pentecost, emphasised that the first servants of God “from all the churches throughout Europe, Africa and Asia” were gathered at the council.[39]
The Council of Nicaea can therefore be seen as the beginning of the synodal way of decision-making and decision-taking in the Church as a whole. The word itself indicates this, as “synod” is composed of the Greek terms “hodos” (= way) and “syn” (= with) and expresses the fact that a way is travelled together. In the Christian understanding of faith, the word refers to the common path of people who believe in Jesus Christ, who revealed himself as “the way”, more precisely as “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6). Therefore, Christian religion was originally called “the way” and Christians who followed Christ as the way were called “followers of the way” (Acts 9:2). In this sense, the Doctor of the Church St John Chrysostom was able to explain that “church” is a name “that stands for a common way” and that church and synod are “synonyms”.[40] The word “synodality” is therefore just as old and fundamental as the word “church”.
The 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea should therefore also be regarded as an invitation and a challenge to learn from history and to deepen the synodal idea today in ecumenical fellowship and anchor it in the life of the Church.[41] For ecumenism, too, can only make progress on the way to regaining the Church’s unity if it is travelled together and thus in a synodal manner. Pope Francis has repeatedly emphasised the interdependence between synodality and the ecumenical way, namely that the synodal way undertaken by the Catholic Church must be ecumenical, just as the ecumenical way is synodal. The importance of synodality in ecumenical endeavours is also impressively demonstrated by two important recent documents.
A few years ago, the “Commission on Faith and Order” of the World Council of Churches released the study “The Church Towards a Common Vision”, which seeks a multilateral and ecumenical vision of the nature, purpose and mission of the Church. This study states as an ecumenical common ecclesiological statement: “The entire Church is synodal/conciliar at all levels of church life – local, regional, and universal – under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In the quality of synodality or conciliarity, the mystery of the Trinitarian life of God is reflected, and the structures of the Church express this quality in order to realise the life of the community as a community.”[42] This view is also shared by the International Theological Commission in its foundational document “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church.” In it, it is joyfully noted that ecumenical dialogue has progressed to such an extent that it recognises in synodality a “revelatory dimension of the nature of the Church,” as it pertains to the approach to the “concept of the Church as koinonia,” “which is realised in every local church and in the relationship with the other churches, through specific structures and synodal processes.”[43]
Both documents identify essential dimensions of ecclesial synodality that need to be deepened in ecumenical fellowship. Since synodality has been developed and continues to unfold in different ways in various churches and ecclesial communities, there is much to learn from one another also in this regard through ecumenical dialogues. This has been demonstrated by the International Ecumenical Symposia on Concepts and Experiences of Synodality in the Christian Churches in the East and West, organised by the Institute for Ecumenical Studies at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas under the titles “Listening to the East” and “Listening to the West,” in preparation for the Synod of Bishops in the Catholic Church.[44] These symposia have powerfully documented that the Catholic Church can be enriched in the revitalisation of a synodal way of life by the theological reflections and experiences of other churches.
On the other hand, the deepening of the synodal dimension in the theology and practice of the Catholic Church also represents an important contribution that it can bring to the ecumenical dialogue, not least with regard to a more adequate understanding of the interdependence of synodality and primacy in general, and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in particular.[45] That the presentation and discussion of synodality in the Catholic Church must also take place from an ecumenical perspective was emphasised by Pope Francis especially on the occasion of the commemoration of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops fifty years ago by Pope Paul VI. He expressed it with the words: “To walk the path of synodality with determination and to deepen it is what God expects from the Church of the third millennium”; and he also linked this to his conviction that the effort to build a synodal Church “is rich in consequences for ecumenism.”[46]
Despite the fundamental and groundbreaking importance of synodality in the church, it should not be idealised, as a look at the historical context of the Council of Nicaea documents. This is probably most clearly evident in the answer given by Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century when he was invited by the emperor to take part in the First Council of Constantinople: “To tell the truth, I think that every council of bishops should be fled, since I have never seen a happy outcome at any council, nor the abolition of evils...; but always over-ambitiousness or quarrelling over procedure.”[47] Gregory spoke these words with a bad memory of the Council of Nicaea in 325, and especially of the time following the council, which was widely seen as a time of great chaos.
This is certainly a harsh judgment, but it draws particular attention to a fundamental feature that can be traced throughout the entire history of the Church: the times following a council were almost always particularly difficult. Nearly all councils initially triggered disturbances in the ecclesial balance and became factors in a deep crisis. It is a paradox, but it cannot be ignored: Councils, which have been convened to reaffirm the faith or to defend it in the face of widespread heresies, and thus to restore ecclesiastical unity, obviously always contain also divisive elements that can have an impact after a council.
Of course, this is only one side of the coin. A look at history, in fact, also shows that the councils, including and especially the great councils of the fourth and fifth centuries, became important beacons in the life of the Church and ecumenism precisely because they repeatedly pointed the way to the centre of Holy Scripture and its authentic transmission in the tradition of the Church. Therefore, looking back into history also contains the challenge of carrying out the development of synodality in the life of the Church and ecumenism with theological clarity and pastoral wisdom. This lesson, too, is to be learnt when dealing with the Council of Nicaea.
4. Ecclesiastical and governmental authority
However, there is a fundamental difference between today’s efforts to revitalise synodality and the Council of Nicaea. At first glance, it might be regarded as trivial, but it is, especially from an ecumenical perspective, not insignificant. Particularly noteworthy is the historical fact that the Council of Nicaea was convened by a governmental authority, namely Emperor Constantine.[48] Although he himself had indeed tended towards Arianism and was baptised by an Arian on his deathbed, he recognised in the fierce dispute over the confession of Christ, which had erupted within Christianity at the time, a great danger to his plan of consolidating the unity of the empire on the foundation of the unity of the Christian faith. The emperor therefore primarily saw a political problem in the situation of an impending church division. On the other hand, he was also far-sighted enough to realise that the Church’s unity must be achieved and protected not by political but by ecclesiastical-theological means. In order to reconcile the conflicting factions at the time, the emperor convened the First Ecumenical Council in the city of Nicaea in Asia Minor, near the imperial residence of Nicomedia.
One unfortunate consequence of this approach, and thus another historical condition, is the fact that after Constantine, the emperors once again promoted the heresy of Arius. This was particularly true of Emperor Constantius, the son of Emperor Constantine, who pursued a determined policy of distancing himself from the creed of the Council of Nicaea. He even convened a synod in Constantinople, which approved the ambiguous compromise formula stating that Christ was “similar to the Father according to the Scriptures”. This means that the decision of the Council of Nicaea did not settle the dispute over the compatibility of the confession of Jesus Christ’s divinity with monotheistic conviction in the fourth century. On the contrary, it reignited the debate over whether Jesus Christ belonged to the realm of God or that of creation. However, later emperors, particularly Theodosius, who came from the West, once again upheld the Council of Nicaea in their religious policy, affirming it as the sole valid foundation for church unity.
A similar situation arose in the dispute over icons in the 8th and 9th centuries, when Byzantine emperors at times sided with the opponents of icons and at other times with their supporters. Against this historical backdrop, different conceptions of the relationship between church and state emerged in the Eastern and Western Churches. Throughout its long and complex history, the Church in the West has had to learn—and has indeed learnt—that the separation of church and state, alongside a cooperative partnership between the two, is the most appropriate form of their relationship. In the Church of the East, by contrast, a close connection between state authority and the church hierarchy has become predominant. This relationship is often characterised as a “symphony of church and state” and is particularly reflected in the Orthodox concepts of autocephaly and canonical territory.
The “symphony of church and state” remains alive in the Church of the East to this day. However, it is increasingly weighed down by significant burdens, as evidenced, not least, by the problematic stance of Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill on Putin’s war in Ukraine. This has led Johannes Oeldemann, Director of the Johann Adam Möhler Institute for Ecumenism in Paderborn, to question whether the war in Ukraine could mark the historical end of this traditional model: “The “Byzantine” model of the symphony of state and church is being discredited by the stance of the Russian church leadership to such an extent that it is unlikely to remain viable in the future.”[49]
Throughout history, the differing traditions in shaping the relationship between church and state have often played a background role in disputes within the church community itself, as well as in conflicts between the Eastern and Western Churches. They have also had a significant impact on ecumenical relations. However, these issues have remained among the least discussed topics in ecumenical dialogues to date. But they will require particular attention on the ecumenical agenda in the future. Naturally, this applies not only to dialogue with the Orthodox Churches but also to discussions with the churches and ecclesial communities that emerged from the Reformations in the 16th century—especially those that consider themselves state churches, such as the Church of England and various Lutheran churches in northern Europe, or at least did so until recently.
5. The 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea as a great ecumenical moment
This question should also be on the ecumenical agenda in light of the great anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. It goes without saying that this discussion must be framed today within the context of religious freedom. In the spirit of ecumenical openness, every church and ecclesial community is called to consider whether its relationship with the state is regulated in a way that aligns with the principle of religious freedom. For Christian churches can only credibly advocate for the guarantee of religious freedom for all Christians and church communities if their own relationship with the state is characterised by religious freedom.[50]
In this way, the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea also represents an important opportunity to address and discuss the lingering issues from the past that have been insufficiently dealt with in previous ecumenical dialogues. By viewing the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea primarily as a welcome occasion to renew the profession of faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of the same substance as the Father, in ecumenical fellowship, it is hoped that this significant anniversary will help us realise anew that ecumenism is fundamentally a matter of faith and that, consequently, the unity of the Church cannot be achieved without the truth of faith. The ecumenical endeavour is dedicated and committed to regaining the unity of the Church as that community which lives in fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the Apostolic Faith of the Church. The unity of the Church that is to be regained profoundly touches upon the truth of faith, as Pope Benedict XVI has reminded us in clear terms: “The unity of the Church can never be, in a word, anything other than unity in the Apostolic Faith, in the faith which is entrusted to each new member of the Body of Christ in the rite of Baptism. This faith unites us with the Lord, gives us a share in the Holy Spirit, and also makes us participants in the life of the Holy Trinity, the model of the koinonia of the Church on earth.”[51]
The challenge facing the ecumenical community today is to bear witness to this shared truth of faith in ecumenical fellowship and to faithfully preserve the faith of the early Church. In this sense, the anniversary of the Council of Nicaea can become a significant ecumenical moment.
[1] Francis, Spes non confundit. Bull of Proclamation of the Ordinary Jubilee of the Year 2025, no. 17.
[2] Cf. A. Melloni / C. Bianchi (eds.), The Creed of Nicaea (325). The Status Quaestionis and the Neglected Topics (Göttingen 2025).
[3] Erklärung der 318 Väter, in: Dekrete der Ökumenischen Konzilien. Hrsg. von J. Wohlmuth. Band I: Konzilien des ersten Jahrtausends (Paderborn 2002) 5.
[4] Brief der Synode von Nizäa an die Ägypter, in: Ebda. 16-19, zit. 16.
[5] J. Kardinal Ratzinger, Das Credo von Nikaia und Konstantinopel: Geschichte, Struktur und Gehalt, in: Ders., Theologische Prinzipienlehre. Bausteine der Fundamentaltheologie (München 1982) 116-127, zit. 123.
[6] W. Pannenberg, Die Bedeutung des Bekenntnisses von Nicaea-Konstantinopel für den ökumenischen Dialog heute, in: Ders., Kirche und Ökumene = Beiträge zur Systematischen Theologie. Band 3 (Göttingen 2000) 194—204, zit. 197.
[7] Confessio Augustana, Schluss des Ersten Teils.
[8] Benedict XVI, Homily at the Liturgy of Vespers on the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul for the Conclusion of Prayer for Christian Unity on 25 January 2008.
[9] Unitatis redintegratio, n. 8.
[10] Cf. K Kardinal Koch, Christliche Ökumene im Licht des Betens Jesu. „Jesus von Nazareth“ und die ökumenische Sendung, in: J.-H. Tück (Hrsg.), Passion aus Liebe. Das neue Jesus-Buch des Papstes in der Diskussion (Mainz 2011) 19-36.
[11] W. Kardinal Kasper, Ökumene und Spiritualität, in: Ders., Wege der Einheit. Perspektiven für die Ökumene (Freiburg i. Br. 2005) 203-226, zit. 204.
[12] Cf. J. Kardinal Ratzinger, Christologische Orientierungspunkte, in: Ders., Schauen auf den Durchbohrten. Versuche zu einer spirituellen Christologie (Einsiedeln 1984) 13-40.
[13] Cf. K. Koch, Der treue Sohn des Vaters. Einführende Erwägungen zum Jesus-Buch von Papst Benedikt XVI., in: Ders., Das Geheimnis des Senfkorns. Grundzüge des theologischen Denkens von Papst Benedikt XVI. = Ratzinger-Studien. Band 3 (Regensburg 2010) 146-158.
[14] J. Ratzinger – Benedikt XVI., Jesus von Nazareth. Erster Teil: Von der Taufe im Jordan bis zur Verklärung (Freiburg i. Br. 2007) 20-21.
[15] Ibid. 12
[16] J. Kardinal Ratzinger, Christologische Orientierungspunkte, in: Ders., Schauen auf den Durchbohrten. Versuche zu einer spirituellen Christologie (Einsiedeln 1984) 13-40, zit. 29.
[17] J. Ratzinger – Benedikt XVI., Jesus von Nazareth. Erster Teil: Von der Taufe im Jordan bis zur Verklärung (Freiburg i. Br. 2007) 407.
[18] J. Ratzinger, Was bedeutet Jesus Christus für mich? in: Ders., Dogma und Verkündigung (München 1973) 137-149, zit. 138.
[19] Basilius, De Spiritu Sancto XXX, 77.
[20] Cf. K.-H. Menke, Das Homoousios to patri scheidet die Geister. Zur kriteriellen Funktion des Symbolum Nicaeanum, in: Communio. Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift 53 (2024) 396-412, bes. 403-409: Arius redivivus, oder: Das Nicaenum-Constantinopolitanum unter dem Beschuss von Nominalismus, Moderne und Postmoderne.
[21] J. Kardinal Ratzinger, Jesus Christus heute, in: Ders., Ein neues Lied für den Herrn. Christusglaube und Liturgie in der Gegenwart (Freiburg i. Br. 1995) 15-45, zit. 40.
[22] Vgl. W. Homolka / M. Striet, Christologie auf dem Prüfstand. Jesus der Jude – Christus der Erlöser (Freiburg i. Br. 2019).
[23] G. Lohfink, Warum ich an Gott glaube (Freiburg i. Br. 2024) 65.
[24] W. Pannenberg, Probleme einer trinitarischen Gotteslehre, in: W. Bauer u. a. (Hrsg.), Weisheit Gottes – Weisheit der Welt. Festschrift für Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger zum 60. Geburtstag. Band 1 (St. Ottilien 1987), 329-341, zit. 341.
[25] J.-H. Tück, „Gleichwesentlich mit dem Vater“. Hat das Konzil von Nizäa die jüdischen Wurzeln des Christentums abgeschnitten? in: Communio. Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift 53 (2024) 382-.395, zit. 393.
[26] Cf. R. Schwager, Christus allein? Der Streit um die pluralistische Religionstheologie (Freiburg i. Br. 1996).
[27] R. Bernhardt, Desabsolutierung der Christologie, in: M. v. Brück / J. Werbick (Hrsg.), Der einzige Weg zum Heil? Die Herausforderung des christlichen Absolutheitsanspruchs durch die pluralistische Religionstheologie (Freiburg i. Br. 1993) 184-200.
[28] E. Jüngel, Zum Wesen des Christentums, in: Ders., Indikativ der Gnade – Imperativ der Freiheit = Theologische Erörterungen IV (Tübingen 2000) 1-23, zit. 18.
[29] E. Jüngel, Das Opfer Jesu Christi als sacramentum und exemplum. Was bedeutet das Opfer Jesu Christi für den Beitrag der Kirchen zur Lebensbewältigung und Lebensgestaltung? in: Ders., Wertlose Wahrheit. Zur Identität und Relevanz des christlichen Glaubens = Theologische Erörterungen III (München 1990) 251-282, zit. 267.
[30] J. Neuner / H. Roos, Der Glaube der Kirche in den Urkunden der Lehrverkündigung (Regensburg 1971) Nr. 178.
[31] Johannes Paul II., Novo millennio ineunte, Nr. 27.
[32] Cf. zum Beispiel J. Baur, Arianismus und Priestermangel, in: Ch. Schaller, M. Schulz, R. Voderholzer (Hrsg.), Mittler und Befreier. Die christologische Dimension der Theologie. Für Gerhard Ludwig Müller (Freiburg i. Br. 2008) 60-77.
[33] Cf. I. O. Lumma, Feiern im Rhythmus des Jahres. Eine kurze Einführung in christliche Zeitrechnung und Feste (Regensburg 2016), bes. 17-69: Der Kalender.
[34] Cf. Lev 23, 5: Num 28, 16; Jos 5, 11
[35] Brief der Synode von Nizäa an die Ägypter, in: Dekrete der Ökumenischen Konzilien. Hrsg. Von J. Wohlmuth. Band 1: Konzilien des Ersten Jahrtausends (Paderborn 2002) 16-19, zit. 19.
[36] Wichtige Einsichten verdanke ich auch dem Vortrag von Basilius Jacobus Groen, Der beschwerliche Weg zu einem gemeinsamen Osterdatum, in: Nachrichtendienst Östliche Kirchen vom 7. April 2021: Hintergrund.
[37] Appendix: Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on calendar reform.
[38] Francis, Homily at the Second Vespers of the 58th Week of Prayer for Christian Unity on 25 January 2025.
[39] Eusebius, Vita Const. III, 7.
[40] J. Chrysostomos, Explicatio in Ps 149, in: PG 55, 493.
[41] Cf. K. Kardinal Koch, Synodalität in der Katholischen Kirche in ökumenischer Perspektive: Papst und Bischöfe, Konzilien und Synoden, in: M. Graulich / J. Rahner (Hrsg.), Synodalität in der katholischen Kirche. Die Studie der Internationalen theologischen Kommission im Diskurs (Freiburg i. Br. 2020) 220-242.
[42] Die Kirche. Auf dem Weg zu einer gemeinsamen Vision. Eine Studie der Kommission für Glauben und Kirchenverfassung des Ökumenischen Rates der Kirchen (ÖRK) (Gütersloh – Paderborn 2015).
[43] Internationale Theologische Kommission, Die Synodalität in Leben und Sedung der Kirche, Nr. 116.
[44] Listening to the East. Synodality in Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Traditions. Edited by Institute for Ecumenical Studies of the Angelicum. Pro Oriente Foundation = Collana Ut unum sint 4 (Città del Vaticano 2023); Listening to the West. Synodality in Western Ecclesial Traditions. Edited by Institute for Ecumenicasl Studies of the Angelicum = Collana Ut unum sint 5 (Città del Vaticano 2024).
[45] Cf. The Bishop of Rome. Primacy and Synodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues and in the Responses to the Encyclical Ut unum sint. A Study Document of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity = Collana Ut unum sint 7 (Città del Vaticano 2024).
[46] Francis, Address at the ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of the institution of the Synod of Bishops on 17 October 2015.
[47] Gregor von Nazianz, Ep. 130, Ad Procopium.
[48] Cf. Ph. Blaudeau, Providence and the Concern for Unity. Remarks on Certain Aspects of Constantine´s Religious Policy (312-37), in: A. Melloni / C. Bianchi (eds.), The Creed of Nicaea (325). The Status Quaestionis and the Neglected Topics (Göttingen 2025) 157-173; M. Simperl, Politik und Theologie auf dem Konzil von Nizäa. Kirchenhistorische Beobachtungen, in: Communio. Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift 53 (2024) 372-381.
[49] J. Oeldemann, Kaum noch zukunftsfähig? Krieg in der Ukraine: Ende des „byzantinischen“ Modells, in: KNA – Ökumenische Information. Dokumentation vom 22. März 2022, I-IIII, zit. I.
[50] Cf. K. Kardinal Koch, Religionsfreiheit als Thema des ökumenischen Dialogs, in: F.-X. Amherd / M. Delgado / S. Loiero (Hrsg.), 50 Jahre / ans Dignitatis Humanae. Tagungsband des 7. Forums Weltkirche = Théologie pratique en dialogue. Vol 45 (Freiburg / Schweiz 2017) 43-61.
[51] Benedict XVI, Introductory words during the evening prayer at Westminster Abbey in London on 17 September 2010.