Ecc514 - Orthodox Ukrainian jurisdictions

Lesson 2: Unity prior to the Slavic Expansion - 2

The unity within Christianity which was presented to Kiev near the end of the firsm millennium C.E. is not something the Christian world is familiar with today, especially in the West. Rome was still united with the East and was responsible for elevating brother monks, Cyril and Methodius to the episcopacy and authorizing their work with the Moravians. Sadly, today, this would probably have caused juridical and canonical problems. A divided Christianity blunders along and gets little done. It is hard to estimate how many painful consequences there have been on account of the schizm between Rome and the East, which fortunately for the Ukraine, occured only after Kiev had gladly received the Orthodox faith. The practice of the church had always been one of resolving complex issues by councils of bishops, locally or when necessary, on a regional or even world wide basis. In Lesson Two we will review the history of Orthodox councils and canons to see what kind of Christianity Kiev received...

The very first Council of the Church was convened in Jerusalem by the Apostles to decide whether pagan converts to Christ should, or should not, have to conform to Jewish practices. The answer was "no". But because certain things, like eating meat sacrificed to idols were such a great offense to the Jews, there were a few items prohibited. Other, more regional councils also took place. For example, there was the Donatist controversy. Donatus had refused to accept the baptisms, ordinations and other sacraments permformed by bishops or those ordained by them who had fallen into heresy, or who simply had refused martyrdom when asked to supply Bibles to Emperor Diocletian's henchmen for burning. A regional council at Arles in 314 C.E. decided to accept the validity of these sacraments and declared Donatism a heresy.

An "ecumenical" council was one that involved the whole church. Ever since Rome departed from Orthodoxy there have never been any great ecumenical councils that have enjoyed the level of acclaim and acceptance as the seven great councils of the first millennium. The seven "great" ecumenical councils can be summarized as follows:

Nicea (325 C.E.)

As we already mentioned, early Christianity was very strong in Africa, with two great epicenters feeding it - Alexandria and Carthage. It was here that the priest Arius, who couldn't understand the difference between unity and equality in the Father and the Son, stirred up division. He supposed that the Son was inferior to the Father, was a created being, and that there was a time when he was not.

It wasn't a question of strictly intellectual interest, as one might hear among philosophers who have nothing better to do than to discuss things which are hard to understand. It was of profound significance. If true, it meant God did not really give his being to the Son who taught in Galilee. Therefore, we could not really receive that same Holy Spirit that dwells in God. Think about it.

Arianism was an ideal teaching for people who have trouble understanding the high calling of humanity in the kingdom to become true sons of God in the real Grace of the Holy Spirit. When salvation is reduced to forgiveness and no longer is revealed as a matter of transformation into a heavely creation that is not in name only, then we have not just a Christological, but soteriological crisis. Among the ignorant, the doctrine of Arius spread like wildfire, and although it is now mixed with other doctrines such as are found among Christodelphians and Jehovah's Witnesses, it still exists today. In 324 the Emperor Constantine attempted to settle Christian differences. He summoned a ‘council of all bishops’ (actually of the East – 318 of them) to meet at Ankara, though the location was changed to Nicaea, right next to the city of Constantinople.

The Roman Pope, St. Sylvester, did not attend, though he sent two of his priests. Nor did Arius attend, but the bishops did correspond with him so that he had the opportunity to defend his positions in writing. The council condemned Arius as they defended the true oneness of the Son with the Father. However, the questions about the unity of the Father and the Son were not that simple. For instance, it did not go unnoticed that an absolute unity meant that when the Son was crucified and died the Father was crucified and died. The council took the novel step of using a word not in the Bible, but current in Greek thought, in order to make a definition. They said that the Son was "homoousios" - "of the same essence as ") the Father.

This first of the seven great councils has become widely known recently because also discussed was the canon of Scripture and the dating of Pascha. Dan Brown's book, The DaVinci Code, attempts to portray Constantine as a conspirator and a censor, who with certain bishops wanted to keep the authenticity of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene a secret. Though captivating to the uneducated, there is no substance to this suggestion. It is a matter of practical sense that if the bishops are all convened that they should settle all matters of unity, not just one, if at all possible. The determination of the canon of Scripture was discussed at that time, as it had for many years. It was a meeting of the catholic church in the truest sense of the term. The bishops conferred at length. There would have been little to gain by suppressing any of the many Gospels. Quite the contrary, if there had been any genuine witness in such a Gospel it would only have added to the authentic testimony concerning Jesus Christ and His will. The goal of allowing those with authority by virtue of stewardship, proximity and familiarity, as well as commission with an unbroken succession of anointing by Christ, was simply to faithfully settle any questions. Certain accepted writings, which were often listed as canon because they were highly revered throughout the church, were not included in the canons - the Epistle of Barnabus, the Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, for instance. They were excluded not because of any desire to effect doctrine or to censor, but to establish what was written by those who personally knew Jesus, and limit the list by this criterion.