Alexander Schmemann

2. The Triumph Of Christianity (27 pages)

From Schmemann's A History of the Orthodox Church

Page 9

The temporary triumph of the Arians would have been impossible even with the help of the emperor if the Church, which had condemned Arms almost unanimously, had remained united both in its condemnation and in accepting the constructive doctrine of Nicaea. But Nicaea had introduced confusion and doubt into men’s minds. Most of its participants easily accepted the condemnation of Arianism, which too obviously distorted the original tradition; but the constructive doctrine about the Trinity contained in the term homoousion (“of one substance”) was a different matter. This term had been proposed and in fact thrust upon Constantine, and through him upon the Council, by a small group of bold and far-sighted theologians who understood the inadequacy of merely condemning Arius and the need to crystallize Church tradition in a clear concept. For most of the bishops, however, the word was incomprehensible. For the first time a creedal definition had been made to contain a term alien to the Scripture. Even the meaning was dubious; would not this “one in substance” bring back into the Church the temptation of Sabellianism, so recently overcome? Did it not merge Father and Son again in “one essence”? Still, the council at Constantine’s request had dignified it as a symbol of faith without probing much into its ramifications of meaning. The bishops considered it their main work to condemn heresy; as for the symbol of faith, in practice every Church had its own, which was in essential — but not necessarily literal — agreement with all the others.

The council had seemed to end successfully, except for the mistake of Constantine, who repeated his action against the Donatists by exiling Arius and his followers, thus again confusing the judgment of the Church with that of Caesar. At this point the group of court bishops began to exert its influence. It consisted almost wholly of friends of Arms, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia. They had accepted the condemnation, since nearly all the bishops had shown themselves against him at the council; but with reluctance and with hope of revenge. Since they could not openly oppose the council, they resorted to intrigue, and taking advantage of the general indifference of the bishops to the constructive Nicene definition, began to minimize it and to direct their forces against the group of theologians who alone understood its full significance.

Rumors and accusations were set in motion having nothing to do with theology. The first victim was Eustathius of Antioch, whose reputation with the emperor they succeeded in blackening and who was sent into exile. They then turned their intrigues against young Athanasius, recently elected bishop of Alexandria and probably the moving spirit in the creation of the new term. Again without engaging in theological dispute, his enemies first succeeded in having him condemned for alleged canonical wrongdoing by the episcopal council at Tyre in 331, and later in having him exiled by the emperor to Trier on the Rhine. Constantine could not bear rebels, and they contrived to present him to the emperor as such. After this there was no difficulty in bringing back Arius himself; he signed a questionable repentance and was received into communion. Constantine, who had never understood what the dispute was about, thought all was well — that the Church had restored peace within itself and that only enemies of peace could now rake up the past. Opportunists triumphed everywhere, while the Church as a whole was obviously uncomprehending and silent.

But Constantine’s days were drawing to an end.
In 336, the same year that Athanasius was sent into exile, he celebrated the thirtieth and last jubilee of his reign. He was already a different man. His mystical tendency had grown with the years; toward the end even matters of state withdrew into the background of his interest. The speeches and celebrations of the jubilee were illuminated by the light burning ever more strongly in his soul. Shortly before his death, through the laying on of hands, he became a communicant. He no longer put on imperial robes. His dream of baptism in the Jordan was not to be, but he was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the joyous certainty of the nearness of Christ and His eternal light never again left him.

The Emperor Constantine died on a sunny noon of Pentecost in the year 337. However many mistakes and perhaps even crimes there may have been in his life — such as the murder of his son Crispus, a dark family drama never finally solved — it is hard to doubt that this man had striven unwaveringly toward God, had lived with a thirst for the absolute, and had wished to establish a semblance of heavenly truth and beauty on earth. The greatest earthly hope of the Church, the dream of the triumph of Christ in the world, became associated with his name. The love and gratitude of the Church is stronger than the pitiless but fickle and frequently superficial judgment of historians.

 

Previous Page / First / Next

Schmemann, A History of the Orthodox Church: Table of Contents

Cf.  Books for getting closer to Orthodox Christianity ||| Orthodox Images of the Christ ||| Byzantium : The Alternative History of Europe ||| Greek Orthodoxy - From Apostolic Times to the Present Day ||| A History of the Byzantine Empire ||| Videos about Byzantium and Orthodoxy ||| Aspects of Byzantium in Modern Popular Music ||| 3 Posts on the Fall of Byzantium  ||| Greek Literature / The New Testament

On Line Resources for Constantinople * On the future of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

Greek Forum : Make a question / Start a Discussion 

Reference address : https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/schmemann-orthodoxy-2-triumph.asp?pg=9