1700 anniversary of the 1st Ecumenical Council and the necessity of a common Orthodox- Catholic witness in the face of today’s ecclesial challenges
Prologue
The year 2025 marks the 1700th anniversary of the convocation of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, a singular event in the life of the Church and a defining moment in the articulation of her faith. Convened by Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D., the Council gathered bishops from across the oikoumene to confront the rising threat of Arianism, a heresy that struck at the heart of Christian truth by denying the full divinity of the Son. Their deliberations, sealed with the Nicene Creed and solemn anathemas against doctrinal deviation, not only preserved the apostolic deposit but also forged the theological grammar of Orthodoxy, which continues to guide the Church’s confession and worship to this day.
This publication arises from a presentation delivered by the author during the annual Assembly of Orthodox and Roman Catholic Bishops in Toronto, at Serra House, on June 3, 2025, within the context of Orthodox-Catholic dialogue in Canada, a land shaped by religious pluralism, advancing secularism, and an urgent need for the renewed proclamation of apostolic faith. Its purpose is twofold: to commemorate the enduring legacy of the Council of Nicaea, and to discern its relevance amid the contemporary ecclesial and cultural landscape. Groundedin historical context, with some pastoral sensitivity and such theological precision as was possible in the format, it seeks to examine the doctrinal, and ecumenical implications of Nicaea, while calling both Orthodox and Roman Catholic leaders in Canada to a common witness grounded in fidelity to the truth confessed by the Fathers.
The text is structured into seven thematic sections, beginning with the conciliar nature of the early Church and culminating in a call to safeguard the apostolic faith in the face of modern distortions of Christology, whether manifest in heterodox sects, secular moralism, or non-Christian religious frameworks.
This study is offered both as a tribute and as a challenge: a tribute to those who, in the fourth century, defended the faith even unto exile and martyrdom; and a challenge to those of us who inherit their legacy, to live, teach, and confess that same faith with integrity and courage in our own time. It is our hope that the witness of the Holy Fathers gathered in Nicaea continues to illumine the path of truth and unity for all the faithful, especially here in Canada, where the voice of the Church must resound clearly and without compromise.
I. Introduction: The Synodal character of the Church.
From her earliest stages, theChurch has livedby a synodal ethos rooted in apostolic tradition.The gathering of neighboring bishops to ordain a new bishop for a local church (1) became, in effect, the foundational model for ecclesiastical governance. This practice was integral not only to the emergence of the synodal system at local and regional levels but also established canonical criteria for subsequent ecclesiastical administrative developments. Early on, the Church confronted serious threats posed by heretical movements such as Gnosticism, Montanism, and Monarchianism (2), challenges that endangered ecclesial unity and doctrine.
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-339) in his Ecclesiastical History, vividly illustrates how bishops acted decisively as vigilant shepherds, safeguarding their flocks from heretical teachings, which he compared to weeds corrupting the pure apostolic seed (3). Bishops employed diverse pastoral methods ranging fromadmonitions to formal debates and detailed written refutations, ensuring doctrinal clarity and ecclesial communion.
By the mid-second century, particularly in Asia Minor, this active synodal response had become significantly established. Local councils, initially convened for episcopal ordinations, soon became critical instruments for addressing disturbances caused by heretical groups. Eusebius notes that bishops regularly gathered across Asia (4), formally examined heretical teachings, condemned them, and excluded proponents from the communion of the Church. These councils broadly communicated their decisions through synodal letters, informing neighboring Churches and advising them to sever communion with condemned groups.
Throughout the third century, this synodal principle matured further, with local councils (5) convened across the Roman Empire. These synods addressed diverse theological, canonical, and pastoral issues, including matters of doctrine, ecclesiastical discipline, penitential practices, and the validity of baptism administered outside canonical boundaries. They clarified both internal autonomy and inter-Church relations, balancing hierarchical administration with episcopal conciliarity, and solidifying honorary precedence granted to apostolic sees to facilitate orderly governance and preserve apostolic succession.
Thus, from apostolic times, the synodal character of the Church was activated not only as an administrative mechanism but as a vital ecclesial response to doctrinal deviations and pastoral crises. The synodal system consistently adapted within canonical frameworks, underpinning various administrative forms: episcopal, metropolitan, exarchal, patriarchal, and autocephalous (6).
Indeed, synodality is not an external structure imposed upon the Church but an organic expression of her inherent nature, manifesting visibly and spiritually as an extension of her inner life. From its inception, the Church has lived as communion, a profound mutual participation of her members with Christ, her divine Head. This communion is most deeply expressed sacramentally in the Divine Eucharist, where unity among believers is actual and transformative. Structurally, this unity is expressed through the communion of local Churches, which is visibly manifested in the communion of their bishops. As Saint Paul (c. 5-64/67) writes, the Church is one Body, whose joints and ligaments are joined and held together by Christ, from whom the whole body growswith the growth that is from God(Colossians 2:19) (7).
Paul’s theology of the Church as Christ’s Body provides a robust foundation for understanding the mystical nature and historical mission of the Church. In this Body, the old creation is renewed, and believers partake of new life in Christ through baptism, chrismation, and participation in the Eucharist, sacraments uniting them with Christ and each other, activating the gifts of the Holy Spirit for the benefit of all members.
This inseparable bond between the mystery of Christ and the mystery of the Church constitutes the core of apostolic tradition, shaping both the Christocentric ontology and pneumatocentric fulfillment (8) of the Church’s mission. This understanding is foundational to the apostolic commission, wherein Christ instructed his apostles: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18–20) (9). This command was accompanied by the assurance of the Holy Spirit’s empowering presence: “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8) (10).
Consequently, the apostles saw themselves as stewards of the faith rather than its inventors, faithfully transmitting Christ Himself and His Church, as Saint Paul emphasizes: “I delivered to you what I also received” (1 Corinthians 15:3) (11). Saint Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202) similarly affirms the continuity of apostolic tradition, stating that apostles and their successors faithfully handed on the Church that exists in each place (12). Tertullian (c. 155-240) likewise asserts that truth flows from God through Christ and the apostles into the Church (13), preserved within the unity and proper functioning of the Church’s whole body (14).
Thus, the synodal constitution of the Church transcends mere organizational structures, embodying instead the very life of Christ extending throughout history in unified communion (15). It is precisely in this light that we must view the Council of Nicaea (325), not as an administrative or doctrinal event but as a living conciliar manifestation of the apostolic tradition, defending episcopal communion in orthodoxy against doctrinal distortions.
II. The convocation of the First Ecumenical Council (325).
The First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea was convened in a historical and ecclesial context deeply influenced by a radical shift in the relationship between the Christian Church and the Roman Empire. Christianity, which had endured three centuries of persecution, had finally emerged triumphant within the Greco-Roman world, marking a profound turning point for the Empire itself. By the early fourth century, the Roman Empire had entered a phase of institutional decay, economic hardship, and social instability (16). Christianity’s ascendancy thus offered not merely religious renewal but also a critical new perspective for the restoration of imperial unity, coherence, and universal purpose.
Emperor Constantine the Great (r. 306-337) played a decisive role in this transformative historical moment. His visionary political leadership was evident from the renowned Decisions of Milan in 313, a groundbreaking declaration granting full religious freedom to Christians. However, Constantine’s ambitions extended far beyond religious toleration. His broader reforms aimed at comprehensively reorganizing the Empire’s administrative and social institutions, culminating in his decision to establish a New Rome, Constantinople, as the capital of a renewed Christian Empire. This bold Renovatio Imperii, sought to revitalize the Empire’s identity and stability through the universality of the Christian faith.
This imperial vision was inherently universal, no longer constrained by the traditional geographic boundaries of the former Roman Empire. Inspired by Christ’s commission to spread the Gospel to all nations and to the ends of the earth (17), Constantine’s new empire embraced a truly global perspective. In effect, the Empire emerged as a unique historical manifestation of a genuinely Ecumenical Empire, reflecting in some respects the Stoic ideal of a Cosmopolis (18), an empire with spiritual rather than just territorial frontiers.
The decision of Constantine to convene the First Ecumenical Council in 325 should thus be understood within this broader historical context. Far from an imperial intervention into Church affairs, Constantine’s initiative responded directly to the severe doctrinal divisions arising from the Arian controversy, which had sharply divided bishops throughout the Eastern Roman provinces. The emperor saw clearly that internal unity among Christians was not only essential for doctrinal coherence and ecclesial integrity but indispensable for the political stability and unity of his newly envisioned Empire.
This unprecedented imperial action, coming after centuries of persecution, proved mutually beneficial for both Church and Empire. Indeed, Constantine’s initiative set important precedents, permanently altering the relationship between Church and imperial authority in several fundamental ways: first, it established the principle of imperial cooperation with the Church’s synodal structures, notably influencing the convocation of all subsequent Ecumenical and major Local Councils; second, it solidified the intrinsic link between the unity of faith among bishops and the canonical unity of the entire ecclesial body; third, it aligned ecclesiastical unity closely with imperial unity, reinforcing the notion that ecclesial stability directly contributed to political coherence; fourth, it reinforced the authority of apostolic tradition, providing a clear canonical foundation for the administrative, organizational, and liturgical life of the Church at local, regional, and universal levels; fifth, it synchronized the customary territorial boundaries of ecclesiastical jurisdictions with the official administrative divisions of the Roman provinces; andsixth, it embodied a cooperative partnership between political and ecclesiastical leadership, driven by the shared vision of a united Christian world.
Although Constantine himself never formally declared Christianity as the Empire’s official state religion, he undeniably elevated its status significantly, recognizing it as a legally sanctioned and preferred religion. Despite subsequent periods of confusion or hostile imperial policies under his successors, Constantine’s legacy remained influential. Emperor Theodosius the Great (r. 378–395) explicitly followed Constantine’s example, officially declaring Christianity as the empire’s state religion, though exclusively in its Nicene orthodox form. In a crucial edict issued in 380 (19), and applied ecclesiastically by the Second Ecumenical Council (381/382), Theodosius established Nicene orthodoxy decisively throughout the Roman Empire, effectively bringing to an end the prolonged doctrinal turmoil caused by Arianism.
Thus, the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea represented not only a landmark theological and ecclesiastical event but also a profound moment in history, when the destinies of Church and Empire became closely intertwined, shaping decisively the future of Christianity and its global mission.
III. Arius (c. 256-336) and his doctrine.
To understand the significance of the Council of Nicaea, one must first grasp the nature and implications of the teaching it was summoned to confront. The theology of Arius did not arise in a vacuum, nor was it a passing polemic. It was a well-developed, though ultimately heterodox, reinterpretation of the Christian faith, which challenged the very heart of apostolic tradition and ecclesial communion.
Arius’ teaching denied both the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and His full and eternal divinity. While initially framed in ambiguous language, his views rapidly crystallized into a systematic theological position, which not only undermined the Triune nature of God but also distorted the mystery of the Incarnation. Arius taught that the Son of God, the Logos, was not eternal but a creature, created ex nihilo by the Father, and therefore subject to change, development, and even moral fluctuation. There was a time, Arius famously declared (20), when the Son was not.
This radical subordinationism was clearly articulated in his letters (21), particularly to Eusebius of Nicomedia (d. 341), where Arius stated that the Son was begotten not from the Father’s essence but by His will and counsel, and therefore not unbegotten, not part of the unbegotten, and not from any substratum. He held that the Son, although called God, was such by grace and name only, not by nature (22). In other words, any divinity ascribed to Christ was an honorific title, not a description of His essence.
For Arius, the Son was the first and most perfect of God’s creations, but still a creature. He denied that the Son could fully know or behold the Father, insisting instead that the Logos stood outside the essence of God, foreign and utterly distinct. This led him to a form of philosophical theism that bore closer resemblance to Hellenistic metaphysics than to apostolic Christianity.
Moreover, Arius extended his doctrinal error to Christ’s human nature. He taught that the incarnate Word assumed only a human body devoid of a rational soul, thereby mutilating the fullness of the Incarnation. By replacing the soul with the Logos (23), Arius undermined the Church’s soteriological teaching: that what is not assumed is not healed (24). The Christ he envisioned was not truly God, nor fully human, and thus incapable of effecting our salvation. He was an enlightened teacher, a mediator, but not the Savior in the full theological sense.
Arius also advanced the idea that the Logos became immutable (25) only by divine foreknowledge and moral choice, not by nature. The Son, he claimed, could have fallen, as could any creature, but God foresaw that He would not and thus chose Him. Even this alleged immutability was not ontological but a reward of merit. In this sense, Arius presented the Son as a kind of metaphysical intermediary, a middle being between the uncreated God and the created world. The Logos, in this view, was neither eternal like the Father nor temporal like creation, but an entirely different category. This led to an ambiguous cosmology in which the Logos was reduced to a glorified instrument of divine will, lacking personal relation with the Father and unworthy of true worship.
In sum, Arius’ theology represented a grave distortion of the Christian faith. By rejecting the Son’s eternal generation, his consubstantiality with the Father, and the full reality of the Incarnation, Arius not only dismantled the doctrine of the Trinity but emptied salvation of its power. What remained was a rationalistic and moralistic system that bore the appearance of Christian language but denied its essential content. The Church recognized in Arius’ doctrine not simply a theological error, but a pastoral and soteriological catastrophe.
Arius’ doctrine, in its final formulation, can be seen as a theological synthesis, albeit a deeply flawed one, of the Christological debates of the second and third centuries. It encapsulated the central issue of the era as expressed by the two (26) great exegetical schools of the time: the relationship between the divine Logos and the Son of God incarnate in Jesus Christ. The Alexandrian school, emphasizing unity, often identified the Logos directly with the Son, tending toward a subordinationist framework. The Antiochene tradition, on the other hand, distinguished between the Logos and the historical Jesus, sometimes approaching the Logos as an impersonal or non-hypostatic divine power.
Arius sought to reconcile these diverging tendencies, employing an interpretive method grounded in philosophical monotheism and a selective reading of Scripture. However, his effort led not to clarity but to confusion, distorting the true identity of Christ and undermining the very foundations of Trinitarian faith. By separating the Son from the divine essence and relegating Him to the realm of creatures, albeit the highest of creatures, Arius resulted the Incarnation to an act of manifesting moral exemplarity to the world, rather than the intervention of God into the world as a part of the divine dispensation to the salvation of human kind.
Ultimately, the emergence of Arianism posed an existential threat to the very heart of Christian doctrine. It challenged not only the ontological identity of the Son, but also the unity of the Trinity, the integrity of divine worship, and the very foundation of the Church’s soteriological proclamation. The gravity of the crisis demanded more than regional condemnations or local synodal responses; it necessitated a universal witness of the Church’s faith, expressed with precision, authority, and catholic consensus. Thus, under the providence of God and the initiative of Emperor Constantine, bishops from across the oikoumene were convoked to the city of Nicaea in 325, where the First Ecumenical Council would decisively confront the heresy of Arius and define, once and for all, the apostolic confession concerning the nature of the Son of God. What followed was not a doctrinal rebuttal, but a foundational moment in the history of the Church, a synodal articulation of the faith “which was once for all delivered to the saints”(Jude 1:3), preserved in the consciousness of the Church.
IV. The First Ecumenical Council and the Definition of Faith.
The Council of Nicaea stands as a unique moment in the life of the Church, not only in her doctrinal expression but in the shaping of her visible unity and public witness before the known world. Its convocation was not incidental but providentially situated at the confluence of ecclesiastical crisis and imperial opportunity. Emerging from centuries of persecution, the Christian Church found herself, at the beginning of the fourth century, embraced by an Empire that now sought internal cohesion through religious unity. Emperor Constantine, as aforementioned, moved by both political prudence and a developing reverence for the Christian God, summoned the bishops of the oikoumene to the city of Nicaea in Bithynia in the year 325.
The purpose was urgent: to confront the growing division within the Church sparked by the teachings of Arius. Many bishops attended (27), some of them confessors who bore the marks of past persecution. They represented diverse regions, yet they were united in one central task: to preserve the truth of the Gospel, to guard the apostolic deposit, and to heal the communion of the Church threatened by a dangerous heresy.
At the heart of the Council’s deliberations lay the question: Who is Jesus Christ? Arius, as seen above, had taught that the Son, though exalted, was not co-eternal with the Father, but rather the first and greatest of creatures. He claimed that there was a time when He was not. In doing so, Arius disrupted the very foundations of Trinitarian theology and soteriology. If the Son is not truly God, then God Himself has not entered into human history. If Christ is not consubstantial with the Father, then salvation is not the work of God but the accomplishment of a creature.
The Fathers of the Council, guided by the faith of the Church and the witness of the Scriptures, responded with clarity and decisiveness. They confessed the Son as God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father. The choice of this term –ὁμοούσιος (28) – though unfamiliar to some and absent from the scriptural vocabulary, was not arbitrary. It was a necessary and faithful expression of the Church’s belief in the full divinity of the Son, preserving the mystery of His eternal generation and affirming His equality with the Father in essence and glory.
To safeguard this confession, the Nicene Creed was sealed with solemn anathemas against those who taught that the Son was from another nature or essence that He was created or that there was a time when He was not. These condemnations were a pastoral imperative, becausethe Church did not exclude a different opinion, but a false Christ, and a falsification of the Gospel.
The significance of Nicaea is thus not limited to the Creed it produced, but in the very act of conciliar discernment and proclamation. The Church, assembled in synod, bore witness to the truth she had always believed (29), now articulated with precision in the face of novel error. The Council gave form to what was already the content of her prayer and doxology. In the words of her sacraments, the Church had always offered glory “to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit” as one God in three Persons.
Although the immediate reception of the Creed was met with some hesitancy and would be contested in the decades that followed, the Nicene formulation stood firm as the doctrinal foundation of the Catholic Faith. It provided the grammar of Orthodoxy for future councils and served as the unifying confession of the Church across the centuries. Therefore, the Creed of Nicaea remains the rock upon which the Church proclaims that: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say: “There was a time when he was not” and “he was not before he was made” and “he was made out of nothing” or “he is of another substance” or “essence” or “the Son of God is created” or “changeable” or “alterable”, they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church. (30)
V. The legacy of Arianism in Canada today.
- Denominations and Sects.
Seventeen centuries have passed since the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council assembled in Nicaea to affirm the eternal consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. And yet, the heresy they condemned has never entirely vanished. Its essence, whether in denying the Son’s full divinity, subordinating Him to the Father, diminishing the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, or reducing the Christian mystery to moral exemplarism, has resurfaced in many forms across the ages. In the religious landscape of contemporary world, such Christological errors remain, not as relics of the past, but as present doctrinal teachings, echoing the ancient dissent of Arius in new rhetorical garb. Consequently, several ecclesial communities and religious movements in the Canadian context articulate theological positions that are unmistakably derivative of the Arian heresy or its various theological cousins.
Among the most prominent are the Jehovah’s Witnesses (31), whose global influence extends deeply into Canadian society. Their teachings mirror Arianism in its denial of the Son’s eternal generation, consubstantiality, and divinity. They proclaim that the Word is a created being, exalted but not divine by nature, and that the Holy Spirit is not a Person but an impersonal force, a position indistinguishable from ancient Pneumatomachianism.
Likewise, the Christadelphians (32), though small in number, preserve a form of Socinian rationalism (33) that categorically denies Christ’s pre-existence and divinity, relegating Him to a moral teacher and the Spirit to mere energy. The Iglesia ni Cristo (34), emerging from the Philippines but now present in Canada, maintains a rigid unitarianism: Christ is a man uniquely chosen, but not God; the Spirit is not divine; and the Trinity is dismissed as a post-apostolic corruption. Their stance is more adoptionist than strictly Arian, yet it springs from the same source of theological subordinationism.
The Unitarian Universalist communities (35), more philosophical than confessional, maintain a deliberate agnosticism toward creedal dogma. Yet historically, their denial of the Trinity, affirmation of Christ as a moral exemplar, and opposition to dogmatic expressions of faith align them with the rationalist outgrowth of Arian and Socinian thought. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as Mormons (36) though divergent in origin and cosmology, reject the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, affirm multiple divine persons with distinct substances, and subordinate the Son eternally to the Father. Despite affirming the divinity of Christ in their own categories, their theology remains profoundly incompatible with the homoousion of Nicaea.
Among the most theologically complex are the Arm strongest Churches of God (37). These groups, deriving from the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong (38) (1892-1986) propose a binitarian model in which the Godhead comprises two separate divine beings: the Father and the Son, with the Holy Spirit reduced to an impersonal force. The God Family concept proposes that humans themselves can become divine, further distorting the revealed distinction between Creator and creature.
These movements, however diverse in their origins and terminologies, share a unifying thread: they fracture the dogmatic unity of the Trinity, diminish the glory of the Incarnate Logos, and replace the salvific mystery of the divine dispensation extend with philosophical constructs, rationalist reductionism, or cultural innovation. In denying the full and eternal divinity of the Son and the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, they resound the ancient claims of Arius.
The presence of such doctrines in Canadian society, often cloaked in zealous proselytism or framed by progressive ethical ideals, reveals the enduring necessity of the Nicene witness. In light of this, both the Orthodox (39) and Roman Catholic Churches, as guardians of the Apostolic Faith articulated at Nicaea, are called to respond pastorally together. This response must be rooted in the doctrinal tradition of the first millennium, through catechesis grounded in the Fathers and a liturgical life that unceasingly confesses the Holy Trinity. Yet, the temptation to soften dogma in favor of moralism, or to sacrifice revealed truth upon the altar of inclusivity and cultural accommodation, remains a pressing danger. In today’s Canadian milieu, the faithful are frequently exposed to subtle distortions of Christian doctrine, especially the reduction of the faith to the notion that being a good person alone suffices, without need for Church, dogma, tradition, or ecclesial communion.
- Islamic “Christology” and the Arian paradigm.
While distinct from Christianity both in origin and doctrine, Islam presents a “Christology” that, in many respects, mirrors the core tenets of Arianism. The Qur’anic understanding of Jesus (ʿĪsā), though reverent and theologically significant within Islam, ultimately denies His divine sonship, eternal generation, and consubstantiality with God. Such views, though articulated from within an entirely different religious framework, resonate closely with the essential premises of Arius’ teaching.
In Islam, Jesus is honored as a prophet and messenger of God, born of the Virgin Mary by divine fiat, and destined to return in the last days. However, He is explicitly not the Son of God, nor is He God in any sense. The Qur’an categorically denies the Trinity (40) and condemns the notion that God could have a Son (41). The doctrine of tawḥīd, (42) the radical oneness and indivisibility of God, is held in absolute opposition to any form of divine plurality, including the Christian confession of the Trinity. In this respect, the Qur’anic rejection of Christ’s divinity and eternal pre-existence represents not just a different theology, but a theological antagonism toward Christianity.
This theological stance bears striking resemblance to the Arian subordination of the Son to the Father, and even more so to the radical interpretations that emerged from later Arianizing sects (43). In both systems, Jesus is viewed not as God in essence but as an exalted creature, uniquely honored by God yet ontologically separate from the divine essence. In denying the consubstantiality of the Son, Islam, like Arianism, effectively removes the possibility of God’s full self-revelation in the Incarnation and reduces Christ to a moral exemplar or prophetic voice, rather than the Logos through whom all things were made(cf. John 1:3) and by whom humanity is redeemed.
Though Islam is not a Christian heresy but an independent religion, it preserves and propagates a vision of Jesus that is deeply shaped by ancient heterodox and philosophical currents. The parallels with Arian theology are not coincidental; historically, early Islamic theology developed within the same eastern Mediterranean milieu that had been shaped by centuries of Christological debates and was in part influenced by Judaizing Christian sects (44) and Arianizing groups that survived on the empire’s peripheries.
The relevance of this theological convergence becomes more pressing in light of Islam’s growing demographic and cultural presence in Canada (45). As a religious community that respects Jesus but explicitly denies the foundational dogmas of His divinity, eternal generation, and salvific Incarnation, Islamic “Christology” presents both a pastoral challenge and an ecumenical imperative. For Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians in Canada, this calls not to polemics but to engagement, articulating together with conviction the true identity of Christ as the eternal Son of God, the Logos made flesh, of the same essence with the Father, crucified, dead, risen and ascended for our salvation.
As Saint John the Evangelist warns, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:2-3). This Johannine standard must remain at the heart of our witness: that in the face of ancient and modern rejections of Christ’s divinity, the Church confesses, unshaken, that “the Word was God”(John 1:1) and “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).
VI. The Legacy of Nicaea in Canada today.
- A call to Orthodox-Catholic witness.
As seen above, after the convocation of the First Ecumenical Council, the legacy of Nicaea remains a living source of testimony and responsibility. It is not a distant ecclesiastical memory, but a foundational point of reference for the contemporary mission of the Church. In the Canadian context, marked by increasing secularization, relativism, and religious indifference, this legacy calls the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches to a renewed, united witness to the apostolic faith. Both Churches preserve, in their sacramental life, episcopal structure, and theological tradition, the core truths that Nicaea confessed and handed down. That shared ecclesial memory is not a matter of nostalgia but of mission: to uphold together the faith once delivered to the saints in a society marked by spiritual fragmentation and doctrinal indifference.
The common journey of the past six decades bears witness to the providential unfolding of this call. Initiated by the exchange of letters between Pope John XXIII (1958-1963) and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras (1948-1972), and continued by Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) and the same Patriarch, the path of reconciliation has been marked by gestures of profound significance, most notably the first encounter between a Pope of Rome and a Patriarch of Constantinople since the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439): the historic meeting of Paul VI and Athenagoras in Jerusalem on January 5, 1964.
These efforts continued through the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), during which, for the first time, Orthodox observers were officially welcomed (46), and a new ecumenical ethos was formed. The Council’s documents, especially Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio, challenged previous exclusivist ecclesiologies (47) and acknowledged the Orthodox Church as a true bearer of Apostolic succession and sacramental grace (48). Chief among the outcomesof this renewed engagement was the mutual removal, both from the memory and from the midst of the Church, (49) of the anathemas of 1054, a landmark event in 1965 that marked a definitive shift from estrangement to encounter. Even though it has been described as a simple act of love (50), it was a decisive canonical and ecclesial gesture, which opened the door to fraternal encounters,and formal theological dialogue in the shared desire to heal what history had wounded.
The Agape Dialogue, which cultivated the mutual understanding and restored spiritual trust, laid the groundwork for the theological phase of the relationship between our Churches. This matured into the establishment of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (51). Through this Commission, the Churches have produced a number of significant texts: The Mystery of the Church and the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity (1982), Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church (1987), and Synodality and Primacy in the Second Millennium and Today (2023), among others. These documents do not seek to gloss over differences, but to engage them theologically, always within the horizon of our shared fidelity to the tradition that Nicaea exemplified. They are tools of discernment in theology towards the path to restore communion.
This, however, is not a call to uniformity or a suspension of doctrinal integrity. Rather, as Pope Benedict XVI (2005-2013) affirmed:“unity is not ‘uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline’ but ‘unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity’ rooted in common fidelity to the Gospel and the apostolic tradition.” (52) Similarly, Pope Francis (2013-2025)declared that“Unity is not ‘sameness,’ no, it is unity in diversity […] the Spirit does not imprison us in uniformity, but disposes us to accept one another in our differences […] That is the spirit of the ecumenical journey.” (53)
True fidelity to the legacy of Nicaea in our time means that we are called not to forge a false unity by compromising dogma, but to walk in equal terms and in theological truth toward the fullness of communion. From Nicaea to Canada, this legacy can bear fruits: in shared goals, theological clarity, fraternal cooperation, and acts of love both within and beyond our Churches. It demands the courage to walk together without compromising the integrity of the faith, and the humility to receive the gifts the other brings, without ignoring the theological work still to be done. It is a journey toward the full realization of Christ’s prayer that they all may be one(cf. John 17:21), and a disciplined stand in a world full of moralistic values of Arian descent, and empty of the Son of God.
- Safeguarding the Apostolic Faith in a fragmented religious landscape.
Beyond the call to unity, the legacy of Nicaea in Canada today demands a renewed commitment to safeguarding the apostolic faith in the face of growing spiritual disorientation. The very confession defined at Nicaeanow stands as a theological counterweight to modern relativism, theological minimalism, and religious syncretism. In a society increasingly suspicious of doctrinal claims and allergic to Christian truth, the Church’s bold affirmation of Christ’s divine identity is not only timely; it is essential!
This challenge is intensified by the increasing religious fragmentation within Canada. The nation is marked not only by the decline of Christian affiliation, but also by the proliferation of sects and spiritual movements that distort or deny the core dogmas of the faith. Arian-like tendencies persist, whether in the form of philosophical subordinationism, moralistic Christologies, or outright denials of the divinity of Christ in both old and new religious expressions. As previously noted, many of these groups and sects reflect, in varying degrees, the central errors of Arian doctrine. These communities, together with Islam’s monotheistic but anti-Trinitarian theology, pose significant pastoral challenges to both our Churches, since our faithful must navigate in this complex religious landscape.
Many of these groups skillfully utilize social media platforms and the latest digital tools to engage a society increasingly inclined to interact with screens rather than with people. Thus, our common mission, must be rooted in catechesis, theological education, and pastoral vigilance. Faithful transmission of the Creed, especially in religious education and youth ministry, ensures that Nicaea remains not only a historic reference, but a living confession and a shield against modern-day Arianism.
Moreover, the fragmented religious environment we live in does not call for retreat, but for catechetical boldness. Both Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches must not hesitate to proclaim the uniqueness of Christ, the mystery of the Trinity, and the soteriological necessity of the Incarnation. In the spirit of the Fathers, we must keep proclaiming without compromise that the Word became flesh not merely to teach or inspire, but to redeem and bring humanity to theosis. The message, once thundered forth at Nicaea, must now resound again in the sanctuaries of our communities and parishes.
In light of this fragmented religious landscape, it is imperative that ecumenical efforts not remain abstract or solely international. The unique challenges of the Canadian context, marked by pluralism, religious disaffiliation, and a rapidly changing moral ethos, call for a renewed, contextualized dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches in this land. Building upon the accomplishments of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation (54), and acknowledging the fruitful labors of its theologians, maybe it is time to explore the creation of adistinct Canadian Orthodox-Catholic Theological Dialogue. Such a forum could: a)address shared pastoral concerns, b) promote theological reflection attuned to Canada’s realities, and c)give visible expression to our common fidelity to the apostolic faith. As guardians of the Nicene legacy, both Churches are called to discern how our common heritage may become a source of renewal, not only within our communities, but also as a witness to a society in need of the truth, holiness and communion with Christ.
In sum, to honor the legacy of Nicaea in our time is not to commemorate a distant triumph, but to live and proclaim its truth anew. The call to Orthodox-Catholic unity in witness, and the imperative to safeguard the apostolic faith amidst doctrinal confusion, are not parallel tasks, they are complementary expressions of fidelity to the one Church of Christ, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), whose Creed remains unchanged, and whose mission endures “to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).
VII. Conclusion.
We have seen how the Council of Nicaea arose within a synodal Church, where conciliarity was not an invented convenience but a mode of being. We have examined the Arian crisis not as a mere episode of doctrinal deviation, but as a soteriological rupture, one that demanded a unified and Spirit-filled response from the episcopate across the oikoumene. We have traced the conciliar legacy of Nicaea to our own Canadian context, where modern distortions of Christ’s identity continue to echo the errors of Arius in new guises. And we have affirmed the call to Orthodox-Catholic witness in a fractured religious landscape, not as a utopian aspiration, but as a necessary consequence of our shared fidelity to the Creed.
If Nicaea teaches us anything, it is that truth is not negotiable. Fidelity to the apostolic proclamation requires the courage to confess doctrinal precisionand the humility to pursue visible unity in Christ. It is not enough to preserve formulas; we must embody their meaning. Both our Churches echo the faith of Nicaea not only in academic theology, but in the Eucharist we celebrate, in the bishops that are ordained, and in the Scriptures we proclaim and interpret.
For us in Canada, Nicaea is not a closed chapter of ecclesiastical history, but a living mandate, a call to orthodoxy, to synodality and to the one and only true faith. What was defended and defined at Nicaea continues to inspire, shape, and guard the Church today. In honoring the Holy Fathers, we Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians across the nation, reaffirm our own fidelity to the confession they articulated and the truth they suffered to preserve.
Naturally, this study does not presume to exhaust the vast legacy of the Council of Nicaea. Further exploration could have been undertaken, particularly regarding the Council’s canonical contributions, its foundational role in shaping the synodal structure of the Church, the adoption of the Nicene Paschal formula, and the unresolved issue of a common date for the celebration of Easter, matters that remain both ecclesially urgent and pastorally relevant.
Nevertheless, the central claim stands: the First Ecumenical Council was not just a doctrinal turning point, but a lasting epiphany of the Church’s faith, conciliarity, and spiritual discernment. Its confession of Christ as true God from true God, of the same essence with the Father, remains the cornerstone of Christian orthodoxy and the indispensable criterion for evaluating all subsequent theological claims. In our age, the Nicene faith calls for bold proclamation, and visible unity. In this light, the enduring image offered by St. Gregory the Theologian (c. 329-390) may still inspire the Churches of East and West in their common witness to Christ:
nature has given us not two suns,
but two Romes, beacons of the whole world,
one ancient power and one new;
differing from one another to this extent, that
the one outshines the sun, the other the evening star,
but in their beauty they are equally balanced (55).
Notes
(1) This practice exemplifies clearly how the earliest synodal assemblies were far from mere formalities. Rather, they provided an essential canonical mechanism, safeguarding the doctrinal truth, moral integrity, and ecclesial harmony necessary for maintaining authentic apostolic succession. Historical records such as the testimonies of Hippolytus of Rome, the Apostolic Constitutions and Eusebius of Caesarea, confirm the fundamental ecclesiological principle upon which synodality has been established: that bishops did not act in isolation but in conciliarity, operating in genuine ecclesiastical communion and in constant reference to the apostolic tradition and the consensus of the faithful. For further detail, see Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book VIII, sec.2.4,in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, vol. 7, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 481-82. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Company, 1886; Hippolyte de Rome, La Tradition apostolique, Premièrepartie: Du clergé, 2. De l’évêque, éd. et trad. Dom B. Botte, Sources Chrétiennes11 (Paris : Les Éditions du Cerf, 1916): 26-27; Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book VI, chap. 10, in Eusebius Pamphilus: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine, vol. 1 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 256. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing, 1890.
(2) Gnosticism, Montanism, and Monarchianism were majorheretical movements that threatened the early Church’s doctrine.Gnosticism denied the goodness of creation and the full humanity of Christ, teaching salvation through esoteric knowledge and positing a lesser creator deity (Dēmiourgós). Montanism, emerging in 2nd-century Phrygia, emphasized ecstatic prophecy, strict moralism, and direct inspiration through Montanus and his prophetesses, challenging ecclesial authority. Monarchianism, in both its modalistic and adoptionist forms, attempted to safeguard divine unity but distorted Trinitarian doctrine by either collapsing the Persons into modes (Sabellianism) or denying Christ’s eternal divinity (Dynamic Monarchianism).For further reading, see the corresponding entries in Theologische Realenzyklopädie (TRE), Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (DTC), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (RAC), Encyclopedia of the Early Church, ed. Angelo Di Berardino, and The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone.
(3)Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book IV, chap. 24, in Eusebius Pamphilus: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine, vol. 1 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 202. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1890. Cf. Εὐσεβίου Παμφίλου, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία,Λόγος Δ’, Κεφ. ΚΔ’, PG 20, col. 389B:
“And as the heretics, no less then than at other times, were like tares, destroying the pure harvest of apostolic teaching, the pastors of the churches everywhere hastened to restrain them as wild beasts from the fold of Christ, at one time by admonitions and exhortations to the brethren, at another time by contending more openly against them in oral discussions and refutations, and again by correcting their opinions with most accurate proofs in written works”
(4)Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book V, chap. 16, in Eusebius Pamphilus: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine, vol. 1 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 232. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1890. Cf. Εὐσεβίου Παμφίλου, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία, ΛόγοςΕ’, Κεφ. ΙΣΤ’, PG 20, col. 468C:
“For the faithful in Asia met often in many places throughout Asia to consider this matter,and examined the novel utterances and pronounced them profane, and rejected the heresy, and thus these persons were expelled from the Church and debarred from communion.”
(5)For example, the Synods of Iconium and Synnada (c. 230-235) addressed the Montanist heresy and the rebaptism of heretics. The Synod of Antioch (c. 268) condemned Paul of Samosata and his adoptionist Christology. In Carthage, a series of Synods (between 220 and 256) under Agrippinus and later Cyprian of Carthage addressed issues such as the lapsi, rebaptism, clerical discipline, and the validity of baptism administered by heretics. For further detail, Charles Joseph Hefele’s Conciliens geschichte remains a classical reference, drawing extensively on the primary sources. See Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Christian Councils, from the original documents, vol. 1, trans. William R. Clark(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1872): 86-126; see also the revised French translation and expanded edition of Hefele’s work by Henri Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. I: Première partie (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1907): 154-206.
(6) The synodal system of the Church developed organically in response to historical, pastoral, and administrative needs. Rooted in the local episcopal synods of the apostolic and sub-apostolic era (cf. Acts 15:1–35), the metropolitan structure was formally instituted at the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325; Canons 4 and 5), with regional primates presiding over provincial synods. The Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381; Canons 2 and 6) introduced the exarchal system, leading eventually to the patriarchal model and the Pentarchy: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, ranked by honor (Chalcedon, 451; Canons 9, 17, 28).
The Church of Cyprus was granted autocephaly at the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431; Canon 8), while the Russian Church, originally under Constantinople, was declared autocephalous in 1589, ratified by a pan-Orthodox conference in 1593 under Patriarch Jeremias II. Peter the Great abolished the Russian patriarchate in 1721; it was restored in 1917.
In the modern era, national autocephalies emerged amid rising ethnonationalism (known among Orthodox as ethnophyletism): Greece (declared 1833, recognized 1850), Serbia (1879), Romania (declared 1865, recognized 1885), and Bulgaria (declared 1870, recognized 1945). Though some were initially uncanonical, these acts reflect adaptive applications of synodality within national frameworks.
In the post-Byzantine period, the highest synodal authority has taken the form of Great pan-Orthodox conferences, culminating most recently in the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (Crete, 2016), which, in the author’s view, now represents the most viable expression of the synodal character of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
(7)See also Ephesians 4:11-16; 1:17-23; Romans 12:3-5; and 1 Corinthians 12:12, where the Apostle Paul develops the image of the Church as the Body of Christ, joined together by its diverse members and growing in unity through Christ, its Head.
(8)The bond between the mystery of Christ and the mystery of the Church is foundational to Orthodox ecclesiology. The ontology of the Church is essentially Christocentric, grounded in the historical reality of the divine dispensation, from the Annunciation, wherein the Logos became flesh, to the Ascension, in which Christ glorified human nature and seated it at the right hand of the Father. Yet this mystery reaches its fullness through the pneumatocentric event of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles, revealing the Church as the Body of Christ and initiating the evangelization of the nations. This twofold Christological and pneumatological axis shapes the spiritual life of the faithful: to live in Christ is to participate in His Paschal Mystery, illumined and made effective by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Through baptism, chrismation, and continuous participation in the Holy Eucharist, believers are united to Christ and formed into a new creation. The ecclesial consciousness of the early Christians was deeply aware of this dual mystery. They understood themselves as one body in Christ, sharing in His Body and Blood, and living in constant dependence upon the Holy Spirit, who knits together the entire ecclesial organism. In this context, the Eucharist becomes the summit of ecclesial life, the concrete space where the faithful experience both communion with Christ and the active presence of the Spirit. Moral transformation and sanctification are not abstract ideals (such as in the modern notion of simply being a “good person”) but rather flow from the sacramental life of the Church, wherein the believer is conformed to Christ by grace and strives to embody the virtues of the Kingdom. The spiritual struggle of the Christian(his or her journey toward moral excellence and the imitation of Christ)is thus a liturgically grounded and pneumatologically empowered participation in the life of the Church. It is in this organic synergy that the Church fulfills her apostolic mission in every age: to form the new humanity and renew all creation in Christ.
(9) See also Mark 16:14-18, where Christ commands the apostles to preach and baptize, affirming the signs that will accompany believers; and Jn. 17:18-19, where Jesus consecrates the apostles in truth as those sent into the world, just as He was sent by the Father.
(10)See also Luke 24:44-49, where Christ commissions the disciples to preach repentance and promises the “power from on high”; and John 20:21-23, where He breathes on them, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” linking mission and forgiveness to the Spirit’s presence.
(11)See also Galatians 1:11-12, where Paul affirms that the Gospel he preached was not of human origin but received through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
(12) Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chap. 33, 8, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, vol. 1: The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 508. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Company, 1885. Cf. ΕἰρηναίουΛουγδούνου, Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, Δ’ 33, 8, PG 7a, col. 1077B. See also: William Wigan Harvey, ed., Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis Libros Quinque Adversus Haereses, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1857), 262.
“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy.”
(13)Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics, chap. 21.4, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, vol. 3: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian – I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 252. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Company, 1885. Cf. Tertullien, De la prescription contre les hérétiques, XXI, 4:11-15, in Sources Chrétiennes 46, ed. R.-F. Refoulé, O.P., trans. P. de Labriolle (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1957) : 114-15. See also: Tertulliani Opera, De praescriptione adversus haereticos, PL 2, col. 33B
“If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches -those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God.”
(14)See also 1 Corinthians 12:24-25, where Paul explains that God arranged the body so that there may be no division, but mutual care among its members.
(15)Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18.5, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, vol. 1: The Apostolic Fathers. Justin Martyr – Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 486. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885. Cf. Εἰρηναίου Λουγδούνου, Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, Δ’ 18.5, PG 7a, col. 1028A. See also: William Wigan Harvey, ed., Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis Libros Quinque Adversus Haereses, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1857): 205
“But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion”.
(16)Indeed, emerging from the Crisis of the Third Century (235-284) and only partially stabilized by the reforms of Diocletian (284-305) and Constantine (306-337), the Roman Empire continued to endure the effects of prolonged civil wars, military usurpations, and administrative fragmentation. For more, see A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602, vol. 1 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1964): 1-35.
(17)See Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:7-8.
(18)The Stoic notion of the Cosmopolis (κοσμόπολις)developed by Zeno of Citium in the 3rd century BC, envisioned a universal moral and rational community in which all humans were citizens by nature, united under the governance ofright reason(logos). Roman Stoicsgave this concept greater ethical and political force. This ideal was taken up and reinterpreted by early Christian thinkers, who envisioned the Churchas the true cosmopolis, a universal city of grace, communion, and heavenly orientation. This vision deeply informed Emperor Constantine the Great, who, inspired by Christian universalism, conceived his Empire as the earthly embodiment of divine order: a sacred Basileia uniting heaven and earth under Christ’s sovereignty. For Constantine, imperial unity, ecclesial unity, and moral harmony were mutually reinforcing realities.
(19)Codex Theodosianus, Book XVI, Title 1, Law 2, “An Edict to the People of the City of Constantinople,” in The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions: A Translation with Commentary, Glossary, and Bibliography, trans. Clyde Pharr (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952): 440.Cf. Codex Theodosianus XVI.1.2 in Theodor Mommsen and Paul Meyer, eds., Theodosiani Libri XVI (Berlin: Weidmann, 1905): 833
“Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius Agustuses: An Edict to the People of the City of Constantinople. It is our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans, as the religion which he introduced makes clear even unto this day. It is evident that this is the religion that is followed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity; that is, according to the apostolic discipline and the evangelic doctrine, we shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity. We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment. Given on the third day before the kalends of March at Thessalonica in the year of the fifth consulship of Gratian Augustus and the first consulship of Theodosius Augustus – February 28, 380.”
(20)Theodoret of Cyrus, Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Chapter 3, “Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople,” in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 3: Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, and Rufinus: Historical Writings, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 35. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1892.Cf. Θεοδωρήτου Κύρου, Εκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία, ΛόγοςΑ’ Κεφ. Γ’, «Ἀλεξάνδρου ἐπισκόπου Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον ἐπίσκοπον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως», PG 82, col. 892B
“It is on this account, beloved brethren, that without delay I have stirred myself up to inform you of the unbelief of certain persons who say that ‘There was a time when the Son of God was not;’ and ‘He who previously had no existence subsequently came into existence; and when at some time He came into existence He became such as every other man is.’”
(21)See Theodoret of Cyrus, Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Chapter 4, “Epistle of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia,” in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 3: Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, and Rufinus: Historical Writings, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 41. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1892. Cf. Θεοδωρήτου Κύρου, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία, ΛόγοςΑ’, ΚεφάλαιοΔ’, «Ἀρείου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Εὐσέβιον τῆς Νικομηδείας ἐπίσκοπον», PG 82, cols. 909D-912C.
(22)Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Arians, Discourse I, in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 4: St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 309. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1892. Cf. Ἀθανασίου Ἀλεξανδρείας, Κατὰ Ἀρειανῶν, ΛόγοςΑ’, PG 26, cols. 21C-24A:
“Moreover he has dared to say, that ‘the Word is not the very God;’‘ though He is called God, yet He is not very God,’ but ‘by participation of grace, He, as others, is God only in name.’”
(23) See Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Arians, Discourse II, in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 4: St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 386-87. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1892. Cf.Ἀθανασίου Ἀλεξανδρείας, Κατὰ Ἀρειανῶν, Λόγος Β’, PG 26, cols. 293A-296C.
(24) The principle “What is not assumed is not healed”(τὸ γὰρ ἀπρόσληπτον, ἀθεράπευτον·)was formulated by St. Gregory the Theologian (c.329-390) in his Letter to Cledonius the Priest, in response to Apollinarianism.Apollinaris (d. 382) denied that Christ possessed a rational human soul, claiming instead that the divine Logos took its place. Gregory’s axiom affirms the fundamental soteriological insight that, in order to redeem humanity, Christ had to assume it in its entirety: the whole of our nature, except sin. Though the phrase itself is not a direct biblical citation, it reflects the common consciousness of the Church and is supported by numerous Scriptural texts that testify to both the fullness of Christ’s humanity and the salvific purpose of the Incarnation.Thus, when Arius proposed a Christology that mutilated the Incarnation by depriving it of a human soul, his teaching clashed with the Church’s unbroken conviction that Christ became fully human in order to fully save humanity. This axiom is scripturally shown by passages such as: Hebrews 2:14-18; Romans 8:3; John 1:14; Philippians 2:6-7; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; and Isaiah 53:4-5 (LXX)Together, these texts provide the scriptural scaffolding for Gregory’s later theological affirmation that Christ heals that which He truly assumes. Any denial of the full assumption of human nature, whether in Arianism, Apollinarianism, or Nestorianism, undermines the very plan of salvation. See Gregory Nazianzen, Epistle 101, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 7: Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 440. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1894; cf.Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου, PA’.Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Κληδόνιον πρεσβύτερον κατὰ Ἀπολλιναρίου, Ἐπιστολὴ Α’, PG 37, col. 481C.
(25) See Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Arians, Discourse I, in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 4: St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 309. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1892; cf. ἈθανασίουἈλεξανδρείας, ΚατὰἈρειανῶνΛόγοςΑ’, PG 26, cols. 21C-24A
“And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and remains good by His own free will, while He chooseth; when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature. For ‘therefore,’ saith he, ‘as foreknowing that He would be good, did God by anticipation bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known, did God bring it to pass that He being such, should come to be.’”
(26)The Alexandrian and Antiochian Schools represent two influential theological and exegetical traditions within early Christianity. The Alexandrian School, centered in Alexandria of Egypt, emphasized allegorical biblical interpretation and the unity of Christ’s person, often focusing on His divinity. Key figures include Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria. The Antiochian School, based in Antioch of Syria, preferred a literal-historical reading of Scripture and stressed the distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures, represented by Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nestorius of Constantinople. Their theological differences contributed to major Christological debates, culminating in the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451).For more, see Ulrich Wickert, “Alexandrian Theology” and “Antiochean Theology,” in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, ed. Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, vol. 1. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999): 38-39; 82-83.
(27)For a comprehensive study on the surviving manuscript tradition of the attending members of the First Ecumenical Council and a critical edition of the episcopal catalogues in Latin, Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian, the standard scholarly resource remains Ernest Honigmann, Listes originales des Pères de Nicée, Subsidia Hagiographica 19 (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1939). A full English translation and synthesis is now available in Young Richard Kim, ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021). See also the earlier foundational work: H. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, and O. Cuntz, Patrum Nicaenorum Nomina (Leipzig: Teubner, 1898).
(28) The term ὁμοούσιος, (homoousios – of one essence or consubstantial) had a complex and, at times, controversial history prior to its adoption at the Council of Nicaea in 325. Among the earliest known theological uses are found in certain Gnostic systems, though with meanings substantially distinct from later Nicene orthodoxy. In his account of the teachings of Basilides(fl. 117-138), Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235) describes a doctrine of a threefold sonship (υἱότηςτριμερής) existing within the divine seed, each part being ὁμοούσιος, that is of the same essence (consubstantial)with the “God who is not”, and said to be “generated from the things that are not”: ἦν οὖν, φησίν, ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ σπέρματι υἱότης τριμερής, κατὰ πάντα τῷ οὐκ ὄντι θεῷ ὁμοούσιος, γεννητὴ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. See Hippolytus, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium VII.22.7, ed. Miroslav Marcovich, in Patristische Texte und Studien 25 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1986): 290; English trans. J. H. MacMahon, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995): 277. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1886.
The use of the term ὁμοούσιοςby Paul of Samosata (c. 200-275), bishop of Antioch, presents one of the earliest controversies involving the term. Paul is reported to have conceived the Logos not as a distinct hypostasis but as an impersonal attribute or energy within the Father, a form of adoptionist monarchianism. His teaching was condemned at the Synod of Antioch (268), which, according to fourth-century writers, rejected the term ὁμοούσιος both for its perceived monarchianist implications and because it did not appear in Scripture, although a precise Trinitarian theology had not yet been formulated. Our knowledge of Paul’s doctrine derives primarily from later patristic sources including: Hilary of Poitiers (De Synodis,§§81-86,PL 10, cols. 534A-539A); Athanasius of Alexandria (De Synodis3, §§ 43; 45; 47,PG 26,cols. 768C-769B, 772A-775A and 775C-777B), Basil of Caesarea, (Epistle 52, PG 32, cols.392B-396C); Eusebius of Caesarea, (Ecclesiastical History VII.27, PG 20, cols. 705B); Epiphanius of Salamis (Panarium II.2, PG 42, cols. 12C-29A).
For further analysis, see the relevant entries in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie (TRE); Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (DTC); Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (RAC); Encyclopedia of the Early Church, ed. Angelo Di Berardino; and The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. For English translations of the above primary sources, see A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace: vol. 1, p. 312 (Eusebius: Church History); vol. 4, pp. 473-75 (Athanasius: Select Works and Letters); vol. 8, pp. 155–56 (Basil: Letters and Select Works); vol. 9, pp. 25-27 (Hilary of Poitiers); and The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, vol. 2: Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), trans. Frank Williams (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987), pp. 216-26.
(29)The Church, in responding to heresy, does not construct doctrine as a novelty but gives articulate form to the faith she has always lived, which is the deposit handed down from Christ to the Apostles, and from them to the bishops and the faithful throughout the ages. The need for doctrinal precision arises not from theological curiosity but from disruption. An apt analogy may be drawn from the world of music: one does not need to define music to recognize its presence! It is experienced, heard, felt, loved as harmony, rhythm, and ordered beauty. Yet when dissonance intrudes, or when someone insists that mere noise or chaotic sound is true music, the ear recoils, and musicians are compelled to define what music is. They articulate its principles not because they have changed, but because error has challenged what was previously known. In the same manner, the Church speaks dogmatically not to impose new truths, but to guard the harmony of faith against discord. The ecumenical councils, therefore, are not moments of theological invention, but of discernment, clarifying in words what the Church has always had and preserved in her living tradition.
(30) This version of the Symbol of Faith corresponds to the Creed adopted at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (325), and not the 381version, commonly known today as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. As the official Acta of the Council of Nicaea have not survived, the text is preserved through the writings of fourth and fifth-century Church Fathers and ecclesiastical historians. Key sources include the Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to his diocese, preserved by Athanasius of Alexandria in De Decretis Synodi Nicaenae,(cited in Migne’s PG 25b, cols. 429AB and476, but published under Eusebius’ corpus inPG 20, 1536-1544C). The letter is also quoted in the Church History of Socrates Scholasticus (Hist. eccl. I.8,PG 67,69B-77A) and that of Theodoret of Cyrus (Hist. eccl. I.11, PG 82, 939A-944C);The Creed is additionally cited by Athanasius in his Letter to Emperor Jovian (also known as Letter 56, PG 26, col. 817BC);by Basil of Caesarea in the Exemplar Fidei(also known as Letter 125,PG 32, col. 548CD);and by Epiphanius of Salamis in Contra Marcellianos(withinPanarionIII.1,PG 42, col 400AB).
The Symbol of Nicaea is also found later in the Acta of the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431,First Act, Mansi 4, col. 1137C;not quoted in full by the editor) and in the Acta of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451,Fifth Act, Mansi 7, cols. 109C-112C), where it is presented alongside the Symbol of the 150 Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381).
For English translations, although partial, of the above sources, see A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace: vol. 2, pp. 10-12 (Socrates: Church History);vol. 3, pp. 49-51 (Theodoret: Church History);vol. 4 p. 152 (Athanasius: Select Writings and Letters; not quoted in full by the editor); vol. 8, p. 568 (Basil of Caesarea: Letters and Select Works; not quoted full by the editor); vol. 14,pp. 197 and 263(The Seven Ecumenical Councils; creed mentioned, but not quoted in full by the editor); The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, vol. 2: Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), trans. Frank Williams (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987), p. 442.
(31) Jehovah’s Witnesses constitute approximately 1.3 percent of Canada’s population as of 2021. Statistics Canada, “The Canadian census: A rich portrait of the country’s religious and ethnocultural diversity,” The Daily, October 26, 2022. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026b-eng.htm (accessed May 28, 2025). See also Statistics Canada, “Special Interest Profile, 2021 Census of Population, Profile of interest: Religion,”https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/sip/details/page.cfm?Dguid=2021A000011124&Lang=E&PoiId=8 (accessed May 29, 2025).
(32) Christadelphian sare estimated at fewer than 0.1 percent of Canada’s population. See Statistics Canada, The Canadian census, October 26, 2022; see also Special Interest Profile, 2021 Census of Population: Religion.
(33)Socinianism is a theological system that originated in the 16th century through the writings of Lelio Sozzini (1525-1562) and his nephew Fausto Sozzini (1539-1604). It developed within the Polish Brethren and came to full expression in the Racovian Catechism (1605). Socinians rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, denied the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, and taught a rationalist, moralistic understanding of Christianity. For Socinians, Jesus was a mere human being, though divinely inspired, whose role was primarily that of a moral teacher and example. Their theology was deeply anti-metaphysical, emphasizing free will, toleration, and the use of reason in interpreting Scripture. Socinianism became influential in the development of modern Unitarianism and liberal Protestant theology. For more see the studies of Earl Morse Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism: Socinianism and Its Antecedents (Boston: Beacon Press, 1945) and Bowers, J. D. Joseph Priestley and English Unitarianism in America. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007.
(34) Iglesia ni Cristo constitutes approximately 0.04 percent. See Statistics Canada, The Canadian census, October 26, 2022; see also Special Interest Profile, 2021 Census of Population: Religion.
(35) Unitarian Universalists account for approximately 0.1 percent of the population. See Statistics Canada, The Canadian census, October 26, 2022; see also Special Interest Profile, 2021 Census of Population: Religion.
(36)Mormons (Latter-day Saints) represent approximately 0.2 percent. See Statistics Canada, The Canadian census, October 26, 2022; see also Special Interest Profile, 2021 Census of Population: Religion.
(37)Armstrong Churches of Godare not statistically isolated but presumed to be under 0.01 percent. See Statistics Canada, The Canadian census, October 26, 2022; see also Special Interest Profile, 2021 Census of Population: Religion.
(38)Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), developed a theological system known as Armstrongism, which rejected the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, he taught a binitarian view of the Godhead, affirming God the Father and Jesus Christ as two distinct divine beings, and regarding the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force. Armstrong also advanced teachings such as British Israelism, Old Testament holy day observance, and a millenarian eschatology. After his death, the WCG underwent significant theological reform under Joseph Tkach Sr. and Jr., culminating in the acceptance of Nicene orthodoxy, including the Trinity, salvation by grace, and fellowship with other Christian churches. The reformed body now operates as Grace Communion International (GCI).However, most followers who rejected these reforms formed independent Armstrongist denominations that continue to reject the Nicene Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity, maintaining Armstrong’s original binitarian theology.Major groups include: United Church of God (UCG), Living Church of God (LCG), Philadelphia Church of God (PCG), Restored Church of God (RCG), Church of God, a Worldwide Association (COGWA), Church of the Great God (CGG). These churches affirm the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, but deny His ὁμοούσιον (consubstantiality) with the Father, and explicitly reject the Holy Spirit as a divine person. For more see: Boston, Stephen W. The Essential Teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong(Lincoln, NE: Writers Club Press, 2002) and Chambers, Roger. The Plain Truth about Armstrongism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988).Numerous additional primary and secondary sources, both supportive and critical of Armstrongism, can be found online through official church websites, archival publications and independent apologetics or polemics platforms.
(39)Among various modern groups whose Christological teachings reflect Arian or subordinationist tendencies, certain denominations explicitly reject the Nicene doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. For this reason, and in accordance with canonical order and in the interest of safe guarding doctrinal integrity, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Canada does not permit mixed marriages between Orthodox Christians and members of these communities.
This prohibition is due not only to their denial or ambiguous confession of the consubstantial Trinity, but also for their rejection of sacramental ecclesiology, and apostolic succession. Interconfessional marriages are therefore prohibited with members of the following denominations: Seventh-day Adventists, Assemblies of God, Mennonites, Salvation Army, Religious Society of Friends(Quakers), Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witness, Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Swedenborgians, and Unitarian Universalists.
In the author’s view, further pastoral and doctrinal questions arise in relation to groups such as non-denominational evangelicals and the United Church of Canada. While many non-denominational communities profess belief in the Trinity, their theological formulations often lack precision and accountability to conciliar tradition, leading to doctrinal inconsistencies, including tendencies toward modalism or subordinationism. The United Church of Canada, though officially Trinitarian, sometimes appears to embrace a pluralistic theological language in which key tenets of Nicene doctrine are diluted. In any case, interconfessional marriages require careful pastoral discernment and episcopal approval.
(40) Qur’ān 4:171-172, trans. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Qur’an: A Thematic English Translation (Book of Signs Foundation, 2017), https://archive.org/details/the-clear-quran-a-thematic-english-translation-allah-edition-dr.-mustafa-khattab-2017-bc-2-c-0-ddb/page/n105/mode/2up (accessed May 31, 2025):
“O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth! The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit “created by a command’ from Him! So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, ‘Trinity’ Stop! —for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs. The Messiah would never be too proud to be a servant of Allah, nor would the angels nearest to Allah. Those who are too proud and arrogant to worship Him will be brought before Him all together.”
Qur’ān 5:73, trans. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Qur’an: A Thematic English Translation (Book of Signs Foundation, 2017), https://archive.org/details/the-clear-quran-a-thematic-english-translation-allah-edition-dr.-mustafa-khattab-2017-bc-2-c-0-ddb/page/n117/mode/2up (accessed May 31, 2025):
“Those who say, ‘Allah is one in a Trinity’ have certainly fallen into disbelief. There is only One God. If they do not stop saying this, those who disbelieve among them will be afflicted with a painful punishment.”
(41) Qur’ān 19:35, trans. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Qur’an: A Thematic English Translation (Book of Signs Foundation, 2017), https://archive.org/details/the-clear-quran-a-thematic-english-translation-allah-edition-dr.-mustafa-khattab-2017-bc-2-c-0-ddb/page/n267/mode/2up (accessed May 31, 2025):
“It is not for Allah to take a son! Glory be to Him. When He decrees a matter, He simply tells it, ‘Be!’ And it is.”
(42) Qur’ān 112:1-4, trans. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Qur’an: A Thematic English Translation (Book of Signs Foundation, 2017), https://archive.org/details/the-clear-quran-a-thematic-english-translation-allah-edition-dr.-mustafa-khattab-2017-bc-2-c-0-ddb/page/111/mode/2up (accessed May 31, 2025):
“In the Name of Allah – the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful. Say, ‘O Prophet, He is Allah – One and Indivisible; Allah – the Sustainer ‘needed by all’. He has never had offspring, nor was He born. And there is none comparable to Him.’”
(43)Arianizing sects refer to the various groups that rejected or modified the Nicene doctrine of the consubstantiality (ὁμοούσιος) of the Son with the Father. After the condemnation of Arianism at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325, derivative groups such as the Homoians taught that the Son was “like” (ὅμοιος) the Father without reference to essence, while the Anomoeans, led by Aëtius of Antioch (fl. 350) and Eunomius of Cyzicus (d. ca. 393), asserted that the Son was “unlike” (ἀνόμοιος) the Father in substance. The Semi-Arians accepted the term “of like essence” (ὁμοιοούσιος), often accusing Niceens of Sabellianism. Meanwhile, the Pneumatomachians (or Macedonians, from their founder Macedonius of Constantinople, d. ca. 360) accepted that the Sonwas “of like essence” with the Father,like the Semi-Arians, but denied the godhood of the Holy Spirit. Among the Gothic tribes, Arianism flourished through the missionary effort of their first bishop Ulfilas (ca. 311–383), who translated the Bible into Gothic and taught Arian Christology, being a disciple of Eusebius of Nicomedia. For more, see the corresponding entries in the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (DTC), where full bibliographies and further primary and secondary sources are provided.
(44)While Judaizing and Arianizing sects arose in distinct contexts, one rooted in Jewish Law observance, the other in Hellenistic metaphysics, they share important Christological parallels, particularly in their subordinationist tendencies. The Ebionites, a Jewish-Christian sect of the 2nd century, exemplify this overlap. They upheld Torah observance, rejected the apostolic authority of St. Paul, and denied the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, viewing Jesus as a mere man “adopted” by God, a view closely related to adoptionism and the later subordinationist Christology of Arius. Similarly, the Elkesaites propagated a mystical and dualistic Christology, portraying Christ as a heavenly being distinct from the man Jesus, thereby resembling some later Arian and even Gnostic trends. See Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 99-103; and A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 19-43; 54-73.
(45)Muslims represent approximately 4.9 percent of Canada’s population as of the 2021 Census. See Statistics Canada, “The Canadian Census: A Rich Portrait of the Country’s Religious and Ethnocultural Diversity,” The Daily, October 26, 2022, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026b-eng.htm (accessed May 28, 2025); and Statistics Canada, Special Interest Profile, 2021 Census of Population: Religion, https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/sip/details/page.cfm?Dguid=2021A000011124&Lang=E&PoiId=8 (accessed May 29, 2025).
(46)See Motu Proprio Approprinquante Concilio, August 6, 1962, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 54 (1962),618.
(47)Lumen Gentium, §8, in Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council(November 21, 1964),
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html (accessed May 31, 2025):
“This Church, constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”
(48)Unitatis Redintegratio, §15, in Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council (November 21, 1964), https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html (accessed May 31, 2025):
“These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore, some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.”
(49) Joint Catholic–Orthodox Declaration of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I (December 7, 1965),
https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration.html (accessed May 31, 2025).
(50)John Karmiris, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, vol. 3: The Fourth Session of the Second Vatican Council (Athens, 1966): 139 [in Greek; English translation by the author]:
“What has occurred is an act of love, and in no way does it signify a lifting of the existing Schism between our Holy Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, nor does it introduce any change in the current state of either Church with respect to dogmatic teaching, canonical order, divine worship, or ecclesiastical life in general. Neither does it constitute, in any manner, a restoration of sacramental communion. Rather, it is simply and solely intended to facilitate -also at the formal level- the further development of communication which has already begun in deed, which exists today, and is continuously advancing between the two Churches.”
(51)All the texts of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are available at: https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo.html (accessed May 31, 2025).
(52) Pope Benedict XVI, Address at the Ecumenical Meeting in Cologne, 19 August 2005,https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050819_ecumenical-meeting.html (accessed May 30, 2025).
(53) Pope Francis, Address at the Ecumenical Meeting, Bahrain, 4 November 2022, https://www.osservatoreromano.va/en/news/2022-11/ing-045/unity-is-not-uniformity-but-harmony-in-diversity.html (accessed May 30, 2025).
(54)See the official documents and reports of the North American Orthodox–Catholic Theological Consultation, available at the following sites:
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB): https://www.cccb.ca/church-in-dialogue/ecumenical-relations/statements-and-resources/north-american-orthodox-catholic-theological-consultation/ (accessed May 31, 2025);
Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America: https://www.assemblyofbishops.org/ministries/ecumenical-and-interfaith-dialogues/orthodox-catholic/ (accessed May 31, 2025);
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB):
https://www.usccb.org/committees/ecumenical-interreligious-affairs/documents-produced-north-american-orthodox-catholic (accessed May 31, 2025).
(55) Gregory of Nazianzus, Autobiographical Poems, trans. and ed. Carolinne White (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), “Concerning His Own Life,” vv. 562-567, pp. 52-53.
Bibliography
Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum: Concilium Ephesinum. In Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, Vol. 4. Edited by J.-D. Mansi. Florence: Expensis Antonii Zatta, 1759.
Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum: Concilium Chalcedonense. In Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, Vol. 7. Edited by J.-D. Mansi. Florence: Expensis Antonii Zatta, 1761.
Apostolic Constitutions. In Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Vol. 7: The Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries. Revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Company, 1886.
Athanasius of Alexandria. Against the Arians. In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Vol. 4: St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1892.
Athanasius of Alexandria. De Synodis. In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Vol. 4: St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in 1892.
Athanasius of Alexandria. Letter 56 De Fide. In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Vol. 4: St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in 1892.
Basil of Caesarea. Letter 52. In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Vol. 8: Letters and Select Works. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in 1895.
Benedict XVI. Address at the Ecumenical Meeting in Cologne, August 19, 2005. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050819_ecumenical-meeting.html (accessed May 30, 2025).
Boston, Stephen W. The Essential Teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong. Lincoln, NE: Writers Club Press, 2002.
Bowers, J. D. Joseph Priestley and English Unitarianism in America. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007.
Chambers, Roger. The Plain Truth about Armstrongism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988.
Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Di Berardino, Angelo, ed. Encyclopedia of the Early Church. 2 vols. Translated by Adrian Walford. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Epiphanius of Salamis. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Vol. 2: Books II and III (Sects 47–80, De Fide). Translated by Frank Williams. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987.
Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History. In Eusebius Pamphilus: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine. Vol. 1 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1890.
Francis. Address at the Ecumenical Meeting, Bahrain, November 4, 2022. https://www.osservatoreromano.va/en/news/2022-11/ing-045/unity-is-not-uniformity-but-harmony-in-diversity.html (accessed May 30, 2025).
Gelzer, Heinrich, H. Hilgenfeld, and Otto Cuntz. Patrum Nicaenorum Nomina. Leipzig: Teubner, 1898.
Gregory Nazianzen. Epistle 101. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Vol. 7: Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1894.
Gregory of Nazianzus. Autobiographical Poems. Translated and edited by Carolinne White. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Harvey, William Wigan, ed. Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis Libros Quinque Adversus Haereses. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1857.
Hefele, Charles Joseph. A History of the Christian Councils, from the Original Documents. Vol. 1. Translated by William R. Clark. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1872.
Hilarius Pictaviensis [Hilary of Poitiers]. De Synodis. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, Vol. 10, edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1845.
Hilary of Poitiers. On the Councils or the Faith of the Easterns. In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Vol. 9. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 25–27. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1899.
Hippolyte de Rome. La Tradition apostolique. Première partie: Du clergé, 2. De l’évêque. Edited and translated by Dom B. Botte. Sources Chrétiennes 11. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1916.
Hippolytus. Refutatio Omnium Haeresium. Edited by Miroslav Marcovich. Patristische Texte und Studien 25. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1986.
Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. In The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Vol. 5: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1886.
Honigmann, Ernest. Listes originales des Pères de Nicée. Subsidia Hagiographica 19. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1939.
Irenaeus. Against Heresies. In The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Vol. 1: The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Company, 1885.
Jones, A.H.M. The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey. Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell, 1964.
Khattab, Mustafa, trans. The Clear Qur’an: A Thematic English Translation. Book of Signs Foundation, 2017. https://archive.org/details/the-clear-quran-a-thematic-english-translation-allah-edition-dr.-mustafa-khattab-2017-bc-2-c-0-ddb/mode/2up (accessed May 31, 2025).
Kim, Young Richard, ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
Klein, Anton, et al., eds. Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum: Sachwörterbuch zur Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1950–.
Klijn, A.F.J., and G.J. Reinink. Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. Leiden: Brill, 1973.
Leclercq, Henri. Histoire des Conciles d’après les documents originaux. Vol. I, Première partie. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1907[French revised Edition of Hefele].
Mommsen, Theodor, and Paul Meyer, eds. Theodosiani Libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges Novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes. Berlin: Weidmann, 1905.
Paul VI and Athenagoras I. Joint Catholic–Orthodox Declaration, December 7, 1965.
https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration.html (accessed May 31, 2025).
Paul VI. Motu Proprio Approprinquante Concilio, August 6, 1962. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 54 (1962).
Percival, Henry R., trans. The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church. In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 197, 263. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in 1900.
Pharr, Clyde, trans. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions: A Translation with Commentary, Glossary, and Bibliography. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952.
Schmidt, Gerhard, et al., eds. Theologische Realenzyklopädie. 36 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1977–2004.
Second Vatican Council. Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio, November 21, 1964.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html (accessed May 31, 2025).
Second Vatican Council. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html (accessed May 31, 2025).
Socrates Scholasticus. Church History. In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Vol. 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 10–12. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in 1890
Statistics Canada. “Special Interest Profile, 2021 Census of Population, Profile of Interest: Religion.”
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/sip/details/page.cfm?Dguid=2021A000011124&Lang=E&PoiId=8 (accessed May 29, 2025).
Statistics Canada. “The Canadian Census: A Rich Portrait of the Country’s Religious and Ethnocultural Diversity.” The Daily, October 26, 2022. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026b-eng.htm (accessed May 28, 2025).
Tertullianus.De praescriptione adversus haereticos. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, Vol. 2, edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1844.
Tertullian. On the Prescription of Heretics. In The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Vol. 3: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian – I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Company, 1885.
Tertullien. De la prescription contre les hérétiques. Edited by R.-F. Refoulé, O.P. Translated by P. de Labriolle. Sources Chrétiennes 46. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1957.
The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today’s World. 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008.
Theodoret of Cyrus. Ecclesiastical History. In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Vol. 3: Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, and Rufinus: Historical Writings. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1892.
Vacant, Alfred, Eugène Mangenot, and Émile Amann, eds. Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique. 15 vols. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1899–1950.
Wickert, Ulrich. “Alexandrian Theology” and “Antiochean Theology.” In The Encyclopedia of Christianity, edited by Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Vol. 1, 38–39, 82–83. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999.
Wilbur, Earl Morse. A History of Unitarianism: Socinianism and Its Antecedents. Boston: Beacon Press, 1945.
Ἀθανάσιος Ἀλεξανδρείας [Athanasius of Alexandria]. Ἐπιστολὴ περὶ τῶν γενομένων ἐν Ἀριμίνῳ τῆς Ἰταλίας καὶ ἐν Σελευκείᾳ τῆς Ἰσαυρίας συνόδων[De Synodis]. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Vol. 26, edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.
Ἀθανάσιος Ἀλεξανδρείας [Athanasius of Alexandria]. Πρὸς Ἰοβιανὸν περὶ πίστεως[Ad Jovianum de Fide]. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Vol. 26, edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.
Ἀθανάσιος Ἀλεξανδρείας [Athanasius of Alexandria]. Κατὰ Ἀρειανῶν [Against the Arians]. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Vol. 26, edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.
Βασίλειος Καισαρείας [Basil of Caesarea]. ἘπιστολὴΝΒ’ [Epistle 52]. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Vol. 32, edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.
Γρηγόριος ὁ Θεολόγος [Gregory the Theologian]. Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Κληδόνιον πρεσβύτερον κατὰ Ἀπολλιναρίου, ἘπιστολὴΑ’ [Epistle to the Presbyter Cledonius against Apollinaris, Epistle 1]. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Vol. 37, edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1858.
Εἰρηναῖος Λουγδούνου [Irenaeus of Lyons]. Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως [Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis]. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Vol. 7a, edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.
Ἐπιφάνιος Σαλαμῖνος [Epiphanius of Salamis]. Πανάριον [Panarion],In Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Vol. 42, edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.
Εὐσέβιος Καισαρείας [Eusebius of Caesarea]. Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία [Church History]. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Vol. 20, edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.
Θεοδώρητος Κύρου [Theodoret of Cyrus]. Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία [Ecclesiastical History]. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Vol. 82, edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1864.
Καρμίρη Ἰωάννου [Karmiris John], Ὀρθοδοξία καὶ Ρωμαιοκαθολικισμός [Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism], Vol. 3, Athens 1966.
Σωκράτης Σχολαστικός [SocratesScholasticus]. Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία [Church History]. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Vol. 67, edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1864.