Call to hold the council: (325) Constantine called on all bishops from all over the empire to consult and exchange opinions. The meeting place was set at Nicaea, not at Ankara - as the Council of Antioch suggested. He believed that changing the place was necessary for reasons including that the climate of Nicaea was nicer than that of Ankara, that Nicaea was closer to Nicomedia, the seat of his rule, and that reaching it was easier for the bishops of the West than reaching Ankara. The reason for the Antiochian Council’s request to designate Ankara as a place for the council may be due to it being an ecclesiastical center of Antioch close to Antioch, and the fame of its bishop, Markellus, for his violent steadfastness in the face of Arius and his followers.

Church representatives: The churches were represented by a large number of bishops from: Syria, Cilicia, Phoenicia, Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Mesopotamia, Eskisia, Punt, Galatia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Phrygia, Thrace, Macedonia, Achaea, Epirus, Italy, Gaul, Spain, and North Africa. As for the number of bishops gathered, there are several accounts, including the account of Ephestathius, Bishop of Antioch, that they were two hundred and seventy, and three hundred in the account of Athanasius of Alexandria, and after the year 360 it was written that their number was 318. This number is the number approved by scholars and specialists.

Silvestros, Bishop of Rome, was unable to attend due to his old age, so two Roman priests and a Calabrian bishop took his place.

Integration of the complex: The venerable fathers gathered on the twentieth day of May of the year 325 in a large hall in the court and sat in the places designated for them to the right and left. They were waiting for the Emperor to arrive. When he arrived, they stood erect in respect and reverence. Constantine refused to sit before the bishops.

Presidency of the complex: Accounts differ as to who headed the complex. The writer who arranged the chapters of the book Eusebius in the life of Constantine believes that Eusebius himself headed the council. It seems to the reader that Saint Athanasius wanted to say that Hosius, Bishop of Cordoba, occupied first place. But Theodoret the historian gives the presidency to Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch. This statement is closer to the truth, because the Bishop of Rome apologized for not attending, and the Bishop of Alexandria was one of the opponents, so the Bishop of Antioch was the most important of the bishops gathered. However, it must be noted that the name Hosius came first among the signatories.

Opening of the complex: The Emperor mediated the council of fathers on a golden chair. The president of the council got up and thanked the emperor and his care for the church. The Emperor replied, thanking the “King of the Universe” for his many blessings, especially those that allowed him to see the bishops gathered with one mind and one heart. He later stated that with the power of the “Savior King” he was able to eliminate the tyrants who resisted God. He stressed that he considered every riot within the church equal in danger to a full-blown war.

The emperor's speech was transferred from Latin to Greek, and the fathers, immediately after completing the translation, began discussing the issues at hand. The historian Eusebius says that the emperor intervened repeatedly to establish peace and harmony.

{The first thing that draws the attention of researchers is that the signs of persecution - which had subsided - were clearly visible on the bodies of most of the fathers who came from the churches of the world to bear witness to the living and always victorious Christ. Their mutilated or amputated limbs and traces of wounds, beatings, and lashes are testimony to the fact that the fervent faith they recorded in Nicaea was preserved in their hearts and minds and written on the patience of their bodies. It is no secret to anyone that these sufferings have remained - and will remain - the companions of the saints who are witnesses, and perhaps the most prominent testimony to them is that Deacon Athanasius, who accompanied Bishop Alexandros of Alexandria to the council and was the hero of Nicaea, was exiled after assuming the position of the Patriarchate in Alexandria five times, and remained outside his church for some time. More than twenty years}. (From my parish bulletin)

Arius heresy research: The fathers began their research and listened to some of what was mentioned in his book, “The Trilogy,” and they became dismayed and condemned in disbelief. Arius explained his faith based on the philosophy of Plotinus and his interpretation of biblical verses. In a convincing and eloquent manner. However, thanks to Alexandros and his deacon Athanasius, who worked indirectly, as he was not entitled to intervene in the dispute or even express an opinion, so he worked behind his bishop, preparing decisions for him, contributing to their text, and correcting their errors with humility, until he became the spirit of the council and the machine that managed the discussions. . Twenty bishops supported Arius from behind the scenes, the most famous of whom were: Ephesabius, Bishop of Nicomedia, Ephesabius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, Theodotos, Bishop of Latakia, Athanasius, Bishop of Ain Zerba, and Gregory, Bishop of Beirut. But everyone acknowledged that the Son of God is a true God, and they differed in interpreting and defining this statement.

The Fathers at the Council used the word “HOMO-OUSIOS”, which means equal in essence, or more precisely, one who has the same essence. As for Arius, he insisted on using the word “HOMO.”I-OUSIOS”, which means similar in essence. The written difference is one letter, but the meaning is completely different.

Some fathers said that it is necessary to be satisfied with the expression of the previous fathers, and others said that it is necessary to scrutinize the words of the fathers and define the expression. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, rebuked this opportunity and presented a code of faith that was recited in his church when practicing the sacrament of baptism, and he hoped that it would be accepted and approved. But the fathers refused to accept it as it was, so they added some phrases to it for control and clarification. They made it necessary to say that the Son of God was born of the essence of the Father and that he is a true God from a true God, begotten, not created, equal to the Father in essence “HOMO-OUSIOS”. Some specialists believe that Hosius was the one who suggested introducing the phrase “equal to the Father in essence,” and he was supported in this by both Ephestathius, Bishop of Antioch, and Marklaus, Bishop of Ankara.

{The term “homoosius” (equal to the Father in essence) caused great controversy inside and outside the council, because those who held the ominous opinion and those who were led by their hypocrisy said that the phrase was unscriptural, and they accused the fathers of falling into the heresy of Sabalius (who believed in one God with three forms), because the phrase “Homoosius” - in the Greek world - meant “one entity”. Neoplatonism and Gnosticism in the third century used the word to refer to a rational being or person. However, the Fathers of the Council who refuted the “formalism” of Sabalius (i.e. the belief in one God with three forms), and who, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus says, were followers of the path of the hunter-apostles and not the path of the philosophers, they rose above human philosophy and all its methods, so they baptized the word “homoosius,” meaning They gave it a Christian meaning, stressing that even though it was not found literally in the Bible, it was morally inspired by it. It was mentioned in the Collection of Ecclesiastical Law (p. 45) that Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, used it four times, and the martyr Pamphilius narrated that Origen the teacher also used it in the same sense that the Council of Nicene intended for it. From what the Council Fathers said: “Since the Son is of the essence of the Father, the Son is God just as the Father is God, and therefore it must be said that Christ is of one essence with the Father.” (From my parish bulletin).

Constantine agreed with the opinion of the overwhelming majority, so the text of the Nicene Creed was as follows:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of all that is seen and unseen, and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father, that is, of the essence of the Father. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made. He who is in heaven and on earth, who for us humans and for our salvation came down, was incarnated, became man, suffered, and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead, and by the Holy Spirit.

The Fathers appended to this law the following phrases: “As for those who say that there was a time when he did not exist, and that he did not exist before he was born, and that he came from nothing, from another hypostasis and another essence, and that the Son of God was created, changed, and transformed, these are all separated by the Church.” The fathers forbade Arius and his followers, but Constantine supported them in that and sentenced Arius to deportation and exile.

Easter problem: Then the Council considered the matter of Easter. The Church of Antioch was in line with the Jews in their calculations to designate the fourteenth of Nisan and therefore the day on which Easter falls. The Jewish year consisted of twelve lunar months in the simple years and thirteen months in the additional years. Their extra year came back seven times in a period of nineteen years. In these additional “ambolismic” years, they added another month consisting of twenty-nine days, which they called “Wadhar,” meaning the second March, to bring the lunar year closer to the solar year. The Church of Alexandria had turned a blind eye to the Jews' calculations and had taken for itself a special rule that made Easter fall after the first full moon after the spring equinox on the twenty-first of March. The fact that each of the two Eastern churches adhered to their own way resulted in a difference in the date of Easter. The Antiochian Easter may precede the Alexandrian feast by a full month. After everyone listened to the arguments of the two groups, they agreed that this great holiday must be celebrated on one day in all churches, and they made it necessary to follow the rule of Alexandria and Rome. The Patriarch of Alexandria was appointed to be responsible for setting the date and announcing it to the rest of the patriarchs.

Here some historians believe that the assignment of the Church of Alexandria to determine the date of Easter is due to its high rank and authority over the rest of the churches. While others, “objective,” see that this matter was due to the fact that Alexandria was the capital of astronomy, and therefore its church was assigned this work and it was not a kind of superiority over the rest of the chairs.

Baptism of heretics and ungrateful people: The Council decided not to recognize the baptism of those who baptized heretics because they did not believe in the Trinity. As for those who were properly baptized and drifted into one of the heresies, when they return to the church, their baptism will not be repeated.

Complex rules: The Council enacted twenty laws for the organization of the Church, and the eighth law ruled that the Novatians should be accepted into the universal Church on the condition that they acknowledge in writing the doctrine of the Church and participate in the persecution of those with second marriages and those who have fallen. This same law stipulates that the ordination of these people and the official episcopate of their bishops be recognized if the Orthodox bishop of the diocese agrees to this. The nineteenth law allowed the return of the followers of Paul of Samesata to the embrace of the church on the condition that they were baptized again, and required recognition of their ordination immediately upon completion of their baptism.

The first law required the dismissal of the self-employed clergyman and the non-delegation of any lay person to practice the priesthood unless he had been treated by doctors for an illness and was disfigured by persecutors. The second law prevented the acceptance of newcomers in the faith into the ranks of clergy. The ninth and tenth ruled to reject priests who were ordained without examination and in violation of the law, and to excommunicate those who denied the faith and ordained without their ordained being aware of it.

He discussed the actions of the clergy in the third, thirteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth canons. The third ruled that the bishop, priest, and deacon should not live with a woman other than his mother, sister, aunt, paternal aunt, and anyone against whom there is no suspicion. The thirteenth required the communion of those who ask for the Holy Eucharist while they were in a state of death, and the fifteenth and sixteenth prohibited the clergy from leaving their churches and moving to another church, and required the invalidation of the ordination that a bishop personally conferred from another church without the approval of its bishop. The seventeenth prevented the clergy from trading in money through usury. The eighteenth prohibited the deacons from sitting among the priests and offering them communion.

The fourth law called for all the bishops of the diocese to participate in the ordination of one of the bishops, and permitted the ordination of three together after the approval of the absentees, and required the approval and ratification of the metropolitan. The fifth law stipulates that those prohibited from communion in one diocese should not be accepted into the communion of another diocese. For this occasion, the bishops of the diocese meet in a local council twice a year, in the spring and in the fall.

The sixth law stated, “The authority in Egypt, Libya, and the five cities shall rest with the Bishop of Alexandria, because this custom is also subject to the procedure for the bishop in Rome.” Likewise, let the progress be preserved for the churches in Antioch and in the other dioceses.” The seventh canon states: “It is customary and accepted that the bishop who is in the church of any Jerusalem should be dignified. May he be followed in dignity.”

Note: The Council did not mention Constantinople because it was not officially inaugurated as the capital until five years after the Council was held. (Al-Shabaka, citing “The Orthodox Church Past and Present, Part Two” by Callistos Ware)

Conclusion of the complex: The council concluded its work on the nineteenth of June in the year 325. This date coincided with, and almost coincided with, the completion of the twentieth year of Constantine’s accession to power. He invited the bishops to a large banquet in his palace. Then he attended the closing party and delivered a speech in which he singled out the bishops for understanding, peace, and love, and for mutual assistance in spreading the faith among people. Gentiles. He gave them gifts and ordered the distribution of wheat to the churches to meet the needs of the poor and needy.