Misunderstandings about theology

[Thomas]

My current understanding is that what divided the bishops theologically was not about whether or not Jesus is God. What divided them theologically was implicitly mostly about what it means to say that he is God.

Yes, and more precise than that, how to say that he is God.

Thus the Nicene party favoured the term homoousios (ὁμοούσιος) meaning "of the same substance" or "consubstantial." Their opponents favoured a more conservative favoured homoiousios (ὁμοιούσιος) meaning "of a similar substance."

That one-letter difference (the iota) was all-important, and the church was nearly split over this one iota of difference.

There were Christians among the common people, possibly many, who did think that Jesus was not God ...

Well, I'm not so sure about that.

The Jewish-Christian groups who believed in Jesus but not as God had separated away into distinct parties by then, I think.

Before Nicaea, there was no single church under a single administration with a single orthodoxy.

Nor was there after, really.

What marked the council as different was the fact that Constantine offered to cover the costs of every bishop to get there. That was 1,800 bishops. Only a fraction went, somewhere around the 220-270 mark. And mostly Easterners. Only four came from the west, and the Pope thought it was a local matter that the easterners could settle locally.

No-one throught Nicaea was in any way significant, its importance grew over time. Nobody at the time thought this was the 'First Ecumenical Council', nor that this council was any different, really, than previous synods... Nor did anyone think the declarations were necessarily infallible or binding, and a large proportion came away thinking the Christologiocal expressions, lacking any sound scriptural basis, were theologically satisfactory.

There had never been an empire-wide council to try to reach an agreement that would be imposed on all bishops...

Quite.

The difference with Arius was that the hostilities escalated so much that it the emperor saw it as a danger to the empire.

Yep. he exiled Arius ... and then changed his mind.

There were other things theat got to Constantine, like Easter being celebrated of different dates.

Rome worked on the principle that Rome was Rome everywhere. The church was doing it own thing in various places, surely it was better to bring everything into alignment?

 

[Thomas]

There was a division between bishops, but it was not theological ...

Well it was, although the bishops had other issues among themselves. Not all of them, but their disagreements were not the reason the council was called.

 

[Thomas]

Constantine didn't force anything on the church, because what is now called "the church" in the sense of a single administration with a single orthodoxy, did not exist until he created it by exiling two people who refused to sign the creed, and some who allegedly promoted opposing views.

I don't think that's the case, though. The disputes went on after Arius was a mere footnote, and at one point there were three distinct parties in disagreement: same substance, similar substance, different substance, and all parties were calling synods to condemn the other, each issuing versions of their creed at regular intervals ... chaos.

I don't think the Church was ever a single entity. Major churches emerged over time.

 

[Thomas]

When Martin I was elected pope in 649 the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire was Constantinople, where the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople regarded his authority as superior to that of Rome.

Martin, however, tried to bring erroneous teachings in Constantinople into line with the wider church.

In the previous year, the emperor had published the Typos in defence of the Monothelite thesis (ultimately decided heretical). To quell the confusion it caused, Martin invited all the bishops of the West to a council within the first three months of his papacy – the Lateran Council. The Council, some 100 plus bishops, censured Monothelitism, its authors, the writings via which Monothelitism had spread and caused rifts within the Western Church, along with Constans' Typos and Patriarch Sergius's Ecthesis (an exposition of faith backed by Emperor Heraclius).

Imperial interference in matters theological had been soundly rejected. Condemnation of all Monothelite writings provoked an angry reaction from the Byzantine court.

In 650 Constans issued a warrant for Martin's arrest, and in 653, he was arrested in the Lateran, along with Maximus the Confessor. Hurried out of Rome, he was taken to Constantinople, where he was saved from execution by the pleas of Patriarch Paul II of Constantinople, who was himself gravely ill.

The imperial Byzantine government forced the Romans to find a successor, and Eugene I was elected on 10 August 654, to which Martin apparently acquiesced. After suffering an exhausting imprisonment and reportedly many public indignities, Martin was banished to Cherson, where he arrived on 15 May 655, and died, as a result of his ill-treatment on 16 September.

Maximus' refusal to accept Monothelitism led to his being tried in Constantinople for heresy in 658. Maximus stood his ground and was sent back into exile for four more years. During his trial he was accused of aiding the Muslim conquests – as Martin had been – this seemsd a device to swing favour against him.

In 662, Maximus was placed on trial again, and again convicted of heresy. Maximus was tortured, having his tongue cut out, so he could no longer speak his rebellion, and his right hand cut off, so that he could no longer write letters. Exiled again, he died soon after, on 13 August 662.