THIS PILGRIM CHURCH:[i] The Christian Church from Antiquity

                                                                              Up to Post Constantine Era

“In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.

He was in the beginning with God … And the Word became flesh and

dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only

Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

                                                                John 1: 1-2, 14

Introduction:

With the assumption of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio to the Office of the Holy See replacing Pope Benedict XVI, it makes him the 268^th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Francis I, the title he preferred much, which makes him the first in the line of popes to use such Papal Name or those who wish to adopt similar title in the years to come. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a Jesuit and an Argentinian by birth.[ii] Of course Argentina like Brazil as well as the rests of the countries along the Atlantic Coast was colonized through conquest by either the Spaniards or Portuguese in the early part of the 16^th century. Columbus first reached the New World in places known today as Haiti and the Dominican Republic, which in the olden times is called collectively as Hispaniola.[iii]

The Roman Catholic Pope, who is popularly called as the Holy Father, sometimes known as the Supreme Pontiff and the uncommon referral as the Bishop of Rome, is indeed a bishop and every Pope humbly accepts such title because by unbroken succession he did succeed Peter, who was the First Bishop of Rome. Pope Francis I heads the Roman Catholic Church. His equivalent in ecclesiastical hierarchy in the Eastern Church or the Greek Orthodox Church is the Patriarch.

Why was there an Eastern Church, Greek Orthodox Church aside from the Roman Catholic Church, which has been the religious sect in the Philippines and the rest of the Asian countries where they are just the minority, when in the early beginning of Christianity it was much of the desire of apostles, early disciplines and missionaries to establish a universal church? Why was there a separation, if indeed there has been? How the Doctrine of Trinity, Christology, and Other Doctrines were finally resolved and established to dogmas? Why was there Christian persecution in the Roman Empire, when the latter was governed by laws? Was Christianity a crime per se in the empire? How come it ended as the official religion of the empire? Who was Constantine? All of these, we would like to humbly tackle in a language not of a scholarly world, but on a layman’s view.

This First Volume of the essay entitled “A Layman’s Tale: This Pilgrim Church”, The Christian Church from Antiquity up to the Post Constantinian Era, is offered to hopefully open one’s mind on how the past had been.

In the Early Beginnings, the Christian Community of Jerusalem:

The resurrection of Christ proves the authenticity and holiness of the early Christian religion. After His ascension, the apostles and disciplines or those who had witnessed the great mystery and had known His teachings began to preach the good news to the far ends of the earth. As promised by God, He sent the Holy Spirit in the form of tongues of fire on top of the head of each apostle. With all heavenly grace and wisdom, they began speaking the languages of countries or places which they even had not set foot on it. The power of the Holy Spirit worked miraculously that people who heard them spoke said, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans?”[iv] It was really a big astonishment to them how come these people [the apostles] spoke the languages of other nations and they knew it well.

This incredible event happened on Pentecost Sunday while the apostles were gathered in closed cloisters of their hide-away or safe houses because at first they were afraid since Jesus Christ had left them already to prepare the place – His kingdom for those who live in righteousness. Pentecost or penta in Latin simply means 50, so Pentecost happened on the 50^th day after Christ’s resurrection.

At first in Jerusalem, the early disciples [not even called as Christians yet] participated in Jewish worship [Judaism]; despite they knew that this was not what Christ wished them to do. Nonetheless, they attended worship, lived and practiced Jewish traditional forms of piety and ritual; and they too adopted basic principles of Jewish organization dealing on structure of community and the directions by elders.

However, with the apostles they formed a separate community and had its own worship in grateful memory of the Passion, Death and the Resurrection of Christ. They celebrated Holy Communion – broke their bread and ate their meat with gladness and the celebration was transferred from one house to another house. There was indeed fellowship among these early Christians, not only in one house the worship was done, but as well at the houses of their brothers or sisters.   

After sometime the Jews were not at ease with the Christians, they realized that what the Christians professed was extremely the opposite of what the Jews believed. While the Christians believed in the Messiahship of Christ as well as in His Divinity, Judaism does not believe in Christ Divinity. His coming to the world was just an ordinary event like the coming of a prophet. For them, Christ was not regarded as God, but like those before Him, who came to say the truth, he was just only another prophet.  

Jewish Hostility against the early Christians:

Whether it was some sort out of jealousy or maybe just through an act of assertion that their religion is authentic than the Christians because it was organized earlier, hostilities inevitably came and Christians were hated by the Jews. They could not take it as the truth that the proper way to pray was to direct one’s prayer to Christ as God. Much less that they did not understand the essence of the Holy Eucharist where bread and wine were offered, and everyone graciously and virtually ate the flesh of Christ and drunk His blood, which are duly represented by such material substances and through reasons of beliefs and faith are thereby trans-substantiated. In every meeting the Christians had, they were always objects of suspicion and Jews began to slander them that there might be criminal activities because they lived differently from them. Christians stood higher religiously and morally than the Jews, so feelings of instinctive dislike or hatred grew out from them.  

Undeniably, these Christians lived in a unique community of love and it was beyond Jewish comprehension why it went even further that Christians readily would surrender their private property to the community of the faithful, so it can help those who were needy like orphan children and widows.

Jews hatred to the Christians heightened more so in their beliefs of Christ as God. So, two brief periods of persecution happened. The first incident happened in 32 or 33 AD that led to the death of St. Stephen. He was stoned by the mob and of course, it was a martyr’s death. Christian harassment went on in fact, when the Hellenistic Jewish Christians were expelled from Jerusalem and Saul [St. Paul] persecuted them. However, on his way to Damascus [Syria] in 33/36 AD, he was converted to Christianity. A sudden and heavy flash of light knocked him off from his horse’s saddle, and made Saul helpless for a while; and he heard a voice telling him “Saul why have you forsaken my people”. The voice penetrated deep into his heart and instead of hatred, he felt compassion and it significantly marked his conversion to Christianity.

Saul who indeed was considered as one prominent leader in Judaism retreated to the desert to reflect and meditate for three years since it was not yet the opportune time for him to proclaim the glory of God. But the hatred of the Jews continued. Eventually Paul made his first missionary journey with Barnabas to Cyprus and Asia Minor; and places in the Mediterranean (Perga, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe).

St. Stephen’s death as well as the expulsion of the Hellenistic Jewish Christians in Jerusalem was considered as the first outbreak of persecution. The second wave of persecution though it was only short, happened in the years 42/43 AD, and it was highlighted sadly by the martyrdom of the apostle James the Elder. During this time too, Peter was arrested and escaped from prison. Despite, the Hellenistic Jewish Christians were expelled from Jerusalem, the Hebraic Christian Jews still settled in Jerusalem because of their loyal conduct toward the Jewish religion. Nevertheless, such condition did not last long because of two contrasting views in worship, it was impossible to hide its difference.

Sometime in 132-135 AD, the Jews revolted against the Roman rule. Long before the revolt, the Christians had noted the warnings about the destruction of Jerusalem. Christ revealed it to them, so before it happened, they had left already. Their unexplained departures triggered Jewish hatred against the Christians; and once again bloody persecutions ensued as a consequence.[v]

The First Gentile Christian Community:

Christianity in its birth in Jerusalem was not fully identified as a different religion; it was just considered as another Jewish cult because early Christians mingled with the Jews in prayers and they observed their laws, so with their customs and traditions. Nevertheless, they had established their own community with the apostles as their leaders or bishop.[vi]

Inevitably Christianity spread not only in Jerusalem or in Palestine, but it was carried to Antioch, a center of Greek-Roman culture. For the first time it was regarded as a non-Jewish religious community because the members were not Jews, but simply referred to as the Gentiles. It was in Antioch that the members of the community were called as “Christians” (Acts of the Apostles 11, 26)[vii].

It was through Paul, the former tormentor who on his way to Damascus was converted; who practically detached Christianity out from the Jewish soil and successfully strengthened or established Christian community in Antioch after making his first missionary journey in years 45-48. Paul’s second missionary journey was in years 49-50 and 52. He went beyond Asia Minor and had gone to Europe. It was on this journey when the communities of Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens and Corinth were founded. His third journey was in years 53-58 and he was in Galatia and Phrygia, Ephesus and from there to Athens. The culmination of this journey was his arrest in Jerusalem.

The Spread of Christianity:

 From Jerusalem and in the Palestinian soil, Christianity was carried to the Greek-Roman Hellenists places and with prominence is the Christian community of Antioch.

By the second century Christianity was greatly known already along the countries or places ringing in the Mediterranean; and it even penetrated to the remote districts of the Roman Empire. Rome ruled the known world and her empire reached as far as Spain in the west and all parts of the countries and cities ringing along the Mediterranean.

Although the birth of Christianity or how it reached to the far reaches of the earth could not be discussed in much certainty because we do not know for sure when, and even pioneering literatures said nothing about it, it is said by our primary reference that Asia Minor and Syria may have Christian communities earlier even in the first century.[viii] From Asia Minor and Syria, the good news spread to Mesopotamia.

Just as what we have said a while ago that we have not known how Christianity spread; henceforth, little is known about Egypt how Christianity started thereat. Nevertheless, it reached the rich area of the Nile. What is certain in those times, a flourishing city named Alexandria existed, in fact, it was here when Christianity began or had been noticed in the Egyptian soil.

Not far from Egypt in North Africa in Scillium in Numidia, Christian martyrs boldly faced death in year 180 for Christ.[ix]

In Gaul or today’s France, there had been Christian community in the first century yet and it probably started in Marseilles. Scholars had that nice guess, Marseilles is fronting the Mediterranean and it was here when Christianity swayed to and fro in harmony with the lull of the tide of evangelization. In the Rhone Valley from the communities of Lyon and Vienne in the year 177, forty-nine (49) Christians were martyred in Lyon.

According to Irenaeus of Lyon,[x] occurring on the third century many Christian communities grew throughout Gaul and similarly during this time, there were also Christian communities in Roman Germany. It was in the fourth century when Christianity became stronger in the German cities the Romans had occupied.

While this was the picture how Christianity moved in Roman occupied territories, outside from those territories, there were about 20 bishoprics or dioceses in the area of the Tigris.[xi] In the north-eastern part for which Armenia is located somewhere and not far from the Caspian Sea, in year 280; Armenia was regarded as a Christian country towards the end of the third century.

Though it cannot be proven by preponderance of evidence as there are none, traditions had it that Apostle Thomas, the Unbeliever; was the first to reach India to preach the gospel.[xii] From another perspective, it says and it seems more probable, that Christian religion spread to India through Persia. The name “Thomas-Christians” emanated not with Apostle Thomas, but with Mar Thomas in the 8^th century.[xiii]

As if blown by the wind and certainly through the labors of apostles, missionaries, disciplines, tradesmen, soldiers and slaves, clad in complete anonymity, Christianity was able to reach distant places. However, the open countryside continued to be pagans for a long time. Even with her might and glory the early Roman Empire practiced paganism. It took sometime yet for Rome to have a great leader in order to be Christianized.

Roman Christian Community, Persecution, Schisms and Heresies;

and Christianity during Constantine

Roman Christian Community & Persecution:

We have known that the earliest persecution of Christians happened in year 32/33 which led to the martyrdom of the deacon Stephen by stoning. The incident was aggravated by the expulsion of Hellenistic Jewish Christians from Jerusalem. Likewise, we knew that Saul did his part in the harassment of Christians before his conversion on the road to Damascus in 33/36.

These mentioned incidents happened in years 32 to 36 and were tagged as the first outbreak of persecution. The second outbreak happened during the time of Herod Agrippa I in year 42/43 that led to the martyr’s death of Apostle James the Elder and the arrest of Apostle Peter. Nonetheless, Peter escaped and went directly or perhaps a bit late, but he certainly had gone to Rome.

The foundation of the Roman Christian Community could always be traced to have started by Apostle Peter. His miraculous escape from prison in Jerusalem and disappearance in years 42/43 could be a factor that in that absence, he was in Rome or he might have gone there thereafter, in high missionary fervour preaching the word of God to the Romans.

When Paul [Apostle of the Gentiles] was on his second missionary journey, it is said that he had been able to go to Europe. How widespread was his journey; while in Corinth he was able to meet two Roman Jews who were expelled from Jerusalem as a consequence of that unfavorable atmosphere the Christians were experiencing in the outbreak of this short period of persecutions in Jerusalem. These expellees were Aquila and Priscilla [married couple]; and through them Paul might have known or heard of Roman Christian communities in Rome. And why not, there were Romans who were present during Pentecost Sunday in Jerusalem when the apostles endowed with the blessings of the Holy Spirit in the form of tongues of fire above their heads spoke the languages of the known world; and the Roman language was indeed one that was spoken and the Romans understood the good news on that day occurring on the 50^th day after the Resurrection of Christ, or after 10 days when He ascended to Heaven in the Mountain of Olives or Mt. Olivet.

Not only these facts as laid on above are the evidences why Peter was considered as the founder of the Roman Church, but traditions indeed had pointed well in various letters of witnesses such as those from First Letter of Clement, [Letter to the Romans] from the martyr-bishop Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon [who first recorded a complete line of Roman Bishop succession], to Dionysius and so on. Peter is mentioned as the founding apostle and headed the lists of Roman bishops.

He was followed by Linus, Anacletus, Clement I, Evaristus, Alexander I, Sixtus I until the 268^th Bishop of Rome in our time, Pope Francis I [Jorge Mario Bergoglio]. The line of succession is unbroken and its origin is secured and there is absolute reliability of the apostolic tradition in the Roman Catholic Church.

But why were the Christians persecuted? On the simple point of views of the Jewish people, it may be attributed to the fact that at first they believed Christianity was in all respects similar to Judaism. Early Christians in Jerusalem went to synagogues and attended Jewish worships, observed Jewish laws, customs and traditions. Nevertheless, their fellowship ended in hostile partings because the Jews did believe only in the messiaship of Christ, but never in His divinity. Christian worship is centered on Christ, for He is the Kyrios (=God).

With all the goodness of Christian community life, Jews did not understand why Christians lived in withdrawn lives. They lived not just for themselves, but for others too.

So, it is not unusual for the Jews to be against them, there is that burning feeling of enviousness and maybe the other components of the seven deadly capitals sins like pride, covetousness, lust, anger and so on maybe were there too.

But for the Roman Empire, was there any apparent reason why Christians were persecuted - thrown to arenas as festive menus for wild beasts, hands spread-wide on crosses and crucified, thrown to cauldron or buckets of burning oil, or lighted as human torches in imperial gardens, or acted as defenceless combatants or gladiators in coliseums in a game of death in order to live. How terrible? The death of Christ happened during the time of Roman Emperor Caligula; Pontius Pilate was the Roman Governor in the Roman province of Judea, where Jerusalem was and still is a city till today. So, in a mass scale of persecution such as those happening in the early times, it is imperative that the sovereign Roman Empire is answerable or liable of her action. In the first place she was the protector of her subjects and how come that it went that way?

Persecution:

Long before the birth of Christ, Palestine was already occupied by Romans and Judea was her province.[xiv] Much earlier than the Romans, the Jewish nation had been under the yoke of foreign domination dating back during the time of the great Eqyptian Pharaohs until Remises when Moses and Aaron liberated them from bondage; and the Jews began to wander the desert for forty years as God’s cleansing or purification process.  

It is much of an obsession of the Jewish nation that one day a King would come and liberate them from vassalage and oppression if it really was. Christ came as the Sovereign King of Love, but never as a military leader. Nonetheless, He came as King of Divine Mercy and Compassion that is why the Jews doubted His divinity because it ran contrary to what they expected that the one who would come is a great military leader than just a preacher of love.

We assume the persecution of Christians by the Romans [Roman Empire] had basis, they did it for a reason and therefore it was a deliberate act by the one who authorized it. The Roman Empire was a state based on law; in fact there had been a Senate when it became a republic and it was one indeed, long time ago. Sadly however there were no official laws authorizing the persecutions; but only a few official pronouncements and such could provide us some flimsy information why there was persecution.

It was only in the time of Emperor Decius [249-251] when the first general laws were passed ordering all citizens of the empire to return to the Roman State religion.[xv] However, the persecutions started many years before Emperor Decius time.

Christianity in its beginning was thought to be only as a Jewish cult – Judaism. This religion or Judaism is only endemic or common among the Jews. Hence, the Jewish cult constitutes only a small per cent of the citizenry. Aside from the fact that Christianity really had spread not only among the Hebraic Jewish community, Greek Hellenist Jews or among the Gentiles, the religion continued to spread not only among these classes of people, but it was widespread or universal. It had set no boundaries because everyone who professed the faith brought it to places where he used to reside or trade. Thus, Christianity became supra-national and perhaps the Roman Empire may have treated or viewed its existence as a great threat to Roman sovereignty.  In addition to that, it is but natural for people to dislike Christianity because they saw it as entirely different from their practiced religion. Furthermore, Christians lived in upright life to the great amazement and envy of Judaism.

There were three stages of persecution: The First Period began during the time of Emperor Nero (year 54-68).  Nero’s visions to rebuild Rome prompted him to burn the city and instigated that the Christians did it, thus shifting the responsibility and blame from him to the former. So, a great number of Roman Christians who dwelled in Rome were tortured to death and many were made as public spectacle in his imperial garden in July 64, being torched alive.  

Among those martyred during those times were Apostles Peter and Paul. Peter was hang on the cross upside down with extended hands and upright legs, or in a reverse crucified position than the way Jesus Christ died. Paul being a Roman citizen was beheaded at the Tre Fontane Abbey outside the city’s wall while Peter was put to death at Vatican Hill where his saintly remains rested there till today.[xvi]

In year 95, a prominent citizen of Rome, a Consul named Flavius Clemens and a cousin of the Emperor Domitian, was executed and his wife Flavia Domitilla together with his sons were exiled for simple reasons that they were Christians.

It was during the time of Domitian too when Apostle John was exiled to Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse according to the oldest traditions.

What Nero did in year 64 despite it had no lawful basis, became a precedence of subsequent persecutions and somehow it was seemingly as the permissive basis for actions against the Christians. 

Second Period: Christianity in the year 100 to 250. Though it was recognized as a distinct religion and not just another Jewish sect, it was however considered as hostile to the state (Roman Empire) and man. Henceforth, Christians were persecuted. 

The groundwork for this view was the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan (98-117). Trajan was the Emperor and Pliny was a Governor of an occupied territory named Bithynia in year 112. Pliny requested guidance from the Emperor for rules of conduct on how to treat Christians’ trials, he said, “having never been present at any trials of the Christians, I am unacquainted with the method and limits to be observed either in examining or punishing them.”[xvii] He further asked as to whether or not there would be some difference on the imposition of sentence or punishment on account of the age of the accused – whether to treat the felonies of young children or people in similar gravity with the adults. Likewise, he said whether it would be fair to grant pardon in case of repentance or recantation by the accused.

Emperor Trajan answered:

“You, my dear Secundus, have pursued the right method. It is not possible to lay down any general rule for the treatment of all cases: No search shall be made for these people; when they are denounced, however, and found guilty, they must be punished. But whoever denies being a Christian and gives proof that he is not by praying to our Gods shall be pardoned on the ground of his repentance, even though he may have incurred suspicion because of his past. Accusations without signature must not be admitted as evidence in any trial: For that would be bad precedent and not worthy of the spirit of our age.”[xviii]

Despite clearly at first the correspondence between Pliny and the Emperor was private in nature, Pliny out maybe of boastfulness circulated the correspondence and regarded it as semi-official, and eventually it finally became a common law.

The implementation of the common law or the rescript, which in the stricter sense was not in itself a law of the state, depended on the tact or discretion of the Provincial Governors. As such, there were places in the empire where there were no persecutions since the Governor was passive about it and the Christians had this as a great relief. Like the case of Minucius Fundanus, Governor of Asia (Asia Minor) was forbidden by Emperor Hadrian (117-138) to follow the desires of the mob to persecute the Christians without just and compelling cause such as an infraction of the imperial law.

However during the time of Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161), Marcus Aurelius (161-180), and Commodus (180-192) a greater number of Christians were executed. Many died as spectacle in the arena from wild beast and other modes of persecution. Among these emperors, it was during the time of Marcus Aurelius when a noticeable increase in hostility to Christians happened. He was a great emperor, in fact a philosopher, but his greatness was coated with tyranny.

In the second century the following are the famous martyrs: Ignatius of Antioch (ca.107/110); Justin, the philosopher, and 6 companions (ca.165/167); Polycarp of Smyrna probably in 167; the martyrs of Lyon (177); and those who died as martyrs in Numidia particularly in Scillium (ca.180).

After the reign of Emperor Commodus, Septimus Severus (193-211) succeeded him; and in the beginning he was tolerant of Christianity. Nevertheless, in 202 Septimus became vehemently opposed to conversion to Christianity. It was punishable and he started the furious persecution, which was intense in North Africa, Egypt, and the Near East. In Carthage, North Africa, Perpetua and Felicitas were martyred in year 202. These two martyrs are now saints and their names are chanted during the Litany of Saints mostly in Black Saturday or other important activities of the church like during the diaconal or presbyteral ordination rites.

From Emperor Caracalla (211-217), followed by Elagabalus (218-222) up to the time of Emperor Alexander Severus (222-235); the Christians breathed spaciously for about 25 years because they were left alone. Those were years of peace, there was no persecution; nonetheless, when Maximin Thrace (235-238) ruled the empire, a very hostile edict issued was against the church particularly directed to the clergy. Again, there was peace for a decade beginning year 238 to 249 under Gordian (238-244) and Philippus Arabs (244-249).

But good luck does not always go on smoothly, Rome suffered military defeats, experienced threats at her borders, suffered famine due to rising cost of living standard in the empire, and there was this mighty feeling of Roman nationalism as a consequence of the grandiose founding anniversary celebration of Rome in year 248. There was a big bang and once again a relapse of a traditional feeling of hatred by the population against the Christians was awakened. The empire was eyeing to revive her traditional religion, which certainly was not Christianity but polytheism (worship of many gods). Persecution again ensued.

Third Period. Christianity from year 250 to 311. Next to Philippus Arabs was Decius, he reigned for three years (249-251) and died in the hands of the Goths in a battle in year 251. His reign was indeed one of the two shortest reigns, but it as well had inflicted much damage or suffering to the Christian communities. Decius aspired much to restore internally the Roman state from what it was before; and he saw the Christianity as a constraint in the achieving again the old religious foundation of the empire. Christians refused to worship the state religion, so Decius passed general laws for the first time to deter the rise of conversion and to recall citizens who had been converted to Christianity to return to the Roman State religion. Enforcement of the law took effect in 250, Pope Fabian died as martyr in Rome.

In the middle of year 250, another edict was issued requiring all inhabitants of the empire to sacrifice to the Gods to ward off an epidemic which was swirling around villages and cities. Special commissions had been tasked to supervise the sacrifice and correspondingly issue certificates of compliance for those who had obediently made or finished the sacrifice. Those who would not follow face the extreme penalty of death; and they expected that Christians could be uncovered because simply they would not make any sacrifice with the Gods, but only to the true and omnipotent God.

With the severity of the edict and the extreme penalty of death, many Christians turned apostate. They renounced their religion in order to live. Others negotiated with the Sacrificial Committee in huge monetary settlement so they may obtain a Certificate saying that they had made the sacrifice, despite they had not. Controversies existed among the Christian communities or congregation, a certain faction under the presbyter Novatian advocated severe punishment on Christian apostates. But Pope Cornelius opposed the views of Novatian and instead exercised great mercy to those who had sinned; and as a consequence, there existed a conflict of views between Novatian and the Pope. The former appointed himself as a rival bishop in Rome and aggravated the conflict by founding a rival church. Novatian called his followers as the “pure ones”, and accused the Papacy of laxity and betrayal of faith. But in the Roman Synod in year 251 wherein 60 bishops assembled to treat the issue, he was excommunicated so with his group. Before he had gone or shifted far to this kind of schism, Novatian was a highly respected theologian in the Roman Church.

The death of Emperor Decius during the battle of the Goths (nomadic tribes from the north) made Gallus (251-253) the successor. His reign too was short like Decius and nothing much had been said about him, except for the fact that he carried on the mildly or not much intensive than his predecessor.

After Gallus, Valerian was the emperor in year 253-260 and he carried on the persecution, however likewise mildly. Nevertheless, he was a methodical leader taking or placing things not much in a hurry. Firstly, he issued an edict in 257 ordering all the clergy – includes all bishops, presbyters, and deacons to sacrifice to the Roman Gods. Holding Christian services or assemblies in catacombs or secret places was punishable by death. Many clerics were imprisoned; the leading bishops were Cyprian of Carthage (North Africa) and Dionysius of Alexander (Egypt). Christian laymen were sent to the gold mines sentenced to hard labor.[xix]

Part of Valerian’s systematic approach to overwhelmingly quash the flourish of Christianity in the empire was his issuance of another edict in 258. For the clerics it was harsher this time as it ordered the immediate execution of those who refused to sacrifice. On the part of those who were in politics like senators and other Christian prominent members of the nobility, they were demoted from their present ranks or official capacities held in the imperial government. Those who continued to resist, their properties were confiscated by the state and finally they were executed.

Probably the cruelty of Valerian had given much his successor reasons to reflect because in the Persian War, Valerian was taken captive and died during the captivity. Maybe the ire of Heavens had come on him. His son Gallienus (260-268) succeeded him, but during his reign decided to rescind the edicts of persecution. For another forty years the Christians were undisturbed, but it was a prelude to another most severe persecution under Emperor Diocletian (284-305).  

Schisms and Heresies:

Traditions say that Apostle James [the younger] is regarded as the first bishop of Jerusalem; he did take his place after Peter left Jerusalem following miraculously his escape from prison in year 42/43. In the year 50 in the so-called time of the Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem, the early Christian Gentile community decided to free themselves from Jewish law since there has been indeed significant difference between Jewish and Christian worships.

Aside from the on-going external factor of persecution which the Christian church suffered, a more damaging internal threat slowly move stealthily and it was the threat of heresies and schisms the church was experiencing.

After the death of James in 62/63, where he was thrown off the top of the temple of Jerusalem and finished to death by bludgeoning (Hegesippus in Eusebius Hist. Eccle. II, 23, 12, 10-18), Judaistic Schisms developed.

a.      This schism (Judaistic Schism) is on the belief that Christ is the Messiah, but His Divinity is being questioned - they do not believe in Christ’s divinity. This crooked belief developed in Jerusalem and Palestine, and flourished much in the Jewish-Christian communities which could not decidedly separate themselves from the old Jewish cult (Judaism).

b.      Gnostics. It started even during pre-Christian era and it promised their followers mysterious answers to man’s great questions about the origin and destiny of life, the creation of the cosmos, and about the meaning of evil and malevolence in the world. The knowledge that would be imparted to their followers did not rest on rational reasoning and factual instruction, but attained through mystical immersion or involvement and certain religious practices.

Their thwarted belief says that Christ appears as a spirit (aeon) his task was to reveal the unknown supreme God to men and to teach them how one could be able to separate from matter, triumph over darkness, and return to the realm of light (pleroma) of God. Furthermore, it says that Jesus of Nazareth God assumed human form in appearance only. He only appeared to work and suffer; in reality he could not suffer and die on the cross. Other Gnostic teaching tells that the Christ-Logos had descended on Jesus the man only at the baptism in the Jordan, thus had made him into the Messiah; and that God before the passion of Christ left him. So, Jesus had died on the cross as nothing more than a human being.

c.       Manichaeism. It goes back to the Persian Mani (215-273), who considered himself as God’s last messenger after Buddha, Zarathustra, and Jesus, wanted to bring the divine revelation to full completion. His teaching does not have any similarity with Christianity; and if it has, it is only really very little in common. He regarded the development of the world as an enduring struggle between light and darkness, between the principle of good and evil, and between spirit and matter. In this belief, man supposedly must overcome evil within himself by avoiding all evil matter, such as meat, wine and sexual lust.

St. Augustine of Hippo when he was unconverted yet to Christianity was an adherent of this sect.

d.      Marcionism. The founder was Marcion, son of the bishop of Sinope on the Black Sea. In year 139, he went to Rome to preach his ideas to the Roman Christian communities; but he was excommunicated. So, he founded his church and it went bigger because of his strict direction and organization. The Yahweh of the Old Testament to Marcion’s teachings was a wrathful God; thereby he rejected the Old Testament and revered Christ in the New Testament as the Supreme God of good. Accordingly, when the God of the New Testament was persecuted, they did kill Christ only because He had only seemed to assume a human body.

e.      Encratites. It was an ascetical group, which is strictly hostile to the flesh, as “Encratites” or “Abstainers”. They may be correct in their views, but they went beyond their ascetical demands, for they expected every Christian to practice complete abstinence not only from meat and wine but also in marriage. This interpretation was rejected as heretical.

f.        Montanism. Its founder was Montanus, (156/157) a former Cybele priest who accused the church for becoming too secular. He preached asceticism and strict reform of morals; and claimed to have attained special revelations. Likewise, he considered himself as a prophet of the Holy Spirit and was supported by two blissful women, Priscilla and Maximilla, who like himself claimed to have had some prophetic visions and received revelations. Because of this so called prophetic vision and to have been able to receive revelations, they gathered their followers in Phrygia to await the coming of Christ for the Last Judgment.

Sadly, among the adherents of Montanism was old Tertullian.[xx]

It can be noted that in the early period of the founding of the church in the “Apostolic Era”, which comprised the first and second generations of Christian, was followed now by a period the so-called “Post Apostolic Era.” By this, we mean that the body of belief which the apostles have had through the actual period of revelation – (the time when they heard, learned and received the gospels from Christ) had now ended, and it had to be passed on to the third and subsequent generations. There existed a need for some theological elaboration and infusion of the revelation that certainly would redound to the spiritual and intellectual growth of the Christian communities. Such tasks were undertaken firstly by the Apostolic Fathers, then by Christian Apologists, and finally by the Church Fathers.

The “Apostolic Fathers” are group of writers of the early Christian era who according to contemporary knowledge can positively be identified as students or hearers of the apostles. They possibly were together with the apostles, or perhaps without even having personal acquaintance with them, but can be relied upon as carriers of apostolic information. We had Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna, to mention a few.

After the Apostolic Fathers, in the second century, we have the early “Christian Apologists.” Their tasks were on the literary defense of Christianity because by this time the church had gone bigger and could no longer be ignored by people or other religious sect around it. These Christian Apologists interpreted the gospel in the language known by the world, which certainly was their own mother tongue or the dialect. They did it this way to win the world for Christ and they acted as His missionaries. They argued with Judaism, with the polytheism (worship of many gods) of paganism, and with other cults that promised salvation. It was their common desire to show that Christianity is the fulfilment and the eternal destiny of man; and it is a true philosophy and wisdom.

We had great apologists like Justin, Aristides and Athenagoras of Athens, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Melito of Sardis and so on.  They had been in the defense of the Christian Church by reputing heretical teachings of other religious cults, like the case of Justin, who died as martyr in Rome in 165/167 because of his testimony for Christ. In fact, as an apologist, he had developed the thought that “all human beings in their reason already possess germs of the eternal Logos. All human beings are by nature, i.e. by the creator, directed toward the divine truth.”[xxi]

Another group of writers and defenders of faith, and given the distinguished name as “Church Fathers” were great theologians, who aside from these inherent duties, they too aimed in the deeper study of the articles of faith on the basis of the revelation.  Most of the Church Fathers were bishops; and the name “father” was originally given to the bishops in communities. However, some of them, were only priests and others even laymen. They did study the Holy Scripture and reserved the authentic interpretation exclusively to the bishops. It is ardently necessary to fix Christian beliefs and the sources of revelation, and file or made those writings as parts of the Canon of Holy Scripture.

From the line of succession, the apostles transmitted the doctrine of divine revelation to the bishops, and it is assured that there was no interruption of succession since the time of Peter and hereinafter. Thus, only through the bishops, the legitimate successors of the apostles; can orthodoxy or belief be found, and whoever disconnects himself from the bishop, goes astray or may fall to heretical beliefs due to arbitrary interpretation of the bible.

From studies and out of discussion with the Gnostics and other heresies, there grew a scientific Christian Theology. The person and work of Christ falls on (Christology), Christ’s work of salvation (Soteriology), and His relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit is called as the Doctrine of the Trinity. These theologies or studies remained as the center of theological investigations for the next several centuries.

Among the leading theologian during the second century was bishop Irenaeus of Lyon (d. ca. 202). His principal work (Against the Heresies) in years 180 and 184, he defined among other things, the meaning of the genuine apostolic tradition for the maintenance of purity of the true faith. He told the Gnostics and other heretical groups that the purity of faith has been unquestionably guaranteed by the Roman Bishop as the successor of Peter in the community of Rome.

Occurring also in similar time, we have Tertullian. He fought also against Gnostic heretics and in his main work De praescriptione haeroticorum, he said Christ has handed down his doctrine only to the apostles for dissemination and to no one else; there was no special revelation of secret information to anyone else, as the Gnostic claim. The apostles in turn handed down such doctrines only to the bishop’s churches, which they founded. Christians must agree in belief with these apostolic churches. So, a doctrine which is not in the apostolic tradition is heretical.

Unfortunately too, he went astray in his older years (about year 207) by adhering to Montanism.

In Rome there lived in the third century a priest named Hippolytus (d. 235) who wrote theological writings against Trinitarian heresies of the Modalist Sabellius. He was a good theologian, but because of wounded pride or perhaps of jealousy, Hippolytus became the first antipope for a flimsy reason that he was passed over at the Papal Election in 217 where Calixtus was elected as Pope. As a consequence, he attacked the Pope and the church. In 235 however Hippolytus died as a martyr together with Pope Pontian; he ultimately was reconciled later on with his church.   

Another Church Father was Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, and his work De ecclesia unitate says, “He who does not have God as his father cannot have the church as his mother.” Furthermore, in the same work, it says, “Primacy was given to Peter. How can anyone who separates himself from the See of Peter, in which the church is based, believe that he is still in the church?”

Bishop Cyprian was martyred in 258.

Christianity during Constantine:

During the reign of Emperor Gallienus (260-268) he rescinded the persecution of Christians. His father Valerian whom he succeeded died in Persian captivity; and for all we knew Valerian was so cruel with the Christians. Probably, Gallienus had seen it as an unworthy cause, so he did not follow his father’s notoriety. There was peace during his time and even after his reign, peace still went on for about a period of forty years.

In year 284-305 Emperor Diocletian ruled and for a long time tolerated Christianity. His wife Prisca as well as his daughter Valeria was somehow considered as Christians. However, an unprecedented thing happened beyond the expectations of many Christians; on February 23, 303 Diocletian issued an imperial edict ordering the destruction of all Christian churches, the confiscation, voluntary surrender, and burning of all copies of the Holy Scriptures, and banned Christian meetings whatsoever.

Christian officials likely those holding public office were dismissed from service while common Christian employees as well at the imperial court were demoted of rank and position. Sadly, the common people were accused later on of arson; cruelly tortured and executed. In the imperial residence of Diocletian in Nicomedia, priests and deacons were executed, so was Bishop Anthimus.

Subsequent imperial edicts were issued, this time even harsher which extended to the persecution to all clerics of the empire. Their immediate arrest was so ordered, their torture and finally the execution. The last edict was issued in the spring of 304 demanding that all citizens or subjects of the empire shall offer sacrifice to the Gods of the state. It was designed to exterminate completely the Christians because as expected they would certainly resist from doing so. Despite the edicts were for the whole empire, its implementation differ however in its four regions. In the West, under Augustus Maximian and the Caesar Constantius Chlorus, the edicts were not strictly followed. It was completely stopped in year 305 when Augusti Diocletian and Maximian retired from government. But the East had a different picture, the persecution heighten to its maximum peak in the years 305-311. Augustus Galerius and Caesar Maximinus Daia had taken charge the governance; these two were brutal leaders and the numbers of martyrs greatly skyrocketed. Perhaps out of futility because no matter how harsh and cruel the edicts were, Christians preferred death than renounced their faith. Galerius finally considered his campaign useless; he ordered the end of persecution more so that he was getting seriousness ill.

From Galerius residence in Sardica, he decreed in April 313 the famous Edict of Toleration that finally granted Christianity the right to exist as a religion. A sentence or phrase from the Edict ran this way, “. . . and may they from now on be Christians” (ut denuo sint christiani). Though there were some sporadic perpetuations of persecution made Maximinus Daia, it did not prosper in the succeeding years because of a very significant happening in history.  

The Rise of Constantine:

Constantine’s father Constantius Chlorus was in the Roman Army, a field commander; and his mother was Helena. Constantine was born at Naissus present-day Nish in Serbia approximately in year 285, and indeed Emperor Diocletian was fun of their family for he spent his youth at the court in Nicomedia. In year 305, Diocletian relinquished himself from government service before the assembled army and on that gathering he would announce his successor.

On the center of the platform was the Emperor and next to him, stood Constantine. The army was enthusiastic to hear the announcement as they expected it that Constantine shall be appointed as Caesar and his father as First Augustus. Indeed the army loved Constantine and his father; nevertheless, the old emperor appointed the younger Galerius to First Augustus, while Constantius (Constantine’s father) became Second Augustus only. Maximinus Daia and Severus, two relatives of Galerius and his favorites were made as Caesars.

Aptly disappointed, Constantine fled from Nicomedia and went to his father in Gaul (France). A year after, Constantius Chlorus died, his legion in Britannia proclaimed Constantine as Augustus on July 25, 306; and he was able to maintain himself likable by important people in the West. In short, he had established well through his political and military smartness.

The First Augustus Galerius died, in the spring of 312, and Constantine tactically advanced his legion across the Alps to dethrone Maxentius and capture Rome. However, when he entered Rome at Milvian Bridge, he met a much superior army of the enemy and being uncertain of victory, he turned to ask help from the God of the Christians. In a dream he saw a cross in the sky and written on it were the words “conquer in this sign.” He emerged victorious in a battle where his officers had thought of it at the start as a losing battle. His victory was considered as having some mysticism or having Divine Intervention; he believed in the power of Christ and the superiority of the Christian religion.

From then on, he favoured Christianity, so persecution ended. He openly declared his faith in Christianity and supported it; however he did not touch the state pagan religion and other religious cult. His vision was his vision to establish a universal empire and believed that Christianity was a springboard to it considering because its evangelization and acceptance was widespread. Christian clerics enjoyed similar exemption from taxes as pagans’ priests. In 313 Constantine with his co-emperor Licinius drafted the Milan Program of Toleration; it was a rescript not exactly an edict but it gave Christianity full equality together with the religions in the empire.

Moreover, he redesigned the shields of his soldiers - the Roman legions with the monogram of Christ and an army standard with a cross, recognition God’s victory over Constantine’s enemies.

In 324 however, the two emperors, Constantine and Licinius fought. The former emerged victorious at Chrysopolis and he suggested the adoption of Christianity in the defeated territories of Licinius in the eastern part of the empire.

Earlier in 313, he gave to the Pope the Lateran Palace, and began the construction of the Basilica Constantiniana. Sometime in year 320, he founded the Church of St. Peter (todays Basilica of St. Peter as undergoing reconstruction later) over the tomb of St. Peter on Vatican Hill near the core of the pagan necropolis at Via Cornelia. Not much later, the Basilica of the Holy Tomb (Holy Sepulchre) in Jerusalem was founded and also the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, which his mother Helena constructed.

In year 330, Constantine founded Constantinople as new Christian residence. Despite, all the grandeur that he made, still Constantine remained pagan because he accepted Christian baptism only in the year 337 when he was in his sickbed. Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia (Arian) administered the baptism; and from then on instead of dressing the elaborate Emperor’s robe, he used to dress in plain white robe, the color of his baptismal dress.

He died in Whitsuntide in 337, but before that he had done something worthy to unify the Christian church, which to him was the universal foundation of his empire.

The General Councils of the Eastern Empire:

Constantine was the sole ruler or Emperor of the Roman Empire uniting the East and West after defeating co-emperor Licinius in the battle of Chrysopolis in 324. He knew that it was in unifying the doctrines or resolving dogmatic controversies of the Christian Church where he could move steadily to establish his dream of a universal empire. He had considered Christianity as a medium or bridge to reach his goal. But there were bitter internal struggles within the church as schisms and heresies sprawled along in North Africa (Donatism), Egypt (Meletius schism) and Arianism Heresy.

For this, in order for Constantine to restore unity in the church and solve the theological issues, he initiated to convene an imperial council.

The First Imperial Council was the General Council of Nicaea in 325. Constantine called all the Bishops of the empire to a general ecumenical synod at Nicaea, wherein all costs of travel and transportation was shouldered by him.

But before the synod was convened; three important theological issues were identified and needed resolutions, and even occupied as issues of interests for the church for the next three centuries. They were the Doctrine of the Trinity, Christology, and the Doctrine of Justification (concerned much the West).

a.      Doctrine of Trinity: It was necessary to define precisely and correctly the internal relation between the Father and the Son, and to light it up on the standpoint of revelation. The Bible speaks only in general terms about the mystery of the Holy Trinity. This theological issue (Christology) did not occupy the minds of the first Christians, but it had been felt by the Apologists and early Christian Fathers, to them it became a great matter of reflection. While the Christian Faith strictly maintained the worship of one God (monotheism), it had as well on one hand, adored Christ as God in addition to the Father.

In an effort to reconcile the divine nature of Christ with the unity of God, there were two schools of thought that were developed toward the end of the second century, namely:

Adoptianism. Christ was viewed as mere man who at some time, probably on the occasion of his baptism in Jordan River, was filled with divine power, transformed into God, and therefore “adopted” by God. The real and original God was only the Father, and Christ was an adopted God.

Modalism. Christ to them was only one form or mode of the one and only God who manifests Himself at one time as Father, at another time as Son, and at a third time as Holy Spirit. According to their belief, in reality it was the Father who suffered for us.

The first school of thoughts (Adoptianism) or form of belief was rejected by the church. Pope Victor (189-198/199) made his decision around year 190 and excommunicated Theodotus, who tried to teach his doctrine in Rome. Nevertheless, the Pope was uncertain about the teaching of Modalism, which Praxeas taught there at that time too; and not until in year 215 did Pope Calixtus (217-222) condemn the doctrine that Sabellius represented.

In one of the Christian theological schools in Alexandria in Egypt, Christology (Logos) was carefully studied, and although it followed the Holy Scriptures where it maintained the divine nature of Christ, it subordinated Him to the Father, just as it subordinated the Holy Spirit to the Son. The Son and Holy Spirit had similar divine nature, but such nature was only of a derived and inferior form. Its consequence was a pluralistic monotheism.

From that school Origen one of the founders of the Alexandrian school and regarded maybe as the greatest scholar of Christianity, tried clearly to explain the relationship of the three persons in the Trinity as subordinational. By that Origen said that the Son was of the same essence as the Father and also eternal, but it was only the Father who was “Self-God” and the essence of goodness. Christ (Logos) was only a “secondary God” and the reflection of this goodness, and the Holy Spirit was even less than the Son.

With such assumption Origen coined the Logos or Christ as the “God-man”.  From that, one may come to call Mary the mother of Christ as the “God-bearer”. (This term originated from him or at least from the Alexandrian school).

Through the course of time and future events, Origen’s views served as a point of departure of two entirely different theological schools of thoughts that emerged. One school of thought dealt on the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father, and the unity of the divine and human nature of Christ. This thought came from the Alexandrian School of Theology, while the other one, stressed the differences. It emphasized that the Logos (Christ) was only a secondary god, and separated the divine nature from the created Christ. Such opinion or theology was developed in the Antiochian School.

The Antiochian school of Theology was influenced by the philosophy or theology and activities of a presbyter in the middle of the third century; who died as martyr in 312.  He interpreted the bible from their literal and historical content, and perspective. Thus, with regards to Christology, Lucian taught strict subordination. It was from this school of thought where foremost leaders of Arianism came.

Sometime in the year 318, Arius (260-336) a pastor at the Baucalis Church at Alexandria in Egypt in 313, had a quarrel with the Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius believed and defended much an extreme subordinational Christology, in his sermons, letters and songs. His heretical doctrine said assertively that the Logos (Christ) was not the true God. It had a different nature, neither eternal nor omnipotent. He was created in time, imperfect, and able to suffer. Since the Logos was created and a superior being than humans, one could regard him as half-God (Demiurge), but he was not in himself divine.

Arius denial of Christ as God ousted him from Christianity. In a Synod at Alexandria in 318/319 or 323, he was excommunicated for teaching heresy. Losing friends in Alexandria, he went to Antioch where he had most of his influential friends thereat; foremost was Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. Indeed, he was being helped by his friends and he went back to Alexandria. His return ignited furious disputes, street riots, and meetings were held on either party – those from the Alexandrian school and followers of Arius.

Emperor Constantine intervened and summoned all the bishops to the General Council at Nicaea in 325. The council met from May 29 to July 25, 325 or more than a month of rigorous deliberation and discernment in order to come into one solid and correct solution of universal ecclesiastical problems of the Christian Church. A great number of participants attended, reports varied, some said 220 attended, other sources placed it at 318; and a Historian of Antiquity named Eusebius of Caesarea said about of 250. A greater part of the participants were the bishops from the eastern part of the Empire, and only five bishops from the West were there. The aging Pope Sylvester did not join, he sent two presbyters to represent him.

Constantine showed his hospitality by mingling and chatting with the bishops; and presented his address in Latin maybe during the opening or welcome program.

Business started and Arius defended his doctrine (Christ was not the true God, his nature neither eternal nor omnipotent, and he was half-God and not divine.) Backing up Arius were seventeen (17) bishops and Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia was among them. On the other side of the camp, the orthodox; there was Athanasius (a deacon) in the company of his bishop (Bishop of Alexandria) and other bishops who were opposed to Arianism doctrine.

After tedious and heated debates, the Orthodox won. Thus, the right doctrine the Creed of Nicaea or Nicene Creed was defined: Christ was “the only begotten Son from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God (in Cebuano dialect: Tinuod nga Dios guikan sa Dios nga Matuod), begotten not made, of one substance with the Father”.

Arius and his adherents were considered as the worst enemies of the true faith. They were excluded from the church and exiled; and Constantine ordered the burning of his or their writings.

Other issues and concerns likewise had resolutions; twenty (20) canons were fixed or established. For one more important issue, the question of Celibacy of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons were discussed. However, there was no specific rule or provision concerning establishment of celibacy; despite in some areas of the Christendom it was already practiced. The martyr bishop Paphnutius (whose body was scarred from the last persecution) strongly advised against it, saying that too heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon the clergy. Meaning he was not in favor of imposing celibacy to clerics.

The Synod of Nicaea permitted the clerics to contract a valid marriage, but condemned concubinage. During the time of Antiquity, priests could still marry; however one must refrain from having a concubine because even in the early times it was considered immoral, unlike today that it seems as symbol of status among the rich, influential and macho men. What makes it sourer is the fact that the public socially accepted it as part of normal life. Really, it degrades morality.

The Return of Arius:

It is one faculty of the human mind to never stay constant always; it keeps on thinking until maybe it had thought of the most bizarre or innovative thing. The result of the Synod of Nicaea would have been great, had Constantine continued to stay by with his principles and commitment of the output of the Synod. He however changed his mind; recalled bishop Eusebius to Nicomedia after being exiled for about three years. Arius the advocate of this crooked doctrine even was permitted to return and with imperial authority was restored to office only after he formally signed the Nicene Creed or in communion with the creed.

Arius returned to Alexandria and by this time Athanasius (the deacon in 325) had been the Bishop of Alexandria since 328. Athanasius refused to admit Arius to the episcopate. Constantine was displeased, it was an insult to his authority as emperor, and Athanasius was exiled to Trier (likely in Germany). In year 337, Constantine died and bishop Eusebius (Arian) had baptized him at his sickbed before he succumbed death later.

Even after the death of Constantine, Athanasius suffered banishment under the Arianistically inclined sons who succeeded their father. For five times he was exiled in 340 (he fled to Rome to Pope Julius I), in 356 he hid from the emperor and lived among the monks and hermits in the desert, and in 365 Emperor Valens sent him to exile for the fifth time. Within four months yet of his fifth exile, he returned to Alexandria because it was threatened by rebellion; and until his death in year 373 he lived in Alexandria, truly indeed one of the protectors of the Nicene Faith.

The Second General Council of Constantinople in 381 on the Doctrine of Trinity:

In the earlier decades before the death of Athanasius and while the struggle for the Nicene Creed was continuing, a moderate group called the Semi-Arians broke away from the strict Arians. They attempted to give a new interpretation of the “one substance” (in the Creed) to “similar” and they further agreed to the formula that the Son was “in everything similar” to the Father. The term however of “homousios” must be avoided at any price, they went on.

In the meanwhile, the Emperor called Synods of Rimini and Seleucia in 359; and certainly it was Constantius (Arianistically inclined son of Constantine) who initiated these synods; nevertheless, they culminated without positive results, or concluded agreements were not established.

The internal decline of Arianism was unstoppable, new Emperors beginning year 375 were sympathetic to the cause of the Christians. Emperor Gratian ruled the empire from 375 to 383 and he installed Theodosius (379-395) as Emperor in the East. In 381 Theodosius summoned a General Council of Constantinople to finish the Arian disputes. Theologians had now objectively defined the terms “person” and “nature” in God. Foremost to this achievement, aside from St. Athanasius work were three “Cappadocian Fathers” namely: Basil (ca.330-379), Gregory of Nazianzus (329/330-ca. 390), and Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 334-394).

According to these three Cappadocian Fathers, there is only one nature, but three carriers and one Godhead in three persons. It as well emphasized the Godhead of the Holy Spirit which the Arians used to question. However, it was clearly explained that the relation of the Holy Spirit is that it proceeds from the other two divine persons. Thus, the Creed adopted in 325 at Nicaea or the Nicene Creed had the following addition: “. . . and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and Son is together worshipped and together glorified, who spoke through the prophets . . .”

Today the Roman Catholic Church adopted the Nicene Creed in lieu of the Apostle Creed during mass.  The Nicene Creed however was already used in the past, in fact during the time of antiquity it was first solely used during baptismal rites; and it was in the sixth century when it was used or introduced into the mass. Patriarch Timotheus (d. 517) of Byzantium introduced it. Later, Spain followed during the third synod of Toledo (589); and finally upon the demand of Emperor Henry II that considerable parts of the empire had already been using the Nicene Creed in masses, so why had they not used it yet. Inevitably, it reached Rome.

Soon thereafter, Rome or the Western Church used the Nicene Creed, however controversies arouse again, because the East fully understood that the emanation of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father through the Son. The West asserted however that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. To the West, the added “filioque” was merely an interpretation and not as an expansion. But the East regarded it as an unauthorized addition and accused the West of heresy. So, the filioque, beginning with the uncertainty of the First Council of Constantinople in 381, was one cause of the schism of 1054, and has remained as a controversy up to this day.

But the good thing that happened in the First Council of Constantinople in 381 which Emperor Theodosius initiated to convene, the Doctrine of the Trinity ended to a conclusion based on the wisdom of the Cappadocia Fathers, and on the tact of its clergy participants. Moreover, the question on the exact relation of Christ’s divine and human natures (Christology) could now be possibly tackled by them.

The Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431:

On Christology: Similar with the issue on the Doctrine of Trinity, the Holy Scriptures did not as well define nor mention at the same time the divine and human aspects of Jesus Christ. Theological schools like those in Alexandria and Antioch tried much to interpret the important passages in the scriptures and sadly their interpretation had divergence or they parted ways in interpretation. The school at Alexandria gave emphasis more on the divine nature of Christ, while the Antiochian school had more on the human aspects.

We knew Origen who coined the term “God-man” denoting to Jesus Christ in the earlier pages of the essay. On the Christology of Christ, based on the interpretation of the Holy Bible including some theological speculation, Origen developed a fervent Logos mysticism. It was an idea that in Christ the encounter between God and mankind had taken place with greatest perfection. It was an idea which the monks liked and they linked their own views with that of Origen. In fact, similar mystical concept was developed by Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa), who were all products of the Alexandrian school.

Gregory of Nyssa said clearly that unity could be found in the divine person alone, and it is not completely impossible to blend the divine and human natures. He taught that in Christ the one divine person of the Logos had united in itself the divine and human natures. The divine and human natures existed by themselves although distinct from one another; however they were not separated but placed suitably in such a way that their qualities were mutually interchangeable. So, one could say with justification that the Son of God was born and that this applied to his human nature only because his divine nature is certainly eternal - without a beginning and end.

Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria tried to present the linkage between both natures as being highly intimate and real. Cyril spoke of physical union and of the “one nature of the incarnated Logos”. After the union of both natures in Christ one could say de facto or in effect only of one nature, the whole or hypostatic one. He gave a glowing coal as an example, the fire and the coal form a unit; in like way the divine and human natures of Christ formed a union. That was the Alexandrian School interpretation of the natures of Christ.

In similar time, the Antiochian theology had likewise developed.

Diodorus of Tarsus (d. before 394), who had been a teacher at Antioch, emphasized the complete humanity of Christ and that he placed independently the human nature next to the divine; and seemingly there was only a superficial connection between the two. Accordingly, the divine Logos lodged in the man Jesus as in a temple.

The Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius (an Antiochian); concluded that in truth Mary could not be called as the “God-bearer”, but merely had been the “Christ-bearer” inasmuch as she gave birth to only a human being, Jesus. He strongly questioned or criticized the Alexandrian school. Such was coined by Origen an Alexandrian, or originated at least in that school. Clearly the rivalry between the two patriarchs Alexandria and Constantinople were noticeable.

Henceforth, insinuated by Patriarch Nestorius, the Byzantium Emperor Theodosius II (408-450) summon a council with the West Roman Emperor Valentinian (425-455). So, the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 convened on June 22, 431.

[We wish to notate that Pope Celestine I (422-432) favoured Cyril because in his former letter in 429, he strongly attacked Nestorius in a twelve anathemas he sent him. It was however Cyril who sent it in the name of the Pope with strict demands to recant what Nestorius taught. On the other hand, Theodosius II Emperor of the Byzantium was supportive to Nestorius; he called the ecumenical council because Nestorius requested it. Cyril presented the doctrinal statement at the council, although Patriarch Nestorius including his followers were still not there yet. They were absent, so there was not much dissenting opinion from the opposing end. The doctrinal statement of Cyril was on the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ.[xxii] It was approved by a body of 198 Bishops in attendance to the council, and they signed the accompanying document regarding the condemnation of Nestorius.

The “God-bearer” or Theotokos doctrine was accepted, and the public who waited outside the hall for the outcome of the deliberation, agreed gladly upon knowing the result. We do not know the duration of the council, but it says a few days later, 43 bishops from Antioch arrived with their Patriarch named John. They supported Nestorius despite there was already a canon or resolution to the effect of upholding the doctrinal statement of Patriarch Cyril regarding Theotokos doctrine, but still the adherents of Nestorius constituted a counter-council.

There was chaos as intrigues and malicious attacks were hurled against each other inevitably; the Emperor intervened and the two ring leaders were arrested. Cyril returned to Alexandria, while Nestorius banished to Upper Egypt, and died there sometime in 451. What is unclear even today is the academic thought as to what extent had Patriarch Nestorius teachings were actually or considered heretical. Could it be not that he was just misunderstood by his contemporaries and colleagues, so he suffered banishment after the conclusion of the Council at Ephesus in 431?

In the life story of Nestorius which he titled Book of Heracleides (fortunately edited in 1910), he gave reasons why he entered into theological controversy with Cyril. Cyril’s doctrine of “one nature of the incarnated Logos”, Nestorius had anticipated that such would be greatly detrimental to the orthodox evangelical faith in the long run if in the intimate blending of the two natures, one would be completely absorbed by the other. Moreover, it might be disposed to a Docetic and Manichaestic heresy (Manichaeism - struggle between light and darkness, between the principle of good and evil, and between spirit and matter.]

Nestorius declared that when he opposed the Theotokos title of Mary (God-bearer), he did not do it to deny the Godhead of Jesus Christ. His was different with Arius, Arius denied the Godhead of Christ, but for Nestorius, he did conform to it to emphasize the fact that Christ had been born by Mary as a genuine human being with body and soul. Mary according to him had not given birth to Godhead, but to a man connected with the Godhead.

It was in Nestorius earthly desire to save the integrity of Jesus, so he separated too much the human nature from the Godhead; and there he was mistaken because he arrived at dualism of natures and forgot to recognize the indissoluble union in the one person of Jesus. Such is called as the hypostatic union.

The demise of Nestorius did not culminate his way of thought in teaching Christ’s gospels, his followers fled to Persia (now Iraq) and founded the Nestorian Church there. Nestorian missionaries reached as far as Malabar in India and Turkistan. In India we have this so called Thomas Christians. Unfortunately, there was a shift of momentum, during the bloody persecution in 1380 in Central Asia (probably including China), evangelization receded. In the sixteenth century many Nestorian churches (Chaldaeans and Malabar Christians) followed or adhered to the Roman Catholic Church.

Nowadays, the Nestorian Church is still active in India, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, including the Americas.

The “Robber Synod” Council of Ephesus in 449:

The apprehensions of Nestorius proved as never an unfounded belief only, because an abbot of a monastery near Constantinople and a die-hard adherent of Cyril’s doctrine of the one nature in Christ interpreted the later doctrine differently. Eutyches intimately combined the two natures of Christ and it resulted that the human nature was completely absorbed by the divine one. With that doctrine, the integrity of the human nature in Christ was cancelled. As such, the central qualification for the mystery of Christ and his activity as saviour and redeemer was lost, which the Scriptures speak constantly, and thereby endangering the Christian Doctrine of Redemption.

Extremely alarmed of Eutyches heretical doctrine, Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople called Eutyches. He initiated this move because this doctrinal statement began to spread, but Eutyches refused to recant his doctrine; and Patriarch Flavian condemned his teachings as heretical. Nevertheless, Eutyches view was supported by Patriarch Dioscurus of Alexandria; and he requested Emperor Theoosius II to summon an imperial council to solve the issue.

The Council of Ephesus in 449 under the headship of Patriarch Dioscurus was convened to rehabilitate Eutyches. Unfortunately, the council was not recognized by the rest of the Church, and that is maybe why Pope Leo I (440-461) termed it as the “Robber Synod”.

Nontheless, Pope Leo I issued “Epistola dogmatica ad Flavianum” supporting the views and cause of the Patriarch of Constantinople wherein the Pope authoritatively summarized the orthodox doctrine of the union of the two natures in the one person of Christ (hypostatic union).

The “Epistola dogmatica ad Flavianum” where Pope Leo I had authoritatively summarized or gave a final ruling on the doctrine of hypostatic union (two natures in one person in Christ); was the beginning or the first Papal infallible ex-cathedra decision.[xxiii] In the meanwhile, the Pope requested the new Emperor Marcian (450-457) to call the fourth ecumenical council of Chalcedon in 451. Marcian granted the Pope’s request.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451:

 It was the most attended synod in antiquity; it had assembled 350 bishops and was chaired by the legates of Pope Leo I or Leo the Great. The great council convened on October 8, 451 and on its first session indicted Patriarch Dioscurus of Alexandria (successor of Cyril). On October 13, 451 the doctrinal statement of Dioscurus on Monophysitic Doctrine (Cyril/Eutyches) was deposed or rejected by the Synod. A dogma was defined at the Synod’s sixth session based on the ex-cathedra decision of Leo the Great as indicated in his epistle (Epistola dogmatica ad Flavianum). Its content said that in Christ there are two natures, without confusion and division are united in one person or hypostasis. Without confusion, the divine and human natures of Christ retain their identity (rebutting Cyril and Eutyches); they are not separated from one another and are indissolubly united in the person of the divine Logos (rebutting Nestorius).

On this union anchors the whole redemption by Christ.

Later Development of Monophysitism:

One good thing that happened in the council aside from the fact that it did draw more bishops to attendance, the council had been able to review the “Epistola dogmatica ad Flavianum” despite, it was unnecessary anymore because of the infallibility of the ex-cathedra decision of the Pope. Nevertheless, be as it may; the council had viewed the monophysitic doctrine (originating from Cyril/Eutyches/Dioscurus on one nature in Christ) was after all incorrect though it was upheld or approved in the Council of Ephesus in 431 by 198 bishops who were there.

After Chalcedon (451) nothing changes much in the East, their thoughts had always been directed strongly toward unity, and still their thoughts tended to monophysitism. The unity we are saying here was not only in the theological fields, but it extended to the political sphere; and even to the life of the believer. In the East (Byzantium), religion and politics, church and state were bonded with one another; and even the personal life had been merged with the theologico-religious atmosphere. But for their counterpart in the West, there, they tried to follow the Christological formula of the Chalcedon, human and the divine, politics and religion, retained their distinctions and peculiarities.

Despite of the clear doctrine on the two natures of Christ in one person (Hypostatic Union) issued by the Pope, the belief of one nature of Christ (monophysitism) still flourish in Palestine, Egypt, and Syria; and in year 475 Basilicus, an imperial usurper; who was sympathetic to monophysitism, granted official toleration by a so-called Edit Encyclion to its adherents. Thereafter, in 476 Emperor Zeno published a compromise formula, which later on was called the Henoticon (482).

During the Papacy of Felix II from 483 to 492, Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople accepted or approved the Henoticon; Pope Felix II excommunicated him and further dissolved the ecclesiastical bond with the East.[xxiv] The Acacian (Acacius) Schism between the East and West went on for thirty-five years, and by 490 or around that year, the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch were ruled by monophysites (believers of one nature of Christ only), because Emperor Justinian (527-565) allowed this heresy to spread. It had gone to Africa in Nubia (Sudan) and Ethiopia, and Armenia (with Turkey as her border in the West, East is Azerbaijan, and to the north is Georgia).

The Fifth General Council of Constantinople in 553:

The East Roman Empire or Byzantium under Justinian sometime in 543 or 544 maybe was shaky because in order to conciliate with the monophysites so he may restore unity in the empire, he condemned the leaders of three Antiochian schools where the Nestorianism originated namely: Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428), Theodoret of Cyrus (d. ca. 458), and Ibas of Edessa (d. 457).

For this, Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the Council of Constantinople (553). Finally, Justinian was able to press on the ratification of the decisions of the council in February 554. But the results were alarming because the unity of the church suffered severe damage, the differences between East and West deepened, the prestige of the Papacy went down. Despite of the outcome of the council, it gained prominence in the West and found universal recognition being an ecumenical council.

Monothelism:

But the question on Christology was not yet closed or solved even at this far, a new thesis was introduced by Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople (610-638) to clarify the relationship of the two natures of Christ. While the monophysites posed the union of natures, Sergius predicated a union of wills. According to Sergius, the human and divine wills were so intimately connected and attuned that in reality only one natural human-divine energy and only one will (monothelism) had been active in Christ.

Henceforth, in year 638 monothelism was generally proclaimed by an imperial edict, after Pope Honorius I accepted the thesis of Patriarch Sergius. The Pope had a limited knowledge in Greek theology, so he may in mind of a physical union of natures than of a moral accord of the divine and human will in Christ.

However, in a synod at the Lateran (this palace in Rome was given by Constantine to the Pope in 313 shortly after his victory with Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge in 312); Pope Martin I (649-655) opposed and rejected it as a heresy. He was maltreated and exiled to the Crimean Peninsula where he died not long thereafter as a consequence of the maltreatment.

The Sixth General Council of Constantinople in 680:

Despite Monophysitism was already rejected and declared heretical by Pope Leo the Great in his “Epistola dogmatica ad Flavianum” and even so affirmed in the Council of Chalcedon in 451, still the crooked doctrine went on. From monophysitism, monothelism another doctrine surfaced and good that the events shifted in favour of the Chalcedon formula because a new emperor ruled the Byzantium who was not inclined to heretical ideas coming from most of the religious leaders of the East.

Emperor Constantine III (668-685) summoned the Council of Constantinople in 680; actually it was the third council to have been held at Constantinople. The council met for more or about ten months having started on November 7, 680 and concluded on September 16, 681. They met at the imperial palace’s cupola hall, thus it received the name “Trullanum”. The Papal Legates chaired the sessions; Monothelism together with its originators and supporters, was condemned as heresy. The saddest part of it was that Pope Honorius I was considered one of the culpable individuals because it says “because in everything he bade Sergiu’s will and confirmed the godless dogmas”… Honorius “who did not illuminate this Apostolic Church (Rome) through the apostolic magisterial tradition, but permitted through ignominious treason that the pure faith was stained.” Pope Leo II (682-683) approved the decision of the council and the condemnation of his predecessor.

Pope Leo II thought deeply and in order to appease the former Pope who may have been dead because his papal term lasted only from 625-638 and usually replacing a Pope happens only when one dies and seldom it happened that a Pope resigns. We reckon there were only two cases of resignation and that includes the case of Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger). So in spirit of camaraderie and out of respect of the departed one, he did not pinpoint him as principal or in direct participation of the heresy, but simply criticized him because “he had not smothered the fire of the heretical doctrine in the beginning, as became his apostolic authority, but had promoted it through his negligence.”

Furthermore, the council confirmed the theological outputs of the Council of Chalcedon. Consistent with the two natures which are united without confusion and separation in Christ, there are also two wills and two energies, divine and human, which without confusion and separation perform or act together for the redemption of man.[xxv]

With the clarity of the doctrines on Trinity and Christology, which had been the subjects of continuing synods and ecumenical councils since Alexandria in 318/319 or 323, Nicaea in 325, Constantinople in 381, Ephesus in 431 and Chalcedon in 425, various general councils followed. The last three councils that occurred were the Sixth General Council of Constantinople in 680, the Seventh General Council or the Second Council of Nicaea in 787took place in the East. The Seventh General Council or the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 was on the theme on the worship of images, among others. It is true that the Christian Faith do honour and respect religious images and relics of saints because in the first place they deserved reverence for they represented righteousness and love, and while they were still living on earth, they lived notable lives worthy of emulation. In order for us to achieve glory as the saints had triumphantly done it, we look upon them as our models; and we only revere them, but do not adore them because no one else deserves adoration than God alone.

The last council in the East during Antiquity was the Eight General Council, which indeed was the Fourth Council at Constantinople in 869-870, concluded the Photian Schism and it likewise rehabilitated Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople.

As can be seen, we know that it was the East where most of the synods or councils had taken place. Could it be that it had more learned men than the West? Certainly not, it is seemingly by circumstance that the East became a center of governance of the entire empire during the lone reign of Constantine due to the transfer of his imperial residence from Rome to Constantinople in 330. Since it was the center of governance, it followed that it became too the theological center. In fact, many theological schools were in the East than the West. The West had just started to move on its Theology, despite Rome had been the pioneering center of Christianity, yet the primacy of Peter and the subsequent Popes were just about to be established, and accepted. The succeeding popes would not be merely spiritual leaders, but must possess the attributes as great men, ideally appropriate in all respects, even in times of controversies either theological or otherwise.

The Theology of the West,

The Struggle for the Doctrine of Grace and Justification:

Undeniably, the East had issues on the Doctrine of Trinity and Christological, as obviously shown in the so many councils it had in the first millennium, which after sometime had been successfully resolved; while their counterparts in the West did have other theological concern, and it was on Soteriological questions or on the Doctrine of Redemption/Salvation.

Unlike the issues in the East where they involved metaphysical speculations or on theoretical thoughts, the West was more on the practical and personal problems of salvation which certainly affected Christian life. It was about on free will and sin, predestination and original sin, and necessity and efficacy of grace in the process of justification of the individual.

These were the great men in the West who developed or had strengthened its theology insofar as Soteriological questions or Doctrine of Redemption was concerned. 

Ambrose of Milan: After the death of Bishop Cyprian of Carthage in 258, no other important theologian emerged from the West not until the second half of the fourth century when Ambrose of Milan was unexpectedly chosen by the people of Milan and became their bishop.

Ambrose (339-397) was born in Trier; his father was a praetorian prefect of Gaul. He became governor of Aemilia-Liguria and even unbaptized yet when he assumed the position as bishop in 374. Despite of his late conversion or baptism to the faith, he became one of the first great doctors of the Western Church. He was a defender of the Christian church against Arianism; his sermons, speeches and writings had been fixed on Christian faith. He helped much in the defense of the Nicene Creed. His interpretation of the Scripture and so with his whole theology had been laid on the emphasis of ethical and social sides; and he was deeply concerned with the question of penance, sin and grace.

Moreover, Ambrose promoted the ascetic movement and truly he was one of the pioneers of western monasticism. He was a leading figure of the western church; in fact he was a friend and advisor to Emperor Gratian (375-383), Valentinian II (375-392), and Theodosius I (379-395). By views and thoughts, he was typically a westerner; henceforth, he opposed political monophysitism. Thus, to him political power had no right to intervene in the cleric-religious sphere. However, the ordering function of the state and its autonomy with respect to the civil sphere, he acknowledged it as necessary.  

The Byzantine System may have been different from his personal views, so he detached himself from it, because he could not reconcile the practice that the Emperor seemed to be God’s deputy and therefore could rule over both areas of life, the political and spiritual sides, or on the church and the state.   

In one conflict with the imperial court, he said, “even the emperor is part of the church, not above it”, when it is a matter of faith and salvation. He was referring to Emperor Theodosius the Great whom he compelled to ask or do penance in relation with brutal massacre in Saloniki. Ambrose always considered himself a priest and he never had gone to play with politics though he was indeed one of the influential people in the West. His friendship with the Emperor did not have any compromise to ruin or jeopardize his Christian faith.

Augustine: Next to achieve prominence as an important Theologian in the West, was Augustine of Hippo. He was born on November 13, 354, at Tagaste in Numidia (Africa). Of course, his mother was a devout Christian; however his father Patricius was pagan. Augustine was reared by his mother to become a Christian, but he was not baptized.

In 372, he found his companion and they lived in a common-law relation until 385 for they parted ways; however he had a child with her whom he named as Adeodatus who later died in 389. Two years later, he became an adherent of Manichaeism and for nine years he had been in that sect because he was impressed with its dualistic conception of good and evil, so with its explosive attack or criticism against Christianity. He studied Rhetoric in Charthage (Tunisia) and after finishing it; he resided in Tagaste and taught shortly as teacher of grammar. Thereafter, he taught rhetoric in Carthage until 383. From Carthage he went to Rome and got a professorship post in far north in Milan where he taught Rhetoric in 384. It was in here where he met Ambrose; in fact he was his student; and listening to his sermons Augustine was converted to Christianity and baptized by Ambrose in Easter of 387. His son Adeodatus like him embraced Christianity too and by 388 Augustine returned to Africa; and lived in a withdrawn monastic life[xxvi] together with his friends in Tagaste.

Bishop Valerius of Hippo persuaded Augustine to be ordained as priest, and he did become one. In 395 the aging bishop appointed him his coadjutor or as an associate bishop.  A year later Valerius died passing the episcopate to Augustine, whom he held and labored much for about thirty-five years.

As a theologian, Augustine was remarkably referred to as “the man of Christian antiquity best known to us”. Among his many works, in Confessions he praised God’s grace that despite in his worldly and lengthy detours in life, he was able to follow the right path and focused his life towards the right goal. With all his paganistic or non-Christian experiences before his conversion, Augustine made it as a matter of personal crusade to fight or counter heretical teachings during his days; and Pelagianism, which was too damaging to the Christian faith. According to Pelagius, ethics was basically a matter of good will. Based on that maxim, he had expounded his heretical teachings, which Augustine fought hard until Pelagius’ death in (ca. 422).

Augustine disagreement with Pelagius, a British monk; started in 412. Pelagius lived in Rome sometime in 410 or 411, moved to North Africa, and to the Near East. His doctrine was set to high ethical standard. Accordingly to him, “Grace no longer if it had played, such is really that too scarce, as man is not in need of grace to perform the good, but it only requires it solely to perform the good more effortlessly or easily.” Finally, in 418 Augustine was able to rebut theologically the doctrine of Pelagius, which really condemned such doctrine as heretical. He reputed Pelagius’ belief that grace is no longer needed to perform good; instead Augustine talked on the universal efficacy of grace and its absolute predestination. From this formulated theology, he became a “Doctor of Grace”. Augustine formulated the antitheses to a heresy, which recognized man as having the ability to achieve righteousness by his own efforts. However, for heretics they saw a big hole on this, which would serve as basis of their future heresies. Like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Jansenists, they traced back their ideas from the works of Augustine. They reached some conclusions which indeed were heretical that Augustine had not thought of it to be used by these enlightened or the not enlightened reformists against the Catholic Church.

On similar time, Africa was divided greatly between Catholics and Donatists (the so called “Pure Ones”), and there stood also the heresy of Manichaeism, where he was once a follower. He fought all these heresies, but he was too careful and exercised utmost leniency to those who had been lost in the Catholic faith. He was lost once, and he wished to call back those who like him were lost from the folds of the Catholic Church. 

So, sometime in year 411, through his initiative he called a conference in Carthage and such was attended by bishops from the Catholic as well as from the Donatists. The Catholics had 286 bishop attendees while the Donatists had likely a similar force of 279 bishops. The honesty of Augustine’s call to unity to one solid religion in Africa – Catholic Church made him, which other Catholic Bishops followed to offer their resignation from office as bishops so the Donatists would return to the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, their brilliant thoughts were rejected and even ridiculed; situation was not well, violence may erupt anytime. 

Due the depressing outcome of the conference, Augustine had looked for a more cognitive and responsive view to end up heresies. He became aware of “the justification of the bitter “Compelle intraré” (Lortz). The question runs like this, would truth be better served if love were subordinated to law and the use of force? Or if not, would force be subordinated to love? From his bitter experience, Augustine became the first who justified the use of force in questions of faith. He based his concept from the Holy Bible.[xxvii] Interpreting the passage from Luke “. . . and compel them to come in (compelle intrare). . .” he saw in it the justification of forcing unwilling heretics to return to the Catholic Church. Evolving from that concept, it was later formulated into a law, “Heretics have to be forced to their own salvation even against their will” (Decr. Gratiani, c. 38 C. 23 q. 4).

Sadly however Augustine did not know or how could he be able to know the terrifying effects of his false doctrinal interpretation. It was used later as basis or foundation for Medieval Inquisition (heretics were put to death and so on). Even Luther used such maxim in his campaign to suppress the peasants’ protest in 1525 and, in 1529 with the Anabaptist, a religious sect. Maybe the maxim or justification might have been used too by the Crusading Knights during the time of the 

Crusades beginning 1096 and subsequent centuries against Islam, as the first Crusade battle slogan says “God wills it”.[xxviii] The Crusaders called the Moslems as infidels and not as heretics; similarly, on the point of views of Islam, the Christians were the infidels and not them. At first it was a holy war for God, but as time went on, both armies realized that it was indeed a war of politics and more so in economic sphere.

Augustine was not able to anticipate the outcome of his doctrinal concept nor had he been able to rectify it because he died on August 28, 430 yet. He died in Hippo defending his episcopate against the rigors of Donatism.[xxix] Augustine died many years later when the doctrine on the justification of the use of force was applied in a harsher way like in the time Medieval Inquisition; and through the way Luther, Calvin and countless personalities had used it.

While it is true that the doctrinal concept which was formulated into law was honestly based on the Scripture particularly in the passage written by Luke, Augustine had misinterpreted it because nowhere in Holy Scripture has ever been written to justify the use of force in a religious sphere. What it spoke about was that only through faith where one could voluntarily surrender to God’s call. Certainly, Augustine did not favor death penalty since he had reflected much on this and he was even lenient to heretics because he was once a member of a heretical group, Manichaeism before his conversion.

Despite the fact that clearly the Holy Scriptures does not have any word or passage justifying the use of force in religious sphere, death penalty in the Middle Ages was however carried on, because accordingly heresy was considered as a violation of faith, and it also destroyed the common weal which the unity of faith was based.

Seemingly that was alright in those time and setting, but today no such theology or secular laws would permit grievous thing to happen.

In his time Augustine’s ideas and thoughts became in one way or the other as one of the great influences the western civilization had; and till today some of his ideas are still effective. In Monasticism, he was regarded as one of its fathers. He was speculative or theoretical in spirit as well as having acuteness of thoughts. The Augustinian Rule is said to have been formulated or designed by Augustine, which a greater number of monasteries used today.

Jerome:  He was born ca. 347 in Stridon (Dalmatia) and at age 7 or in year 354 he went to Rome; and studied thereat. Sometimes later, on a trip to Gaul (France) he was impressed with the way monks lived, and decided to live a monastic life someday. Thus, for some period of time he lived with a group of ascetic friends at Aquileia and from there, he journeyed to Jerusalem, however he became ill at Antioch, so he stayed there and spare much of his time in learning Greek and Hebrew. Likewise, he devoted himself to exegetical studies. 

In 375 to 378 Jerome had been to a higher degree of asceticism, he became a hermit and lived a very withdrawn life in the desert of Chalcis. After that in 379 he was ordained as priest in Antioch, and from there he went to Constantinople where he met Gregory of Nazianzus (a Cappadocian Priest) and another Cappadocian named Gregory of Nyssa.

Possibly the fame of Jerome started to bloom because Pope Damasus (366-384) invited him to leave at the papal court in Rome; and while there, Jerome worked on the revision of the Latin Bible, which he did from 382-385. Impressed of his capability, the Pope appointed him as his private secretary and designated him to be his successor in his demise. However on the Pope’s death (December 11, 184), Jerome was ignored in the papal election. Probably, he was even not nominated as an aspirant and this could be traced in his open criticism of the defects of the Roman clergy, so he was being disliked. He left Rome in 385 via Antioch and visited monastic convents in Palestine and Egypt.

In Jerusalem with the assistance of a pious and wealthy woman named Paula, who had accompanied him on his departure from Rome, they were able to construct three cloisters for women and one monastery for men in Bethlehem. Jerome supervised these monasteries or convents and for more than thirty years, he had made Bethlehem a place of impressive literature, which he made and superbly loaded with Christian morals in content.

Jerome died in Bethlehem on September 30, 419/420. He was there since 386.

Pope Gregory I (590-604): He was born sometime in year 540 and a descendant of an aristocracy. His ancestor held a senatorial position; in fact, Gregory had been the Prefect of Rome at an early age of 32 years old having assumed the position in 572/573. His father Goardian died; and despite the position that he had been holding which was so decent and nice for a young man, he chose to renounce that secular career and began to live a monastic life in 575. He remodelled their parental palace into a monastery; it was named after St. Andrew and later he made some expansion in their estate in Sicily and built six more monasteries. 

Living in monastic seclusion, it did not stop Pope Pelagius II (579-590) from appointing him as his resident ambassador at Constantinople, where he was there until 585. He was at the Byzantine imperial court for ten years, yet he lived piously as a monk, a man devoted to prayers and theological studies.  

His ambassadorial duty at Constantinople ceased; he returned to his place and entered again the monastery, however he was the adviser of Pope Pelagius II until the latter’s death in 590. Contrary to what had happened to Jerome (groomed by Pope Damasus to be his successor, but was never nominated as candidate to the Papacy); Gregory was chosen as the Pope’s successor although he honestly and vehemently refused to become one.

Inescapably, he had to assume the Papacy in order not to break the line of succession of the prestigious yet brain cracking position as the Bishop of Rome; and first thing first, he inventoried the land holdings of the church in order to maximize production so it may provide the Italian populace who were suffering of hunger and sickness because of low yield of crops due to results of barbarian invasions and migrations to Italy. After achieving bountiful harvest, he had the grains distributed to the people and protected the peasants, too, from exploitation by landlords and capitalists.   

Not only in pastoral fields had Gregory proved to be effective, likewise he was good in political and military affairs. One time he was able to protect Rome. When the Lombards besieged Rome in year 592 and 593, through friendly negotiations, he persuaded the Lombard military leaders to withdraw and not to invade Rome. The Lombards did obey the Pope’s peaceful pleadings.

During his term, he was able to stop the dependence of Italy with the Roman Church on Byzantium more so in military affairs. Byzantium failed to protect them during the Lombard invasion, because it was so busy too of its own internal troubles; and the Pope had prevented the invasion from happening by his peaceful mediation. The West had been able to move independently in policy; despite it was reduced into small Christian kingdoms or principalities as a consequence of the downfall of the Roman Empire in the West in year 476. Gregory’s achievement significantly marked from then on that the Papacy was regarded as something great and special. With this, Pope Gregory I earned the nickname or epithet as “the Great” because of that extra-ordinary achievement from preventing the bloody invasion of Rome.

In a different standpoint Pope Gregory began to realize the importance of the Germanic nations, which at this point in time had been making or writing its history as a nation due to rising sovereignty of the Frankish Dynasty; and he kept as a matter of great importance to maintain good relationship with them. In the fields of mission, he directed his focus across Gaul to Brittania (England) and sent missionaries to evangelize the Anglo-Saxons. There were about forty monks from St. Andrew Monastery headed by their Prior Augustine, who crossed the English Channel for England Mission.

In the meanwhile in the kingdoms of the Visigoths where Arianism was the leading religion, Gregory took the opportunity to introduce the Roman Church while there was a noticeable shift of preference from Arianism to the Roman Church in view of the ascendancy to power of King Reccared in 586. He capitalized the turning-away from Arianism to unite the Visigoths with the Roman Church. Moreover, the Lombards who occupied the northern part of Italy, he successfully paved the way of their conversion to the Catholic faith with the help of Queen Theodolinda, who herself was a Catholic.

Internally or inside the church itself as an institution, Gregory the Great reformed the clergy. A book was written by him Liber regular pastoralis and it was an important instructional guide for priestly life and works of ministers. He wrote in 595 another book entitled Moralia in Job and it became the basic handbook of Moral Theology and Aesthetics in the Middle Ages.

There were lots of changes Pope Gregory introduced during his papacy; one concerned was about on the reform on the Roman Liturgy. He reformed the celebration of the Holy Mass and formatted the Canon to its present form in a style known today as Gregorian Sacramentary.

He died in year 604 after being the head of the Roman Church for fourteen years. It was through him that the Papacy had attained leadership and greatness, which never had been experienced in the West before.

The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, a Great Question:

[When Pope John Paul II[xxx] died, the Christian world was in grief; and perhaps it was not only the Christians that missed his passing because when the requiem mass was offered before he was led to his final resting place in one of the tombs below the Basilica, St. Peter’s square was really filled not only by grief-stricken Christians, but we saw too there were leaders of different religious sects that attended.

We were not able to catch every word the public address had said, but we knew it had introduced the attendees from the different religious sects. For the inquisitive listener perhaps it would be his first time to hear the names or identities of the churches. The Pope’s requiem mass was seemingly a reunion of the world’s many religions, as they congregated to give their final respect to this great leader.   

Why the fallen Pope was so much respected and loved by the world and by its religious leaders, was it because Pope John Paul II was a Pilgrim Pope, who travelled the world in his pilgrimages of peace and ecumenism? Perhaps that was it, because he was so well travelled, too friendly to everyone regardless of race, religion or status, people learned to love him.  When he was in the Philippines in 1995, before he proceeded to Papua New Guinea; the Filipinos had easily learned to love him much. In the streets where the Pope’s mobile passed by, in the open field venue where thousands of people converged; the people in unison chanted, “Pope John Paul II, we love you!”

Can all these attributes openly point out or signify that the Pope indeed has primacy over Christian Religion? Does the authority of the Pope extend not only along the Roman Catholic Church, but just as well to the Greek Orthodox Church and some of the Eastern Churches[xxxi]? For other churches outside from what have just been mentioned, they may have dissimilar views or grossly unlike with us, for obedience to them is due only to their immediate global head, or the head of their religious sect. But insofar as their cordial and sympathetic feeling on the personal life and achievements of Pope John Paul II, we guess they had recognized and appreciated his acts of goodness and wisdom; and furthermore, they as well favoured his crusading spirit of Christian love and on unity through ecumenism.

Today, primacy of the Pope is no longer much of a problem for the Roman Catholic Church because the Greek Orthodox and some of the Eastern Churches recognized such primacy unlike in the Olden Times, when primacy of the Pope or the Bishop of Rome had to be asserted by the Roman Western Church over its contemporaries. It is true that in the early beginning of Christianity not only Rome had its own bishops to take care of the Christian Community, but the East had Bishops or Patriarchs of their own, whose duties, and worthiness as spiritual leader similarly as that of the Bishop in Rome. The East had a different perspective on it, more so when it achieved or attained political stateliness after the Roman Empire governance was transferred to Byzantium. As a consequence, the set of governance beginning 330 was solely in Constantinople because Constantine the Great was the sole emperor of the Roman Empire from East to West. The shift of governance was transferred from Rome to Constantinople; naturally the highest religious leader of Constantinople who is Patriarch had a greater influence in government.]

Sometime before or occurring likely during the Synod of Nicaea, ecumenical patriarchates began to develop in the church. The council of Nicaea sanctioned the “old custom” that a Patriarch of Alexandria shall oversee for Egypt, Antioch for Syria, and other patriarchates shall have similar authority just like Rome over the bishops in their respective districts.

In 475, the Western Empire had been reduced into small Christian principalities; and the downfall of Rome was either attributed through outside forces such as invasion and in its internal deterioration – government bankruptcy, indolence of the people – citizens’ wants were focused on leisure and entertainments, thus the empire had spectacular circuses and gladiatorial fights; and as if life revolves through circuses, gladiatorial fights in the arena, and most of the citizens relayed on bread given or supplied by the state and had forgotten the value of work to improve the economy.

The question of primacy before was so a big issue for the East to tackle and accept that necessarily prompted the West to explain and prove that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was not just only given or acquired by him through accident, but it was something or had directly came from God as expressly said in Matthew 16: 18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”   

Although the earlier dates or years of successions maybe are not accurate as to when Peter’s successor assumed office as the second Bishop of Rome and so on, it is however clear that the line of succession has been unbroken until today. Peter was followed by Linus (64-79?), Anacletus (79-90-92?), Clement I (90/92-101?), and so forth and so on until todays Pope Francis I (The 268^th Pope, his Pontificate started in 2013). This unbroken succession clearly insured us the security and absolute reliability of the apostolic tradition in the Roman Church.

The primacy of the Bishops of Rome was best shown by its Bishops Leo the Great and Gregory the Great in Rome’s trying times. Devoid of military support from Byzantium Empire (East Empire), Rome had successfully defended herself against the Huns under Pope Leo the Great, he had proven his statesmanship and leadership by negotiating with the Huns and had been able to persuade the King of the Huns, Attila in 452 at Mantua when the invading Huns were on their way to enter Italy through Gaul from their route along the Danube. The Huns were determined to ransack Rome. At this time no military leader or army had been prepared to face and stop the military prowess of the Huns, but Pope Leo had persuaded the feared King to leave Italy. Perhaps too Attila’s campaign against Rome did not materialize because he was already a sick and dying man, and naturally should be ready to grasp whatever spiritual enlightenment may be accorded to him as what maybe the Pope had given to him - not necessarily that he must submit to conversion, but probably only by taking or hearing and understanding the good points of the Pope’s advice. In 453, Attila the Hun died, just two years later after the Vandals were successful in their military campaigns in Spain in 425.

After Spain the Vandals moved down Southeast and conquered North Africa in 429, Italy’s granary was lost to the Vandals; and while North Africa was in great turmoil, Augustine of Hippo died during the invasion of Hippo in Carthage. From North Africa the Vandals sailed across the Mediterranean in 455 besieged Rome with Geiseric their able leader.

The people now had no one to relay on, except on Pope Leo the Great, and they fervently believed that his previous success with Attila was mainly because of divine intervention; again all hopes were focused on him to negotiate best so that their lives would be spared by the invading army. Despite, Pope Leo was not able to spare the city from the looting of the Vandals; at least he was able to save the lives of the populace and had likewise prevented the complete burning of the city. 

On the other hand, Pope Gregory’s I achievements aside from the countless things he had done as the Sovereign Pontiff, similar with Pope Leo, he was successful in persuading the Lombards in 592 and 593 through peaceful negotiations to withdraw from blockading the city of Rome.

All these great achievements had never been seen by the Eastern Empire or by the West Roman kingdoms, but it did happen because the Popes had done well their works not only as Pastors during peace but as well as leaders who readily faced whatever dangers may lay ahead of them, like negotiating fearlessly yet humbly with the leaders of an invading army.

Although in 330 Constantine transferred the imperial governance in Constantinople, still Rome held an eminent position in the church as a whole, despite the Patriarch or Bishop of Constantinople had acquired a great influence with the ruler of the empire.

Significant Controversies between the Eastern and Western Churches:

Historically, after the Synod of Alexandria in year 318, 319 or 323, Arius who denied the divinity of Christ was excommunicated from the Church because his teachings were heretical. In the First imperial Synod of Nicaea in 325, which Constantine the Great summoned, Arius again after winning the support of the Bishop of Nicomedia, and other sixteen bishops, once more defended his doctrine – heretical one. Exhaustive debates had been done and again Arius doctrine once more was condemned heretical; and even the Emperor informed Christendom that Arius and his adherents were the worst enemies of the true faith. He and his followers were excluded from the church, and Arius and Bishop Eusebius were exiled. 

But in the year 328, Emperor Constantine lifted his order, recalled Bishop Eusebius and Arius was permitted to go back to Alexandria, too. Bishop Athanasius who now was the bishop of Alexandria did not admit Arius to his episcopate, despite there was an imperial decree to that effect. Athanasius refusal caused displeasure to the Emperor, so this courageous defender of the Nicene Creed was exiled.  In year 339 Athanasius fled to Pope Julius I in Rome to seek asylum when his episcopate was taken by an Arian Bishop, who certainly had cordial relation with the emperor. In 356 he hid from the emperor among the monks and hermits of the desert. The Roman Emperors who were sympathetic to Arianism kept on exiling him, and in year 365 Emperor Valens exiled him again. It was his fifth exile, but because of the internal turmoil in Alexander, Athanasius was permitted to go home and spent the rest of his life in Alexandria until his death in 373. He was an avid protector of the Nicene Creed.

Occurring after the Synod of Nicaea was another synod, which Pope Julius called with prime objective of restoring to his rightful position Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria who sought protection from him in 339. We had the Synod of Sardica in 342-343 for this purpose. But before this was called or convened, in 341 Pope Julius wrote a letter to the Eastern Bishops explaining or detailing why he sided with Athanasius. Despite his explanations, the Eastern Bishops were strongly reluctant of the Pope’s views of restoring Athanasius.

During the synod at Sardica, the Eastern Bishops were in protest; left the council and it was indeed a denial of recognition of Athanasius, nevertheless; the Western Bishop granted the restoration of Athanasius; and the supreme decision of appeal was referred to the Roman See. To this effect, the Bishop of Alexandria was restored; the Arian Patriarchs of the East were excommunicated.  The Eastern Bishops rejected the claims of the West and they too excommunicated the Western Synodalists. It marked for the first time an inimical opposition between the East and West.

The excommunication incidents between the East and West happened in 342 or 343 and by year 381 the Second General Council of Constantinople, was summoned by Theodosius (Emperor of the East). The council had necessarily to be convened because there was a need to complete the clarification of the Arian disputes. This dispute was about the Doctrine of the Trinity.

As a result of the Council of Constantinople the issue of the Blessed Trinity was resolved; it achieved conclusion and added as a dogma. The Creed adopted at the Synod of Nicaea had the following addition, “… and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified, who spoke through the prophets . . .” To the East, they understood that emanation of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father through the Son. However, the Western Church asserted that it proceeds from the Father and the Son. The added “filioque” was not considered by the West as an expansion but merely an interpretation. But to the Eastern Church, they regarded it as an unauthorized addition and accused the Western Church of heresy.[xxxii]

Today the Roman Catholic Church (the Western Roman Empire in the olden times) in its Liturgical Masses adopted the Nicene Creed, the product of the Council in Nicaea in 325 and Council of Constantinople in 381. The Apostle Creed which was usually used in the previous liturgy is now replaced or lesser used; and the question of filioque is not anymore a matter of a big question or controversy, but just an insignificant play of word, we guess so. The Primacy of the Pope is acknowledged by the Greek Orthodox Church and most of the churches of the East; nevertheless, they observed some traditions and practices which the Roman Catholic Church has not.

oOo

Researcher’s Note:

This story is based on the scholarly works of August Franzen and John P. Dolan (the latter annotates it), A History of the Church, Herber-Palm Publishers, 1965.

The continuity of the story is what we look forward to achieve; and hopefully, we could read and digest the substantial middle part and its concluding chapter so in the forthcoming days, months or years, we could come to a less scholarly presentation appropriate to ordinary people like us, who are not in the seminary aspiring to become priests, pastors, ministers, or sisters of congregation.

In the meantime, this tale of “This Pilgrim Church: The Christian Church from Antiquity up to Post Constantine Era” has been done and simply presented this way; and despite this does not in general sense encompass everything of the History of Antiquity of the Church and not a comprehensive story of that pinpointed era, may its story make us a little bit erudite in the history of Christian Church.

Notwithstanding its constraints, we look forward to daringly scribble the next story, “This Pilgrim Church: The Church of the Middle Ages”.

To God Almighty

---

NOTES

[i] The researcher acknowledges greatly the scholarly work of August Franzen/John P. Dolan, “A History of the Church” published by Herder-Palm Publishers 1965, as his primary source of the literature of this essay, although some other references are  inputted in, wishfully to widen the scope of this work. (Annotation mine.)

[ii] The Society of Jesus was founded by St. Ignatius de Loyola with St. Francis Xavier and five other young men; Pierre Favre, Lainez, Salmeron, Rodriguez and Bobadilla. They congregated themselves into a community and made the famous vow of Montmarte in France on 15 August 1534. __ See Catholic Encyclopedia, Lives of Saints, Nicene and Post Nicene; Fathers of the Church and L’Osservatori Romano.

[iii] Bevans and Schroeder, Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission for Today, p.176,

[iv] Acts 2: 3-7 “Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them . . . and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”

[v] In year 70 AD Jerusalem was destructed when the Roman Army crushed the Jewish rebellion. See August Franzen & John P. Dolan, A History of the Church, p. 15.

[vi] The internal structure of the community at first was determined by the college of twelve apostles and Peter had a leading role, which is discernible. _ Franzen & Dolan, History of the Church, p.13.

[vii] “And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”

[viii] According to traditions, it was a Galilean Jewish Christian named Addai, who is considered the founder of the Syriac Church (later known as the Nestorians)._ Stephen B. Bevans & Roger P. Schroeder, Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission Today, p.75. See Moffett, Christianity in Asia, pp.46-51.

[ix] Abyssinia or Ethiopia traces its earliest Christian roots to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts (8:27) and the Apostle Matthew. Historically, it is said that in the middle of the 4^th century, the king with the royal court of Axum embraced the Christian faith through the labors of Bishop Frumentius and the Church of Alexandria. Frumentius, a Syrian youth was sold into slavery to the King of Axum, and fortunately rose from the ranks and had been influential in the royal court. He went to Alexandria to plead for the Christian cause and returned as a Bishop and missionary to Ethiopia. __ S. Bevans & R. Schroeder, Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission Today, p.113.

[x] He was the first important Theologian of the 2^nd century and was the bishop of Lyon (d.ca.202). In his principal work, Against the Heresies (Adversus haereses) he defined, between the years 180 and 184, among other things, the meaning of the genuine apostolic tradition for the maintenance of purity of the true faith. He says purity of faith most clearly guaranteed by the Roman Bishop as the successor of Peter (St. Peter) in the community of Rome. Irenaeus has given us the oldest list of Roman Bishops. _ See Franzen and Dolan, A History of the Church, p.32.

[xi] It is a big river that flows south from the Taurus Mountains in south-eastern Turkey through Iraq. Passing along Turkey some 400km., the latter serves as the natural border between Turkey and Syria and it joins the Euphrates River near Basra in Iraq before debouching to the Persian Gulf. _Wikipedia Internet retrieved on June28, 2013.

[xii] Christians in India believe that Thomas the Apostle reached the Malabar Coast of India in 52 AD. He preached Christianity in Eastern and Western coasts of India. The Christian community later became under the episcopate of the Bishop of Persia sometime in the 4^th century. As such, they inherited East Syriac liturgy and traditions. Presently, this early community of Christian could be found in the Syro-Malabar Church, an Oriental Church in communion with Rome, following East Syrian traditions. __ Wikipedia Internet retrieved June 28, 2013.

[xiii] Franzen/Dolan, A History of the Church, p. 23.

[xiv] Rome had extended its empire [West] beyond its border in 27 BC yet and reduced into small Christian kingdom in 470 AD. However, the East Empire [Byzantium] began in year 330 AD with its seat of governance in Constantinople. It was fallen and sacked by the Ottoman Turks (Islam) under Mahmoud in 1453.

[xv] Franzen/Dolan, A History of the Church, p. 45.

[xvi] In June 2009, Pope Benedict XVI announced excavation results of the tomb of Paul at the Basilica of St. Paul outside the walls. The sarcophagus or the compartment where the casket is placed and not necessarily the concrete structure or tomb was not opened, but it was examined by means of a probe. The recovered specimens revealed pieces of incense, purple and blue linen perhaps the burial robe, and a small bone fragment. Radiocarbon test dated the bone fragment to the first and second century. There was an inscription in the sarcophagus saying, “Paul apostle martyr.” Vatican said that the findings are consistent with the traditional claim. _ Wikipedia Internet retrieved on July 4, 2013.

[xvii] Franzen & Dolan, A History of the Church. p.49.

[xviii] Ibid. p.50.

[xix] Hereinafter is an authentic statement of the death sentence of Bishop Cyprian of Carthage rendered by the Romans during the time of Decius, quote “Because for a long time you have led the life of a traitor and have started a sinister conspiracy with several others; because you are a declared enemy of the Gods and the laws of the Roman State, and not even the pious and illustrious Emperors Valerian and Gallienus and the supreme Caesar Valerian could induce you to serve again the Gods of the state; and because you are the actual originator of detestable crimes and have seduced others to iniquities; an example shall be made of you as a warning to all those whom you have caused to become your accomplices. At the price of your blood, decency and morals shall be preserved. Thus, we order Thascius Cyprian to die by the sword” (Acta proconsularia Cyprian, IV, 1-2). _ See Franzen/Dolan, A History of the Church, p.54 (Bishop Cyprian of Carthage may have died after the reign of Emperor Gallienus because of the statement of the Execution Order as herein quoted,“… and not even the pious and illustrious Emperors Valerian and Gallienus and the supreme Caesar Valerian could induce you to serve again the Gods of the state; … [underscoring mine]”).

[xx] Tertullian (death after 220 in Carthage) was a jurist and theological writer. He even was considered as one of the Church Fathers because of his ceaseless defense of the Christian church. Primarily, he opposed he Gnostic heretics and his writings could be seen in his main work “De praescriptione haereticorum (ca.200)”. Unfortunately however he went astray in year 207, he joined the sect of Montanus, Montanism. _ See Franzen/Dolan, History of the Church, pp. 30-32.

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Bevans and Schroeder said, “Those who considered Cyril of Alexandria as the representative of orthodoxy believed that while there were two natures before the incarnation, Christ was one person with a single united nature after the incarnation. They became known by their opponents as Monophysites (“one nature”), and this view was held in Armenia, Western Syria, Egypt, Nubia (Sudan) and Ethiopia.  A second group held that two natures and two persons were in union in Christ and so became known by others as Dyophysites (“two natures”).”__ Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission for Today, p. 102. __ Monophysites (one nature) for Cyril of Alexandria while Nestorius was on Dyophysites (two natures). The theological doctrine on Monophysitism of Cyril of Alexandria was even approved during the council of Ephesus in 449 otherwise known as the Robber Synod, however Pope Leo the Great rebutted it through issuance of Epistola Dogmatica ad Flavianum, the first ex-cathedra infallible decision of the Pope.

[xxiii] The doctrinal decision (Hypostatic union) as contained in the epistle of Leo the Great , or in what we call today as encyclical, was issued and decided by the Pope alone before the Council of Chalcedon in 451 was convened. Such doctrine is considered infallible, despite it was not referred to the council of bishops. (Annotation mine.)

[xxiv] Anytime within this period, our reference does not say when Patriarch Acacius accepted the Henoticon (Annotation mine).

[xxv] If the human nature of Christ would be disregarded as co-equal in importance with his divine nature, the history of Christ’s Passion and ultimately the Doctrine of Salvation (Soteriology) would be greatly in vain. Had Christ’s human nature been lost or separated from Him at the time he hang on the cross, then what had happened during crucifixion was seemingly only a three-dimensional show or just only a product of hallucination. For all we know, Christ suffered all the hardships and pains during his passion as he is indeed human. His sufferings were real. His Death and Resurrection are the essence of the Doctrine of Redemption and it is the mystic truth of our Christian Faith. __Commentary taken from personal interview with Fr. Rosauro Maria Valmores y Abletes of the Clerics Regular of St. Paul (CRSP) or Barnabite Fathers at their mission area in Calaanan, Cagayan de Oro City (St. Joseph Chaplaincy-Roman Catholic) on July 18, 2013 at 9:00 PM.

[xxvi] History taught us that asceticism first was noticed among the Egyptian ascetics who dwelt in the remote regions of the desert in the middle of the third century [AD], to live in prayer, solitude, and poverty.  The first known hermit to history was Anthony. After the death of his wealthy parents, Anthony sold or gave away his inherited properties. He took his younger sister to the care of Christian maidens, and in 271 more or less, at age twenty, he began to live in solitude. At first he lived near his town, but decided to go deeper in the wilderness because ordinary people particularly the sick, the priests, and bishops kept on following him. With the indulgence of God, he was renowned charismatic leader and a prophet. In 356 he died at age 105 and he is known as the Father of the Hermits. On the other hand, occurring on likely similar time, Pachomius [287-347 born later than Anthony, but died earlier], began as a hermit like Anthony, but around 320 he founded the first “cloister’s” and connected the cells near one another; and uniting their inhabitants in a communal life or community. Thus, the first monastery was created at Tabennisi on the Nile.  From that part in Egypt, monasticism spread instantaneously to the whole East. The West became acquainted with it only after some of the great men like Athanasius went to Trier [Germany] with two other monks. _ See Franzen and Dolan, A History of the Church, pp. 97-98.           `

[xxvii] From Luke 14, 23: “Then the masters said to the servant, go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in (compelle intrare), that my house may be filled”.

[xxviii] The First Crusade was called on appeal to the Christian world in 1095 by Pope Urban II for the recovery of the Holy Land against the Moslems. It can be recalled that In 1071 Jerusalem was conquered by the Turks (Seljuk). The noble cause to recover the Holy Land from the Moslems was thoroughly taken in the synods of Piacenza and Clermont in France. The First Crusade began in 1096 until 1099.

[xxix] The Donatist Church regarded itself as the church of the “Pure Ones”, a church of the pious and saints. Within the sect, was a fanatic group called Circumcellions, who really thought of themselves as Saints, Fighters for the Faith, and Soldiers of Christ. They demanded social reforms as well as ecclesiastical reforms, and they hated much the Catholic Church for exercising laxity in the strict implementation of the doctrines and they did everything just only to discredit the Catholic Church and at the same time tried to disseminate their own teachings.

[xxx] Karol Jozef Wojtyla born in Poland on 18 May 1920 became Pope on 16 October 1978 and died on 2 April 2005. His Funeral Mass was at St. Peter Basilica on April 8, 2005 at 10:00AM. By traditions, the Pope’s burial should be 4 to 6 days, after his death, so the election of the new Pope would be made. __ Wikipedia, Internet accessed 2 August 2013 5:10PM.

[xxxi] These Eastern Catholic Churches like the Byzantine Church, Chaldeans Catholics (a greater part were converted from the Nestorian), Alexandrian Catholics (Copts), Abyssinians, Syria Church, Catholic Church of Malabar (India), Armenians, and Maronites, have rites of their own, but they are aligned with Roman Catholic Church. They recognized the primacy of the Pope. _ Catholic Encyclopedia, “Eastern Churches” Internet accessed 2 August 2013, 5:30PM.  

[xxxii] The “filioque” question was one of the unresolved issues in the Council of Constantinople in 381. It had contributed to one of the many causes why the Great Eastern Schism of 1054 occurred, and has remained an issue until these days. [A brief backgrounder on the Great Eastern Schism: The views of the Eastern and Western Churches developed and undeniably they had some difference ever since. There contrasts were seen in the areas of liturgy, discipline, politics, and dogma. After the fall of Western Roman Empire in 476, the former empire was transformed into small Christian Kingdoms; and not until the rise of Charles or Charlemagne (768-814) King of the Frankish Kingdom (Germanic Nation), when Rome found its faithful ally. The Western Roman Empire was once again re-established; in year 800 Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as Emperor during the Christmas Mass. From then on the Emperorship was passed on from Charlemagne to his sons and so on until it went to Henry III (1039-1056). The Great Eastern Schism started insignificantly at first this way: Byzantium had territorial claims in Italy – southern Italy like the city of Ravenna. However, the Franks whom Rome had a cordial relation had been expanding into Italy and this heightened the tension. The Byzantium Emperor Constantine IX and his governor for Southern Italy, Argyros, were in fact desirous toward forming an alliance with the Pope who at that time was Leo IX (1049-1054) a German; so they may be able to fight against the Normans. Constantinople this time was headed by Patriarch Michael Cerularius (1043-1058); he believed and thus feared much that the Pope’s power to further expand or perhaps lessened his power in his great sphere of jurisdiction and influence he had been holding now. So, to prevent this, he made a scenario to capitalize and emphasize petty ecclesiastical conflicts as restraints to conclude the alliance. Celarius closed Latin churches and monasteries in Constantinople. He condemned the Western Church for which Rome was the center of the patriarchate of the use of unleavened bread during celebration of the Mass, clerical celibacy, and the inclusion of the filioque in the creed (Nicaea), which was agreed upon in General Council of Constantinople in 381. There was negotiation to settle the indifference, but sadly it never reached some healthy conclusions. Instead, the West excommunicated the East and so the latter made similar actions too. The “filoque” insignificant controversy still exists today; despite of attempts to renew one solid unification, the schism or the split has continued through all these days. __ See Franzen and Dolan, A History of the Church, p. 184.

OOO

is