Podcasts about Cappadocian Fathers

Jordan Hall and I discuss he exploration and reflections about the doctrine of the Trinity. We mention John Vervaeke (  @johnvervaeke  ), Jonathan Pageau (  @JonathanPageau  ), Paul Vanderklay (  @PaulVanderKlay  ), Kale Zelden (  @thekalezelden  ), Jim Rutt (  @jimruttshow8596  ), Elizabeth Oldfield (  @thesacredpodcast  ), Rod Dreher, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, The Cappadocian Fathers, Jordan Peterson (  @JordanBPeterson  ), Forrest Landry, Iain McGilchrist, Immanuel Kant, David Bentley Hart, James Filler, and more. Midwestuary - https://www.midwestuary.com/First convo with Jordan Hall - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkHeudFqPnk

Jordan Hall and I discuss he exploration and reflections about the doctrine of the Trinity. We mention John Vervaeke (  @johnvervaeke  ), Jonathan Pageau (  @JonathanPageau  ), Paul Vanderklay (  @PaulVanderKlay  ), Kale Zelden (  @thekalezelden  ), Jim Rutt (  @jimruttshow8596  ), Elizabeth Oldfield (  @thesacredpodcast  ), Rod Dreher, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, The Cappadocian Fathers, Jordan Peterson (  @JordanBPeterson  ), Forrest Landry, Iain McGilchrist, Immanuel Kant, David Bentley Hart, James Filler, and more. Midwestuary - https://www.midwestuary.com/First convo with Jordan Hall - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkHeudFqPnk

Basil the Great, one of the Cappadocian Fathers, profoundly shaped Christian theology in the 4th century through his defense of the Trinity against Arianism. His work clarified the Holy Spirit's divinity and equal status within the Trinity, influencing the Council of Constantinople's affirmation of Nicene orthodoxy. Basil emphasized the concept of one God in three distinct Persons, contributing terminology and arguments against heresies, like modalism. His articulation of the Holy Spirit as an illuminating power and his use of scripture and tradition solidified his theological contributions. Beyond theology, Basil impacted monastic life and liturgy, leaving a lasting legacy in both Eastern and Western Christian traditions. www.twinsbiblicalacademy.com

Send us a textSeries: Mystical TheologyEpisode 33: Conclusions to Augustine, Part 2: Gregory of Nyssa, Ep 33, Dr. C. VeniaminIn Episode 33, we have the second part of our Conclusions to the Unit on the Cappadocian Fathers and Augustine of Hippo. This consists of Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses (paragraphs 152-169), in which St. Gregory presents the God-seer Moses in his ascent towards God and deification (theosis). One of the key themes in Nyssa's account is that of “divine darkness”. Other themes touched upon in this episode are included in the Timestamps.Q&As available in The Professor's Blog Recommended background reading: Christopher Veniamin, ed., Saint Gregory Palamas: The Homilies (Dalton PA: 2022); The Orthodox Understanding of Salvation: "Theosis" in Scripture and Tradition (2016); The Transfiguration of Christ in Greek Patristic Literature (2022); and Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church: According to the Spoken Teaching of Father John Romanides, Vol. 1 (2012), Vol. 2 (repr. ed. 2020). Further bibliography may be found in our "Scholar's Corner" webpage.Join the Mount Thabor Academy Podcasts and help us to bring podcasts on Orthodox theology and the spiritual life to the wider community. Support the showDr. Christopher VeniaminSupport The Mount Thabor Academyhttps://www.buzzsprout.com/2232462/support The Professor's BlogFurther bibliography may be found in our Scholar's Corner.THE MOUNT THABOR ACADEMYPrint Books by MOUNT THABOR PUBLISHING eBooks Amazon Google Apple KoboB&NMembershipsJoin our Academy on Patreon: Membership TiersYouTube Membership LevelsContact us: ...

Send us a textSeries: Mystical TheologyEpisode 32: Conclusions to Augustine, Part 1: Basil the Great & Gregory the Theologian, Ep 32, Dr. C. VeniaminIn Episode 32, we return to the Cappadocian Fathers by way of conclusion, following our overview of Augustine of Hippo, in order to bring us back to an Orthodox approach to the mystery of the Holy Trinity. We attempt a clarification of the essence-energies distinction as taught by Basil the Great, and proceed from there to a broader discussion of what is theology and who is a theologian according to Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian. Other themes touched upon are included in the Timestamps.Q&As available in The Professor's BlogRecommended background reading: Christopher Veniamin, ed., Saint Gregory Palamas: The Homilies (Dalton PA: 2022); The Orthodox Understanding of Salvation: "Theosis" in Scripture and Tradition (2016); The Transfiguration of Christ in Greek Patristic Literature (2022); and Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church: According to the Spoken Teaching of Father John Romanides, Vol. 1 (2012), Vol. 2 (repr. ed. 2020).Further bibliography may be found in our "Scholar's Corner" webpage.Join the Mount Thabor Academy Podcasts and help us to bring podcasts on Orthodox theology and the spiritual life to the wider community. Support the showDr. Christopher VeniaminSupport The Mount Thabor Academyhttps://www.buzzsprout.com/2232462/support The Professor's BlogFurther bibliography may be found in our Scholar's Corner.THE MOUNT THABOR ACADEMYPrint Books by MOUNT THABOR PUBLISHING eBooks Amazon Google Apple KoboB&NMembershipsJoin our Academy on Patreon: Membership TiersYouTube Membership LevelsContact us: ...

Colossians 1:15-20 stands at the center of the logic of the New Testament, taken up by Origen, the Cappadocian Fathers, Maximus, and in the modern period is recovered by Robert Jenson (among others). Apart from this understanding, that Christ is the realization of the eternality of God, Christianity becomes unintelligible.  (Sign up for the upcoming class, "Lonergan & the Problem of Theological Method." The course will run from the weeks of February 16th to April 11th.  Also sign up for Sin and Salvation: An in-depth study of the meaning of sin and a description of the atonement as a defeat of sin and the basis of an alternative community in Christ. This course will run through the beginning of February to the end of March. Register here https://pbi.forgingploughshares.org/offerings) If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work. Become a Patron!

Among the highlights of the fourth century was a group of theologians, two brothers and a close friend. These were the Cappadocian […]

Series: Mystical TheologyEpisode 19: "Hypostasis": the Threeness of God, The Cappadocian Fathers, Pt 4, Prof. Christopher VeniaminIn Part 4 of “The Cappadocian Fathers”, Episode 19 of our series in “Mystical Theology”, we present the doctrine of the mystery of the Threefoldness of God.Themes broached are listed in the Timestamps below.Q&As available in The Professor's Blog: https://mountthabor.com/blogs/the-professors-blogRecommended background reading: Christopher Veniamin, ed., Saint Gregory Palamas: The Homilies (Dalton PA: 2022): https://mountthabor.com/products/saint-gregory-palamas-the-homilies ; The Orthodox Understanding of Salvation: "Theosis" in Scripture and Tradition (2016): https://mountthabor.com/products/the-orthodox-understanding-of-salvation-by-dr-christopher-veniamin ; and Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church: According to the Spoken Teaching of Father John Romanides, Vol. 1 (2012), Vol. 2 (repr. ed. 2020).Support the Show.Dr. Christopher VeniaminSupport The Mount Thabor Academyhttps://www.buzzsprout.com/2232462/support THE MOUNT THABOR ACADEMYPrint Books by MOUNT THABOR PUBLISHING The Professor's BlogeBooks Amazon Google Apple KoboB&NMembership OptionsJoin our Bookclub, Bible Study, John Damascene's Christology or Greek Philosophy here:Patreon for Membership TiersClick on the Join button below our YouTube videos, and become a Friend or Reader of The Mount Thabor Academy! Click here: YouTube Membership Level...

Series: Mystical Theology Episode 18: The Cappadocian Fathers, Pt 3: The "Monarchy" of God the Father, Ep 18, Prof. Christopher VeniaminIn Part 3 of “The Cappadocian Fathers”, which is Episode 18 of our series in “Mystical Theology”, we present the doctrine of the “Monarchy” of the Father in the context of the mystery of the Triune God. Themes broached are listed in the Timestamps below. Q&As available in The Professor's Blog: https://mountthabor.com/blogs/the-professors-blogRecommended background reading: Christopher Veniamin, ed., Saint Gregory Palamas: The Homilies (Dalton PA: 2022): https://mountthabor.com/products/saint-gregory-palamas-the-homilies ; The Orthodox Understanding of Salvation: "Theosis" in Scripture and Tradition (2016): https://mountthabor.com/products/the-orthodox-understanding-of-salvation-by-dr-christopher-veniamin ; and Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church: According to the Spoken Teaching of Father John Romanides, Vol. 1 (2012), Vol. 2 (repr. ed. 2020).Support the Show.Dr. Christopher VeniaminSupport The Mount Thabor Academyhttps://www.buzzsprout.com/2232462/support THE MOUNT THABOR ACADEMYPrint Books by MOUNT THABOR PUBLISHING The Professor's BlogeBooks Amazon Google Apple KoboB&NMembership OptionsJoin our Bookclub, Bible Study, John Damascene's Christology or Greek Philosophy here:Patreon for Membership TiersClick on the Join button below our YouTube videos, and become a Friend or Reader of The Mount Thabor Academy! Click here: YouTube Membership Level...

Series: Mystical TheologyEpisode 17: The Cappadocian Fathers, Part 2: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, "Mystical Theology", Episode 17, Prof. C. VeniaminEpisode 17 of our “Mystical Theology” series is deeper probe in to the trinitarian theology of the great Cappadocian Fathers: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, and also Amphilochius of Iconium.Following a reading of Letter 234 on the Essence–Energies distinction, we explore the various ways that the Cappadocians affirm the oneness of God the Holy Trinity, in preparation for their seminal teaching of the Monarchy of God the Father, and the mystery of the Threeness of God.Themes covered in this podcast are listed in the Timestamps below.Q&As related to Episode 17 available in The Professor's Blog: https://mountthabor.com/blogs/the-professors-blogRecommended background reading: Christopher Veniamin, ed., Saint Gregory Palamas: The Homilies (Dalton PA: 2022); The Orthodox Understanding of Salvation: "Theosis" in Scripture and Tradition (2016); and Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church: According to the Spoken Teaching of Father John Romanides, Vol. 1 (2012), Vol. 2 (repr. ed. 2020).Support the Show.Dr. Christopher VeniaminSupport The Mount Thabor Academyhttps://www.buzzsprout.com/2232462/support THE MOUNT THABOR ACADEMYPrint Books by MOUNT THABOR PUBLISHING The Professor's BlogeBooks Amazon Google Apple KoboB&NMembership OptionsJoin our Bookclub, Bible Study, John Damascene's Christology or Greek Philosophy here:Patreon for Membership TiersClick on the Join button below our YouTube videos, and become a Friend or Reader of The Mount Thabor Academy! Click here: YouTube Membership Level...

Series: Mystical TheologyEpisode 16: The Cappadocian Fathers, Part 1: Introduction, Prof. C. VeniaminEpisode 16 of our “Mystical Theology” series is an introduction to the remarkable contribution of the Cappadocian Fathers: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, and also Amphilochius of Iconium. Athanasius the Great had emphasized the mystery of the Oneness of the Son and Word of God with God the Father, by means of their "consubstantiality"; while the Cappadocians, building on the work of Athanasius, formulated the teaching of the Church regarding the mystery of the Threeness of God.Themes covered in this podcast are listed in the Timestamps below.Q&As related to Episode 16 available in The Professor's Blog.Recommended background reading: Christopher Veniamin, ed., Saint Gregory Palamas: The Homilies (Dalton PA: 2022); The Orthodox Understanding of Salvation: "Theosis" in Scripture and Tradition (2016); and Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church: According to the Spoken Teaching of Father John Romanides, Vol. 1 (2012), Vol. 2 (repr. ed. 2020).Support the Show.Dr. Christopher VeniaminSupport The Mount Thabor Academyhttps://www.buzzsprout.com/2232462/support THE MOUNT THABOR ACADEMYPrint Books by MOUNT THABOR PUBLISHING The Professor's BlogeBooks Amazon Google Apple KoboB&NMembership OptionsJoin our Bookclub, Bible Study, John Damascene's Christology or Greek Philosophy here:Patreon for Membership TiersClick on the Join button below our YouTube videos, and become a Friend or Reader of The Mount Thabor Academy! Click here: YouTube Membership Level...

Pentecost Special: Veni Sancte Spiritus: Basil of Caesarea's On the Holy Spirit After battling against the Arian heresy which called into question the divinity of Jesus, the Church had to defend the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. In this episode Fr Joseph looks at St Basil, one of the three Cappadocian Fathers who steered a straight course through the another turbulent chapter of the Church's history. Patristic Pillars is a series on Radio Maria England, bringing the Church Fathers to life with Fr Joseph Hamilton. Fr Joseph Hamilton is the Rector of the Domus Australia in Rome, and a priest of the Archdiocese of Sydney Australia. Prior to his appointment at Domus, he served as private secretary to George Cardinal Pell, until the Cardinal's untimely death. Fr Joseph completed his doctoral studies in Patristics at Christ Church, University of Oxford, and his license at the Patristic Institute “Augustinianum” in Rome. Prior to entering seminary he worked as an investment banker. Having left the economy of Mammon for that of Salvation, he studied at the Pontifical North American College. A native of Ireland, he is a keen but mediocre (his words) surfer, and enjoys reading and cooking. CREDO (currently hosting Patristic Pillars) is a programme that nourishes listeners in their Catholic faith. It airs live on Radio Maria every weekday at 4pm and is rebroadcast at 4am the following morning. If you enjoyed this programme, please consider making a once off or monthly donation to Radio Maria England by visiting www.RadioMariaEngland.uk or calling 0300 302 1251 during office hours. It is only through the ongoing support of our listeners that we continue to be a Christian voice by your side.

St. Gregory of Nyssa is one of the fourth century Cappadocian Fathers. St. Gregory hails from a holy family of saint siblings, inlcuding St. Basil the Great and St. Macrina. Dr. Chris Mooney shares about the life and scholarly work of St. Gregory and how he continues to inspires us today! Help us share the truth and beauty of the Gospel and reach Catholics worldwide. Become an Augustine Institute Mission Circle Partner. Join the Mission Circle today! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Series: Mystical Theology Episode 9: Origen, Part 3Introducing the theology and spiritual life of the Orthodox Church, with particular reference to the Holy Bible and the witness of the Church Fathers, past and present.Origen, who flourished in the 3rd Century, is one of the most difficult and important chapters in the history of early Christian doctrine. An Orthodox appreciation of Origen is crucial for the understanding of the Biblical and Patristic tradition of the Church.In this Episode, "Origen”, Part 3, which begins with Origen's understanding of the Transfiguration of Christ, attention is given to the curious intellectualistic character of his theology, the blurring of the fundamental Biblical Patristic distinction, and the preeminence of the philosophical Spirit-Matter distinction in his thought. Reference is also made to the post-Augustinian theological tradition of the West, and comparisons are made with such representatives of the Orthodox tradition as Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius the Great, the Cappadocian Fathers (particularly Gregory of Nyssa), Maximus the Confessor, John Damascene, Silouan the Athonite, and Paisios the Athonite.It is hoped that these presentations will help the enquirer discern the interwoven character of theology and Christian living, and to identify the ascetic and pastoral significance of the Orthodox ethos.Q&As related to Episode 9 available in The Professor's Blog.Recommended background reading: Christopher Veniamin, ed., Saint Gregory Palamas: The Homilies (Dalton PA: 2022).ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I wish to express my indebtedness to the spoken and written traditions of Sts Silouan and Sophrony the Athonites, Fr. Zacharias Zacharou, Fr. Kyrill Akon, Fr. Raphael NoicaThe Happy Writer with Marissa MeyerAuthors, from debuts to bestsellers, chat about books, writing, publishing, and joy. Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the Show.Dr. Christopher VeniaminSupport The Mount Thabor Academyhttps://www.buzzsprout.com/2232462/support THE MOUNT THABOR ACADEMYPrint Books by MOUNT THABOR PUBLISHING The Professor's BlogeBooks Amazon Google Apple KoboB&NMembership OptionsJoin our Bookclub, Bible Study, John Damascene's Christology or Greek Philosophy here:Patreon for Membership TiersClick on the Join button below our YouTube videos, and become a Friend or Reader of The Mount Thabor Academy! Click here: YouTube Membership Level...

In which the first of the Cappadocian Fathers makes his debut on the world stage. What will he do to break the impasse of our long-running debate?

In Part II with Father Sergey, we explore the Platonist ‘mystical' themes, esoteric imagery of divine darkness, and the limits of human knowledge in the Cappadocians. Христос воскрес!

We discuss the great theologians, ascetics, and philosophers of fourth-century Christianity, the Cappadocian Fathers with Father Sergey Trostyanskiy. Come for the Philokalia, the collection which smuggles Origenistic and other anathematised ideas into the very bosom of orthodoxy, stay for the presence of divine darkness to the soul.

Who were the Cappadocian Fathers? How were the Cappadocian Fathers important in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity?

In today's episode, Dr. Strange returns to his series on the early church to describe the Cappadocian Fathers, a trio of mighty men of God who continued challenging some of the prevailing and erroneous teachings of Arianism, leading to the Council of Constantinople.

In today's episode, Dr. Strange returns to his series on the early church to describe the Cappadocian Fathers, a trio of mighty men of God who continued challenging some of the prevailing and erroneous teachings of Arianism, leading to the Council of Constantinople.

In today's episode, Dr. Strange returns to his series on the early church to describe the Cappadocian Fathers, a trio of mighty men of God who continued challenging some of the prevailing and erroneous teachings of Arianism, leading to the Council of Constantinople.

In today's episode, Dr. Strange returns to his series on the early church to describe the Cappadocian Fathers, a trio of mighty men of God who continued challenging some of the prevailing and erroneous teachings of Arianism, leading to the Council of Constantinople.

In today's episode, Dr. Strange returns to his series on the early church to describe the Cappadocian Fathers, a trio of mighty men of God who continued challenging some of the prevailing and erroneous teachings of Arianism, leading to the Council of Constantinople.

Who were the Cappadocian Fathers? In today's journey back through the archives, Dr. Stephen Nichols introduces us to three ancient defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity. Read the transcript: https://www.5minutesinchurchhistory.com/172-the-three-cappadocians/ A donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Donate: https://www.5minutesinchurchhistory.com/donate/

In the second half of the fourth century, a trio of Church fathers (known as the Cappadocian Fathers) had a profound influence upon Christian theology as they grappled with a way to speak of the Trinity that neither minimized the unity of the Godhead nor fell into the error of tri-theism, or three gods. Their contributions are codified in the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381).

OUTLINE The name of the Son The Begotten-ness of the Son The descriptions of the Son INTRODUCTION As we are coming to grips with the confessions teaching on the Trinity, we have had to go back in time to the councils of Nicea and Constantinople. We have had to learn about Arius and Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers and the Pneumatomachians. We have had to learn some big words like homoousios meaning same substance. The 1689 which is the longest statement on the Trinity in the 17th century has packed all the good stuff from these early creeds into one paragraph. Last week was an overload of words and concepts as we tried to take in a large period of time and the various twists and turns in conversation as the Church articulated its biblical understanding of the Trinity against its attackers. I promised you only one more technical message so that I do not burden you so today I am going to take a look at the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. There is a wonderful statement in the middle of paragraph 3 which remains unchanged through the WCF, the Savoy, and the 1689, ‘the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.' These relations of the persons of the Trinity we have learnt are called modes of subsistence, or eternal relations of origin. The key thing to note is that coeternality of the Son and Spirit, the coequality of the Son and Spirit, rest on the relations of begottenness or procession/spiration. Because the Son is consubstantial by virtue of eternal generation; because the Spirit is consubstantial by virtue of eternal procession, they are therefore fully God as three persons in... Read More Source

The six Enneads are the collected writings of the Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus, arranged by his student Porphyry into fifty-four books with each Ennead containing nine. Plotinus was a student of Ammonius Saccas and the founder of Neoplatonism. His work, through Augustine of Hippo, the Cappadocian Fathers, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and several subsequent thinkers, has greatly influenced Western thought.The translator Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie arranged these books chronologically rather than according to Porphyry's numeration. This recording is organized according to Porphyry's numeration with Roman numerals indicating the Ennead and numerals indicating the book e.g. VI.9 would be the ninth book of the sixth Ennead. A hyperlinked table of contents at Volume 1 Page 3 of the gutenberg.org text will enable you to jump to the specific Ennead if you wish to read along with the recording.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

The six Enneads are the collected writings of the Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus, arranged by his student Porphyry into fifty-four books with each Ennead containing nine. Plotinus was a student of Ammonius Saccas and the founder of Neoplatonism. His work, through Augustine of Hippo, the Cappadocian Fathers, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and several subsequent thinkers, has greatly influenced Western thought.The translator Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie arranged these books chronologically rather than according to Porphyry's numeration. This recording is organized according to Porphyry's numeration with Roman numerals indicating the Ennead and numerals indicating the book e.g. VI.9 would be the ninth book of the sixth Ennead. A hyperlinked table of contents at Volume 1 Page 3 of the gutenberg.org text will enable you to jump to the specific Ennead if you wish to read along with the recording.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Saint Athanasius ChurchContra Mundum SwaggerVideo Version 

In this episode we hear from Generation LINK Resident Josh Rives as he introduces us to a set of early church theologians called the "Cappadocian Fathers" and how they point us to further appreciate the Holy Spirit today.

A reading from Fr. Alban Butler's Lives of the Saints on St. Gregory of Nyssa, Bishop of Nyssa, Father of the Church, one of the three Cappadocian Fathers especially venerated in the East, as well as greatly revered in the West.

In this third and final part of our series on The Trinity, we discuss the Cappadocian Fathers and their contribution to the story of Christian theology.   Support the show

Back by popular demand, Christians of History returns with a bang! We dive into the lives of three important church fathers who have left a lasting imprint on the life and theology of the church. Basil, Gregory, and Gregory all played a major role in the development of Trinitarian theology, and we couldn't think of a better way to (re-) kick off Christians of History than with these three titans!   Do you want to follow us? Find us on: Email: doxologypodcast@gmail.com Twitter: @doxologypodcast Instagram: @doxologypodcast Do you want to receive our weekly newsletter to remain up to date on the latest Doxology Podcast news? Sign up here: https://mailchi.mp/0e7b881f95d9/doxologypodnewsletter

We discuss the brief reign of Julian the Apostate, as well as the Cappadocian Fathers of the Church.

Double Edged Sword is the podcast channel of Pastor Sean Kilgo.  Pastor Kilgo serves as the associate pastor of the Northeast Kansas Lutheran Partnership.  Thanks for joining us.  Be sure to check out the links below.  And if you like the content and want to see more, consider supporting me through my Patreon page. Also, be sure to subscribe to both the podcast and YouTube channels.  Thanks again for listening! Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=38093929&fan_landing=true RedBubble (swag) https://www.redbubble.com/people/kilgosr/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgnfaxQn4VdCKvcBgIbrMCQ Weekly Devotions: https://www.whatdoesthismean.org/devotions.html

Readings* Psalm 85* Psalm 58* Ezekiel 18:1–4, 19–32* Romans 2:17–29* Large Catechism, Part II ¶¶ 63–70CommemorationToday we commemorate Basil the Great of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa, Pastors and Confessors. Collectively known as the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil and the two Gregorys were leaders of the Christian Church in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) in the fourth century. Basil and Gregory of Nyssa were brothers, and Gregory of Nazianzus was their friend. All three men were influential in shaping the theology ratified by the Council of Constantinople, which would later be enshrined in the Nicene Creed. All three men are commemorated for their contributions to the Church — particularly to the liturgy of the Eastern Church and to the theology of the Church universal.ReaderCorey J. MahlerCopyright NoticesUnless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations from the Lutheran Confessions are from Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, copyright © 2005, 2006 by Concordia Publishing House. Used by permission. All rights reserved. To purchase a copy of Concordia, call 800-325-3040.Support the show (https://confident.faith/donate/)

Saint Gregory of Nyssa  was a 4th century bishop and theologian, as well as the younger brother of St Basil the Great. As one of the "Cappadocian Fathers", Saint Gregory was among the most important theologians in Christian history, and his work continues to be influential today especially for Eastern Orthodox Christians.  He was an eloquent defender of Christian truth against heresy, and a participant of the Second Ecunemical Council, which formulated the Nicene Creed as we know it today. In this episode, we read from a few of his works, such as  Against Eunomius, On Perfection, and The Life of Moses.

2 January 2021 | Ss. Basil & Gregory | Eugene, Ore. In this first episode of the new year, I share some musings on nature and the revelation of God from a trip I took this Christmas octave through the Pacific Northwest with a brother seminarian, my interpretation of Shakespeare’s obscure poem “The Phoenix and the Turtle” (by far the most metaphysical and mystical of his poems, and my favorite of them alll!), this podcast’s first ever Tolkien segment - discussing the first and only of his collected letters I have yet read - and the Cappadocian Fathers we honor today in the Church’s calendar. Why is St. Basil so great, and why is St. Gregory called “The Theologian”? You’ll find out in about an hour if you hit play now! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Opening music: “Puer natus in Bethlehem,” sung by King’s College Choir, dir. Stephen Cleobury, 2019. All rights reserved. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/in-your-embrace/message

The last of the Cappadocian Fathers, Gregory Nazianzus, known as 'the theologian' left a lasting mark on Christian theology, especially the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.Support us on Patreon:Check out Saint Paul's House of FormationEmail usMusic by Richard Proulx and the Cathedral Singers from Sublime Chant. Copyright GIA Publications

Readings* Psalm 85* Psalm 58* Ezekiel 18:1–32* Romans 2:17–29* Large Catechism, Part II ¶¶ 63–70CommemorationToday we commemorate Basil the Great of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa, Pastors and Confessors. Collectively known as the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil and the two Gregorys were leaders of the Christian Church in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) in the fourth century. Basil and Gregory of Nyssa were brothers, and Gregory of Nazianzus was their friend. All three men were influential in shaping the theology ratified by the Council of Constantinople, which would later be enshrined in the Nicene Creed. All three men are commemorated for their contributions to the Church — particularly to the liturgy of the Eastern Church and to the theology of the Church universal.ReaderCorey J. MahlerCopyright NoticesUnless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations from the Lutheran Confessions are from Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, copyright © 2005, 2006 by Concordia Publishing House. Used by permission. All rights reserved. To purchase a copy of Concordia, call 800-325-3040.Support the show (https://confident.faith/donate/)

On this day, we remember St. Basil, one of the Cappadocian Fathers, and Charles Porterfield Krauth, American Lutheran. The reading is "Come Ye Sinners" by Joseph Hart. We’re a part of 1517 Podcasts, a network of shows dedicated to delivering Christ-centered content. Our podcasts cover a multitude of content, from Christian doctrine, apologetics, cultural engagement, and powerful preaching. Support the work of 1517 today.

St. Gregory of Nyssa lived in the latter half of the fourth century. He was one of the Cappadocian Fathers, as well as the brother of St. Basil the Great. This is one of his really interesting biographical texts - and it's a perfect example of the allegorical method of interpretation that was heavily present among the patristics. My goal was to read you the most interesting parts of Gregory of Nyssa's analysis, as well as his riveting conclusion of Moses' life and the goal of all Christian living.

John 14:7 NLT 'If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is. From now on, you do know him and have seen him!' For many years the Church Fathers wrestled with the knowledge that God was unknowable. Since, if God were able to be contained within the limited confines of the human mind, regardless of how complex such a human mind is, then humanity would be larger than God. The infinite God is unknowable apart from one important reality. It was the Cappadocian Fathers in the fourth century who acknowledged that God was unknowable for sure, yet God, being infinite, was perfectly capable of making himself known to humanity. Herein lies the beauty of the incarnation. Jesus gives this reality poignancy as he reveals that knowing him means we know the Father; the seen gives introduction to the unseen. So to take time to get to know Jesus is our only means of getting to know the Father. Recently, going through family photographs of nephews, I was astonished to see likenesses between them and their offspring, and my grandparents – they were dead before I was conscious of such things, so the only likeness I have is photos. Yet, I was left pondering the extent to which their characteristics were in some way embedded in their progeny several generations on. I know one of my frustrations has been the tight hold my father’s worst behaviours have asserted within my own life. Temper tantrums, social awkwardness, withdrawal and isolation. For many years I recognised the symptoms yet had little success in overcoming the cause. Only as I invested in a disciplined pursuit of God through contemplative prayer did their hold loosen and I found a power within, through the power of God, to live an altogether different way. The contrast was stark. I was now drawing upon my heavenly Father’s DNA as reflected through the life and ministry of Jesus. I found the grace and ability to step from my intuitive and instinctive behaviour pattern and choose to live after the pattern of Jesus. The reality of the kingdom was birthed in my heart, as my new-found behaviour gave ample testimony to – behaviour commented on by both friends and family. QUESTION: Whose DNA influences your behaviour? PRAYER: May I become more and more like you, Jesus, in every passing day.

Welcome to season two of The Commons which focuses on ten key figures and movements in church history! Here in episode 2 of season three, Brian Phillips chats with guest Wes Callihan about the life and times of the Cappadocian Fathers: Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Naziansus, and Basil the Great.  --  This season of The Commons is bright to you by New College Franklin. Learn more at newcollegefranklin.org.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to season two of The Commons which focuses on ten key figures and movements in church history! Here in episode 2 of season three, Brian Phillips chats with guest Wes Callihan about the lives and times of the Cappadocian Fathers: Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Naziansus, and Basil the Great.  --  This season of The Commons is brought to you by New College Franklin. Learn more at newcollegefranklin.org.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Welcome to season two of The Commons which, as Brian Phillips explains in this short preview, will focus on the key figures and movements in church history. Every Thursday for the next ten weeks we'll be releasing a new episode exploring the lives and work of people like St. Augustine, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Benedict, Thomas Aquinas, and the Puritans.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to season two of The Commons which, as Brian Phillips explains in this short preview, will focus on the key figures and movements in church history. Every Thursday for the next ten weeks we'll be releasing a new episode exploring the lives and work of people like St. Augustine, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Benedict, Thomas Aquinas, and the Puritans. Join us! *** Subscribe now - just search "The Commons"!  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Description: In this episode we will introduce another thread in the story that leads up to the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in the year 381AD. The thread we will focus in on today is how a larger than life intellectual, bishop and theologian would help to define the dogma of Christianity and seriously impact the political situation of his own day. Gregory and Nazianzus and his fellow Cappadocian Fathers are key players in the development of the Catholic Orthodox party position.   You can learn more about the show and subscribe at all these great places:

In this second part of his talk, Kevin Wagner looks at the great fathers from east and west at a time when the Roman Empire was crumbling. The post Fathers of The Church: Cappadocian Fathers to St Ambrose appeared first on Cradio.

Was the Council of Nicea (325) a defense and re-affirmation of core catholic theology? And did the Council of Constantinople (381) merely re-affirm Nicea, and slightly clean up its language and the details of its theology? In this episode, analytic theologian Dr. William Hasker gives his perspective on these fourth century events, reading from his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God (discussed here and here). He contrasts a traditional understanding of these events with a clearer view based on careful historical investigation, such as that in Dr. Lewis Ayres's Nicea and Its Legacy, and the sources I linked last time. And following Ayres, he discusses what "Pro-Nicene" theology is, as exemplified by "the Cappadocian Fathers." After Hasker's discussion, I share a few thoughts on authority and tradition, sketching for your consideration a "thought experiment" about an imagined future ecumenical council, one which would give a new meaning to paintings like this one. Thanks to Bill Hasker for his reading, and for his informative, high-quality work on this subject. You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on YouTube (you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here. You can support the trinities podcast by ordering anything through Amazon.com after clicking through one of our links. We get a small % of your purchase, even though your price is not increased. (If you see “trinities” in you url while at Amazon, then we’ll get it.)

En esta segunda de cuatro conferencias, Padre Joan consigue resumir los fundamentos teológicos de la doctrina de la Luz proclamada por los Padres de la Iglesia y avalada por los Padres Capadocios y más tarde por San Máximo el Confesor pero sobre todo por San Gregorio Palamás y los concilios llamados palamitas. In this second of four podcasts, Father Joan continues his exposition on the Orthodox doctrine of Light received by the Fathers of the Church and as articulated by the Cappadocian Fathers, St Maximus the Confessor and St Gregory Palamas and the Palamite Councils.

Nuestra fe, según san Pablo, presupone la praxis, o lo que es lo mismo la acción dinámica conducida por la gracia de Dios y nuestra libertad, constituyendo la fuerza realizadora de la hypóstasis que nos convierte en cristianos. En esta tercera de tres conferencias, obedeciendo a lo expuesto por el Divino Apóstol en su doctrina, Padre Joan propone que el ser cristianos es, según la terminología de los Padres Capadocios, devenir personas. Christian faith, according to St. Paul, does imply works (i.e., έργα = "deeds" or "actions"). They constitute a dynamic “doing” guided by God’s grace and our freedom. As the energies of our hypostasis, the resulting divine-human intercourse makes us Christians. From St. Paul’s teachings, Father Joan concludes, in this third of three podcasts, that being a Christian is, according to the Cappadocian Fathers, the realization of one’s personhood.

This 17th episode is titled “What a Difference a Century Makes.”During the mid-4th Century, the history of the Church walked apace with the history of the Roman Empire. With the death of Constantine the Great, the rule of the Empire divided among his 3 sons, Constantine II, Constans, & Constantius. In the power-hungry maneuverings that followed, they did their upbringing in a Christian education little honor. They quickly removed any challenge by their father's relatives, then set to work on one another. 3 years after their father's death they went to war in a struggle for sole supremacy. Constantine II was slain by Constans, who was in turn murdered by a Gallic commander of the Imperial guard named Magnentius. After the defeat and suicide of Magnentius, Constantius became sole Emperor & reigned till his death in 361.Constantius departed from his father Constantine's wise policy of religious toleration. Constantius was greatly influenced by the Arian bishop of Constantinople Eusebius who inspired him to use the authority of his office to enforce the Arian-brand of Christianity not only on the pagans of the Empire but also on those Christians who followed the Nicene Orthodoxy. Paganism was violently suppressed. Temples were pillaged and destroyed with the loot taken from them given either to the Church or Constantius' supporters. As Christians had earlier been subject to arrest & execution, so now were pagans. Not unexpectedly, large numbers of former pagans came over to Christianity; their conversion feigned. A similar persecution was applied towards Nicaean Christians. They were punished with confiscation and banishment.Constantius meddled in most of the Church's affairs, which during his reign was fraught with doctrinal controversy. He called a multitude of councils; in Gaul, Italy, Illyricum, & Asia. He fancied himself an accomplished theologian and enjoyed being called Bishop of bishops.Constantius justified his violent suppression of paganism by likening it to God's command to Israel to wipe out the idol-worshipping Canaanites. But intelligent church leaders like Athanasius argued instead for toleration.  Athanasius wrote,Satan, because there is no truth in him, breaks in with ax and sword. But the Savior is gentle, and forces no one to whom He comes, but knocks on and speaks to the soul: ‘Open to me, my sister?' If we open to Him He enters but if we will not, He departs. For the truth is not preached by sword and dungeon, by the might of an army, but by persuasion and exhortation. How can there be persuasion where the fear of the Emperor is uppermost? How exhortation, where the contradictory has to expect banishment and death?The ever-swinging pendulum of history foretells that the forced-upon faith of Constantius will provoke a pagan reaction. That reaction came immediately after Constantius during the reign of his cousin, Julian the Apostate. Julian had only avoided the earlier purge of his family because he was too young to pose a threat. But the young grow up.  Julian received a Christian education and was trained for a position in church leadership. But he harbored and nurtured a secret hatred for the religion of the court, a religion under which his family was all but exterminated. He studied the banned texts of Eastern mystics & Greek philosophers; all the more thrilling because they were forbidden. Julian became so immersed in paganism, he was made the leader of a secret order devoted to keeping the ancient religion alive.Despite his hostility toward Christianity, Julian recognized the Faith was too deeply entrenched in the Empire to turn back the sundial to a time when Christians were persona non grata. He decided instead to simply pry loose the influence they'd established in the civil realm. He appointed non-Christians to important posts & reclaimed some of the old pagan temples that had been turned into churches back to their original use.Julian enacted a policy of religious tolerance. Everyone was free to practice whatever faith they wanted. Make no mistake, Julian wanted to eliminate Christianity. He felt the best way to accomplish that, wasn't by attacking it outright. After all, 200 years of persecution had already shown that wasn't effective. Rather, Julian figured all the various sects of Christianity would end up going to war with one another and the movement would die the death of a thousand cuts, all self-inflicted. His plan didn't work out, of course, but it was an astute observation of how factious the followers of Christ can be.When Julian was killed in 363 in an ill-advised war against the Sassanids, the pagan revival he'd hoped for fizzled. The reasons for its demise were many. Because Paganism is an amalgam of various often contradictory beliefs and worldviews it lacked the cohesion needed to stare down Christianity. And compared to the virtuous morality and ethical priorities of Christianity, paganism paled.Julian's hoped-for elimination of Christianity by allowing its various sects to operate side by side never materialized. On the contrary, major advances were made toward a mutual understanding of the doctrinal debates that divided them. The old Athanasius was still around and as an elder statesman for the Church he'd mellowed, making him a rallying point for different groups. He called a gathering of church leaders in Alexandria in 362, right in the middle of Julian's reign, to recognize the Creed of Nicea as the Church's official creedal statement. His resolution passed.But trouble was brewing in the important city of Antioch. While the Western churches under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome remained steadfast in their loyalty to the Nicean Creed, the Eastern Empire leaned toward Arianism. Antioch in Syria was a key Eastern city split between adherents of Nicea & Arianism. The official church, that is, the one recognized by the Emperor in Constantinople had an Arian bishop. The Nicean Christians were led by Bishop Paulinus in a separate fellowship. But in 360, a new bishop rose to lead the Arian church at Antioch – and he was a devoted Nicean named Meletius! This occurred right at a time when more & more Eastern bishops were coming out in favor of the Nicene Creed. These Eastern bishops supported Meletius and the New Niceans of Antioch. We might think this would see a merger of the old-Niceans under Paulinus with the new, and à we'd assume wrongly. Rome & the Western church considered Paulinus the rightful bishop of Antioch & remained suspicious of Meletius & the new-Niceans. Efforts on their part to negotiate with & be accepted by the Western church were rebuffed. This served to increase the divide between East & West that had already been brewing for the last few decades.A new center of spiritual weight developed at this time in Cappadocia in central-eastern Asia Minor. It formed around the careers of 3 able church leaders, Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend, Gregory of Nazianzus. Their work answered the lingering concerns that hovered around the words the Nicaean Council had chosen to describe Jesus as being of the same substance as the Father. These 3 Cappadocian Fathers were able to convince their Eastern brothers that the Nicean Creed was the best formulation they were likely to produce and to accept that Jesus was of the same substance as the Father, and so God, not a similar substance and so something other than or less than God, as the Arians held it. They pressed in on terms that made it clear there was only one God but 3 persons who individually are, and together comprise that one God; The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They said the 3 operated inseparably, none ever acting independently of the others. Every divine action begins from the Father, proceeds thru the Son, and is completed in the Holy Spirit.In 381 at the Council of Constantinople, the Eastern Church demonstrated its acceptance of the Cappadocian Fathers' theology by affirming their adherence to the Nicean Creed. This effectively marked the end of Arianism within the Empire. And unlike the previous 3 ecumenical councils, the Council of Constantinople was not followed by years of bitter strife. What the council failed to do was resolve the split in the church at Antioch. The West continued to support the Old-Niceans while the East supported the New. It was clear to all tension was building between the old seat of Imperial power & the new capital; between Rome & Constantinople.  Which church & bishop would be the recognized leader of the whole? Antioch became the site where that contest was lived out thru their surrogates, Paulinus & Meletius.The Council of Constantinople attempted to deal with this contest by developing a system for how the churches would be led. The rulings of the Council, and all the church councils held during these years are called Canon Law, which established policy by which the Church would operate. One of the rulings of the Council of Constantinople established what was known as dioceses. A diocese was a group of provinces that became a region over which a bishop presided. The rule was that one diocese could not interfere in the workings of another. Each was to be autonomous.Though Jovian followed Julian as emperor in 363 his reign was short. He followed a policy of religious toleration, as did Valentinian I who succeeded him. Valentinian recognized the Empire was too vast for one man to rule & appointed his younger brother Valens to rule the East. Valens was less tolerant than his brother & attacked both paganism & the Nicean Christians. But Valens was the last Arian to rule in either East or West. All subsequent emperors were Orthodox; that is, they followed the Nicean Creed.When Valentinian died in 375, rule of the Western Empire fell to his son Gratian. When Valens died, Gratian chose an experienced soldier named Theodosius to rule the East.Gratian & Theodosius presided over the final demise of paganism. Both men strongly supported the Orthodox faith, and at the urging of Bishop Ambrose of Milan, they enacted policies that brought an end to pagan-worship. Of course, individuals scattered throughout the Empire continued to secretly offer sacrifices to idols & went through the superstitious rituals of the past, but as a social institution with temples & a priesthood, paganism was eradicated. Under the reign of Theodosius, Christianity was made the official religion of the Empire.We'll end this episode with a look at how the church at Rome emerged during the 4th & 5th Centuries to become the lead church in the Empire.In theory all the bishops of the Empire's many churches were equal. In reality, from the time of the Apostolic Fathers, some gained greater prominence because their churches were in more important cities. During the 2nd & early 3rd Centuries Alexandria, Antioch, Rome & Carthage were the places of the greatest spiritual gravity; their senior pastors recognized as leaders, not just of their churches but of The Church. The Council of Nicaea in 325 recognized Alexandria as the lead church for all North Africa, Antioch in the East & Rome as preeminent in the West.Constantinople, the new Eastern political capital, was added to that list in 381 by the Council of Constantinople.  As one of its rulings in canon law, the Council declared Constantinople 2nd only to Rome in terms of primacy in deciding church matters.We might assume the Bishop of Rome would gladly accept this finding of the Council, being that it acknowledged the Roman “see” (that is, a bishop's realm of authority) as primary. He didn't! He objected because the Council's ruling implied the position of a Church and its Bishop depended on the status of their city in the Empire. In other words, it was the nearness to the center of political power that weighed most. The Bishop of Rome maintained that the preeminence of Rome wasn't dependent on political proximity but on historical precedent. He said the decree of a Synod or Council didn't convey primacy. The Roman Bishop claimed Rome was primary because God had made it so.  At a Council in Rome a year after the Council of Constantinople, the Roman Bishop Damasus said Rome's primacy rested on the Apostle Peter's founding of the Roman church. Ever since the mid-3rd C, Roman Christians had used Matthew 16, Luke 22 & John 21 to claim their church possessed a unique authority over other churches & bishops. This Petrine Theory as it's come to be known was generally accepted by the end of the 6th C. It claimed Peter had been given primacy over his fellow apostles, and his superior position had been passed on from him to his successors, the bishops of Rome, by apostolic succession.In truth, there was already a substantial church community in Rome when Peter arrived in Rome and was martyred. The Christians honored Peter as they did all their martyrs by making his grave a popular gathering place. Eventually, it became a shrine. Then, when persecution ended, the shrine became a church. The leader of that church became associated with Peter whose grave was its central feature.When Constantine came to power, he ordered a basilica built on the site on Vatican Hill. To mark that a new day of favor toward the Church had come, Constantine gave the Lateran Palace where the Roman Empress had lived to the Bishop of Rome as his residence. But the story that arose later which puts Emperor Constantine on his face before Sylvester, the Bishop of Rome, pleading forgiveness in sackcloth & ashes & handing over to him the rule of Italy & Rome, is a fiction.Until Bishop Damasus in the mid-4th C, the Roman bishops were competent leaders of the church but tended toward weakness when dealing with the Emperors, who often sought to dominate the Faith. A dramatic change occurred at the end of the 4th C, when under Ambrose of Milan, the Church dictated to the Emperor.Bishop Damasus, a contemporary of Ambrose, installed the Primacy of Peter as a central part of Church doctrine. He claimed the Roman church was started by Peter, who'd passed on his authority to the next bishop, who'd, in turn, handed it to his successor and that each Bishop of Rome was a recipient of Peter's apostolic authority. Since Peter was the leader of the Apostles that meant the Roman church was the lead church and the Bishop the leader, not just of Rome but of all Christendom. Damasus was the first to address other bishops as ‘sons' rather than ‘brothers.'Historical events during the 4th & 5th Centuries enhanced the power of the Bishop of Rome. When Constantine moved the political capital to Constantinople in 330, it left the Roman Bishop as the strongest individual in Rome for long stretches of time. People in the west looked to him for temporal as well as spiritual leadership when a crisis arose. Constantinople & the Emperor were hundreds of miles & weeks away; the Roman bishop was near; so people turned to him to exercise authority in meeting political as well as spiritual crises. In 410 when Alaric and the Visigoths sacked Rome, Bishop Innocent I used clever diplomacy to save the city from the torch. When the Western Empire finally fell in 476, the people of Italy looked to the Roman Bishop for civil as well as religious leadership.Great leaders like Cyprian, Tertullian, & Augustine were outstanding men of the Western church who counted themselves as being under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome. The Western Empire had also managed to stay free of the heretical challenges that had wracked the East, most notably, the brouhaha with Arius and his followers. This doctrinal solidarity was due in large part to the steadfast leadership of Rome's Bishops.Another factor that contributed to Rome's rise to dominance was the decline of the other great centers. Jerusalem lost its place due to the Bar Kochba rebellion of the 2nd C. Alexandria & Antioch were overrun by the Muslims in the 6th & 7th Centuries; leaving Constantinople & Rome as the centers of power.In an Imperial edict in AD 445, the Emperor Valentinian III recognized the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in spiritual affairs. What he enacted became Canon law for all.Another great boon to the influence & prestige of the Roman Bishop was the missionary work of monks loyal to Rome. Clovis & Augustine planted churches in northern France & Britain, all owing allegiance to Rome.But above all, the Roman church was led by several able bishops during this time; men who overlooked no opportunity to enhance & extend their power.Leo I was bishop at Rome from 440 to 461 & by far the ablest occupant of the Bishop's seat until Gregory I, 150 years later. His skill earned him the title “Leo the Great.”We're not sure when Rome's bishops began to be called “pope”, a title which for years had been used by the bishop of Alexandria. But Leo was the first to refer consistently to himself as pope – from Latin, a child's affectionate term for papa. In 452, Leo persuaded Attila the Hun to let the city of Rome alone. Then 3 years later when the Vandals came to sack the city, Leo convinced them to limit their loot-fest to 2-weeks. The Vandal Leader Gaiseric kept his word, and the Romans forever after esteemed Leo as the one who saved their city from destruction.Pope Leo insisted all church courts & the rulings of all bishops had to be submitted to him for final decision. This is what Valentinians III's edict of 445 granted and he was determined to apply it.Pope Gelasius I, who ruled from 492 to 496, said that God gave sacred power to the Pope and royal power to the King. But because the Pope had to account to God for the King at the judgment, the sacred power of the Pope was more important than royal power. So, civil rulers should submit to the Pope. While the emperors didn't all automatically knuckle under to popes, most did resign a large part of authority & political influence to the Roman Bishops.

This episode is titled “Who Do You Say He Is?”We begin this episode by reading from the Chalcedonian Creed of AD 451, the portion devoted to the orthodox view of Christ.We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.Compare that to the simple words of the Apostles Creed quoted by many Christians from memory 300 years before.I believe in . . . Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.Quite a difference. What caused the Church to draw such exacting language regarding who Jesus was between the early 2nd & mid 5th Cs? That's the subject of this and the next episode. Along the way, we'll see of interesting developments in the Church and learn of some colorful characters.In the 16th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, we read of a time near Caesarea Philippi in Galilee when Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do people think I am?” After hearing what the popular talk was, Jesus asked them “Who do YOU say I am?” That set the stage for Peter to confess his faith in Jesus as Messiah.We might think Jesus' affirmation of Peter's reply would put an end to the controversy. It was only the beginning. That controversy raged over the next 500 yrs as Church leaders wrestled with HOW to understand Jesus.We've already touched on this subject in previous episodes. I've mentioned we'd return to deal with it specifically in a future episode. This is it; and here's why we need to slow down a bit and take our time reviewing the history of the controversy over how to understand Who Jesus was. We need to camp here for a bit because this issue consumed a good amount of the Church's intellectual energy during the 4th & 5th Cs.Today, we accept the orthodox view of the Trinity & the Nature of Jesus as God and Man readily; not realizing the agony the Early Church Fathers endured while they labored over precisely HOW to put into just the right words what Christians believe. One theologian said Theology is the fine art of making distinctions. Nowhere is that more clear than here; in our examination of how orthodox theologians described a Christ.The first great Ecumenical Council was held at Nicaea in 325 at the urging of the Emperor Constantine. Some 300 bishops representing the entire Christian world attended to hammer out their response to Arianism; the idea that Jesus was human, but not divine. As the Council dragged on, Constantine, itching to get back to the business of running the Empire, pressed the bishops to adopt a Statement that affirmed Jesus was both God & man.  But many of the bishops left Nicaea discontented with the wording of the Nicaean Creed. They felt it was imprecise. It failed to capture the full truth of Who Jesus is. This lack of support for the Nicaean Creed opened the doors for many of the later controversies that would wrack the Church. The Council of Chalcedon 125 yrs later tightened up the language on Nicaea but didn't fundamentally alter the Creed. Let's take a look at the time between Nicaea & Chalcedon . . .Sometimes, in an attempt to bring clarity to a complex situation, we over-simplify. I run the risk of doing that here. But for the sake of brevity, I beg the listeners' indulgence as I chart the path from 325 to 451.Following Nicaea, with the affirmation that Jesus is both God & Man, the Church had to first harmonize that with the Biblical reality there's ONE God, not Two. And wait, someone asked, what about the Holy Spirit; doesn't the Bible says He's also God? The classic, orthodox statement of the Trinity, that God is 1 in substance or essence, but 3 in persons wasn't something everyone immediately agreed to. It wasn't like at the Council of Nicaea they took a vote and agreed Jesus is both deity & humanity. Then someone raised their hand & said, “Isn't there just one God?”Yes. à Well, how do we describe God now? They waited in silence for 14 seconds, then someone said, “How about this: We'll say God is one in substance & 3 in person.” They all smiled & nodded, slapped that guy on the back and said, “Good one. There it is; the Trinity! Our work here is done. Let's go for pizza. I get shotgun.”No; it took a while to get the wording right. What made it difficult is that they were working in 2 languages, Greek & Latin. A formulation that seemed to work in Greek was hard to bring over into Latin, and vice versa.It took the work of the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil the Great of Caesarea, his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their close friend Gregory of Nazianzus who worked out the wording that satisfied most of the bishops and framed the classic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Council of Constantinople was called in 381 to make this Trinitarian formulation official. This was just a year after Emperor Theodosius I declared Christianity the official State religion.So, with that piece of important theological business out of the way, they moved on to the next topic. And this is where it gets messy.If Jesus is both God & Man – how are we to understand that? Does He have 2 natures, or does 1 of the natures trump the other? Or is there a 3rd way: Did the human & divine natures fuse into a new, hybrid nature? And if Jesus IS a hybrid, do Christians get to drive in the chariot-pool lane?Lots of different camps put forward their scheme and fought hard to see their doctrinal formulation become the official position of the Church.The Council of Ephesus in 431 came out with a position that elevated 1 nature, while the Council at Chalcedon 20 years later altered that by affirming Jesus's 2 natures.It became obvious to church leaders after the Council at Constantinople that the turmoil they saved in solving the problem of the Trinity was just added to the Christological problem that rose next.To understand how this issue was settled, we need to take a look at the rivalry that grew between 2 churches; a rivalry sparked in large part by Christianity being liberated from persecution and elevated to the darling of the State. Those 2 churches were Alexandria & Antioch.The debate over how to understand the Person & Natures of Jesus was staged in the Eastern Empire. The West wasn't as involved because Rome simply did not see as much challenge on its belief in the dual nature of Christ. So while it wasn't the scene of so much theological turmoil, it did play an important part in how the controversy was settled.Political rivalry between Alexandria and Antioch had been going on for some time. Being in the East, both churches vied with each other to provide Bishops to Constantinople, the New Rome & political center of the Eastern Empire. Getting one of their Bishops promoted to the capital meant bragging rights and could result in additional power & prestige for the Alexandrian or Antiochan sees. Two bishops from Antioch that were drafted by Constantinople were John Chrysostom, who we've already looked at, and Nestorius, who we will.In addition to their ecclesiastical jealousy, was the very different cultural and theological traditions in play at Antioch and Alexandria. The church at Antioch had a closer tie to the Jewish roots in Jerusalem. It had a stronger tradition of rational inquiry. It was at Antioch that church leaders had dug deeply in the OT to find many of the great types that pointed to Jesus. They studied Scripture through the lens of literal interpretation, rejoicing that God became Man in the Person of Jesus.The Church at Alexandria was different. It grew up under the influence of philosophical Judaism as seen in Philo and passed on to scholars like Clement & Origen. The Alexandrians had a tradition of contemplative piety, as we might expect from a church near the Egyptian desert where the hermits got their start and had been such stand-out heroes of the Faith for generations.  In interpreting Scripture, the Church at Alexandria developed and was devoted to the allegorical method. This saw the truest meaning of Scripture to be the spiritual realities hidden in its literal, historical words.While the leaders at Antioch saw Jesus as God come as man, at Alexandria they agreed Jesus was a man, but His divine nature utterly overwhelmed the human so that He effective had only 1 operative nature; the divine.The differences between Antioch and Alexandria had already surfaced in their different approaches in refuting the error of Arianism. That they never reconciled them set the stage for all the acrimony to ensue over the debate on Jesus. The Arians made much of the NT passages that seemed to suggest Jesus' subordination to God the Father. They liked to quote John 14: 28, where Jesus said, “the Father is greater than I,” & Matt 24: 36, “No one knows . . . not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” In reply to the Arians, the theologians at Alexandria argued such passages were properly applied to the Son of God in his incarnation. The theologians of Antioch took a different route, referring such passages not to Jesus divinity, but to his humanity.  That may seem like splitting semantic hairs; I say poh-tay-toe; You say poh–tah-toe – but our friends in Antioch and Alexandria thought it a big deal and major difference. Really, both approaches provided a defense of the Nicene theology, a refutation of Arianism, and a framework for interpreting the Gospels.This is where I need to simplify lest we get into the minutiae of theologians with too much parchment, ink and time. In summary, the Alexandrian approach recognized Jesus as God but tended to diminish His humanity. The Antiochan approach readily embraced Jesus' humanity but had a hard time explaining how His human and divine natures related to each other.Let me try to make this more practical; maybe something you've grappled with. Have you ever pondered how Jesus could be tempted in all points as we are, as it says in Heb 4:15, yet as God, it was impossible for Him to sin? Sometimes you'll hear it put this way; Was Jesus REALLY tempted, since as God, He COULDN'T sin? As a man, he had the potential to sin. But as God, He couldn't. So was His experience of humanity genuine? If you can relate to the quandary those questions pose, you get an idea of the challenge the Antiochans faced.The difference between Antioch and Alexandria on how to understand Jesus was why Arianism & the Nicene Creed kept coming up in the Christological controversies dominating the 4th & 5th Centuries. Each side thought the other was selling out to Arianism.The battle between the 2 churches came to a head in the 5th C in the war that took place between 2 men; Bishop Cyril of Alexandria and Bishop Nestorius of Antioch who became Bishop of Constantinople.But that's the subject for our next episode.

This episode of CS is titled – Monks.We took a look at the hermits in Episode 18 and delved into the beginnings of the monastic movement that swept the Church. The hermits were those who left the city to live an ultra-ascetic life of isolation; literally fleeing from the world. Others who longed for the ascetic life could not abide the lack of fellowship and so retreated from the world to live in sequestered communes called monasteries & nunneries.The men were called monks and the women; the feminine form of the same word – nonnus, or nuns. In recent episodes, we've seen that the ascetic lifestyle of both hermits & monks was considered the ideal expression of devotion to God during the 4th & 5th Centuries. We're going to spend more time looking at monastery-life now because it proves central to the development of the faith during the Middle Ages, particularly in Western Europe but also in the East.Let's review from Episode 18 the roots of monasticism . . .Leisure time to converse about philosophy with friends was highly prized in the ancient world. It was fashionable for public figures to express a yearning for such intellectual leisure, or “otium” as they called it; but of course, they were much too busy serving their fellow man. It became hip to adopt the attitude, “I'm so busy with my duties, I don't get much ‘Me-time'.”Occasionally, as the famous Roman orator & Senator Cicero portrayed it, they scored such time for philosophical reflection by retiring to write on themes such as duty, friendship & old age. That towering intellect & theologian Augustine of Hippo had the same wish as a young man, & when he became a Christian in 386, left his professorship in oratory to devote his life to contemplation & writing. He retreated with a group of friends, his son & his mother, to a home on Lake Como, to discuss, then write about The Happy Life, Order & other such subjects, in which both classical philosophy and Christianity shared an interest. When he returned to his hometown of Tagaste in North Africa, he set up a community in which he & his friends could lead a monastic life, apart from the world, studying scripture & praying. Augustine's contemporary, Jerome; translator of the Latin Vulgate, felt the same tug. He too made an attempt to live apart from the world.The Christian version of this yearning for a life of philosophical retirement had an important difference from the pagan version. While reading & meditation remained central, the call to do it in concert w/others who set themselves apart from the world was added.For the monks and nuns who sought such a communal life, the crucial thing was the call to a way of life which would make it possible to ‘go apart' & spend time w/God in prayer and worship.Prayer was the Opus Dei, the ‘work of God'.As it was originally conceived, to become a monk or nun was an attempt to obey to the full the commandment to love God with all one is & has. In the Middle Ages, it was also understood as a fulfillment of the command to love one's neighbor, for monks & nuns were supposed to be primarily praying for the world. They really did believe they were performing an important task on behalf of lost souls. So among the members of a monastery, there were those who prayed, those who ruled, and those who worked. The most important to society were those who prayed. Ideally, while monks & nuns might have different duties based on their station & assignment, they all engaged in both work & prayer.But a difference developed between the monastic movements of East & West.In the East, the Desert Fathers set the pattern. They were hermits who adopted extreme forms of asceticism, and came to be regarded as powerhouses of spiritual influence; authorities who could assist ordinary people w/their problems. The Stylites, for example, lived on platforms on high poles; an object of reverence to those who came to ask their spiritual advice. Others, shut off from the world in caves or huts, denied themselves contact with the temptations of the world, especially women. There was in this an obvious preoccupation with the dangers of the flesh, which was partly a legacy of the Greek dualists' conviction that matter was inherently evil.I want to pause here & make a personal, pastoral observation. So warning! – Blatant opinion follows.You can't read the New Testament without seeing a clear call to holiness. But that holiness is a work of God's grace as the Holy Spirit empowers the believer to live a life pleasing to God. New Testament holiness is a joyous privilege, not a heavy burden & duty. It enhances life, never diminishes it.This is what Jesus modeled so well, and why genuine seekers after God were drawn to Him. He was attractive! He didn't just do holiness, He WAS Holy. Yet no one had more life. Where He went, dead things came to life!As Jesus' followers, we're supposed to be holy in the same way. But if we're honest, for many, holiness is conceived of as a dry, boring, life-sucking burden of moral perfection.Real holiness isn't religious rule-keeping. It isn't a list of moral proscriptions; a set of “Don't's! Or I will smite thee w/Divine Wrath & cast thy wretched soul into the eternal flames.”New Testament holiness is a mark of Real Life, the one Jesus rose again to give us. It's Jesus living in & thru us. The holy life is a FLOURISHING life.The Desert Fathers & hermits who followed their example were heavily influenced by the dualist Greek worldview that all matter was evil & only the spirit was good. Holiness meant an attempt to avoid any shred of physical pleasure while retreating into the life of the mind. This thinking was a major force influencing the monastic movement as it moved both East & West. But in the East, the monks were hermits who pursued their lifestyles in isolation while in the West, they tended to pursue them in concert & communal life.As we go on we'll see that some monastic leaders realized casting holiness as a negative denial of the flesh rather than a positive embracing of the love & truth of Christ was an error they sought to reform.Indeed, one of the premier teachings of Jesus adopted by monks & applied literally was  Matt. 19:21, “Sell your possession, give to the poor.” Jesus & the Twelve Apostles were cast as ideal monks.The early Church also faced the challenge of several aberrant groups who espoused a rigorous asceticism & used it as a badge of moral superiority. So some Christians thought a way to refute their error was by showing them up when it came to austere devotion.Even those believers who rejected the error of dualism justified asceticism by saying they renounced what was merely good in favor of what was best; a higher spiritual mode of living.Understood this way, the monasticism began as a protest movement in the Early Church. Church leaders like Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea & even Augustine co-opted & domesticated the monastic impulse, bringing it into the standard Church world.In the East, while monks might live in a group, they didn't seek for community. They didn't converse & work together in a common cause. They simply shared cells next to one another. Each followed his own schedule. Their only contact was that they ate & prayed together. This tradition continues to this day on Mount Athos in northern Greece, where monks live in solitude & prayer in cells high on the cliffs. Food is lowered to them in baskets.Monastic communities and those seeking to be monks or nuns exploded in popularity in the 4th Century. This popularity was born out of a protest on the part of many at the growing secularization they witnessed in the institutional church. The persecution everyone was so ready to be over not long before was now looked back upon almost nostalgically. Sure the Church was hammered, but at least following Jesus meant something and the seriousness with which people pursued spiritual things was palpable. Now it seemed every third person called themselves a Christian without much concern to be like Jesus. The monastic life was a way to recover what had been lost from the glory days of the persecuted but pure Church.One of the first set of rules for monastic communities was developed by someone with whom we're already familiar, Basil the Great, leader of the Cappadocian Fathers who hammered out the orthodox understanding of the Nicene Creed. Basil was born into one of the most remarkable families in Christian history. His grandmother, father, mother, sister, & two younger brothers, were all venerated as saints. Wow – imagine being the black sheep in that family! All you had to do to qualify for that dubious title was fail to make your bed.Besides taking the lead with his brother Gregory of Nyssa and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus in hammering out the exact terminology that would be used to define the Orthodox position on the Trinity, Basil was an early advocate & organizer of monastic life. Taking a cue from his sister Macrina, who'd founded a monastery on some of the family's property at Annessi, Basil visited the ascetics of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, then founded his own monastery, also at Annessi around 358. For the monks there he drew up a rule for their lives called Asceticon; sometimes referred to as the Longer & Shorter Rules. It consisted of 55 major regulations & 313 lesser guidelines. While each monastery during this time followed its own order, more and more began adopting Basil's template.The first rule to present a rival to Basil's was the Rule of Augustine.In our last couple episodes on Augustine, we saw that when he returned to Tagaste, he and his friends formed a community committed to serving God. At the bishop of the church at Hippo, Augustine founded a monastery, turning the episcopal digs into a monastic community specifically for priests. It became a spiritual nursery that produced many African bishops.These priest-monks were a corporate reflection of Augustine's ideal of the whole Church: a witness to the future kingdom of God. The Rule associated with Augustine, and the monastic orders of monks and nuns that bear his name, emphasize “Living in freedom under grace.” They sought for their monastery to be a microcosm of the City of God, longing for mystical union with Him, but firmly rooted in the love and service of others, both within the community and the world.There's no mention of Augustine's Rule, in his own literary work called Retractions or Possidius's Catalogue, but there's evidence of a monastic rule attributed to Augustine a century after his death. Benedict of Nursia, who we'll get to next, knew of & was influenced by it, as were several other founders of religious orders. There are existing monastic communities today that still hearken back to the Augustinian Rule as the core of their order's life.A crucial development in Western monasticism took place in the 6th Century when Benedict of Nursia withdrew w/a group of friends to try to live the ascetic life. This prompted him to give serious thought to the way in which the ‘religious life' should be organized. Benedict arranged for groups of 12 monks to live together in small communities. Then he moved to Monte Cassino where, in 529, he set up the monastery which was to become the headquarters of the Benedictine Order. The rule of life he drew up there was a synthesis of elements in existing rules for monastic life. From this point on, the Rule of St Benedict set the standard for living the religious life until the 12th Century.The Rule of St Benedict achieved a balance between body & soul. It aimed at moderation & order. It said those who went apart from the world to live lives dedicated to God should not subject themselves to extreme asceticism. They should live in poverty & chastity, & in obedience to their abbot, but they should not feel the need to brutalize their flesh w/things like scourges & hair-shirts. They should eat moderately but not starve themselves. They should balance their time in a regular & orderly way between manual work, reading & prayer—which as their real work for God. There were to be 7 regular acts of worship in the day, known as ‘hours', attended by the entire community. In Benedict's vision, the monastic yoke was to be sweet; the burden light. The monastery was a ‘school' of the Lord's service, in which the baptized soul made progress in the Christian life.A common feature of monastic life in the West was that it was largely reserved for the upper classes. Serfs didn't have the freedom to become monks. The houses of monks & nuns were the recipients of noble & royal patronage, because a noble assumed by supporting such a holy endeavor, he was earning points w/God.  Remember as well that while the first-born son stood to inherit everything, later sons were a potential cause of unrest if they decided to contest the elder brother's birthright. So these ‘spare' children of noble birth were often given to monastic communes by their families. They were then charged with carrying the religious duty for the entire family. They were a spiritual surrogate whose task was to produce a surplus of godliness the rest of the family could draw on. Rich and powerful families gave monasteries lands, for the good of the souls of their members. Rulers and soldiers were too busy to attend to their spiritual lives as they should, so ‘professionals' were drawn from their family to help by doing it on their behalf.A consequence of this was that, in the later Middle Ages, the abbot or abbess was usually a nobleman or woman. She was often chosen because of being the highest in birth in the monastery or convent and not because of any natural powers of leadership or outstanding spirituality. Chaucer's cruel 14th Century caricature of a prioress depicts a woman who would have been much more at home in a country house playing w/her dogs.This noble patronage of monastic communities was both a source of their economic success & their eventual moral & spiritual decay. Monastic houses that became rich & were filled with those who'd not chosen to enter the religious life, but had been put there by parents, usually became decadent. The Cluniac reforms of the 10th Century were a consequence of the recognition there needed to be a tightening up of things if the Benedictine order was not to be utterly lost. In the commune at Cluny and the houses which imitated it, standards were high, although here, too, there was a danger of distortion of the original Benedictine vision. Cluniac houses had extra rules and a degree of rigidity which compromised the original simplicity of the Benedictine plan.At the end of the 11th Century, several developments radically altered the range of choice for those in the West who wanted to enter a monastery. The first was a change of fashion, which encouraged married couples of mature years to decide to end their days in monastic life. A knight who'd fought his wars might make an agreement with his wife that they would go off into separate religious houses.But these mature adults weren't the only ones entering monasteries. It became fashionable for younger people to head off to a monastery where education was top-rank. Then monasteries began to specialize in various pursuits. It was a time of experimentation.Out of this period of experiment came one immensely important new order, the Cistercians. They used the Benedictine rule but had a different set of priorities. The first was a determination to protect themselves from the dangers which could come from growing too rich.You might ask, “Hold on Lance, how could people who've taken a vow of poverty get rich?”There's the rub. Yes, monks & nuns vowed poverty.  But their lifestyle included diligence in work. And some brilliant minds had joined the monasteries, so they'd devised some ingenious methods for going about their work in a more productive manner, enhancing yields for crops & the invention of new products. Being deft businessmen, they worked good deals and maximized profits, which went into the monastery's account. But individual monks did not profit thereby. The funds were used to expand the monastery's resources & facilities. This led to even higher profits. Which were then used in plushing up the monastery even more. The cells got nicer, the food better, the grounds more sumptuous, the library more expansive.  The monks got new habits. Outwardly, things were the same, they owned nothing personally, but in fact, their monastic world was upgraded significantly.The Cistercians responded to this by building houses in remote places & keeping them as simple, bare lodgings. They also made a place for people from the lower classes who had vocations but wanted to give themselves more completely to God. These were called “lay brothers.”The startling early success of the Cistercians was due to Bernard of Clairvaux. When he decided to enter a newly founded Cistercian monastery, he took with him a group of his friends & relatives. Because of his oratory skill & praise for the Cistercian model, recruitment proceed so rapidly many more houses had to be founded in quick succession. He was made abbot of one of them at Clairvaux, from which he draws his name. He went on to become a leading figure in the monastic world & European politics. He spoke so movingly he was useful as a diplomatic emissary, as well as a preacher.We'll hear more about him in a later episode.Other monastic experiments weren't so successful. The willingness to try new forms of the life gave a platform for some short-lived endeavors by the eccentric. There are always those who think their idea is THE way it ought to be. Either because they lack common sense or have no skill at recruiting others, they fall apart. So many pushed on the boundaries of monastic life that one writer thought it would be helpful to review the available modes in the 12th Century. His work covered all the possibilities of monastic & priestly life.The 12th Century saw the creation of new monastic orders. In Paris, the Victorines produced leading academic figures & teachers. The Premonstratensians were a group of Western monks who took on the monumental task of healing the rift between the Eastern & Western churches. The problem was, there was no corresponding monastic group IN the East.But that's getting way ahead of ourselves as we try to keep to a closer narrative timeline.In future episodes, we'll revisit the monks & monasteries of the Eastern & Western Church because it was often from their ranks the movers of church history were drawn.

The title of this episode is, “Can't We All Just Get Along?”In our last episode, we began our look at how the Church of the 4th & 5th Cs attempted to describe the Incarnation. Once the Council of Nicaea affirmed Jesus' deity, along with His humanity, Church leaders were left with the task of finding just the right words to describe WHO Jesus was. If He was both God & Man as The Nicaean Creed said, how did these two natures relate to one another?We looked at how the churches at Alexandria & Antioch differed in their approaches to understanding & teaching the Bible. Though Alexandria was recognized as a center of scholarship, the church at Antioch kept producing church leaders who were drafted to fill the role of lead bishop at Constantinople, the political center of the Eastern Empire. While Rome was the undisputed lead church in the West, Alexandria, Antioch & Constantinople vied with each other over who would take the lead in the East. But the real contest was between Alexandria in Egypt & Antioch in Syria.The contest between the two cities & their churches became clear during the time of John Chrysostom from Antioch & Theophilus, lead bishop at Alexandria. Because of John's reputation as a premier preacher, he was drafted to become Bishop at Constantinople. But John's criticisms of the decadence of the wealthy, along with his refusal to tone down his chastisement of the Empress, caused him to fall out of favor. I guess you can be a great preacher, just so long as you don't turn your skill against people in power. Theophilus was jealous of Chrysostom's promotion from Antioch to the capital and used the political disfavor growing against him to call a synod at which John was disposed from office as Patriarch of Constantinople.That was like Round 1 of the sparring match between Alexandria and Antioch. Round 2 and the deciding round came next in the contest between 2 men; Cyril & Nestorius.Cyril was Theophilus' nephew & attended his uncle at the Synod of the Oak at which Chrysostom was condemned. Cyril learned his lessons well and applied them with even greater ferocity in taking down his opponent, Nestorius.Before we move on with these 2, I need to back-track some & bore the bejeebers out of you for a bit.Warning: Long, hard to pronounce, utterly forgettable word Alert.Remember è The big theological issue at the forefront of everyone's mind during this time was how to understand Jesus.Okay, we got it: àThe Nicaean Creed's been accepted as basic Christian doctrine.The Cappadocian Fathers have given us the right formula for understanding the Trinity.There's 1 God in 3 persons; Father, Son & Holy Spirit.Now, on to the next thing: Jesus is God and Man. How does that work? Is He 2 persons or 1? Does He have 1 nature or 2? And if 2, how do those natures relate to one another?A couple ideas were floated to resolve the issue but came up short; Apollinarianism and Eutychianism.Apollinaris of Laodicea lived in the 4th C.  A defender of the Nicene Creed, he said in Jesus the divine Logos replaced His human soul. Jesus had a human body in which dwelled a divine spirit. Our longtime friend Athanasius led the synod of Alexandria in 362 to condemn this view but didn't specifically name Apollinaris. 20 Yrs later, the Council of Constantinople did just that. Gregory of Nazianzus supplied the decisive argument against Apollinarianism saying, “What was not assumed was not healed” meaning, for the entire of body, soul, and spirit of a person to be saved, Jesus Christ must have taken on a complete human nature.Eutyches was a, how to describe him; elderly-elder, a senior leader, an aged-monk in Constantinople who advocated one nature for Jesus. Eutychianism said that while in the Incarnation Jesus was both God & man, His divine nature totally overwhelmed his human nature, like a drop of vinegar is lost in the sea.Those who maintained the dual-nature of Jesus as wholly God and wholly Man are called dyophysites.  Those advocating a single-nature are called Monophysites.What happened between Cyril & Nestorius is this . . .Nestorius was an elder and head of a monastery in Antioch when the emperor Theodosius II chose him to be Bishop of Constantinople in 428.Now, what I'm about to say some will find hard to swallow, but while Nestorius's name became associated with one of the major heresies to split the church, the error he's accused of he most likely wasn't guilty of. What Nestorius was guilty of was being a jerk. His story is typical for several of the men who were picked to lead the church at Constantinople during the 4th through 7th Cs; effective preachers but lousy administrators & seriously lacking in people skills. Look, if you're going to be pegged to lead the Church at the Political center of the Empire, you better be a savvy political operator, as well as a man of moral & ethical excellence. A heavy dose of tact ought to have been a pre-requisite. But guys kept getting selected who came to the Capital on a campaign to clean house. And many of them seem to have thought subtlety was the devil's tool.As soon as Nestorius arrived in Constantinople, he started a harsh campaign against heretics, meaning anyone with whom he disagreed. It wouldn't take long before his enemies accused him of the very thing he accused others of. But in their case, their accusations were born of jealousy.Where they deiced to take offense was when Nestorius balked at the use of the word Theotokos. The word means God-bearer, and was used by the church at Alexandria for the mother of Jesus. While the Alexandrians said they rejected Apollinarianism, they, in fact, emphasized the divine nature of Jesus, saying it overwhelmed His human nature. The Alexandrian bishop, Cyril, was once again jealous of the Antiochan Nestorius' selection as bishop for the Capital. As his uncle Theophilus had taken advantage of Chrysostom's disfavor to get him deposed, Cyril laid plans for removing the tactless & increasingly unpopular Nestorius. The battle over the word Theotokos became the flashpoint of controversy, the crack Cyril needed to pry Nestorius from his position.To supporters of the Alexandrian theology, Theotokos seemed entirely appropriate for Mary. They said she DID bear God when Jesus took flesh in her womb. And to deny it was to deny the deity of Christ!Nestorius and his many supporters were concerned the title “Theotokos” made Mary a goddess. Nestorius maintained that Mary was the mother of the man Who was united with the divine Logos, and nothing should be said that might imply she was the “Mother à of God.” Nestorius preferred the title Christokos; Mary was the Christ-bearer. But he lacked a vocabulary and the theological sophistication to relate the divine and human natures of Jesus in a convincing way.Cyril, on the other hand, argued convincingly for his position from the Scriptures. In 429, Cyril defended the term Theotokos. His key text was John 1: 14, “The Word became flesh.” I'd love to launch into a detailed description of the nuanced debate between Cyril and Nestorius over the nature of Christ but it would leave most, including myself, no more clued in than we are now.Suffice it to say, Nestorius maintained the dual-nature-in-the-one-person of Christ while Cyril stuck to the traditional Alexandrian line and said while Jesus was technically 2 natures, human & divine, the divine overwhelmed the human so that He effectively operated as God in a physical body.Where this came down to a heated debate was over the question of whether or not Jesus really suffered in His passion. Nestorius said that the MAN Jesus suffered but not His divine nature, while Cyril said the divine nature did indeed suffer.When the Roman Bishop Celestine learned of the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius, he selected a churchman named John Cassian to respond to Nestorius. He did so in his work titled On the Incarnation in 430. Cassian sided with Cyril but wanted to bring Nestorius back into harmony. Setting aside Cassian's hope to bring Nestorius into his conception of orthodoxy, Celestine entered a union with Cyril against Nestorius and the church at Antioch he'd come from. A synod at Rome in 430 condemned Nestorius, and Celestine asked Cyril to conduct proceedings against him.Cyril condemned Nestorius at a Synod in Alexandria and sent him a notice with a cover letter listing 12 anathemas against Nestorius and anyone else who disagreed with the Alexandrian position. For example à “If anyone does not confess Emmanuel to be very God, and does not acknowledge the Holy Virgin to be Theotokos, for she brought forth after the flesh the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.”Receiving the letter from Cyril, Nestorius humbly resigned and left for a quiet retirement at Leisure Village in Illyrium. à Uh, not quite. True to form, Nestorius ignored the Synod's verdict.Emperor Theodosius II called a general council to meet at Ephesus in 431. This Council is sometimes called the Robber's Synod because it turned into a bloody romp by Cyril's supporters. As the bishops gathered in Ephesus, it quickly became evident the Council was far more concerned with politics than theology. This wasn't going to be a sedate debate over texts, words & grammar. It was going to be a physical contest. Let's settle doctrinal disputes with clubs instead of books.Cyril and his posse of club-wielding Egyptian monks, and I use the word posse purposefully, had the support of the Ephesian bishop, Memnon, along with the majority of the bishops from Asia. The council began on June 22, 431, with 153 bishops present. 40 more later gave their assent to the findings. Cyril presided. Nestorius was ordered to attend but knew it was a rigged affair and refused to show. He was deposed and excommunicated. Ephesus rejoiced.On June 26, John, bishop of Antioch, along with the Syrian bishops, all of whom had been delayed, finally arrived. John held a rival council consisting of 43 bishops and the Emperor's representative. They declared Cyril & Memnon deposed. Further sessions of rival councils added to the number of excommunications.A report reached Theodosius II, and representatives of both sides pled their case. Theodosius's first instinct was to confirm the depositions of Cyril, Memnon, & Nestorius. Be done with the lot of them. But a lavish gift from Cyril persuaded the Emperor to dissolve the Council and send Nestorius into exile. A new bishop for Constantinople was consecrated. Cyril returned in triumph to Alexandria.From a historical perspective, it's what happened AFTER the Council of Ephesus that was far more important. John of Antioch sent a representative to Alexandria with a compromise creed. This asserted the duality of natures, in contrast to Cyril's formulation, but accepted the Theotokos, in contrast to Nestorius. This compromise anticipated decisions to be reached at the next general church Council at Chalcedon.Cyril agreed to the creed and a reunion of the churches took place in 433. Since then, historians have asked if Cyril was being a statesman in agreeing to the compromise or did he just cynically accept it because he'd achieved his real purpose; getting rid of Nestorius. Either way, the real loser was Nestorius. Theodosius had his books burned, and many who agreed with Nestorius's theology dropped their support.Those who represented his theological emphases continued to carry on their work in eastern Syria, becoming what History calls the Church of the East, a movement of the Gospel we'll soon see that reached all the way to the Pacific Ocean.While in exile, Nestorius wrote a book that set forth the story of his life and defended his position. Modern reviews of Nestorius find him to be more of a schismatic in temperament than a heretic. He denied the heresy of which he was accused, that the human Jesus and the divine Christ were 2 different persons.20 yrs after the Council of Ephesus, which many regarded as a grave mistake, another was called at Chalcedon. Nestorius' teaching was declared heretical and he was officially deposed. Though already in exile, he was now banished by an act of the Church rather than Emperor. In one of those odd facts of history, though what Nestorius taught about Christ was declaimed, it turned out to be the position adopted by the Creed that came out of the Council of Chalcedon. When word reached Nestorius in exile of the Council's finding he said they'd only ratified what he'd always believed & taught.There's much to learn from this story of conflict and resolution.First, many of the doctrines we take for granted as being part and parcel of the orthodox Christian faith, came about through great struggle and debate of some of the most brilliant minds history's known. Sometimes, those ideas were popular and ruled because they were expedient. But mere politics can't sustain a false idea. There are always faithful men and women who love truth because it's true, not because it will gain them power, influence or advantage. They may suffer at the hands of the corrupt for a season, but they always prevail in the end.We ought to be thankful, not only to God for giving us the truth in His Word and the Spirit to understand it, but also to the people who at great cost were willing to hazard themselves to make sure Truth prevailed over error.Second, Too often, people look back on the “Early Church” and assume it was a wonderful time of sweet harmony. Life was simple, everyone agreed and no one ever argued. Hardly!Good grief. Have they read the Bible? The disciples were forever arguing over who was greatest. Paul & Barnabas had a falling out over John Mark. Paul had to get in Peter's face when he played the hypocrite.Yes, for sure, in Acts we read about a brief period of time when the love of the fellowship was so outstanding it shook the people of Jerusalem to the core and resulted in many coming to faith. But that was only a brief moment that soon passed.God wants His people to be in unity. True unity, under the truth of the Gospel, is an incredibly powerful proof of our Faith. But the idea that the Early Church was a Golden Age of Unity is a fiction. Philip Jenkins' book on the battle over the Christology of the 4th & 5th Cs. is titled Jesus Wars.The Church as a whole would be better served today in its pursuit of unity if each local congregation focused its primary efforts on loving and serving one another through the power of the Spirit. It's inevitable if they excelled at that, they'd begin looking at all churches and believers in the same way, and unity would be real rather than a program with a start & end date or a campaign based on personalities and hype.Hey - come to think of it, that's what DID bring about that short glorious moment of blissful harmony in Jerusalem among the followers of Jesus – they loved and served one another in the power of the Spirit.

This episode of CS the first of a couple summary reviews we'll do. My plan is to continue on as we have, pausing occasionally to in one episode catch us up in broad strokes on what we've covered so far.My hope is to avoid the whole, “Can't see the forest for the trees” thing. For those listeners where English is a second language, that phrase is an idiom that means the loss of perspective behind too many details.Though I want to give a clean straight narrative for our story of the Church, we can't help but bounce around ab it between times & places. It's just the nature of trying to examine all of church history, instead of its course in one location. Still, I hope to build a basic sense of historical flow. To that end, stopping every so often to step back and provide a quick summary of the material we've covered so far seems appropriate.Overviews won't have nearly the detail as a regular episode, but they will have a lot more names & dates since it's a culling & gleaning of what the last so many episodes have covered.Okay, here we go with our first Overview . . .While the Christian Faith began as an inordinately tiny sect within 1st Century Judaism, it grew rapidly, first among Jews, then among Gentiles. This growth can be attributed to two main causes. First, was the generally lethargic spiritual condition of the ancient world, most especially in those regions dominated by the Roman Empire. Several factors conspired to make people ripe for the message the Gospel proclaimed. Second, was the spiritual dynamic provided by early followers of Jesus. They demonstrated an exceptional lifestyle that attracted others. Even while Rome followed an official policy of opposition to the Faith, the number of its adherent grew.Early Christianity is divided by historians into 2 periods: the Apostolic & Post-Apostolic.The Apostolic lasts from the mid-1st Century to the early 2nd when the last of the Apostolic Fathers died. The Apostolic Fathers are counted not only as the original disciples of Jesus and their peers but their direct followers; men like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch & Polycarp.The Post-Apostolic period stretches from the early 2nd Century to the beginning of the 4th. During this time the leadership of the church moved from direct dependence on the Apostolic Fathers to local church leaders, known as pastors. As the decades passed, these local lead pastors morphed into bishops who oversaw a growing episcopal structure.This period was marked by episodic & regional persecution of Christians in Roman lands. It wasn't until the mid to late 3rd Century that persecution became a widespread policy. It ended with the arrival of Emperor Constantine and the Edict of Milan in 313. Names associated with this time are Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen.Besides persecution, the main challenge the Post-Apostolic church faced was presented by heresy.Early Christians heeded the New Testament's repeated call for maintaining correct belief and refuting false teaching. The Faith wasn't just the philosophical ramblings of a sun-burnt sage. It was rooted in historical events both ancient & recent. When aberrant teachers attempted to hijack core & cardinal doctrines, bishops gathered to study what their Scriptures said and arrive at a consensus. In this way, they refuted the challenge of such groups & teaching as Docetism and its later evolution, Gnosticism.  They rebuffed Marcionism, the Ebionites, Manachaeists & the aberrant teaching of Montanus. The greatest threat rose from a Bishop named Arius who denied Jesus' deity.  Though Arianism was officially quashed at the First of the Great or what are called Ecumenical Councils held at Nicaea in 325, it continued to be espoused in many regions for the next century and a half. The Council of Nicaea established the orthodox Christian position today known as Trinitarianism, which holds that God is one in essence while three in persons. While 300 bishops signed the Nicaean Creed, many of them went away from the Council unsettled about the terminology used in the Creed to define the correct view of God. The task of sharpening the terms & arriving at the proper description of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity was left to the Cappadocian Fathers some time later.The Post-Apostolic period is also when the Church Fathers realized the need to provide a definitive list of books that comprised the Bible. The work of several councils finally closed the Canon during this time.The Post-Apostolic Period was followed by what's often called Catholic Christianity; not to be confused with ROMAN Catholic. The term ‘catholic' means universal and stands in contrast to the many often subtle doctrinal challenges that arose following the Council of Nicaea. This period, stretching from the beginning of the 4th Century to the end of the 5th saw 7 major Church Councils that all met to address some new or renewed challenge to orthodoxy, specifically as it related to the theological can of worms the First Council at Nicaea opened, and maybe we should say, sought to close. You see, once the Church settled on the Trinity as the right way to understand God, the main questions were;1) How do the persons of the Godhead relate to one another?2) How are we to understand the person of Jesus? How do we reconcile Him as both God & Man?This second issue ended up in sometimes bloody brawls as advocates of different positions used the debate to secure political favor & religious prestige.During this period of Catholic Christianity, 4 cities rose as the gravitational centers of the Christian world; Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, & the new capital of the Empire, Constantinople. Alexandria, Antioch & Constantinople were all in the East while Rome was alone in the West. The main contest for prestige & power was between Alexandria & Antioch which used 2 different ways of interpreting Scripture and understanding the Person & Nature of Christ. Alexandria had a long reputation as a center of scholarship but Antioch continually produced excellent preachers. Since the Church at Constantinople, being near the royal palace, was the premier church in terms of securing imperial favor, whoever was the bishop there tended to secure favor for his side of the debate. It infuriated many of the bishops at Alexandria that Antioch kept providing new leaders for the Church at Constantinople. The supreme example of all this is the verbal and at times physical brawl that took place between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius from Antioch, who became Bishop at Constantinople.It was during this time as well that the Church at Rome emerged to become, not just the lead church in the West, but over the entire Empire. One of the reasons for this is the generally excellent leadership the Roman Bishops provided. When the Eastern churches were wracked by debate, Rome often played a mediating influence or lent a perspective that resolved the issue.What encouraged Rome's emergence as the lead church in the Faith was the claim of some Roman Bishops that they were spiritual heirs to Peter's spiritual hegemony. That claim was not without considerable push-back by many, but it eventually proved persuasive so that Rome was given tacit, if not outright honor as the lead church.Again, it was during this era the Ecumenical Councils were convened. They were concerned largely with settling the Christological disputes tearing apart the Church. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 & First Council of Constantinople in 381 condemned Arianism. The Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorianism and affirmed Mary as the Theotokos; that is the "Mother of God."The Council of Chalcedon just 20 years later affirmed that Christ had two natures; He was fully God and fully man, yet was one person. It specifically condemned Monophysitism, the belief that Jesus' divine nature overwhelmed his human nature. Following Chalcedon, several groups broke with the orthodox, or what we would call from this time, Catholic position; again, not Roman Catholic. The term simply means what was the accepted position of the Church & churches of the Roman World. The churches of Egypt, headquartered at Alexandria tended to be Monophysite while the churches that moved into the East followed a distorted view of Nestorius' & began to adopt the idea that Jesus was not only of two natures, He was two persons in a single body. As we've seen in previous episodes, it's unlikely Nestorius himself believed that, though his opponents claimed he did, and his later followers do seem to have moved in that direction.One of the most significant events of this period occurred in late February of 380. Emperor Theodosius I signed the Edict of Thessalonica which made Catholic, Trinitarian Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. Prior to this the Emperors Constantius II & Valens favored Arian flavors of the Faith. Theodosius I declared the Trinitarianism of the Nicene Creed as the perennial position of the Empire. While there were going to be all kinds of problems associated with making Christianity the State religion, what ensured it would really go awry was that Theodosius went further and in effect outlawed unbelief; any belief but Catholic Christianity was deemed heretical. Heretics weren't just put out of the Church, they were put out of life!It didn't take long for the Church to avail itself of the Imperial organizational structure, adopting similar geographical borders. They even kept the old imperial name – Diocese. Bishops oversaw the various dioceses. The bishop's home was known as a seat, or see.Back-tracking a bit, when Christians were being persecuted during the 2 and 3rd Centuries in the West, many of them fled for refuge to the East and the Sassanid Empire, the long-time enemy of Rome. Though the Sassanids were Zoroastrians, they welcomed the Christians because, you know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.When Rome became a Christian State, the Sassanids feared the Christians would become a kind of religious Fifth Column and began persecuting them. The once vibrant Persian church was decimated and many of these Eastern Christians fled even further East, becoming what is today referred to as the Church of the East.As we've seen in recent episodes, Monasticism became a standard feature of Christianity during the time of Catholic Christianity and carried on for centuries after in the Middle Ages.While there are dozens of names associated with this time, we'll limit our list to a few as we wrap up this episode.There are the Cappadocian Fathers: Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa and their friend, Gregory of Nazianzus.There's the Popes Damasus I & Leo the Great.We've mentioned Cyril of Alexandria & his nemesis, the defrocked & banished Nestorius.There's the astoundingly gifted Bishop of Milan, Ambrose and his student who eventually outshined his teacher – Augustine.This is the time of Jerome & the Golden-tongued Chrysostom.It's the time Attila the Hun and Alaric whose Goths sacked Rome.It's the age of the Vandals who are such brutes they give their name to bad behavior.This is also the time of an interesting character whose life has become a thing of legend – Patrick of Ireland. We'll take a look at him soon.The Era of Catholic Christianity ends in the late 5th Century with the Fall of the Western Roman Empire. This is of course an arbitrary line we draw, especially when we consider that the Eastern Empire saw itself as the continuation of the Empire for another thousand years.But most historians see the Fall of the Western Roman Empire as a momentous event that leveled a blow to the European mindset it took centuries to recover from. Thus, the period between the Roman Empire and the Modern Era is called the Middle Ages. And while it's been fashionable for a long time in the popular idea of history to see the Middle Ages as Dark and a long stretch when nothing of much consequence happened, the more astute student knows the Middle Ages were a time of amazing development.

The title of this episode is simply à “Ambrose.” And once we learn a little about him, we'll see that title is enough.For Ambrose was one of the most interesting figures in Church History, a hinge around which the course of the Faith swung.Born in 340, Ambrose was the second son of Ambrosius, the imperial governor of Gaul and part of an ancient Roman family that included the famous Marcus Aurelius. Not long after Aurelius, and his disastrous son and heir Commodus, the family became Christians who provided not a few notable martyrs. Ambrose was born at Trier, the imperial capital of Gaul. While still a child, Ambrose's father died, and he was taken to Rome to be raised. His childhood was spent in the company of many members of the Christian clergy, men of sincere faith with a solid grasp on the theological challenges the Church of that day wrestled with; things you're familiar with because we've spent the last several episodes dealing with them; that is, the Christological controversies that swirled first around Arius, then the blood-feud between Cyril & Nestorius.Now would be a good time for me to toss in some place-markers so we can get a sense of what was going on as Ambrose grew up. Donatus is the bishop of Carthage. The Cappadocian Fathers, Basil, and the 2 Gregory's are hammering out the proper verbiage to understand the Trinity. Athanasius has his long run as THE chief defender or Biblical orthodoxy. When Ambrose was 16, the famous Desert Father Anthony of Egypt died. The Goths ran rampant over Northern Europe, causing great consternation in the Roman Empire. When Ambrose was 38 the Goths defeated the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in a loss so thorough, the Emperor Valens was killed.During Ambrose's lifetime, Pope Damasus will rule the Church at Rome. Jerome will move to Bethlehem and complete the Vulgate. John Chrysostom will serve as Patriarch at Constantinople.Clearly, a lot with major import was going on during Ambrose's lifetime.When he turned 30, Ambrose, based in the capital at Milan, became governor of all NW'n Italy. He was charged with the responsibility to officiate church disputes.  This was at a time when Nicaean & Arian believers were at war with each other; a war not fought with literal weapons but with words. Ambrose was no friend to the Arians, but he was so fair-minded and well-regarded, both sides supported him in his role as governor. When the Arian bishop of Milan died, Ambrose attended the meeting to elect his replacement, hoping his presence would forestall violence. To his surprise, both sides shouted their wish that he be the replacement.Ambrose didn't want it. He was doing quite well as a political leader. Following the practice of many at that time, he hadn't even been baptized yet. But the people wrote to Emperor Valentinian, asking for his approval of their selection. Ambrose was placed under arrest until he agreed to serve a Milan's new bishop.Now, if the Arians had hoped to gain favor by supporting Ambrose as bishop, they were destined to disappointment. Their new bishop helped define what the word ‘orthodox' meant. He soon took the Arians to task & refused to surrender a building for them to meet in. He wrote several works against them that went on to prove instrumental in ultimately bringing an end to Arianism.Trained in rhetoric and law, and having studied Greek, Ambrose became known for his knowledge of Greek scholars, both Christian and pagan. In addition to Philo, Origen, and Basil of Caesarea, he quoted the Neo-platonist Plotinus in his sermons. He was widely regarded as an excellent preacher.In many of his messages, Ambrose expounded upon the virtues of asceticism. He was so persuasive that noble families sometimes forbade their daughters to attend his services, fearing they'd trade their marriageable status withy its potential for a bride price, for the life of nun.One piece of his pastoral advice became a maxim for the clergy: “When you are at Rome, live in the Roman style; when you are elsewhere, live as they live elsewhere.”Ambrose also introduced congregational singing, and was accused of “bewitching” Milan by introducing Eastern melodies into the hymns he wrote. Because of his influence, hymn-singing became an important part of Western liturgy.While Ambrose was a fierce opponent of heresy, as seen in his stand against Arianism, his opposition to religious issues didn't morph over into how people were treated civilly. Arians & pagans were still citizens who possessed rights as citizens. As human beings, they were still objects of God's love and desire for salvation. Respect needed to be shown them, even while opposing them theologically. That was a rare perspective for the time; inordinately rare. And it earned Ambrose tremendous respect from all quarters.While the people of Ambrose's time credited his writings and worship innovations as the most notable feature of his life & ministry, history attributes two other momentous events to his impact on the Church.First is in the realm of church-state relations. Second would be his influence on a young pagan who visited his church and became a follower of Jesus. His name was Augustine.Let's consider first, Ambrose's impact of church-state relations.His relationship with Emperor Theodosius, who finalized a long-running political trend of folding the Roman Empire into a Christian state, was a dramatic shift from the first 200 years of Church history that saw an on & off persecution.An example of the change from paganism to Christianity occurred in 390, when local officials imprisoned a charioteer of Thessalonica for homosexual behavior. The public rebelled against this action because the charioteer was a major celebrity, a sports hero & crowd favorite. Riots broke out w/a loud cry for his release. Not a few of the rioters and innocent bystanders were killed, including the governor. The mob took over the prison and the prisoner was freed.The Emperor was enraged by the melee. He was determined to exact revenge against the people of Thessalonica for such a flagrant disregard for the law and the disrespect he felt at having his hand-picked governor so casually relieved of life. So he slyly announced another chariot race. When the crowds showed up & settled into their seats, the gates were locked, the people inside—massacred. Over the following 3 hours, 7,000 were put to the sword.Ambrose was stunned! Once he recovered from his shock, he sat down and composed a letter to Theodosius, demanding the Emperor repent. As chief ruler, Theodosius wasn't inclined to follow some far-off bishop's counsel. Ambrose was merely a clergyman in Milan, Italy; Theodosius was the mighty ruler headquartered in the East at Constantinople.But Theodosius didn't stay in Constantinople. Wouldn't you just know it? Imperial business took him, guess where! Yep – Milan. As a Christian Emperor of a now Christian Empire, Theodosius went to church, and expected Pastor Ambrose to serve him Communion. Ambrose refused! His letter calling for the Emperor to repent had gone unheeded. Who did this guy think he was that he could just waltz into the church in Milan and line up for Communion as though everything was hunky-dory? The nerve of the guy!Ambrose repeated the condition: Unless the emperor repent of his gross abuse of power, & do so publicly, no Communion would pass his lips! Either Ambrose was gutsy or had a death wish! An Emperor who'd ordered the execution of thousands probably wouldn't think much of offing a lone, obstinate bishop. But Ambrose demonstrated he would not compromise his calling to save his life and Theodosius realized his best course was to do as instructed and repented by setting aside his royal garments & emblems of State, wearing humble sackcloth, & a face streaked w/ash as a sign of penance.Ambrose never intended this humiliation of the Emperor as a way to elevate himself or other church officials. It was simply something he believed Theodosius, who claimed to be a Christian, was required to do as a sign of sincere contrition before God. Ambrose would have been appalled at how later bishops used their office & power to administer the sacraments as a way to manipulate civil rulers, and by doing so, use civil power to accomplish church ends. Or we should say, their own ends hidden ‘neath a thin veneer of religion.Though Ambrose could not have foreseen the consequences of this episode with the Emperor, it introduced the medieval concept of a Christian emperor as the compliant “son of the church serving under orders from Christ.” Over the next millennium, secular and religious rulers vied with each other over who was sovereign in the different spheres of life.Though we might expect Emperor Theodosius to leave Milan with an axe to grind as it related to Ambrose, legend says he was so impressed with Ambrose's courage & quality of Christian witness he said, “I know no bishop worthy of the name, except Ambrose” When the emperor died, it was in Ambrose's arms. Of Theodosius' death Ambrose said, “I confess I loved him, and felt the sorrow of his death in the abyss of my heart.”Two years later, Ambrose himself fell ill. The worries the entire Italian countryside felt were expressed by one writer as; “When Ambrose dies, we shall see the ruin of Italy.” On the Eve of Easter in 397, Milan's beloved bishop breathed his last.Only one name is more associated with Ambrose than Theodosius'. And that leads us to the second impact of his ministry, the one historians reckon as most important. That one name is the student who outshined this teacher: Augustine. But that's the subject of our next few episode . . .

We're going to go forward in time from our last episode nearly a millennium. Last time we talked about the Gnostics and the serious challenge they presented the Early Church. The dualism that lay at the heart of Gnosticism continued to rear its hoary head in the centuries that followed. It was part & parcel of the Zoroastrianism & Manichaeanism rooted in Persia and was the official faith of the Sassanid Empire. Dualistic ideas were so popular, they managed to infiltrate many Christians communities in both the eastern and western halves of the Roman Empire. When Rome fell and Byzantium carried on in its place, the influence of dualism lingered. Church leaders were able to hold it at bay by using the work of earlier fathers who fought Gnosticism. But as those works fell out of use, dualism resurged.This dualism came in many forms, as we'll see. But the basic idea was that the forces of Light, Good, and God are on one side with the powers of darkness, evil and the devil on the other. And if your response to that is, “Wait! Isn't that what the Bible says?” There's another important component we need to insert: In dualism, the two sides are equal in relevance and power. They are co-eternal, and going way back to the beginning, they were originally joined into a whole that somehow got split and led to the creation of the physical universe.If all this sounds vaguely like the plot for an upcoming Superhero movie, it's all just a coincidence. à Or is it?The expression most forms of dualism take is to make the immaterial spiritual realm the side of light, good, and God while the physical realm of space & matter are the domain of darkness & corruption. So, as with the Gnostics, salvation in dualism get's hijacked from being redemption from the Fall to an awareness of your innate inner goodness.But I'm getting ahead of myself.Dualism appears to have experienced a resurgence in both the East & West at about the same time in the 12th C, though the two streams probably weren't connected. They became so popular, a couple Crusades and the Inquisition were used to stop them.The first we'll deal with was called Bogomilism and arose in the region of Bulgaria.Bogomil is Slavonic for “beloved of God.” That was the name of the man who began the movement associated with him. He was a priest who lived at the in Bulgaria during the mid-10th C. Bogomil was influenced by a group known as the Paulicians, sometimes called the Paulicans. These were a moderately heretical group that was reconciled to the Roman Church in the 17th C and exists to this day as an affiliated group with Catholicism, though with their own rites.There's debate about the origin of the title “Paulician.” They said they took their name from the Apostle Paul, claiming that their ideas were derived from the famous Apostle. Others say they drew their name from Paul of Samosata, a 3rd C heretical bishop of Antioch. Since so many of the Paulician beliefs ride tandem with the errors of Paul of Samosata, it's safe to conclude that's where they got their title. They flourished from the mid-7th to mid-9th Cs in Armenia.Armenia has the distinction of being the first officially Christian nation. About AD 300, King Tiradates III became a believer and turned his court into a Christian concern. During the 4th C, the Armenian church was under the influence of the ultra-orthodox Cappadocian Fathers. But after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Armenia sided with the Egyptian monophysites. Not long after the orthodox Faith was brought to Armenia, disciples of Paul of Samosata arrived and began spreading his adoptionistic ideas. Adoptionism was the belief that Jesus wasn't the eternal Son of God. Adoptionists said God adopted a man named Jesus at His baptism to BE the Messiah.  He was a kind of first round draft-pick.Armenia's location next to Persia saw some of the dualistic ideas of Manichaeanism also infiltrate the church there. But 300 yrs would go by before the Paulicians would emerge as an identifiable group. When they did, the Byzantine Emperors alternately ignored and persecuted them. When Theodora became Empress, she had the Paulicians forcibly relocated to Thrace in the mid-9th C, hoping they'd act as a bulwark against the hostile Bulgars. That's where they came into contact with the group that would later be called Bogomils.The Bulgars were a Turkish people recently Christianized by missionaries. Their ruler, Boris, asked the Franks to send missionaries to help his people with their new Faith. He didn't appeal to the much closer Constantinople because he was already wary of their influence and authority. But that was not about to stop the Byzantines from asserting their control over a region they deemed within the sphere of their hegemony. Constantinople not only sent missionaries to Bulgaria, they sent an army. Boris had to capitulate and was baptized in the Eastern Orthodox Faith, taking the new name and title Czar Peter.Byzantium then had a slew of weak & mostly worthless emperors. They suffered a major defeat at the hands of Muslim forces at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. A decade later, relief arrived in the form of a new & vital leader, Alexius I Comnenus. Comnenus was more than a talented and decisive ruler. He was also an astute lay theologian. He formed the Paulicians in his hinterlands into an allied force & led them into a campaign against the Normans who'd been seizing territory in the West. But as they entered battle, the Paulicians proved false and deserted. Comnenus' remaining army managed to pull off a victory. When the triumphant Emperor returned to Constantinople he imprisoned the Paulicians leaders. The remaining Paulician population, bereft of leadership, became an easy target for round two of Comnenus' strategy in dealing with them. He sent in orthodox missionaries and priests who evangelized them into Orthodoxy. The imprisoned Paulician leaders were also evangelized by orthodox apologists, with many of them converting. Even the Emperor engaged in this proselytizing work. Their two chief leaders, Cusinus & Phulus, remained firm in their devotion to their heretical tenets and so were kept in prison in comfortable accommodations until they died.It was this phase of Paulician history that saw the movement shed its more aberrant ideas in favor of an orthodoxy that allowed it later to become affiliated with Roman Catholicism. That it chose to merge with that branch of the Faith rather than the nearer Greek Orthodoxy of Byzantium stands as a reminder of the tension and animosity between the Paulicians and the Eastern Church.And that leads us to another heretical movement: The Bogomils.In the last 2 yrs of his reign, Emperor Alexius Comnenus was made aware of another religious movement that had sprung up in the Western reaches of his realm but had grabbed disciples right in Constantinople. By the time he was made aware of it, it had already established an underground church with its own bishop. Alexius pretended to be interested & invited that Bishop, named Basil, to the palace to share what this new movement called Bogomilism believed. Scribes hidden behind drapes recorded every word. As Basil listed off Bogomilian doctrine, he supposed he was speaking to a theologically un-informed civil ruler. He didn't realize he was ticking off heretical ideas to an astute theologian who was mentally dismantling each and every idea. So when Basil was done, it was Alexius' turn. He proceeded to list Basil's erroneous doctrines, then he called on the bishop to renounce them. Basil refused and was imprisoned. Alexius then visited Basil in his cell several times in the following week, reasoning with & urging him to be converted to an orthodox faith. Basil refused, and was condemned to be burnt at the stake for heresy.While such executions would became common in the West, they were a rare occurrence in the Eastern Empire.Sorting out the beliefs of Bogomilism is a challenge because it was a faith in flux that evolved over time. But from Alexius's diligent secretaries, here's what their Bishop Basil said they believed . . . And get ready, because it's a wild ride . . .Bogomils said A singular supreme God who was utterly spiritual, had 2 sons: the elder was Satanael, while the younger was Jesus. The elder son rebelled and was banished from heaven. In exile, he created the material world and humanity. But he was unable to give the first man, Adam, life & asked God for help. Actually, he tricked God into it, saying the man would be a diligent servant to God. So God complied and man became a living being. But the man was a divided identity. Having a spirit, his potential was to be a servant to God, but possessing a body, he in fact became a servant and ally of Satanael. After fashioning Adam, Bogomils said Satanael created Eve, had sexual relations with her, the product of said union being Cain. Then, tempted by Eve, Adam begat Abel. Later in history, the human race produced a person who plead with God to save them. God answered by sending His Son, the Logos, who entered a Virgin's ear, took flesh from her, and emerged with a body from the same era. Although, how He did that is difficult to fathom. The Son, known as “Jesus” grew to maturity, only appeared to die, descended into hell, where he defeated and bound Satanael, revoking his suffice –el and turning him into the more familiar Satan.And this is where it gets really confusing, in case you aren't already.Even though The Son took flesh from somewhere inside Mary's head, He didn't really have a body; He only appeared to, which for those of you who are keeping track, is the ancient heresy known as à Docetism. Hey, seriously, if you said that to yourself before I said it, give yourself a pat on the back and go buy yourself your favorite hot or cold drink.Here we see the inevitable internal contradiction that comes with dualism. How can Satanael, who ever & always remained a spirit BE evil, when Jesus the Son, Who took on a body, BE the Holy One Who affects salvation? “Well,” the Bogomilian replies, “Jesus didn't really have a body; He only SEEMED to.” Okay, even if we give them that, we're still faced with the fact that the Holy One, the Good Son, then play-acted at having something that was corrupt and evil, while the Evil One & Bad Son remained a pure spirit.Listen: If my 15 yr old son tells me he wants to be a missionary, and gives every indication that he has a solid and mature walk with God, but one day I find him sitting on the couch in the living room reading a pornographic magazine, we're going to have a chat. But let's say once I sit down and start in on him, he smiles and turns the magazine toward me to reveal that it is in fact nothing but the cover, I'm going to be immensely relieved. But the question remains: WHY would he even have the cover? What's going on in him that would move him to the appearance of evil – which of course God's Word waves His people off from.The dualism of Docetism, and it's later manifestation in Bogomilism, fails epically right there. How could Jesus as the Son and Word of God even APPEAR to have a body, if a body was unalterably corrupt & evil?Well, Jesus prevailed over Satan, whose realm of authority and power was then confined to Earth. Which of course according to the usual dualistic machinations was a realm of evil because it's made of matter. But on that evil Earth dwell those dualistic creatures called man who are both body & spirit. So God sent the Holy Spirit to indwell his faithful ones, AKA Bogomils.The Bogomillian End of the Age has the Holy Spirit ascending back to Heaven & together with Jesus the Word, both are reabsorbed into the Father, or one true God.Bogomilism rejects such orthodox doctrines such as the Trinity. It regards the Cross as repugnant and has nothing to do with either baptism or communion, since such things require contact with physical matter. But Bogomilians often lived highly-disciplined lives of an apparently laudable morality that proved attractive to Orthodox believers who weren't so impressed with the casual indifference some Orthodox leaders displayed. The same happens today. Some of the cults show a fastidious diligence in pursuing the rigors of their faith, in the mistaken hope of earning points with God and maybe getting into heaven. That religiosity can appear attractive to nominal believers who are used to seeing professing Christians failing to follow through on a consistent lifestyle of devotion to Christ. So converts were made from the ranks of orthodoxy into the Bogomilian camp, not out of doctrinal persuasion by but by the practical theology of daily life. Like the Gnostics before them, Bogomilians divided their followers into ordinary, everyday believers and the choice elect. These elect had to face special trials  and challenges. If they proved their worthiness, they were given a secret and complex initiation that ushered them into the exalted ranks of the Bogomilian Elite. They were regarded as being equal to such lofty figures as the Virgin Mary and each were even called Theotokos = Mother of God. They only prayed one rote prayer; The Our Fa­ther, which they repeated several times a day.After the conquest by Western armies of Constanti­nople in 1204, the Byzantine government's check on the spread of Bogomilism was nearly shattered. The movement grew until the Balkans where they were centered was conquered by the Turks in the 15th C.Like the Monophysites some 8 Cs before them, the Bogomils were receptive to conversion to Islam when it took hold of their homeland.As we wrap up this episode, let's consider how and why Bogomilism presented a challenge to orthodoxy.1) Probably most telling for the average Christians was the fact that Bogomilians practiced their faith more zealously than the many of the Orthodox.2) While Christianity seemed to struggle and to some, even stumble when it came to answering the age-old dilemma of evil, Bogomilism seemed to provide an answer.3) Because too few Christians were equipped to dispatch the ideas of the Bogomils, authorities resorted to force, turning what had been a Church of the Martyrs into the Martyr-makers.Those 3 points will shape our next episode, because they prove to be compelling issues in our examination of Heresy & Heretics.

Buckle up for this episode, because it's a rocky ride. We've come to the Third Ecumenical Church Council. And for those of you who remember this one from Season 1, you know where in for troubled times. We're looking at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the battle between Cyril & Nestorius.The First Council at Nicaea in 325 dealt with the challenge of Arianism and it's goofy ideas about the deity of Christ. It produced the Nicaean Creed, which became the standard statement of orthodox Christianity. But Arians managed to finagle things around and by a clever game of semantics, managed to hang on to their core ideas while appearing orthodox. The Nicaean Creed's less than comprehensive statement on the deity of the Holy Spirit became their undoing, when they claimed the Spirit was merely a force or influence, not a divine person co-equal and eternal with the Father and Son. So another council was called in 381 at the Eastern Capital of Constantinople, where Arianism was finally outed as heretical, and the Nicaean Creed was filled out to embrace a more comprehensive orthodox statement on the Holy Spirit.It was the language devised by the Cappadocian Fathers that was finally used to settle in on the Doctrine of the Trinity, that God is One in Essence, but Three in Person.Once the doctrine of the Trinity was conveyed in language all could agree on, the next issue up for theological consideration was how to understand Jesus. It's clear Scripture says He's both God and Man. How then were people to understand that? Was He two persons or one? Did He have 2 natures or one? And if he had two natures, who did those natures related tone one another since God and man are very different? THAT's the subject that was debated 50 years after Constantinople at the Council of Ephesus.There were actually 3 councils held at Ephesus. The first in 431, a second 18 yrs later, and a third in 475. But it's only the first in 431 that's reckoned as being one of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.As we get in to this, it's good to know that the 23 yrs from 428 to 451 when the Council of Chalcedon met, is probably THE most crucial period in the development of Christology, that branch of theology dealing with the nature of Christ.Nicaea had made it clear the orthodox position was that Jesus is both God and Man. It said: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father . . . For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.”The question next up after hammering out how to describe the Trinity was, “How do we describe the God-Man, Jesus? We just said He's God & Man. How do those two natures interact and relate to each on IN Jesus? How much of Jesus is God and how much is Man? Does He have one mind or two? One Soul or Two? One Will or Two? Since God is bigger than man, maybe His divinity overwhelms the humanity. Or, maybe Jesus sublimated His deity and lived solely as a human?To many modern believers, all this may seem abstract & too ethereal to worry about. That mentality can only exist precisely because theologians and church leaders of the 5th C wrestled with and settled the issue for us. Most Christians don't concern themselves with such lofty ponderings because they assume smart guys figured all that out long ago and their formulas have ensured the success of the Church's Mission ever since. So, no need to go back and worry about all that. The smart guys have it covered. Keep in mind, there was a time when that formula didn't exist! And the smart guys hadn't nailed down exactly how to understand, then SAY what they understood. One of their most difficult tasks was finding exactly the right words by which to articulate what they'd come to understand Scripture said.Today we say that Jesus is Fully God & Fully Man. He is one person with two natures. These natures, while different, aren't in competition with each other. Nor are they mixed into some kind of hybrid that merges the human & divine. Before the Incarnation, Jesus had one nature as God. But Jesus took on humanity in the Incarnation and as Phil 2 says, emptied Himself of His divine prerogatives. Exactly what that means, theologians and Bible teachers have wrestled with for hundreds of years. But from the way Paul describes it, we get the sense Jesus, while fully God, chose to live primarily out of His nature and identity as a man, so that being found in a mortal body, He fully experienced the reality of humanity and was in all points, tempted just as we are, yet without sin. So, He was no less God in the Incarnation, but He chose not to live His life on Earth from that nature. Then, after His ascension back to Heaven, He kept his humanity, so that today, a God-Man sits at the right hand of the Father in glory forevermore.BUT – and here's the point, we can state that with great confidence today only because there were people in the 4th and 5th Cs who labored over it for decades, to first understand it, then to put it in just the right words that they could state it without misrepresenting Who & What Jesus is. The Council of Ephesus was crucial, a major milestone in that development.The Council was the result of a clash between two schools of thought on how best to understand the dual nature of Jesus. Both sides believed Jesus was one person with two natures, but they differed widely in how they understood and stated it.One side so strongly emphasized his dual nature, it at times sounded as though they advocated, not just two natures, but two persons. The other side so emphasized Christ's unity it seemed at times to say that while technically He had two natures, the divine so overshadowed the human, it reigned supreme and relegated the human nature of Jesus to a kind of spiritual coma.Sadly, The Council at Ephesus was such a mess and so fraught with turmoil that while it took pains to crush the idea Jesus was two natures in two persons, it never really made clear how He was two natures in one person. That's why the Council of Chalcedon was called just 20 years later. The Church realized Ephesus needed to be followed up by a Council that would tighten up its Christology and to wash the bitter taste from its mouth due to the wrangling at Ephesus.JD Kelly writes of the Council of Ephesus, “At no phase in the evolution of the Church's theology have the fundamental issues been so mixed up with the clash of politics and personalities.”The story of the Council of Ephesus revolves around two individuals; Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople.But before we can get to them we need to back up and talk a bit about church politics.Wait; what? Church politics? Is there such a thing? Sadly, yes, all too often. It's the result of involving people. I know there are those of you who subscribe to CS who've been shocked and appalled by some of the sad chapters in church history. I know because you've written in to share your unease.You see, we have this idea of the Early Church that it was all love and light. You know those early chs of the Book of Acts; they loved each other and had all things in common; Kumbaya!Don't forget the other passages earlier in the Gospels; when the disciples argued among each other over who was the greatest. Jesus had to set them straight on that account more than once. Then in Acts, we read even the great Paul had a falling out with Barnabas over how to conduct one of their missionary journeys. Acts 15 records the real first Church Council in Jerusalem when church leaders argued over what to do with all the new Gentile converts. And even with them deciding what to do, there were people who didn't like the decision & continued to do their own thing, causing Paul a massive headache later.No – regrettably, there's always been a measure of politics in the Church. It may be at the Council of Ephesus the reality of that became most obvious for the first time.As we saw in Season 1, in the first Cs of the Church, just a few churches rose to exert a huge influence over the regions around them. Jerusalem was of course considered HQ's at first. Antioch in Syria became a regional center, as well as the Church in Alexandria. It's understandable why they would. Alexandria was the Romans Empire's 2nd largest city while Antioch was the 3rd, and by far the largest city of that entire area. Alexandria wasn't just a large city; it had a long reputation going back many generations as a center of scholarship, bolstered by its world famous library. To these 3 centers, Rome was quickly added as a fourth. Later, when the official capital of the Empire was shifted East by Constantine to Constantinople, that city's church became important due to its proximity to the Imperial Court. Constantinople's rise coincided with Jerusalem's decline. There just wasn't anyone left in the leadership of Jerusalem's Church that was recognized as carrying the mantle of the Apostles. That mantle now rested in Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople. Two power axis developed; one btwn the Old Capital of Rome & New Rome, the new capital in Constantine's City; then btwn Antioch & Alexandria. The thing is, Rome was way off in the West and selected its own leaders without meddling on the part of the others churches. In the East, it was a much different matter. The Church of Constantinople simply didn't have the theological legacy and heritage to develop mature leaders of its own. So it picked its Patriarchs alternately from the older works at Antioch & Alexandria. And of course, whichever church had supplied the Capital church with its leader had bragging rights and the ear of the Emperor as well as his court. The problem was, while Alexandria was supposed to have superior academics & a more refined theological mojo, Constantinople often selected as its Patriarch someone from Antioch. And as far as the Alexandrian church was concerned, “That dog just ain't gonna' hunt.”Have you ever heard the term “Byzantine?” I'm not referring to an era of history. I mean the adjective that speaks of something hopelessly tangled and complex. It's often used to describe a bureaucracy that's so elaborate and convoluted, negotiating it is a herculean task. That phrase comes from the royal court at Constantinople, the City whose original name was Byzantium. While the Emperor lived in ostentatious style in his palace, he surrounded himself with layers of bureaucracy to make the Sun King Louis XIV's Versailles  look like a One Act Play. What that meant to the church in Constantinople was that there were factions at court always vying with each other for power. Since Church & State were hand in hand, the Patriarchate of the Church was a political football because whoever was the leader of the Church had massive influence on imperial policy. History tells us there were times when the Emperor wanted one Patriarch while factions of His court, even members of his family, wanted another.All of that plays into the Council of Ephesus.And like a serial episode of a TV story that ends each week in a cliffhanger, we're ending this episode here, a step away from what ends up being bloody debate and brawl that was the Council of Ephesus.

This is part 5 of our series on the Creeds in which we'll be taking a look at the First Council of Constantinople.In Part 3 we looked at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. While the Church had a lot to deal with in the decades that followed, they didn't convene another Council for almost 60 yrs.And before we dive into that Second Council, we need to back up a bit because it can get confusing keeping track of all these councils and how they relate to the Creeds.Both the Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox Church recognize what's called the First Seven Ecumenical Councils. Don't be confused by that word “Ecumenical.” Today, the word carries the connotation of bringing together disparate groups. But as it's applied to these Councils, Ecumenical meant that church leaders from every region and branch of the Faith were invited and a part. There were other councils that took place after the 7th, but it's only these both the Western & Eastern churches recognize as legit.It ought to be noted that the Oriental Orthodox church only accepts the first three councils, while the Nestorian Church of the East only accepts the first two.And to complicate matters just a bit more, there was a council between the 6th & 7th called the Quinisext Council that the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts as legit while Rome does not. The reason this Council isn't given an ordinal number like the rest is because it didn't deal with any issues of theology. It dealt with more liturgical & organizational issues not resolved at the 6th Council, so  was considered to be an extension of that Council.While Rome ignores the Quinisext Council & the Eastern Orthodox Church only recognizes the first 7, Rome embraces later councils the Eastern Church does not.Alright, with that out of the way, let's turn now to the Second Ecumenical Council, the First Council of Constantinople.As you'll remember from a couple episodes ago, the Council of Nicaea in 325 addressed the challenge of Arianism and the identity of Christ. They settled on the wording for their Creed, that Jesus was “very God of very God.” Contrary to what the heretic Arius taught, Christ wasn't a created being God then used to create everything.Certain modern authors & New Age spiritualists would have us believe the Emperor Constantine manipulated the Council to this end for some sinister political ambition, then by royal fiat waved his scepter and Christianized the empire, enforcing his decree with the sword and made Arian believers conform. But as we saw, that's just not the case; not by a mile! The fact is, the problem of Arianism remained, with over the next decades Roman emperors favoring a form of Arianism. It was they who persecuted Nicaean Christians, not the other way around.When 80 priests petitioned Emperor Valens, a rabid Arian supporter,  to reconsider an appointment he'd made that was highly a controversial, he rounded them up, put them in a boat, launched it from the shore and then had burning arrows shot into it so that they all burned to death.Yeah, so that whole “Constantine MADE Christianity the only acceptable religion” line so many love to repeat, just doesn't hold up.By 381, while orthodox Nicaean Christians didn't face the same kind of persecution they had under some of the emperors before Constantine, they were still caught up in a struggle for their faith; this time with people who claimed their Arianism was the truth Faith; “and we've got the Emperor on our side.”We might think the Nicaean Council & Creed dealt the death blow to Arianism. It didn't because Arians finagled a way to conform to Nicaea without giving away their key ideas.Arius had taught that Christ was a created being.  Some Arians, called Semi-Arians, claimed Christ was like God. They appealed to some old language the church had used to answer the objections of those who said there was no difference between the Father & the Son. That was answered by saying Christ is “like God,” meaning the Father. He's LIKE the Father, but Isn't the Father; they're two persons.That language, which had been accepted by earlier Christians, was picked up by the Semi-Arians, who'd become the new standard bearers for Arianism. They said, “Look, we're only saying what earlier Christians said.” You can't condemn us without condemning them too.” But of course, they applied the phrase “like God” to a completely different application. They weren't saying the same thing as those earlier Christians.At first, the orthodox Nicaean Church Leaders showed the Semi-Arians grace & accepted them as orthodox believers. But it didn't take long before the true colors of the Arians came out. What outed them was their position on the Holy Spirit.Nicaea hadn't said much about the Spirit; only that the Orthodox believe in Him as a member of the Trinity. But the super precise verbiage that had marked their identification of Christ was absent.  Arians on the other hand, clinging tenaciously to a single person as God, said the Holy Spirit was merely an impersonal force & spiritual influence. The orthodox understood the Biblical teaching that the Holy Spirit is a person, co-equal with the Father & Son. They regarded the Holy Spirit as Third Person of the Trinity. So, another council was called after the death of the Arian Emperor Valens to settle the issue.To be fair, let's give the Arians some ground to stand on to present their case for why the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as a force rather than divine person.Joel 2:28, quoted in Acts 2 has God promising: “I will pour out my Spirit on all people.” How can a person be poured out?In Psa 51, David asked God to not take the Holy Spirit from him. That seems to say the Spirit is something that God uses rather than a person who acts. In the NT, the Spirit sometimes seems to be described as a state of being; like when the disciples are filled with the Spirit & the Spirit can be quenched. The Arians maintained that if such passages referred to a person, it was unlike any other person we've encountered, to the point where what it means to BE a person has to be altered.The Arians then looked outside of Scripture to the way the Holy Spirit was spoken of in some Church traditions and rituals. Often times the wording of such applied better to a power or force than a person.For example, a 3rd C liturgy spoke of the church as a “place where the Spirit abounds.” That kind of language was just never used for the Father & Son.Another reason the Arians managed to get away with all this for a while is because, to be frank, the Church didn't possess a full-orbed, well rounded and thoroughly Biblical theology for the Holy Spirit yet. It was this controversy that helped develop it.That came when orthodox Church leaders went to Scripture to see what it taught about the Holy Spirit. While there were verses that could be understood as referring to an impersonal Spirit, Gregory of Nazianzus found many more passages cast the Spirit is Personal terms that could NOT be connected to a mere force or power. A greater thing can do a lesser, but a lesser thing cannot do a greater. A person can do something a mere power or force can do. But a mere force cannot do what only a person can.So the Bible said the Holy Spirit can be grieved, lied to, can speak, consoles.And if the Arians wanted to appeal to long-standing church rituals as back up for their position, what about the fact that since the beginning, new believers were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?During the discussion of the First Council of Constantinople, orthodox Church Leaders were concerned the Arian doctrine of the Spirit undercut God's promise to personally dwell in and with His people. He didn't send a force, He came Himself in the Person of the Spirit. The Christian Life isn't merely one that's given some extra juice by the impartation at baptism of  a dose of spiritual energy, as Arians claimed. The Christian Life is nothing less than, as Paul said in Gal 2:20, Christ himself living IN and through us by the person and presence of the Holy Spirit.When it was clear to Church Leaders Arianism had resurged and threatened to once again co-opt the faith, they convened a Council in early 381. They asked Emperor Theodosius to send out official invitations, summoning church leaders. Though Western Church leader did NOT attend the Council, they accepted it's conclusions as though they'd been present and participated in ratifying its conclusions. The Emperor recused himself from any part in the Council and left it to the bishops to settle the matter among themselves.Meletius of Antioch was selected to preside at the Council, but died shortly after it was called. Gregory of Nazianzus, the recently installed Patriarch of Constantinople took his place. Gregory, as one of the Cappadocian Fathers, was a scholar's scholar. He was also a committed Orthodox Nicaean. Because Arianism prevailed in the East for decades before Theodosius's rule, the Patriarchate of Constantinople had been filled by Arians. Gregory was something utterly new.He was also exhausted by the time the Council began. Finding himself suddenly thrust in the role of presiding over it, he regarded the political squabbling over appointing a replacement for Meletius at the important bishopric of Antioch too much & resigned. Theodosius was loath to grant him his request, but was persuaded by Gregory's impassioned appeal and released him. The Council was then lead by Nectarius, an unbaptized civil official.Unlike some later Councils, this one was mostly free of political pressure and focused on theological issues, both sides being well represented. The decision of the Council favored the position of the orthodox which had been carefully crafted by Gregory of Nazianzus. Instead of coming up with a new Creed, the Nicene Creed was clarified and expanded to say, “I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.”Now: Put a little mental footnote in here because we'll come back to this in a later episode. The Western church added a few more words to this later. That addition was never accepted by the East and became a major point of contention that goes on to this day.This Constantinoplian-revised Nicaean Creed left not a millimeter's worth of wiggle room for Arians. The Holy Spirit was now clearly identified as a divine person who fulfills a role that God reserved for Himself. He's the Giver of Life, both physical and spiritual, intimately connected with the Father and not a separate deity, who deserves to be the object of worship, and who's been active in the process of salvation throughout history.This Council put the last theological nail in Arianism's coffin. It was now officially banned.Updating the Nicaean Creed wasn't all the Council did. They also condemned as heresy the doctrine of Apollinarianism, which denied the dual nature of Christ, attributing only a divine nature to Him.The Council also granted the Imperial Church at Constantinople an honorary primacy over all other churches, except Rome. Coming as the 3rd Canon, or ruling of the Council it reads, “The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.”Remember, Western bishops weren't present at Constantinople. This canon was a first step in the rising importance of the just 50 year old new capital. What's remarkable is that by elevating Constantinople, it demoted older churches that figured far more centrally in the early history of Christianity. What about Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria? In fact, that was the push back that Rome gave. While the Roman Church would go on later and use this canon to assert its supremacy over other churches, they protested the diminished statues of the other traditional church centers.

One of the most interesting moments in Church History comes in the conflict over the use of images in Worship. It's born of the reality that Christianity has its roots in Judaism but had vast appeal among pagan Gentiles.During the time of the Kings of Judah & Israel, Israel struggled with its call by God to abstain from idolatry. Indeed, a premier hallmark of religious revival under what are called the “Good Kings” was often marked by a systematic dismantling of idolatry across the land. King Josiah's campaign to eradicate idolatry and pagan high places after the reign of his grandfather Manasseh is a prime example. But ultimately, these revivals weren't able to stem the tide. Idols and high places went up as fast as they were torn down. So as warned by God, both Israel and Judah were carried away into captivity by foreign conquerors.Carted off to Babylon, Idolatry Central, the Jewish exiles came to loath idols as well as to lament the tendency of their souls to turn to them. Babylon seemed to be a kind of aversion therapy for the Jews. “You want idols? Okay, have them aplenty!” And there in Babylon Israel was seemingly cured of idolatry; they never struggled with it again. On the contrary, they returned from exile with an almost allergic reaction to anything that even hinted at idolatry. So much so, that Jews were regarded as strange by their pagan neighbors, not just that they believed in a single, All-Powerful God, but that they utterly refused to give Him any kind of imagery & physical representation. Some pagans wondered if in fact Jews were atheists, because of their fierce reduction of the gods & goddesses to a single deity Who refused to be represented by an image.And of course, the earliest Christians were Jews who understood their Faith, not as something new, but as something very old that had simply been moved along by God into the fulfillment He'd always pointed it toward. Jesus was THE fulfillment of what God had promised the First Jew = Abraham, all the way back at the beginning in Genesis 12. It was through Jesus all nations would be blessed. Fulfilling God's promise to Adam and Eve in Gen, 3, Jesus was the seed of the woman Who crushed satan's head and effected humanity's salvation.This Gospel quickly jumped the boundary between Jews & Gentiles. It turns out the Greco-Roman world of the 1st C was ripe for some much needed Good News. People were weary of the thread-bare of paganism with its pantheon of fickle gods and bitter goddesses. They were burned-out on the fatalism of Greek philosophy that locked them in a hopeless cage. The Gospel offered an entirely different way of looking at the world and life. It re-wrote peoples' idea of God and offered an intimate & eternal love relationship with Him that infused them with boundless hope and joy. It filled life with meaning and purpose.Once pagan Gentiles began coming to Faith in ever larger numbers, the Church had oit figure out what ot do with them. The NT book of Acts records an account of the Jewish leadership of the Church in Jerusalem wrestling with how to cope with all the Gentile converts. They didn't deal with the issue of images then, but they'd have to later. Because it was inevitable that image-hating Jews & image-loving Gentiles would come to a loggerheads over the role of images in the practice of the faith.Early on, Gentile converts to the Faith deferred to their elder Jewish brothers to define for them what to believe and how to conduct themselves. This included the use of images in worship. Pagans regarded opposition to the wor­ship of images as irreligious, and so the rumor began that Christians were atheists. But as more and more Gentiles came into the Faith and took on leadership of the Church, some of the old strictures fell by the wayside. From the 3rd to 7th Cs, a change in attitude toward imagery took place. In the 3rd C, the theologian Origen slammed the use of images worship. But by the 7th C images had become an indispensable part of religious life. The reasons and chronology for this sea change regarding images are obscured by a glaring lack of record. Like the transition form adult to infant baptism, it's something that took place without much controversy or debate, at least that we have record of.We don't became aware of the importance of images in worship until there was a major controversy over them. It's almost as though a significant portion of the Church woke up one day & said, “Wait. Where'd all these images come from and why are people worshipping them? This has to stop.” Now of course, that's way overstating it; but as far as the record in concerned, that's the way it appears. We don't really see much about the ubiquity of images in worship until there was a movement to banish them in the 8th & 9th Cs in what's called the Iconoclast Controversy. This controversy between image-haters and lovers stirred up fierce passion and is well documented. It concluded with the establishing of Eastern Orthodoxy as it's practiced today, where images in the form of icons play a central role in worship.With the arrival of Islam in the 7th C, the face of the Mediterranean World changed dramatically. In short order, vast regions that had looked to the Cross, now looked to the Crescent Moon. One time great centers of Christianity in Syria & Egypt became Muslim. But Islam's relentless march into Europe was stalled in 4 yr long siege of Constantinople and in Southern France by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732. Until the 8th C, though Rome was the sentimental capital of the Roman Empire, the Pope it's theological center, the far more populous East was the de-facto center of Christianity. With Islam's conquest of the Middle East and North Africa, Christianity's center shifted Westward into Europe, leaving Constantinople an increasingly isolated island in a Muslim Sea.Deprived of its once vaunted status and vast resources  supplied by the East, the Church in Constantinople went into decline. It was unable to answer the challenge of the now dominant Islam that proved to be an effective adversary to the moribund Faith the Church had fallen to. Islam was nothing like the mish-mash of frayed paganism Christianity had contended with in its early Cs. Islam regarded Christianity as degenerate and polytheistic in much the same way Chris­tians had considered paganism. Church leaders realized they needed to turn things around. A new generation of theologians and leaders emerged to take on the challenge.Leo III came to Constantinople's throne in 717 during the 2nd Muslim siege. He attributed the Arab presence and pressure on the City to Divine displeasure. The solution was a thorough round of repentance; a systematic purification of both Church & State.Leo established the Isaurian Dynasty after a 22 year period of near anarchy in Constantinople that saw 6 different emperors seize the throne. The Isurians ruled for the rest of the 8th C, repeatedly rescuing the Capital & what was left of the Christian East from the on-going menace of the Arabs and a new threat by pagan Bulgars. Even more thoroughly than Justinian the Great had, Leo reformed the Law Code, seeking to harmonize it with the Christian Faith.When Leo III came to the throne in 717, the Muslims launched a major campaign to take Constantinople. In Mid-Summer, an Arab army laid siege round the walls on the land side. An Arab fleet arrived a month later to seal off the flow of supplies by water.  But the Arab Navy was hammered by strong storms and Imperial cutters using a new weapon called Greek fire. Dysentery, the perennial enemy of siege-forces, as well as other sickness, forced the Arabs to withdraw the next Summer. While the army was able to march away, nearly the entire Arab fleet was sunk by a fierce storm. The Christians attributed all this to divine intervention. With the people of Constantinople thankful toward God, Leo thought it a good time to launch a reform of the Church; especially in regard to something he assumed was obvious to all godly folk; the use of images in worship. Well, Leo couldn't have misread the attitudes of his public more.As I mentioned, the early church theologian Origen was vehemently opposed to the use of images in worship based on the clear reading of the Second Commandment. The little we know about the eventual use of images began with the inclusion of relics. In Acts 19:12 we read an interesting little story about how some of the Apostle Paul's clothing was used to effect healing. Based on that, a theology was derived that used the remains and possessions of saints as touchpoints of devotion. And of course, a relic needed to be kept somewhere, so shrines were built to house them. Then churches were built to house the shrines. Both church and shrine were decorated with images pointing to the relic and the saint the relic came from.But of course, the use of symbols and a simple iconography started very early in the Christian tradition. Who doesn't know today that the fish became a secret symbol Christians used to identify themselves to one another in the midst of persecution? The catacombs of Rome are rich with imagery depicting the faith of those interred there. The anchor, ship and a shepherd are all early images Christians used to mark their faith.A lingering reluctance from Judaism to cast Jesus in the form of a man saw Him instead depicted as the Lamb of God. It wasn't till the very end of the 7th C  that a Council in Constantinople decreed Christ should be portrayed in His human form RATHER than as a lamb or some other symbol.While both Jews & Gentile converts agreed God in His essence as deity ought not be represented by an image, Jesus Christ was God become man. Some argued that just as God became man, taking on human flesh so that people could see, hear, and touch Him, so it wasn't just permissible to make images representing Him, it was necessary! Spurring the production of these images were the “discovery” of manuscripts that supposedly gave a description of Jesus, enabling artists to create a portrait. Wild reports of these portraits' miraculous completion at the hands of an angel while the artist slept were heard. Such “not made by hands” images were then given created for effecting healings and miracles. When Constantinople was attacked by the Avars in 626, Patriarch Ser­gius had icons of Mary painted on the City's gates & walls for protection.At the dawn of the 8th C images were in wide use in the worship of the Eastern Church. The West used them primarily as instructional aids, but their coin as aids in worship was growing. But that's not to say their use hadn't been a point of debate, minor as it may have been. Beginning in the 5th C, there are a handful of protests by church leaders in both the East and West. In 599 Bishop Serenus of Marseille was appalled by the cult that had sprung up around the images in his diocese. He ordered their destruction. Pope Gregory I at the turn of the 7th C told him he was right to resisr the adoration of images but instead of destroying them ought to use them as aids in instruction the illiterate.Our first record of a government action against images was a decree, not by a Christian ruler, but by a Muslim. In 723, Caliph Yazid II ordered the destruction of all images, not just in churches but in houses as well. This ban was secured by a Palestinian Jew's promise such a command would yield long life to the Caliph.  A hollow promise since Yazid died the next year. That becomes a frequent charge made by Christians at that time; that Jews urged Muslim rulers to interfere with their worship as get back for the Cs Christians had troubled Jews.The Quran doesn't pro­hibit images per se; only when they're turned into objects of worship; AKA idols. The first caliphs decorated their palaces with mosaics in the Byzantine style and used Roman coins that often bore the effigy of an Emperor or Christ. It was during this time Arabs began to reject all images, not merely those used in worship.As far as Christian rulers, it was Leo III, following the successful breaking of the 2nd Siege by the Arabs, who installed reforms that moved to eradicate the use of images in worship. The Patriarch of Constantinople at the time was Germanus. He pushed back on the initial order but only tepidly. He really didn't want to take on the Emperor. Besides many of the local bishops of Asia Minor were all for a suppression of images. In 720 Leo ordered that all coins be minted bearing the head of his son and co-emperor Constantine V, rather than the traditional bust of Jesus. Later, a simple cross was used. Leo's zeal increased dramatically when a volcano erupted. He took that as a sign of God's anger at the lingering presence of idolatry.  Leo personally took a hand in demolishing a bronze image of Christ tradition had assigned to the agency of no one less than Constantine the Great.In 730, Leo replaced Patriarch Germanus, who'd been less than enthusiastic about Leo's war on religious imagery.  The Imperial Chancellor Anastasius was made the new Patriarch. In the mean­time, John of Damascus, the most eminent Orthodox theologian since the Cappadocian Fathers, penned a defense of images from his refuge in Arab-ruled Palestine.At this point in our story, we'll switch from referring to religious imagery as images to their more accurate term – icons. Since we talked about what an icon was in Season 1 we'll summarize by simply saying that an icon isn't considered by those who make them as being painted; they are written. Artists who produce them attend extensive training and there are set rules for their production. They are deemed to be a means by which God's grace flows to those who use them in worship. They aren't worshipped, per se, they're venerated as aids IN worship or aids TO worship.Those opposed to the use of icons are called iconoclasts; icon-breakers. Supporters of icons were called iconodules; icon-servants.The afore-mentioned Constantine V was named co-emperor by his father in 720. He reigned as sole Emperor, 741-75. He was even more opposed to icons than his father. A number of theological arguments were developed by iconoclasts, mostly relating to portrayals of Christ. They said that since His human nature can't be separated from His divine nature, any attempt to portray Him was an at­tempt to portray God, which is forbidden by the 2nd Commandment. A similar line of reasoning was used with icons of saints who'd been raised into the heaven.  Icons were labelled by the boogeyman of being Nestorian. The only safe image iconoclasts allowed was the Cross. Emperor Constantine himself wrote an iconoclast treatise which is lost to us but which was cited by others. He ar­gued that while Christ's human nature may indeed be represented by an image, his divine nature can't. So, all portrayals separate the natures and are therefore heretical. Constantine V's position is called by some historians, Christian Primitivism. He would have caused no problems in his thinking among Christians prior to the con­version of his namesake, Constantine the Great. He rejected the interces­sion of the saints, a practice unknown among early Christians.In 754 Constantine V held what he numbered as the Seventh Ecumenical Coun­cil—a distinction denied by both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Neither the pope nor the patriarchs of Alexandria, Anti­och, and Jerusalem, who by then were under Arab rule, attended. The patriarch­ate of Constantinople at the time was vacant. The Council lasted 7 months, and the record of its actions has been lost – all except its final decision regarding icons. The veneration of icons, that is, their use in worship was forbidden. So too was their destruction. A new iconoclast Patriarch was seated in Constantinople while the deposed Germanus, a Bishop of Cyprus, and John of Damascus were declared heretics.Constantine V didn't immediately treat iconodules as hated heretics. Threats from Islam obliged him to preserve internal peace for a time. But when the vast majority of monks became increasingly agitated iconodules, monasticism came under imperial scorn. In 761, 2 iconodule-monks were executed for speaking out against the Emperor. That action crossed a line in Constantine's mind that saw him then proceed to ramp up persecution of those calling for a reinstitution of icons.iThe Iconoclastic Controversy, as it is officially called, was the first period of persecution in Church history to be based on something other than a dispute concerning doctrinal fundamentals. Although to those caught up in it, it certainly seemed fundamental to them! Hey, when blood is being spilled, people tend to think it's pretty fundamental. Anything that trumps the urge to survival will do that. We're allowed the leisure of saying this was a controversy over non-essentials only because we're so far removed from its bite. For the first time, Christians executed Christians for religious reasons.When the main force of lingering iconodule support was found in monasteries and among monks, an Imperial military commander at Ephesus named Michael Lachanodracon decided to take matters into his own hands. He may have felt that he was only implementing what the Emperor wanted to but was restrained by politics from doing. In 770, he gathered all the monks and nuns he could find and ordered them to marry. Those who refused were blinded and exiled to Cyprus. He razed monasteries and those churches so filled with iconography it was easier to just level them. The military's participation in this may have been partly fueled by their frustration at being handed one defeat after another by the Muslims. But they  were also furious at the monasteries and monks  who drained much needed resources form the war effort and robbed the army of much needed man-power. As Lachanodracon assumed, Constantine V expressed his appreciation for his brutal and bloody campaign.When Constantine died in 775, the throne passed to his son Leo IV, The Khazar; so named because his mother was a Khazar princess named Irene. Which is a whole other fascinating tale. Influenced by his wife, also named Irene, who later played a gruesome role in Byzantine history, Leo abandoned the repressive iconoclast policies of his father. Leo named his 6 year old son Constantine VI co-emperor shortly after his own ascent. When he died only 5 yrs into his reign the 10 yr old became sole Emperor; except for that interesting mother of his who became the real power at court.Irene had already backed down the iconoclastic policy of the imperial gov­ernment during her husband's reign. With him out the way, she moved quickly to put an end to iconoclasm altogether. The iconoclastic patriarch Paul was forced to abdicate, allowing Irene's secretary, Tarasius to be elected to the post. A new Council was called in 786 to restore the veneration of images. It's called the 7th Ecumenical Council, even though that's what Constantine V had called his 32 yrs earlier. The new Council was opposed by large numbers of the military still beholden to Constantine V. Irene replaced iconoclast units with more loyal troops from Thrace and reconvened the council in Nicaea. The veneration of im­ages was declared orthodox; iconoclasts who recanted were forgiven & restored, despite the hostility of monks who wanted some serious pay-back. The Council managed to get around the charge of idolatry by saying the veneration shown images was to be understood as applying to the saint depicted, not to the image itself. Worship was reserved for God alone.When Constantine VI reached maturity, his power-hungry mom refused to step down. In the ensuing conflict, the ferocious icon­oclastic general Michael Lachanodracon took the son's part. Irene was able to resist at first, but when Asian troops threw in with Constantine he prevailed and was proclaimed sole ruler in 790.It seems Irene's apple didn't fall far from her tree in her son. He merged cowardice with cruelty, and lost the support of his followers. In  a shocking moment of scandal, he set aside his wife of 7 yrs to marry his mistress. That enflamed the hatred of the monks who went to Irene and gave her their support. So she was able to return and take the throne in August, 797. Constantine was blinded, a deformity that by Byzantine Law prohibited him from ever being ruler again.Talk about being a bad mom! Way to go Irene.Her cruelty may have done away with her son, but it provoked a coup that replaced her with Nicephorus I in 802. He died in battle 9 yrs later, to be succeeded by the inept Michael I Rangabe. Barely 2 yrs later Michael was deposed by another Leo, the V, who sought to restored the old Iconoclast policies of his namesake. He convened yet another council at Constantinople in 815, to once more do away with icons. But Leo V didn't have any popular support and was murdered by supporters of the next Emperor, Michael II. This guy was a moderate iconoclast,; that is, while advocating a theological position opposed to icons, he didn't use imperial force to make people stop their use. He hired an the out­standing iconoclastic scholar named John the Grammarian as tutor for his son and successor Theophilus, under whom iconoclasm enjoyed its last gasp. In 837, Tutor John was made Constantinople's Patriarch. An energetic repression of iconodules once again began, with a special focus on those pesky icon-loving monk.But by that time iconoclasm had lost its popular following and the movement ended with the death of Theophilus in 842. He was succeeded by his son Michael III under the regency of his widow, Theodora who immediately set about restoring the use of icons. John the Grammarian was deposed and in 843, a synod officially reinstalled the veneration of images.The brief revival of iconoclasm that ended with the so-called "triumph of orthodoxy" in March of 843 produced what we know today as Eastern Orthodoxy, the “Church of the Seven Councils.” From the perspective of Eastern churches, the Council of Nicaea in 787 was the 7th and last ecumenical council.  The councils Rome  convened and labeled as ecumenical the East regards only as regional synods. Later events would drive a wedge between the two churches, that up to this point had been one.