— by Mahammad Ahmadov —
- Historical perspective of the Council of Nicaea
The fact that the Pope, the most prominent leader of the Catholic Church, made his first foreign visit to Turkey has caused much debate. What was the purpose of this visit, and why was the Council of Nicaea, which has been emphasized in many places and celebrates its 1700th anniversary this year, so important to the Pope? This article will examine this issue in its historical context and understand what it means for both the Christian world and Turkey today.
In recent years, the former Pope of the Vatican, Pope Francis, has emphasized the importance of Hagia Sophia and Iznik (Nicaea) in several speeches. He stated that if he himself cannot visit these holy places, then his successor must definitely visit them. Following his death, the newly elected Pope announced that his first trip abroad would be to Türkiye, provided the necessary permissions and conditions were met. Actually, formany years, there has been a strong desire among most people to visit there, but a key factor in preventing this was the Turkish government’s position. Since the conquest of Anatolia and Constantinople in 1453, such discussions have been traditionally sensitive and often unacceptable to the Muslim majority and the Ottoman administration. Later, during the Republic of Turkey, where secularism was one of Atatürk’s fundamental principles, similar discussions continued to be approached with caution. However, in recent days, President Erdoğan and his government have welcomed the visit with a high level of hospitality and view it as part of Turkey’s cultural, religious, and diplomatic ties with the world.
For this reason, it is interesting to analyze the details of this visit, but in order to better understand it today, it is first necessary to examine why this meeting holds such an important place for Christianity in a historical-religious context.
The first general council was held in Jerusalem (c. 49–50 AD), which was accepted as the start of this tradition. It was presided over by James ( the brother of Jesus), Peter, and John, who were among the closest disciples of Jesus and leading figures of the early Christian community in Jerusalem. The council also included important discussions which covered issues such as whether non-Jews should observe Jewish laws, ultimately deciding that it was not necessary for non-Jewish believers to observe the Mosaic Law fully. Although this council is considered one of the first general councils in the history of Christianity, it was not ecumenical; in other words, it did not represent all the Christian communities in the world. Centuries later, in the early 4th century, the Roman Empire was faced not only with tensions between pagans and Christians, but also with serious disagreements within the Church itself. The most critical controversy was caused by the teachings of Arius, a presbyter and ascetic, who argued that the Son was created by God and therefore not co-eternal with the Father, a position later referred to as Arianism.
Those teachings challenged the long-held understanding of the divine nature of Christ and sparked debate in the Christian world. In these circumstances, for Constantine I, the issue was not simply a theological disagreement. Recognizing the rising power of Christianity, a single religious doctrine was a real opportunity for the Emperor to reunite the empire, which was in decline and in crisis, and to create a new opportunity to revive it. He understood well that fragmented religious communities also weakened the political unity of the empire. However, Constantine’s role was not only one of mediation. The unified decision to be adopted at the council would determine the main theological line of future Christianity, and this was also of great importance in terms of shaping the ideological foundations of the empire. That is why Constantine aimed not only to restore unity but also to have a theological model that was consistent with his adopted political views. Thus, in 325, Nicaea was chosen to hold this necessary meeting, and bishops from both sides were invited there by Constantine. The Pope in those years, Silvester I, did not attend, but sent two representatives (Vitus and Vincentius) of the Church there. In total, 318 bishops were invited from approximately twenty-two regions of the Roman Empire. Although it cannot be historically confirmed that this number was intentional, early Church writers later interpreted it symbolically, linking it to the 318 trained men mentioned in Genesis 14:14 as Abraham’s companions. Arius himself couldn’t take part because he was not formally a bishop, but his position was defended by supporters such as Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea. Discussions in June were presided over by Hosius, who was bishop of Cordova(Spain) and an emperor’s advisor, at the request of Constantine.
The Council of Nicaea began with sharp theological conflicts from the very first day. The main focus of the assembled bishops was the nature of Jesus’ relationship with God and the claims made by Arianism against the traditional approach. At the same time, Arius’ representatives at the council argued that the Son was a created being and therefore not co-eternal with God; Athanasius, one of the most active young deacons of the period, firmly rejected this position. Athanasius argued instead that the Son was uncreated and of the same essence as the Father. Arius’ supporters, who did not accept the existence of the Son before God, said that only God was uncreated and eternal. Athanasius and the majority at the council believed that this approach would deal a crushing blow to the foundations of Christianity. It was in the midst of these disputes that a new term – homoousios – appeared on the scene: this word, indicating that Jesus was “of the same essence” with the Father, further heated the situation between the parties, but in the end served to form a common decision. As an alternative, some bishops proposed milder formulas such as “of a similar essence,” but these were rejected out of concern that they might allow for a revival of Arian interpretations.
It is also important to note that one of the main difficulties in the course of the discussions was the language barrier, given that the participants came from different regions and, most importantly, that while the Greek language was used in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) world, Western Rome and its sphere of influence had adopted Latin. This factor also led to some misunderstandings and terminological inconsistencies.
After days of debate, it became clear that Arius’s ideas threatened to split the Church. In the end, the vast majority of bishops adopted the expression “homoousios,” which would later be widely used, and affirmed that the Son was of the same essence and co-eternal with the Father. Thus, Arius’s teachings were officially rejected and formally “anathema”, which means that those who supported his ideas were removed from the Church, and his works were destroyed, although only a small portion of his writings survives today under the name “Thalia”, and the future form of Christianity was fundamentally determined by this decision made at Nicaea. Naturally, Constantine, who was deeply invested in the outcome of the council, oversaw its proceedings and regarded its final decision as both a theological and a political achievement.
2. The Council’s impact on Turkey and theories
In 2014, the decline in the water level in Lake Nicaea led to the discovery of the remains of the Neophytos Basilica, which some scholars associate with the period of the First Council of Nicaea. In fact, in previous speeches, Pope Francis sometimes spoke specifically about Santa Sophia (Hagia Sophia), but perhaps due to health problems, he was unable to visit either Istanbul or Nicaea. However, he always emphasized the importance of this visit for his successor. Thus, at the beginning of the year, claims were made that the new Pope would visit Turkey. And finally, the visit, planned for November 27-30, first began with the official reception of the Pope in Beştepe. In his first speech, he recalled the views of his predecessor, Francis, that we were on the verge of World War III, but that he should not allow it. President Erdoğan, on the other hand, emphasized the current situation of Jerusalem, which is a pressing issue for all humanity and religions, and spoke about the benefits of acting together. Later, Mor Ephrem, a leading figure of the Syriac Orthodox Church, visited the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Ayas George and signed a joint declaration with Patriarch Bartholomew. However, the absence of several key patriarchal representatives indicated that full ecclesiastical unity had not yet been achieved.”
The absence of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, both of whom have historically maintained close relations with the Moscow Patriarchate, further exposed existing divisions. After the ceremony in İznik, the Pope held another ceremony at the Volkswagen Arena, attended by approximately 4,000 people. In several of the ceremonies, the key passage read by the Pope was “Luke 12:29-40”. Although the messages conveyed were intended to serve as a bridge between religions and cultures, some segments of Turkish society assessed the Pope’s emphasis on the past Christian heritage there as having political goals. On November 30, after a prayer visit to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul, Fener participated in the St. Andrew’s Day ceremony held at the Greek Orthodox Church. After completing his visit to Turkey, the Pope traveled to Beirut, Lebanon, on the afternoon of November 30.
This visit can be seen as the first step in the new Pope’s efforts to develop interfaith dialogue and establish peace in the world, especially in the Middle East region and Ukraine. Of course, for Christians (mainly Catholics), this has both historical and religious value. However, when viewed from other perspectives, it has caused strong reactions not only from Muslims, who constitute the vast majority in Turkey, but also from the Orthodox community operating in Turkey. Even the Turkish Orthodox Community has called on the Turkish nation to be vigilant in its social media posts and has not welcomed this visit. For them, this is an attempt to strengthen the presence of the Pope and the Church in Turkey from a political perspective, and they worry that it may lead to a violation of secularism, one of Atatürk’s basic principles. Political opponents have also drawn attention to Halki Theological School in parallel with this visit. The opposition parties also view the discussions on this issue during the last meeting between Trump and Erdoğan as a demand from Trump to Erdoğan. This school, Halki Seminary, officially known as Halki Theological School, was officially opened in 1844 by the Greek Patriarch of Fener, Patriarch Germanos IV. The school, whose main purpose was to teach theological sciences, maintained its existence during the Ottoman period and the early years of the Republic and had many important graduates, including the current Patriarch Bartholomew I. However, the reopening of this school, which was closed in 1971 with special amendments to the laws, is also one of the issues on the agenda. In one of his interviews in 2024, he said that they were “working on opening the school”. However, as we mentioned above, some of the opposition parties evaluated this as “an attempt to create a new Vatican on Turkish territory”.
Consequently, it would be more useful to look at the Pope’s visit from several perspectives. The positive response of the Turkish state to the Church’s desire to celebrate the anniversary of a religious event of symbolic historical importance is naturally an indicator of tolerance and high respect for other religious values in the country. If we look at the issue from the perspective of Turkish foreign policy, the opening of the Religious School, one of the issues mentioned above, is often viewed as a symbolic issue that may positively influence Turkey’s relations with the European Union. From the Vatican’s perspective, this visit is an attempt to give new meaning and value to the Christian world. Considering that important Christian heritage and relics are still located in Turkey, it is possible to understand why the Turkish public is concerned, although this may also create new opportunities for the Vatican. Whether this visit will become a regular occurrence remains uncertain.
References
- Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. https://academic.oup.com/book/3350?searchresult=1
- Barkey, Karen, and George Gavrilis. The Ecumenical Patriarchate: Religion and Politics in Turkey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. https://www.scribd.com/document/877395990/The-Ottoman-Millet-System-Non-Territorial-Autonomy-and-Its-Contemporary-Legacy
- Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674165311
- Bellitto, Christopher M. The General Councils: A History of the Twenty-One Church Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. New York: Paulist Press, 2002.
5. Eusebius of Caesarea. Life of Constantine. Translated by Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Constantine
6. Hanson, R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
7. Lyman, Rebecca. The Theology of the Council of Nicaea. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006. https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/TheTheologyoftheCouncilofNicaea.pdf
8. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition, Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo3799466.html
9. Runciman, Steven. The Byzantine Theocracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/45914/toc/9780521545914_toc.pdf?
