HOME CHAT NAB PRAYERS FORUMS COMMUNITY RCIA MAGAZINE CATECHISM LINKS CONTACT
 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 CATHOLIC SAINTS INDEX  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 CATHOLIC DICTIONARY  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Home
 
Bible
 
Catechism
 
Chat
 
Catholic Encyclopedia
 
Church Fathers
 
Classics Library
 
Church Documents
 
Discussion
 
Mysticism
 
Prayer
 
Prayer Requests
 
RCIA
 
Vocations
 
Ray of Hope
 
Saints
 
Social Doctrine
 
Links
 
Contact
 







A History Of The Church In Seven Books by Socrates

BUT I must now give an account of the other Synod, which the emperor’s edict had convoked in the East, as a rival to that of Rimini. It was at first determined that the bishops should assemble at Nicomedia in Bithynia; but a great earthquake having nearly destroyed that city, prevented their being convened there. This happened in the consulate of Datian and Cerealis, on the 28th day of August. They therefore resolved to transfer the council to the neighbouring city of Nice: but this plan was again altered, as it seemed more convenient to meet at Tarsus in Cilicia. Being dissatisfied with this arrangement also, they at last assembled themselves at Seleucia, surnamed Aspera, a city of Isauria. This took place in the same year in which the council of Rimini was held, under the consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius, the number of those convened amounting to 160. There was present on this occasion Leonas, an officer of distinction attached to the imperial household, before whom the emperor’s edict had enjoined that the discussion respecting the faith should be entered into. Lauricius also, the commander-in-chief of the troops in Isauria, was ordered to be there, to supply the bishops with such things as they might require. In the presence of these personages therefore, the bishops were there convened on the 27th of the month of September, and immediately began a discussion respecting the public records, notaries being present to write down what each might say. Those who desire to learn the particulars of the several speeches, will find copious details of them in the collection of Sabinus; but we shall only notice the more important heads. On the first day of their being convened, Leonas ordered each one to propose what he thought fit: but those present said that no question ought to be agitated in the absence of those prelates whose attendance there was expected; for Macedonius bishop of Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra, and some others who were apprehensive of an impeachment for their misconduct, had not made their appearance. Macedonius pleaded indisposition, as an excuse for non-attendance; Patrophilus pretended an ophthalmic affection, which made it needful that he should remain in the suburbs of Seleucia; and the rest offered various pretexts to account for their absence. When however Leonas declared that the subjects which they had met to consider must be entered on, notwithstanding the absence of these persons, the bishops replied that they could not proceed to the discussion of any question, until the life and conduct of the parties accused had been investigated: for Cyril of Jerusalem, Eustathius of Sebastia in Armenia, and some others, had been charged with misconduct on various grounds long before. A sharp contest arose in consequence of this demur; some affirming that cognizance ought first to be taken of all such accusations, and others denying that anything whatever should have precedence of matters of faith. The emperor’s orders contributed not a little to augment this dispute, inasmuch as he had, in different parts of his letter, inadvertently given contrary directions as to the priority of consideration of these points. A schism was thus made which divided the Seleucian council into two factions, one of which was headed by Acaeius of Cæsarea in Palestine, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Eucloxius of Antioch, who were supported by only about thirty-two other bishops. Of the opposite party, which was by far the more numerous, the principal were George of Laodicea in Syria, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, and Eleusius of Cyzicum. It being determined by the majority to examine doctrinal matters first, the party of Acaeius openly opposed the Nicene Creed, and wished to introduce another instead of it. The other faction, which was considerably more numerous, concurred in all the decisions of the council of Nice, except its adoption of the term Consubstantial, to which it strongly objected. A keen debate on this point immediately ensued, which was continued until evening, when Silvanus, who presided over the church at Tarsus, insisted with much vehemence of manner, that there was no need of a new exposition of the faith; but that it was their duty rather to confirm that which was published at Antioch, at the consecration of the church in that place. On this declaration, Acacius and his partisans privately withdrew from the council; while the others producing the creed composed at Antioch, read it, and then separated for that day. Assembling in the church of Seleucia on the day following, after having closed the doors, they again read the same creed, and ratified it by their signatures, the readers and deacons present signing it on behalf of certain absent bishops, who had intimated their acquiescence in its form.








Copyright ©1999-2018 e-Catholic2000.com