December
381-397 A.D. Nectarius—Constantinople’s
36th; Born in Tarsus; Straight from Catechumenate to Bishop of
Constantinople; Council of Constantinople, 381;
Preceded by Gregory of Nazianzus;
Succeeded by John Chyrsostom
Archbishop Nectarius
of Constantinople
From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
Contents
Life
Born at Tarsus in Cilicia of a noble family, he was widely known for his admirable character. When
Gregory resigned as Archbishop of Constantinople, Nectarius was praetor of Constantinople.[1] Preparing for a journey to Tarsus, he called on the Bishop of Tarsus, Diodore, who was attending the First Council of Constantinople (one of the ecumenical councils), to ask if he could take letters for him; his appearance and manners
struck Diodorus so forcibly that he at once determined that he should be
advanced as a candidate for Bishop; making an excuse of attending to some other
business, he took Nectarius to see Meletius.[2]
His unexpected appointment
When the Emperor Theodosius I wanted the Bishops at the Council to suggest new
candidates and reserving to himself the right of making the choice, the Bishop
of Antioch put at the bottom of his list, Nectarius' name. The
Emperor having read the lists, declared Nectarius to be his choice. This caused
some amazement amongst the Fathers who wanted to know - who and what was this Nectarius? He was still only a catechumen. There was much astonishment at the emperor's
unexpected choice, but the people of Constantinople were delighted at the news
as was the whole council.[1]
Nectarius was duly baptized
and his clothes were changed for the robes of a Bishop of the Imperial city and became at once president of the Second Ecumenical Council.[1]
Nectarius ruled the church for
upwards of 16 years, and is thought of as having been a good prelate. His name heads the 150 signatures to the canons
of the Second Ecumenical Council. The 3rd canon declares that, "...the
Bishop of Constantinople shall hold the first rank after the bishop of Rome,
because Constantinople is the new Rome." However, it was not until 1439
that the Roman Catholic Church recognized the Patriarchate of Constantinople as holding this position at the Council of Florence.
Dissent threatens
Unfortunately the Bishops of
the West opposed the election result and asked for a common synod of East and West to settle the succession and so
the Emperor Theodosius, soon after the close of the second council, summoned
the Imperial Bishops to a fresh synod at Constantinople; nearly all of the same
bishops who had attended the earlier second council were assembled again in
early summer of 382. On arrival they received a letter from the synod of Milan, inviting them to a great general council at Rome; however they indicated that they must remain
where they were, because they had not made any preparations for such long a
journey. However, they sent three --Syriacus, Eusebius and Priscian—with a
synodal letter to Pope Damasus I, archbishop Saint Ambrose and the other bishops assembled in the council at Rome.[1]
The Roman synod to which this
letter was addressed was the fifth under Damasus. No formal account remains of
its proceedings, nor of how its members treated the question of Nectarius.
Theodosius, did however, send commissaries to Rome in support of his synod.[1]
In his 15th letter (to the bishops of Illyria) he
indicated that the church in Rome had finally agreed to recognize both
Nectarius and Flavian.[1]
Six letters from Nectarius
remain extant in the files of his predecessor Gregory Nazianzus. In the first
he expresses his hearty good wishes for his episcopate. The last is of great
importance, urging him not to be too liberal in tolerating the Apollinarians.[1]
In 383 a third synod at
Constantinople was held. In spite of the decrees of bishops and emperor, the Arians and Pneumatomachians continued to spread their doctrines. Theodosius
summoned all parties to the Imperial city for a great discussion in June,
hoping to reconcile all differences. Before this he had sent for the Archbishop
and told him that all questions should be fully debated.[1]
After this, Nectarius returned
home, full of anxiety and consulted the Novatianist Bishop Agelius, who felt himself unsuited to arbitrate on such a
controversy. However he did have a reader, Sisinnius, a philosopher and theologian, to whom he referred the argument with the Arians. Sisinnius suggested
that they should produce the testimonies of the old Fathers of the Church on
the doctrine of the Son, and first ask the heads of the several parties whether
they accepted these authorities or desired to anathematize them.[1]
Both the Archbishop and the
Emperor agreed to this suggestion and when the Bishops met, the Emperor asked
whether they respected "...the teachers who lived before the Arian
division?" They confirmed that they did and he then asked if they
acknowledged, "...them sound and trustworthy witnesses of the true
Christian doctrine?".[1]
This question however produced
divisions and so the emperor ordered each party to draw up a written confession
of its doctrine. When this was done, the Bishops were summoned to the Imperial
palace, where the emperor received them with kindness and retired to his study
with their written confessions. Theodosius however rejected and destroyed all
except that of the orthodox, because he felt that the others introduced a
division into the Holy Trinity.[1]
After this, Theodosius forbade
all sectaries, except the Novatianists, to hold divine services
or to publish their doctrines or to ordain clergy, under threat of severe civil penalties.[1]
Towards the close of his
episcopate, Nectarius abolished the office of presbyter penitentiary, whose duty appears to have been to
receive confessions before communion. His example was followed by nearly all
other Bishops. The presbyter penitentiary was added to the ecclesiastical roll about the time
of the Novatianist schism, when that party declined to communicate with those
who had lapsed in the Decian persecution. Gradually there were fewer lapsed to
reconcile, and his duties became more closely connected with preparation for
communion. A disgraceful occurrence induced Nectarius to leave the
participation in holy communion entirely to individual consciences and abolish
the office.[1]
Veneration
References
Attribution
-
Hefele, Hist.
Christ. Councils, tr. Oxenham (Edinb. 1876), vol. ii. pp. 344, 347,
378, 380, 382, etc.
Nectarii
Arch. CP. Enarratio in Patr. Gk. xxxix.
p. 1821;
J. D. Mansi, Concil. t. iii. p. 521,
599, 633, 643, 694, etc. ;
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment