Nicaea I (325): The Beginning of Conciliar Orthodoxy and Rome’s Role
Historical Backdrop
The First Ecumenical Council, held in Nicaea in 325 AD, marked the beginning of conciliar orthodoxy in the Christian Church. Convened by Emperor Constantine in the wake of the Arian controversy—which denied the full divinity of Christ—it was the first attempt to create a unified Christian dogma under imperial oversight. The Council gathered over 300 bishops, primarily from the Eastern part of the empire, to address the threat of Arianism and restore unity.
What Role Did Rome Play?
Rome was represented at the Council by two presbyters—Vitus and Vincentius—sent by Pope Sylvester I, who did not attend personally. While Rome supported the condemnation of Arius and affirmed the Nicene Creed, it played a relatively minor logistical and deliberative role compared to Eastern sees like Alexandria and Antioch. However, the symbolic presence of papal delegates reinforced Rome’s theological alignment with the Council’s outcomes.
Did the Council Rely on Papal Approval?
No. The Council of Nicaea was convened by Emperor Constantine, not by papal initiative. While Pope Sylvester later received the council’s decrees and did not oppose them, there is no historical indication that the Council's legitimacy was seen to depend on papal approval at the time. In fact, in the fourth century, conciliar authority operated largely on the basis of imperial summons and episcopal consensus.
Interpreting Canon 6
Canon 6 of the Council states:
"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also."
This canon affirms the regional jurisdiction of Alexandria over Egypt and Libya and compares it to the custom of Roman jurisdiction—likely over the suburban sees of the West. The canon does not grant universal jurisdiction to Rome but rather places it on par with Alexandria and Antioch within their respective spheres.
Catholic Interpretation: Some Catholic apologists interpret this as an implicit affirmation of Roman primacy, suggesting that Rome’s authority was the normative model extended to Alexandria. They may also argue that the council acknowledged an already established superior Roman authority.
Orthodox Interpretation: Orthodox scholars typically argue that Canon 6 affirms a conciliar model of governance in which Rome is first among equals, with no jurisdictional supremacy. The comparison, in their view, indicates parity—not papal supremacy.
Rome: First Among Equals or Supreme Judge?
The earliest historical evidence points toward a Roman primacy of honor rather than jurisdiction. Eastern bishops respected the Roman see for its apostolic foundation (Peter and Paul) and for its orthodoxy in the faith. However, there is scant evidence in the fourth century that Rome was seen as the supreme judge over other patriarchates.
For example, Athanasius of Alexandria looked to Rome for support during his exiles but did not treat Rome as the final arbiter. Likewise, appeals were made to multiple sees (including Jerusalem and Antioch) in cases of doctrinal controversy. This supports the idea that Rome had a respected but not unilateral role in doctrinal decision-making.
Conclusion
The Council of Nicaea inaugurated the age of ecumenical councils and set the foundation for Trinitarian orthodoxy. While Rome was involved, it did not dominate the council’s proceedings. Canon 6 suggests a model of regional jurisdiction among equals, not papal supremacy. The eventual consensus on Nicene theology illustrates how orthodoxy, in this early phase, was established through episcopal conciliarity more than centralized papal authority.