Wednesday, January 20, 2016

DEVOTION TO ST. MARTIN DE PORRES SANTO DOMINGO CHURCH, QUEZON CITY, PHILIPPINES

COMMUNITY

St. Martin de Porres’ Guild is an association devoted to the Saint to whom their guild was named after; San Martin de Porres. It was founded in Santo Domingo Church on November 3, 1974 by Fr. Rafael Quejada, OP, in his capacity as the Prior of Santo Domingo Convent and Vicar of the Dominican Province of the Philippines. Fr. Quejada appointed Fr. Carlos I. Acain, OP as Acting Director and Promoter, on November 5, 1974. In 1975, the Guild was listed in the Philippine Dominican Directory as an association under the care of the Filipino Dominicans. On its foundation, St. Martin’s Guild primarily aimed to coordinate the numerous Filipino devotees of St. Martin at his National Shrine at Santo Domingo Church, QC. 


In the year 1994, the St. Martin de Porres Guild Choir was organized. The choir is composed of the youth members of the devotees of Saint Martin De Porres. Every Tuesday, the Saint Martin De Porres Guild Choir sings during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. As an active organization of the Santo Domingo Convent, the Saint Martin de Porres Guild Choir sings every Sunday during the celebration of the 7:00AM Holy Eucharist. 

The members of the Saint Martin De Porres Guild strive and encourage others to live a life exemplified by Saint Martin De Porres as “The Paragon of humility, patron of Social Justice, Compassionate to the Sorrowful, and of the Sick and Suffering”. Its mission is Follow the exemplar life of St. Martin de Porres. And it envisions the Propagation of the Devotion to St. Martin de Porres. 


CREED

The Guild primarily venerates St. Martin de Porres. Their core beliefs are inspired by the life of St. Matrin de Porres. Thus to understand these beliefs it would be of great profit to look into the life of the Saint. 

Some three hundred years ago in the early days of Lima, there lived in a boisterous and booming city, a Negro Lay Brother of the Order of Preachers. He placed himself at the foot of the brotherhood, the lowliest in the Dominican convent of the Holy Rosary and it was only through the insistence of his religious superiors that he dared assume the habit. In that city of strange figures, this humble black brother was the strangest, unsurprised in all Peru as an herbalist, his dark hands posed the gift of healing, he laboured among slaves, Indians and the poor, yet the wealth and exalted sought ministrations. 

Let us briefly look at the interesting things about Lima. Lima is the capital of Peru. The history of Lima began with its foundation by Francisco Pizarro on January 18, 1535. In 1532, a group of Spanish conquistadors led by Francisco Pizarro defeated the Inca ruler Atahualpa and soon took over his Empire. As Pizarro had been named governor of the lands he conquered by the Spanish Crown. Lima was a combination of black slaves and catholic Spanish, and Indians (Incas and the like). As conquerors the Spanish destroyed the Inca culture, and melted anything of worth and sent it back to Spain as bards, or ingots. Lima was a port city – most of the manual labour was done by African or Incas. It also meant there was a lot of people coming and going, commotion and activity. Spain was not just interested on just colonize, but also to baptise, so many religious orders flooded the city. There were many half castes or mulattoes, a mix of white and African. Creoles, free Americans blacks and half castes, Mesitizos part Indian part white, Chinos, part Indian and part African. From these mixed groups came skilled workers and the common labour force. Most of these mixed groups whilst a bit better off than the native Indians or Negroes, were still very poor. The Spanish were the rich ones. For black people and the Indians of this time, they were treated like slaves, or with contempt and held little rights, or privileges. They were definitely discriminated against. And it was this environment that St Martin was born into. 

Lima also became an important religious center. A Roman Catholic diocese was established in 1541 and converted to an archdiocese five years later. The oldest university on the continent Santo Marcos 1551, was run by Dominicans. The first bishop was a Dominican. There are three Dominican Saints in Lima, namely Rose of Lima, first Roman Catholic saint born in the Americas in 1586 , St John Macias 1585 died 1645, and St Martin himself 1579. Thus, it can be said that Lima is quite a Dominican centered city already. The Dominicans have certainly left their stamp on it. 

St Martin was born on December 9, 1579. His baptismal certificate read “father unknown”, and he was baptised in the church of St. Sebastian. Once a slave she obtained her freedom and became a cabaret entertainer in the capital of Panama. 

His father was Don Juan de Porres a knight of Alcantara, fell in love with her, and to stop romance, going back to the puritinas in Spain, he sent her to Lima in Peru, and visited her every few months.His father Juan had come to Latin America to find fortune, and he married a negro woman. He at first did not acknowledge Martin and Anna, mainly because she was from a lower cast. And he was unhappy that Martin, had inherited his mother’s characteristics. Perhaps as a conqueror it was a slight on his reputation to have a wife and son and daughter who were of the conquered race. There is no doubt he endured suffering and sorrow in his infancy. 

There are two accounts of this. One is that his father returned when Martin was about 8 years old and took responsibility for getting his children into a better life. He arranged to have Martin and his sister get two years of schooling in Ecuador. Before leaving for Panama to govern there, he left Joan and Martin, with a relative James de Miranda, who before his own departure left Anna, enough money to complete his education to learn a trade. 

He had a weakness for the poor, and would often donate his money as alms, rather than buying food at the market for his family to eat when his mother sent him on errands. At the age of 12, Martin had to make his first important decision. That of a trade. Barbers in that time also did letting blood treating wounds and fractures, and even prescribing medicine. One of the first incidents was a few men carrying an Indian who was badly beaten. When they found out that Martin was only an apprentice they were dismayed, but when they saw martin work on the man, they were reassured, and because of this and many similar occasions, Martin began to come to fame, and eventually, they preferred his work, to that of his professor. 

St. Martin entered the Holy Rosary Monastery in Lima, a Dominican Community. The Dominicans had rules and was reluctant to let him in at first, because of the ongoing debate about Africans humanity and soul, as well as the specific matter of Martin’s illegitimacy. And these were both strong reasons at the time not to admit him to the order, especially since martin was humble and only wanted to be the lowest of them. 

He was eventually accepted for professions on June 2, 1603, nine years after being a lay helper, and he was 24 at the time. Religious profession did not change his life, only his occupation, Cutting hair for the 300 friars, with each friar needing a haircut every 15 days, and many old and sick priests needing taking care of. He carried out all these duties in his 45 years at the convent. 

Pioneer social worker. At young age he already was concerned with the poor, and even though his family too was poor, he was quick to give what little his mother had given him to buy food to others even less fortunate than he was. Charity was even more important than obedience; he would bring people back to his cell in the convent to treat them until the sick people could leave, and against the prior, and superior. 

He would constantly mortify himself, the Father Prior asked, in holy obedience, whether or not every night he subjected himself to discipline three times. The friars who had to cloth Martin’s body, knew of his penances, when they were astonished to see the iron chain around his waist, the number of scars and open wounds on the body. He also wore the hair shirt, and never eating meat, and the final three days of holy week he fasted completely. 

It is said that as a child he had extraordinary wisdom, and even as a friar, when ordered not to bring people back, confronted his prior by saying, I consider the virtue of charity greater than obedience. 

He accepted punishments, insult, scolding and beatings, unjustly, and always accepted it with good grace, never complained, and remained quiet and suffered with resignation and quite often, racist comments. Never made excuses for things. In fact he rejoiced in these misfortunes and humiliations, he never wanted to be seen as a saint, and hid his penances, his good works, and never took any credit for things. 

He was always obedient , to the point of instantly appearing when commanded too, and healing people when commanded to, and answering questions in holy obedience against his will, sleeping on a real bed against his will etc. 

He would pray long hours at night because during the day he was working and had little or no time for prayer. As a lay brother, he would not be reciting the office, but prayed the rosary instead. 

When he was working, his daily routine, would be to attend mass before daybreak, often serving as an acolyte. While working, he only took enough to pay for his room and boarding, and if he got surplus, they were soon given to the poor. His mother no longer needed his help since his father John de Porres, had finally acknowledged his family and was paying for them. 

At his boarding house, (which was closer to the Church of San Lazaro) he would ask the caretaker for discarded candle stubs in the evening, where he would use them to light a crucifix, during his prayer. 

Besides his daily duties, his ministry mainly consisted of tending to the sick, either physically, with his skills as a barber, or through his touch. He was quick to help the brothers, and even though he would claim it was only through stitches, or his labour, many believed it was his touch which healed them. Sometimes however it was plain common sense, which advice he gave out, that greatly helped people. 

St. Martin helped novices in their studies in many ways, even though he could not preach, as he was not a priest, he did this through example. He made sure that the novices had plenty of time to study, by helping them in menial tasks, such as doing their laundry, making sure they had supplies etc. He interceded for one of the novices being picked on because he was fat, and short. He also had the ability to keep the novices in their vocations, searching for those who had left, and convincing them and returning them to the convent. 

Many beggars would wait by the monastery door, to receive a meal. St. Martin after ensuring that the priests, brothers, novices, and the sick in the infirmary had eaten, would gather the left overs to distribute to people outside. No matter how large the crowd, somehow there was always enough to feed all who came. After this Martin would tell them of God and Jesus’ love for the poor, and love for each of them, so that not only were the people physically nourished, they were spiritually as well. 

He would visit the imprison, to bring food, and also to talk to the prisoners, he also interceded for one prisoner whom as to be executed, who was pardoned, and also helped him start a new life, finding him a job, and giving him a small amount of money. 

Martin never seemed to lack money. Although he himself practised the strictest poverty, he always had money for those in need, such as the prisoner, etc. Martin was also the almoner, the one responsible for the money people brought in for alms or masses to be said, when food, funds, or clothing were needed for special projects, he would approach the rich and ask for donations, often he could collect $2000 in a day, which is a large amount even today. Back then it would have been huge. 

Upon seeing all the children who walked around the streets, and thought they would turn to crime, if left uncared for. He approached many to create an orphanage but no one was willing or able to finance the project. So he alone went around begging for funds for the project. Once a few people had contributed, it emboldened others who were unwilling to donate at first to also contribute. So the orphanage of the Holy Cross was created. But a building for shelter is not enough, Martin wanted the children to be educated. 

It is said that he had the ability of bilocation, or appearing in other parts of the world, whilst never leaving Lima. Martin always wanted to be martyred or be a missionary, but his superiors would not let him. He was able to solve a problem between his sister and her husband, without leaving the convent, the out of season arrange, brought to a friar who was ill, unusual healing techniques, he claims to have seen it done in France, visiting Christian in Algeria who were prisoners of the Muslims, whom he brought food and money, and comfort. 

Care of mice, to keep them out of harm’s way, and stop them destroying the convent and church. Care for birds, such as the chickens whom he would pat and talk to. He cared for dogs, and cats which were sick or injured, until the friars would not allow it, then he begged his sister to help him care for her. He would travel 1.5 miles to her to give whatever help was necessary and to heal the dogs and cats. He also brought back to life animals, such as a donkey, and the friars dog of 18 years. And asking a bull to leave the monastery where it was causing havoc and fear. He always talked to animals gently, as he would talk to a human. 

There are some miracles attributed to St. Martin. He never left Lima, yet people saw him in the novitiate house, in China, in Africa, Philippines, France, Mexico and Algeria. He walked through walls doors that are locked or closed. The many people he healed as he worked in the infirmary. Lady Catherine Gonzales, cripple for fifteen years, was healed as she touched the coffin. Elizabeth Orthez was healed when she kissed his picture and prayer. Elizabeth Dastorga was freed of fevers declared incurable when a tunic of St. Martin was passed over here. Deigo de Cevallos, afflicted with laryngitis, and dysentery and point of death, healed with a relic on his throat. He healed Father Cypriano, the little fat short boy being teased, after he had had fallen ill on a trip from Rome to Lima. Bro. Antonio who cared for St. Martin, caught the same fever that Martin had, and was healed. 

For a "poor mulatto," Martin's funeral was that of a high ranking official, rather than a humble Dominican Friar. The cortege consisted of religious and friends of the monastery, the Chapter of the Cathedral, superiors of monasteries, lay dignitaries, and military officials. Father Gaspar de Saldana, the Prior, officiated, and Martin's body was borne by four of his most intimate friends - the Viceroy, the Archbishop of Mexico, the Bishop of Cuzco, and John de Penafiel, Judge of the Royal Court. Many times, the habit needed to be replaced as people were tearing it and ripping it to keep as souvenirs and relics. 

The king of Spain asked the Holy Father to introduce the cause in 1659, 20 years after Martin’s death. The king sent many letters, followed by similar request from the viceroy of Lima, Archbishop of Lima, the Dominicans, and members of various religious orders in Lima. The process of interviewing was started in 1660, where more than 75 depositions or testimonies were recorded. Because it was only 20 years, many people could still remember this information and to describe what they had experienced first hand. This collected information was sent to Rome in 1668, and returned to Lima in 1678, however the ship carrying the letters were lost at sea, but somehow recovered and sent to Lima. Now the apostolic process started, many testimonies and statements were heard, but this time there were 175 statements recorded. This process took 8 years. This time the papers were lost at sea when sent to Rome, but there were copies made, and these got sent to Rome. Pope Clement declared Martins virtues on February 27, 1763 and made him venerable. The first officially recognised miracle was given to Elvira Moriano of Lima, where an earthen jug had slipped from her hands and shattered, these pieces hit her eye, and not only blinded her but made her lose her eye. No doctors could help her, but her son a novice, at Santo Domingo, brought a relic of St. Martin, and put it on her eye, the pain stopped, and her sight had been completely restored. The boy fell out the 2nd story of a wealth women’s house, where his mother worked as a cleaner. The fall crushed his head, and caused internal injures. The doctor, had no hope of the boy surviving, but the spinah’s lady, had great faith in Martin de Porres, took picture of Martin, and put it on the boy’s head, he appeared to be resting, but got up soon afterwards and was completely healed. It was 70 years before these 2 miracles were accepted by the Congregation of Rites, and allowed Pope Gregory XVI to sign the decree approving of the beatification of Martin, marking him as a Blessed. Almost 3000 pilgrims attended in the church from Spain and 1000 from Peru, and 1500 from Ireland, as well as hundreds us, Chile, Ecuador, Brazil, South Africa Trinidad and the Philippines. 

On May 6, 1962, three hundred and twenty-three years after Martin's death, Pope John XXIII canonized St. Martin de Porres in Rome. We may wonder why there is such a delay, but God works in His own way, not ours. Perhaps it was because the Second Vatican Council was underway, which would result in vast changes enabling a heightened understanding and appreciation for the spiritual life in the Catholic Church. Perhaps it was because the Civil Rights movement was making strides in the United States to bring about an awareness of the equality and contribution of Black Americans. Perhaps this why St. Martin de Porres was canonized, to serve as a Christian model to show that an illegitimate mulatto, relegated to a lowly position in the 16th and 17th century Peruvian society, transcended the prejudice and laboured in the fields of the Lord and changed the world around him. 


CODE 

The St. Martin de Porres’ Guild live under rules of conduct and behaviour. These rules present the way the members live-out their beliefs. The members of the Saint Martin De Porres Guild strive and encourage others to live a life exemplified by Saint Martin De Porres as “The Paragon of humility, patron of Social Justice, Compassionate to the Sorrowful, and of the Sick and Suffering”. 

They venerate the Saint in various form, through some images of the saint. Such veneration is manifested in the number of images of the Saint in Santo Domingo Church. There are seven images of the Saint in the church complex, placed in various strategic places (viz. side altar, main altar, seminary lobby, outside the convent’s refectory, convent free clinic, fathers receiving area, and along the church corridor). 

Curiously, among these images, the one located outside the refectory of the convent deserves some attention. This image is more than life size (Approximately 3 meters in height), accompanied by two other images of beggars. 

This image was commissioned by a certain Mr. Zaragosa in the occasion of the canonization of the Saint. It is said that the image bear the facial feature of the donor. The images of the beggars, being protected by the Saint, hold a wooden walking stick and a broom stick. Curiously, these wooden items are replaced from time to time (by mr. Rolly Tayo, Head of Maintenance Dept. of the Convent). It is because devotees of the Saint collect portions of the wooden items and presumably used them as talisman. 

The members of the Guild spearhead the Tuesday Mass dedicated to St. Martin. Masses before 1982-83 were celebrated every Thursday. They were moved to Tuesday to synchronize such schedule with the practice in Peru. Immediately after the Mass, there are Prayer for the Sick, Distribution of Bread, and Veneration of the relic of St. Martin. 

In the 80s, the members of the guild would attend Monthly Talks/Lectures by Coristas (Dominican Brothers residing in Santo Domingo Convent), as part of their formation. Installation of members of the Guild are held during the Feast day of the Saint (November 3). 

The guild also organize the distribution of third class relic on the Feast day of the Saint (November 3), prepared by the brothers. Fray Rolando Granada, one of the oldest cooperator brothers in the Province, relayed that when they were postulants (c. 1959), they were task to prepare relic cards to be distributed to the devotees. 

As part of the social dimension of their devotion, some members of the Guild help in the maintenance and operations of the Santo Domingo Free Health Clinic. They render free consultations and services (e.g. medical and dental). They would also distribute goods and loots bags to indigent family during especial days (Feast day of the Saint, Christmas, etc.), around the Santo Domingo church environs. 


CULT 

The cult exercised by St. Martin de Porres’ Guild presents the manner by which the devotees of the saint express their veneration and acts of honouring the saint. It also showcases the way the devotees promagate the devotion to the saint. The cult takes various forms which are practiced in the Shrine of St. Martin every Tuesday 5:45 pm. 

The guild spearheads the praying of a Perpetual Novena in honour of St. Martin. It is also the prayers used in the Triduum celebration prior to the Feast say of the saint. The novena is said before the mass. The inclusion of a litany in honor of the saint is a praise-worthy item, for it explicitly describes the virtues of the saint that the devotees wish to imitate. 

During the mass, the guild serves as the choir. 

After the mass, members of the guild and other devotees flock the steps of the altar for the Blessing of the sick. It is meant for the sick people who may be present during the mass, or to those sick people for whom those present are praying for healing. The invocation is lead by the priest-celebrant. After the text of prayer is read, the priest proceeds to the sprinkling of holy water to the people gathered. The people would then patiently wait for the distribution of bread and veneration of the relic of the saint. 

The bread distributed among the devotees present, are blessed by the same priest who blessed the sick people. He silently blessed the bread, placed near the tabernacle/ altar. The bread then are distributed by members of guild in manner resembling that of communion distribution. Sick people and devotees line-up along the Shrine aisle and receive the blessed bread from the members of the guild. They take bread not only for themselves but also for their love ones who may be inflicted with sickness. They believe this bread can bring forth healing to those who are infirm who devotedly consume these bread. 

The relic of the saint is venerated too as the people receive the blessed bread. The relic is a class A relic, meaning it is taken from the remains of the saint. The devotees kissed the relic of the saint, encased in a reliquary. The reliquary is held by the sacristan, who constantly wipe the reliquary as the devotees would kiss it with their lips. 

As these activities unfold, the Guild’s choir, piously sings a hymn to the saint. The song serves as a fitting background as devotees honor the saint and seek his intercession for healing of any forms of sickness and poverty.

Friday, December 18, 2015

THE PARTIAL EXCOMMUNICATION OF EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA BY THE SYNOD OF ANTIOCH IN 325

Introduction

Eusebius of Caesarea is one of the controversial theologians involved in the Trinitarian Controversy of the fourth century, preceding the Council of Nicaea in 325. Known as the Father of Church History, he pioneered the systematic recording of events in the Church from the time of Jesus to the time of Constantine. Though a historian, he endeavored too in theologizing on particular subjects relevant to his time, chiefly on the Trinitarian doctrine and the nature of the Son in relation to the Father. His theology on the Son earned him a niche to the so-called Eusebian School (being with the other Eusebiuses of Emesa and of Nicomedia). Post-Nicene theologians, Athanasius particularly, would label them as the Homoiousians (in the Latin Church) or the Semi-Arians (in the Greek Church).[1] They were, strictly speaking, anti-Arian though not totally adherers of the Nicene doctrine of ousia. But even before this labeling by the Post-Nicene theologians, and even before the technical terms offered by the Council of Nicaea in 325, Eusebius of Caesarea[2] had a peculiar understanding on the nature of the Son. This understanding is reflected in his apologetic works predating the Creed of Nicaea. The Synod of Antioch, however, had put this same concept of the nature of the Son into question in early 325, together with the mitigating circumstances wherein Eusebius found himself. Consequently, he was partially excommunicated by the same Synod. 

This study will seek to present the doctrines on the Son held by Eusebius and by the Synod of Antioch in 325 that may have led to the partial excommunication of the former by the latter. The doctrines held by the Synod of Antioch regarding the Son will be presented vis-à-vis the doctrine held by Eusebius during the Synod of Antioch in 325 regarding the Son. Such presentation will aid the researcher in presenting the reason behind the partial excommunication of Eusebius.   
  
Life of Eusebius

Eusebius is a Palestinian bishop who lived in a crucial period of the Early Christian world. He was born between 260-265 AD, presumably to a noble family.[3] He is renown for systematizing Christian historiography, providing the model (on writing history), normative for a very long time of new literary genre. He would also go down to the annals of history as one who tread the thin line between Church and Empire relationship, especially when he intervene with the policies and activities of Constantine that affected the Church, serving as Constantine’s theological spokesperson.[4]  He was formed under the tradition of Origen, under the tutelage of the presbyter Pamphilus.[5] Thus, he would be greatly influenced by Origen’s theology especially in his Pre-Nicene understanding of the Trinity. This association with Origen and Pamphilus would encourage Eusebius to put into completion the work entitled Defense of Origen which was started by Pampilus while in prison during the Diocletian persecution in 307 and was eventually beheaded in 309. His master-student relationship with Pamphilus was well neat, so much so Eusebius would go to the extent of affixing the name of his master to his. He would also be known, thus, as Eusebius Pamphilii; Eusebius, Son of Pampilius. Some historians would interpret this move as a legal action from the part of Eusebius for him to become a legitimate heir to the library and school of Pampilius.[6]

When the persecution among the Christian was relaxed, Eusebius took over the library and school of Pampilius. In the course of his management of the school and library, it can be presumed that he was ordained as a priest. Eusebius would advance his ecclesiastical career culminating to the bishopric of Caesarea. By 315, Eusebius was already a bishop, for he attended the dedication of a new basilica at Tyre in his capacity as the bishop of Caesarea.[7]  

As a bishop, Eusebius may brandish a track record characterized by philological, apologetic, and historical works, such as Letter to Caprian, Onomasticon, Chronicle, Ecclesiastical History, Life of Pampilus, The Martyrs of Palestine, Preparation of the Gospels, and the Proof of the Gospel, Life of Constantine, Against Marcellus, and Ecclesiastical Theology. Eusebius, indeed, personified the Alexandrian tradition, making him the complete Christian version of Hellenistic tradition.[8]     

Eusebius and the Arian Controversy

Barely five years in his office as bishop, Eusebius would witness the eruption of a great controversy in the Church. Little did he know that he himself would be included in such scandal.

The Arian controversy emerged on the dispute on the divinity of the Son. Two dominant theological traditions, currents existed in the time of its conception (c. 320), namely the Alexandrian and the Antiochene schools. The Alexandrian school tend to be philosophical in its approach towards problems. It had such worldview, as it was the location of the great library of Alexandria, which contained a lot of texts containing thoughts of ancient philosophers. It is no surprise that Middle-Platonism or the Neo-Platonism influenced the school. The Antiochene School tends to be biblical and scriptural in understanding the faith. They would go further and be literal in their understanding of the scriptures.

However, with the presence of these two schools, to say that Arianism is a classic case of conflict between the Alexandrian and Antiochene school is not feasible. Arius is an Alexandrian, being a follower of Origen (of Alexandria).

Arian Controversy can be said to be a conflict which emerged within the Alexandrian school. Origen, a foremost theologian from Alexandriaan School, was not a systematic theologian. There were conflicting thoughts in his writings due to his being a reactionary towards issues that arise on a specific time. This gave rise to the Arian problem between radical Origenists and the moderate Origenist. The radical Origenists were subordinationists, while the moderate Origenist were those who minimize the subordinationist teachings of Origen on the Trinity. It is in this atmosphere of an internal conflict among the followers of Origen (of Alexandria) that the Arian controversy sprung, with Arius as the main proponent, being a radical subordinationist.

In 318 or 319, Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, and Arius had an informal discussion on the nature of Trinity. In this discussion, Arius accused his bishop as a Sabellianist. He then put forward his adoptionist point of view, influenced by Lucian of Antioch. Alexander of Alexandria called for a synod in his diocese, which condemned and exiled Arius for his false teachings. The excommunication of Arius by Alexander ushered in the so-called Arian/Trinitarian Controversy.

Arius communicated, via letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, the unjust treatment he had received from the synod convoked by Alexander. In this letter, Arius would mention Eusebius of Caesarea as one of his staunch defenders and believers and who eventually was also condemned together with other Eastern bishops.[9] This was because of their sympathy to Arius and his doctrines on the Trinity. Upon receiving such letter, Eusebius of Nicomedia invited Arius to his diocese, and went to the extent of writing letters to the bishops of Asia Minor eliciting support for Arius. In those tumultuous times, it can be inferred that Arius and his followers found too a refuge in the territory of Eusebius in Caesarea, as Eusebius’ name had been explicitly mentioned by Arius in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia. Eusebius even wrote a letter to Alexander of Alexandria accusing him of distorting the real teachings of Arius.[10]  Eusebius would participate also in a synod of Syrian bishops, who defined that Arius should be restored to his former position, but on his side he was to obey his bishop and continually entreat peace and communion with him.[11] Truly, Arius found not only a great sanctuary in Caesarea, but also a prodigious defender of his doctrine in the person of Eusebius, at least in the Pre-Nicene era and from the point of view of Arius. 

Eusebius associated himself to Arius not necessarily because of the similarity of their doctrines and understanding of the Son. It is most probable that Eusebius extended help to Arius because of their affiliation to the same school of thought, namely the Originist tradition. Eusebius had been educated under the tutelage of Pamphilus who was a student of Origen himself. In the formation of Eusebius, he copied works of Origen, together with Pampilus. Arius was also schooled in the Origenist tradition. This is evident in the subordationist leaning of his doctrines. This is also apparent since Arianism is a conflict within the Origenist subordationist and Origenist moderate subordationist. Eusebius coddled a person who would go down to the history as one of the most notorious heretics in the Christendom, out of affiliation and not necessarily doctrinal agreement.

It is also important to note that during that time, in 320, it was then the beginning of the so-called Arian controversy. Clear cut doctrine on the Trinity did not exist yet, after all this very controversy would usher in debates on the same doctrinal subject that would culminate in the doctrinal description of the relation of the Father with the Son by various Church councils, especially the first Council of Nicaea.[12] Thus, when Eusebius received Arius in Caesarea, the former may have received Arius not for doctrinal reasons. Thus, most probably, one reason why Eusebius received Arius is their affiliation to the same school of thought. In this case, it is their association with the Origenist tradition that linked Eusebius and Arius. This could be the reason why the Eusebius and his diocese would be a logical refuge for Arius and his fellow Arians.

The Synod of Antioch in 325

In 325, barely five years since the Arian Controversy erupted, it had spread around the known world. So much so that church officials took all measurements at hand to contain this controversy. One of these means is the Synod of Antioch in the early months of 325.

R.P.C. Hanson hypothesized that this synod was meant to choose the new bishop of Antioch, a successor of Philgonius who had then recently died. It is probable that Ossius of Cordova, on his way to Constantine from Alexandria, joined the synod and made it a point that the Arian Controversy be included in the list of agenda of the synod. [13]

Though Alexander of Alexandria, then the foremost advocate of orthodoxy against the Arians, did not attend this synod, the language used by the synod is very similar to that of Alexander. This is probably because of the influence of Alexander to the bishops through his letters sent to them, though they may be outside Alexandria and Egypt.[14] The synod is also the pioneer in producing anathemas against wrong doctrines and teaching.

The Synodal Letter of Antioch in 325

The source of information regarding this synod is a letter that the synod itself had sent to Alexander of Alexandria. The original Greek text is now lost. However, three Syriac manuscripts survive: Par. Syr. 62; Vatican Cod. Syr. 148; Mingana Syr. 8.[15]

The letter opens with the names of those who participated in the synod. After the introductory notes, the author of the letter highlighted the fact that the he did not desire to solve by himself the problems he had found in the church in Antioch. And such is one of the very purpose of the synod convoked; to find solution to the pressing needs of the Antiochene church. 

For since our brother and fellow servant, the honored and beloved Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, had excommunicated some of his presbyters, i.e. Arius and his friends, for blasphemy which they directed against our Savior, though they were able by their impious teaching to cause some to stray to such an extent that they were received into communion by them, the holy synod decided to investigate this questions first…[16]

We kept before us what Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, had done against Arius and his friends, that if any clearly were tainted with teaching opposed to these actions, they too should be expelled from the Church, to prevent them by their continued presence from being able to seduce some of the simpler brethren.[17]
In the opening remarks of the synod, it is also clear that they had Alexander of Alexandria as their guidepost in every decisions that they would be making. Furthermore, the synod fathers were determined to replicate the same attitude that Alexander had to the perceived enemies of the Church, specifically to Arius and his friends. 

The letter of the synod proceeded to state the doctrines and faith of the synod members. It was through a confession of faith that the synod made such understanding on faith known. For the purpose of the present study, the synod’s understanding of the Son will be presented. It is as follows:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, begotten not from nothing, but from the Father; not made, but a genuine offspring. He was begotten inexpressibly and unspeakably, because only the Father who begot and the Son who was begotten know it, “for no one knows the Father except the Son, or the Son except the Father” [Matt 11:27].[18]

He always exists and never before did he not exist, for we have been taught from the holy Scriptures that he alone is God’s image. He is not unbegotten, for he is clearly begotten of the Father. This status has not been placed upon him; in fact, it would be godless blasphemy to say so. But the scriptures say that he is the real and truly begotten Son, so we believe him to be unchangeable and unalterable. He has not been begotten or come into being merely by the Father’s will, nor has this status been placed upon him, which would make him appear to be from nothing. But he was begotten as was fitting for him, not at all according to the impermissible idea that he resembles, is of similar nature to, or is associated with any of the things that came into existence through him.[19]

But, because this transcends all thought, conception, and expression, we simply confess that he has been begotten from the unbegotten Father, God the Word, true Light, righteousness, Jesus Christ, Lord of all and Savior. He is the image not of the will or of anything else except the actual being (hypostasis*) of the Father. This one, the Son, God the Word, was also born in the flesh from Mary the Mother of God and was made flesh. After suffering and dying, he rose from the dead and was taken into heaven, and he sits at the right hand of the Majesty of the Most High. He is coming to judge the living and the dead.[20]

Just as the holy writings teach us to believe in our Savior, so also they teach us to believe in one Spirit, one catholic church, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment which will pay back to each man according to what he has done in the flesh, whether good or evil.[21]

The confession of faith of the synod concludes with an anathema:

We anathematize those who say or think or proclaim that the Son of God is a creation (ktisma); has come into being (genētos), or was made (poiētos), or was not truly begotten; or that there was a time when he did not exist (for we believe that he was and that he is Light); still also those who think he is unchangeable only by his free will [i.e., not according to his essence], as with those who think he did not exist before he was begotten and that he is not unchanging by his nature as the Father is. He has been proclaimed as the Father’s image in every respect, especially in this respect, that he does not change.[22]

This confession of faith emphasized the Son as one who is not created out nothing, but rather was begotten in an ineffable way, and that he is the image of the Father in every respect. It is also noticeable the use of biblical passages to support their claims. The synod’s letter concludes with the partial excommunication of three personalities that, inn the view of the synod, had openly transgressed against the conclusions of the synod.

This faith was put forth, and indeed the entire holy synod consented and confessed that this is the apostolic teaching which alone is able to save. All the fellow-ministers have the same understanding about these issues. Only Theodotus of the Laodicean church, Narcissus of the church in Neronia, and Eusebius from the church in Caesarea of Palestine have appeared together and brought forward ideas contrary to those expressed here, as if they have forgotten the holy Scriptures and the apostolic teachings (though indeed they have attempted to shiftily escape notice and hide their deceptions with false, though persuasive-sounding arguments). In fact, from what they were asked and what they asked in turn, they clearly were proven to agree completely with Arius’ party, and to hold opinions contrary to what was established by our synod.[23]

For this reason, that their hearts are so hardened, and that they have no regard for the holy synod which rejected and disapproved of their ideas in these matters, we all fellow-ministers in the synod have ruled not to practice fellowship with these men, not to consider them worthy of fellowship, since their faith is something other than that of the catholic church. (15.) So that you might know of this, we write to you, so that you too can be on guard against having fellowship with these men, and that you may not write to them or receive letters of fellowship from them. You should also know this, that on account of our great brotherly love, we of the synod have established a place for them to repent and recognize the truth: the magnificent and sacred synod to be held at Ancyra. So encourage all the like-minded brothers to spread this message, so that they also will be able to know the facts about these men, how some have been removed from the church and are not in agreement with her.[24]

The synod had partially excommunicated Theodotus of the Laodicean church, Narcissus of the church in Neronia, and Eusebius from the church in Caesarea of Palestine. These three were identified to be sympathetic to the Arian cause and doctrine. Though the synod excommunicated these three, they were given the chance to make themselves clear in a council that would be convened in Ancyra. Thus, their excommunication is partial. This council would later be convoked by Constantine on the same year, in Nicaea, since Nicaea would be more accessible to more bishops who would be participating in the said council. 

One may ask: If the synod emphasized on the assertion that the Son was not created out of nothing, but was begotten in an ineffable way, and that he is the express image of the Father in every respect, why did then the synod excommunicate Eusebius? Is Eusebius really against this emphasis of the synod? Is  Eusebius’ understanding of the Son (Pre-Nicene) different from the Synod’s understanding?
EUSEBIUS’ UNDERSTANDING OF THE SON

At this point due attention will be dedicated to Eusebius’ understanding of the Son through his Pre-Nicene writings, particularly in his work Demonstratio Evangelica. The Demonstratio Evangelica is hereby chosen as the source of Eusebius understanding of the Son as this work is extensively dedicated in expounding the nature of the Son using the gospels.[25]  

In his exposition on the Eusebian Theologies of the Son as the image of God before 314, Mark Delcogliano presents Eusebius’ understanding of the Son taking a so-called constitutive approach in the relation of the Son with the Father. The nature of the Son as image consists in the being like of the Father.[26] Eusebius would employ biblical passages and expressions pertaining to the Son, e.g. the form of God (Philippian 2:6), image of the invisible God (Collosians 1:15), radiance of the glory and the character of the subsistence of God (Hebrew 1:3).  Delcogliano states:

These titles of the Son reveal his relationship to the father’s divinity, a relationship that is proper to him alone, as if to an only begotten Son. Because of this relationship, the one God (Deut 4:35) is made known through the Son as through an image. For that reasons the Son is also God, because, in him as in an image, there is an expression of the Father. Hence the Son is God only because he is the image of God, being called by this title only because of his likeness to the first principle.[27]

The Son as the ineffable image of the Father does mean simply a lifeless image. It is a living image; the living Son of the Father, made in the exactness of the Father (in his archetypal Divinity). He is begotten in the greatest degree of exactness possible. By virtue of being begotten in the father exactitude, the Son is the manifestation of the Father’s qualities, activity, essence, form and divinity, as the Son’s titles in the scripture would suggest: form of God, image of the invisible God. Delcogliano would further label such approach of Eusebius towards the Son in relation with the Father as a constitutive approach, in contradistinction with Arius’ approach as participatory approach.[28] Eusebius’ constitutive approach to the Son’s relation with the Father would further describe the Son as one who owns in himself his divinity, and not merely participating to the divinity of the Father. The Father constituted, begot, generated the Son in his own exact image, and essence, and in Himself a God just like the Father. Thus, the essence of God is not foreign to the Son, since the Son was constituted to have them as His own essence. In the Demonstratio Evangelica, Eusebius further elucidated his understanding of the Son to be a God, with the divine attributes the Son possessed in his very own essence. He distinguished the Son from other creatures, making a distinction between generation and creation. He excluded the Son from the category of creatures.

EUSEBIUS AND THE SYNOD: FACE TO FACE

The understanding on the Son by Eusebius and the Synod of Antioch in 325 are alike. Both upheld the divinity of the Son. For the Synod, The Son was not created out of nothing, but was begotten in an ineffable way, and that he is the express image of the Father in every respect. While for Eusebius, the Son is truly Son and God…because he alone who was begotten from the Father himself, was in the form of God (Phil 2:6) and was the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). With the resemblance in the understanding about the Son, why would the Synod proceed in partially excommunicating Eusebius?

One probable reason behind the partial excommunication of Eusebius by the Synod is their difference in theological, political and social sympathies and affiliations.

The Synod was heavily influenced by Alexander of Alexandria. This is evident in the introductory headings of the Synod, as presented above. The Antiochene church may had been greatly influenced by the Alexandrian bishop through his letters sent to various churches outside Egypt. These letters contained anti-Arius instructions. The presence of Ossius of Cordova may had contributed too to the anti-Arius undertone of the Synod. Lastly, the influence of Alexander of Alexandria to the Synod in translated to the goal that the Synod had set before them; We kept before us what Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, had done against Arius and his friends, that if any clearly were tainted with teaching opposed to these actions, they too should be expelled from the Church. Thus, the Synod was very much willing to observe the same stringent treatment of Alexander towards Arius and his friends.

Eusebius was greatly associated with Arius. The two were linked not necessarily by the doctrine they believed in to nor the teachings they upheld. Eusebius and Arius were related through the school of thought or the tradition in which they were formed. They were both schooled in the Origenist tradition. Thus, it was not surprising that Arius would find Eusebius openhearted towards him and his supporters, when Alexander expelled them from his diocese.

In the end of his study on the Eusebian theologies, Delcogliano concludes that among the Eusebians conflict too occurred. This is primarily because in the fourth century, ecclesiastical parties were not constituted by common set theological beliefs understood in the same way. Parties are defined mainly by expectations and the activity of mutual defense and correction, by common opposition to enemies considered as such for reasons not necessarily theological, and by a minimum set of shared doctrinal principles and formulas. These same principles and findings can also be applied in the case of Eusebius and the Synod of Antioch. Though Eusebius’ may not had a different doctrine on the Son vis-à-vis the doctrine confessed by the Synod, the latter chose to partially excommunicate the former. This is because the Synod is of Alexander of Alexandria who happened to be the archenemy of Arius who is a colleague of Eusebius in the Origenist school.

CONCLUSION

The case of Eusebius and the Synod of Antioch in early 325 can be a classic case of You are either with us, or against us. The Synod perceived Eusebius to be one who was against them as he was with Arius (who was the object of Alexander and the Synod’s disapproval). Such mechanism by the Synod may had proved to be affective, for in the same year during the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius would professed a confession of faith together with Alexander of Alexandria, and Ossius of Cordova. [29] Eusebius did so not as a form of compromised to same his head but a manifestation of his and the rest of the church of Caesarea’s beliefs even before the convocation of such holy and sacred Council of Nicaea. This is manifested in his letter to his Diocese after the Council of Nicaea, indicating the creed they, Caesareans, held since his baptism; the creed himself had received.[30] If compared to that creed professed by the Synod of Antioch; Eusebius and the Caesareans creed particular that which pertains to the doctrine of the Son was of little different but assuredly with no Arian intent in it.  


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles

Delcogliano Mark. “Eusebian Theologies of the Son,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 14/4 (2006):  471.

Johnson, Aaron P. Review of Eusebius of Caesarea against Paganism (Jewish and Christian
Perspectives Series, Vol. III by Aryeh Kofsky. Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 59, No. 2 (May, 2005), pp. 209-212.

Murphy, Harold S. “Eusebius’ NT Text in the Demonstratio Evangelica,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Sep., 1954), pp. 162-168.

Suggs, Jack M. “Eusebius and the Gospel Text,” The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Oct., 1957), pp. 307-310.


Books

Drobner, Hubertus R. The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction; trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007.  

Luinheid, Colm. The Essential Eusebius. New York: The New American Library, 1966.

Moreschini, Claudio and Enrico Norelli. Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History, Vol. 1, From Paul to Constantine. trans. Matthew J. O’Connell. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.

Pope Benedict XVI. The Fathers of the Church: From Clement of Rome to Augustine. Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J. ed. Cambridge: WB Eerdmans Publsihing Co., 2009.

Stevenson J., ed., A New Eusebius: Documents illustrative of the History of the Church to A.D. 337. London: SPCK, 1983.


Online Sources

A Chronology of the Arian Controversy. Accessed November 30, 2015. Available from http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/ churchhistory220/LectureTwo/ArianControversy.htm.

Bacchus F.J. Eusebius of Cæsarea. in The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Accessed November 27, 2015. Available from New Advent http://www.newadvent.org /cathen/05617b.htm

Fragment of a letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to Alexander of Alexandria. Accessed November 30, 2015available from http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-7.

Hanson R.P.C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.
Accessed November 28, 2015. Available from http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-18/.

Letter of Alexander of Alexandria to all bishops (Henos sōmatos). Accessed December 5, 2015. Available from http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-4b.



[1] Hubertus R. Drobner, The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction; trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007) 221.  
[2] Henceforth simply Eusebius, other Eusebiuses will be distinguished by suffixing their names with their place of origin
[3] F.J. Bacchus, Eusebius of Cæsarea. in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company). Accessed November 27, 2015. Available from New Advent http://www.newadvent.org /cathen/05617b.htm
[4] Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History, Vol. 1, From Paul to Constantine, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005)413.  
[5] Pamphilus was a student of of Pierius in Alexandria. He was an heir in Caesarea to the example of Origen, whose library he tended and expanded. This ascetic was able to gather students, one of them was Eusebius, who busied themselves in the revision of biblical text, a task already started by Origen (Moreschini 414). 
[6] F.J. Bacchus, Eusebius of Cæsarea.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Moreschini, 414.
[9] A Chronology of the Arian Controversy Accessed November 30, 2015. Available from http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/ churchhistory220/LectureTwo/ArianControversy.htm.
[10] Fragment of a letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to Alexander of Alexandria. Accessed November 30, 2015. Available from http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-7.
[11] Sozomen, Church History I.15
[12] Mark Delcogliano, “Eusebian Theologies of the Son,”: Journal of Early Christian Studies 14/4 (2006):  471.  
[13] R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.
Accessed November 26, 2015. Available from http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-18/.

[14] Letter of Alexander of Alexandria to all bishops (Henos sōmatos), accessed December 1, 2015, available from http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-4b, on.
[15] Letter of the Synod of Antioch (325), Accessed November 25, 2015. Available from http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-18/.
[16] J. Stevenson, ed., A New Eusebius: Documents illustrative of the History of the Church to A.D. 337 (London: SPCK, 1983) 355.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid., 356.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid., 357.
[25] Aaron P. Johnson, review of Eusebius of Caesarea against Paganism(Jewish and Christian
Perspectives Series, Vol. III by Aryeh Kofsky. Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 59, No. 2 (May, 2005), pp. 209-212.
[26] Mark Delcogliano, 471.  
[27] Ibid. 471-472.
[28] Constitutive and Participatory Models are heuristic devices coined by Delcogliano to facilitate the understanding of the Eusebian theologies on the Son.
[29] F.J. Bacchus, Eusebius of Cæsarea.
[30] Colm Luinheid, The Essential Eusebius (New York: The New American Library, 1966) 217.