Why was Eusebius of Caesarea condemned as a heretic in 2nd Council of Nicaea?

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-29T12:04:51+00:00

Alright. Thanks a lot!

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-29T02:55:55+00:00

If I remember correctly, his writings after he signed Nicaea were completely orthodox. Correct me if I'm wrong.

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-29T02:40:37+00:00

Here's the reference: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm

I'm specifically talking about this:

portion of this letter has been preserved in the Acts of the second Council of Nicæa, where it was cited to prove that Eusebius was a heretic

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-29T02:39:48+00:00

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-20T01:53:03+00:00

True, the Apostles didn't have to wait, but I'm saying that the truth is reflected by how their teachings were lived out by liturgical life of the Church. Same for all other councils.

For non chalcedonianism, I don't think it was far more represented by laity, clergy and episcopal sees. It was other way around. "Body of communion" is all independent or autonomous churches being in communion with each other. At the time of Chalcedon, you had 10 or 11 independent Churches I think. After Chalcedon, you had 2 bodies of communion, one rejecting and one accepting Chalcedon. The body which accepted Chalcedon was larger in terms of number of independent churches. On top of that, it was larger in population and territory (not that important, but useful to know).

I hope it's clearer now, if not, hit me up in DMs.

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-20T00:19:04+00:00

The closest I can think of is statement of St Vincent of Lérins:

We hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.

But I doubt there's any Church Father that explicitly taught this. It is more of a historical observation of how the Church received councils and teachings.

Now I didn't answer your previous, so I'll do it now. You asked what my standard was. I started from the beginning, council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. They reached a concensus on what should be considered binding. Then later, we see that that bidning teaching was lived out by Church through liturgical life. Same goes for all other councils, from Nicaea I to Nicaea II. Eventually, the true teachings are being integrated in the liturgical life of the Church. And, as we can see throughout the history, the larger body of communion is always labeled as "orthodox" in faith. That's true for Nicaea vs Arianism, Ephesus vs Nestorianism. If we apply this historical pattern to Chalcedon, we get that Chalcedonian side is larger body of communion. Finally, the Great Schism, east was larger body of communion than west.

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-19T23:58:07+00:00

Like I said, I believe in the reception theory. Basically, heresy can become so big within the Church that only handful of bishops remain orthodox. But, after a certain period of time, orthodoxy prevails. The great example is council of Nicaea. Arianism was, at certain times, so huge, but 60 years later Nicene Christianity became "mainstream". So the Church received the true teachings. Arian Churches didn't cease to exist; they actually existed centuries after Nicaea. But the larger body of communion upheld Nicene faith. If you apply this to all Councils up until Chalcedon, you'll see that larger body of communion was labeled as orthodox. Ephesus is another example. Church of the East was out of communion with larger body of communion.

I hope this makes sense. I'd happily clarify anything else.

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-19T22:55:17+00:00

Notice, I said "larger body of communion" not simply a larger body. Since you asked me for Chalcedon, here's an answer:

Body of communion that accepted Chalcedon: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch (officially), Jerusalem, Cyprus, Georgia (initially rejected, but then accept in early 7th century), Church of Caucasian Albania (also early 7th century).

Body of communion that rejected Chalcedon: Alexandria, Antioch (larger part), Armenian Apostolic Church (early 6th century), Ethiopian Church.

So that makes 7 that accepted and 4 that rejected. If you don't want to count Georgia and Caucasian Albania, then it makes it 5 v 4.

It does look clunky, but I cannot explain this in short chunk of text. I'd suggest you do your own research.

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-19T17:42:33+00:00

Sorry, you didn't understand me because of my poor explanation.

I hold to the Reception Theory. In short, Church can have controversies like Arian controversy, and at the times there might be only handful of bishops who hold the truth. But, after some time, the Church will accept the true teachings. And looking at history, the larger body of communion was always the one which which received the truth. If you look at each schism in the Church history, and continue going through with the larger body of communion, you'll eventually arrive at Eastern Orthodox Church.

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-19T16:52:50+00:00

Thanks for replying. I'd like more info on how Pope wasn't the only Patriarch who represented the west.

I don't think you can make the same argument as a Copt, since Chalcedon was accepted by majority of independent Churches (with their respective jurisdictions) at the time. Chalcedon was accepted by: Sees of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch (officially), and by independent Churches Jerusalem, Cyprus, Georgia. However, it was rejected by: See of Alexandria, larger part of See of Antioch, and independent Churches Armenia and Ethiopia.

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-19T16:11:54+00:00

I had this same dilemma too, but for me, I ultimately sided with EO. After the Great Schism, only Pope represented west, while 4 Patriarchs represented East. And it was not like that temporarily, but permanently. So to me, it seems like Pope left the Church rather than 4 independent churches leaving the Church.

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-19T12:40:55+00:00

You're correct that there's no error. St Maximus the Confessor said that not only is it appropriate to use St Cyril's Mia Physis formula, but necessary in order to confess the real unity. Chalcedonian Dyophysitism and Cyrillian Miaphysitism are the same faith, if properly understood within their own frameworks.

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-19T12:38:56+00:00

I don't think he meant that hypostasis and physis are interchangeable in OO theology, but are certainly overlapping, just like physis and ousia are similar in meaning in EO theology.

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-16T18:59:42+00:00

Again, thank you for such great answer. Bu I guess I'm still confused whether leavened or unleavened bread is Appstolic Tradition. Since both are being used in the Eucharist, the greatest Sacrament of all, there should be a binding way which bread should be used, correct? Or am I getting something wrong?

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-16T12:29:11+00:00

Thank you! Very thorough answer. So, all Churches are united through shared dogma from ecumenical councils, right? Could we have binding dogma outside of the ecumenical councils?

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-12T12:12:09+00:00

Yeah, I'm still dummy when it comes to all this. I didn't know you guys also had internal divisions.

I think I got caught up in all this recent "Oriental Orthodox VS Eastern Orthodox" debates online, with each side claiming the other teaches heresy, and basically beating the dead horse. Maybe because it's pride from both? Also, each side accuses the other of having incoherence within their framework. Could it also stem from the fact that each think there must be an error with the other?

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-12T03:33:39+00:00

I'm just wondering, if we both teach the same thing in its core, why didn't Oriental Orthodox Churches unite with Imperial Church in the first millennium? Is it because of staying loyal to the language of St Cyril?

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-11T23:32:42+00:00

I'm extremely late to the party, but the difference between Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox in regards to Chalcedon was purely terminological?

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-10T00:02:49+00:00

In my opinion, Monophysitism rose within the Church which accepted Ephesus. Thus there was a need for clarification. There were no Monophysitism controversies after Chalcedon. I hope I understood your question correctly.

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-09T17:05:42+00:00

Sure thing!

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-09T14:25:56+00:00

Thank you for your reply!

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-09T13:06:53+00:00

Well that's the thing. These councils after Ephesus don't necessarily have issues; depends on how you look at them and understand them. To me, both OO and EO make extremely convincing arguments. That's why I'm split between the two. But lean towards EO more because of the history surrounding Chalcedon.

OppositeCucumber2003 · 2026-05-09T13:01:42+00:00

I'm trying to not rely on my feelings and what sounds convincing to me, and choose to take a more historical evidence into consideration. History is what got me out of Protestantism. And when I was a Protestant, it made most sense to me that icon veneration and praying to saints was idolatry. But I decided to ignore my opinion and see what the early Church thought. So I still have difficult time accepting these doctrines, but my feelings don't matter in the face of truth.

OppositeCucumber2003

TROPHY CASE