Nicene controversies was at least partly a conflict over authority. Arendt defined authority “contradistinction to both coercion by force and persuasion through arguments” (Arendt, Between Past and Future, 91). By that definition, the Nicene controversies of the fourth century represent a complete lack of authority as both force and persuasion marked virtually the entirety of the controversy. Who held religious authority was a persistent theme in the controversies from the beginning conflicts between teaching authority and ecclesiastical authority (e.g. Rowan Williams, Arius), authority from confessors or martyrs from the recently concluded Diocletian persecution such as Melitius of Lycopolis (e.g. Socrates, HE; Theodoret HE), and of special interest to modern scholars authority of the emperor (e.g. Barnes, Caner, Drake) and the emerging monastic movement (e.g. Brakke, Brown, Rosseau). This special interest is well supported by the various contemporary and near contemporary church histories which cover the Nicene controversies such as Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Philostorgius.
While not denying the importance of the authority of any of the above groups in the Nicene Controversies, this paper will contribute to the understanding the role of authority in the resolution of the Nicene Controversies by focusing on a neglected area of study, liturgical authority. This paper will argue that officiant’s liturgical authority formed a basis from which all sides maneuvered to gain support for their position. In doing so, this paper will not focus on the authority of the liturgy itself in the polemical arguments made, such as the role of the baptismal formula, but rather the authority of the liturgical actors as bishops, presbyters, and deacons used their liturgical authority to maintain unity in their churches and position themselves as the true and proper church against their rivals. In addition to focusing on a lesser studied aspect of the Nicene controversies, this paper will further scholar’s understanding of the exact arena in which most people would intersect with the controversies, in the person of their bishop/presbyter during their ecclesiastical worship.
This paper will support its thesis using a framework drawing on insights from ritual studies, especially Catherine Bell’s and Ronald Grimes’s work on ritual authority, as well as by examining the near-contemporary church histories mentioned above as well as other contemporary writings such as Pseudo-Ignatius, Apostolic Constitutions, and Basil, On the Holy Spirit. Further support will be given by contextualizing the period by giving a brief background of how liturgical authority had been used in pre-Nicene controversies to highlight the continuities and discontinuities of how liturgical authority was viewed in the Nicene controversies. Finally, the importance of the topic will be demonstrated by examining the intersection of liturgical authority with other trends in the Nicene controversies, focusing especially on the intersection with traditionalism illustrated by Theodosius’s Cunctos Populos (380 CE), Nectarius at the so-called “Council of Heresies” (383 CE), and the Nicene and non-Nicene pseudepigrapha, as well as its intersection with ascetic authority.