Sylvester I, the Man Who Wasn’t There

CHILDREN of the Roman Catholic Church are told not to accept any doctrine that does not originate with the church. Further than that, they are told that the ordinary priest and even the bishops are not authorized to interpret the Bible. It is said that only the popes, as vicegerents of Christ Jesus and successors of Peter, the apostle, are infallibly directed in faith and morals. Many sincere Catholic people have strictly adhered to this policy with little or no question.

Would it surprise and perhaps shock such persons to know that the very foundation teaching of their religion and their church was formulated and established by an assembly of priests and bishops without ever receiving approval of the pope during whose pontificate the council was held?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, under the heading “Nicene Creed,” states: “As approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381), it [the Nicene Creed] is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic church, to all the Eastern churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations.”a Would it not be reasonable to suppose, in view of the basic nature of this creed, that the pope himself was instrumental in formulating it?

As to his powers in this regard the Catholic Encyclopedia points out: “As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope: (a) it is his to set forth creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of faith shall be made.”b As to the calling of assemblies the same authority says further: “The legislative power of the pope carries with it the following rights: . . . (b) if he legislates with the aid of a council, it is his to convoke it, to preside, to direct its deliberations, to confirm its acts.”c

In view of the significance of the Nicene Creed as a basic confession of faith of Catholics as well as Protestants, its origin and the men responsible for it should be of interest to all professed Christians. So, in answer to our opening question, let us consider the part played in this historic drama by Sylvester I, “Saint, Pope.”

“This was the era of Constantine the Great, when the public position of the Church so greatly improved, a change which must certainly have been very noticeable at Rome; it is consequently to be regretted that there is so little authoritative information concerning Sylvester’s pontificate. At an early date legend brings him into close relationship with the first Christian emperor, but in a way that is contrary to historical fact.”d

NO POPE AT COUNCIL OF NICAEA

Perhaps, though, we might be able to find more positive evidence as to his fulfilling his position of pope in calling the Council of Nicaea. Again we are disappointed: “It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement. . . . The Council was opened by Constantine [not Sylvester] with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. . . . He had opened the session as honorary president, and he assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the ecclesiastical leaders of the council [not to the pope]. The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova [again, not Sylvester, who was not even there], assisted by the pope’s legates, Victor and Vicentius.”e

As to these latter two named, they were ordinary priests and apparently the only ones attending from Rome. Their names merely appear among the list of signatures at the end of the documentary record of the council and there is no indication in this record that they had any special authority.

But since only the pope has the right “to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of faith shall be made,” he must certainly have made some outstanding decree as to the acceptance of these fundamental teachings! Again we quote: “It is not certain whether Constantine had arranged beforehand with Sylvester concerning the actual convening of the council, nor whether there was an express papal confirmation of the decrees beyond the signatures of the papal legates.”f And since there is no evidence in the record itself that Victor and Vicentius acted for the pope, it makes Sylvester’s authorization even less certain.

There is one more point to consider. In one of our quotations it was stated that the Nicene Creed “as approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381), . . . is the profession of the Christian Faith.” Was official confirmation finally given on this occasion? Turning again to our Catholic authority we read: “The First Council of Constantinople (Second General Council) was called in May, 381, by Emperor Theodosius, . . . to confirm the Nicene Faith, . . . and was presided over by Miletus of Antioch [again, not the pope]; . . . According to Photiusg Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed.”h

Sincere Catholics, as well as Protestants, might well ask themselves, In the matter of this most important “Christian” Creed, who did actually fulfill the position of “pope,” Sylvester I, the one officially so designated by the Catholic Church, or Constantine, secular ruler of Rome and only a short time previously “converted to Christianity”? The unmistakable evidence, even from Catholic authority, points directly to Constantine. It was Constantine, not Sylvester, that convened the Council; it was Constantine, not Sylvester, that presided; it was Constantine, not Sylvester, that issued the decrees. In fact, Sylvester was not even there. And it is not unnoteworthy that at the time of his action Constantine bore the title that has since then been reserved for the popes, that is, the title “Pontifex Maximus.”i

In view of its background, then, all professed Christians would do well to view the Nicene Creed with suspicion. This becomes even more certain when its teachings are given unbiased scrutiny in the light of Jehovah God’s inspired Word, the Bible. Such careful analysis will convince all truth-seeking persons that the Nicene Creed is something beyond what was declared as good news by Jesus’ apostles, including Peter, and therefore subject itself to the curse or “anathema” pronounced by Paul at Galatians 1:8 (NW): “However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed.”

[Footnotes]

‘O Ye of Little Faith’

UNDER the above title the Valley News of Hanover, New Hampshire, of April 11, 1956, published the following common-sense editorial:

“Every once in a while some public official creates a situation that leaves the rest of us wondering if he ever heard of freedom, democracy, and political and human rights. At the very least these actions imply a lack of faith in the peoples’ understanding of freedom. At the most, they are a gross and arbitrary display of official ability to make a mountain out of a molehill. The latest official to breach freedom’s ramparts is Vermont Adjutant General Francis Billado. A group of Jehovah’s Witnesses planned an area meeting in Bennington. They sought to use the National Guard Armory. They signed a formal and legally binding lease of the building as did representatives of the National Guard. The Witnesses then publicized their meeting among their assemblies.

“Then, like a bolt out of the blue, more than a month after the contract had been signed and the Witnesses had concluded advance publicity arrangements, General Billado abruptly cancelled the contract. He cited as his reason the ‘possibility of trouble—a riot or something.’ The Witnesses, being essentially peaceful people, have chosen not to make a legal fight to enforce the lease. One of two things is plainly evident: Either the Guard and Billado did not know anything about the Witnesses when they signed the contract or they were subject to pressure from the outside. If the former is the case, then it is an amazing show of ignorance on a high official level. If it is the latter, then Billado has the duty to speak out forthrightly naming names and revealing why he believes that there is a ‘possibility of trouble.’

“The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a sect that has demonstrated over and over again that it is capable of conducting orderly meetings. Their national assemblies have been so well organized and run as to excite admiration from those who have watched them in operation. Their beliefs are not generally popular, yet the sect is one of the fastest growing religious bodies in America. The great majority of Americans have a pretty firm grip on the principles of freedom. When they see a prominent official backing away from a legal commitment because of the ‘possibility of trouble,’ they have good reason to wonder.

“Governor Johnson has been quoted as saying that he plans to obtain ‘full information’ about the incident. We hope that he does just that and if, as we strongly suspect, there is no evidence of a ‘clear and present danger,’ no ‘possibility of trouble—a riot or something’ he will have the courage to set the matter straight publicly.”

Faithful Transmission

● The new book The Dead Sea Scrolls by Millar Burrows brings up the question as to whether these scrolls change the Bible as we know it. The author answers with a categorical “nay.” In fact, both the Isaiah manuscript and the Habakkuk text confirm, as Burrows writes, that “the essential truth and the will of God revealed in the Bible . . . have been preserved unchanged through all the vicissitudes in the transmission of the text.”