By Archmandrite Dr Athenagoras Soupourtzis*
In 2025, we will mark 1700 years since the convocation of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea of Bithynia (325 AD). Although this event primarily belongs within the framework of Christian Theology, and the ecclesiastical sphere, its legal and political significance is extremely interesting, and remains consistently relevant throughout the times.
The Council was convened with the participation of bishops from across the entire Roman Empire, and functioned as a regulatory collective body, with institutional status, and a formal procedure. In this form, it established an early, yet functional, model of representative governance — with internal accountability, dialogical character, and institutionally mediated decision-making.
The crucial institutional distinction lies in the method of decision-making: in dogmatic matters, there was unanimity – oneness of voice – the acceptance of the term homoousios (ὁμοούσιος) for the Son, was achieved through theological consensus. In contrast, canonical issues—such as ecclesiastical order and clerical discipline were decided by a majority vote. This distinction reflects a functional dualism between the unity of faith, and practical management of disputes. It constitutes an early example of typological differentiation, and an early expression of the basic principles of public law.
A reasonable question arises: was there democracy before Nicaea? Certainly, there were forms of it — especially in Classical Athens, and in the Roman res publica. But Nicaea introduced something new: the institutional mediation of decision-making through representatives, with distinct roles and functions. The authority of the emperor was organizational, not decisive. The content was determined by the Council, not by state power. In this way, the institutional autonomy of the collective body was prefigured.
The working model of the First Ecumenical Council also provides a historical model of institutional pluralism, as it recognized the existence of more than one center of authority, within a unified cultural framework. The Church and the Empire did not operate in conflict, but in a state of institutional coordination. Spiritual and ecclesiastical crises were not subject to political will, while secular power was limited by the need for legitimacy through institutions. The existence of multiple decision making centers, with distinct roles and mutual recognition, forms a historical matrix for the idea of the liberal democratic state, and the institutional balance that characterizes it.
What was novel, was not that all members of the council were welcomed to participate equally, but that this participation was formed into an ordered institutional structure. Representation, procedural legitimacy, recognition of a majority or consensus as a source of legitimacy — these elements form the core of liberal constitutionalism. Nicaea itself did not produce a system of political governance, but it formed a prefiguration.
Modern democracy presupposes the separation of powers, limitation of authorities, accountability, and the rule of law — a model more compatible with the Christian faith. All these elements emerge, in embryonic form, from the functioning of the First Ecumenical Council. The Church emerged not only as the primary spiritual institution, but also as a paradigm of institutional order.
The 1700th anniversary is not merely a commemorative event. It is an opportunity for reflection on the roots of modern liberal democratic organization. The First Ecumenical Council does not belong only to ecclesiastical history. It constitutes a foundational point in the historical formation of the modern European constitutional tradition.
*Professor of Ecclesiastical and Canon Law at the Theological Academy of Volyn, Ukraine
Visiting Professor at the Supreme Ecclesiastical Academy of Athens, Greece
