dallashistory

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124598071177158161.html

Why Sunday Schools Are Closing
By CHARLOTTE HAYS

Quote:
When Dorothy Stutzman was 5, she began a habit that would carry her through most of her life: Sunday school at the West Olive United Methodist Church in Bloomington, Ill. "My parents said 'go,' and I went," recalled Ms. Stuzman. It was that simple. Ms. Stutzman went on to teach Sunday school at West Olive Methodist for more than 50 years. She loved telling Bible stories, putting on little skits and befriending kids who didn't have it so easy at home.

A few years ago, however, West Olive was forced to pull the plug on Sunday school. Attendance had shrunken to one lone child. "We couldn't compete with television and computers," Ms. Stuzman said sadly.

Although Sunday school was until recently a staple of middle-class Protestant life in the U.S., its origins lie among the rowdy poor of England's Industrial Revolution. Robert Raikes (1736-1811), a crusading newspaper editor, developed Sunday classes as a way to reach out to England's poor in the 1780s. Dubbed in Protestant circles "the greatest lay movement since Pentecost," Sunday school traveled across the pond in the 1790s, eventually becoming the Protestant norm here. By my own childhood, Sunday school was taken for granted. Catholics relied on parochial schools and special weekday classes to teach the faith, but Protestants had Sunday school.

A childhood without Sunday school was unthinkable. Like the roast beef and peas in cream sauce at Sunday lunch, and afternoon visits from uncles and aunts, Sunday school was an essential part of the day. My mother had taught Sunday school, and when she got married the tots threw her a surprise handkerchief shower. Another proud daughter of a Sunday-school teacher, Grace Terzian, treasures a little hand-made book of "Favorite Psalms" that her mother put together for her second-grade class in Nashville, Tenn. Didn't everybody grow up singing "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus" on Sunday mornings?

Sunday school was hardly advanced theology. Most of the programs ran parallel to the regular school year. During the Sunday-school "year" there wasn't time to cover much beyond the major Old Testament stories and the Gospel stories about Jesus. Acts and the Epistles always got short shrift. (I was an adult before I realized that St. Paul wasn't one of the original 12!) We either tormented or adored our Sunday-school teachers. Some are dear to us still. In short, Sunday school was a civilizing experience that assured some level of religious literacy.

Fewer children are having that experience, though. Like West Olive United Methodist, many churches have drastically curtailed or given up entirely on Sunday school for children. Two years ago, Bruce Morrison, an official with the Missouri Baptist Convention, wrote about attending a "ministry conference where several denominations were represented." During a break, he recalled, "I overheard a discussion between several of the attendees about the value of Sunday School in today's culture. The implication was that Sunday School ministry in the local church is obsolete."

The decline in Sunday schools appears to be gradual but steady. A study by the Barna Group indicated that in 2004 churches were 6% less likely to provide Sunday school for children ages 2 to 5 as in 1997. For middle-school kids, the decline was to 86% providing Sunday school in 2004 from 93% in 1997. Similarly, there was a six-percentage-point drop in Sunday schools offered for high school kids -- to 80% from 86%. All in all, about 20,000 fewer churches were maintaining Sunday-school classes. And the future does not look bright: Only 15% of ministers regarded Sunday school as a leading concern. The younger the pastor, the study showed, the less emphasis he placed on Sunday school.

A number of reasons can be given for the decline, including an increasingly secular society and the other demands on the time of the average child. And then there is a content problem. The kind of Sunday-school activities that pleased my generation simply wouldn't fly with today's busier and more sophisticated kids. "A lot of the stuff we did was rote memory," said Mr. Morrison of the Missouri Baptist Convention.

Ultimately, if Sunday school is to thrive, parental involvement is necessary -- somebody has to say, "Go." But who? The Rev. Neil MacQueen, a Presbyterian minister who develops software programs for Sunday schools, cites a crucial factor in the decline of Sunday-school attendance: divorce. On any given Sunday, many children of divorced parents are out of town, visiting "the other" parent.

Despite all of these factors, Sunday school may not be bound for extinction any time soon. As Keith Drury, an associate professor at Indiana Wesleyan University, notes, Sunday school "has been ignored, starved of attention," and ministers and laity have started all kinds of other programs that compete with it. But it just keeps going and going.

Sometimes it seems that middle-class kids today are as spiritually untutored as the industrial poor of Robert Raikes's England. So maybe there is still a niche to fill.

Ms. Hays is the editor of In Character, published by the John Templeton Foundation.
End quote.

Now that is funny!! I didn't know WSJ had an "Onion" type editorial.

IF West Olive UMC has discontinued their Sunday School it is probably 1. The demographics of the area in relation to age etc and/or 2. it is and dead spiritually.

Every church i know around here or Atlanta or even very liberal Oak Park has thriving SS whether they be Catholic or Protestant, Bible or Denominational. You see the cars pulled up ay our local large Catholic church letting the kids out on Sunday. The problem in most active and alive churches--not enough adults volunteering to teach.

I think I've said before that what I liked best about Sunday School was the singing. I don't remember much of the rest of it, but I still recognize most of the songs we sung. Great fun.

I think when a church decides to pull the plug on Sunday School, that marks the beginning of the end of the church itself. Declining attendance by youth is a sign of a church dying, getting rid of Sunday School will only hasten the process; as families have one less reason to attend. When the elderly church population shrinks to point where offerings can no longer keep the doors open, the church will close; unless someone comes along and breathes new life into it.

So sad.

I thought the only time I ever been to Sunday School was when visiting some Protestant cousins way back in the 1950s. My children never went to Sunday School nor my grandchildren.
I looked it up on Google and found this:

The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is commonly referred to by its abbreviation, CCD, or simply as "Catechism," and provides religious education to Catholic children attending secular schools. Similar to children’s Sunday school in Protestant churches, CCD education is provided by both members of the clergy and lay staff, although unlike Sunday school it is often held after school on weekdays. CCD attendance is considered by Vatican officials to be vital to children’s development as Catholics. These classes not only educate children about Jesus and the Catholic faith but prepare children to receive the sacraments of Penance (confession), the Eucharist (Holy Communion), and Confirmation.

So I guess we did go to "Sunday School" after all. It was just called something else and we had it during the week. When I went it was referred to as "Catechism"
and when my kids went it was CCD and now my grandkids go to "Faith Formation". But it is all the same thing and it's all Sunday School.
I've lived and I've learned.
Say Glory.

Ronnie, some friends/neighbors of ours here on the street (MUCH younger with 2 little girls) told me that they had left the big Catholic church (I mentioned earlier) and are now going to a very small one that they are loving. (They had left for personal reasons --nothing the church had done)
Apparently this very small Catholic church with a couple of "on fire" Priests has taken a page from many Protestant churches and Internat'l Bible Studies and now offers a weekly family night. The parents and children all meet for a simple dinner and some fellowship. Then they split up into Bible Study groups--the children study a children's level parallel lesson to their parents'. Each week they all have a little homework and discussion together at home before the next meeting.

Anyway the mother a life long Catholic said until now she had known zero about the Bible. The dad a convert from the Baptist denomination knows many of the stories etc but not really doctrine so they are all having a wonderful bonding time learning together and their faith is growing.

From my experience, I would guess that childhood Bible study can play an important role in a person's intellectual development. It did that for me, I know.

But, as much as I liked Bible stories, I fell in love with the songs.

Sharon
No offense
But....

But I don't think taking " a page from many Protestant churches and Internat'l Bible Studies" is necessarily a good thing.
Catechism is where Roman Catholic children should be learning about the Bible and not some "study group".
This could lead to problems later.
And unless the adult study groups are led by accredited Catholic biblical experts then I'd say bible study isn't a good thing.
The "Priests on fire" description concerns me too.
And where did a "small" Catholic Church get more than one priest. My church is moderately large with about 400 families and we have one priest.
Just my opinion.
The one place I'm very conservative is in my faith and the Roman Church. Peter and I had a disagreement some months back (before I got my meds adjusted) about how we Catholics worship although in fact he and I were on the same page but I didn't understand (because of the old meds, he pleaded).

No offense taken.

Just curious though re your:

But I don't think taking " a page from many Protestant churches and Internat'l Bible Studies" is necessarily a good thing.
Catechism is where Roman Catholic children should be learning about the Bible and not some "study group".
This could lead to problems later.

What specific problems later?

And unless the adult study groups are led by accredited Catholic biblical experts then I'd say bible study isn't a good thing.
The "Priests on fire" description concerns me too.

Why is Bible Study never a good thing? Why (other than Roman Catholic Doctrine) is an adult study group led by an accredited Catholic biblical expert the only way? Why should priests who know and love the Lord and want others in their congregation to know him be a concern?


So I am not arguing just want to understand--you and your view.

Sharon, there are some very good children's Bible teaching aids at many Catholic bookstores and as long as the teachers are using those are being used I see no problem.
The Roman Catholic Church sees the Bible diferently that Evangelicals. We believe the Church was first and from the Church came the Bible. We are a Christ centered church, We hold the Bible in extremely high reverence, we also hold that Church teachings stand on equal footing. So when there is Bible teaching it must not comflict with offcial Church doctrine.
We're not wrong in the way we do things but we are different. We remain a Christ centered Church and we agree with Evangelicals than we disagree on what that means.
But we are a hierarchical and liturgical church and we take a lot of comfort in that.
When I first moved to Europe I was alone and the one place I felt at home was at Mass. The language didn't matter because I know what was going on because the Catholic Mass is the same all over the world on any given day.

To sum up: we good, you good and ain't no one cryin' but the crickets, as Grandma used to say.

Quote:
The Roman Catholic Church sees the Bible diferently that Evangelicals. We believe the Church was first and from the Church came the Bible. We are a Christ centered church, We hold the Bible in extremely high reverence, we also hold that Church teachings stand on equal footing. So when there is Bible teaching it must not comflict with offcial Church doctrine.
End quote.

The above is stated very well and essentially consistent with my reading of, among others, Charles Freeman (2002) The Closing of the Western Mind, a very entertaining and readable account from the time of late antiquity to the early Christian church.

http://www.amazon.com/Closing-Western-M ... 140004085X

Book Review: The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason
Charles Freeman,
Vintage, 2005.

Quote:
This book is a great introduction to the origins of Christian thought. Today with so many competing versions of Christianity, ranging from traditional Orthodox and Catholic views to liberal socially conscious Protestantism and right wing evangelical fundamentalists, it is helpful to have a guide such as this which explains how the original Christianity of the ancient world came about. Freeman will do a credible job of tracing this history from Roman times to the High Middle Ages.

In his introduction he tells us that he will be dealing with "a significant turning point" in western civilization. The point he has in mind is that time in the 4th and 5th centuries AD "when the tradition of rational thought established by the Greeks was stifled." It would take the West a thousand years to recover.

The Greek rational tradition was firmly established by the 5th century BC-- its two greatest founders were Plato and his student Aristotle. Unfortunately, Freeman confuses modern day empiricism with rationality and thus misapprehends the significance of Plato, following in the footsteps of his master Socrates, in the establishment of the rational method in Greece. Plato’s thought was not "an alternative to rational thought" but one of the most extreme examples of it, subjecting all beliefs to the test of logical argument whenever possible.

Be that as it may, Freeman thinks that the Greek rational tradition, today’s term would be "scientific", was deliberately squashed by the Roman government from the time of Constantine with the aid of the official Church. The wide-open intellectual environment of the Roman Empire, both religiously and philosophically came to end in the 4th century when the Emperor Constantine made Christianity the "official" state religion. The "official" version became the only legal version and thus was the "orthodox" version. "The imposition of orthodoxy," Freeman writes, " went hand in hand with a stifling of any form of independent reasoning." The rule I would formulate here is that the more any belief system deviates from the original intentions of its founders the more intolerant and anti-rational it becomes. I am not sure this holds in all cases.

Christianity was from the outset anti-rational. Freeman says, "It had been the Apostle Paul [actually an interloper, not one of the original 12, who never knew Jesus in the flesh-tr] who declared war on the Greek rational tradition through his attacks on ‘the wisdom of the wise’ and ‘the empty logic of the philosophers’...." When Christianity became the official creed it closed down any contrary thinking thus dooming the West to a thousand years of backwardness.

A good example of this mind closing is given by Freeman when he discusses the dispute between "St." Ambrose and the pagan Roman Senator Quintus Aurelius Symmachus. To my way of thinking the pagan Symmachus had an open modern mind while Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan and teacher of "St." Augustine, was a bigot (unfortunately also an all too modern religious mind set.)

In the late 4th century the seat of the Western Empire was at Milan and there were still many pagans (believers in the old traditional religion) who wished to be free to continue their form of religion. The Christian authorities were determined to repress all forms of religion save their own. One of the major symbols of the traditional religion was the Altar of Peace which adorned the Senate in Rome. The Christians had it removed. In 383 AD Symmachus and other senators petitioned the Emperor to have it restored. Ambrose (a major power behind the throne) was opposed and the petition failed. The mind sets of the two sides are clearly expressed in the following written exchange:

Symmachus: "What does it matter by which wisdom each of us arrives at the truth? It is not possible that only one road leads to so sublime a mystery."

Ambrose: "What you are ignorant of, we know from the word of God. And what you try to infer, we have established as truth from the very wisdom of God."

The truth, however, should be able to triumph without the aid of the rack and the stake.

I pointed out above that Paul had no personal knowledge of Jesus in the flesh. Freeman asserted that the intolerance of the Christians (their rejection of logic and science) stems from Paul. What is worse, when, for political reasons, the Roman state adopted the religion and forced it upon everyone its motive was to control the minds of the population for the benefit of the Empire, the actual teachings of Jesus were no more suited to the ends desired by the Romans than they are to those of the Bush administration and its evangelical base.

Paul, according to Freeman, distanced himself from the original 12 disciples (who distrusted his claims) and ended up, as we know, creating a theology that appealed to the Greco-Roman world and was rejected by the Jewish community from which Jesus came. In order to do this the real historical Jesus and his teachings (peace not war, forgiveness not vengeance, love and respect not hated and contempt-- i.e., Martin Luther King not Jerry Falwell or Pat Robinson) had to be replaced with an unreal Christ beyond history. Thus, Freeman writes, "Paul makes a point of stressing that faith in Christ does not involve any kind of identification with Jesus in his life on earth but has validity only in his death and resurrection." Thus the burden of actually having to follow the particular ethical path that Jesus the human trod is removed. (See my article "Who is John Stott" in PA archives).

Since the claims made for Jesus as the Christ are simply impossible to accept from the point of view of reason, reason is dumped and replaced by "faith." Freeman gives the following quote from "the fourth-century ascetic Anthony:" "Faith arises from the disposition of the soul... those who are equipped with the faith have no need of verbal argument." Experience shows that "verbal argument" has no effect on true believers of whatever faith!

It is also interesting to note, as Freeman does, that Anthony is claimed not to have learned "to read or write, the point being made by his biographer that academic achievement was not important for a 'man of God' and could even be despised."

Freeman is incorrect, I think, in holding that the personal commitment Christians made to Christ (becoming "a single body with Christ... achieving a full identification with Christ through his death and then rising with him from the dead") was "something new in antiquity."

This very belief was characteristic of the devotees of the Egyptian god Osiris whose worship in the cult of Isis and Osiris was widespread throughout the Roman Empire and whose popularity may explain why Christianity proved so popular to the Greco-Roman population.

Mary idolatry, still rampant with some forms of Christianity, may have stemmed from this cult connection as well. Freeman points out that Isis was the patron goddess of mariners and her symbol was the rose. Mary replaced her as the patron of sailors and her symbol was also the rose. He also says "representations of Isis with her baby son Horus on her knee seem to provide the iconic background for those of Mary and the baby Jesus."

The Greek rational tradition demanded that people think for themselves and take responsibility for their actions. Christianity introduced a different conception of moral responsibility. It introduced the idea of "don't think, just follow orders." Freeman quotes a long extract from William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience in which a Jesuit explains the value of living the monastic life (every religion has something similar to this, as well as extremist political groups of the left and right).

The Jesuit explains that if you obey the orders of your religious Superior, no matter what they are, you can do no wrong! "The Superior may commit a fault in commanding you to do this or that, but you are certain that you commit no fault so long as you obey, because God will only ask you if you have duly performed what orders you received.... The moment what you did was done obediently, God wipes it out of your account...." Nice. Not even God respects the Geneva Conventions, why should Rummy or Bush? We have to agree with Freeman when he declares that, "Here the abdication of the power to think for oneself is complete."

The book clearly demonstrates that religion in the West has been used to deprecate and reject reason (unless the Church can misuse it in its own interests). It also demonstrates that the modern world, the progressive part at any rate, represents a return to the Greek outlook. When Freeman, in reference to the teachings of the Church says, "The ancient Greek tradition that one should be free to speculate without fear and be encouraged to take individual moral responsibility for one's views was rejected," we can today assert that now in the 21st. Century, despite the tragic history of "real existing socialism" in the past century, no genuine Marxist committed to people's democracy would agree with the Church on this matter and would rather identify with the Greeks.

The most important internal reason for the collapse of the socialist block, I think, may have been the lack of real participatory democracy and citizen involvement. Traditional Christianity as well as fundamentalism may likewise now be facing this malaise which is also characteristic of American democracy under the Bush administration.

What Freeman writes about the Church can be extended to these other groups as well. "Intellectual self-confidence and curiosity," he points out, "which lay at the heart of the Greek achievement, were recast as the dreaded sin of pride. Faith and obedience to the institutional authority of the church were more highly rated than the use of reasoned thought. The inevitable result was intellectual stagnation."

Reading Freeman's well written and interesting book will give you a great background and a deep historical understanding of how Christianity came to dominate the Western world for a thousand years, what that has cost in terms of intellectual degradation, and how, if the peoples of the West are to better their condition in the new century they must regain the intellectual confidence so characteristic of Greek civilization.
End quote.

--Thomas Riggins is the Book Review Editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at pabooks@politicalaffairs.net

" When Christianity became the official creed it closed down any contrary thinking thus dooming the West to a thousand years of backwardness.

Freeman asserted that the intolerance of the Christians (their rejection of logic and science) stems from Paul. What is worse, when, for political reasons, the Roman state adopted the religion and forced it upon everyone its motive was to control the minds of the population for the benefit of the Empire, the actual teachings of Jesus were no more suited to the ends desired by the Romans than they are to those of the Bush administration and its evangelical base.

The thesis of The Closing of the Western Mind by Charles Freeman (Knopf 2003) is that 'the Greek intellectual tradition did not simply lose vigour and disappear. (Its survival and continued progress in the Arab world is testimony to that.)' No, 'it was destroyed' by Christians.

For 'what we fondly call 'primitive' errors do not pass away,' says C. S. Lewis in Miracles, 'They merely change their form.'

I would just as soon put as much stock (faith) in Charles Freeman's opinions and conclusions as regards Christianity, Paul and the church as I do Gore Vidal, Christopher Hitchens,or Elmer Fudd.

Adam writes:

The above is stated very well and essentially consistent with my reading of, among others, Charles Freeman (2002) The Closing of the Western Mind, a very entertaining and readable account from the time of late antiquity to the early Christian church.

My statement is in no way consistent with Freeman. How you came to that conclusion is a mystery.
I described modern Catholic dogma and Freeman is wandering around in the 4th and 5th centuries. And what were the great and all knowing Greeks doing during period?
Inventing Greek fire to improve their robbing and pillaging turn around time

The point he has in mind is that time in the 4th and 5th centuries AD "when the tradition of rational thought established by the Greeks was stifled." It would take the West a thousand years to recover.
And this
Mary idolatry, still rampant with some forms of Christianity,
and this
The Jesuit explains that if you obey the orders of your religious Superior, no matter what they are, you can do no wrong!
Are bull sh!t.

The first statement is not rational nor true.
There is no Mary idolatry still "rampant".
And I was raised in the jungle by Jesuits and the third statement is not true.

It's always nice when a snotty "expert" comes along to explain to us unworthy and foolish believers what we should really think and believe. There will be more and they will come and go and forgotten and we Christians will plod along believing the wrong stuff for wrong reasons just as we've been doing for 2000 years.
Just my opinion offered in the kindest way possible.

Ronnie, you go bro!!!
Pretty good Theological reasoning......... for a Catholic.

Quote:
The Roman Catholic Church sees the Bible diferently that Evangelicals. We believe the Church was first and from the Church came the Bible. We are a Christ centered church, We hold the Bible in extremely high reverence, we also hold that Church teachings stand on equal footing. So when there is Bible teaching it must not comflict with offcial Church doctrine.
End quote.

I repeat that my reading of, among others, Charles Freeman (2002) Closing of the Western Mind is consistent with what Ronnie wrote above. You might not want Freeman to agree with you on this issue, but he does IMO. Specifically when he reviews the history leading to the Nicene Creed, Freeman shows in what ways and why (to quote Ronnie) "the Church was first and from the Church came the Bible." I would add that the state in the person of Constantine enabled the Church, that enabled the Bible, and specifically certain Church Doctrines (e.g., various conceptions of the Trinity).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Of course, others dissent from this view. It has long been a point of contention.

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-his ... antine.htm

www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html

gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/cea.stm

www.letusreason.org/Trin13.htm

www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

Quote:
The First Council of Nicaea
tt=83

First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held in 325 on the occasion of the heresy of Arius (Arianism). As early as 320 or 321 St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria at which more than one hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya anathematized Arius. The latter continued to officiate in his church and to recruit followers. Being finally driven out, he went to Palestine and from there to Nicomedia. During this time St. Alexander published his "Epistola encyclica", to which Arius replied; but henceforth it was evident that the quarrel had gone beyond the possibility of human control. Sozomen even speaks of a Council of Bithynia which addressed an encyclical to all the bishops asking them to receive the Arians into the communion of the Church. This discord, and the war which soon broke out between Constantine and Licinius, added to the disorder and partly explains the progress of the religious conflict during the years 322-3. Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius deprecating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay. It was evident that the emperor did not then grasp the significance of the Arian controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an ecumenical council.

The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. 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 (see POPE ST. SYLVESTER I). In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members. The choice of Nicaea was favourable to the assembling of a large number of bishops. It was easily accessible to the bishops of nearly all the provinces, but especially to those of Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace. The sessions were held in the principal church, and in the central hall of the imperial palace. A large place was indeed necessary to receive such an assembly, though the exact number is not known with certainty. Eusebius speaks of more than 250 bishops, and later Arabic manuscripts raise the figure to 2000 - an evident exaggeration in which, however, it is impossible to discover the approximate total number of bishops, as well as of the priests, deacons, and acolytes, of whom it is said that a great number were also present. St. Athanasius, a member of the council speaks of 300, and in his letter "Ad Afros" he says explicitly 318. This figure is almost universally adopted, and there seems to be no good reason for rejecting it. Most of the bishops present were Greeks; among the Latins we know only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia, and the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, representing the pope. The assembly numbered among its most famous members St. Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Nicholas of Myra. Some had suffered during the last persecution; others were poorly enough acquainted with Christian theology. Among the members was a young deacon, Athanasius of Alexandria, for whom this Council was to be the prelude to a life of conflict and of glory (see ST. ATHANASIUS).

The year 325 is accepted without hesitation as that of the First Council of Nicaea. There is less agreement among our early authorities as to the month and day of the opening. In order to reconcile the indications furnished by Socrates and by the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, this date may, perhaps, be taken as 20 May, and that of the drawing up of the symbol as 19 June. It may be assumed without too great hardihood that the synod, having been convoked for 20 May, in the absence of the emperor held meetings of a less solemn character until 14 June, when after the emperor's arrival, the sessions properly so called began, the symbol being formulated on 19 June, after which various matters - the paschal controversy, etc. - were dealt with, and the sessions came to an end 25 August. The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established. He had opened the session as honorary president, and he had assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the ecclesiastical leaders of the council. The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope's legates, Victor and Vincentius.

The emperor began by making the bishops understand that they had a greater and better business in hand than personal quarrels and interminable recriminations. Nevertheless, he had to submit to the infliction of hearing the last words of debates which had been going on previous to his arrival. Eusebius of Caesarea and his two abbreviators, Socrates and Sozomen, as well as Rufinus and Gelasius of Cyzicus, report no details of the theological discussions. Rufinus tells us only that daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his opinions were seriously discussed and the opposing arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius. (For the part played by the Eusebian third party, see EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA. For the Creed of Eusebius, see EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA.) St. Athanasius assures us that the activities of the Council were nowise hampered by Constantine's presence. The emperor had by this time escaped from the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and was under that of Hosius, to whom, as well as to St. Athanasius, may be attributed a preponderant influence in the formulation of the symbol of the First Ecumenical Council, of which the following is a literal translation:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria. The lists of the signers have reached us in a mutilated condition, disfigured by faults of the copyists. Nevertheless, these lists may be regarded as authentic. Their study is a problem which has been repeatedly dealt with in modern times, in Germany and England, in the critical editions of H. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, and O. Contz on the one hand, and C.H. Turner on the other. The lists thus constructed give respectively 220 and 218 names. With information derived from one source or another, a list of 232 or 237 fathers known to have been present may be constructed.

Other matters dealt with by this council were the controversy as to the time of celebrating Easter and the Meletian schism. The former of these two will be found treated under EASTER CONTROVERSY; the latter under MELETIUS OF LYCOPOLIS.

Of all the Acts of this Council, which, it has been maintained, were numerous, only three fragments have reached us: the creed, or symbol, given above (see also NICENE CREED); the canons; the synodal decree. In reality there never were any official acts besides these. But the accounts of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus may be considered as very important sources of historical information, as well as some data preserved by St. Athanasius, and a history of the Council of Nicaea written in Greek in the fifth century by Gelasius of Cyzicus. There has long existed a dispute as to the number of the canons of First Nicaea. All the collections of canons, whether in Latin or Greek, composed in the fourth and fifth centuries agree in attributing to this Council only the twenty canons, which we possess today.
End quote.

Adam, I see why you said that Ronnie's statements agreed with Freeman--in this one instance.
On any one point or issue there may be some agreement between anyone.

Freeman's entire, whole beginning and ending perspective and premise is 180 degrees anti the God of the Bible Who is the Only God we have--no matter whether he, you or anyone else believes it.

There is a great impassable chasm--people like Freeman and billions of others are on the other side from
the billions of us across and on the opposite/opposing side. We may, on our side, argue and disagree and sin and fail and achieve and exalt amongst ourselves but we live and have our being in a whole different sphere of thinking. We are rooted and foundationally based in God.

Freeman is rooted and based in humanism.

Freeman's skewed "other side" perspective colors and influences his views of the Roman Catholic church''s history..

His skewed "other side" perspective colors and influences his views of evangelicals.

His skewed "other side" perspective skews his views of history and civilization period.

Thanks for the passage from New Advent but in my case you're preaching to the choir. I already knew this what with being a long time mackerel snapper and all. We spend a lifetime learning and relearning this stuff.

We also spend a lifetime being told what we REALLY believe by them that have never even been to mass.
All you got to know about my church is that we are Catholic Christians and not Christian Catholics as so many non-Catholics tell us.

Quote:
Freeman is rooted and based in humanism. Freeman's skewed "other side" perspective colors and influences his views of the Roman Catholic church''s history.. His [Freeman's] skewed "other side" perspective colors and influences his views of evangelicals. His [Freeman's] skewed "other side" perspective skews his views of history and civilization period.
End quote.

Pardon me, I don't see what anyone's humanism has to do with my reading of the history. As far as I can tell from my reading Freeman's historical chronological accounts essentially agree with, for example, Roman Catholic sources, which is why I cited it as Freeman (among others). I didn't just rely on Freeman. I just thought his accounts were accessible to the non-specialist reader. As Ronnie emphasized, Catholics learn and review this history early and often. I didn't. Perhaps they taught it in my Methodist Church when I was young, but I didn't learn about it there. Most of my life I didn't think about such things very often. I think I learned some of this early Christian and Church history recently from reading Freeman and some from other sources, including internet sources, that I have been reading including Catholic sources. I really, really like reading online Catholic encyclopedias to check any biases that I (or others I have read) may have.
BTW: Due to ill health, much of what I read recently about Church history I have already forgotten. By tomorrow I might well not remember this exchange.

Pardon me, I don't see what anyone's humanism has to do with my reading of the history.

You are pardoned..... if you'll accept it.
You know I love ya.