Constantino y el arrianismo

Abstract

This study shows that the first Christian emperor's attitude towards the Arian heresy was clearly in favour of orthodoxy in doctrinal terms, but that in practice it was influenced heavily by political factors. On a theoretical level he interpreted the Trinitarian controversy as an unimportant argument about words which only became dangerous when it threatened the social fabric which had, thanks to his governance, ceased to be pagan. During the early period of his reign, in which he believed that the problem was theological in nature, he took the solution into his own hands and got the Council of Nicea to impose the formula of omoúsios to define the tenet that the Father and the Son are of the same essence, but when he became aware that there was a power struggle among the bishops underlying the whole Arian controversy, he confined his intervention to situations that posed a threat to public order. This is why Athanasius, the champion of orthodoxy, was condemned to exile, while his adversaries, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, enjoyed the sovereign's favour.