Articles

Seventeen centuries have passed since Emperor Constantine the Great summoned the bishops of the inhabited world to gather in Nicaea in Asia Minor. Not to honour his imperial majesty, but to strengthen the unity of the Church, which at that time was endangered by heresies. Confusion had become the permanent dwelling place of the faithful. It was an age in which the truth was obscured behind “theological” language and manufactured certainties.

The First Ecumenical Council did not create an ideology. It recorded the manner of the Church’s existence. It gave us the first seven articles of the Nicene Creed. It set forth the Dogma—the common experience, the common witness, and the horizon of communion with the Truth.

And yet, seventeen centuries later, the picture is tragically similar. The Christian world remains fragmented, filled with separate traditions, differing doctrinal formulations, and ecclesiastical bodies that often function as though they were separate states. Reference to Christ has been shattered into personal interpretations, egotism, national narratives, and forms of spiritual self-sufficiency. Even within Orthodoxy, which is entrusted with preserving synodality and the experience of the early Church, the pathology of ethnophyletism has taken root: Churches confined by state interests, political alignments, and rivalries of identity.

The historic meeting in Nicaea between Pope Leo and His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew appeared as a fleeting ray of clarity within this landscape. Their joint recitation of the Nicene Creed, without additions, was a rare and meaningful symbol—a reference to the original witness of the Church and a return to the memory of our common beginning. It was a moment that reminded us what it means to confess the faith, rather than merely defend religious customs.

The initiative of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to invite the Pope and to travel together to Nicaea was undoubtedly an event of historical significance for the entire Christian world. It was neither a ceremonial visit nor a gesture of courtesy. It was a symbolic return to the beginning of the united Christian witness, to the place where the common confession of the faith was established.

At a time when divisions, entrenched suspicions, and ecclesiastical isolation appear insurmountable, the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarch serves as a reminder that the memory of the Church’s original unity is still capable of awakening consciences. The meeting did not resolve the differences, but it demonstrated that the search for communion is not a utopia. It showed that there are still shepherds willing to rise above fear and open a path where history has erected walls.

Let us be honest. A common prayer does not heal the wounds of centuries. Unity was not restored simply because a text was recited without alterations or additions. The Roman Catholic leader has already returned to his customary liturgical practice, immediately restoring the well-known addition that has cost so dearly in the relationship between East and West. This, of course, does not testify to any ecclesial change on his part. It simply bears witness to a diplomatic gesture.

On the other hand, the absence of certain ecclesiastical figures, who traditionally proclaim themselves to be the guardians of the “unadulterated Tradition,” was striking. Instead of standing as witnesses to a unique historical moment—not in order to sign agreements, but to honour our common root—they chose to absent themselves. Such an attitude reveals, rather, a failure to understand history. It places one beneath the demands of the moment. Before history, one is called to stand worthy of the occasion.

The real question, therefore, is not whether the Churches can be reunited. Rather, it is whether those who serve them from positions of spiritual responsibility are capable of overcoming their own self-centredness. Whether we are able to leave behind the worship of jurisdiction, nationalist obsessions, and traditions that have been transformed into ideological fortresses. Whether we can rediscover the manner of coexistence expressed by the First Ecumenical Council. Whether we can recover our common Tradition, handed down to us by the Fathers of the Church through toil, prayer, and struggle.

Unity is not achieved by signing agreements. It is not the work of diplomacy. It is the fruit of relationship, a manner of communion, and an ascetic struggle of self-transcendence. Without this foundation, no matter what is said or how many ceremonies are organised, nothing will truly change. We shall continue to commemorate the same faith while living as strangers to one another.

If we truly respect the past, let us cease invoking it as a pretext. Let us allow it to teach us. Let it remind us that the Church is not a system of power but a communion of persons. Only then will the Creed once again become a common confession rather than parallel recitations. Only then will it be meaningful to speak of a true gathering rather than impressive meetings that lack consequence and continuity.

† Constantine
Metropolitan of Singapore and South Asia