Cursing Properly: The Terminological Conundrum of the Nicene Anathema in Light of the ‘Arian Trick’

There is a conveniently common assumption that the Nicene Creed adopted by the ecumenical council held in Nicaea in 325 under the patronage of Emperor Constantine the Great solved the most important debate of the Early Church by confessing the Son to be homoousios, i.e. of the same essence with the Father, thus refusing any Arian interpretation of divine subordination. Whilst this can be accepted as being valid on the level of positive credal intent, on the terminological-linguistic front as well as pertaining to the negative side of doctrinal manifestation (i.e. concerning the text of the Anathema following the Creed) a definitive solution can hardly be argued for. On the contrary: following the acceptance of the Symbolum Nicaenum and of the Anathema (i.e. the curse issued upon those who would uphold Arian formulae) a whole range of terminological-linguistic debates ensued, some of which lasted at least until the council of Constantinople in 381 and as late as the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The die was cast, however, not just by a shrewd reasoning of the heretics, but also by a less apparent ‘Arian trick’.