The Meletian Schism – Athanasius vs. Basil of Caesarea

This article is presented here in the form of an accordion. Click on any heading to see more detail. To read this in a more standard format, see here. This is a test of the Accordion format and feedback on which format is easier to read will be appreciated:



  • 1
    "In 361 the majority of the Antiochian church elected as bishop Meletius, who had formerly been an Arian, and was ordained by this party, but after his election professed the Nicene orthodoxy." (Philip Schaff)
  • 2
    “The Catholics … split among themselves; the majority adhered to the exiled Meletius, while the old and more strictly orthodox party, who had hitherto been known as the Eustathians, and with whom Athanasius communicated … elected Paulinus … who was ordained counter-bishop by Lucifer of Calaris.” (Philip Schaff)
  • 3
    “Basil (of Caesarea) had originally exhibited some discomfort with the Nicene homoousios as vulnerable to modalistic interpretations. His acceptance of this term was conditioned by his construction of an accompanying set of terminology to designate the threeness of God: Father, Son, and Spirit are each a distinct hypostasis, with a unique manner of subsistence (tropos hyparxeōs). Basil, a supporter of Melitius, pressed the followers of Paulinus to adopt the language of three hypostaseis in order to safeguard Nicene theology from a Sabellian interpretation.” (Anatolios, p. 27)

One Reply to “The Meletian Schism – Athanasius vs. Basil of Caesarea”

  1. The accordion format makes the articles less intimidating for those who just want a concise summary, and I’m guessing that would be most people, but I usually want all the details, so either format works for me. One thing that is a bit confusing is the myriad of links within some of the articles, and it’s easy to lose track of where one started. It’s kind of like going down a rabbit hole.

Your comment is important.