Because we celebrate the memorial of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen today it is worth examining the heresy of Arianism today. Heresies are like weeds. They keep coming back. The thing is, they come back in different guises. In the fourth century Arianism was part of the great debate over the divinity of Christ and therefore the definition of the Holy Trinity.
Today Arianism takes a different form, and comes to us in the guise of humanism. By 'humanism' I mean that belief system that takes man as the measure of all things. This humanism is a conglomeration of different modernistic beliefs, but the summary of it all is materialism-- that this physical world is all there is, human history is all that matters and the advancement of the human race in this physical realm is the only thing fighting for.
Arianism today is an interpretation of Christianity according to this whole materialistic, humanistic philosophy. Clearly, Jesus Christ as the Divine Son of God and the co-eternal second person of the Holy Trinity doesn't really fit. Instead Jesus is a good teacher, a wise rabbi, a beautiful example, a martyr for a noble cause. At most he is a human being who is "so fulfilled and self actualized that he has 'become divine'." To put it another way, "Jesus is so complete a human being that he reveals to us the divine image in which we were all created--and therefore shows us what God is like." There is a sense in which this "divinization" happened to Jesus as a result of the graces he received from God, the life he led and the sufferings he endured.
This watered down Christianity is our modern form of Arianism. The cultural context of the heresy and it's expression is different, but the essence of the heresy is the same as it always was: "Jesus Christ is a created being. His 'divinity' is something that developed or was added to his humanity by God."
The difference between Arius and the modern heretics is that Arius was actually explicit in his teaching. The modern heretics are not. They inhabit our seminaries, our monasteries, our rectories and presbyteries. They are the modernist clergy who dominate the mainstream Protestant denominations and who are too many in number within the Catholic Church as well.
Many of them don't even know they are heretics. They have been poorly catechized from the start. Their beliefs about Jesus Christ have remained fuzzy and out of focus. They hold their beliefs in a sentimental haze in which they vaguely feel that what they believe is
"Christian" but would not want to pin it down too much. This is because they have been taught that dogma is "divisive". They deliberately keep their beliefs vague, and focus on "pastoral concerns" in order to avoid the difficult questions. They have been taught that dogma is part of an earlier age in the church and that we have matured and moved on from such nit picky sort of questions. "God, after all, can't be put into a box. He's bigger than all that..."
Nevertheless, they feel totally at ease reciting the Nicene Creed every week and celebrating the Nativity of the Son of God and the great Paschal Triduum--using all the words of traditional Nicene Christianity, while re-interpreting those words in a way that would please Arius. So when they speak of Jesus Christ the Divine Son of God they really mean what I wrote above--"That in some beautiful way he was such a perfect human being that he reveals to us what God is like."
The Virgin Mary then becomes "A good and pure Jewish girl who dealt with her unplanned pregnancy with great courage and faith." The crucifixion becomes "The tragic death of a young and courageous fighter for peace and justice". The resurrection means that, "In some mysterious way, by following his teachings, the disciples of Jesus continued to believe that he was alive within their hearts and within history."
Now what really interests me is that these modern day Arians (and I'm sure the same could be said of the fourth century version) are not wicked and filthy sinners. They're nice people. They're articulate, educated people. They're well off people. They're well connected people. They're good, solid respectable "Christian" people. Heck, even the emperors were Arians in their day. They're the people on top of the socio economic pecking order. Furthermore, their Arian version of the faith seems so much more reasonable and sensible and credible than the intellectually scandalous orthodoxy of Basil and Gregory and the historic church down through the ages.
But I'm with Basil and Gregory today. I recognize these heretics for what they are: wolves in sheep's clothing. They might present as nice, respectable, prayerful and sincere Christians. That's OK. But they're heretics. They're liars, and the people who believe their lies the most are themselves. If they have their way, and if their subtle heresies prevail they will destroy the faith. Therefore they are my enemies.
I want to hold to the historic Nicene faith with Basil and Gregory and with the saints and martyrs down the ages. I don't mind a bit if the world thinks this faith is "antique" or "quaint" or "unfortunately rigid" or "too dogmatic" or "inaccessible to modern Christians". The Arians probably made all those same arguments too.
I affirm the Nicene Creed and I don't mind saying "consubstantial with the Father" and I hold to the clarity and simplicity of the words and don't think they need to be "re-interpreted."
The only reason you aren't Arian today writing against the "Trinitarian Heresey" is because the Trinitarians had more power than the Arians. That's all there is to it. One group of powerful men (and its always men that decide these things) ousted the other.
ReplyDeleteYou should think it through more. Heresy destroys the faith. If Arianism prevails then Christianity is nothing more than a do gooder religion following the inspiring teachings of a noble martyr.
ReplyDeleteSuch a religion is not only false, but dull--and would never have survived for 2000 years.
@Reality_Check
ReplyDeleteThat's just plain rubbish. If raw political power was the only reason that Trinitarianism survived, then Arianism would have been triumphant. Arianism has the full (and persecutorial) support of the Emperor Constantine. Or do you not know that Anthanasius was deposed from his See 5 times and imprisoned as well. Pope Liberius was exiled.
Nay, Reality_Check, the Truth, not power, won out.
Reality_Check: "The only reason you aren't Arian today writing against the "Trinitarian Heresey" is because the Trinitarians had more power than the Arians."
ReplyDeleteIf its simply raw power then why are there Christians? The Jewish establishment was much stronger than those 12 frightened, weak fishermen. Raw power indeed.
Reality Check,
ReplyDeleteThat is a very Arian view of history and revelation.
@Teomatteo
ReplyDeleteI doubt the Jewish leadership gave two rips about some kooky messianic cult in an age where such cults were a dime a dozen. They had bigger concerns.
Well said, Fr. L.! Having come through the seminary in the '80's, I thank God for the pastor I was first assigned with. He gently pointed out where the errors were in my seminary training, guided me to better sources, and saved my priesthood, I am sure.
ReplyDeleteI am convinced that "modernism" is the sum of all heresy - wait, didn't somebody else say that?
Thanks for your post. Have a blessed new year.
Don´t forget St. Athanasius who forgot against Arius?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think you can comment another modern (but also ancient) arianism: Islam.
In the immortal words of John Wayne, "Put an "Amen to it!"
ReplyDeleteExcellent post! Happy new year.
Arius was a defender of truth
ReplyDeleteI think Arius was defending the truth. The Bible shows the Father (YHWH) only as God. The Son was created.
ReplyDelete"Man is the measure of all things." Wasn't there some ancient sophist who said that, too?
ReplyDelete“They inhabit our seminaries, our monasteries, our rectories and presbyteries...” and first of all our vatican and diocesan administrations...
ReplyDeleteMohommad was influenced by the Arian heresy - see what harm a heresy can do and to this day it is soo difficult to convince muslims that Jesus is God. - Rene
ReplyDelete"The modern heretics.... They inhabit our seminaries, our monasteries, our rectories and presbyteries. They are the modernist clergy who dominate the mainstream Protestant denominations and who are too many in number within the Catholic Church as well ."
ReplyDeleteSo, as a "coming home Catholic" how do I find a parish that teaches the whole Truth? (in Utah). Is there some kind of listing of parishes which are still teaching orthodox Roman Catholicism?
Fr, from some of the comments you are prophetic.
ReplyDeleteBeth,welcome home! Get Catholicism by Fr Barron, Catholicism for dummies, a Catechism, listen to Fr D's homilies. You'll recognize the real thing.
BTW, Jesus is, was and ever shall be God the Son, Consubstantial with the Father.
Father, you made many excellent points and I thank you for your ardent fidelity to the truth and the courageous witness you present in speaking boldly on such matters. But might I suggest that it would be more accurate to say, as Scripture does so well, that our actual enemies are the devil and sin? While I certainly agree that those who are complicit with evil are to be countered with the Truth, would it not be more accurate to say that, as Peter Kreeft does so well in a recent culture war essay, that your designated 'enemies' are more accurately designated as our ill patients? That is, ill patients who harm themselves and others who happen to think that the hospital(i.e. the Church) is their enemy?
ReplyDeleteAgain, thank you for your courageous witness to capital 'T' Truth, Father, and may God bless you and your loved ones.
@Beth (JanMarie):
ReplyDeleteTry studying the websites of Catholic churches in your area. That won't tell you everything, of course, but sometimes the tone of the pastor's welcome message will provide clues. And if a parish has things like regularly scheduled confession times and perpetual adoration, it might be much more likely to provide faithful orthodox teaching as well.
@RealityCheck "I doubt the Jewish leadership gave two rips about some kooky messianic cult in an age where such cults were a dime a dozen. They had bigger concerns."
ReplyDeleteIs that why they were so unconcerned about Jesus?
Read your history. The Arian heresy nearly destroyed the Church. There were only a few bishops who weren't Arian. The only thing that saved the Church was the ever present senses fidei inspired by the Holy Spirit and Emperor Julian the Apostate who hated Christians but hated Arians even more. Eventually their beliefs lost steam.
FR
ReplyDeleteWas it as Pope Benedict or as cardinal Ratzi that he remarked on arianism, which powerpolitics-wise etc had everything going for it, asd he said? I was particularly struck by his description of a struggle for unfashionable orthodoxy within the same doceses, the same orders, even in the very minds of individuals themselves....
"And another critic will write that the Church was but the shadow of the Empire, the fad of a chance Emperor, and that it remains in Europe only as the ghost of the power of Rome. And Arius the deacon will answer out of the darkness of oblivion, 'No, indeed, or the world would have followed my more reasonable religion. For mine went down before demagogues and men defying Caesar; and around my champion was the purple cloak and mine was the glory of the eagles. It was not for lack of these things that I failed." -G. K. Chesterton, "The Everlasting Man".
ReplyDeleteOn another note: "The difference between Arius and the modern heretics is that Arius was actually explicit in his teaching. The modern heretics are not." Isn't this the general characteristic of *all* contemporary heresy, not just the Arian variety? St. Pius X said something about this in "Pascendi Domenici Gregis". "It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists... to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were really in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast."
@CD Historically, Jesus was most likely killed by the Romans alone along with all other kinds of troublemakers in a summary crucifixion, probably ordered by a low-ranking centurion with his body left to be eaten by dogs (either on the cross or in a shallow common grave).
ReplyDeleteThe trials and passion dramas are liturgical legends, not real history. Do you think Pontius Pilate would bother having a trial for some Galilean peasant? In reality he probably didn't even know who Jesus of Nazareth was. I'll say it again: wannabe messiahs making trouble were a dime a dozen in first century Palestine.
The gospels are late documents with agendas behind them, and are NOT trustworthy historical sources, and not just because they contain ridiculous acts of magic, but for other reasons even if one is to grant that magic ("miracles") is possible.
"They have been taught that dogma is part of an earlier age in the church and that we have matured and moved on from such nit picky sort of questions. "God, after all, can't be put into a box. He's bigger than all that..."
ReplyDelete>> Oh yes. That is exactly the problem.
Of course, very few Catholics have the courage to follow where this observation actually leads........
"In the beginning, God created the heavens *and the Earth*"...................
Mormons are Arians as well as Manichees and polytheists.
ReplyDeleteJust saying being from Utah and all.
I do find it gently ironic that one who takes the name 'reality_check' should voice his or her opposition by using 'probably' and 'most likely' alongside unsubstantiated historical assertions. And I particularly liked the suggestion that crucified bodies might be left on the cross to be eaten by dogs. That'd be the long-haired Palestinian jumping dog, would it?
ReplyDeleteI guess we all need a reality check sometimes.
I respectfully suggest to "Reality Check" that he do some checking in the books about Jesus by C H Dodd and E P Sanders. They might annoy Father Longenecker, but they would educate "Reality Check".
ReplyDeleteThe Gospels are not at all late documents - and there is much more evidence for them, and their text, and their early date, than for all secular documents of antiquity.
ReplyDeleteWhat is asserted by our heretical interlocutor is itself implausible and demonstrates his ignorance.
"You should think it through more. Heresy destroys the faith. If Arianism prevails then Christianity is nothing more than a do gooder religion following the inspiring teachings of a noble martyr.
ReplyDeleteSuch a religion is not only false, but dull--and would never have survived for 2000 years."
No matter how long I think about this it still is a false dilemma.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are probably the largest quasi-Christian Arian group, with strong touches of the Ebionite.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, though, there are many Christians who do not think much about the question, particularly those with no Magisterium. A little over a decade ago I attended a Southern Baptist church in Maryland, where I was shocked to hear a praise ditty that included the line, "God, you made your Son." I brought this to the attention of the associate pastor after the service, and he said, "Did we sing that?" The music minister then tried to argue that the meaning of the word "made" includes "begot", but he did not convince anyone.
Reality Check,
ReplyDeleteThe Arians were, for quite some time, much more powerful than the orthodox. Constantine had Arian sympathies, as did his immediate successors. In the West, the largest and strongest Germanic tribes were Arian.
"Jesus was most likely killed by the Romans alone along with all other kinds of troublemakers in a summary crucifixion, probably ordered by a low-ranking centurion with his body left to be eaten by dogs (either on the cross or in a shallow common grave) ... The trials and passion dramas are liturgical legends, not real history. Do you think Pontius Pilate would bother having a trial for some Galilean peasant? In reality he probably didn't even know who Jesus of Nazareth was."
There is no reason whatsoever to believe this. Zero documentation. Jesus was sensational. Certainly he attracted the interest of the Herodians and Romans, especially given the nature of the messiah at that time. Jerusalem was a tinderbox. Within a generation of Christ's death, similar movements would result in catastrophic war. You think the Romans and their local supporters were so dim as to ignore a claimant to David's throne?
"I'll say it again: wannabe messiahs making trouble were a dime a dozen in first century Palestine."
They were, because it was a time of messianic expectation, with the Scriptural oracles all suggesting the advent of the Son of Man, the King of the Jews, the new David. Strangely, no other movement survived the death of its founder. Anyway, messianic movements are a dime a dozen throughout all history. In terms of building a movement, Jesus was actually an utter failure. By the time of his execution, only a handful of his followers remained by his side. It was the post-execution encounter that transformed them. What was that, ye of little faith?
"The gospels are late documents with agendas behind them, and are NOT trustworthy historical sources"
Yes they are, and any objective historian will tell you as much. This is the sort of claim that might have flown in the 19th and 20th centuries, but the last few decades have brought about a total revolution. The integrity and veracity and antiquity of the Gospels haven't been so strongly affirmed since before the Enlightenment!
You are not speaking from a place of knowledge and learning, but from a place of prejudice and assumption. Try again.
Right on, Father. I was thinking about this lately while reading Eamon Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars." The Tudor heretics spent so much effort and exercise of raw royal power to smash, deface and burn all accoutrements of Catholic worship and piety. This obsession was warranted, for they surely knew that to introduce radical discontinuity in the lex orandi was the only way to change the lex credendi of the Catholic population.
ReplyDeleteI think of this now when most Catholics around me are modernists, relativists and neo-Arians. Are not the iconoclastic, man-centered liturgies to which nearly every Catholic today
(continued from above) is exposed largely responsible for inculcating this heresy across the Church? One wonders if the architects of this radical discontinuity deliberately intended this.
ReplyDeleteTruly the present crisis is the worst since the original struggle against Arianism.
@FlyingVic
ReplyDeleteYou've been watching too much Mel Gibson. Crosses used for crucifixion weren't very high off the ground.
@Philip Jude
Mormonism has also survived the martyrdom of its founder, and endured sporadic persecutions, etc, are you prepared to accept Joseph Smith too then?
Father Longenecker,
ReplyDeleteI bet you had no idea that John Dominic Crosson was a reader of your blog!
@Reality_Check ... you studied at which Episcopal(ian) seminary/school of theology?
ReplyDeleteReality Check,
ReplyDelete"Mormonism has also survived the martyrdom of its founder, and endured sporadic persecutions, etc, are you prepared to accept Joseph Smith too then?"
The Arians were more powerful than the Mormons could ever dream of being.
Anyway, the movements, in terms of origins, incentives, and goals are not analogous. Mormonism is just a variation on Christianity, which was already a deeply ingrained cultural force. It arose in a society predisposed to sectarianism, and in a mil It lacked the novelty of the Jesus movement, which proclaimed something totally unheard of.
Anyway, Smith had much to gain materially, his immediate followers even more so. They were willing to fight and kill. This is in drastic contrast to Christ and the early church.
Additionally, Smith's claim was not the unusual. People have been alleging angelic encounters for thousands of years. Certainly, his followers were nothing but run-of-the-mill heretics. Their words certainly didn't challenge the world and turn conventional wisdom on its head and overthrow whole politico-religious systems!
People will die for all kinds of things, many of them stupid. These are typically fairly easy to explain. This is not the case with the apostles.
reality_check, Mel Gibson is an American who 'interprets' history for his own ends. I don't like him and I don't watch his stuff. I guess you do.
ReplyDeleteThe Romans were a people who lived by the law and were proud of their Pax Romana, and were therefore careful not to provoke unrest in what they considered to be pacified provinces by casual brutality or crucifixion without trial amongst the civilian population. Whichever way you look at it, if Jesus wasn't worth bothering about he wasn't worth crucifying.
Reality Check,
ReplyDeleteThe irony here is that Arianism had the full force of the Roman Empire on its side. In The Everlasting Man, G.K. Chesterton actually uses Arianism to show how the success of Catholicism can't be due to more earthly power, since she was comparatively weak. I addressed your comment specifically on my blog: http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/01/triumph-of-truth-over-power.html
Fr. Longenecker is spot on in his fine post above. Reality Check has been taken captive by cold, (pseudo?) intellectual arrogance and the principles of this world, as Paul cautioned the Christians at Collosse. As a result, his individual points of view, and not surprisingly, neglect love, or spiritual power, God’s power, but rely on man’s wisdom. I would wager that “Reality” is very young and hope and pray that one day, through God’s grace, he has eyes to see.
ReplyDeleteThere is much confusion that arises from not understaning the meaning of the word God. God means a powerful being. Moses was one Exo 7:1 The judges in Israel were gods Psalm 82. Our Lord and Savior was a powerful being but not God himself. The one true God is the Father only (YHWH)Jesus acknowledged that.(Rev 3:14). The apostles aknowledged it too as in their epistles the worg God is mentioned only in conjuncture with the Father.
ReplyDeleteThe deviation appeared after the death of apostles, at Niceea where other deviations were made law such as immortality of soul and doctrine of hell.
Nice post, Fr Longenecker!
ReplyDeleteReality_Check,
I recommend a book by Lee Strobel, "The Case for Christ". He was once an athiest. After his wife become a Christian, he decided to research whether or not Jesus was A) A real man, and B) The Son of God. He conducts many interviews with the world's best historians and theologians, thoroughly answering your claim that the Gospels cannot be trusted.
Otherwise, your claims are weak and unfounded.
@Unknown: You may be a faithful JW, but you're not a faithful student of history. Not only does every new testament book unashamedly reference the Deity of Christ, but also every apostolic fathers. Scripture is crystal clear that there is not a plurality of true deities, and so the only possible reconciliation between between biblical monotheism and the divinity of Christ (and the Spirit for that matter) is multiple persons sharing in one divine nature. Although God exists as three persons, each love with the same will and think with the same intellect. God the Father, as eternal love, must by definition have an object to love, which is the eternally begotten Logos. And the love they share us alive and eminates from them as a third person: the Spirit. Just as the title "Son of man" means Jesus is human (in Semitic languages) so the title "Son of God" means He's God. Just as the Pharisees who intertpreted this title in this manner and tried to stone Him for it...or ask the Muslims, who refuse to call Jesus "Son of God" because they know the implications all too well.
ReplyDeleteOh, and btw Unknown, regarding YHWH, you might be surprised to know that there are dozens of OT scriptures descriptive of YHWH that are quoted in the NT and applied directly to Jesus. Just check your cross references... Hebrews 1 is a good place to start. And sorry about my misspellings...I'm blamin it on the iPhone. :)
ReplyDeleteMen of no faith can reason anything... because they have no rules or they have their own rules about life. When you have faith above all you're obedient to God... That's part of what makes faith so beautiful and what makes relativism so evil. You can reason anything, like when you stop at a red light. People automatically do it, because the law says you have to. Divine law is no different. You can choose to run the red light, but eventually the consequences are going to catch up with you. Disregarding God's law will catch up with you.
ReplyDeleteJesus Christ was God's only Son, but he *is* God incarnate. Nothing else you can reason, Reality Check can detour around that fact.
I pray you will see the truth instead of your own prismatic reality which can shift to any wind blowing... with no rock as a foundation.