TRINITARIAN AND CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES

TRINITARIAN AND CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES

I. TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY:

In the doctrine of Trinity, it was necessary to define more precisely the internal relation between the Father and the Son, and to illuminate it from the standpoint of revelation. The Holy Scripture speaks only in general terms about Trinitarian Mystery. It was necessary here to reconcile the divinity or the divine nature with the unity of God. In an effort to do this there developed controversial doctrines.

A. Dynamic Monarchianism – This form of monarchianism looked on Christ as a mere man who at some time, probably on the occasion of his baptism in the Jordan was filled with divine power, transformed into God, and thus “adopted” by God. The real and Original God was, therefore, only the Father, and Christ was an adopted God.

B. Modalistic Monarchianism – Christ was seen only one form or more of the one and only God who manifests Himself at one time as the Father, at another time as Son, and at third time as Holy Spirit. They maintained that in reality the Father had suffered for us (pater passus est, and because of this Tertulian derisively named them “atripassians”).

      These forms of monarchianism were rejected by the Church, with the first decision being made in Rome. Pope Victor (189-198/199) excommunicated the adoptionist Theodotus who had attempted to teach his doctrine in Rome around 190. When Sabellius represented the Modalists in Rome ca.215, Pope Calixtus (217-222) rejected and condemned Modalism.

C.  Arianism –This is a Trinitarian heresy resulting from the attempt to state the precise relationship of the Divine Persons and preserving at the same time the unity of God. It was Arius (ca. 260-336) who formulated this controversial doctrine, which asserted that the Logos was not the true God and that it had an entirely different nature neither eternal nor omnipotent but created in time imperfect and able to suffer. Because the Logos was the first created being and far superior to human beings, one could regard it as a half-God, but it was not in itself divine.

      In emphasizing the unity of God and seeking to reconcile that unity with the sonship of Christ, Lucian and his disciples such as Arius subordinated the Son to a position where he was deprived of his divinity (“the Divine Word is not of the substance of God the Father”—Arius). The most ardent partisans of Arius were Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, a politician influential at Constantine’s court.

      Arius propounded his opinions on the Trinity in a book entitled  “Thalia”.  Arianism was condemned by the Church in the Council of Nicea (May 20 – July 25, 325). This Council was the first to be reckoned as “ecumenical” or a world council because of the range of representation of the 318 bishops who attended. Almost all were from the East, and only 4 or 5 came from the Latin west, apart from Hosius of Cordova and 2 Roman presbyters sent by Pope Silvester.

      In this council a creed (later called the Nicene Creed) was proposed which was sharply anti-Arian in its affirmation that the Son is “of one substance with the Father”. The majority of the bishops signed the creed, a unanimity that must have certainly gratified the emperor (Constantine) who invited them to this general council. It is, however, clear that the crucial terms of the creed were not understood in a precisely identical sense by all the signatories. “Of one substance with the Father” (homousios) affirmed identity.

D.  Semi-Arianism –Arius was exiled together with four of his adherents who refused to retract. In a short time, however, they managed to apply every means to disarm the secular power, to attract it to their side and to turn it against their enemies. In order to ensure better the success of their plan, they watered down their heresy, reducing it to ambiguous forms, which could not be accused as heretical. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was one of its more shrewd leaders, recognized that the Son was indeed of a similar substance (omoiousios), as the Father. The Son defined in the Council of Nicea, stated thus, this was Semi-Arianism. To say the truth, there was not any other distinction between this and the first error except a difference of doctrines. However, the letter in question turned to be of the utmost importance. By inserting one iota in the term omoiousios, the semi-Arianist immediately denied the identity in substance, i. e. monotheism, and approved instead of tritheism, or the doctrine that admitted three divine substances in the Trinity. On several occasions, it appeared that this error was going to win; the synods of Aries (353), Milan (356)(?) and Romini (?) (359) were favorable to semi-Arianism. But thanks to the firmness of the illustrious defenders of orthodoxy, e.g. Athanasius (259-373), Cyril of Jerusalem (died 444), Basil (ca. 329-379), Gregory of Nazianzus (329-330-ca. 390), Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 334-394) and Hilary of Poiters (?), the heresy was solemnly condemned by the Council of Constantinople I in 381. At the close of this epoch, Arianism seemed conquered for all time. Only with the invasion of the Barbarians (Visigoths, Vandals, Burgundians) who had been converted by Arian missionaries, was there staged a revival, but only briefly, of Arianism within the Empire.

E.  Macedonianism— This heresy was logical outcome of Arianism. Denying the divinity of the Son of God was tantamount to denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, when the Arians gained some assurance of victory under the reign of Constantius (337-361), they desired nothing more than the liberal dissemination of this teaching. In this regard, it was Macedonius, the semi-Arian bishop of Constantinople (341-362), who pioneered the affirmation of such a conclusion. Hence, the name Macedonians, by which this heresy was recognized, this error was fought by Athanasius, Hilary of Poiters (?), Basil, and especially, Gregory of Nazianzus. It remained for the second ecumenical council, the Council of Constantinople I in 381, to condemn this heresy and to complete the Nicene Creed with the following passages in relation to the Holy Spirit. “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father, is adored and glorified and who spoke through the prophets”.

II. CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY:

      Christology attempted to explain the exact relation between the divine and human natures in the Person of Christ. The Holy Scriptures did not define this and mention at the same time the divine and human aspects of Christ. In the interpretation of the relevant passages the two famous schools of theology at Antioch and Alexandria diverged: the Alexandrians emphasized more strongly the divine nature and the Antiochians more the human nature.

      The Fathers of the Council of Nicea defined that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was equal to the Father, that he was co-substantial with Him, and for that matter, he was true God in the strictest sense of the word. But it still remained to be determined in what form there was affected in Christ the union of the two elements, the human and the divine. Are we to admit two natures and two wills, or better, one nature and one will Two natures or only one Over these points and in the same sequence five heresies, the Church concretized its doctrine on Christ. In the Councils of Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451) and Constantinople (630), the Church defined that in the sole person of Christ, there subsist two natures and two wills.

A.    Apollinarism—The leader of this heresy was Apollinarius of Laodicea (died after 385), a close friend of Athanasius. This heresy defended that Christ is the Logos, divine and hence no need of human psyche or soul. Apollinarism defended the doctrine that Jesus Christ has no human soul or psyche because his soul is already absorbed in the Logos. This was condemned by the Church in 362 in Alexandria and again in 380 in Rome. This was also condemned in the Council of Constantinople I (381).

B.      Nestorianism—Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople (since 428) reacted against Apollinarism by saying that Christ not only has a human psyche but also a human person. Nestorius insisted that the human person in Jesus is accidental to the divine person, that is, the union between divine and human natures is not intimate, but accidental. Consequently, Mary is not the mother of God (Theotokos) but the mother of Christ (Christokos), the man.

This heresy was condemned by the third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431). In this Council, Nestorius and his followers were absent. The Council stated that two natures subsist in the sole and unique person of the Incarnate Word. In view of this, we can assert that Mary is the Mother of God (Theotokos) because she is the mother of a Person who is God. This statement was approved by the 199 present and they signed the condemnation of Nestorius.

C.     Monophysitism—This is a reaction to Nestorianism. This heresy appeared when Eutyches, abbot of a monastery near Constantinople, continued the doctrine of Cyril, which states that there is one nature in Christ, and so intimately combined the two natures that the human nature appeared completely absorbed by the divine one. Thus, was lost the central prerequisite for the mystery of Christ and his activity as savior and redeemer, of which the Holy Scriptures speak constantly, and the whole Christian doctrine of redemption was in danger.

This heresy was condemned by the fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451). This Council stated that, in Christ two natures without confusion and division are united in one person or hypostasis…without confusion the divine and human natures of Christ retain their identity (counter to Cyril and Eutyches), they are not separated from one another and are indissolubly united in the person of the divine Logos (counter to Nestorius). On this union rests the whole redemption by Christ. This ended the controversy on the “composition” of Jesus Christ.

D.    Monotheletism—This is a controversy on the human energy or power of Jesus. It was Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople (610-638) who formulated this doctrine which asserts that the human and divine wills are so united and connected intimately and attuned in reality only one natural human-divine energy and only one will had been active in Christ.

This heresy was condemned by the Councils of Constantinople I (381) and II (630). These councils confirmed the result of the Council of Chalcedon, corresponding to the two natures which are united without confusion and separation act together for the redemption of mankind.

E.      Docetism—This is an effort to interpret the incarnation and the life of Jesus in the framework of dualism. It holds that Christ had only apparent body and therefore denies various dogmas bearing on Incarnation. This had been existing since the time of the apostles, combated by Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Hipolytus of Rome. Docetism was officially condemned by the Church in the Council of Chalcedon (451).