This is not a story about a saint.
This is a story about a man who defied both Scripture and the Magisterium and
plunged the Church into strife for decades.
Arius was
born in the year 250 A.D. in modern-day Libya. He was a Catholic priest under
the bishop of Alexandria. Now, Arius was a troublemaker. Prior to his
ordination, he had been involved in schismatic activities. But St. Alexander,
Bishop of Alexandria, was a forgiving man and overlooked Arius’ past mistakes.
St. Alexander would come to regret his clemency.
Arius
received theological instruction from Lucian of Antioch who, though venerated
for his personal holiness and martyrdom, proposed a heretical Christological
system (the relationship between God the Son and God the Father). Lucian
suggested that the Son was not unified with the Father and was created instead
of begotten. This undermines the very nature of the Trinity! Under Lucian’s
system, which Arius adopted, Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but not one with
God. Arius argued (in a manner eerily like the Protestants) that because Sacred
Scripture never explicitly says that Jesus is of the same substance as God, He
must have been created.
Once he began
preaching this heresy, Arius was quickly condemned by the authorities of his
diocese. In 321, Arius was excommunicated. Unfortunately, what is known as the
Arian Heresy did not end there. Though orthodox members of the Church quickly
pointed out his error, there were others who encouraged it, several of them
high-ranking members of the clergy. The most prominent among these was Bishop
Eusebius of Nicomedia, another former protégé of Lucian. Eusebius petitioned
for the reinstatement of Arius. This created a rift in the early Church: Arians
against orthodox.
Three years
after Arius’ excommunication, Constantine became Emperor of Rome after a bloody
civil war. This was a turning point in the history of Christianity. Before
going into battle against the far superior forces of Roman Emperor Maxentius,
the pagan Constantine saw a flaming cross in the sky and heard the words “In hoc signo vinces” – “In this sign you
will conquer.” Constantine had his soldiers paint the chi-rho symbol on their
shields and engaged Maxentius in the battle of Milvian Bridge. Constantine’s
significantly smaller force routed Maxentius. Crediting Jesus Christ for his
victory, Constantine immediately issued the Edict of Milan which protected the
practice of Christianity. To answer claims that Constantine merely converted as
a political move, I find it unlikely that a pagan warlord fighting for control
over a pagan empire would suddenly embrace a religion that had been
marginalized and persecuted for three centuries.
Soon
enough, the Arian Heresy came to the attention of Emperor Constantine. He
attempted to resolve their differences himself. In a letter to both Arius and
St. Alexander, Constantine wrote that he saw the theological differences between
the Christians and Arians to be of “a truly insignificant character,” and that
he wanted Christianity to return to “settled uniformity.” Clearly, Constantine
did not appreciate the importance of Christology. He was a soldier, not a
theologian. When Constantine could not facilitate a reconciliation on his own,
he worked with Pope Sylvester I to convene the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
The Council
of Nicaea was one of the most significant gatherings in Church history. It was
the first ecumenical council and brought together 318 bishops. This council was
not an exercise of authoritarianism. The orthodox bishops and Arian bishops
discussed their mutual differences. One of the stars of the council was St.
Athanasius. He personally debated Arius on the question of Christ’s unity with
God and earned his reputation as the “Father of Orthodoxy” for his stalwart
defense of the faith against Arianism.
The most
interesting legend to have been passed down to us about the Council of Nicaea
concerns a certain St. Nicholas. Though largely unsubstantiated, it is said
that St. Nicholas punched Arius in the face when the latter said something
especially heretical. This is certainly an interesting contrast to Santa, St.
Nicholas’ modern persona.
After
several months of deliberation, the council came to its decision. Arianism was
formally condemned, and the homoousios
formula was adopted. Homoousios means
“one in being.” The creed from the first
Council of Nicaea, the forerunner of the Nicene Creed we recite today, states, “We
believe in one God the Father Almighty… and in one Lord Jesus Christ… begotten
not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri]” and ends with, “Those who say: There was a
time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made
out of nothing; or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another
substance, or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,
the Catholic Church anathematizes.” This is consistent with the beginning of
the Gospel of John, “In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and
the Word was God” (John 1:1). Every bishop present signed the formula except
for two who were exiled and anathematized.
Despite
this agreement and the authority of the Council of Nicaea, the Arians continued
to be a problem. They were led by Eusebius of Nicomedia. Though he had signed
the creed, Eusebius strove to overturn the condemnation of Arianism. He was
aided by the weak emperors who succeeded Constantine, many of them advised by
heretics. The orthodox bishops, St. Athanasius chief among them, were therefore
persecuted for many years as they maintained the validity of the homoousios formula.
This
controversy lasted for almost sixty years until the First Council of
Constantinople was held in 381. The canons of this council strongly condemned
Arianism and several other heresies. The Semi-Arians were subsequently
reconciled with the Catholic Church, finally defeating the lies of Arius.
The story of
Arianism is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is an important chapter in
the history of the Catholic Church. Arianism coincided with the end of the
Roman persecution and demonstrated the ability of the Church to solve doctrinal
disputes. This is painfully timely with the controversy of Amoris Laetitia and the dubia.
Secondly, it highlights the importance of details
when it comes to theology. The dispute revolved around the use of a single word
to describe the relationship between the Father and Son. That one word led to
decades of conflict. For that word, St. Nicholas was willing to punch Arius in
the face and St. Athanasius was willing to suffer years of persecution and
exile. Why? Because of the Church’s commitment to the Truth. The nature of the
relationship between God the Father and God the Son is of the utmost importance
to our faith. The saints would rather die than allow Christ to be reduced to a
creature.
We need that same zeal today!
Forget about one heresy, our age has thousands. Instead of just worrying about
Arians, we contend with a never-ending number of Protestant denominations,
militant atheists, Islam, the assorted New Age spiritualities, and progressive
members of our own Church.
Many of these heresies are, just like
Arianism, of a Christological nature. Self-styled intellectuals like to think
of Jesus as a good moral teacher who was nonetheless not the Son of God. Islam makes the same mistake. They lower Christ
to the rank of a prophet. They claim that He was not the Son of God. In other
words, Jesus Christ, who said that He was the Son of God - “For God so loved
the world, as to give his only begotten Son” (John 3:16) - and never corrected
those who called Him the Son of God on several occasions, said some good things
but was just wrong about that little detail.
This is a logically untenable
position. You cannot call Jesus a moral teacher while denying His claim to
being the Son of God. Why? C.S. Lewis has the perfect answer in Mere Christianity:
“I
am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people
often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I
don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man
who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a
great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man
who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must
make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman
or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and
kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but
let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human
teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
Arianism is important because we
face many of the same theological challenges today. We must stand firm in the
Truth of Christ. We must not cede a single inch to the modern-day Arians,
heretics, and schismatics.
Christ Jesus, one in being with
Your Most Heavenly Father, have mercy on us.
Deus
Vult!
