THE ARIANISM - AN EXAMPLE FOR THE EXISTENCE
OF THE "CONSENSUS FIDELIUM"
by
Eugen Golla
(transL. by Gladys Resch)
Hardly had the Church been able to leave the catacombs by the edict of Milan of the emperor Constatine the Great in 313, and had just received official recognition, she had to start (as in time of persecution) argueing about dogmatic quarrels concerning the Blessed Trinity. It was now the priest Anus, coming from Alexandria, who taught, referring to certain texts of Holy Scripture concerning the humanity of Jesus, that Jesus was only a god-like creature. The emperor, who by this edict of tolerance wished to make an end to these wearing down religious conflicts, welcomed the advice of outstanding bishops to call for a synod to terminate these conflicts by a resolution to be taken at a general counciL
The more than 300 bishops, assembled in Nicaea in 325, determined that Jesus is identical in nature (gr.: homoousios; lat.: consubstantialis) with the Father, and they added explicitly: "But those who say: 'there was a time He did not exist' and: 'before His birth He did not exist' and: 'He has been created out of nothingness' or those, who state the Son of God is of another substance or another nature as the Father, or He is created or subject to variation or change, are declared banned by the Catholic.4and Apostolic Church."
As finally, most of the arianic inclined bishops signed this creed, it seemed that the Arianism was by this condemned to come to an end. It also meant a triumph for the Orthodox, that three years later, in spite of his youth, the deacon Athanasius, who had plyed an outstanding role at the Council, was consecrated bishop in his home town Alexandria.
But in reality the Arians carried on underground and knew how to bring the Catholics into disregard in the opinion of the emperor. More than fifty years, right up to the opening of th 2nd oecumenical Council, (at Constantinople, 381) which creed combined with the Nicaean one is known as the Nicaean-Constantinople Creed, and which had received its permanent place in the creed of our Holy Mass, - the "filioque" was added to it later - the Christianity endured the lacerating conflict concerning Jesus' complete equality with God, repectively His similarity with God.
In Rome Julius I (337-352) ascended the Chair of Peter. He was a Pope, who actively took action concerning the conflicts. This was favoured during the first year of his Pontificate by the death of the emperor Constantine, who had reigned powerfully over the whole country, now divided amongst his sons. Pope Julius proved himself protector and defender of Athansius, who already in 335 had been dismissed as bishop at the Synod of Tyrus, due to calumnious accusations, and expulsed to Trier. Shortly after the change of government he was able to return, but soot his opponents managed to expulse him again. In 341 Julius I called for a Synod in Rome, at which all the accusations raised against Athanasius were declared to be invalid. Though he became again legitimate bishop, he yet was not allowed to carry out the functions of his office.
Again it became clear in 343 at the Synod of Sardica (to-day Sofia) how deeply the clergy was split up. As the bishops of the Eastern Empire treated Athanasius as accused - he was not allowed to take part at the meetings - the division took place already after the first combined meeting and similarly to 700 years later, the churches of the East and the West excommunicated each other! However, some time later, it was possible to obtain from the emperor of the Eastern Empire, the arianicminded Konstantius, the return of Athansius to his episcopate. More important than the triumphal reception was the circumstance that with Athanasius more than 400 bishops of both empires were in community. Unfortunately this was again to be only an armistice, as some revocations of the Anianism were insincere.
The follower of Julius I was Pope Liberius (352-366). Right from the beginning he had to face great difficulties, as the emperor Konstantius had become now - after the death of his two brothers Sovereign also of the west half of the Empire. As such he saw it as an advantage to get the bishop of Rome on his side. In comparison to his predecessor, he was mainly supposed to discard Athanasius. Finally he submitted in 353 at the Synod of Arles to the will of the emperor, who was personally present and who was entirely influenced by his arianic bishops. Even the papal legat agreed to the condemnation of Athanasius.
The Synod of Milan in 355 did not show much difference. The emperor got the condemnation of Athanasius by the bishops; only three stood firm and were therefore sent into exile. Liberius still did not yield to the emperor and hat to go to Beröa /Thrazien into exile. Assaulted by soldiers during a Church service, Athanasius escaped like a miracle to his arrest and flew into the Egyptian desert.
But it was to come worse. Contrary to its promise to show fidelity to the exiled Liberius from Rome, the majority of the roman clergy elected the Archdeacon Felix, who supported the Nicaean Creed, as counter-Pope. He let himself be consecrated by three arianic bishops and took up the church community with the Arians. Finally the hundred years old bishop Ossius of Cordoba, one of the most important bishops of the West Roman empire, who played an important part at the Council of Nicaea, and also some time later Pope Liberius, signed creeds, which did not express the consubstantial unity of the Son with the Father. And Athanasius say: "After Liberius had been in exile for two years, he gave in. And fearing the threatened death, he let himself be lead to sign the document."l)
Saint Hieronymus says: "Liberius, tired ofthe exile, let himself to sign the heretic false doctrine and returned to Rom like, a triumphant victor."2)
The formula of faith given by Liberius seems to be a declaration drawn up at the Synod of Sirmium. This formula of faith was supposed to mediate between the extreme Arians, who maintained Jesus not to have godlikeness and the tolerating Arians, as well as the Catholics, and it manifested clearly the godlikeness of Jesus. Liberius is even supposed to have said that he excludes all those of the community of faith, who do not teach the godlikeness of Jesus "in nature and in all."
With the submission to an at least dubious formula as well as what some people thought was worse and disgraceful, the abandonment of Athanasius, whom he excluded from the Church community, Liberius obtained his return to Rome. Here he could soon force the contra-Pope to abdicate, but, his renown as Pope declined, due to his weak attitude, and he had no saying in further conferences of bishops, and perhaps was not even be invited to attend them.
After the death of Konstantius (361) the Arianism, which had split up in many directions, had lost its impact, in spite of the emperor of the East empire, Valens, (364-378) who was a fanatic Arian. During these years return and flight also alternated with Athanasius until he could finally live peacefully from 367 to his death in 373.
This hopeless situation of the Church with her confusions, quarrels and failure of the shepherds, even of the Pope, is often compared with the present situation. But we must be very careful! The "case Liberius" is not the "case Montini and Wojtyla."! It also is nonsense wanting to see in M. Lefèbvre a second Athanasius.
As Dr. Hugo Maria Kellner explains in his article: "Alone, will the Son of men, when He comes back, find faith on earth?"(Einsicht, December 1980, page 198 ff.) The present apostasy of about 99% of the clergy and the majority of the faithful people is, according to possible human judgement, irreparable. Therefore it can be concluded that the Church, according to the words of Christ (Matth. 16,18): "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", will consist of a group of a very small number only. And this group will consist mainly of lay people; especially as long as there is no lawful hierarchy. By this there is in fact a similarity, respectively a comparison possible with the time of Arianism.
In 1859 Cardinal Newman published in the periodical "The Rambler'' the article "Concerning the evidence of the laity in questions doctrine of faith". The main thought of this composition is the "Consens fidelium", (the agreement of the faithful) which means that in answer to their prayers the "Ecclesia docta" (being the lay people) can, by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, retain, defend and carry on to hand down the apostolic Tradition. As an example that this faithful mind of the people has always been taken notice of, two passages are mentioned of the bull of Pius IX of 1854, which also contains the definition of the Immaculate Conception: "Though We knew clearly by all petitions the opinion of most of our associates in the episcopat, asking Us to define at last the Immaculate Conception of the holy Virgin, We have still sent an encyclical to all reverend Brothers, the heads of sacred places in the whole Catholic world, asking them to let Us know in writing, after having invocated God, which is the pious respect and devotion of their faithful to the Immaculate Conception." And further: "The Word of God (in Holy Scripture), a honorable Tradition, the continuous mind of the Church, the unique agreement of bishops and faithful."3)
Cardinal Newman writes about the time of the Arianism. "It is remarkable that from the historical point of view, the 4th century was in fact the epoch of doctors of the Church, like Saint Athanasius, Saint Hilary and Saint Augustin - and that all these saints were bishops except for one - but that still in those days the divine Tradition, entrusted to the infaillible Church, was propagated and maintained more by the faithful than by the episcopat. (...) I therefore see in the history of the Arianism the model example of a state of the Church, in which we have to fall back on the faithful, when it means to learn about the Tradition of the Apostles."4)
The following typical examples mentioned by Cardinal Newman for
a) the failure of the shepherds and
b) the fidelity of the laity, are:
to a) Saint Gregory of Nazianz said round about 360: "Surely the shepherds have acted like fools; because, with a few exceptions of those, who, out of their unimportance, were overlooked or with the help of their virtue have withstood and have become seed and root for Israel's new growth and new life by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, they have all given in. They differed only from each other in so far that some submitted earlier, the others later."5)
In 361, Saint Hieronymus said: "Most Churches over the whole world are infected by the community with the Arians, pretending to do it for the sake of peace and for the emperor."6)
Saint Hilary in 361: "So far the only reason why the people of God have not yet been murdered by this deceit of atheism is, that they are using for the description of their own faith, the same words as the heretics." - "The ears of the people are holier than the hearts of its priests."7)
Saint Gregory wrote about 382: "If I have to say the truth, I would rather avoid any conference of Bishops; because I have never seen a Synod resulting in a satisfactory end, and which would have remedied an existing evil instead of making it worse."8)
The consequence taken by the author that the "teaching Church" ('Ecclesia docens') is not always "the active instrument of the infaillible Church", was rejected by the Church opinion, because this would have put into doubt the infaillibility of the teaching ministry of the Church. To this the appendix 55 notes that historical facts prove "that the representatives of the 'teaching Church' have not always been the active agents of this infaillibility."
to b) Saint Basil says in 372: "Those laymen, who profess the true faith, avoid the places of Church services as schools of godlessness, and in their loneliness they rise their hands to the Father in Heaven in sights and tears. (...) Nowadays there is only one offense to be severely punished, it is the exact observance of the Tradition of our fathers."9) And the same concerning Liverius: "Liberius realised at his return to Rome that these masses of people had become estranged to him, because he had given in so shamefully to Konstantius. That is how those, who so far had distantiated themselves from Felix (the contra-Pope) and who had avoided the community with him in favour of Liverius, changed their attitude after hearing what he had done; they took to Felix, who now kept the standard flying."10)
Milan: "At the Synod of Milan Eusebius of Vercellae proposed, when it came to draw up a declaration against Athanasius, that the assembly should first of all find out about the faith of the bishops present, as he had found out that some of them were stained with heresy. Therefore he presented the Nicaean Creed to all Fahters and said that he would be prepared to follow all their requests, as soon as they would have signed this profession of faith. At once bishop Dionysius of Milan took the sheet of paper and startet to give his consent in writing. But Valens (the Arian) tore the paper and pen out off his hand and screamed: such a procedure is impossible. After a lot of confusion the matter was brought to the people and the affliction was great: the faith of the Church had been attacked by the bishops. These, fearing the judgement of the people, moved their meeting from the church into the emperor' palace."11)
Towards the end of his article Cardinal Newman writes: "If ever there has been a time which could have done without the testimony of the laity and which could leave the observance of the faith to the shepherds of the Church, it is the present time in which we live. (i.e. about the middle of the last century, a few years after the apparition of the Mother of God in La Salette! Note of the publisher.) Never have the bishops of Christianity been so submitted to the Holy See, so truly religious, so serious in the fulfillment of their appropriate duties, so little inclined to modernism and so superior to temptation of theological sophistication. This is perhaps the reason why the "consensus fidelium" has disappeared in the minds of so many." 12)
With to-days experience in mind, the reader will, when reading these sentences, react either with sorrow, anger or irony.
Literature excerpts
Newman, J.H. Cardinal: "Testimony of the laity regarding the Doctrine of Faith" (Polemic writings, Selected Works, Vol. IV, Mainz 1959).
Wetzer and Welters: "Church Dictionary" Freiburg 1888; Article: Arianism and Athanasius.
"Athanasius and Nicaea" in BEDA-LETTER, issue 175 of 16th January 1979.
Haller, Johannes: The Papacy: Ideology and Reality, Vol. I, Stuttgart 1934.
Seppelt, F.X.:History of the Popes from the beginning to the middle of 20th Century, Munich 1954.
Notices:
1) Newman, J.H., Cardinal: Selected Works IV, page 276.
2) cit, page 276.
3) cit, page 268, as well notice 32 and 33, and page 315.
4) cit, page 271 f.
5) cit, page 277.
6) cit, page 277.
7) cit, page 278.
8) cit, page 276.
9) cit, page 284 f.
10) cit, page 286.
11) cit, page 286.
12) cit, page 290.
***
THE HOLY PARISH PRIEST OF ARS:
The person, who receives Holy Communion looses himself in God like a
drop of water in the ocean. It is impossible to separate them. If,
after holy Communion, someone would surprise you and ask: "What are you
carrying home?" We could answer: "We carry Heaven away with us." This
is absolutely right. But our faith is not strong enough. We do not
realise our dignity.
|
