April 1980 Print

The Trinitarian Heresies
Sabellius, Arius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches

Sabellius

No sooner had the Church recovered from the Gnostic heresies, than She was racked by a long series of attacks on the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. Even in the Gnostic heresy there were indications of an attack on this most sacred belief but now, for over three hundred years, this was to be the chief problem which troubled the Church.

Sabellius came to Rome about 200 AD, and brought with him a development of an earlier heresy preached by a certain Praxeas who had taught that God the Father descended into the Virgin Mary and was Himself born of her and Himself suffered. Thus, Jesus Christ was totally identified with the Father. This version of the heresy is known by the cumbersome title of "Patripassian¹ Monarchism" because its proponents put forward the view that it was the Father who suffered.

Sabellius developed this view even further. He taught that God is one Person manifested in three ways. In the Old Law there was God the Father; in the time of Christ there was God the Son; and later on, there was God the Holy Spirit. God the Father is regarded as an "orb" of power from which comes forth the Divine emanation of Wisdom (Logos) and then Love (Holy Spirit). However once the work of the Spirit is accomplished this "tri-une" personality disappears and God remains in His "simplicity." The heresy is sometimes called "Modalism" because it regards the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as merely modes of the Divine Being.

Arius

Arianism is by far the best known of the Trinitarian heresies. Arius was a priest at Alexandria and was known for his ascetical way of life and for being a preacher of talent. Arius had studied at Antioch under a priest named Lucian who was himself a disciple of a certain Paul of Samosata. This Paul was excommunicated for teaching a form of Adoptianism. (The Adoptionists taught that Christ was not truly divine but merely the son of Mary and Joseph whom God had adopted as His Son.)

Arius started to preach his own developed version of this heresy around AD 319. He pointed out to an assembly of clerics that "if God the Son was begotten of the Father, does that not imply that the Father existed before Him?" Arius alleged that as "Son" He follows and comes after the Father, and is not eternal. Christ was the first and highest creature of God, the only being directly created by God so that by and through Him He might create the universe. He was then exalted to share in the Divine prerogatives. When it was argued against Arius that this would mean that Christ's nature was mutable and it would be possible for such a person to commit sin, Arius allowed that indeed it was possible for Christ to sin but, in fact, He did not do so.

Arius was excommunicated by his bishop and sought the protection of Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea, who adopted his views. Arius withdrew the worst of his blasphemies or, rather, hid them behind some ambiguous expressions. He posed, like Hans Küng today, as a persecuted, misunderstood and innocent believer. The similarity does not end there for, like Küng, he popularized his teachings in books and pamphlets. Furthermore, the position of Dr. Küng on the Divinity of Christ is virtually the same as that of Arius.

The disputes in the Church came to the ear of the recently converted Emperor Constantine who arranged for the Bishops to meet at Nicea in 325 for the famous council which bears that name. It was essential to find some term that would insure man's belief in the true Godhead of the Son. This, word was to be homoousios which means "of one substance with" or "consubstantial" in the correct translation of the Creed. The Arians now tried to evade the issue by objecting that this expression (homoousios) was not to be found in Holy Scripture. Witness today the number of "theologians" who talk glibly of "returning to the simplicity of Holy Scripture" in order to cover up their own deviations from the truth.

The Bishops would have none of it and insisted on "consubstantial." Arius was excommunicated again and the Emperor insisted that acceptance of the findings of the Council was a duty not only of the Church but of the State. However, the Arians were only biding their time. Five years after the Council they rose up again and created turmoil. Discreetly suggesting that the word homoousios might be interpreted in the sense that Sabellius had used (i.e. the Father and the Son are the same), the Arians suggested a new word, homoiousios, "of like substance." Just one letter in the Greek word changes orthodoxy into heresy and denies the Divinity of Christ! Some bishops who had subscribed to the formulas of Nicea now decided that the decrees of this Council were overly rigid. They considered that the aim of religion is to be respectable, tolerant, and broadminded. What was needed was a formula which men of varying opinions could sign while understanding the term in widely different senses. This is roughly the position of the Anglican Church today, on all its doctrines. Subscribe to 39 Articles, yes . . . but what they mean is up to the individual to decide! Truth, in other words, is a relative term. We should try hard not to upset people by insisting upon the truth!

During this time, a great champion of the Faith was Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. He carried on an implacable fight for orthodoxy. He was twice expelled and twice returned to the See of Alexandria before, finally, he was forced to flee into exile in 356, just in time to avoid being murdered by the emperor's soldiers. The history of these stormy days is too involved to be given in detail but the main outlines are important to our narration.

In 336 Arius was due to be solemnly received back into the Catholic Church in the presence of the Emperor Constantine. Bishop Eusebius had succeeded in banishing Athanasius for the first time and also had the ear of the Emperor. The reconciliation of Arius was first due to take place at Alexandria but the people would have none of it. They stood by Athanasius, their exiled bishop. So Constantinople was the chosen spot but the night before the "reconciliation" Arius was found dying, in a closet. His bowels had burst from his body and he died in agony. Many regarded this as an Act of God.

The following year Constantine died. The Empire was divided into Eastern and Western, and the Western was headed by Constans, a Catholic. In the East, although Athanasius was allowed to return for a while to Alexandria, the Emperor favored the Arians. Many Eastern Bishops met for a false council at Antioch in 341 and drafted an ambiguous semi-Arian Creed. The following year, however, a more genuine council assembled at Sardica (modern Sofia) and re-issued the Nicene Creed as the stamp of Orthodoxy. The Arian bishops withdrew amid loud protests. However, the troubles were by no means at an end.

In the year 356 Emperor Constantius, together with the Arian bishops, finally drove Athanasius out of Alexandria. Pope Liberius was forced to come to the Imperial Palace where the Emperor demanded that he join in the universal "condemnation" of Athanasius. Pope Liberius refused and was exiled to Beroea in Thrace. He eventually gave in to pressure and excommunicated Athanasius.

In 357, a new Arian formula was drawn up stating definitively that the Son is unlike the Father. This, however, was rejected even by "moderate" Arians and led to a further document being drawn up using the term homoiousios ("of like substance"). This was signed by Pope Liberius who added a note to say that he only accepted it in the traditional sense, not the Arian sense.

The lowest point of all was reached in 359 when over four hundred bishops assembled at Rimini where they were physically forced, in some cases, to sign an ambiguous Arian formula. The Eastern bishops met for the same purpose at Seleucia and then delegates from both "councils" met at Constantinople in 360 to finalize their agreement. Pope Liberius would have nothing to do with it. St. Jerome made the famous comment: "The whole world groaned to find itself Arian." However, Constantius died soon after, and the true Catholic bishops were able to reassert themselves. For the next thirty years or so the quarrel continued, but slowly the Arians lost their ascendancy. Besides St. Athanasius, there was now the influence of St. Hilary of Poitiers and the well-known bishop, St. Ambrose.

Apollinaris

Apollinaris was the Bishop of Laodicea. He developed his heretical theories around the year 360. In his efforts to combat Arianism, he sacrificed the oneness of Christ's Person. He fell into the error which is also found today that "personality" is the same as "consciousness." He argued that if we admit an intelligence in Christ other than the divine, we thereby have two personalities. So, effectively, he denies that Christ has a human intelligence at all. The modern Liberal tends to hold the reverse. He might say, "Christ had a human intelligence therefore he could not have a divine one." Apollinaris went on to teach that there was a threefold principle in man—body, soul, and spirit. Christ, he admitted, had a human body but the rational soul was supplied by the Word.² Apollinaris was attacked for his views by another great figure of the age, St. Basil. In the year 377 Pope Damasus condemned the heresy and deposed Apollinaris.

Nestorius

Nestorius was a priest well known for his ascetic life who was selected as Bishop of Constantinople in 397 AD. He has studied at the theological school at Antioch. This school had always tended to talk of two "spirits" in Christ and for them "Spirit" was virtually the same as "person." Effectively, what Nestorius taught was that Christ was a human person in which the second Person of the Trinity dwelt as in a tabernacle. Christ's personality is viewed as the result of the union of the Divinity and Humanity; in effect, a kind of "moral union" of two distinct persons.³ This intricate thinking might have been left to the realms of pure speculation except that its proponent, Nestorius, was in a position of power and moved on from this stage to attack the veneration paid to Our Blessed Lady. The ordinary faithful had long used the expression "Mother of God" but now Nestorius told them to speak only of "Mother of Christ." The populace appealed to the Emperor and another great figure of the age, St. Cyril of Alexandria, who brought the matter to the notice of the Holy See. The Pope ordered Nestorius to recant within ten days and authorized St. Cyril to depose him in default of a submission. Nestorius refused to submit and spread his errors wider than ever. "If Mary is called Mother of God, she is made a goddess," he claimed. The Pope agreed with the Emperor in having a Council at which it would be clear that his condemnation would be ratified.

The Fathers assembled at Ephesus, the place well known in ancient times as the shrine of the goddess Diana (Artemis) and as the probable home of Our Lady after the Ascension of Christ into heaven. Nestorius was summoned to attend but sent only contemptuous replies. We might compare the behavior of Dr. Küng here, who constantly refused to go to Rome to defend his views. About one hundred and fifty-nine bishops assembled for the first session starting on June 22, 431. The first session ended by stating: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him has defined by this holy synod that the same Nestorius is excluded from all episcopal dignity and from every assembly of bishops." A second session started on July 10th when the legates of Pope Celestine arrived. The Pope's letter was read and all the bishops were asked to accept it. The ending of the council is just as famous. The local populace heard the news of Nestorius's condemnation and surged through the streets bearing torches and joyfully proclaiming: "Thou O Mother of God, hast destroyed the heresy." Thus started the custom of candlelight processions in honor of Our Lady which continues to this day.

The Nestorians fled to Persia where the local ruler encouraged them. The advent of Mohammed, however, eventually led to their total eclipse. The true followers of Nestorius are those Protestants and even some who call themselves Catholics, who would deny that God was born of Mary, or that God shed His blood for us on Calvary. For us Catholics, the honor given to Mary is the safeguard for the Adoration of her Son. To acknowledge Mary as Mother of God is to believe truly in God the Son become man.

Eutyches

Eutyches was a monk of Constantinople. He was head of one of the city's largest monasteries. He was well known for his ascetic life and had great influence at court. He was also famous for his attacks on the Nestorians but then he went too far in the opposite direction. While Nestorius denied the unity of the Person of Christ, Eutyches effectively denied the existence of two natures. He seems to suggest some kind of fusion of the Divine and human natures which took place at the Incarnation. Christ thus becomes some kind by hybrid God-man. Eutyches was deposed but appealed to the Emperor, who called for a council to meet once again at Ephesus. However, the bishops that met were all partisans of Eutyches and his henchman, Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, a very unsavory character to whom no crime came amiss if it furthered his immediate ambition and greed for money. Dioscorus presided and refused to acknowledge the authority of the papal envoys. They deposed the patriarch of Constantinople who was a true Catholic and restored Eutyches to his monastery. The Pope at this time was St. Leo the Great and when he heard what had happened he condemned the Council and anulled all its decrees. This Council is now known as the "Latrocinium" or "Robber Council."

The Emperor refused to grant St. Leo a new council but when Marcian became Emperor in 450 he agreed to comply with the Pope's wishes. This council met at Chalcedon in October 451. Chalcedon was a town on the Asiatic side, opposite Constantinople.

Nestorius had allowed Christ to be "of two natures." The correct expression is "in two natures." The Nestorians were claiming "one nature only after the Union." Thus they denied Christ's human nature, making the Passion in any real sense impossible and the example of Christ's human life valueless to us. Eutyches harps right back to the earliest Gnostic heresies in this. At the council an important letter known as "The Tome of St. Leo" was read and approved. Dioscorus was deposed and Eutyches removed from his monastery. A solemn definition was made which stands to this day as the complete statement of Trinitarian belief to back up the Nicene Creed. It is well known that today not only Hans Küng but other so-called "Catholic theologians" are saying that the decrees of Chalcedon need to be revised "in the light of modern history and scholarship."

To end this survey of Trinitarian heresies, I quote from the decree of the Council of Chalcedon:

We all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead, and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man . . . one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only Begotten, recognized in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son ..."

To even consider "revising" such a definition would be unthinkable . . . but in these troubled days, there are not lacking those who would disturb our Faith anew.

 

---

1. The Latin passus means "to suffer," hence the Passion of Our Lord.

2. The Word, i.e. God the Son. Thus, not having a human soul, Christ was not truly man as well as truly God.

3.  Catholic teaching is that Our Lord was one person with two natures—human and divine, and, thus, truly man and truly God.