Questions Answered – November 2024

Understanding Heresies: Their Nature and History

Question: Dear Father Cush, I was the person who asked if there were any Trinitarian theology before the First Council of Nicaea. Thank you for your very thorough answer last month, but I am still left rather confused. You mentioned a great number of heresies that I seem to need to know about. Can you at least break these major ones down for me simply? Perhaps I am not the only person to ask about Trinitarian heresies. Thanks for considering this question!

Answer: Dear Reader, thank you! I was thinking the same thing when I answered your question. Sometimes, when I speak about the early Church and the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, I think I can really get a little too casual and I can almost assume that everybody knows exactly to what I am referring, and that is not fair! I once knew an incredible priest who claimed that all of theology is just a commentary on what happened after the First Seven Ecumenical Councils! I won’t claim that much, but I will stop at this point and try to explain what were some of the Trinitarian and Christological heresies that the Church were facing at this point in history.

And, having said that, let’s explore an important question, namely who is a heretic and what is a heresy? First, what is a heretic? Teaching first-year seminarians an introduction to theological method seminar (one semester on fundamental theology and the other on dogmatic theology) is great fun for me as a professor. These are very bright, very faithful and very faith-filled young men who have just completed their studies in philosophy and are at the very beginning of their studies in theology. I assign a great deal of reading to them, selections from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the decrees of the Councils and the Popes, readings from the Tradition, and even selections from contemporary theologians like Tracey Rowland, Avery Cardinal Dulles, and Bishop Robert Barron. It is fascinating to see how the seminarians make the transition from the study of philosophy to the study of theology. In my class, I always emphasize that theology is a sacred science, but it’s also about so much more than just the academic realm — it’s all about learning more and more about someone whom you have fallen in love with: Christ and his Mystical Body, the Church.

Every so often, it is interesting to see a student slip into “heresy”! Of course, this is not deliberately. It merely means that he will use imprecise language or fall into some odd interpretation! For example, a student might describe Our Lord Jesus Christ as “a human person,” when in fact, dogmatically, the Church teaches that the Lord is one Divine Person in two natures, human and divine. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 481). Sometimes, a student may fall into an error about the doctrine of the Most Blessed Trinity (something quite easy to do!). The twentieth-century Canadian philosopher and theologian Bernard Lonergan, SJ (1904–1984) is quoted describing his students’ understanding of the nature of doctrine of the Trinity as “five notions, four relations, three persons, two processions, one nature, and zero comprehension.”

There is another type of student who appears and, quite remarkably, having never studied theology at all, is able to solemnly declare even such thinkers like Pope Benedict XVI “a little heretical” in some of their writings! After picking my jaw up from the floor of the classroom, I assure the students that they are not reading the works of heretics and that they should be very careful about throwing the “h” word around.

With that in mind, what then is a heresy? According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law # 751, “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt, after the reception of baptism, of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith [credenda]; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Dr. Alyssa Lyra Pitstick, in a fine article in First Things (https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2007/02/a-heretic-is-as-a-heretic-does) in which she is in dialogue with the late theologian, Fr. Edward Oakes, SJ, offers a clear distinction between the two types of heretics:

Now about this choice, a very simple, accurate, and useful distinction used to be made between a material heretic and a formal heretic: The material heretic errs in his facts, believing something to be true church doctrine which in fact is not. His choice is made in ignorance. If he learns from reliable sources that the Church teaches otherwise, he readily changes his belief, because his concern is to believe what the community of faith believes, since he believes it is Christ’s Church.

In contrast, the formal heretic knows what the Church teaches and believes something else, namely, the object of his choice. His belief is defined over against the Church’s, and his concern is to hold fast to his choice. His choice is made in knowledge. Of course, a formal heretic often enough begins with the innocent error of a material heretic, but the difference is that he clings obstinately to it in the face of new information. Note that formal heresy does not require efforts at official correction by church authorities, nor a declaration on their part. It only requires that the individual know what the Church teaches in essential matters and that he persists in holding something incompatible with that teaching.

Formal heresy also does not require that the heretic abjure his church membership, as Oakes claimed. Indeed, it would be surprising if a heretic did so abjure, since he has convinced himself that his doctrine is the correct one. Implicitly, therefore, he represents the “true (or pure, or original, or whatever) Church” — at least to himself.

With this in mind, we can see that a formal heretic is not merely one who makes a slip of the tongue or who expresses his answer in a wrong manner. It takes a lot of work to be a formal heretic! By learning the teachings of the Church, by adhering to the teachings of the Church, and by living the teachings of the Church, we can avoid all that work!

With this being said, let me please present in a simple form some of the major Trinitarian heresies. I hope that will help you with your original question to me.

Arianism was named after Arius, a priest from Alexandria, whose teachings sparked a major theological controversy in the fourth century. Arians believed that the Son (Jesus Christ) was a created being, not co-eternal with the Father. They held that the Son was subordinate to the Father and there was a time when the Son did not exist. Their key phrase was ”There was a time when He was not.” Arianism was condemned at the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD), which affirmed that the Son is “begotten, not made, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father.”

Sabellianism, also known as Modalism or Patripassianism, was named after Sabellius, an early third-century theologian. Sabellians believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct persons but rather different modes or aspects of one God. According to this view, God reveals Himself in different forms at different times: as the Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in sanctification. They believed that the same person of God manifests in different roles. Modalism was condemned by early Church Fathers such as Tertullian and Hippolytus, who defended the distinct personhood and co-eternity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Macedonianism was named after Macedonius, a semi-Arian bishop of Constantinople, and is also known as Pneumatomachianism (“fighters against the Spirit”). Macedonians denied the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, considering Him to be a creation of the Son and not equal to the Father and the Son. They truly believed that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son. Macedonianism was condemned at the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD), which affirmed the full divinity of the Holy Spirit and expanded the Nicene Creed to include this.

Nestorianism was named after Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the early fifth century. Nestorians held that there were two separate persons in Christ, one divine and one human, rather than a single person who is both divine and human. This led to a distinction that compromised the unity of Christ’s person. Nestorians believed in the separation of Christ’s divine and human natures into two persons. Nestorianism was condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), which affirmed the unity of Christ’s person and declared Mary as Theotokos (God-bearer).

Monophysitism arose in reaction to Nestorianism and was championed by Eutyches in the fifth century. Monophysites believed that Christ had only one nature, either purely divine or a synthesis of divine and human, following the Incarnation. They truly believed that Christ’s divine and human natures are fused into a single nature. Monophysitism was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), which affirmed the doctrine of two distinct but united natures (divine and human) in the one person of Christ.

Adoptionism is an early heresy that reappeared at various times in Christian history. Adoptionists believed that Jesus was born as a mere human and was later adopted as the Son of God at His baptism, resurrection, or ascension. The Adoptionists really believed that Jesus was not inherently divine but became divine through adoption. Adoptionism was rejected by the early Church, and it resurfaced periodically, including in the eighth century in Spain, where it was again condemned.

Docetism was an early heresy associated with the Gnostic movement. Docetists claimed that Jesus only appeared to have a human body and suffer. According to this view, His physical form and crucifixion were illusions. Docetists really believed that Jesus’ humanity and suffering were not real. Docetism was opposed by early church fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch and was broadly rejected by the Church as it undermined the reality of the Incarnation and the redemptive suffering of Christ.

I know that these summaries of Trinitarian heresies were very short, but I hope that it helps you begin to understand some of the complexities of this theology and history! I look forward to more of your questions!

The Importance of Saint Bonaventure

Question: Dear Father Cush, why is Saint Bonaventure important for theology?

Answer: Dear Reader, Saint Bonaventure is a Doctor of the Church and one of the most important Scholastic theologians in the history of the Church! Let me explain a little bit about this great saint and theologian. From Saint Bonaventure, a Franciscan Cardinal, we can learn that by knowledge and love of the faith, you are conformed to the likeness of Christ. The human soul comes to know the God of Revelation and is, thus, transformed in this knowing. For Bonaventure, theology is an affective science, located between the speculative (intellectus in se) and the practical (intellectus ad opus). Theology proceeds rationally in faith according to the object, who is Christ, and our own relationship with that object. Therefore, the culmination is more than simply Scientia (knowledge) but actually Sapientia (Wisdom).

Theology, according to Bonaventure, is a scientia secundum pietatem — its very nature is determined by the love of its object — Christ and human reason must be transformed by grace into a reason suitable for theology. Thus, in theology, it is really all about a passage from scientia to sapientia to sanctitatis (holiness). Holiness begins with a yearning for wisdom and, thus, becomes a personal moral disposition, which in turn, leads to the deiformity of the creature. Holiness is tied to the virtue of justice, which is the right ordering of love.

There are three stages of study — the first is the virtue stage, which involves creedal knowledge. According to Bonaventure, this creedal knowledge pertains to the lay state and further involves the rectifying and the cleansing of the soul through the theological virtues, with faith pertaining to the intellect, hope pertaining to the memory, and charity pertaining to the will.

The second stage is that of holiness — permitting the gifts of the Holy Spirit to move the soul toward God. For Bonaventure, this is theology proper, meaning academic theology; and it mostly pertains to the clerical state. Here, we recall that academic theology is not the end point.

The third stage is the knowledge level — which is the perfection of the soul, moving it toward beatitude, with the soul in union with God as its telos. This is the mode of contemplation, which refers to both acquired and infused knowledge, and it mostly pertains to the monastic and contemplative.

Therefore, theology for Bonaventure is different from philosophy in its object and its end. Theology has a unique fides quae (Christ) and leads to a different fides qua. There is the need to go beyond a formless faith (fides informata) which is a faith that lacks charity. Theology leads us from an imago creationis to an imago recreationis.

When we have a theological dispute, we do so ex pietate (in piety) — meaning it is not about a what, but about a who (Christ). Theology for Bonaventure goes beyond curiositas (a desire to know), which is a concupiscence of the mind, a desire to know, which we need to bring to a higher level. It then goes to a studiositas (a desire to know through an upright love), which is connected to virtue ethics, which can lead us to beatitude. The third level is a conformitas with God. Therefore, if you wish to be true scholars, you must have piety! Reason without love is not only deficient for theology, according to Bonaventure, it is demonic. Loveless reason is Satan’s motivation for the Fall, according to Bonaventure. Therefore, we can see the remarkable contribution that Bonaventure makes toward theological method and the connection between the virtues and theological study.