|
Home |
Early
Arianism | Arian
Church History | Arian Catholic Hymn |
Modern
Arian Catholicism |
Apollinarianism (Apollinarius: c310 - c390)
A
Christological theory, according to which Christ had a human body and a
human sensitive soul, but no human rational mind, the Divine Logos
taking the place of this last. The
author of this theory, Apollinaris (Apolinarios) the Younger,
Bishop of Laodicea, flourished in the latter half of the fourth century
and was at first highly esteemed by men like St. Athanasius, St. Basil,
and St. Jerome for his classical culture, his Biblical learning, his
defence of Christianity and his loyalty to the Nicene faith. He
assisted his father, Apollinaris the Elder, in reconstructing the
scriptures on classical models in order to compensate the Christians
for the loss of Greek literature of which the edict of Julian had
deprived them. St. Jerome credits him with innumerable volumes on the
Scriptures; two apologies of Christianity, one against Porphyry, and
the other against Julian; a refutation of Eunomius, a radical Arian,
etc.; but all these works are lost. With regard to Apollinaris’s
writings which bear on the present theory, we are more fortunate. A
contemporary anonymous book: Adversus fraudes Apollinaristarum,
informs us that the Apollinarists, in order to win credence for their
error, circulated a number of tracts under the approved names of such
men as Gregory Thaumaturgus (He kata meros pistis, Exposition of
Faith), Athanasius (Peri sarkoseos, On the Incarnation), Pope
Julius (Peri tes en Christo enotetos, On Unity in Christ), etc.
Following that clue, Lequien (1740), Caspari (1879) and Dräseke
(1892), have shown that in all probability these are Apollinaris’s
writings. Moreover, the Fathers of the Church who wrote in defence of
orthodoxy, e.g., Athanasius, in two books against Apollinaris; Gregory
Nazianzen, in several letters; Gregory
of Nyssa in his Antirretikos; Theodoret, in his Haereticae
Fabulae and Dialogues, etc., incidentally give us ample
information on the real system of the Laodicean. The
precise time at which Apollinaris came forward with his heresy is
uncertain. There are clearly two periods in the Apollinarist
controversy. Up to 376, either because of his covert attitude or of the
respect in which he was held, Apollinaris’s name was never mentioned by
his opponents, i.e. by individuals like Athanasius and Pope Damasus, or
by councils like the Alexandrian (362), and the Roman (376). From this
latter date it is open war. Two more Roman councils, 377 and 381, and a
number of Fathers, plainly denounce and condemn as heretical the views
of Apollinaris. He failed to submit even to the more solemn
condemnation of the council of Constantinople, 381, whose first canon
entered Apollinarianism on the list of heresies, and he died in his
error, about 392. His following, at one time considerable in
Constantinople, Syria, and Phoenicia, hardly survived him. Some few
disciples, like Vitalis, Valentinus, Polemon, and Timothy, tried to
perpetuate the error of the master and probably are responsible for the
forgeries noticed above. The sect itself soon became extinct. Towards
416, many returned to the mother-Church, while the rest drifted away
into Monophysitism.
THEORY
Apollinaris
based his theory on two principles or suppositions, one ontological or
objective, and one psychological or subjective. Ontologically, it
appeared to him that the union of complete God with complete man could
not be more than a juxtaposition or collocation. Two perfect beings
with all their attributes, he argued, cannot be one. They are at most
an incongruous compound, not unlike the monsters of mythology. Inasmuch
as the Nicene faith forbade him to belittle the Logos, as Arius
had done, he forthwith proceeded to maim the humanity of Christ, and
divest it of its noblest attribute, and this, he claimed, for the sake
of true Unity and veritable Incarnation. Psychologically, Apollinaris,
considering the rational soul or spirit as essentially liable to sin
and capable, at its best, of only precarious efforts, saw no way of
saving Christ’s impeccability and the infinite value of Redemption,
except by the elimination of the human spirit from Jesus’ humanity, and
the substitution of the Divine Logos in its stead. For the
constructive part of his theory, Apollinaris appealed to the well-known
Platonic division of human nature: body (sarx, soma), soul (psyche
halogos), spirit (nous, pneuma, psyche logike). Christ, he
said, assumed the human body and the human soul or principle of animal
life, but not the human spirit. The Logos Himself is, or takes
the place of, the human spirit, thus becoming the rational and
spiritual centre, the seat of self-consciousness and
self-determination. By this simple device the Laodicean thought that
Christ was safe, His substantial unity secure, His moral immutability
guaranteed, and the infinite value of Redemption made self-evident. And
in confirmation of it all, he quoted from St. John i, 14 “and the
Word was made flesh”; St. Paul, Phil., ii, 7, Being made in the
likeness of men and in habit found as a man, and I Cor., xv, 47 The
second man, from heaven, heavenly.
DOCTRINE
OF THE CHURCH
It
is to be found in the seventh anathema of Pope Damasus in the Council
of Rome, 381. “We pronounce anathema against them who say that
the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human
rational and intellective soul. For, the Word of God is the Son
Himself. Neither did He come in the flesh to replace, but rather to
assume and preserve from sin and save the rational and intellective
soul of man.” In answer to Apollinaris’s basic principles, the
Fathers simply denied the second as Manichaean. As to the first, it
should be remembered that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon had not
yet formulated the doctrine of Hypostatical Union. It will then appear
why the Fathers contented themselves with offering arguments in
rebuttal, e.g.:
They
also pointed out the correct meaning of the Scriptural passages alleged
by Apollinaris, remarking that the word sarx in St. John, as in
other parts of Holy Writ, was used by synecdoche for the whole human
nature, and that the true meaning of St. Paul (Philippians and I
Corinthians) was determined by the clear teaching of the Pastoral
Epistles. Some of them, however, incautiously insisted upon the
limitations of Jesus’ knowledge as proof positive that His mind was
truly human. But when the heresiarch would have taken them farther
afield into the very mystery of the Unity of Christ, they feared not to
acknowledge their ignorance and gently derided Apollinaris s
mathematical spirit and implicit reliance upon mere speculation and
human reasoning. The Apollinarist controversy, which nowadays appears
somewhat childish, had its importance in the history of Christian
dogma; it transferred the discussion from the Trinity into the
Christological field; moreover, it opened that long line of
Christological debates which resulted in the Chalcedonian symbol. Written by J. F. Sollier |
|
Arianism - through the centuries
Arius’ doctrines have been reinforced by numerous attempts by other Theologians’, Bishops’ and an Archbishop’s attempts to argue along similar grounds resulting the heresies of Apollinarianism (Apollinarius: c310 - c390), Nestorianism (428 A.D. - 14th Century), Monophysitism (451 A.D., 6th century onwards, see also Eutychianism), Monothelitism (681 A.D. onwards) and most recently in 18th century Britain when there was a strong Arian movement especially within the Church of England; its leading exponents, William Whiston and Samuel Clarke, were among the prominent scientists of the day and disciples of Sir Isaac Newton in both their scientific and their theological views. Accepting scripture as embodying divinely give truth, but interpreting it not so mush with the aid of tradition as with that of the reason, characteristic of the emerging scientific age, they found themselves impelled in a broadly Arian direction. A further examination of some of the key principles of the modern Arian Catholic Tradition can be viewed by clicking on: Arian Catholic Lore and Philosophy ...
|
|
Home | Arian Catholic Creed | Arian Catholic Hymn | Arian Catholic Lore and Philosophy www.holy-catholic.org enquiries © 2005-6 Rev. Dr. B.B.M.J. Mackenzie-Hanson, B.A. (Hons), D.D., a.c.O.S.B.
|
Download the 2005 Liturgical Calendar ...
holy-catholic.org