Телеграм канал «Ecce Verbum»

St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Arians of the Fourth Century" Part15:  Chapter IV. Synods during the reign of Constantius;  Eusebians The situation after the death of Arius The death of Arius (ca. 336) did not end the activities of his followers. They had already disregarded him as a reformer and their doctrinal authority, and after the Council of Nicaea, they rejected his most explicit theses. The movement's main leaders were Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, who transformed Arianism into its milder form, semi-Arianism (semi-Arianism was a theological current that rejected the full divinity of Christ, considering Him to be similar (homoiousios) but not identical (homoousios) with the Father in essence). From then on, their method of combating orthodoxy became intrigue, slander, and manipulation at local synods, rather than openly teaching error. From 328 to 350, they controlled much of the Eastern Empire, removing bishops under the guise of legal ecclesiastical processes. Newman emphasizes that their doctrinal indecision and constant change of symbols of faith was not an accident, but resulted from an inner aversion to the mystery of God. Spiritual Analysis of the "Euzebians" Newman notes that worldly man rebels against the mysteries of faith because he desires to understand everything through reason and subordinate reality to himself. The dogma of Christ's divinity, which demands recognition of the limits of human reason and obedience to Revelation, was particularly unbearable for the Eusebians. Thus, they differed not so much in the details of the doctrine as in their very attitude toward the mystery: they did not want to adore, but to analyze the Scriptures; they did not want to believe, but to explain in human terms. In this sense, they were spiritually related to the "learned Greeks" about whom St. Paul wrote. Newman, somewhat facetiously, observes that Christians become more fervent and passionate in theological discussions the more mysterious the truths they discuss. He sees nothing shameful in this, however; on the contrary, he believes that precisely what surpasses us and remains incompletely understood most deeply moves the heart and ignites love. A believer desires to know and honor what he loves, and therefore gratefully considers even those aspects of revelation that are difficult or incomprehensible, for in them is revealed both the greatness of God and a source of humility and consolation for the soul. The Eusebians hated what exceeded their reason. Their heresy, therefore, had moral roots and was the result of pride and spiritual coldness, not merely intellectual error. The main representatives of the Eusebian faction : 1. Acacius of Caesarea A disciple and successor of Eusebius of Caesarea. A man of immense erudition, but utterly unprincipled. Initially a semi-Arian, he advocated the doctrine that the Son is "like" (homoios) to the Father, but not consubstantial. He later converted to extreme anomeism (pure and radical Arianism; the teaching that the Son is "unlike" the Father), and finally, to please Emperor Jovian, he signed the Nicene Creed. 2. George of Laodicea A former priest of Alexandria, he was removed by Bishop Alexander for supporting Arius. He was known for his moral licentiousness and instability. After a brief period of ostensible affiliation with the Semi-Arians, he died an Anomaean. 3. Leontius of Antioch Very cunning, seemingly gentle and diplomatic, he maintained a veneer of unity with Catholics, avoiding clear declarations in prayers and symbols. Publicly, he sought to pass for orthodox, while secretly promoting heretics. It was he who ordained Aetius, the future founder of extreme anomeism, as a deacon. 🔗p.2 🔗p.3

Newman portrays this doctrine as an elaborate edifice of empty words that, under the weight of its own subtlety, collapses, leaving only contradictory statements without real content. Newman emphasizes, however that semi-Arians were often men of high moral character. Many of them led ascetic, zealous, and blameless lives. St. Athanasius and St. Hilary, the staunchest defenders of orthodoxy, both treated them with a certain respect. St. Athanasius referred to them explicitly as "brothers," distinguishing between doctrinal error and intention and attitude. St. Hilary saw in them men whose lives and customs contrasted with the moral mediocrity and courtly opportunism of the pure Arians. Newman presents a whole series of figures who, despite their theological errors, were saints, or at least remarkably virtuous. Basil of Ancyra appears as a bishop of immense erudition and ascetic austerity; Eleusius of Cyzicus as a man of unwavering integrity; Eustathius of Sebaste as a tireless defender of moral purity. Even more poignant is the image of Marcus of Arethusa, whose heroic martyrdom under Julian the Apostate is described with a rhetorical force almost reminiscent of the classics. This semi-Arian bishop, who was capable of destroying pagan temples under Constantius and suffering for his faith under Julian, emerges as a violent yet uncompromising man, ready to die in agony rather than pay a single coin for the reconstruction of a pagan place of worship. Among the Semiarians, we also find figures whom the Church venerates today as saints: St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Eusebius of Samosata. Newman demonstrates that holiness of life and objective imperfections in the formulation of doctrine can sometimes be separated, and that the Church, in the long run, can distinguish between what was an error of the tongue and what was an error of the heart. Despite all these positives, the Semi-Arians eventually became a burden to the Arians themselves, especially when, after Constans's death, the entire West was opened to the Arianist court politicians. It was then that Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea, introduced a new theological strategy: he postulated that creeds be formulated exclusively in literally biblical terms, avoiding all philosophical concepts, especially the word "substance." This was a clever way to return to pure Arianism while maintaining a semblance of fidelity to Scripture. The new creed thus stated only that the Son was "like" the Father, but did not specify in what way he was like, nor whether this meant a similarity of nature. This was a dogmatic veil intended to conceal the real difference in substance while simultaneously allowing the emperor and his advisors to claim that they did not reject the literal language of the Bible. Around 350, Arianism was no longer a single heresy. It resembled a large family that had long been in conflict, but whose members suddenly split into three directions: 1. Semiarians - rigorous, ethical, ascetic, defending the "similarity of substance". 2. Homojans - opportunistic, politically adroit, using the language of Scripture without theology. 3. Anomoians - radical disciples of Arius, who claimed that the Son was "unlike" the Father. All these groups began to fight among themselves, competing for the emperor's favor, for bishoprics, and for synods. During this time, the Church, and especially Athanasius and his followers,experienced violent persecution.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Arians of the Fourth Century" Part 14: Chapter IV. Synods during the reign of Constantius ; Semiarians After the Council of Sardica (ca. 343), deep tensions emerged within the Church between East and West. There was no fundamental difference in faith and doctrine between the majority of the bishops of the East and West. Rather, it was political circumstances, manipulation, and a lack of prudence on the part of a significant portion of the clergy that led to the split. The Eusebians, an influential Arian party familiar with court politics and capable of imposing their own narrative, were able to exploit the passivity of many orthodox bishops. Many of them, especially in the East, did not attend the Council of Sardica: some out of fear of reprisals, others out of convenience or a lack of responsibility. In this way, the voice of the Eastern Church was placed in the hands of people whom the orthodox themselves, in other circumstances, condemned as uncatholic. A false, orchestrated rift was created. As a consequence of this situation, the seminarian movement came to the fore: a group of clergy who had previously remained in the shadow of the Eusebians, and whose doctrine fell somewhere between orthodoxy and Arianism. The seminarians held a view seemingly close to the teachings of the Church, which made them dangerous opponents, especially for the West, less skilled in recognizing the subtle distinctions of Greek theology. According to Newman, the origins of semi-Arianism are almost ironic. The Eusebians, masters of ambiguous formulas and theological evasions, created various creeds not to express any real doctrine but to avoid accepting the Nicene homoousios and to appease Western opinion. It was a tactic, a play on words. However, they did not foresee that some of their own disciples took these formulas deadly seriously and began to build a theological system upon them. And thus, from the Eusebians' opportunism, a new form of heresy was born, sophisticated and seemingly profound, yet at the same time rife with internal contradictions. The most telling example of this attitude was the Emperor Constantius himself. Constantius was a man of an unstable, hypersensitive nature, prone to intellectual restlessness. He seemed always on the verge of orthodoxy, but he could never quite accept it; he always harbored some subtle reservation about it, some philosophical "but." At the same time, he was full of pride and a tendency toward tyranny, which caused him to change his position as rapidly as he fell into new doubts. He was capable of exiling his former associates simply because they no longer corresponded to his new theological subtleties. Moreover, what distinguished him was his ability to persecute almost all sides of a dispute and never found peace in any doctrine except the one that was true: homoousios. Semiarian doctrine The most important concept for the Semiarians was homoiousios, "similar in substance." It was an alternative to the Nicene homoousios ("consubstantial"), which raised two kinds of concerns among them: first, Sabellianism (if "substance" means "individual being," then homoousios suggests that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis), and second, material equality (if "substance" means a nature common to many beings, this might suggest that the Godhead is a common nature, like a species). These "fears" of the semiarians were not errors in the sense of heresy, but rather symptoms of mental insecurity: a failure to distinguish between the language of philosophy and the language of theology. In practice, however, their own formulations were far more contradictory than those they feared. The semiarians said that the Son was begotten of the substance of the Father, but not consubstantial with that substance; that he was eternal in the sense of being born "outside of time," but not eternal in the absolute sense; that he was truly the Son, but not fully God like the Father; that he was a perfect image, but not equal. 🔗continued

The Byzantine Rite - A Short History (1992) Robert F. Taft, S.J. #liturgy

Medieval Art Painting, Sculpture, Architecture 4th-14th Century James Snyder #art #architecture

The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture Peter and Linda Murray Oxford New York Oxford University Press #art #architecture