Heretics, Heresies, Doctrinal Errors, and Creedal Controversies

The Creed of Faith (the Nicene Creed)

A creed is a brief, authorized summary of the Christian doctrine that is sometimes recited in church services as an affirmation of faith. Formulations of the Christian faith, presumably taken as the basis of teaching and evangelization, are to be found in the New Testament, although in a rudimentary form as in 1 Cor. 12:3. St. Paul wrote of believers who submitted without reservation to the creed that they were taught (Rom. 6:17).

Of the two classical creeds, the Apostles' Creed belongs in its essential content to the apostolic age, although it is not the work of the Apostles. It had its origin in the form of a confession of faith used in the instruction of catechumens and in the liturgy of Baptism. The creed may have been learned by heart and at first transmitted orally (to protect it from profanation). It is based on a formula current at Rome c.200, although the present form of the text did not appear before the 6th century. It is used by Roman Catholics and many Protestant churches but has never been accepted by the Eastern Orthodox churches.

The other classical creed, the Nicene, was an expression of the faith of the church as defined at the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), and later reaffirmed at the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). Based probably on the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed contained a fuller statement concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit than the earlier formula. Its use in eucharistic worship is not much earlier than the 5th century. The so-called Filioque ("and the Son") clause, expressing the double procession of the Spirit, was added at the Third Council of Toledo (589). The Nicene Creed is used by Roman Catholics, many Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox; the last, however, reject the Filioque clause.

The Athanasian Creed (sometimes known as the Quicumque, from the opening Latin word) was first clearly referred to in the 6th century, and the attribution to Athanasius is untenable. It is Latin in origin, and in the Middle Ages it was regularly used in church services. Since the Reformation the liturgical use of the Athanasian Creed has been confined mainly to the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican Communion, although it is now infrequently recited.

Apollinarianism

Apollinarianism was a 4th-century explanation of the nature of Jesus Christ that was rejected by the Christian church. Its author, Apollinaris of Laodicea (310-90), trying to arrive at a formula that would explain how Jesus could be both human and divine, taught that human beings were composed of body, soul, and spirit, and that in Jesus the human spirit was replaced by the Logos, or the second person of the Trinity. This teaching was opposed by Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa because they thought it implied that Christ was not fully human. Apollinarianism was declared a heresy by the First Council of Constantinople in 381

Arianism

Arianism was a 4th-century Christian heresy named for Arius (c.250-c.336), a priest in Alexandria. Arius denied the full deity of the preexistent Son of God who became incarnate in Jesus Christ. He held that the Son, while divine and like God ("of like substance"), was created by God as the agent through whom he created the universe. Arius said of the Son, "there was a time when he was not." Arianism became so widespread in the Christian church and resulted in such disunity that the emperor Constantine convoked a church council at Nicaea in 325. Led by Athanasius, Pope of Alexandria, the council condemned Arianism and stated that the Son was consubstantial (of one and the same substance or being) and coeternal with the Father, a belief formulated as homoousios ("of one substance") against the Arian position of homoiousios ("of like substance"). Nonetheless, the conflict continued, aided by the conflicting politics of the empire after the death of Constantine (337). Three types of Arianism emerged: radical Arianism, which asserted that the Son was "dissimilar" to the Father; homoeanism, which held that the Son was similar to the Father; and semi-Arianism, which shaded off into orthodoxy and held that the Son was similar yet distinct from the Father. After an initial victory of the homoean party in 357, the semi-Arians joined the ranks of orthodoxy, which finally triumphed except in Teutonic Christianity, where Arianism survived until after the conversion (496) of the Franks. Although much of the dispute about Arianism seems a battle over words (Edward Gibbon (1737-94), one of the greatest English historians and author of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, scornfully observed that Christianity was split over a single iota, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios), a fundamental issue involving the integrity of the Gospel was at stake: whether God was really in Christ reconciling the world to himself.

Docetism

Docetism is a heresy concerning the person of Jesus Christ. The word is derived from the Greek dokeo, meaning "to seem" or "to appear." According to Docetism, the eternal Son of God did not really become human or suffer on the cross; he only appeared to do so. The heresy arose in a Hellenistic milieu and was based on a Dualism which held that the material world is either unreal or positively evil. Tendencies to spiritualize Christ by denying his real humanity were already present in New Testament times. The Johannine Epistles addressed the problem several times (1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 7). Docetic teachings were also advanced by the 2d-century proponents of Gnosticism and were combatted by the 2d-century church fathers, especially by Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus. The fathers based their defense of the true Incarnation of the Son of God on the Old Testament doctrine of creation, according to which the material world is neither unreal nor evil but basically good.

Donatists

The Donatists were followers of Donatus the Great, a 4th-century theologian and bishop of Carthage. They brought about a schism in the Christian church of North Africa over a dispute concerning the election and ordination of their bishop. Under the leadership of Donatus, the schismatic sect flourished from 311 to 373. The Donatists established their own communities, appointed bishops, and held church councils. They vigorously resisted opposition from both the traditional church and the state.

The Donatists taught that only the sinless could belong to the true church, that sacraments conferred by sinful ministers were invalid, and that only baptism conferred by a Donatist was valid. They were rigoristic in discipline. Saint Augustine developed a theology of church and sacrament to refute their doctrines. Their teachings were also condemned by the Synod of Rome (313) and by the Synod of Arles (314). The Donatists were conquered by the Vandals in 430 and finally disappeared with the Muslim Arab invasion of North Africa in 637.

Gnosticism

Gnosticism is a term derived from a Greek word for knowledge (gnosis) and applied to a philosophical and religious movement that influenced the Mediterranean world from the 1st century BC to the 3d century AD. It expressed itself in a variety of pagan, Jewish, and Christian forms. Its name is derived from the fact that it promised salvation through a secret knowledge or understanding of reality possessed by its devotees.

Manichaeism

Manichaeism is a gnostic religion that originated in Babylonia in the 3d century AD. Its founder was a Persian of noble descent called Mani (or Manes), c.216-c.276. Manichaeism was long treated as a Christian heresy, but it is more clearly understood as an independent religion, drawing on the diverse resources of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism.

At about the age of 24, Mani received a special revelation from God, according to which he was called to perfect the incomplete religions founded by earlier prophets--Zoroaster, Buddha, and Christ. About the year 242, he undertook an extensive journey as an itinerant preacher, proclaiming himself the "Messenger of Truth," the Paraclete promised by Christ. Traveling throughout the Persian Empire and as far as India, he gathered a considerable following. He met with increasing hostility from the Zoroastrian priests and was finally executed for heresy.

The essence of Manichaeism was the principle of absolute Dualism: the primal conflict between God, represented by light and spirit, and Satan, represented by darkness and the material world. Human beings, created by God, were divine in spirit but they carried within them seeds of darkness, sown by Satan, because of their material bodies.

Salvation, as taught by Mani, requires liberating the seed of light, the soul, from the material darkness in which it is trapped. This is achieved by strict celibacy and ascetic practices. Those who would become perfect are to set three "seals" on their lives: on the mouth, to speak only truth and to abstain from meat or impure food of any kind; on the hands, to refrain from war, killing, or injuring life; on the breast, to render impossible the works of the flesh. This triple seal applies only to the elect or pure; hearers follow a less demanding code. The imperfect are destined to continual rebirth in a world of material bodies.

Manichaeism, which denied the reality of Christ's body and rejected the notion of free will, adapted from Christianity baptism, the Eucharist, and a third sacrament of remission of sins at the time of death. Because of its attitude toward the material world, Manichaeism regarded evil as a physical rather than a moral entity. Women were considered forces of darkness, binding men to the flesh.

The Byzantine emperor Justinian issued an edict against the Manichaeans, and Saint Augustine, who for nine years had been a Manichee, wrote and spoke against this heresy, as well as described his own experience in his Confessions.

Monothelitism

Monothelitism was a 7th-century Byzantine doctrine that accepted the teaching of two natures in Jesus Christ, as defined (451) at the Council of Chalcedon, but declared that he had only one will or mode of activity (energeia). The Monothelitic formula was adopted (624) by Byzantine Emperor Heraclius as a compromise that might be acceptable to the "Monophysites" of Egypt and Syria. Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, championed the doctrine and won the support of the Egyptian and Armenian Monophysites. The Christological controversies of an earlier age soon reappeared, however. Sergius sought the support of Pope Honorius I, who approved the Monothelitic formula, specifically rejecting the Chalcedonian teaching of "two wills." Monothelitism was condemned by Honorius's successors and by the Third Council of Constantinople (680). Because the writings of Honorius had contributed to the spread of this teaching, he also was condemned, although he was not accused of the formal teaching of heresy.

Nestorianism

A 5th-century Christological heresy, Nestorianism takes its name from Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople (428-31), who argued against the Alexandrian use of the title Theotokos, meaning "God bearer," or "Mother of God," for the Virgin Mary; for Nestorius, Mary was the mother of Christ only in his humanity. Theologians of the Antiochene school emphasized the humanity of Jesus Christ, the Alexandrian his deity. Theodore Of Mopsuestia held that Christ's human nature was complete but was conjoined with the Word by an external union. Nestorius, Theodore's pupil, took up his teacher's position after his death.

Nestorius was condemned by the Council of Ephesus (431), which was convened specifically to settle the dispute. There the Theotokos was officially affirmed and orthodox doctrine on the nature of Jesus Christ clarified: Christ was pronounced true God and true man, as having two distinct natures in one person --a position that was reaffirmed by the Council of Chalcedon (451). Nestorius was deposed as bishop and sent to Antioch, although the debate continues as to whether Nestorius himself was actually

a Nestorian and a heretic. A Nestorian church nevertheless survives in the East and has since taught, in opposition to the orthodox doctrine, that there are two persons in the incarnate Christ, human and divine.

Sabellianism

One of several forms of Modalistic Monarchianism that appeared in the 3d and 4th centuries AD, Sabellianism was a Christian heresy named after Sabellius, a priest excommunicated by Pope Callistus I in 220. Denying the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, Sabellius contended that God is three only in relation to the world, in so many "manifestations" or "modes." The unity and identity of God are such that the Son of God did not exist before the incarnation; because the Father and the Son are thus one, the Father suffered with the Son in his passion and death (a view called Patripassionism).

Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius were adversaries of Sabellianism, along with Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, and Dionysius of Alexandria.

Monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon

1- According to some Scholars, there, was no need for it, but politics played a big role. "It was only under constant pressure from the Emperor Marcian that the Fathers of Chalcedon agreed to draw a new formula of belief."

2- The different expressions of the one faith are due in large part to non-theological issues, such as "unfortunate circumstances, cultural differences and the difficulty of translating terms." It is debated whether the opposition to Chalcedon was out of a Christological issue or an attempt to assert Coptic and Syrian identity against the Byzantine.

3- Ecclesiastical politics had been very confused ever since the legislation, in the Council of 381, of a primacy of honor for Constantinople, the New Rome," second only to that of the old Rome. It seems that both Rome and the Emperors used the Council of Chalcedon to carry out their respective plans: Rome for asserting its claim for primacy over the Church and the Emperors for trying to bring the entire Church in the East under the jurisdiction of the See of Constantinople.

4- No one can deny the disadvantages of the imperial interventions in the dispute. Most probably, Chalcedon's decisions and terms would have been different if the Emperor Marcian and his wife Pulcheria had not intervened. Since 450, they were gathering signatures for the Tome of Leo, the bishop of Rome. Many bishops of Chalcedon approved it only as a concession to the bishop whom the imperial authority supported.

5- The definitions of the Tome were composed in a way that it could be interpreted by different persons, each in his own way. It is known that Nestorius, who was still alive in 451, accepted the Tome of Leo, while the Alexandrines rejected it.

6- The Council of Chalcedon, which is believed to have condemned Eutyches, did not deal with him but with Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria. Eutyches himself was not present at the council. Scholars state that Dioscorus was deprived of office on procedural grounds and not on account of erroneous belief. At Chalcedon Dioscorus strongly declared, "If Eutyches holds notions disallowed by the doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment but even the fire. But my concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever." The evidence is sufficient for us to look for other reasons for his condemnation. Rome was annoyed by the extraordinary vitality and activity of the Church of Alexandria and its patriarch.

7- As soon as the members of the council had assembled, the legates of Rome demanded that Dioscorus be banished on account of the order of the bishop of Rome whom they called, "the head of all churches". When the imperial authorities asked for a charge to justify the demand, one of the legates said that he "dared to conduct a council without the authorization of the apostolic see, a thing which has never happened and which ought not to happen." As a matter of fact, the Council of 381 had been held without the participation, not to say the authorization, of the bishop of Rome, and the Council of 553 against his wishes. It is evident that the delegates intended by the words, "the head of all churches" to assert the claim of Rome of ecumenical supremacy over the church.

8- Chalcedon rejected the Council of 449, and Leo of Rome considered it as latrocinium, a council of robbers, a title which "has stuck for all time." This may uncover the intention behind such an attitude. A council which ignored Rome's authority, robbing its claim of supremacy, was not for Leo a church council but a meeting of robbers. The Council of Chalcedon, without even examining the issue, denounced the Council of 449, putting the entire responsibility for its decrees exclusively on Dioscorus.

Only one hundred and four years later, the decision, not of Chalcedon, but of the so called latrocinium was justified. The Council of Constantinople in 553 anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa, and condemned their Three Chapters. It is remarkable that the desire of the Emperor Justinian to reconcile the non-Chalcedonian churches was behind the decree.

Two Different Traditions

Dioscorus, then, was not a heretic. The majority of the bishops who attended the Council of Chalcedon, as scholars indicate, believed that the traditional formula of faith received from St. Athanasius was the "one nature of the Word of God." This belief is totally different from the Eutychian concept of the single nature (i.e. Monophysite). The Alexandrian theology was by no means docetic. Neither was it Apollinarian, as stated clearly. It seems that the main problem of the Christological formula was the divergent interpretation of the issue between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian theology. While Antioch formulated its Christology against Apollinarius and Eutyches, Alexandria did against Arius and Nestorius. At Chalcedon, Dioscorus refused to affirm the "in two natures" and insisted on the "from two natures." Evidently the two conflicting traditions had not discovered an agreed theological standpoint between them.

Mia Physis

The Church of Alexandria considered as central the Christological mia physis formula of St. Cyril "one incarnate nature of God the Word". The Cyrillian formula was accepted by the Council of Ephesus in 431. It was neither nullified by the Reunion of 433, nor condemned at Chalcedon. On the contrary, it continued to be considered an orthodox formula. Now what do the non-Chalcedonians mean by the mia physis, the "one incarnate nature?". They mean by mia one, but not "single one" or "simple numerical one," as some scholars believe. There is a slight difference between mono and mia. While the former suggests one single (divine) nature, the latter refers to one composite and united nature, as reflected by the Cyrillian formula. St. Cyril maintained that the relationship between the divine and the human in Christ, as Meyendorff puts it, "does not consist of a simple cooperation, or even interpenetration, but of a union; the incarnate Word is one, and there could be no duplication of the personality of the one redeemer God and man."

Mia Physis and Soteriology

"The Alexandrian Christology", writes Frances Young, "is a remarkably clear and consistent construction, especially when viewed within its soteriological context. Mia physis, for the Alexandrians, is. essential for salvation. The Lord is crucified, even though His divinity did not suffer but His humanity did. The sacrifice of the Cross is attributed to the Incarnate Son of God, and thus has the power of salvation.

Common Faith

It is evident that both the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians agree on the following points:

1- They all condemn and anathematize Nestorius, Apollinarius and Eutyches.

2- The unity of the divinity and humanity of Christ was realized from the moment of His conception, without separation or division and also without confusing or changing.

3- The manhood of Christ was real, perfect and had a dynamic presence.

4- Jesus Christ is one Prosopon and one Hypostasis in real oneness and not mere conjunction of natures; He is the Incarnate Logos of God.

5- They all accept the communicatio idiomatum (the communication of idioms), attributing all the deeds and words of Christ to the one hypostasis, the Incarnate Son of God.