This is an expression of the low Christology, neo-Arianism Jesus infecting Catholicism since Vatican II:
Anyone my age and older knows that the pre-Vatican II Church, in union with the Church of the East, including the Eastern Orthodox, promoted a high Christology of Jesus Christ, crucified and Risen.
This flowed from the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus.
This high Christology was maintained both in the East and West in the liturgies of the Church, especially the Mass or Divine Liturgy, but also in devotions, prayers and bodily postures at prayer and liturgies. The East had its own forms of public piety and reverence but equal to the West’s in terms of the foundation of a high Christology.
All of this was a result of the fight against the Arian heresies. If one does not hold a high Christology or agrees with Arias and his heresies, one’s relationship to Christ is dumbed down, not only in theology but also religious practices.
After Vatican II, the Church of the West, but, thanks be to God, not the Church of the East, began to dabble in a modified Arian heresy. The humanity of Jesus, during his public ministry, not after His glorious crucifixion, resurrection, Ascension and Sending of His Holy Spirit, was emphasized.
Emphasizing Jesus as a Good Buddy, Friend, Brother and just an all around Nice Guy had and has ramifications for the spirituality of the Western Church, the style or ethos of her liturgies, her piety and her forms of reverence.
For the most part, all of the external forms of piety and reverence were either dumbed down or thrown out in the post-Vatican II reforms of the Church’s liturgies and the practices of piety, devotion and rubrics for the Mass.
Comparing the prescribed rubrical forms of external piety required by bishops and priests in the liturgy in terms of the pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II ways of celebrating Mass and also including how the laity express that reverence in liturgies, we see the deleterious effects of a neo-Arianism on the post-Vatican II Church and her liturgies, reverence and external expressions of piety.
It’s a kind of Protestant folksiness in terms of how one views Christ in personal terms and the jettison of formality and reverence in that relationship. Fellowship, folksiness and casualness mark many of the local celebration of the Modern Mass today—a neo-Arianism.
Again, this has not, for the most part, affected the Church of the East in union with Rome and certainly not Eastern Orthodoxy.
The anti-rubricism of the modern Mass, along with an antipathy for kneeling for Holy Communion and receiving externally in a casual, on-the-move way, standing, in the hand and by anyone trained or not trained to be a Eucharistic Minister all goes back to an interpretation of Vatican II that promotes a neo-Arianism. This includes, too, the liturgical practice of the Church in terms of ad orientem!
I think Pope Leo gets this faux or neo-Arianism in his new Apostolic Letter on the Council of Nicaea. It remains to be seen if His Holiness can connect the dots in terms of the current crisis of Catholicism in the West and its neo-Arianism expressed in the Modern Liturgy.
This is how Silire non possum describes it:
The new Apostolic Letter In unitate fidei by Pope Leo XIV arrives at a historical moment in which religious confusion is no less insidious than the turmoil that shook the Church in the fourth century. Then as now, faith risks being reduced to a symbolic language, a private emotion, a moral portrait of Jesus rather than the concrete confession of God made man. The Pope brings the entire Church back to the source: the Nicene profession of faith, the heart of Christianity, “because in Jesus Christ, consubstantial with the Father, God has become our neighbor.”
Leo XIV’s work is not archaeology; it is a judgment on the present. To understand it, one must grasp the theological logic the Letter employs—a logic that shines precisely where early Christian thought reached its maturity. And its core threads emerge from what the great patristic tradition always taught: faith cannot endure unless it preserves the full mystery of Christ
The decisive question is not “What do we think about Jesus?” but “Who is Jesus?”
The Apostolic Letter recalls that the question asked at Caesarea Philippi - “Who do you say that I am?” - is not an ancient echo but the living crossroads that always separates authentic faith from its caricature. Leo XIV shows that Arianism was not an accidental episode in history but a recurring temptation: reducing Christ to an intermediary, an exalted being yet not fully God. The same logic that once threatened the faith - the greatest danger to Christian doctrine because it denied the Son’s real participation in the Father’s essence - reappears today in subtler forms: Jesus as a moral teacher, a spiritual symbol, an “energy of goodness.”
This is why the Letter restates with clarity the Nicene formula: “begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father”.This is not technical theology; it is the very condition for saying anything true about salvation. Faith cannot rest on vague religious feelings. Faith “stands or falls” on the Son’s consubstantiality.
Without the true divinity of the Son, salvation does not exist.
In unitate fidei forcefully recalls what the ancient tradition understood with radical clarity: only God saves. If Christ is not fully God, redemption dissolves into myth. Leo XIV states this openly by drawing from the patristic core: salvation is not an idea, nor psychological comfort, nor an ethical journey; it is the incursion of the Infinite into human flesh. Christ “descended” for us – descendit - a word the Pope highlights because it contains the whole Christian paradox: the downward movement of the Most High, the self-emptying that reveals glory. The Letter shows that the truth of the Incarnation - total, real, without docetic reductions - is what ensures that our humanity has been reached in all its depths, redeemed in both body and soul, in what is most fragile and most great within us.
Early Christian theology insisted on one principle: God truly became man to make man capable of God. Without this ontological reality, Christianity becomes moral philosophy. With it, Christianity becomes an event: our nature is raised, healed, divinized.
The real problem of ancient Arianism - and its modern versions
Leo XIV’s reading is not nostalgic; it is surgical. The Pope sees that the contemporary crisis - Christological relativism, psychological reduction of faith, doctrinal uncertainty - arises from the very root the Fathers fought: a concept of God that is too small. For Arius, the Son was an intermediate being, unable to know the Father fully, subject to change. Leo XIV shows that similar notions circulate today beneath more refined language: “Christianity as inspiration,” “Jesus as an exceptional prophet,” “God as pure spiritual energy.” The Apostolic Letter responds by affirming that the infinite distance between God and humanity has been bridged only because the Son is God. And it adds a crucial point: the Incarnation is not a sacred myth but a historical, concrete, verifiable fact, held by the faith with the firmness of the Creed.
Unity of faith is not uniformity, but communion in truth
In unitate fidei does not propose doctrinal rigidity. It proposes a criterion: Christian unity arises only if the truth of Christ is preserved integrally. Like the Fathers of Nicaea - guided by the conviction that the Church transmits a received faith, not an invented one - Leo XIV asks the Church today not to bend doctrine to cultural fashions. The Pope is not speaking of nostalgia but of foundations: the Creed is not the past; it is the compass for navigating times of bewilderment. Christianity without dogma dissolves into spiritualism. Christianity with dogma lives because it remains anchored to the event from which it was born.
Nicaea as light for the present: a Christianity capable of inhabiting history
Leo emphasizes a point the ancient theology showed with force: God is not a static and distant being, but the One who enters history, even into its wounds. This dismantles the caricature of an “immutable” God as indifferent. True divine immutability - as the Fathers taught - is the immutability of self-giving love, not inertia. This is why the Pope connects the profession of faith with the wounds of the world: wars, injustices, fears. Not because the Gospel is a social tool, but because only God-with-us can be a credible hope for humanity.
Hope is not an idea. It is a Presence
What In unitate fidei tells us is clear: the Church cannot lose Christ without losing herself. This magisterial text is an act of guardianship and freedom. Guardianship of the apostolic faith; freedom from cultural trends that wish to reduce Christianity to just another discourse. Leo XIV places again at the center what the Fathers defended with courage and intelligence: only if Christ is true God and true man is Christianity truly good news. Everything else - reductionist, symbolic, spiritualistic interpretations - is nothing but an elegant revival of an ancient temptation: a God who does not save, a Christ who does not change life, a faith that does not generate hope.
Marco Felipe Perfetti
Silere non possum
16 comments:
And the same could be said about the position of Our Lady: is she just a co-operative young woman or is she 'the highest honour of our race' ? If Jesus falls so does Mary.
While I am not opposed to the theology of Mary as Co-Redemptrix or Co-Mediatrix, I have never taught it as something that I should teach as these are theological constructs believe by many people, popes, bishops, priests, religious and laity, but never codified as a proclaimed doctrine by any Council or pope. When I have taught these two things, I always make sure that there is no misunderstanding about Mary being “equal” to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit other than cooperating by the fullness of faith, a unique and singular gift given to her, to share in the Salvific plan of God. But, I would say, that the title “Mother of God” lends itself to more confusion in the minds of some, than co-Redemptrix or Mediatrix and it too has to be explained properly. A good apologetic is needed. Thus, given the dogma of Mary, the Mother of God, it seems to flow from that the belief in Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix. A part of Protestantism’s neo-Arianism is that they don’t promote or believe Mary is any of these and find it abhorrent even when properly explained. Eastern Orthodoxy will not accept Co-Remptrix or Co-Mediatrix, not because it isn’t compatible with Mother of God, but because it is a Western thing that the East hasn’t developed.
Father McDonald, what you're saying makes sense -- Nestorianism was the response to Arianism, and that is what Roman Catholicism has been experiencing for a long, long time. Some suggest that devotions like that to the Sacred Heart are fundamentally Nestorian, for example. So, with the history of those sorts of devotions, it is logical that some of your faithful fell into Nestorian ways of thinking: elevating the Humanity of Christ over His Divinity.
I'm not criticizing Roman Catholicism on this point as these things are difficult to keep in balance. I'm merely pointing out that the genesis of your current issues may lie further back in time that just Vatican II.
I haven’t thought about it that way. But yes, I do teach that the development of devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus helped to balance a very high Christology at the time in the 1600’s where even Jesus was seen as to lofty for a personal relationship as His mission was to judge us and look for that which would lead us to our damnation. During this time, one’s relationship with the Mother of God was more familial and not provoking fear and trembling. I’m not sure how Eastern Orthodoxy then and now balances that out in its own popular piety. But in pre-Vatican II times, popular devotions flourished, precisely because of what you say—but these were never dragged into the formal liturgies of the Church or the liturgy influence by popular piety. There has to be the proper balance, though, between Jesus two natures, Human and Divine, even in His Glorious Risen reality that still has Flesh. Do the Orthodox have popular piety as a group or at home as individuals or families. I know that the Orthodox believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, but do not honor the Reserved Sacrament in any way by showing piety before the place of reserving the Sacrament as reservation is only for Holy Communion to the sick or dying. I find that a bit peculiar that no development based on a high Christology has occurred in Orthodoxy or even in the Eastern Rite’s of the Church as it concerns Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.
I think Orthodoxy maintains the balance in a few ways. One of those is in concert with your mode of thinking: liturgy matters. The liturgy is primary in Orthodoxy, and we haven't seen reconfigurations of the liturgy that caused confusion among the people like Roman Catholicism has seen.
Second, to your question of devotions: There really aren't devotions as such in Orthodoxy. For the most part, the prayer lives of the faithful are not individually determined by the individual on the basis of devotion to some particular image or form of piety. The people have a prayer rule that is usually drawn from a prayer book that is common to all the people within that particular Orthodox Church. So, the popular piety is not as individualistic as it is in Roman Catholicism, which avoids some of these problems.
Finally, Orthodoxy teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist. Adoration to Christ in the Eucharist occurs during the Divine Liturgy. Why are there no "Adoration Chapels" in Orthodoxy? I would be speculating, but it might because there was never a Protestant Reformation in the East that denied Christ's Presence in the Mystery that necessitated a strong reaction to bolster the teaching. Devotion to the Real Presence (although we wouldn't really use that phrase) is quite strong during the Liturgy and when moving about the Temple at all times, though. It's an interesting topic for further thought.
This level of discussion is, as the expression goes, way above my pay grade. That said, I wonder if His Holiness is up to something; the release of the synodal study group findings, the release of this document, In Unitate Fidei and the announcement of the upcoming extraordinary consistory. Is something afoot??
There's always "something afoot" in curial comings and goings. What that something might be depends on which side of the bed you get up on each morning...
I have heard it argued that the prime American (and probably Western) heresy is semi-Pelagianism if not full-blown Pelagianism. It flows from the radical individualism that has come to mark our modern times. We THINK we don't need and depend on hundreds of people each day. We THINK we are free to act without regard for how our actions impact others. (Terrible driving habits come first to my mind, followed in a close second by the failure to return shopping carts to the store our AT LEAST the cart corrals set up across lots to encourage the semi-Pelagian cart users to change their heretical ways... But I digress...). If we are SO independent - as least if we THINK we are - then how do we come to see a need for saving grace, for redemption, for worship of God?
Father Kavanaugh,
These are interesting issues. To pursue your line of inquiry further, I agree completely that our hyper-individualism overlooks our dependence on other people and hence our radical interdependence (we probably all recall Joe the Plumber versus Obama). But then I wonder whether our (often unacknowledged) interdependence effectively facilitates this hyper-individualism because we are not in fact isolated and alone. Paradoxically, then, if we were (for example, marooned on a desert island or the sole survivor of some apocalyptic disaster), would we not be more likely to acknowledge our dependence on God/the Divine because there would be no-one else to help us? And then what about those atheistic collective societies that, while they might acknowledge the interdependence among people (or at least pay lip service to it), officially deny the existence of God/the Divine?
This in turn leads me to ask whether the even deeper problem is our collective inability to see ourselves as part of a sacred reality, in which God/the Divine is in all and through all. And perhaps this inability is because, although we might also pay superficial lip service—in this case, to God (In God We Trust and so on)—we in the United States, and the West more generally, are the GREATEST country/civilization EVER—or at least, to use your turn of phrase, we THINK we are—especially given our technological mastery (or should that be domination) of God’s good creation.
Is this what you might be implying at the end of your comment, the idea being that there are at least two problems, and we cannot address the second, even deeper, one rooted in the inflated collective ego unless and until we address the first one rooted in the inflated individual ego? Of course, I am speaking in generalities and there are clearly notable exceptions that prove the rule.
Perhaps this is why Jesus—the HUMAN Jesus who walked among us as the Son of God and whom we are surely invited to follow just as those in His day were (why else do the Gospels recount His human life and teachings?)—generally found a more receptive audience among those on the bottom at the margins of society than among those who possessed the wealth and power on the top, or who enjoyed a sense of satisfied self-righteousness, at the center. Those who were beaten down or despised by the wealthy, powerful, or self-righteous elites had the necessary humility, their egos having been effectively dismantled or perhaps not even very well formed in the first place. Which, in turn, makes me wonder why so many of us Christians do not place greater emphasis on the Beatitudes than we do. Shouldn’t we want to post them prominently on classroom walls and elsewhere alongside the Ten Commandments? As a final thought, isn’t this what makes people like Donald Trump additionally so very dangerous for he manipulates his followers to look to HIM as their Savior while claiming to be doing God’s work? Doesn’t sacred Scripture also prefigure such people?
Mark J.
Sophia here. This noble young convert composed a fairly comprehensive list of problems which need the urgent attention of our beloved current direct Successor of St. Peter as earthly supreme head of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, His Holiness Pope Leo XlV!
What a woman of great courage and integrity! What a genuine lover of God, His Church and His “stand in”, pope Leo XIV! I have no doubt that Pope Leo, a “ man of the people” , very aware of, and comfortable with, social media will come across this himself or one his synodal advisers will be charitable enough to share it with him! How great a follow-up to his recent virtual meeting with young people would his equally comprehensive response to this young lady’s appeal be!!!!
Hard to argue with this observation. While there are other Christological errors that people regularly fall into, from a practical perspective, this is absolutely true and probably more significant.
Sophia here:
My apologies for not including the link to which I was referring! “ Laura” is a convert from Buddhism to Catholicism and this is what she posted:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/watch-young-convert-urges-pope-leo-to-be-faithful-stop-being-confusing-and-abstract/
This comment is one to ponder. The fjrsr thought that came to my mind is that Western Christianity lost a real sense of collective salvation along the way. (Is this due to the rise in private devotions? Is it due to the way the liturgy developed into a priest’s private action? Are these due to other societal factors?)
It reminds of the famous quote of St Seraphim of Sarov: “Acquire the Holy Spirit and thousands around you will be saved.” Our salvation is bound up with the salvation of the world. But it is hard to remember that in our modern times.
In terms of a collective view of being Catholic, rather than private, I think that it depends on the part of the USA in which one lives and also the part of the world. Where Catholicism is the majority religion, like what the northeast use to be and like certain European countries, Catholicism tends to be a cultural and private affair. There isn’t the idea of “witnessing” to your Catholic Faith or wearing your religion on your sleeve. Prior to Vatican II, the Mass acted as a dragnet collecting all kinds of Catholics from the good, bad, indifferent and marginal as nearly 90% of Catholics observed the Sunday and Holy Day obligations and Confession at least once a year as one’s “Easter duty”. Today, we know that Mass attendance has fallen to about 5% to 30% of Catholics depending on the part of the world in which you live. Catholics in the south, in those areas that we are a minority, have always been influenced by the Protestant culture and in some ways we imitated their public witness to their faith and we are forced to engage in dialogue or discussions of our faith with them—because for them it isn’t a private matter. Prior to Vatican II and in many places including the parish I grew up in, which included Catholics from around the world, the Mass normally was not prayed by the laity, rather they prayed the rosary. But many did follow the Mass in the hand missals, a significant number by the late 50’s and early 60’s. The TLM experience today one sees few people praying the rosary, most are intentionally following the Mass in their missals and singing and speaking their parts of the Mass according to their abilities.
Mark - I always insist that the entire genealogy of Jesus be read when that is the Gospel appointed for the day. It puts Jesus, via the central mystery of our faith, the Incarnation, squarely in the midst of our humanity with no sugar-coating. (All this is VERY low Christology, mind you...) He is part of a community that stretches to the beginning of the human race and, conversely, to the end of time. If "Abram went" (Gen 12:4) is the fulcrum of the Old Testament, then, "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus." might be its New Testament counterpart.(Luke 1:31)
As much as Joe the Plumber took exception to President Obama's, "You didn't build that," the president was correct. We carry out our work with electricity that is federally regulated at many levels, we fly on planes through the good graces of the FAA, the people we hire were educated, most of them, on the public dime, and any import/export we touch has the smell of government on it.
The industrial revolution was a precursor to the radical individualism we suffer under today. In earlier times village communities, town guilds, Amish barn-raisings were the norm. With the FACTORY came the migration to cities, the work-a-day for pay reality, the employer/worker relationships that were based primarily on salaries/money. It became a very "This is Mine/That is Yours" economy, rather than a "This is Ours."
And then we return to Sacred Scripture: "For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains." (1 Timothy 6:10) What we THINK is our financial independence is nothing of the sort, but to disavow the Consumerism and the Materialism that is engenders makes is Socialists (!) or worse, Communists (!).
For whatever reason, we can’t escape these political labels. But Christianity transcends them — or, at least, it should. What a tremendous trick of the evil one to convince us that consumerism is good and giving to others is socialism or communism and, therefore, evil.
Post a Comment