POPE LEO ISSUES AN APOSTOLIC LETTER ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA AND A MUST READ IT IS—CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS AND WITH MEANING FOR TODAY’S MAJOR HERETICAL/HETERODOX CONTROVERSIES IN THE CHURCH

Press title for Pope Leo's Apostolic Letter:

 LEO XIV

APOSTOLIC LETTER

IN UNITATE FIDEI

ON THE 1700th ANNIVERSARY OF THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

My comments: I could see myself giving a class or two on Pope Leo’s Apostolic letter. It has everything, history, theology and a way forward for today—orthodoxy.

It has an examination of conscience and calls us to a Christ-centered life! It’s about soteriology!

I would add too, that Pope Leo recognizes the need for the Church, especially in a Council, like, let’s say, Nicaea, to condemn heterodoxy and heresy, not include, coddle or embrace it in a self-defeating dialogue. 

Arius was a heretic and he needed to be condemned! And yes, Nicaea condemned him and his heresies in no uncertain terms! 

Here are a couple of money bytes that are important. Thank God we now have a pope who is clear, unambiguous and is leading the way to orthodoxy:

However, in the wake of external threats, disputes and conflicts soon arose within the Church.

Arius, a priest from Alexandria in Egypt, taught that Jesus was not truly the Son of God. Though more than a mere creature, he was believed to be an intermediate being between the inaccessible God and humanity. Moreover, there would have been a time when the Son “did not exist.” This view was in line with the prevailing mindset of the time and therefore seemed plausible.

However, God does not abandon his Church. He always raises up courageous men and women who bear witness to the faith, as well as shepherds who guide his people and show them the way of the Gospel. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria realized that Arius’ teachings were not at all consistent with Sacred Scripture. Since Arius was not conciliatory, Alexander summoned the bishops of Egypt and Libya to a Synod, which condemned Arius’ teachings. He then sent a letter to the other bishops of the East providing a detailed report. In the West, it was Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, Spain, who took action. He had already proven himself a fervent confessor of the faith during the persecution of Emperor Maximian and enjoyed the trust of the Bishop of Rome, Pope Sylvester.

However, Arius’ followers also rallied together. This led to one of the greatest crises in the Church’s first millennium. The reason for the dispute was not a minor detail. It concerned the essence of the Christian faith, namely the answer to the decisive question that Jesus had asked his disciples at Caesarea Philippi: “Who do you say that I am?” (Mt 16:15)…

….As we have already said, Nicaea clearly rejected the teachings of Arius. However, Arius and his followers did not give up. The Emperor Constantine himself and his successors increasingly sided with the Arians. The term homooúsios became a bone of contention between the Nicene and anti-Nicene factions, thus triggering other serious conflicts. Saint Basil of Caesarea eloquently described the ensuing confusion by likening it to a nighttime naval battle in a violent storm. [8] Saint Hilary, on the other hand, testified to the orthodoxy of the laity in contrast to the Arianism of many bishops, acknowledging that “the ears of the people are holier than the hearts of the priests.” [9]

Saint Athanasius became the firm foundation of the Nicene Creed through his unyielding and steadfast faith. Although he was deposed and expelled from the Episcopal See of Alexandria five times, he returned each time as bishop. Even while in exile, he continued to guide the People of God through his writings and letters…

…The profession of faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord and God is the center of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This is the heart of our Christian life. For this reason, we commit to follow Jesus as our master, companion, brother and friend. But the Nicene Creed asks for more: it reminds us not to forget that Jesus Christ is the Lord (Kyrios), the Son of the living God who “for our salvation came down from heaven” and died “for our sake” on the cross, opening the way to new life for us through his resurrection and ascension.

Naturally, following Jesus Christ is not a wide and comfortable path. However, this often demanding or even painful path always leads to life and salvation (cf. Mt 7:13-14). The book of the Acts of the Apostles recounts the new way (cf. Acts 19:9, 23; 22:4, 14-15, 22) that is Jesus Christ (cf. Jn 14:6). Following the Lord necessarily entails following the way of the cross, which, through repentance, leads us to sanctification and divinization. [14]

If God loves us with all his being, then we too must love one another. We cannot love God whom we do not see without loving our brother and sister whom we do see (cf. 1 Jn 4:20). Love for God without love for neighbor is hypocrisy; radical love for our neighbor, especially love for our enemies, without love for God, requires a “heroism” that would overwhelm and oppress us. In following Jesus, the ascent to God passes through descent and dedication to our brothers and sisters, especially the least, the poorest, the abandoned and the marginalized. What we have done to the least of these, we have done to Christ (cf. Mt 25:31-46). In the face of disasters, wars and misery, we bear witness to God’s mercy to those who doubt him only when they experience his mercy through us. [15]