The Magisterium and Ecumenical Councils and General Documents - Essay Example

? The Magisterium & Ecumenical Councils and General Documents By, Henry Nabea This paper has three parts. The first part outlines Nichols’ treatment of the relationship between theologians and Magisterium. The outline is based on an excerpt of Nichols’ book (pp. 248-260). The second part of the paper describes the problem posed by Arius in the fourth century Catholic Church. And the last part, part three, delves more into the problems caused by Arius in the Church of the fourth century, and outlines how the First Council of Nicaea resolved and refuted the controversy that had been sparked by Arius’ heretical doctrine. An Outline of Nichols’s Treatment of the Relationship between Theologians and the Magisterium According to the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, lumen Gentium, the magisterium, i.e the pope and the bishops of the Catholic Church constitute the teaching authority of the Church. Having direct apostolic succession from the disciples of Jesus Christ, the magisterium of the Church has legitimate authority from Jesus Christ himself to preach and to spread the Gospel everywhere, to the ends of the world. As such, the catholic faithful are expected to faithfully respect and obey the teachings and the directives of the magisterium. But, although the Magisterium derives its authority from Jesus Christ himself, due to natural human limitations, sometimes the directions and the teachings of the magisterium are in need of refinements and improvements. This fact has led to the debate and the controversy between the relationship of the theologians, who often propose refinements of the teachings of the magisterium, and the magisterium, which constitute the legitimate teaching authority of the Church. The following is the outline of the relationship between theologians and the Magisterium according to Nichols. In the first approach to the debate on the relationship between theologians and the Magisterium, theologians are classified together with the rest of the faithful and they are required to unquestionably abide by the teachings and the directives of the Magesterium, just like the other faithful. The main idea behind this position is the view that, with the members of the Magisterium occupying the seats of the apostles, the Holy Spirit will always shower abundant spiritual gifts upon the members of the Magisterium, thus giving them the directives on how to lead the people of God in accordance with the will of God. In this view, the Holy Spirit will guide the Magestrium in all the teachings of the church and rid the Church of errors. The theologian therefore is expected to abide by the teachings of the Magisterium and to be guided by all the teachings of the Magisterium in all their interpretations of the Scriptures and the traditions of the Church. In this view, the theologian is not given any clear cut distinctive role in the Church because their functions is merely to make known/ to interpret the teachings of the Magisterium. The main problem with this approach is that, the rightful distinctive position of the theologian among the people of God is not recognized and respected. Theologians are treated merely as the other faithful. The work of the theologians is not viewed as an ecclesial duty given by God for the good of all the members of the Church and, therefore, the theologian is not viewed as possessing a divine calling for the good of the Church. For this reason, theologians are not accorded their rightful distinctive position among the members of the Church. With this approach, theologians, therefore, are not encouraged to come up with divergent opinions, but instead they are expected to limit their studies to what is already accepted by the Magisterium. The second view of the relationship between the Magisterium and the theologians is the view that the theologian’s work is a direct derivative of the ordinary Magisterium. According to this view there is a master- servant relationship between the work of a theologian and Magisterium. Magisterium is the master while the theologian is the servant. Pope Pious X11 was one of the chief proponents of this view. According to this approach, theologians were viewed as servants of the episcopate; theologians are viewed as have been sent and mandated by the Pope and the bishops and as such, theologians were expected to subordinate to the authority of the Magisterium. In this sense, the theologians were viewed merely as the servants or the functionary of the Magisterium. The proponents of this view premise their argument on the claim that, in the Church, it is only the Pope and the bishops who are teachers by the divine right and therefore they conclude that no one else should claim the title of the teacher in the Church, other than the Pope and the bishops. The proponents of this view, however, contend that for the smooth running of the teaching and preaching ministry of the Church, the Pope and the bishops may mandate some individuals, on their behalf, to assist them in their preaching ministry. The theologians therefore should view their work as a mandate given by the Magisterium, but not as an independent divine calling for the good of the whole Church. In this sense, the theologian should always relate their work to the teachings of the Magisterium. The main weakness of this second view on the relation between the theologians and the Magisterium of the Church is the fact that, this approach doesn’t have much scriptural basis. In the New Testament, we find other teachers, other than the apostles, who are referred to as, didaskaloi. Though we know very little about the actual responsibilities of the didaskaloi, it can reasonably be presumed that theirs was a teaching service, going hand in hand with the authoritative teaching of the apostles and in agreement with the apostle’s teachings. In reference to the ministry of the didaskaloi, St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians states that the work of didaskaloi was a God given charism, and a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. For St. Paul, therefore, the service of didaskaloi wasn’t a derivative of the Magisterium but a divine calling for the good of the whole Church. In the Patristic period, the theologians were quite often referred to as the didaskaloi. This fact shows that even in the New Testament, it was the theologians who were referred as the didaskaloi. This therefore means that the work and the mandate of the theologians, as a God given mandate, is clearly set out in the New Testament, and this shows that the second view on the relationship between the theologians and the Magisterium is erroneous and lacking scriptural basis. The third view on the relationship between the theologians and the Magisterium is the position that was advocated for by St. Thomas Aquinas in the medieval period. During St. Thomas’ time, very few bishops were theologians or teachers and, therefore, the responsibility of teaching and interpreting the scriptures was done mainly by the theologians, especially the Dominican scholars. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, there are two authoritative teaching bodies in the Church. The first teaching body is the Magisterium, magisterium cathedrae pastoralis, and the theologians, magisterium cathedrae magistralis. St. Thomas conceived these two bodies as having the divine authority to teach in the Church. During St. Thomas’ time, the theologians were highly regarded and their positions as the doctors of the Church were quite prestigious. The main responsibility of the theologians during this time was to interpret the Scriptures and to rid the church of heresies. The theologians were, as it were, the soldiers of the church. Although St. Thomas Aquinas had identified two authoritative teaching bodies in the Church, the teaching service in the Church during the medieval period was, however, was dominated by the theologians. The theologians were the advisors of the bishops and the pope, and as such, their positions seemed superior to that of the Magesterium. The forth view on the relationship between the theologians and the Magisterium is the view that was advocated by the German bishops after the 1815 Congress of Vienna in the 19th Century. According to this view, theologians have a canonical mission. According to this view, the work of a theologian is viewed as a God-given mandate, but not a derivative of the Magisterium. This view holds that the work of a theologian is not merely to prove what the Magisterium teaches, but to seek deeper meanings of the Scriptures and the traditions of the Church. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is one of the chief proponents of this view and he argues that the role of a theologian should not be reduced merely to the proof of the teachings of the Magesterium. However, this view cautions that the work of a theologian should be based on the Scriptures and the traditions of the church, and it further holds that theologians should carry out their God-given mandate under the supervision of the Magisterium. The problem posed by Arius’ Doctrine Arius lived in the period between 256- 336 A.D. Arius was born in Libya, but he died in Constantinople. Arius was a priest, presbyter, at the Church in Alexandria. He sparked theological controversy in 318, whereby he questioned and refuted the Church’s teachings on the divinity of Jesus Christ. As an ascetical moral leader of the Christian community in Alexandria, Arius attracted many followers through the persuasive arguments that he used to refute the divinity of Jesus Christ. In his arguments against the divinity of Jesus Christ, Arius integrated Neo-Platonism, which taught that the God is absolutely one and it is the highest form of perfection, with the literal and rationalistic translation of the New Testament texts (The Development of the Canon of New Testament- Arianism. Web.).This approach to understanding the nature of Jesus Christ led to a heretical doctrine known as Arianism, named after Arius, who came up with the erroneous doctrine. The following are the main tenets of Arius argument in opposition to the Christian teaching that Jesus Christ is, indeed, both divine and human. Prior to Arius Controversy, the Catholic Church had all along considered Jesus Christ as divine, but the Church had not precisely defined the relationship between Jesus Christ and the God head, God the father. Arius based his claim on the claim that God is immutable. This means that God is not subject to any form of change, i.e. God is absolutely one. But in the Gospels, Jesus is presented as being subject to change and growth. As such, Arius argued that Jesus cannot be God (Church Fathers: First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) - New Advent. Web.). Arius went on to argue that in the New Testament, it is clearly stated that Jesus was begotten. He interpreted this to mean that unlike God the father, Jesus Christ has a beginning. Arius Argued that Jesus Christ was created before time. By this claim Arius meant that Jesus Christ is not co-eternal with the God the father. This is because before he was created or begotten, he was not in existence, this shows that Jesus Christ is not co-eternal with the father for he had a beginning. Arius, therefore, did not believe that Jesus Christ and God the Father were of the same substance, he saw God the father as being superior to Jesus Christ, and he contended that Jesus Christ is subordinate to God the father. Arius went on to argue that Jesus Christ was the most perfect creature in the world. He argued that Jesus’ high level of moral integrity led him to be adopted by God as His son, but nevertheless, Jesus is not of the same substance with God the father. Arius understood Jesus as being a second deity or Logos, substantially different from the eternal and immutable God and subject to His will (Holcomb, n.d). Arius went on to support his claim by arguing that because Godhead is unique and immutable, his nature cannot be communicated to any other being and hence, Jesus Christ cannot be God. Arius therefore argued that the son, Jesus Christ, should be understood as a creature that was created out of nothing, just like other creatures, and this therefore shows that Jesus Christ is not divine as the Catholic Church taught. Arius also argued that, since Jesus Christ is not God, but a human being endowed with supernatural graces, He cannot have direct knowledge of God. This is because according to Arius, Godhead and Jesus Christ belong to different orders of existence; Godhead belongs to the order of the infinite, while Jesus Christ belongs to the order of the finite. For this reason, it is not possible for the finite creature to have a direct knowledge of the infinite being that is God. Hence, Arius contended that whatever Jesus knew, or whatever that Jesus Christ taught was only what he was enabled to know by the divine graces that he was showered with by God the father. This view contrasted sharply with the teaching of Christianity on the nature of Jesus Christ. Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is, indeed, God and that all His teachings had its origin in the direct knowledge of God that He had, since He was God. Christianity also taught that, since Jesus Christ was God, He was also able to perform various miracles through the divine power that he had. This position, also, was refuted by Arius since for Arius, Jesus was not God but a mere creature endowed with special supernatural graces. To give a scriptural grounding to his claim, Arius had to interpret the New Testament differently from the conventional Catholic interpretation of the text, so as to fit his understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ. Through this different and new interpretation of the New Testament, Arius was able to reconcile all his claims on the nature of Jesus with the Scriptures. He criticized the conventional interpretation of the New Testament as a false and erroneous attempt to ‘divinize’ Jesus Christ. Since the Church had not offered any concrete doctrine on the relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father, Arius exploited the opportunity maximumly to give a doctrine in this area although it was criticized later, in the council of Nicaea, as a heretical doctrine. The main strength of Arius’ argument laid in the claim that God as an immutable being is not subject to any form of change. But in the New Testament we find Jesus Christ undergoing some changes in course of His growth and development. This argument, therefore, was a strong blow to the prevailing believe that Jesus Christ is divine. Following the controversy that arose as a result of Arius heretical doctrine, the Church authorities of the time held the council of Nicaea, with the aim of refuting Arius doctrine, and formulating a correct doctrine on the relationship between Jesus and God the father. The council was held in 325 A.D., and Arius was condemned as a heretic and he was exiled. The council of Nicaea led to the formulation of the Nicene Creed which sets out clearly, the Catholic Church’s understanding of the relationship between Jesus Christ and his father, God the father. Problem Raised by Arius Doctrine and its Resolution by the council of Nicaea (325) Arius, through his denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ raised a real problem in the Church. The problem raised by Arius denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ threatened the unity of the Church and the Church scholars, especially the bishops were divided on whether really Jesus Christ was, truly, God or not. Some bishops were sympathetic to the teachings of Arius and they supported his teachings, while, others were diametrically opposed to the Arius’ views on the nature of Jesus Christ. One of the main opponents of Arius was Bishop Athanasius. Athanasius claimed that Arius denial of Jesus Christ’s divinity had reduced Jesus into a demigod (The Ecumenical Councils and their Chief Doctrines- Prayers. Web.). Athanasius also claimed that Arius heretical doctrine had reintroduced polytheism since, although Arius had denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, he had not, nevertheless, ruled out the worshiping Jesus Christ. This meant that worship of both God and Jesus Christ, whose divinity Arius had refuted, was accepted. This is polytheism. Athanasius also warned that subscribing to Arius doctrine would undermine the Christian idea of redemption because, according to Christianity, it is Jesus Christ alone as the son of God who can redeem the humanity. As a result of heated exchanges between the adherents of Arius and the various gatherings of clergy in Palestine, Egypt and Syria, in the period between 323- 324 A.D., Emperor Constantine sent envoys to go and mediate the conflicts. Emperor Constantine viewed the bone of contention between the followers of Arius and their opponents as a trifling issue, not worth such a huge controversy that it had attracted. Following the failure by Emperor Constantine’s emissaries to resolve the theological deadlock between Arius adherents and their opponents, emperor Constantine convened the first ecumenical council in the year 325 A.D. The council was convened at Nicaea and hence it was called, the first council of Nicaea. The second Council of Nicaea was held many years later in 778 A.D. Although the First Council of Nicaea discussed many other issues, including setting the date for Easter and refuting the Meletian heresy, the main reason for the convening of the First Council of Nicaea was to refute the heretical doctrine of Arius and to formulate a correct Christian doctrine on the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Godhead, God the father. According to the writings of Eusebius, three hundred bishops, from all over the world had gathered at the Council of Nicaea to deliberate and to give a correct doctrine on the divine nature of Jesus Christ and His relationship with God the father. All the bishops who attended the council of Nicaea were committed Christians; some of them had even undergone persecutions for their faith, but they persevered all for the love of Jesus Christ and His Church. The bishops also were well knowledgeable in Theology and they were therefore able to competently defend the Church against the heretical teachings of Arius. When the letter that contained the heretical teachings of Arius was read to the bishops, the bishops dismissed the views of Arius as flawed and foreign to the teachings of the Church. The letter that contained the teachings of Arius was written by Eusebius of Nicomedia. Bishop Athanasius was one of the leading theologians in the First Council of Nicaea who vigorously refuted the views of Arius. According to Athanasius, the son was eternally begotten and, therefore, he is of the same substance with the father (Homoousios). Athanasius contended that Jesus is different from the creatures for he belongs to the same order of existence with the father. This means that Jesus Christ is indeed God. Athanasius formulated this claim to counter Arius claim that Jesus is a creation of the father and that unlike the eternal God, Jesus Christ has a beginning, and he therefore belongs to the different order of existence from his father. The concept of homoousios was so important to the first council of Nicaea for it enabled the bishops to effectively refute the Arian claim and to formulate Christian doctrine on the relationship of Jesus Christ to his father. The concept homoousios or consubstantial (in English), means that Jesus Christ and God the father are of the same substance and are of the same nature. The council taught that although Jesus Christ was born in time, his divine nature, however, is eternal and is co-eternal with Godhead. The concept, eternally begotten, was also adopted to show the relationship between the father and the son. The concept means that, although Jesus Christ is indeed the son of God, Jesus Christ, however, was not created in time, i.e., Jesus Christ is eternal just like his father and he is not a creature of God as Arius had argued. The concept of homoousios, therefore, was central in the First Council of Nicaea’s refutation of Arius heresy and formulation of the Christian doctrine on the divinity of Jesus Christ. The bishops at the First council of Nicaea, also, interrogated Arius using the Scriptures and they realised that Arius had a new and different way of interpreting the Scriptures. The bishops challenged Arius to show any basis of his teachings in the teachings of the fathers of the church and in the traditions of the Church, but Arius was unable to do that. This therefore meant that Arius claims were flawed and heretical since they were not based on the correct interpretations of the Scriptures, the teachings of the Church fathers, or the traditions of the Church. After the majority of the bishops in the First Council of Nicaea agreed that Arius was wrong and coined the term homoousios to explain the relationship between Jesus Christ and God the father, the bishops came up with a creed that clearly explained their position on this issue. The creed was called the Nicene Creed, and the creed became the official teaching of the Church on the relationship between Jesus Christ and Godhead. Up to date, the Nicene Creed is the official teaching of the Catholic Church on the nature of Jesus Christ. Nicene Creed emphasises that Jesus Christ is indeed God, and that He is of one substance with God the father. The creed also emphasis that Jesus Christ is not made or created by God, but He is eternally begotten. The Nicene Creed, also, emphasis that there is one God in three persons, i.e. God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit; this affirmation was quite important to counter the Arius’ heretical teaching. But although the majority of the bishops at the first Council of Nicaea were in agreement that Arius was wrong in his claim on the divinity of Jesus Christ, Arius had some supporters and sympathisers among the bishops (Church Fathers: First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) - New Advent. Web.). Out of the three hundred bishops in attendance, seventeen of the bishops were reluctant and unwilling to sign the Nicene Creed written by the bishops. After intense persuasion by the other bishops, fourteen of the bishops agreed to sign the Nicene Creed to form official doctrine of the Church on the relationship between Jesus and God the father. Three of the seventeen reluctant bishops, however, refused, completely, to sign the creed. This fact shows that Arius had quite a good number of followers and sympathisers among the faithful. The role of Constantine One of the major roles of Emperor Constantine in the first council of Nicaea was the fact that, the council was actually convened by the emperor himself. And even before convening the council, Emperor Constantine had tried to resolve the dispute between Arius and the bishop of Alexander without success. Arius therefore is credited for convening this council. Emperor Constantine also attended the first council of Nicaea and he is said to have played the role of a mediator in the council, i.e. he calmed the contestants, and convinced them to agree on controversial issues. Emperor Constantine, therefore, clearly played a key role in the first council of Nicaea. The First council of Nicaea has had an enduring impact on the development of the Church doctrine on faith because, since the formulation of Nicene Creed in 323 A.D., the content of the Nicene Creed has always been the basis of the teachings of the Church on the Holy Trinity, and especially on the relationship between Jesus Christ as son of God and God the father. The first council of Nicaea, therefore, is undoubtedly one of the most important councils in the Catholic Church. References Church Fathers: First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) - New Advent. Web. Holcomb, J. Arius: Know Your Heretics. Web. The Ecumenical Councils and their Chief Doctrines- Prayers. Web. The Development of the Canon of New Testament- Arianism. Web. Read More