St. Peter Canisius Apostolate

In paragraph 465, the Catechism speaks of the first three great Christological heresies — Docetism, Adoptionism, and Arianism.

The first heresies denied not so much Christ’s divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God’s Son “come in the flesh.” But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is “begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father”, and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God “came to be from things that were not” and that he was “from another substance” than that of the Father.

Now, I have to say that this paragraph can be a bit misleading if it is not read carefully. The opening sentence says that the first heresies denied Christ’s humanity, not his divinity. This is certainly true of Docetism, but it is not true of the other two heresies spoken of in this paragraph — Adoptionism and Arianism.

Docetism was a form of Gnosticism, and Gnosticism denied the goodness of material things. Since matter was inherently evil, the all-good God would not willing join himself to what is evil. Therefore, Docetism said that Christ only seemed to be a man; that is to say, he was human in appearance only, not in reality. Simply put, Docetism said that Christ is fully God, but only seemed to be a man.

After the Catechism speaks of Docetism, it turns to a heresy called “Adoptionism.” This heresy affirms that Jesus Christ is truly a man, but it denies that Jesus is God. Adoptionism denied that Jesus Christ is the natural Son of God and instead asserted that he is only the adoptive son of God. If we think in terms of natural and adoptive sonship in human terms — say, of a father who has both a biological son as well as a son he’s adopted — we can easily understand what Paul of Samosata was saying, namely, that at one point in time Jesus had no special relation to God, then at another point in time he had that special relationship to God. Orthodox Catholic teaching is that Jesus Christ is, from the moment of his conception, the true and natural Son of God. In short, that Jesus Christ is truly God.

Finally, the Catechism mentions perhaps the most influential heresy of the early Church — that of Arianism. Arianism also denied Christ’s divinity, but in a fundamentally different way than Adoptionism did. Arius, the founder of Arianism, believed that when St. Paul said that Jesus was the “firstborn son of all creation,” St. Paul meant that Jesus himself was the highest of all creatures, but still a creature. So Arianism believed that this pre-existence created son of God became man. Simply put, Arianism taught that Jesus was not fully God.

Strangely, Arianism did not teach that Jesus was fully man, either, for it denied that Jesus had a human soul. So for the 4th-century Arian, Jesus Christ was neither God nor man. If that was the case, then what exactly was he? I’m not sure I can answer that question.

At any rate, the next time you say the Nicene Creed during Mass, when you recite the following part: “…eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one-in-being with the Father…” remember that you are reciting the Church’s response to Arianism. Arius said that Jesus was not God, but the Church says that he is “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.” Arius said that Jesus did not share the same nature as God, but he Church says that Jesus was “eternally begotten of the Father . . . and one-in-being with the Father.” And Arius said that Christ was created, but the Creed says that he “was begotten, not made.” Without a doubt, this is my favorite part of the Nicene Creed.

Now, as I noted before, there’s no such thing as a new heresy. So let’s ask a question: Are any of these three heresies — Docetism, Adoptionism, and Arianism — still with us today?

I’ve never met a Docetist; I’ve never met a person who claimed that Jesus was truly God but only seemed to be a man. I have met people, however, who refuse to limit Jesus’ human knowledge. One incident that comes to mind was when a person told me that Jesus could have spoken any language he wanted. This might look like Docetism on the surface, but to me it seems more like a form of Monophysitism (which we’ll get to in another post). At any rate, I think it’s safe to say Docetism is not with us today. Of course, that doesn’t mean it won’t be with us in the future.

On the other hand, Adoptionism seems to be alive and well — at least a modified version of it. I suspect that many people see Jesus as little more than a great ethical and spiritual figure, a Jewish version of the Buddha or Socrates. But what gave Jesus his profound insight was his deep relationship with God. Whether or not a person who holds this view would call himself an Adoptionist (he’d probably look at you funny if you told him he was one) is debatable. Also debatable is whether or not he is in fact a true Adoptionist. Still, anyone who places the Lord Jesus on the level of Socrates, Buddha, or Mohammed, and then claims that what makes Jesus different is that he obtained a deeper relationship with God is flirting with Adoptionism.

Arianism is also alive and well today, too, under the guise of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. If I’m not mistaken, the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is, in his spiritual form, the archangel Michael, who is the greatest of God’s creatures. But don’t try to tell them that this part of their religion is nothing more than a rehashing of an old heresy. I did that once. The response? The Jehovah’s Witnesses told me Arius was correct.

Next time: Nestorianism.

Comments RSS