The year 2025 will be the 80th anniversary of George Orwell’s Animal Farm; the 60th anniversary of Gaudium et Spes; and the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. Animal Farm denies who we really are by removing the Ten Commandments from above the barn door, but Gaudium et Spes then restores us to who we really are:
The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light…Christ the Lord…by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to himself and makes his supreme calling clear. (Gaudium et Spes, n. 22).
And, the Council of Nicaea and the later Nicene Creed also remind us of the four gifted marks of the Catholic Church—that it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
What then of these four marks when paired with the four “principles” of renewed evangelization as proposed in Evangelium Gaudium (2013)? And, when is the synodal Church at risk of synodism, as an ideology? What, really, is the “endless journey?”
The Church is One? But, when is “unity prevails over conflict” at risk of clericalism (the adventuresome triad of Marx, Batzing, Hollerich & Co.)? The Church is Holy? But, when is “realities are more important than ideas” at risk of nominalism (mouthed moral norms cohabiting with absolute exemptions)? The Church is Catholic? But, when is “the whole is greater than the part” at risk of Globalism (the fundamental option, proportionalism/consequentialism)? And, the Church is Apostolic? But, when is “time is greater than space” at risk of Historicism (the “paradigm shift” and relativism)?
Do we sense the ghost of Karl Rahner between the lines?
Religion understands itself and can be understood only by reference to the future, which it knows as absolute and as coming to both individual man and all mankind. Its interpretation of the past occurs in and through the progressive disclosure of the approaching future, and the sense and meaning of the present are based on a hopeful openness to the absolute future’s imminent advent…
Thus, the real nature of man can be defined precisely as the possibility of attaining the absolute future—not this or that particular state of affairs which is always encompassed by another and greater future still unrealized…and which, therefore, is relativized and known to be such. In this sense, Christianity is the religion of becoming, of history, of self-transcendence, of the future. …For it…everything is understandable in relation to what is still unrealized. (Rahner, “Marxist Utopia and the Christian Future of Man;” cited in Thomas Molnar, Christian Humanism, 1978, emphasis added).
Overall, when is “walking together” in synodality at risk of tripping into synodism—with the event of Christ, as witnessed in the Gospels, is eclipsed by the more fluid “gospel values” of Jesus?
The institutional question is: Was Nicaea was more an act of consensus and decision, or firstly and instead, a forthright and deeper judgment of fidelity and exclusion? Was Nicaea the result of a voted synodal consensus while “walking together,” or was it the rejection of a false consensus, while standing together? Some historians estimate that prior to Nicaea, eight out of ten Catholic bishoprics had succumbed to the Arian apostasy. Does this lingering secular-ecclesial “consensus” best account for the forced exile of Athanasius, five times after Nicaea, between 335 and 366? Too rigid? Too bigoted?
The toxic error, proposed by the priest Arius in 319, was whether the Second Person of the Trinity is consubstantial with the Father from before all ages, or instead, originated in time and, therefore, is slightly less than the Father (later homoousios versus homoiousios, “of the same substance,” or only “similar”). With Arianism, the Redemption of human fallenness and suffering evaporates, and the nihilism of our present age—or any age—receives no answer.
At Nicaea, then, the judgment of the Church as the Body of Christ is expressed without ambiguity, in the eventual Nicene Creed. The self-disclosing God is not an inaccessible monolith, but is relational and even present—three distinct “persons” within the Triune Oneness. And the incarnate and resurrected Christ is fully this divine nature, who then elevates intact our human nature into the divine life of His person. Christ is not an Arian hybrid or “quaternary” (Augustine, Newman) as a good and more manageable example whose gospel values are to be imitated, more or less.
The Council of Nicaea reaffirmed an existing fidelity by questioning whether Arius’s innovation was consistent with what had been received, from the beginning, by the believing, witnessing and universal Church. Providentially, the affirmation of Nicaea (325) already had been articulated in detail in 318 by the deacon Athanasius in his De Incarnatione.
At Nicaea, devotion to the mysteriously unified three equal Persons in the Triune Oneness was at risk. Threatened today is the mystery of the unified human person—both soul and body, both faith and reason—as providentially affirmed in necessary clarity, already, in Veritatis Splendor (Pope St. John Paul II, 1993). In contrast, the uncontested poster-child of synodality—now synodism?—is Germany’s “synodal way.” Will its sacramental and moral contradictions be tacitly accepted under a malleable and “fraternal collegiality”? Or not? This within a polyglot Synod on Synodal “consensus” in 2024?
Nicaea and the entire Magisterium are our acquired immunity against not only Arianism, but the complete litany of viral ideologies mutating through history like the many COVID variants. Examples: the opposite error of Arianism, which discounted Christ’s full divinity, was Monophysitism, which sidestepped Christ’s full humanity. Later, Nestorianism posited a schizophrenic Christ with two minds and two wills. In response, the Council of Ephesus in 431 affirmed that Mary is the Mother of the unified and whole Christ—Theotokos—rather than anything less or, say, a neutral “birth-person” as the “synodal way” and gender theory might eventually imply!
More beckoning than even an accurate theological consensus or speculation is the concrete and singular event of Christ, at a specific time and place within human history, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger stated several decades ago in Introduction to Christianity:
For the Christian, the interplay of faith and reason is most evident in the doctrine that a Trinitarian God is revealed by a definitive encounter with Christ in human history. The doctrine of the Trinity did not arise out of speculation about God, out of an attempt by philosophical thinking to figure out what the fount of all being was like; it developed out of the effort to digest historical experiences… (2004 and 1968, emphasis added).
Now, 2025 years after the event, and 1700 years after Nicaea, the Church is confronted by an Arian-like denial—the reductionist redefinition of the human person. The discounting and then denial of natural law. But, providentially, as also with the writing of Athanasius shortly prior to Nicaea, St. Pope John Paul II fully incorporates the permanence of our inborn natural law directly into the Magisterium of the Church:
The relationship between faith and morality shines forth with all its brilliance in the unconditional respect due to the insistent demands of the personal dignity of every man, demands protected by those moral norms which prohibit without exception actions which are intrinsically evil …. The Church is no way the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm.” (Veritatis Splendor, VS, n. 90, 95)
This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this teaching [‘Christian moral teaching’], and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment necessary in practical and cultural situations which are complex and even crucial. (VS, n. 115, emphasis added).
To pontificate that the needed harmonization consists simply in reaffirmed formal teachings while signaling and enabling disconnected contradictions in action does not qualify as honest reconciliation or evangelization. Pope St. John Paul II anticipated and rejected this con-fusion (the alleged “new paradigm” revelation) in this way:
A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [not moral judgment] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [thou shalt not]. (VS, n. 56)
Likewise, this from the fathers of the Second Vatican Council:
The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away, and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf 1 Tim 6:14, Tit. 2:13). (Dei Verbum, n. 4)
In 2025 we have the opportunity to celebrate the Council of Nicaea as a consensus, but first, within the clarity of the perennial deposit of faith. Under legitimate synodality, then, how to leaven the apostolic Church as a “hierarchical communion” of the papacy and bishops together with the laity also under the “universal call to holiness”? How, too, to achieve the Second Vatican Council’s aggiornamento or engagement with the world, without falsifying ressourcement or the return to stable sources? Mercy, but not at the expense of faith and reason—discontinuity within continuity.
On the eve of Nicaea, the Holy Spirit already supplied the deacon Athanasius and a clarified understanding of the Triune Oneness (in De Incarnatione)—even prior to the novelty of Arius. Likewise, in our time the Holy Spirit already supplied Pope St. John Paul II and a clarified understanding of the unity of the human person (in Veritatis Splendor)—even prior to the novelty of Marx, Batzing, Hollerich & Co.
Synodality becomes ideological synodism especially when it turns a blind eye to the most recent workings of the Holy Spirit. Councils and synods are what the Church does, not what the gifted and Eucharistic Church already is—one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Back to the future [again] with Teilhard. Rahner a disciple. A never ending journey away from one holy catholic apostolic to nauseating self adoration. Beaulieu on the mark.
“You should not believe your conscience and your feelings more than the Word which the Lord who receives sinners preach to you”. Martin Luther—Catholic priest
Nice to put the name and face together!
Differing views are part of life, honouring God is the duty of all.
God bless you on the pathway of life and your quest to honour Him.
One of the repercussions of the fall is mans propinquity for divergent paths. It has been said that humans are religious to a fault and how we love the “devises and desires of our own hearts”. Could this be applied to the Catholic Church, one might say so as you categorize the missteps of the Marx trio. Have other lapses taken place over the centuries and found such incorporated into the dogma of the church?
Papa may think so, yet does he want to take the church to the founding tenets, the credo? It appears he has a different direction? We ask if this may have occurred at other times. The church has her strengths, yet does she have palpable weaknesses?
Thank you for your article, it asks important questions for all believers.
Ezekiel 44:10 But the Levites who went far from me, going astray from me after their idols when Israel went astray, shall bear their punishment.
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Proverbs 7:25 Let not your heart turn aside to her ways; do not stray into her paths,
1 Peter 2:25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Thank you Brian, you ask a central question: “Have other lapses taken place over the centuries and found such incorporate[ion] into the dogma of the church?”
A crucial distinction is made between development and rupture or mutations (your “lapses”). On this point, reference is made to the 5th-century St. Vincent of Lerins and, along the same lines, the 19th-century John Henry Cardinal Newman (his volume:
“The Development of Christian Doctrine”). In part, from St. Vincent:
“Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly there is to be development and on the largest scale. Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another. The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.”
It’s almost as if the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is still with the Church that Christ founded (upon Himself)…
The novelty of today is the double-speak of both affirming the doctrines and then “pastorally” enabling and accommodating contradictions in action. The Truth is not denied (“lapses”), but simply set aside in practice. The missing debate about synodality itself is whether such duplicity denies Jesus Christ “the same, yesterday, today and forever” (Heb 13:8). As if by some new oracle—an extravagant “paradigm shift,” the indwelling Holy Spirit is decapitated from the Mystical Body of Christ. (At Nicaea, it was a change in doctrine itself that was rejected rather than assimilated.)
The case of the separated Martin Luther is tragic, and even reflects bungling on both sides, until his concerns were escalated to the level of dogma (rather than the precipitating scandal of marketing indulgences). The momentum of cultural and political evolution accounts for most of the historic rupture, according to both Catholic and Lutheran scholars.
But, no lapse by the Church in dogmatic Tradition, as then articulated at the Council of Trent and including the indivisibility of faith and works. Cardinal Newman defended the very qualified (as in precise) definition of papal infallibility (First Vatican Council) under the indwelling of the Holy Spirit—in the story of his conversion from Anglicanism (“Apologia pro vita Sua”): “[the purpose of the definition is] not to enfeeble the freedom or vigour of human thought in religious speculation, but to resist and control its extravagance.”
Dear Peter:
Your thoughts and correction is appreciated. The Holy Spirt works within us to find concordance through respect for our fellow man. Newman was a weighty thinker and a bridge builder.
To facilitate understanding and cooperation is my goal. Perhaps you also wonder if we are approaching the “last days”! The Catholic Church is owed a debt of gratitude for codifying the canon of New Testament Scripture. As I quote scripture to underscore a point, thanks must be given to these men for heeding the inducements of the Holy Spirt.
The church (in general terms) is under attack. Satan knows his time is short in his war against God and His creation, it intensifies with onslaughts against believers in Christ and Israel. In these times, it is important to draw near to God as He calls us, celebrating our commonality seeking unity, thus honouring our creator. Yes, it is easy to say, yet reading what is presented through CWR, it shows love of God and a striving to honour Him.
May God bless us in our quest to find His will and to do it.
Yours in Christ,,
Brian
The Catholic faith is not about “believers in Christ and Israel”.
Dear Elias:
Was Jesus not King of the Jews? Is Jesus not the saviour of the world? Perhaps you are being tongue and cheek, however it didn’t have the intended outcome. Maybe, you are subtly suggesting that it is about the “lodge boys” that you tenderly referred too?
Do tell, what then is the “Catholic faith” about? In trying to recollect, I don’t recall such a heedless, imperceptive comment. Congratulations, go to the head of the class!
Awaiting your reply with the greatest of anticipation!
Brian
I wasn’t being any of those things. Grace wouldn’t be in them either.
The Catholic faith is not about “believers in Christ and Israel”.
A few questions for the proponents of synodality/synod is:
– Is approbation a synonym for authentic “love” in Catholicism? Even if the answer is “yes,” we must ask is it a good synonym? Why?
– Did Moses listen to and “accompany” those who made and worshipped the Golden Calf?
– Did Jesus “dialogue” with the money-changers in the Temple?
– Did Jesus not instruct the Apostles that “[I]f any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town”?
– Do not those who call on the Church to change her teaching love something else more than Christ?
– Approval of society? Pleasure? Power?
– How far do we accompany someone who is walking off a cliff? Or going in the wrong direction, away from Christ and His Church? At what point is it permitted to say “I will go no further”?
I strongly support the comments made by Peter D. Beaulieu (on 19 October 2022), for example :
• “A crucial distinction is made between development and rupture or mutations (your “lapses”). On this point, reference is made to the 5th-century St. Vincent of Lerins and, along the same lines, the 19th-century John Henry Cardinal Newman”…….
• “But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another……..”
• “The novelty of today is the double-speak of both affirming the doctrines and then “pastorally” enabling and accommodating contradictions in action. The Truth is not denied (“lapses”), but simply set aside in practice…….”
We have a number of instances where Pope Francis assures us that he is not making changes to doctrine, but merely developing it. A classic case relates to the changes he made to the teaching on capital punishment.
Peter Beaulieu’s comments put me in mind of Professor Thomas Pink of London University who so ably and perceptively describes what he calls “Official Theology”. I strongly urge anyone concerned about this fundamental, crucial, and all-important debate concerning Change vs Development of doctrine to scroll through some of Prof. Pink’s recent articles.
Yours sincerely in Christ
Francis Ribeiro (in Australia)
Regarding “Change vs Development of Doctrine,” maybe we can enter the New Year with the obvious conundrum of progressive modernity concisely stated…Three points:
FIRST, double-entry bookkeeping was invented by Luca Pacioli, none other than a Franciscan friar (like Francis of Assisi, etc!) and collaborator of scientist Leonardo da Vinci. In tracking our “common home” the succinct point of Laudato Si is that things don’t look good when all of the direct and long-term indirect costs of the inevitable (?) Western Project are added up. Ecological deforestation and systemic tipping points and all that, a large part anthropocentric.
SECOND, on the other hand, development-AND-protection of our common-heritage Deposit of Faith (the hermeneutics of continuity, not discontinuity) is likewise much at risk when co-opted as a “progressive” and plebiscite version of synodality—cross-dressed by ecclesial word merchants cloned apparently from the captains of industry and stock market day-traders.
THIRD, it’s almost as if the alarming and gifted Incarnation of the Triune One into human history was/is a really, really deep, deep and counter-cultural dive into a fallen world! And, that the commissioned “hierarchical communion” and papal primacy are more a crown of thorns than either a Renaissance miter or an Amazon headdress? But, why endorse the, yes, instructive Earthly Traditions of the First Nations and “Mother Earth” (cough) while not protecting and nurturing, in the Church’s own Vatican Garden, the transcendent and self-disclosed Wisdom of the Punctured One?
In the New Year, will the Synod on Synodality include (inclusiveness!) the insights of a both-eyes-wide-open guy named Pascal? His insight that God is present in nature but also veiled, and present in the Eucharist and also veiled? In both 2023 and 2024 at the head of the synodal table—and what used to be an altar—will there still be a place for Eucharistic coherence (and revival)? Jesus Christ, the center of human history (Heb 13:8).
And, at the 1700th anniversary of Nicaea in 2025—a place for doctrinal AND pastoral accountability to all of Franciscan double-entry bookkeeping?