Arian Heresy Still Tempts, Says Cardinal Bertone (Mentions Pelagianism As Well)

Zenit ^ | 10/9/2006 | n/a

[Pyro7480]

Arian Heresy Still Tempts, Says Cardinal Bertone

Sees Example in "Da Vinci Code"

ROME, OCT. 9, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the new Vatican secretary of state, says that the Church continues to be tempted by the Arian heresy, the idea that Christ is not God.

In an interview with the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio, the Italian cardinal acknowledged that "one of the main problems of our time is the problem of Christology," according to which Christ is considered only as "a great man."

"If Christ's divinity is doubted," the foundation of Christianity is doubted, he said.

The Vatican official recalled the doctrine of Arius (256-336), a priest of Alexandria and later a bishop, who, beginning in 318, denied the divinity of the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Symptoms of this denial of Jesus' divinity include the support received by "The Da Vinci Code," despite its "absolutely shameful fictional inventions," said Cardinal Bertone, 71.

"But we see in addition that even in the elaboration of certain theology, doubt is cast on the divinity and salvific unicity of Christ, the only Savior," he continued. "This Christological reduction betrays the faith of the nascent Church and of the great Christological councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon.

"It is an authentic betrayal and a denial of the faith of our fathers."

According to the cardinal, "it is necessary, therefore, to return to Christological faith, to the centrality of Christ, true God and therefore only Savior."

Pelagianism

However, according to the Vatican secretary of state, the Church not only faces the threat of Arianism, but also of a new Pelagianism, one of the worst heresies, which arose in the fifth century.

"This hinges on thinking that we can build a Church ourselves and in believing that it is possible to save ourselves, without the Lord's grace and help," he noted. "They are recurring dangers which appear successively in history."

These two challenges were addressed in the 2000 declaration "Dominus Iesus," signed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, in their capacity as prefect and secretary, respectively, of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

[Pyro7480]

Everything that is old is new again.

[Pyro7480]

Catholic ping!

[ArrogantBustard]

Interesting that he should bring up Arianism ... at its core, mohammedanism is the Arian heresy ... hopped up on steroids, crack, and PCP.

[aruanan]

"This hinges on thinking that we can build a Church ourselves and in believing that it is possible to save ourselves, without the Lord's grace and help," he noted. "They are recurring dangers which appear successively in history."

Basically Communism at its core, which someone had described as immanentizing the eschaton.

[murphE]

mohammedanism is the Arian heresy ... hopped up on steroids, crack, and PCP.

Now that was funny.

[wideawake]

Note the critique of the new Pelagianism.

[donmeaker]

I figure Liberalism is the Gnostic Heresy redividus.

After reviewing Hillary Care, it reminded me of nought so much as the various emanations and demiurges that supposedly separated a good G-d from an evil matter.

[livius]

I´m glad to see some Vatican attention being given to this, because I think it´s a much greater problem than anybody admits. Islam is a syncretist cult, the Christian part of which comes through the Arian heresy. The problem is that there are many people - certain entire Protestant groups and a number of individual Catholics - who are fundamentally Arians and are very convinced when Muslims cheerfully tell them (these are the Muslims who are not cutting off heads but are the kinder, gentler type...) that their view of Jesus is exactly the same as the Muslim view. Sadly enough, it probably is - Jesus is just a particularly convincing prophet, to Arian Christians.

Furthermore, the part of orthodox Christianity that isn´t done in by Arianism is destroyed by Pelagianism. Very, very serious threats, especially in our confrontation with Islam.

[Bainbridge]

Your point in telling me this is what?

[wideawake]

I had thought that you also were a critic of Pelagianism.

If I am mistaken, I apologize.

[Bainbridge]

"... muslims cheerfully tell them..that their view of Jesus is exactly the same as the Muslim view."- would this be the time to show an "individual Catholic", John Paul II kissing the Koran? Yeah, I guess you could say it is a much greater problem than anybody admits!

[Bainbridge]

Ah, yes, well of course. Pelagianism is, after all, inconsistent with scriptures, as is easily observed in Romans 3:23. No, I think that there are essentially 3 choices on who Jesus was. I think they are flippantly referred to as "3 L's": Lord, liar or lunatic. Thank you for the notice.

[bornacatholic]

"... muslims cheerfully tell them..that their view of Jesus is exactly the same as the Muslim view."- would this be the time to show an "individual Catholic", John Paul II kissing the Koran?

*No, sister. That would be a nasty non sequitur.

Unlike the Muslim telling the Christian they both have the same view of Jesus, the photo of the Pope expressing an Eastern gesture of thanks, the kiss, upon receipt of the gift, the Koran, in no way approximates the prior action.

That is, it does not unless one thinks the Pope kised the Koran for some other reason. Perhaps you can tell us the reason the Pope kissed the koran.

A picture is worth a thousand words. In this instance, the millions of words spoken and written by this Pope, the Vicar of Christ, are all, I guess, dissolved into nothingess by his one gesture of gratitude.

Jesus was betrayed by a kiss. It somehow seems fitting others betray the truth about the Pope due to a kiss.

[Bainbridge]

Once again, you all are incapable of acknowledging that this was wrong. It was wrong for any Christian to treat the koran as something worthy of respect. It is not. The Bishop of Rome did something that, whatever his motives, was wrong. The best thing to do about errors and mistakes is to admit them and not to endlessly try to defend that which is indefensible. It would go along way to simply say so. Just" he should not have done that" . Not a long, convoluted, nuanced excuse. Just, "it was wrong".

[FJ290]

Once again, you all are incapable of acknowledging that this was wrong. It was wrong for any Christian to treat the koran as something worthy of respect. It is not. The Bishop of Rome did something that, whatever his motives, was wrong.

Equally, it is wrong for you to say "YOU ALL are incapable of acknowledging this was wrong."

I know many, many Catholics who have openly stated their displeasure in him doing this. I have been one of them and have stated it before on FR.

Let me state it again. It was wrong and he should have never done that.

[Bainbridge]

Sorry, you are absolutely right.I should not have painted with so broad a brush. The thing that stuck in my craw about the post I responded to is this idiot correlation ascribed by some Roman Catholics to "Protestants" and Islam. This theory was popularized by Belloc and although it makes some of the smug set feel ever so superior, it is perhaps time to revisit the actual real world evidence that there are some commonalities of significance. This thesis may titillate the arch Catholics, but the actuality of what we face in what is left of Christendom today vis a vis Islam is not something from which we can blink. It is time for all Christians to pull together, drop the nonsense, and destroy the enemy, ' cause it is not Jerry Falwell, James Dobson or for those in my camp, Pope Benedict who stands opposite with SWORDS drawn!

[bornacatholic]

Your personal opinions about the Pope's act of thanksgiving is not normative. You appear incapable of understanding his actions in a defensibly light even when it is explained to you.

A Christian is supposed to attribute to others positive motives whenever possible, right?

[Bainbridge]

Where is that written?

[livius]

We don't need that picture again, but yes, I agree that it was horrible. I think JPII was well-meaning but totally clueless on the "ecumenical" front. You probably haven't seen the pictures of him at some of the bizarro syncretist masses his liturgist designed, and we don't need to see those again, either.

I don't think he meant to give his stamp of approval to Islam, but I do think he didn't fully weigh his gestures at times and was so focused on the media moment that he ignored the doctrinal implications (which, after all, were supposed to be his job).

[Phsstpok]

mohammedanism is the Arian heresy ... hopped up on steroids, crack, and PCP.

Now that was funny.

And it has the added benefit of being an accurate description.  In fact it's some of the best imagery on the subject I've ever come across. 

Years ago I drove an ambulance in the NY city area and had to deal with a slew of angel dust users, a couple of them iron pumpers, so I wouldn't be surprised if they had been using steroids.  They were always a handful, and this was in the days before tasers.  Fortunately for me crack didn't coame around as a big thing until a few years later.