Doctrine as Spirit: Fully Human                                                 

church, reform, revolution

It seems strange to think of doctrine as spiritual. The topic of doctrine calls to mind the Magisterium, councils, and heresy but really, while doctrine seems to reside in these spheres its origins are rooted in spirit. Quite often the spiritual roots are overlooked. Doctrine, by definition, is a set of principles or beliefs taught by the Church. This can cause immediate resistance or compliant acceptance. The relationship with doctrine that many people have is one of practical ignorance and, in this way, doctrine is often seen as a set of rules to be blindly accepted or neatly ignored.

Doctrine is a Gift

However, doctrine is a gift. It is a place to begin. Any single statement of doctrine is enough to bring a deeper relation with God as that is really what it is intended to do. Doctrine is born from spiritual quest. It is also born form heresy and conflict, from searching for meaning. There would be no need for doctrine if the human mind were capable of grasping and understanding the Christ event. That moment when God physically broke into the stream of human history.

Council of Chalcedon and Nicea

At the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451 AD, that is, over 400 years since Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth, people were still trying to grasp and understand the true nature of the second person of the Trinity. It had already been declared more than one hundred years earlier that the Son, Jesus Christ, was in fact consubstantial (of the same substance) with the Father. That is Jesus, the man who walked the earth, was, and is, fully divine. This was established at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, along with the beginnings of the doctrine that Jesus is also fully human, which would be further clarified over the next one hundred and twenty-five years.  This concept was, and arguably still is, so difficult to grasp that over the course of decades it would require more than one general council to explain and clarify.

At Nicaea, the first council grappled with the idea taught by the priest Arius, that Jesus was not God because he did not have a divine nature, nor was he fully human because he did not possess a soul and was only flesh. This would become known as the Arian heresy and would plague the Church for years. The Council affirmed that Jesus was fully God, “one in being with the Father” and also fully human, that He “became flesh, was made man.”

But from Nicaea the question of Christ’s full humanity developed in the struggle to understand how God and man could be joined. How the soul of man and the Word of God could be in one body. Apollinaris struggled with this thought and, based on the Greek concept that the human soul contained a lower and upper part, concluded that Jesus the man did not possess both parts of the human soul, the Word of God replaced one part of it. This of course, was condemned, not only by the Council of Constantinople (381 AD) but by Pope Damasus as well. Damasus further called the Council of Rome in 382 AD to clarify and condemn anew Apollinarism along with the belief that the sonship of Christ was twofold, one human and one divine, and the idea that both the Father and the Son suffered on the cross.

General Council of Ephesus

In 431 AD the General Council of Ephesus sought to dismiss the notion proclaimed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, a man named Nestorius, who declared that the Word of God dwelt in Jesus the Christ and therefore only the man Jesus died on the cross not the Word of God. It was also at this Council that Mary was declared the Mother of God (theotokos), not just the mother of Christ (khristotokos). Cyril of Alexandria wrote extensively against Nestorianism. In a letter addressed to Nestorius and read at the Council, Cyril emphasized that the Word of God did not undergo a process of transformation into a real human being, that the human nature of Jesus was not the “assumption of a personality”, and that neither the distinct natures of the divinity, nor the humanity were suppressed, but were in fact united as one Lord, Christ and Son. He further explained that the humanity and divinity were united in the womb of Mary and that the divinity did not receive its beginning of existence from her.

However, difficulty continued, and a formula finally arose to unite Cyril of Alexandria with the Bishops of Antioch (433 AD) and ever more clearly explain the relationship of the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ. This clarification would eventually develop into the dogma declared at Chalcedon. The unification of the bishops was followed by Pope Leo I’s letter, also known as the “Tome of Leo”, that aimed to dispel the notion espoused by a follower of Cyril who believed that Christ’s human nature was not consubstantial with ours because his human nature was absorbed into that of the divine.

Thus, we land at Chalcedon in the year 451 AD. Here it was flatly declared by the Council that: “We confess that one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, must be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion or change, without division or separation… He is not split or divided into two persons, but he is one and the same Only-begotten God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.” Of course, following these first centuries and doctrinal statements more clarifications, discussions, heresies, and councils appeared.

Charity

At the outset of this essay the statement was made that doctrine is spiritual. It is born of spirit. At this point, a word on Christian charity. While examining the early heresies, or even perhaps the heresies that exist today, all good Christians must strive to hold the virtue of charity in their heart. It must be remembered that the men of the early Church were doing their best to clarify and understand that which had occurred in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. At the time there was no terminology or vocabulary to explain the Son. These men existed in a culture that lacked the concepts of the new reality that had descended upon the earth and the world of men.

Also, these priests, bishops, and holy men of the first centuries, much as men and women of today, were genuinely seeking to know and understand God, to have a relationship with this God, and to help those who were equally struggling. So, at the outset, a true charity must be sought but also an understanding that these men were in fact men. They were fallible. They had pride, arrogance, fear, shame, and all the emotions, traits, and temptations that come with being human. In this regard, sometimes reckless, aggressive, or political tactics were used to force a theological “win”.  Ultimately, however, these “heretics” were not evil men trying to destroy the Church, but men who were perhaps led astray. It is only when a theological error is clung to with stubborn animosity, publicly, and with an unwillingness to accept what the Church teaches, that a man becomes a heretic.

Doctrine is a Guide

With all of this then, how can a Christian seek to understand, seek to hold a more meaningful relationship with God? Each Christian must seek a deeper understanding of the mystery of Christ. Therefore, doctrine is a wonderful foundation as well as guide. While heretics and errors have been with the Church from the beginning, so has the Holy Spirit, Guide and Advocate sent by the Son upon his flock. The Church is governed and exists within the realm of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides and, while allowing for human foibles, aggressions, fears, and controlling dominance, in the end the Truth will ultimately be brought forth. The Truth is contained in the statements of doctrine.

Seek

Therefore seek. Do not be afraid to ask questions such as: What does it mean that Christ is fully human and fully divine? How does this relate to each individual? Why should anyone ponder this question at all? Each person is created in the image and likeness of God. That means that Jesus, the perfectly human person who walked the earth contains the same makeup and full humanity that every other person contains. We are one with him, consubstantial, in his humanity. He is our example of how to be human.

Surrender

While this thought could bring, and has brought as was shown above, centuries of prayerful consideration, one particular aspect will be addressed here. The aspect of surrender. Often, the surrender of Jesus the Son to the Father seems to be dismissed or in someway passively accepted. Of course, during Lent, it is common to meditate on the prayer of Jesus in the Garden: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matthew 26:39). This is a prayer many can deeply feel, especially in a moment of pain, struggle, or conflict. To stand before the Father and ask for the freedom from whatever pain or fear besets us but also to surrender to the Will of God. Here we can begin to see how the heresies described above might come to the fore. Perhaps when this prayer is given to someone who is suffering as an example of how to move forward, there might be, a small quiet doubt in the back of the mind saying: “Yes. Jesus did surrender to the will of the Father. He did fully suffer but he was also God.” Somehow, Jesus being fully divine, trumps his humanity. One might say: “Of course, he surrendered, he had the fullness of God within.” But do we not, in a similar way, have the fullness of God within? Is it not true that through reception of the Eucharist we are indeed divinized? Can we not call upon the same source of power and follow the example of Christ?

An argument that claims the divinity of Jesus made his life easier because in the end he knew he would be resurrected from the dead and sit for all eternity at the right hand of the Father, diminishes the humanity of Jesus. Jesus himself states that only the Father knows the hour and day (Mark 13:32; Matthew 24:36). Therefore, to surrender as Jesus did means to live fully in each moment. To surrender to the power of the divine and the grace of the moment. Jesus, unlike most of us, was able to surrender his human will and be open to what is in each moment without the distraction of the future. Christ was able to surrender his human need to control or manipulate the present in such a way as to force a future that would suit him. This strange trick of humanity, in which each person is deluded by the idea or, at times, the obsession, of working to try to change the circumstances of life so that when the future does arrive it will be perfect and, at last, we will be happy. And while situations arise in which we must surrender completely to some reality that has crashed in upon us in a way that makes it impossible to survive unless we let go and completely rely on God, most of us live moment to moment seeking, planning, or regretting some other moment in time.

Therefore, let us embrace the full humanity of Christ. Attempt at each moment to surrender to the Father and above all, seek to be guided by the wisdom and strength of the Catholic Church through the doctrine handed down to us. Question, seek, and do not be afraid, for we have a guide, the Holy Spirit who is with us and the example of Jesus Christ who was fully human and fully divine.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

6 thoughts on “Doctrine as Spirit: Fully Human                                                 ”

  1. Pingback: TVESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  2. Thanks for the response! I certainly agree that it can take centuries of writing to address these questions given that these things have already been written about for two millennia! I do think this is important though in contemporary time because the divinity of Christ falls under dogma rather than doctrine. And personally, I also have a problem in that I don’t believe the current version of church leaders are infallible. And the next logical step is that if I don’t believe the current crop of leaders is infallible, why would I believe the crop from 1,700 years ago was infallible? (side bar – did the earliest Christians ever believe their leaders were infallible?) I completely agree with you that the “heretics” from 1,700 years ago were probably well-meaning, but I think we disagree that the group as a whole was infallible.

    I did really enjoy your focus on the early Christians which is of particular importance right now given the study underway regarding the history of women in the church and their potential for ordination. From my standpoint, it feels like we have drifted away from the Christianity that Christ established, and looking at the earliest church history is important. Returning to some of the basics as taught by Christ I think would be a good thing for all of us. We both agree that doctrine is developed, but it seems we have a difference in that I believe dogma may also need to be revisited/developed based on a reapplication of the direct teachings of Christ as interpreted by his earliest followers.

    I appreciate the discussion and the article you wrote. I will absolutely continue talking to folks about these topics, and I wish you nothing but the best in your academic career. I have to admit that I’m a bit jealous because these topics really interest me and I wish I had more time to dig in!

  3. This was an incredibly interesting read. I appreciate the callouts that the “heretics” didn’t necessarily have ill-intent and that they were all fallible men trying to understand God. But given this, why should we be confident that the winners of that argument got to the correct answer? And does it ultimately matter if we all believe that Jesus’s message was God’s message?

    I noticed at a young age that Jesus never called himself God in the Gospels. He called himself the son of God, but he also called other humans his brothers and sisters. And if I’m his brother, that also makes me the son of God. And no offense to myself, but that kind of devalues the title. I’ve never understood why whether Jesus was strictly God, strictly human, or both matters. And given that Jesus was seemingly unclear on the matter (we were arguing about it hundreds of years later), was it something that Jesus even considered important?

    1. Dear Kyle,

      Thank you for your comment. I’m not sure if the “winners” got it right, and that is why there is a difference between doctrine, dogma, and even cannon law. Dogma is that which we believe to be infallible and revealed, such as the statements contained in the Apostle’s Creed. All Christians confess these things to be true.

      Regarding doctrine, I am sure that, guided by the Holy Spirit, the Truth will continue to unfold if even only now “we see in a mirror dimly” (1 Corinthians 13:12). I do think we should strive to seek with faith and, as Anslem would say, with a faith that seeks understanding. Thus, my continuing academic career, which is the method that bests suits me as an individual.

      I cannot address the rest of your questions because it would take centuries of writing to do so. As I suggested above, one single statement of doctrine can be examined for an entire lifetime. I can only encourage you to seek answers to these questions through discussions with others near you who are also seeking.

      I would also suggest the book: “An Introduction to Christianity” by Joseph Cardinal Raztinger (Pope Benedict XVI). It is a wonderful, well written text, that discusses many of the questions you raise. Also, if you enjoy humour, I would very much encourage you to read G.K. Chesterton. His books “Orthodoxy” and “Heretics” are great reads!

      I wish you much success on your quest and may the Spirit be with you on your journey.

      Sydney

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.