The Council of Nicaea: More Relevant Today than Vatican II
One of my personal heroes in the present-day leadership of the Church is Cardinal Biffi, the former Archbishop of Bologna. Cardinal Biffi is a very outspoken and theologically direct pastor of the Church. I often wish that a man like Biffi would have been elected pope at some point in the past 50 years. He is a man who is not prone to the realpolitik of modern Vatican-think, which often afflicts popes and lower-order curial officials alike. And he is a man who craves and recognizes responsible governance in the Church.
Biffi has often taught about the character of the Anti-Christ, a theme most pertinent to our present day. He is perhaps most famous for having done so in a well-publicized lecture on Vladimir Soloviev’s “The Three Dialogues and the Story of the Antichrist.” Here is how he describes the Anti-Christ of Soloviev’s remarkable parable:
The Antichrist will be a convinced spiritualist, Soloviev says, an admirable philanthropist, a committed, active pacifist, a practicing vegetarian, a determined defender of animal rights. He will not be hostile in principle to Christ. Indeed, he will appreciate Christ’s teaching. But he will reject the teaching that Christ is unique, and will deny that Christ is risen and alive today.
One sees here described a Christianity of “values,” of “openings,” of “dialogue,” a Christianity where it seems there is little room left for the person of the Son of God crucified for us and risen, little room for the actual event of salvation. A scenario, I think, that should cause us to reflect…
A scenario in which the faith militant is reduced to humanitarian and generically cultural action, the Gospel message is located in an irenic encounter with all philosophies and all religions and the Church of God is transformed into an organization for social work. Are we sure Soloviev did not foresee what has actually come to pass? Are we sure it is not precisely this that is the most perilous threat today facing the holy nation redeemed by the blood of Christ – the Church? It is a disturbing question and one we must not avoid.
One might add that the Anti-Christ could very well also speak of himself as a “unifier” or as an “agent of change,” who promises to use the charity of law to protect homosexuals from “discrimination” or parents from the “burden” of having to care for their children when times get tough economically. Or who promises to lift the burden of life from the elderly and the terminally ill through “mercy” killing.
The Anti-Christ, in other words, is a figure of false compassion. He appeals to Christians who are weak in faith because he is able to proof-text scripture, or because he publically proclaims himself sympathetic to Christian faith. He might even refer to himself as a Christian.
Cardinal Biffi has recently released a book of great interest. Sandro Magister reports on it at his Chiesa weblog. Though Magister does not talk about whether or not Biffi touches on the theme of the Anti-Christ in this book, there is much of interest that Magister does suggest is present in it.
Biffi is apparently as straightforward as ever, though he is now retired and living in the hills of Bologna. Biffi says in the book, according to Magister, that we live in an age where orthodoxy, rather than heresy, is newsworthy and considered shocking. Believers who take seriously Christian chastity, or who recognize Christ as both God and man, are outside of respectable public opinion — and this is as true inside of the Church as outside of it!
Magister says that Biffi does not embrace the fashionable theologies of the day. He preaches the Gospel. One quotation in this brief article by Magister caught my attention. Biffi says that given the widespread acceptance of heresy inside the Church today, the Council of Nicaea may be more pertinent to our age than the Second Vatican Council!
How insightful this is, and how refreshing to hear it said by a prince of the Church! For those who may not know, the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) was the first ecumenical council of the Church. The Church affirmed in this council the ancient tradition of Christ’s divinity against “Arians” (followers of a bishop named “Arius”) who denied it.
We may, indeed, as a Church, need to turn again to this ancient council: and to the other Christological, Trinitarian, doctrinal councils of the early Church. We have, as Biffi suggests, lost our way. I would add that the archaizing tendency of many twentieth century Catholic theologians, including some of the heroes of John Paul II and Benedict XVI (Balthasar, Congar, de Lubac, etc.), following in the train of Protestant thought, has left us unsure of our heritage as Christians. The theological archaizers have, quite unintentionally, revived the doctrinal uncertainty of the early Church.
The Body of Christ today, in many minds, seems to be as malleable as it is presumed to have been, perhaps falsely, in the first four centuries. The old, bedrock certainties of modern scholastic theology, which in fact continued the patristic tradition quite faithfully, were cast aside by the post-war, conciliar theologians and popes, and we have been left trying to rebuild the edifice of the Church.
The texts of the Second Vatican Council provide little help in this regard. They do not speak directly and strongly enough to a Church that has become comfortable and accepting of heresy. They oftentimes seem to betray a misreading of modern culture. The task in our day is less one of showing how Vatican II exists in a spirit of continuity with earlier councils than of turning to the earlier councils themselves. We need to be reminded, as a Church, of how the heroes of the faith upheld the truth of Christ in the days of the first councils: at much personal cost and in the face of ostracism, banishment, and even imprisonment and death from within the precincts of the Church itself.
Biffi’s voice, as a strong, clear, and critical assessor of post-conciliar trends, is a powerful voice for our age.
.jpg)
Thank you for your interesting blog. Cardinal Biffi must have holy inspiration.
Comment by Leonard Nelson — November 26, 2008 @ 9:28 PM
While Cardinal Biffi is spot-on, don’t forget that God’s law calls us to extend charity to all people, precisely because of the person of Christ. I get concerned when I hear people berate legal protection for homosexuals: while the Church has clear moral teaching about sexual behavior, She also teaches us that every human being has fundamental value and sanctity, regardless of orientation, and deserves protection (not necessarily protection of behavior). Please don’t forget that. I’m a devout Catholic and do my best to obey Church teaching on sexuality, and I’m also a homosexual. Be careful how you treat and talk about your brothers and sisters — we love God, too.
Comment by Luke — December 3, 2008 @ 2:19 AM
Interesting that you should have picked up on that one line from this piece.
The fact is, the Church cannot consecrate gay marriage, and even has the obligation to fight against it. It is a demonic violation of human anthropology. Furthermore, the Church has to fight against coercive measures to force her to employ those who openly flaunt the so-called “gay lifestyle.”
Of course, no one can deny that the Church hierarchy itself is teeming with those who flaunt such a lifestyle. This is why the Church’s teachings have so little public validity. But this is just another sign of the times, one among a countless multitude, and further proof that Nicaea is more relevant today than Vatican II.
Comment by hierothee — December 3, 2008 @ 4:17 AM
Luke,
I am not sure if there is a disagreement here or not. One of the problems that we face in our time is that same sex attraction disorder has been ontologized. In fact, a disorder has been made into a concrete aspect of personal identity and made into a minority identifying characteristic by those who would promote the so-called “gay lifestyle” in order to gain it victim status. The motivation is to gain more than just recognition as an alternative lifestyle, the demand it for preferential treatment. Thus, I would not call you “a homosexual” but my Catholic brother who happens to suffer from same sex attraction disorder.
You are certainly correct that no one may be unjustly treated. However, it is not unjust to refuse to recognize a disorder as an ontological characteristic. It is not unjust to refuse to materially cooperate in situations that promote evil. For example, no one can be coerced by law, for example, to rent a property to two people whom he understands will engage in sinful behavior on his property (heterosexual or homosexual). Neither can society be forced to treat disordered relationships as if they were the same as a naturally ordered family.
Hopefully we agree on these points but I thought I would add my two cents in order to clarify.
Comment by David — December 3, 2008 @ 8:17 AM
Hierothee,
There’s no disagreement on Church teaching here. Gay “marriage” isn’t marriage and we all know that. And of course we have to fight for freedom to say that and make choices based on a real understanding of Sacraments – no disagreement there. Don’t be worried that I picked out that line – I read your whole article and figured you might appreciate any feedback somebody had to offer.
David,
I think overall we agree. The reason I shy away from saying things like “same-sex attraction disorder” is people who use titles like that tend to see it as some sort of disease they can’t escape. Sure, the way we feel isn’t the way things were meant to be, but that doesn’t make me psychologically crippled. It just means that I have a different vocation now, one of singleness and, like all Christians, one of chastity. My orientation is not my primary identifier, either: I’m a Catholic more than anything, and that’s what I base my choices on.
As to legal coercion, I think if you’re worried about renting property, you’d have to extend that condition to heterosexual couples living in sin, too. Still, I see your point.
I didn’t intend to hijack this thread to talk about sexuality, so I suppose this will be my last comment — not to hide from disagreement, but just because this isn’t all germane to the topic. Peace!
Comment by Luke — December 3, 2008 @ 12:07 PM
Okay, I lied. THIS is my last comment:
I just wanted to point out that “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination”, which the USCCB put out a while ago, has a lot of helpful information what we were discussing.
Peace.
Comment by Luke — December 3, 2008 @ 12:13 PM
I’m more interested in how you’re distinguishing Biffi from the ressourcement theologians. How are the latter “archaizing” and Biffi not? Secondly, I’m not clear what you’re trying to say about the “old, bedrock certainties of modern scholastic theology.” The dogmatic consensus of Nicaea that Biffi advocates would certainly have serious problems with neoscholastic theology, wouldn’t it? In other words, I would think Biffi and la nouvelle theologie have more in common than not. And how is the “spirit of continuity” in opposition to a “turning to the earlier councils themselves?” IMO, the fragmentation of the post-V2 Church is in large part an extension of scholasticism’s flaws. Your antithesis between Biffi & the Balthasarians seem unnecessary.
Comment by L.T. — December 3, 2008 @ 12:44 PM
The fragmentation of the post-conciliar Church is, in large part, the result of the replacement of a standard theology in the Church with idiosyncratic speculative works by the likes of Balthasar and company. Reno’s article in First Things on this point, in reviewing Kerr’s book, was quite good and important.
The dogmatic consensus of Nicaea would not have problems with scholastic theology. That is one of the myths of la nouvelle theologie. What the consensus at Nicaea would have trouble with is historicism and relativism: both of which can be argued to flow from the anti-scientific, positivist, and literary approach to theology recommended by Balthasar and company. On all of these points (except the literary aspect), Balthasar was quite at home with Rahner.
In fact, Biffi, far from being in contrast to Balthasar, is himself a Balthasarian. Nevertheless, his strong comments indicate that there is something to the conciliar texts that make them ambiguous: it is not so easy, and can come off sounding like forced exegesis, to see Vatican II strictly in terms of a hermeneutic of continuity.
Biffi himself may or may not be cognizant of the dilemma the Balthasarians placed the Church in, in choosing the Renaissance over the Counter-Reformation. But his thinking is much more in the mode of Counter-Reformation scholasticism, for which Truth is unchanging, than with those who place an emphasis on philology and genealogy over philosophy and metaphysics as the proper handmaids of theology.
Comment by hierothee — December 3, 2008 @ 2:16 PM
To clarify – Arius was a presbyter in Alexandria, not a bishop.
Comment by Karl — December 15, 2008 @ 7:52 AM