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

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.

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

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.

1 Corinth 13: Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; 5 Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;

*I have given an explanation in defense of Pope John Paul II. My defense/explanation is his actions represent a gesture of Eastern gratitude/thankfulness. My defense/explanation is obviously not outside the realm of possibility. We are putative Christians. Ought we not give Pope John Paul II the benefit of the doubt?

The other thing, I guess, is we Christians can conclude the kiss indicates his entire life was a fraud and he really did think there was no difference twizt Jesus and Mohammed nor was there a difference twixt Bible and Koran.

You know, in Acts 17:28, we read

For in him we live and move and are: as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring.

The poets/poems referenced are Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus and the Phaenomena of Aratus. Cleanthes and Aratus were pagans.

Maybe we should dig-up St. Paul and put him on trial for writing words susceptible to misjudgement.

All poor Pope John Paul did was to kiss a gift. Sure, the gift was a Koran. But the Koran DOES contain some truths.

We Christians long ago did somthing MUCH WORSE than what Pope John Paul II did. And I have never heard a SINGLE Christian object, even though they, presumably, have read Acts repeatedly.

St. Paul praised truth apprehended by pagans. And we Christian Catholics decided that would be part of the Canon of Scripture.

Yep. We Christians praise pagans. Burn your Bibles !!!!

Maybe we Christians can't be trusted at all. Maybe such lines ought be stricken from the Bible. After all, such lines are susceptible to misjudements on the part of others.

I think JPII was well-meaning but totally clueless on the "ecumenical" front

*Yes, true. But, you have to cut him some slack. After all, he only had a Doctorate in Theology and a Doctorate in Philosophy and more than two score years of Orthodox Christian Orthopraxis as Priest, Bishop, and Pope, and wrote a succesful play, and several books, and developed a Theology of the Body, and taught millions around the world, and brought Jesus to hundreds of millions around the world,and was the soucre of innumerable conversions, and was the catalyst in deconstructing the evil empire and the source of countless vocations and was one of the greatest evangelical Popes in history and is acclaimed as Johannes Paulus Magnus, but really, the poor man was absolutely clueless, wasn't he?

Whereas you are...um, I forget...

> Anyways, I think this new age in Chrtstianity is absolutely wonderful and exciting. I remember back in the bad old days prior to 1960 when a Christian would not think of publicly attacking either his own Father or the Holy Father. Thank God we Christians are grown-up and we can judge and publicly denounce the Vicar of Christ as though he were just any old dufus. I think we have really come of age....

Well, you really are wound up about this.
I think that your hyperbole is overwrought.
I said that JPII should not have kissed the Koran.
Period. It does no good to speculate on his motives. Most of your post is just silly, you know perfectly well that I would never say any of the frankly stupid things that you did.
I understand about Paul, and Mars Hill and the Christian belief that pagans can know truth. I would direct your attention to the scripture verse found in 2 Corinthians that says that we are to take every thought captive to Christ. I cannot see how embracing the object that contains the teachings of a false prophet can do any good. The reality is that it just confused people, Christians, Muslims and just about everyone else. It did nothing to advance that cause of Jesus as we can see that Islam has become more virulent, and is metastasizing, and the actions of the last pontiff certainly did not buy Christendom any good will!

Well, you really are wound up about this.

*Whenever I see a dead man unfairly attacked, I think it a charitable act of chivalry to mount a defense

I think that your hyperbole is overwrought.

*Yes. I can read that you do.

I said that JPII should not have kissed the Koran. Period.

*LOL well that setles it then

It does no good to speculate on his motives.

*Sure it does. Folks seldom read a defense of his actions. Even when some do, like yourself, it makes no impression upon them.

Most of your post is just silly, you know perfectly well that I would never say any of the frankly stupid things that you did. I understand about Paul, and Mars Hill and the Christian belief that pagans can know truth. I would direct your attention to the scripture verse found in 2 Corinthians that says that we are to take every thought captive to Christ. I cannot see how embracing the object that contains the teachings of a false prophet can do any good.

*He kissed the gift.

The reality is that it just confused people, Christians, Muslims and just about everyone else.

*Many of Jesus' actions confused folks. Their reactions revealed the truth in their hearts.Your attacks on his defensible actions could call into question your motives. This is not a one-way street

It did nothing to advance that cause of Jesus as we can see that Islam has become more virulent, and is metastasizing, and the actions of the last pontiff certainly did not buy Christendom any good will!

*Really? Sadly, you are woefully ignorant about that. The Vatican and Islam have cooperated repeatedly in the United Nations on the matter of Life/anti-abortion. There are other examples. However, you appear to be unwilling to admit YOU might have erred in misjudging the Pope

When I sit here and read these post about Pope John Paul 2 I too wonder why he kissed the Koran. I remember thinking how so many Catholics are confused as to what their faith even is anymore. Since Vatican 2 many things have been done in the spirit of Vatican 2 but were never intended. All of that and the sexual abuse that when on has done so much damage to the church.In other words the Holy Father kissing the Koran only confused people all the more. I have a rosary that was blessed by Pope John Paul 2 and cherish it. But I believe in the love of my faith to question why he did some things that appeared to be confusing to the faithful.We need strong and steadfast leadership now more than ever and I am thankful for Pope Benedict. Right now we have too many priests and Bishops that bringing evil into the church and we all know who they are. We need the light of truth to expel the darkness that these people bring into the church. There are so many Catholic who fall prey to these liberal priests and Bishops and need to go.

Well put. Thanks for saying this.

The Pope kissed the gift of the Koran as a sign of gratitude. In Eastern Cultures, that is the norm. When in Rome do as the Romans also, conversely, applies when the Roman Pontiff travels outside of Rome

Since Vatican 2 many things have been done in the spirit of Vatican 2 but were never intended. All of that and the sexual abuse that when on has done so much damage to the church.

*Homosexual abuse was even more rampant in the early 11th Century. What Ecumenical Council and which Pope was to blame when priests then living were acting perversely?

In other words the Holy Father kissing the Koran only confused people all the more.

*His action was the occasion for many to reveal what was already in their hearts - the weakness of their Faith - and it showed the whole world the timidity and fear of the Church Militant. All the laity anxious to condemn the Pope for what is clearly an innocent act are never called to account for their own moral failings in not defending their Holy Father.

I have a rosary that was blessed by Pope John Paul 2 and cherish it. But I believe in the love of my faith to question why he did some things that appeared to be confusing to the faithful.We need strong and steadfast leadership now more than ever and I am thankful for Pope Benedict.

* I think Pope John Paul's leadership is right near the top of any Pope who has or ever will live. It is not his fault he was elected to the Papacy during a time when Christian men had become kittens.

Right now we have too many priests and Bishops that bringing evil into the church and we all know who they are. We need the light of truth to expel the darkness that these people bring into the church. There are so many Catholic who fall prey to these liberal priests and Bishops and need to go.

* The Earth is a place of spiritual battle and often that batle is right in the heart of the Church. There has never been a time when the church has not had kooks, perverts, sickos, weirdoes etc amongst her members. However, laymen vastly outnumber clerics, prelates and Popes. That they do not act like men is the reason our Church is in such poor shape. However, it is always easier to blame others.

In responding to the London Times editorial asking, "What is wrong with the world," G.K. Chesterton wrote in the shortest and most apt response, "I am."

In our time of confusion, if the "London Times" still existed and asked the question, "What is wrong with the Catholic Church?" I have no doubt many would write and list the Living Magisterium as the source of evil in the Church.

And some folks say Satan ain't winning.... He sure as Hell IS winning when the Church Militant can be suckered into publicly attacking the Vicar of Christ.

Bainbridge, I get your point and I appreciate it.

I felt a sinking in my stomach when I saw that picture of good John Paul kissing the Koran. If it had been me, I wouldn't have done it; and if I'd been there, I swear I would have yelled, "Stop! Don't do it!"

Nevertheless, this was a guy who kissed every gift he was ever given: guitars, sombreros, soccer team jerseys, CD's, flags, calendars and medals. He kissed the ground when he got off an airplane; he kissed the man he forgave--- the man who tried to murder him.

For him it meant courtesy, and acknowledgement to fellow men as gift-givers, and to God who is all-bounteous.

John Paul the Great he was not an infallible diplomat. But, goshdarn it, as a man, Karol Wojtyla was a mensch.

And some folks say Satan ain't winning.... He sure as Hell IS winning when the Church Militant can be suckered into publicly attacking the Vicar of Christ.

You could say he's winning when the Church Militant doesn't have the guts to denounce him kissing the Quaran. You don't have to defend the personal actions of the Pope or come into agreement with them. Popes can commit sins you know and they also go to Confession.

Infallibility does not mean impeccability. The pope can commit sins during his life just like any human being walking on earth. He is obliged to go to confession and repent of his sins as we all are required to do. Infallibility simply means that God, the Holy Spirit, prevents the pope, when he is speaking officially (ex cathedra) about faith or morals, from making a mistake. Jesus promised that "the jaws of death" would not prevail against the Catholic Church (Matthew 28:20) , and that the Holy Spirit would always guide and protect the Church (John 16:12). Papal infallibility is part of the gift of infallibility that Christ gave to His Church. It should not be confused with papal primacy nor with inspiration or revelation.

Dioese of Lincoln Nebraska

Johannes Paulus Magnus went to Confession, as I understand it, twice a week. As his kiss of the gift of the Koran was an act of gratitude it could count as a sin only in the minds of modern pharisees. And Johanes Paulus Magnus was as far from a Pharisee as could be imagined. His public accusers and detractors however...

And publicly judging innocent actions as sinful used to be matter for Confession.

Well, it used to be in Traditional Catholicism but Traditional Catholicsm now appears to have been distilled into its modern essence - bitter attacks and accusations against he who holds the Keys.

Pope Benedict has already come under attack by the Neo-Pharisees whose "traditionalism" is as vapid and hateful as the Pharisees of old.

How can one tell the difference between the public attacks against the Pope made by a So. Baptist and public attacks against the Pope made by a soi disant traditionalist?

The one wearing the scapular is the traditonalist

As John Henry Cardinal Newman said:

"Our duty is -- not indeed to mix up Christ's Vicar with this or that party of men, because he in his high station is above all parties -- but to look at his formal deeds, and to follow him whither he goeth, and never to desert him, however we may be tried, but to defend him at all hazards, and against all comers, as a son would a father, and as a wife a husband, knowing that his cause is the cause of God. And so, as regards his successors, if we live to see them; it is our duty to give them in like manner our dutiful allegiance and our unfeigned service, and to follow them also whithersoever they go, having that same confidence that each in his turn and in his own day will do God's work and will, which we have felt in their predecessors, now taken away to their eternal reward."

*Well, that used to be Tradition. But, we modern Christians have completed our studies in another school. We have completed our studies in the school of politics and we treat Popes no differently than political dopes.

The worst thing about it is so many are so proud they have denounced the Pope publicly

Canon Law 212 §3 [Christ's faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.

*The Pope is a dope permissible? To many, yes.

I guess it isn't enough for some to remain silent. Nope, one must, I guess, publicly deride and denounce the Vicar of Christ or, maybe, one's reputation will come under question. Maybe, if one doesn't attack the Pope when all others are, maybe one will be suspected of approving of the Pope's actions.

Imaging approving of his actions. Imagine always reflexively obeying the Pope and restraining one's self from publicly attacking and criticising him?

Nah. That is the old Tradition and the sspx defines what is and isn't the new Tradition and they, who publicly attack and deride the Mass, the Council and the modern Popes have taught us this new Tradition.

But, how does this new Tradition differ from the the old protestant Tradition of publicly criticising and attacking the Pope? How does this new tradition differ from the old Pharisaical tradition of publicly attacking and falsely accusing Jesus?

But, doesn't the Traditional idea of obedience/support for the Pope depend upon the rightness of his actions and weren't we laymen promised special guidance from the Holy Spirt to correctly judge the Pope's intent?

I mean, isn't it obvious the Pope was scandalising the faithful at Assisi, in kissing the koran, in apologising to the Jews, in visiting a synagogue etc etc

If it wasn't in the mind of Christ to establish His Church upon the Papacy and to have the Pope's actions subject to judgement and criticism by laymen, then I must be reading my Bible wrong

Let's read an opinion about the Pope kissing the Korna from the Chaldean Patriarch of Irag and see whether or not laymen could possibly err re the matter

The Chaldean Patriarch of Iraq, Raphael I Bidawid is the spiritual guide of the majority of Iraq's Christians -- who still celebrate their liturgy in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus. Of the 20 million Iraqi citizens, some one million are Christians. Of these, 80% are Catholics belonging to either the Chaldean or Latin Rites. This was reported by Raphael I Bidawid, Patriarch of the Chaldeans in an interview with the FIDES News Service, as follows:

“On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shiite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni President of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. I renewed our invitation to the Pope because his visit would be for us a grace from heaven. It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope’s love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim. At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book the Koran presented to him by the delegation and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam.”

* I wonder if that information will change any hearts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.