Apollinarism
Apollinarism or Apollinarianism was a view proposed by Apollinaris of Laodicea (d. 390) that Jesus had a human body and lower soul (the seat of the emotions) but a divine mind. It arose after the Trinity had been systematically formulated in 325, but debate about exactly what it meant continued.
Apollinaris taught that the souls of men were propagated by other human souls, as were their bodies, rather than being a direct creation of God. Appolinarism was denounced as a form of Monophysitism, which held that the Incarnation of God in Jesus overshadowed any merely human nature.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus charged Apollinaris with confusing the persons of the Godhead, and with giving into the heretical ways of Sabellius. Basil accused him of abandoning the literal sense of the scripture, and taking up wholly with the allegorical sense. His views were condemned in a synod under Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in 362.
As far as the larger church goes, Apollinarism was declared to be a heresy in 381 by the First Council of Constantinople, where Christ was officially depicted as both fully human and fully God.
The career of Appolinaris
Apollinarism was christological theory according to which Christ had a human body and a human soul, but thought only the thoughts of God. Apollinaris (Apolinarios), bishop of the ancient and prestigious church at Laodicea, flourished in the latter half of the fourth century and was at first highly esteemed by men such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, and Jerome, due to his classical and biblical learning, his defense of Christianity against paganism during the reign of Julian the Apostate, and his loyalty to the Nicene faith. He assisted his father, Apollinaris the Elder, in popularizing Christian ideas through Greek literary genres. Together they translated the Pentateuch into Greek hexameters, converted the first two books of Kings into an epic poem of 24 cantos, and expressed biblical stories through comedic and tragic dramas. Saint Jerome credits him with many volumes on the scriptures, including two apologies on behalf of Christianity and a refutation of the Arian teacher Eunomius.
The precise time at which Apollinaris began to promulgate the theory which bears his name is uncertain. However, there are apparently two periods in the Apollinarist controversy. Up to 376, Apollinaris' name was never mentioned by his later opponents, including Athanasius and Pope Damasus. Nor is he criticized in church councils such as that of Alexandria (362), and Rome (376). However, from 376 onward open open and bitter theological warfare broke out between him and his critics.
Two late Roman councils, in 377 and 381 plainly denounce and condemn the views of Apollinaris as heretical, as do several of the Church Fathers during the same period. More importantly his views solemnly anathematized at the general Council of Constantinople in 381. Indeed, the first act of this ecumenical synod entered Apollinarianism on the list of heresies. Still convinced that he was not in error, he died about 392.
The movement of Apollinarism
Apollinarism had considerable in Constantinople, Syria, and Phoenicia. However, after his death, the movement dissipated. Some of his disciples, such as Vitalis, Valentinus, Polemon, and Timothy, tried to perpetuate the teachings of the master and may be responsible for a number of pseudonymous writings to that end.
The sect itself soon became extinct. Towards 416, many returned to the mother-Church, while the rest drifted away into Monophysitism. Theory
Apollinaris based his theory on two principles or suppositions, one ontological or objective, and one psychological or subjective. Ontologically, it appeared to him that the union of complete God with complete man could not be more than a juxtaposition or collocation. Two perfect beings with all their attributes, he argued, cannot be one. They are at most an incongruous compound, not unlike the monsters of mythology. Inasmuch as the Nicene faith forbade him to belittle the Logos, as Arius had done, he forthwith proceeded to maim the humanity of Christ, and divest it of its noblest attribute, and this, he claimed, for the sake of true Unity and veritable Incarnation. Psychologically, Apollinaris, considering the rational soul or spirit as essentially liable to sin and capable, at its best, of only precarious efforts, saw no way of saving Christ's impeccability and the infinite value of Redemption, except by the elimination of the human spirit from Jesus' humanity, and the substitution of the Divine Logos in its stead. For the constructive part of his theory, Apollinaris appealed to the well-known Platonic division of human nature: body (sarx, soma), soul (psyche halogos), spirit (nous, pneuma, psyche logike). Christ, he said, assumed the human body and the human soul or principle of animal life, but not the human spirit. The Logos Himself is, or takes the place of, the human spirit, thus becoming the rational and spiritual centre, the seat of self-consciousness and self-determination. By this simple device the Laodicean thought that Christ was safe, His substantial unity secure, His moral immutability guaranteed, and the infinite value of Redemption made self-evident. And in confirmation of it all, he quoted from St. John i, 14 "and the Word was made flesh"; St. Paul, Phil., ii, 7, Being made in the likeness of men and in habit found as a man, and I Cor., xv, 47 The second man, from heaven, heavenly. Doctrine of the Church
It is to be found in the seventh anathema of Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome, 381. "We pronounce anathema against them who say that the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human rational and intellective soul. For, the Word of God is the Son Himself. Neither did He come in the flesh to replace, but rather to assume and preserve from sin and save the rational and intellective soul of man." In answer to Apollinaris's basic principles, the Fathers simply denied the second as Manichaean. As to the first, it should be remembered that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon had not yet formulated the doctrine of Hypostatical Union. It will then appear why the Fathers contented themselves with offering arguments in rebuttal, e.g.:
* Scripture holds that the Logos assumed all that is human — therefore the pneuma also — sin alone excepted; that Jesus experienced joy and sadness, both being properties of the rational soul. * Christ without a rational soul is not a man; such an incongruous compound, as that imagined by Apollinaris, can neither be called God-man nor stand as the model of Christian life. * What Christ has not assumed He has not healed; thus the noblest portion of man is excluded from Redemption.
They also pointed out the correct meaning of the Scriptural passages alleged by Apollinaris, remarking that the word sarx in St. John, as in other parts of Holy Writ, was used by synecdoche for the whole human nature, and that the true meaning of St. Paul (Philippians and I Corinthians) was determined by the clear teaching of the Pastoral Epistles. Some of them, however, incautiously insisted upon the limitations of Jesus' knowledge as proof positive that His mind was truly human. But when the heresiarch would have taken them farther afield into the very mystery of the Unity of Christ, they feared not to acknowledge their ignorance and gently derided Apollinaris's mathematical spirit and implicit reliance upon mere speculation and human reasoning. The Apollinarist controversy, which nowadays appears somewhat childish, had its importance in the history of Christian dogma; it transferred the discussion from the Trinity into the Christological field; moreover, it opened that long line of Christological debates which resulted in the Chalcedonian symbol.
ReferencesISBN links support NWE through referral fees
- This article incorporates content from the 1728 Cyclopaedia, a publication in the public domain. [1] Retrieved September 24, 2007.
- Apollinarism – Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 24, 2007.
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
