Is the Arian Crisis Happening Again?
In order to avoid confusion unseen in the Church since the Arian Crisis, Bishop Schneider says changes must be made in Amoris Laetitia.
In his official response to Amoris Laetitia, Bishop Schneider makes a parallel between the confusion caused by the Arian crisis in the 4th century and the abuse of the admission of divorced and remarried couples to Holy Communion today.
For some time already, we have seen, in some places and environments of the life of the Church, the tacit abuse of the admission of divorced and remarried couples to Holy Communion without requiring them to live in perfect continence. The unclear statements in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia have given a new dynamism to the declared advocates of the admission of divorced and remarried couples to Holy Communion in special cases.
We now observe the phenomenon of the abuse beginning to spread even more in practice, since those in favour of it are now feeling justified to some extent. There is also obviously some confusion with respect to the interpretation of the relevant assertions in Chapter 8 of the Amoris Laetitia. This confusion is increased by the fact that everyone, both supporters of the admission of the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion and their opponents, are saying that "The doctrine of the Church concerning this issue has not changed ".
Taking due account of historical and doctrinal differences, our situation shows some parallels and analogies with the general confusion caused by the Arian crisis in the 4th century. At that time, the apostolic and traditional faith in the true divinity of the Son of God was secured by means of the term "consubstantial" (homoousios), dogmatically proclaimed by the universal Magisterium of the Council of Nicaea I. The profound crisis of faith, accompanied by an almost universal confusion, was caused mainly by the refusal or avoidance strategies to use and profess the word "consubstantial" (homoousios). Instead, the clergy and mainly the episcopate began to propose alternative expressions that were ambiguous and imprecise, such as, for instance, "similar in substance" (homoiousios) or simply “similar” (homoios). The formula homoousios adopted by the universal Magisterium of that time expressed the full and true divinity of the WORD with so much precision that it left no space for equivocal interpretation.
In the years 357-360, almost the entire episcopate had become Arian or Semi-Arian as a result of the following events: in 357, Pope Liberius signed one of the ambiguous formulations of Sirmium, in which the term homoousios was eliminated. Furthermore, the pope, in a scandalous move, excommunicated St. Athanasius. St. Hilary of Poitiers was the only bishop who dared to rebuke Pope Liberius severely for these ambiguous acts. In 359, the parallel synods of the Western episcopate in Rimini and that of the Eastern episcopate in Seuleukia had accepted fully Arian formulas that were even worse than the ambiguous formula signed by Pope Liberius. Describing the confusion of those times, St. Jerome said: "Everyone was surprised to realize that they had become Arians" (Ingemuit totus orbis, et arianum se esse miratus est: Adv Lucif, 19).
Arguably, in our time, confusion is already spreading with regard to the sacramental discipline for divorced and remarried couples. There is therefore a very real basis for the assumption that the confusion may reach truly vast proportions, if one fails to propose and proclaim the following formula of the universal and infallible Magisterium:
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples"
(S. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, 84).
This formula is unfortunately and incomprehensibly missing in Amoris Laetitia. However, the apostolic exhortation inexplicably contains the following statement:
In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living 'as brothers and sisters' which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers"
(Amoris Laetitia, 298, n. 329).
Such a statement leaves the impression of a contradiction with regard to the perennial teaching of the universal Magisterium, as formulated in the cited passage from Familiaris Consortio 84.
There is an urgent necessity for the Holy See to confirm and re-proclaim the cited formula of Familiaris Consortio 84, perhaps in the form of an authentic interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. This formula may be seen, to some extent, the homoousios of our days. The lack of such a formal and explicit confirmation of the formula of Familiaris Consortio 84 from the Apostolic See could contribute to major confusion with regard to sacramental discipline, with the subsequent gradual and inevitable repercussions on doctrinal questions. This would lead to a situation to which it would be possible, in the future, to apply the following statement: "Everyone was surprised to find that divorce had been accepted in practice" ("Ingemuit totus orbis, et divortium in praxi se accepisse miratus est").
