-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arian Catholicism?
- Thread starter Philomath
- Start date
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
You could look up information on the Vatican II Ecumenical Council. This will show you how christianity went through various changes in structure and thought.
Two groups of theologians split christianty and became rivals of each other. They were the ‘orthodox’ group led by Athanasius, an archdeacon of the church in Alexandria, and the Arians, so called from Arius, a deacon in the same church.
Eventually the Hellenized or Grecianized part of the Roman Empire (east) was headquartered at Constiniople and they largely followed the Arian teaching that Christ the Son is subordinate to God the Father, and of different substance, because Christ was created by God and so came into being after God. The Latin west was based in Rome and was proponents of the trinity who held that Jesus was infact God himself. * I'll just add in that after a few centuries the trinitarians won out and now all of christendom do teach and believe in the trinity...except for a few christian denominations who still reject it as unbiblical.
Last edited:
I wouldn't say they "split Christianity." The Arians may have had quite a following for a while in the East and later among the Goths, but it was more of a dispute that was resolved and corrected than a schism which created a permanent rift within Christianity. As you know, there were no Arians from about the early-mid first millennium until relatively recently (probably the late 1900's when rebelling against Christianity by adopting ancient heresies became fashionable)
Not gonna debate here, but as a to-be Orthodox Christian under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, I can tell you that this is a grievously oversimplified and overgeneralized statement on the matter, especially when some of the most prolific advocates against Arianism came from Alexandria and Cappadocia. Constantinople did have its troubles with Arians, but there were also a great many Patriarchs who vehemently fought against it--and won. It's not nearly so simple as "Roman West=Trinitarian" and "Greek East=Arian." Both were and are Trinitarian; the West had just as much trouble with Arians as the East did. I could give a serious history lesson on Arianism, the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, the politics involved, the major players, how things progressed and everything else, but something tells me that not too many people would be interested. If anyone does want to know the story of what happened though, I'd be happy to oblige.
Anyway, it seems to me that Arian Catholicism is a recent invention. I certainly had never heard of it until recently. It also seems to be quite a small following, mostly consisting of a few online users, mostly in the UK.
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
christianity began with the view that Jesus was the 'son' of God... that arian view is what christianity originally taught as can be seen from the Apostles Creed and from the writings of the very earliest so-called 'church fathers'
Those councils that came later were arguing the new idea that Jesus was God himself. That was the entire point of the councils...it was to establish that 'new' doctrine.
i should have clarified that Constantinople eventually became the stronghold of Arian thought for a while... i know that its no longer such and now all quarters of christendom uphold the trinity doctrine. But it took a few hundred years before it got to that point.
it might surprise you to know that there was no formulated trinity doctrine known or mentioned among 1st/2nd century church historians. 2nd century Irenaeus spoke of Christ as being subordinate to God, not equal to him.—See Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 2, chapter 28, section 8.
Actually the original creed drawn up by the Nicean council did not give personality to the Holy Ghost. The holy Ghost was not even considered until Constantinople in 381*C.E.
Last edited:
What makes you think that the Apostles' Creed was Arian?
Since you prefer to go with your own take on history, I will leave you to your own views, since this is the DIR.
History and mainstream Christianity would disagree.
K, just checking.
The Trinity was not clarified yet because it was not necessary at the time to defend it, since there weren't yet any Arians or Semi-Arians or Sabellians. I could find you Fathers that state the divinity of the Son and the worship of the Son along with the Father and the Spirit, but then things would start to turn into a debate, which isn't allowed here.
Time for a crash course in interpreting the Patristic writings. Keep in mind what Irenaeus is trying to say. Historical context is a very key point to understanding what the Fathers are teaching. History lesson time! In Against Heresies, Irenaeus is primarily writing against the Gnostics; this is plain to anyone who reads chapter 28. By stressing the fact that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, Irenaeus is stressing that the Father is in fact the true God, and not the Demi-urge, or the evil/misguided and ignorant spirit that created the physical universe and thinks himself to be the only true God. By stressing the fact that Jesus is subordinate to the Father* and serving Him, Irenaeus is defending the Father as being the true God Who knows all, is worthy of worship, and is not just some ignorant being from Whom Jesus came to free us. Read chapter 28 again with the context in mind that Irenaeus is refuting Gnosticism, and you'll understand the chapter as it was meant to be understood.
*In relational terms, we Trinitarians would agree that Jesus is, in relational terms, subordinate to the Father; Jesus being subordinate to the Father does not mean that Jesus is any less God or any less powerful than His Father, but as the source/arche of the Trinity, the Father is in a sense greater, since He begets the Son, and the Son is begotten of the Father, as Irenaeus states repeatedly... I have more resources about the ancient, Traditional, Patristic Trinitarian understanding of the relationship of Jesus to the Father, if you're interested.
Because Nicaea wasn't concerned about the Personhood of the Holy Spirit; that wasn't the big issue at the hand. The big controversy at the time of Nicaea 1 was defending the Divinity of the Son. The Personhood of the Holy Spirit was later affirmed at Constantinople because it had become an issue at that point. The Church addresses issues as they come up, leaving things unclarified until such a time as they need to be clarified. For example, at Nicaea, we don't see the clarification of the Hypostatic Union, because there were no Nestorians or Monophysites to call the Hypostatic Union into question.
Last edited:
My apologies, Philomath, for temporarily hijacking your thread. 
Hope that helps! Peace and God bless!
Also, I'm presenting the main website of Arian Catholicism here.
Hope that helps! Peace and God bless!
Last edited:
Philomath
Sadhaka
My apologies, Philomath, for temporarily hijacking your thread.
It's cool
Thanks! I'll check out the link.
Philomath
Sadhaka
That's yours and I presume your churches opinion, but that's irrelevant to the point of this thread.
ZooGirl02
Well-Known Member
I apologize for posting something irrelevant but I just wanted to express my opinion.
Philomath
Sadhaka
It's no trouble at all, I just wanted some information about Arian Catholicism.
Shermana
Heretic
This is the Facebook of the Arian Catholic Theological Society
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Arian.Catholic/?fref=ts
My friend Michael John Mackenzie would definitely be able to answer your questions on it as well as the historic specifics. I definitely like their Theological positions, including their obedience to the Law, much better than most other Christian organizations, no matter how small they may be. I disagree with them on a lot of things but still.
Philomath
Sadhaka
Thank you.