Historical Obscurity: Arianism

All right, more obscure history.

As all know, Arianism was a heresy that was accepted as
orthodoxy for about 40 years (starting at about 325AD).

Why was the Arianist position subsequently declared a
heresy?

Hint: It wasn't due to the intercession of God

[Guv]

A bit of research indicated to me that Arius started his doctrine in 319 AD, and the council of Nicaea outlawed it in 325, making it heresy before it really got started.

While some Catholic clergy argued in favor of it after 325, the Council of Nicaea formulated the first Catholic dogma. Prior to 325, I thought that there was no official Christian theology, so technically nothing could be heresy prior to 325 AD. I always assumed that anything contrary to the Creed established in 325 (and later official modifications) would technically be heresy as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.

By the way, Arius denied the divinity of Christ, and suggested that the concept of the trinity was polytheism. That certainly seems like heresy to me.

Being an atheist, I might not really understand Catholic theology, but it seems to me that belief in the divinity of Christ is central to their faith. I thought it was also central to the faith of most Christians. The Quakers, Jehovah Witnesses, and a few other small Protestant sects do not require this belief, but I thought most others did.

As a side issue, are Protestant beliefs considered heresy by the Catholic Church? It is my understanding that the Catholic position is that believers in Judaism, Islam, Taoism, et cetera are classified as heathens, not heretics. Heretics (I thought) were Catholics who believed or promoted dogma contrary to the official position, not believers in a different religion. It seems to me that Protestants are closer to heretics than heathens. Is there a third category applicable to those who do not adhere to the official Catholic dogma? Perhaps there are heretics (Catholics with contrary beliefs), misguided Christians (Protestants), and heathens (non Christians).

Does anybody know about the Catholic position on Protestant beliefs?

[HarryW]

How could a religion be Christian if it didn't believe in Christ? It doesn't sit well in my head.

[Guv]

HarryW, declaring that Christ is divine (as do many Christian religions) is a very special claim. It is above and beyond claims that he can speak for god, that he knows god's plans, that he can do miracles in god's name, that he can intercede for a person when judgment time comes, that he was born of a virgin, that he was raised from the dead (Lazarus was raised, but not divine), et cetera. If you accept all of these claims, you seem like a Christian to me without accepting him as god.

I know that the Quakers are considered Christians, but do not necessarily believe that Christ was more than a prophet. Some Quakers might believe that he is divine, but it is not a required belief. Actually, Quakers are behavior oriented in their beliefs and have few (if any) dogma. I thought that the Jehovah's Witnesses and a few others were considered Christian, but do not believe that Christ is divine.

From what I remember of the bible, I do not think that Christ considered himself divine. I do not remember him claiming divinity or equivalence with god. He quoted a lot of scriptures, and sometimes spoke as though he had special knowledge of god. He often referred to god in the third person, suggesting that he did not consider himself to be god. I always got the impression that he was trying to reform Judaism, not replace it with another religion. Paul and those who came after his ministry seemed to be the ones selling a new religion.

I do not remember anything in the bible explicitly stating that Christ was god or divine.

I remember mention of Christ sitting on the right hand of god (in Revelations, I think), which suggests that the bible itself does not support claims of his being equal to god.

By the way, does anybody know the official Catholic position on what a heretic is, what a heathen is, what a Protestant is?

[paulw]

One of the main differenec between Catholic and Protestant positions is the position of the Bible vis-a-vis revealed truth.

The Catholic Church relies on a 'deposit of faith' - implying that knowledge of God is a continual process of refinement. The exact nature of the resurrection and the divinity of Christ are matters for Theological debate. Whether Christ is divine is a major question but one that has been accpted by mainstream Christian churches for centuries. Biblical texts are also open to interpretation which is why it is impossible to 'prove' anything using biblical texts alone. There is not even agreement on which texts are canonical, let alone what they mean!

Anyway, who says Arius is obscure? What about Pelagius, Nestor, the Donatists, the Bulgars etc. etc.

Cheers,

P.

http://www.catholicism.org/pages/arianism.htm

“But knowing that he would need support at the Council for
this controversial position, the clever Arius sought out
the notoriously ambitious Eusebius, the Bishop of
Nicomedia, who not only agreed to help Arius, but also
delighted in spearheading the Arian cause in Council
debates. Eusebius eventually became the real leader of the
Arian party, as well as the counselor of Constantine, into
whose confidence he had skillfully insinuated himself
through his friendship with Constantine's sister,
Constantia. Because of Eusebius' influence upon Constantine
- who looked upon Arianism as an 'idle war of words' - the
heresy became so well established in the see of
Constantinople that for fifty years, from the death of
Constantine until the reign of Theodosius the Great, every
bishop of Constantinople was Arian. “
…

“Unfortunately, Constantine, who started out by upholding
the Creed of the Council and the cause of orthodoxy, was
eventually prevailed upon, probably by his sister
Constantina, to favor the Eusebian party. Thus, he not only
recalled the heretics from the banishment he had put upon
them after the great Council, but then, amazingly, sent
into exile Saint Athanasius, the one man best equipped by
nature and grace to see through the doctrinal pretexts and
sham holiness of the heretics, and to bring back the true
Faith to the people! So the Arian heresy, instead of
diminishing, went on gathering in fury until Saint Jerome,
writing thirty-four years after the Council, was forced to
cry out, "The whole world groaned, and marveled at finding
itself Arian!" “

http://www.cin.org/rite9.html
“Many individuals, including a large portion, perhaps even
a majority, of the existing bishops in the Church of the
day, were lost to Arianism, though at no time was any whole
nation cut off from the Church because of Arianism.
Arianism penetrated the entire western world as well
through the invasions of the various Gothic tribes, the
Goths, the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Ohmygoths....”

The Council of Nicaea DID condemn the Arian Position as
herectical....that doesn't mean it died and went away the
next day. At least 3 Emperors of the West (including
Constantine) supported the Arian position. To me that
spells acceptance by the powers that be...if not the church
powers.