Arian Catholicism: a modern revival of the heresy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hatikvah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hatikvah

Guest
This is a Catholic source explaining Arianism.

Apparently, while we know that there are particular groups (like the JWs) that persist in their Arian doctrine, there is a group today that claims themselves to be both Arian and “Catholic,” even going so far as to claim that they’re the One True Church.

This is their website, and this is an “introduction” on their website.

They define their ideology as such:
In this site you will find many references to “Arian Catholicism,” which is the ecumenical ideology and theology of the early Holy, Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Church, upholding the doctrine and teaching of Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) and his apostles through the early Church, which St Arius of Alexandria campaigned and was martyred trying to protect, teaching that Yeshua was a man to be followed not worshipped…
Click to expand...
I’ll note that Arius was not considered martyred, but actually died of a “copious hemorrhage” (the account is found here in the quote).

There is an odd page on “lore,” which explains many heretical or objectionable views that they adhere to. Too, they beatified Arius, they deny the virgin birth, they believe that we are under the Old Covenant (contradictory to the Council of Jerusalem, the very apex of the “early Church” they claim to represent), and so on.

And, this is an oh-so common doctrine found in heterodox groups like the JW’s and Mormons:
The Arian Catholic Church believes that a great Apostasy and **Heresy **occurred in the fourth century…
Click to expand...
What do you think of this? It’s obvious that there are some heterodox or heretical doctrines here. Discuss! 😃
 
I could be wrong, but I get the impression that this is one of those “churches” which consist of two or three bishops, their families, and precious few others. 😉
 
Hatikvah said:
This is a Catholic source explaining Arianism.

Apparently, while we know that there are particular groups (like the JWs) that persist in their Arian doctrine, there is a group today that claims themselves to be both Arian and “Catholic,” even going so far as to claim that they’re the One True Church.

This is their website, and this is an “introduction” on their website.

They define their ideology as such:

I’ll note that Arius was not considered martyred, but actually died of a “copious hemorrhage” (the account is found here in the quote).

There is an odd page on “lore,” which explains many heretical or objectionable views that they adhere to. Too, they beatified Arius, they deny the virgin birth, they believe that we are under the Old Covenant (contradictory to the Council of Jerusalem, the very apex of the “early Church” they claim to represent), and so on.

And, this is an oh-so common doctrine found in heterodox groups like the JW’s and Mormons:

What do you think of this? It’s obvious that there are some heterodox or heretical doctrines here. Discuss! 😃
Click to expand...
This is extremely different from what is generally known as modern Arianism which appears in what is known as the desired emerging or progressively modern (one size fits all) Catholic Church.

romancatholicman.com/stealth-arianism-the-pervasive-heresy-of-our-times/

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13999631&postcount=92
 
This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. There is no copyright on the word “Catholic”. Why don’t they simply call themselves Arians?
 
commenter said:
This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. There is no copyright on the word “Catholic”. Why don’t they simply call themselves Arians?
Click to expand...
Because they claim to be the “One True Church” and the continuation, even a direct one, of the “first Church” before the “Great Apostasy.” They believe that Arianism is the first Catholicism, and so they are the purest Catholics.
 
Its forums are barely moving. A number of notices and announcements are years out of date (2005-6, 2007, though one page was c. 2005-13). The layout is attractive, sort of like it is borrowed from w2.vatican.va. It’s pretty interesting. But for having been on-line for a decade, it lacks life.
 
Hatikvah said:
Because they claim to be the “One True Church” and the continuation, even a direct one, of the “first Church” before the “Great Apostasy.” They believe that Arianism is the first Catholicism, and so they are the purest Catholics.
Click to expand...
There are not different types of “Catholics” just “Catholics” whether they are Roman or Eastern. Believing in the divinity of Jesus is not a option. Don’t believe in The Trinity? Not a Christian, let alone a Catholic Christian.

Sometimes priests go Rogue and start their own churches and put the title “Catholic” on it. They are as fake as a million dollar bill.

Absolutely most, if not all heresies are not new but just revivals of old heresies.

So many people claim some kind of “great apostasy” but they have not evidence to support their claim. If “The Church” went apostate then Jesus’ promise was a lie and a new Church had to be created. Why should we believe that God choose to let The Church remain in darkness until over a century later when he would reveal to someone that they needed to restore His real Church? Or if Gods true Church always existed, just under the radar, how come there is no evidence for it? And every attempt to prove this theory has been found lacking? Even among other non Catholic Christians?

We have signs to show which Church is true. Those signs are that Gods Church would be “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic”
 
Hatikvah said:
I’ll note that Arius was not considered martyred, but actually died of a “copious hemorrhage” (the account is found here in the quote).
Click to expand...
Arius did die of a copious hemorrhage, and although the exact causes are not provable or entirely known, foul play is plausibly suspected. He may have been poisoned, it’s impossible to say for certain but I wouldn’t blame an Arian for thinking that he was. I actually think he was, although I’ll stop well short of saying I’m certain of it.

Really, though. A controversial figure shat out his intestines just before standing to defend his ideas. No one could possibly suggest that is the result of natural causes, or that it just happened randomly. It may have been God who struck him down, but I’m leaning in the direction of foul play.
 
badnewsbarrett said:
Arius did die of a copious hemorrhage, and although the exact causes are not provable or entirely known, foul play is plausibly suspected. He may have been poisoned, it’s impossible to say for certain but I wouldn’t blame an Arian for thinking that he was. I actually think he was, although I’ll stop well short of saying I’m certain of it.

Really, though. A controversial figure shat out his intestines just before standing to defend his ideas. No one could possibly suggest that is the result of natural causes, or that it just happened randomly. It may have been God who struck him down, but I’m leaning in the direction of foul play.
Click to expand...
Possibly so… but, this is part of the link in the account that I referred to. WARNING: A LITTLE GROTESQUE:
The emperor [Constantine] directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius, despite the bishop’s objections; Bishop Alexander responded by earnestly praying that Arius might perish before this could happen… “Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died.”
Click to expand...
Then the account finishes as so:
Many post-Nicene Christians asserted that Arius’s death was miraculous—a consequence of his heretical views. Several recent writers have speculated that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents.
Click to expand...
 
Heresy’s origin is always based on the fact that they are willing to sacrifice truth for free.
 
Hatikvah said:
Possibly so… but, this is part of the link in the account that I referred to. WARNING: A LITTLE GROTESQUE:

Then the account finishes as so:
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s exactly what I was talking about.

So it would seem that the opponents of Arius probably killed him, then went along with the story that God struck him down. Or maybe God really did strike him down- but I’m leaning the other way on this one.

It doesn’t mean the teachings of Arius were any less wrong, but that probably is what happened.
 
Heresy cannot be observed by non-local intelligence. It’s observability is a complete heresy.

A heresy cannot be confined by the Triune local love, rather its primordial essence cannot surpass the infinitely known love of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top