Arian Style

[DianaCC]

From the 300s until the 700s there were a lot of Arians in Europe especially among the Germanic barbarians who took over after the Roman Empire began to fall apart. Apart from their theological positions, I can’t seem to find much else about their religion. Evidently they had the same Bible, but did they have Sunday services at all similar in style to those of the Catholics and Orthodox? What were their prayers like, their spirituality, and so on? Where can I find more about this?

 

[Publisher]

As I understand for the most part…“orthodox” and Arians worshipped together along side one another in many congregations…some congregations were primarily Arian…while others primarily “orthodox”…ALL Christians at one time worshipped together…Gnostics along side “orthodox”…along side Arians…I don’t believe you’d have noticed too much difference in praxis between “orthodox” and Arian.

 

[thecone137]

Here’s some information on the history of Arianism. I think the view was more dependant on which kind of bishop headed your region, but prayer life etc was not different than orthodox.

newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

 

[Hesychios]

Here’s some information on the history of Arianism. I think the view was more dependant on which kind of bishop headed your region, but prayer life etc was not different than orthodox.

Since the Goths originally were converted along the Danube border of the east Roman empire, their liturgy probably resembled the very early Byzantine liturgy, but this was extremely early and the Byzantine liturgy that would later be common to Orthodox and Catholics alike had a lot of developing ahead of it.

The Goths were on the move quite a bit, and one would suppose their vestments and liturgical practices evolved. For a significant period the bishops could not be not territorial, since they would have ministered to a shifting and migrating population. From the Goths this form of Arianism spread to other nations of northern and central Europe, like the Burgundians and Lombards.

The Germanic tribes/nations contributed career soldiery to the Roman empire, so Arians were sometimes in positions of influence, and Arian soldiers often had police duties in the big cities like Rome and Milan.

Once the Arians had settled down and assumed positive legal and military control in Spain and Gaul (Goths and Burgundians) and Italy too (notably with the Lombards) there should have been some evolution in their practices, their rituals and vestments but not much is known. The letters of Saint Ambrose of Milan mention the trials and tribulations of the time, as in his era the Arians were numerous in the native population in Italy and making legal claims to some of the local church buildings, including the cathedral. Among those people (who were not actually Germanic immigrants) no one can say what their liturgy was like.

 

[DianaCC]

Okay, so they were never a separately organized denomination, just a theological party within the Catholic Church, as far as we know? It would be fascinating if they had survived. I wonder how their doctrine would have developed, what their liturgies and church architecture would have been like, how the Reformation and Modernism would have influenced them.

 

[Publisher]

Okay, so they were never a separately organized denomination, just a theological party within the Catholic Church, as far as we know? It would be fascinating if they had survived. I wonder how their doctrine would have developed, what their liturgies and church architecture would have been like, how the Reformation and Modernism would have influenced them.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses name Arius as one of their “forefathers” in some of their publications…it’s been decades since I’ve read any of their literature…but Arius was named…JW’s are “modern Arians” so to speak.

 

[Hesychios]

Okay, so they were never a separately organized denomination, just a theological party within the Catholic Church, as far as we know?

They were universally excommunicated, so no, they did not constitute a party within the church. They did challenge the Orthodox/Catholic church for legal recognition before the courts, and did sometimes find sympathy there. One example being an emperor ordering Saint Ambrose to turn over his cathedral to them.

Because their Christology was so different, they were not Trinitarians. They were far more different at the level of core beliefs than mainline Protestants are from Roman catholics or Orthodox. The external similarities were superficial.

It would be fascinating if they had survived. I wonder how their doctrine would have developed, what their liturgies and church architecture would have been like, how the Reformation and Modernism would have influenced them.

I can’t guess, but I am pretty sure that as each Germanic kingdom (rather, the king and the leading families) abandoned Arianism, the clergy were allowed to become Catholic priests, provided they met some conditions (which I can’t recall right now).

Arius started out in life as a deacon and priest in Egypt, and the liturgy in his time already “prayed to Christ as if to God”, and the church of those days had an incarnational theology which involved the use of sacraments.

It seems to me that the Arians did not abandon the sacraments, and they had bishops priests and deacons. It is difficult to maintain a position that the sacraments are God ordained if Christ Himself is not divine. My thought is that in many cases one either becomes convinced of Jesus’ divinity or one jettisons the sacraments. They were trying to hold a middle ground.

One possibility is that if they had survived, there would not have been a Protestant reformation. I think there were perhaps 700 years between the demise of the last Arian church and the rise of the protestant reformers, the catholic church developed a lot in the interim.

 

[GaryTaylor]

From the 300s until the 700s there were a lot of Arians in Europe especially among the Germanic barbarians who took over after the Roman Empire began to fall apart. Apart from their theological positions, I can’t seem to find much else about their religion. Evidently they had the same Bible, but did they have Sunday services at all similar in style to those of the Catholics and Orthodox? What were their prayers like, their spirituality, and so on? Where can I find more about this?

This has been discussed much here. I’m not sure what would come up with the seach engine. But the schism between the Catholic/Orthodox church would be the place to start. Then with the individuals who come up in the process. The Orthodox Church under Arian influence partially created the issues between the Catholic/Orthodox Churchs.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Warrenton]

Okay, so they were never a separately organized denomination, just a theological party within the Catholic Church, as far as we know? It would be fascinating if they had survived. I wonder how their doctrine would have developed, what their liturgies and church architecture would have been like, how the Reformation and Modernism would have influenced them.

The Arians did survive, or at least their theology did. The theology was influenced by trends, primarilly political ones, during the 6th century. They are today’s Muslims.

 

[Hesychios]

The Arians did survive, or at least their theology did. The theology was influenced by trends, primarilly political ones, during the 6th century. They are today’s Muslims.

I disagree.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This has been discussed much here. I’m not sure what would come up with the seach engine. But the schism between the Catholic/Orthodox church would be the place to start. Then with the individuals who come up in the process. The Orthodox Church under Arian influence partially created the issues between the Catholic/Orthodox Churchs.

God Bless, Gary

How did Arian influence create those issues?

Alex

 

[Hail_Linus]

How did Arian influence create those issues?

Alex

In my opinion the east was probably a little annoyed that the west had meddled into their affairs. The Pope called the Council of Nicea and then the Pope put Bishop Hosius of Spain in charge. Obviously the heretics in Nicomedia were annoyed. Additionally, even though they were not heretics, the Alexandrians ( who had exiled Arius) were also annoyed. At the Council Bishop Alexander of Alexandria presented the creed that had been passed down to him. The Council decided to take his Creed, modify it to prevent future heretical misinterpretations of Church dogma, and make it the Universal Creed. Alexander was really upset that the text was altered but did accept the changes in obedience to the Council’s decision.

 

[Hesychios]

…The Pope called the Council of Nicea

Wrong.

…and then the Pope put Bishop Hosius of Spain in charge.

Wrong again.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses name Arius as one of their “forefathers” in some of their publications…it’s been decades since I’ve read any of their literature…but Arius was named…JW’s are “modern Arians” so to speak.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses will have nothing to do with the army, saluting the flag, nor with government. So, what I find ironic, is that the Roman army was primarily Arian. And I understand that when Constantine was finally baptized, it was by an Arian bishop. Meaning, the government was Arian!

I don’t know whether Jehovah’s Witnesses realize that or not. So, I chuckle about it.

 

[Hail_Linus]

Wrong.

Wrong again.

From a purely secular point of view I am correct. We can know I am correct because of the following facts:

1. Constantine’s letters (as well as other documents) show he was very nervous about upsetting God. He had this belief that the Christian God had given him the empire and that God would punish him if there was a schism in the Church.
2. When Constantine was upset about the potential schism caused by what would be called the “Donatist Heresy” he contacted Hosius of Spain (the highest level Christian in the Tetrach (fourth of the empire) he inherited from his father. He asked Hosius how he could go about have a hearing to determine who were the heretics. Hosius told him he needed to contact the Pope.
3. Constantine wrote a letter to the Pope and told him he wanted him to convene an imperial Commission of Inquiry where the Judges selected by Constantine as well as the Pope would hear the case based on Roman Law.
4. The Pope did not accept the request for imperial Commission of Inquiry and insisted the commission be transformed into a Council. Constantine accepted this position and henceforth all ecclesiastical issues would be decided by Bishops. However, Constantine did retain the ability to call small regional councils unrelated to theological matters.

From this we know that only a Pope can call an ecumenical council.

As for Hosius leading the Council of Nicea, the Pope was not present. If you are suggesting Constantine lead the Council… well that is impossible since Constantine at this point in his Christianity did not really understand the issue. He was however present and did participate in making sure the matter was settled and there could be peace in the Church again.

Do you have anything else to add besides “Wrong” and “Wrong again”? And please do not give any propaganda. I am giving you a serious secular (non-Catholic) point of view that the greatest non-catholic historians would agree with.

 

[Hesychios]

From a purely secular point of view I am correct. We can know I am correct because of the following facts:

• 1. Constantine’s letters (as well as other documents) show he was very nervous about upsetting God. He had this belief that the Christian God had given him the empire and that God would punish him if there was a schism in the Church.

1. When Constantine was upset about the potential schism caused by what would be called the “Donatist Heresy” he contacted Hosius of Spain (the highest level Christian in the Tetrach (fourth of the empire) he inherited from his father. He asked Hosius how he could go about have a hearing to determine who were the heretics. Hosius told him he needed to contact the Pope.
2. Constantine wrote a letter to the Pope and told him he wanted him to convene an imperial Commission of Inquiry where the Judges selected by Constantine as well as the Pope would hear the case based on Roman Law.
3. The Pope did not accept the request for imperial Commission of Inquiry and insisted the commission be transformed into a Council. Constantine accepted this position and henceforth all ecclesiastical issues would be decided by Bishops. However, Constantine did retain the ability to call small regional councils unrelated to theological matters.

From this we know that only a Pope can call an ecumenical council.

As for Hosius leading the Council of Nicea, the Pope was not present. If you are suggesting Constantine lead the Council… well that is impossible since Constantine at this point in his Christianity did not really understand the issue. He was however present and did participate in making sure the matter was settled and there could be peace in the Church again.

Do you have anything else to add besides “Wrong” and “Wrong again”? And please do not give any propaganda. I am giving you a serious secular (non-Catholic) point of view that the greatest non-catholic historians would agree with.

You are making claims here you will have to back up with references.

Please cite the books or other sources which show that Saint Constantine asked Ossius what he should do and Ossius responded by telling him to contact the bishop of Rome.

Please indicate your source that shows the bishop of Rome told Constantine to call a Council over the Donatist controversy in north Africa (This would have been the Council of Arles in 314AD, not Nicea).

Please give your sources that show that the bishop of Rome called the Council of Nicea.

Please show your source that the bishop of Rome “put Ossius in charge.”

 

[Hesychios]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses will have nothing to do with the army, saluting the flag, nor with government. So, what I find ironic, is that the Roman army was primarily Arian. And I understand that when Constantine was finally baptized, it was by an Arian bishop. Meaning, the government was Arian!

I don’t know whether Jehovah’s Witnesses realize that or not. So, I chuckle about it.

Other than a similar (not the same) theology about Jesus Christ, there is absolutely no connection between the two religions.

In fact, the Jehovah Witnesses teach (or have taught in the past) that Jesus Christ is Saint Michael the Archangel, for once incarnated. If that were so he could be a primarily supernatural being and still a creature. I am pretty sure the followers of Arius did not teach this, so strictly speaking the JW’s would not actually be Arians.

The Arians did have sacraments, and a Mass. It is probable that they had the same sacraments as the Catholics and the Orthodox (I am not sure how they would explain the significance of these sacraments without also believing in Jesus’ divinity). The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society does not have a sacramental theology, the only things that approach it are (correct me if I am wrong) a single immersion baptism and an annual communion/memorial service, in which the bread and juice are completely symbolic and the number who may partake is extremely limited.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Other than a similar (not the same) theology about Jesus Christ, there is absolutely no connection between the two religions.

In fact, the Jehovah Witnesses teach (or have taught in the past) that Jesus Christ is Saint Michael the Archangel, for once incarnated. If that were so he could be a primarily supernatural being and still a creature. I am pretty sure the followers of Arius did not teach this, so strictly speaking the JW’s would not actually be Arians.

The Arians did have sacraments, and a Mass. It is probable that they had the same sacraments as the Catholics and the Orthodox (I am not sure how they would explain the significance of these sacraments without also believing in Jesus’ divinity). The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society does not have a sacramental theology, the only things that approach it are (correct me if I am wrong) a single immersion baptism and an annual communion/memorial service, in which the bread and juice are completely symbolic and the number who may partake is extremely limited.

That’s right, there is no connection between the two religions at all. A previous post in this thread said that a Watchtower publication once stated that Arius was a “forefather” of theirs. Of course he wasn’t, but the Watchtower is desirous of finding something in the past that at least resembles them in some way, to try to give themselves historical legitimacy. Theirs is a difficult task.

In view of the Watchtower’s non-involvement with government, I find it amusing that their “forefathers” were primarily members of the Roman government!

Arius taught that Jesus Christ was a created being, but the Watchtower also goes on to say He was Michael in His pre-existence. They do practice immersion baptism which is completely symbolic, and I am told they do not follow the Trinitarian formula. Only members of the 144,000, the ‘anointed,’ may partake of the bread and wine, so this means only very few partake, but the vast majority simply pass the ‘elements’ along to the next person, at the annual memorial service.

The Arian bishops did have apostolic succession, even if heretical.

 

[korkakadam]

Hiç burada yalandan yere vıdı vıdı yapmayın form açmışsınız ama boşuna sizin din diye inandıgınız emir ve yasaklar tedavulden kalktı. Artık bırakın bu işleri kurtulmak istiyorsanız tek olan Allah’a ve onun son peygamberine ve ondan önceki tüm peygamberlere inanmak zorundasınız. Yok öyle kafanıza göre iştedigine inanıp istedigine inanmamak hala akıllanmayacakmısınız hiç düşünmezmisiniz. Aklınızı başınıza alın atalarınızın gittigi yere gitmeden kendinizi kurtarın.

Bu arada biz illada oyun oynamak isteriz diyorsanız burayı tercih edin

y8

 

[Hail_Linus]

You are making claims here you will have to back up with references.

Please cite the books or other sources which show that Saint Constantine asked Ossius what he should do and Ossius responded by telling him to contact the bishop of Rome.

Please indicate your source that shows the bishop of Rome told Constantine to call a Council over the Donatist controversy in north Africa (This would have been the Council of Arles in 314AD, not Nicea).

Please give your sources that show that the bishop of Rome called the Council of Nicea.

Please show your source that the bishop of Rome “put Ossius in charge.”

1. 
   *]One of the reasons we know that Hosius was Constantine’s advisor is because Constantine wrote a letter to Annulius, the proconsul of Africa telling him that Hosius is going there and instructing him make reparations to the Church as Hosius instructs. (One of the first things Constantine did was make reparations to the Church for what the bad emperors had done).
   
   *]When Hosius was there he discovered the Donatist problem. We can know that because Constantine then writes a letter addressed to Pope Militiades and Marcus (a future Pope). He told them he he was sending some Bishops there to have an imperial Commission of Inquiry so the Pope could make his decision. According to this letter the Pope and Marcus are to rest assured that Constantine pays such reference reverence to the lawfully constituted Catholic Church that he desires that they should nowhere leave in any place in an place a schism or discord. We know that the Pope insisted it be converted to a Council as Church custom dictated.
   
   *]As I previously stated, Constantine accepted this position and henceforth all ecclesiastical issues would be decided by Bishops. However, Constantine did retain the ability to call small regional councils unrelated to theological matters.
   
   *]As for Hosius being appointed by the Pope to run Nicea…We know that Hosius was loyal to his Patriarch and Constantine was loyal to God and the Church. Also, in the fifth century Gelasius of Cyzicus is categorical in declaring that Hosius was sent in the name of the Pope .
   
   You have to connect the dots. That said, it is not completely wrong to say that Constantine called the Councils. He did initiate them and one could say he called them through the Pope.
   
   Constantine is often portrayed as a bad guy. He actually was a hero to Christianity. Unfortunately, his sons tried unsuccessfully to force the Church to accept semi-Arianism.
   
   Sources are too many to list but a simple read I could suggest is the “Constantine and the Conversion of Europe” by A.H.M. Jones (he also wrote the definitive treatise on this period of Rome). Another excellent read is Constantine the Great and the Christian Church by Noarman H. Baynes. This is considered the greatest profile of Constantine’s personality. This was published in 1929 and is out of print but you can probably find one at the library. I was lucky enough to find an actual copy. If I can get around to scanning it I’ll e-mail you a copy since it seems you are an admirer of Constantine as I am.
   
   I see that you call him St. Constantine. Even though the Catholic Church has not canonized him as a Saint, I consider him to be one. Not only because of his actions but theologically speaking he waited until the end to get baptized and that would have wiped away all mortal and venial sins which would mean he may have skipped purgatory (I know you call it something else but I can’t remember).