Arians

[notsmart]

Try to figure it out on your own. If you don’t see the relevance of this with regard to a discussion of the infallibility of the pope, I’m not sure what good any explanation would do.

I did. If anything it bolsters the need to have an authority such as the papa, or pope to have a place of honor amoung all Bishops. Certianly, all it takes is only one good man to prevent a mass apostacy. Even if its one good Bishop who remains faithful, and can be a witness to the faith, the pope should be able to spot that one man. In spite of all or any others who don’t.
But, when you don’t have a central authority, what happens?
I know the eastern orthodox claim they don’t need one.
But, I don’t see it working well for them.
I really don’t understand your reply to me.

 

[Snow]

In the book Triumph (the chapter on Constantine), Crocker makes note that councils were little help in resolving the crisis of Arianism as there was little agreement until Nicea. He said that before that, some supported the heresy and others rejected it.

In chatting with our associate, I learned that, even after Nicea, a majority of bishops still supported Arianism for a time.

Both of these facts will be helpful in a conversation I’m having with a Protestant friend. However, I would like cite a source. Any suggestions of what source might document these?

There wasn’t agreement, subordinationism was general orthodoxy or as close to it as anything. It took years after Nicea to change the othodoxy however, if with threats of exile and death from the Emperor.