M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
So who or where do we see today’s Catholic Arians?
- Status
H
Hatikvah
Guest
There is a group that claims to be “Catholic” and the “One True Church” but are also Arians. They have a very extensive website, and they deny many core doctrines (virgin birth of Christ, physical resurrection, ecumenical councils) and they even canonized Arius! So, they’re both schismatics and heretics!So who or where do we see today’s Catholic Arians?
Their website is here.
Well, at least in beliefs like Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness-ism (especially), Christadelphians, Christian Science, and so on and so on… we see Arianism.
J
Jake_Parker
Guest
A little of Recapitualtion, Moral Influence, and Christus Victor.
I disagree with the penal substitution theory.
www.theopedia.com/recapitulation-theory-of-atonement
I disagree with the penal substitution theory.
www.theopedia.com/recapitulation-theory-of-atonement
V
Vico
Guest
From the website of the Arian Catholic Church:So who or where do we see today’s Catholic Arians?
On Wednesday 22nd February 2006, the feast of the Chair of St Peter at Antioch, 1,700 years after Constantine I first became Emperor at the same location in York, Great Britain, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic (Arian Catholic) Church, with the aid of three Bishops sympathetic to Arian Catholicism, consecrated its first Bishops since the Visigoth Bishops (initially consecrated by Ulfilas the Arian Bishop of Dacia in the mid fourth century) who preached Arianism until the end of the sixth century; since then Arian Catholicism has had to remain underground.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Oh Boy. But Granny seems to think it is in our Catholic Church?
G
grannymh
Guest
Step back for a few minutes.
Without the literal interpretation of Original Sin , all Jesus has to be is a holy motivated preacher(beginning of the Gospel of John, chapter 6) Who gives great moral teachings (the crowd shares their lunch). This Jesus prophet, among a list of historical prophets, annoys the establishment to the point of crucifixion. This becomes just an unfortunate bloody event since there is no real Original Sin, just an environment of bad situations.
Modern Arianism can concede that Jesus is a God reformer, but not god enough to give Himself to us in the Holy Eucharist. Ever wonder about empty pews being the result of a reduced understanding of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?
Modern Arianism doe not put labels on people. Modern Arianism is a way of looking at the Most Holy Trinity where Jesus is not quite a full member.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
It is a possible but certainly not necessary link.
That is what Scotus was about. Even without. OS Christ would have come.
G
grannymh
Guest
I do wonder about the reason for the divinity of Christ since without the Original Sin, the Original friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity remains intact. The “gates of heaven” remain open to those who are in the State of Sanctifying Grace. Obviously, the man Christ, as the primary teaching prophet among all historical prophets, would be needed since that nasty serpent would still be around. Would the Catholic Church have the important Sacraments because these require a Divine Creator. Not any man, regardless of his greatness, can institute a true Catholic Sacrament.
H
Hatikvah
Guest
Well, original sin could be said (heresy, probably) to be the “socially-transmitted” climate of human sin that we see today, but so have all of our ancestors. Then, hypothetically, original sin does exist, but one who is raised away from human sin would not have for himself a sinful nature.
Also, the modern Arian “Catholic” Church does not recognize the Eucharistic presence of Christ (Source):
So, the people who used some theological reasoning on the idea that Christ’s non-divinity means non-presence in the Eucharist are correct by their standards. That makes perfect sense.
G
grannymh
Guest
As I try to point out, modern Arianism is not necessarily Christ’s non-divinity. Nor am I excluding the idea that total non-divinity is why Christ is not really present in the Eucharist. Thus, it makes perfect sense, as you point out, that Christ’s non-divinity means non-presence in the Eucharist. In addition, it also makes sense, that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is appropriate symbolism of His divinity.
Yes, I know that sounds like Peter Piper Picked a Peck of …
V
Vico
Guest
Modern Catholic Dictionary (by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.):
Modern Arianism
Organized bodies or movements, since the Reformation, that professedly subscribe to the Arian denial that Christ is the natural Son of God. This modern Arianism is a logical though not always linear development from the ancient stock. Under the more familiar names of Unitarians, Anti-trinitarians and Socinians, those who profess this creed believe in the Fatherhood of God, the society of the human race, the example of Jesus as a model of ethical perfection, and salvation of humankind through an evolutionary process inherent in all things.
Also in the Arian tradition are the rationalists when they deal with the person of Christ. Their system postulates the absolute rights of natural reason as the only source of religious truth. Consequently they deny the divinity of Christ, except in Arius’ sense of “the most intimate to God,” and for the same reason as Arius (256-336), because the Trinity and Incarnation are mysteries of faith to be accepted on the authority of God.
Atonement
The satisfaction of a legitimate demand. In a more restricted sense it is the reparation of an offense. This occurs through a voluntary performance that outweighs the injustice done. If the performance fully counterbalances the gravity of the guilt, the atonement is adequate. And if the atonement is done by someone other than the actual offender, but in his stead, it is vicarious.
Applied to Christ the Redeemer, through his suffering and death he rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of the whole human race. His atonement is fully adequate because it was performed by a divine person. In fact, it is superabundant because the positive value of Christ’s expiation is actually greater than the negative value of human sin. (Etym. Middle English at one, to set at one, to reconcile; of one mind, in accord.)
G
grannymh
Guest
Father Hardon is a favorite of mine.
That being said, the above is obviously correct.
I personally encountered modern Arianism as a young student reading my first adult biography of Jesus Christ. After reading the chapter on the loaves and fishes, it was obvious that the author did not believe that Christ had God’s full authority for miracles. I recognized that meant that we did not have to follow all of Christ’s moral teachings.
Below is a link, which you may criticize, that presents one aspect of modern Arianism. To me, this article is not about various Christian religions. It refers to ordinary folk who sleep in on Sunday. Ordinary folk who have good reasons … like symbolism in the Gospel of John, chapter 6, which lessens the divinity of Christ. For example. In chapter six and at the Last Supper, Christ is already giving us His divine love. It is not necessary for us to receive Him in the Holy Eucharist.
romancatholicman.com/stealth-arianism-the-pervasive-heresy-of-our-times/
“Stealth Arianism follows the same fatal error, but with a twist: while the Arians of the fourth century openly denied Christ’s divinity, today‘s Arians will profess Jesus as God, and yet through their actions deny it. In other words, they don’t even know they are Arians.”
In other words, because people have difficulty understanding this modern version of a dead heresy, there is little exploration into the part of modern life which includes the modern Catholic push for the “Big Tent.” The basic concept of the happy Big Tent is referred to (not by name) in the beginning of Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, 1950. On the other hand, it may be important to name our adversary.
V
Vico
Guest
If a person accepts the Jesus Christ is one of the Trinity, con-substantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but then does not live a Christlike life, they are sinners, not stealth Arians. It is liberalism that begins with dissent from obligatory dogmas of faith and doctrines.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
“Over the past 50 years, the Stealth Arians have done everything within their power to remove from our lived experience of Catholicism anything that would point to the divinity of Christ, and the supernatural quality of our faith. Much has been stripped from our churches – sacred art, sacred architecture, sacred music, and the sacred elements of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass – and we are left in the barren desert of the banal.”
“Stealth Arianism” is Fr Heilman’s account for a loss of the Sacred in our lives often signaled by our churches,art music, and Mass. But I don’t think it is Arianism at all, nor liberalism but** secularism** creeping into the religious sphere. It then erodes our overall sense of Divinity, not Just of Jesus but also God. But I think it also relates to our addiction to comfort and our preference to be casual. Look at the way some people go to church and not just the Catholic Church where we have the Real Presence. It seem so strange to watch old movies where guys wore suite and tie to go to baseball games. Now they were blue jeans and shorts to church. It is remarkable that since Vatican II the shift has been to acknowledge Christ in our midst, as our friend and brother. But rather than lifting us up it sort of dragged him down. If he is within us let’s look it and act it.
Fr Heilman quotes a story about a protestant minister saying, The Protestant minister said, “Listen, if I believed that was God, I would, right here and now, fall prostrate on my face and crawl toward that tabernacle, with tears of joy running down my face … you don’t believe that is God.”
Even before Vatican II at a Papal Mass that did not happen not today in the Latin Mass un-stripped of all Father mentions. Rather, we expressed our belief through sober reverence, dignified respect. I believe Christ is divine and present in the Eucharist but to know the depths of that truth requires contemplation not emotional display. If the protestant minister does not believe God is in the sacrament then he also must not believe God is anywhere near him at all.
G
grannymh
Guest
I have not used the designation of sinners.
It is not my place to judge the soul of a teacher/preacher who does not believe that Divinity is necessary when the prophet Jesus Christ persuaded the crowd to share their lunch with their neighbor. (beginning of chapter 6, Gospel of John)
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
But getting back to Atonement. I just struggle with the idea that God required Jesus to die in order to forgive us.
G
grannymh
Guest
First, the story about the Protestant minister is an often used old story. Apparently, its basic idea is to get the listener to think deeply about his own reactions to Divinity. That popular explanation is not the heart of the story.
Can you, or anyone, describe what has to be in place before that story can reach its full potential?
There are a number of answers. Pick one and we will discuss it.
I like the validity of the Catholic Church as found in chapter 14, Gospel of John. But that may be a long reach and you may want to suggest a more obvious description.
G
grannymh
Guest
Excuse me. It is the prospect of repairing the original friendship relationship between two unequal beings which required divine obedience.
Please note the Catholic teaching that the person who committed the Original sin is not us. Our personal sins are not the same as the individual Original Sin of the first human person. We are not even close to being first.
So why do you talk about us as if we all are living in the Garden of Eden and sinning until the cows come home?
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
You are right. We had no consent to Original Sin. We are born with it. And it gives us propensity to keep on sinning. Yet we do ask forgiveness. So why did Jesus have to die before God could forgive all that sin?
And I turn to the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53:
6
We had all gone astray like sheep,
all following our own way;
But the LORD laid upon him
the guilt of us all.
10
But it was the LORD’s will to crush him with pain.
By making his life as a reparation offering,
he shall see his offspring, shall lengthen his days,
and the LORD’s will shall be accomplished through him.
And so even though it makes no sense to me, I accept the mystery. Because God is certainly not anthropomorphic. God is God and we must let God be God as God is.
G
grannymh
Guest
Obviously, many, not all, Catholics on CAF have been influenced by Catholic writers/speakers who deny the existence of Adam and Eve and therefore the annoying Original Sin disappears. (The fly in the ointment teaching.) Consequently, the issues of atonement are in intellectual disarray.
Here is my favorite denial.
“In an article about the first couple, he wrote that Catholics who ask, “Were there an Adam and Eve?” would be better off asking another question: “Are there an Adam and Eve?” The answer, he said, “is a definite ‘yes.’ We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve. …”
Don’t trip while running to the mirror.
Seriously, it is useless for me to be on this thread when simple truths from the first three chapters of Genesis are replaced. Maybe the writers/speakers who deny Adam are a tad fearful of the truth. In any case, I leave because I do not want to derail this thread.
Best wishes,
granny
Here is my favorite denial.
“In an article about the first couple, he wrote that Catholics who ask, “Were there an Adam and Eve?” would be better off asking another question: “Are there an Adam and Eve?” The answer, he said, “is a definite ‘yes.’ We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve. …”
Don’t trip while running to the mirror.
Seriously, it is useless for me to be on this thread when simple truths from the first three chapters of Genesis are replaced. Maybe the writers/speakers who deny Adam are a tad fearful of the truth. In any case, I leave because I do not want to derail this thread.
Best wishes,
granny
- Status