Talk:Arian Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Redirect? 3 Arian Catholicism should remain as a separate article 3.1 Arian Catholic viewpoint (not necessarily an Arian viewpoint) 4 Citing sources 4.1 Note 4.2 Those teachings of Arius, compatible with early Christianity 4.3 Origins of the Cross 5 History and practices of this Church? 5.1 Notes 6 Cross and CHI-RHO 7 Internet Religion?

[edit] NPOV

Whoever wrote this article is apparently totally clueless in regards to Wikipedia's policy of taking a neutral tone in regards to the subject. This article is going to require a major POV overhaul (and I'm saying that as a person who couldn't care less about this particular topic). This article definitely doesn't meet any sort of encylopaedic standards in regards to POV. 12.15.144.17 15:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made considerable cuts to this advertisement...it may be in need of deletion altogether. KHM03 (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Even in its edited form this still seems like an advert for a very minority interest. I also wonder if it should be deleted Slackbuie 22:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Today I have nominated this article for deletion. It hasn't been edited for quite some time, I notice. We'll see what happens. Slackbuie 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that this nomination for deletion has failed. I think this is a pity- those who put the case had very good points. I still think this 'church' is just an internet phenomenon, just using Wikipedia for publicity. If I'm wrong, then I'd like to know more, e.g. how many members, congregations and clergy does it have? Slackbuie 18:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This church has every right to be here- there are many angels dancing on pinheads on Wikipedia that are not deleted - the fact there is active discussion on the topic alone gives it strong value. 24.247.157.122 18:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect?

Might a redirect to Arianism be in order? KHM03 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arian Catholicism should remain as a separate article

My apologies for this page looking more like an advert! I did make a note to say that it was still under construction and I intended to return to this article to tidy it up, I am new to using Wikipedia. Arian Catholicism is not quite the same as Arianism as it aligns itself more with the early Catholic Church, bearing in mind that Arius' beliefs did vary over the years, and uses logic and reason and modern understanding of both the Universe and the Scriptures to bring the early Catholic Church into the 21st century thus omitting heresy and apostasy from an Arian Catholic viewpoint.

Although the Arian Catholic Ministry does use the Internet Diocese it also has an active clergy base in Britain, Europe and America.

You have over-edited this page slightly but I admit the concise version is much better. I would argue that that this article deserves it's own page and should not be redirected to Arianism!

Kind regards, Fr. Brian. MacHanson 17:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

PS Please also note that there is a whole lot more to Arian Catholicism than just Arianism!

[edit] Arian Catholic viewpoint (not necessarily an Arian viewpoint)

The term Arian is currently used to distinguish Arian Catholicism from Roman Catholicism. The concept of the Trinity was first written about by Tertullian (the son of a Roman Centurion) at the end of the 2nd century, his ideas being taken from Greek and Hindu ideologies, but was not formally adopted until the 1st Council of Nicaea in 325 CE which was overseen by Constantine I.

The concept of the Trinity was unheard of by the early Church. Arius began his campaign against the Romanisation of Christianity about 319 CE [the concept of the Trinity being only a part of that process, e.g. include the burning of at least 300 Gospels, the corruption of the surviving Gospels, the changing of the Sabbath, the corruption of the Commandments, the introduction of idolatrous worship, the deification and worship of the Saints (as well as Jesus and the Holy Spirit), the adoption of Roman Symbolism etc.] and his teaching was labelled as Arianism which was used in a derogatory sense by the Roman Catholics/Trinitarians who stood to gain immense wealth and power by having a Roman Emperor as a convert (even though Constantine I wasn't actually baptised as a Christian until he was on his deathbed), the price being to make Christianity more palatable to the incurably superstitious Romans by integrating their Pagan practices. NB: At its height, under Emperor Constantius (and after Arius' death), the early Arian movement vastly outnumbered the Trinitarian movement! Arianism (including early Arian Catholicism) remained a force in Europe for about 267 years (319 - 586 CE) until it was violently driven underground by Roman Catholics.

Arian Catholicism (the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) is a Church Tradition in its own right, the church is based on early Catholicism and follows the teachings of Arius which were compatible with the early Church. Someone keeps deleting text and effectively trying to imply that Arian Catholicism is the same as Arianism, which is causing the wrong description of Arian Catholicism to be portrayed! I hope this clarifies the point. Fr. Brian. MacHanson 13:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting that this is here. I think as a place where this topic can survive unmolested is really good; I don't know how many times the topics Arius, Arianism, Trinity etc. have been edited. It's nuts!

[edit] Citing sources

Please note that a sources section is being prepared, I'm also trying out footnotes, please bear with me!

[edit] Note

1. "The Arian Catholic church is Arian in nature and follows the teachings of Arius of Alexandria that were compatible with the early church..." The text reads more accurately using "that" instead of "which"; to still disagree with this line is to misunderstand the difference between Arianism and Arian Catholicism!
2. The Crucifix depicting the crucifixion of Christ on the cross wasn’t adopted by the Roman Catholic Church until the latter part of the sixth century and finally authorizsd by the Council of Constantinople (Council in Trullo) in 692 CE

Ref: Project Canterbury, The Seventh General Council and the Doctrine of Icons, Conference in the Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster, December 2, 1918. London: SPCK, 1919.

Fr. Brian. MacHanson 13:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Brian...to say that Arianism was/is compatible with the early church is POV, and many would dispute its accuracy. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:NOR when you can. Also, the crucifix became an "official" symbol in the 6th century, but was used as a Christian symbol much earlier (examples exist in the 2nd century), so that claim is inaccurate. KHM03 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear KHM03, I speak as a queer [intergendered/khoti] black [practising and rather religious] RC and I have to disagree with the assertion that Arianism was incompatible with the early Church [which would be properly called Orthodox rather than Catholic/Orthodox or Church of the East and the West as it is now by (presumably) polite convention]; in fact St. Jerome's famous quote bears witness to the appeal of Arianism in the early Church, "The world awoke and groaned to find itself Arian!" That the tide eventually turned in favour of the Trinity had as much [if not more] to do with Roman imperial pressure [which in itself would render episcopal conformity suspect if not invalid] as with the moving of the Holy Spirit...one cannot but notice that the Christian Trinity is at least a partial [if not radical] departure from the strict monotheism of the Abrahamic tradition represented by the Samaritan, Jewish, Sabian, Islamic and Baha'i faiths. [Christian] Scripture itself, is remarkably silent with respect to a doctrine of such importance and if we believe it as Roman Catholics and apostolic Christians, we do so inspite of logic, scriptural witness and ourselves. Jesus [or Yeshua bin Yusuf as He was known in His own language] made very few [if any] recognisable claims with respect to His own divinity and seems to have been more concerned with the good news and meek simplicity of Love than with complicated doctrines of three persons [or Persons] in one God with the Second Person having two natures - divine and human and hypostatically united - AND the Third Person proceeding BOTH from the Father and the Son [and not only from the Father like the Orthodox and our common scriptures maintain]...matter-of-fact, He goes far enough in the canonical gospels to rebuke one of his disciples saying, 'Why do you call me good for only God is good'...additionally, according to my own RC faith, the test of a doctrine is ecclesial reception which means that the central magisterium [id est, Rome] can propound doctrines till kingdom come but the test of its validity is its reception by the whole church [id est, all Christians of all times] and some of our theologians would argue that it would need reception by the triumphant [or resurrected] church at the end of time to truly meet the criterion of full ecclesial reception. One must also note with respect to the parallel discussion on RC 'idolatry' that our veneration of images not only sets us apart from nearly all other Abrahamic monotheistic faiths but also from our own RC iconoclastic forbears and popes who would have destroyed all of our sacred images if they hadn't been hidden and guarded by Franciscan and Carmelite monks [and cloistered nuns]; loyalty to my own tradition does not prevent me from seeing how Catholic crucifixes and Ezidi images could give offence to other children of Abraham [and perhaps to the Gnostics]. Having said that, there is a remarkable consensus among the Apostolic Churches with respect to the Trinity inspite of the mathematical impossibility of 1=3 equations; also, for a Church to call itself Catholic or Orthodox, demonstrable apostolic succession would perhaps be at least as important as considerations of ecclesial reception of [Arian/Trinitarian/Nestorian/Monophysite] theological doctrines. The Holy Qu'ran clearly says that Jesus was the Messiah but not God and there are more than a billion Muslims who would [with good reason] dispute the accuracy of ALL the Christian pages in Wikipedia...it would be a pity if they were deleted on those grounds. The Hindus have a Sanskrit saying about God: Neti, neti [not this and not that: which corresponds more or less to the Augustinian Catholic position on our God]. Although it is rather late in the day now to cut a long story short, I would like to apologise for dragging this out [and for any hurt I may have caused] and request KHM03 not to delete, move or mark the Arian Catholic page [for deletion]. My given name is Pratap Patrick Paikaray altho' my queer pseudonym is Pratibha Rani Sixer but that's quite enough of my rambling already. Casimir Declan O'Conchobhar 19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Those teachings of Arius, compatible with early Christianity

Bearing in mind that Arius was fighting against the Romanisation of Christianity, he was in effect (with the expection of the creeds to try to clarify certain points) trying to keep the Christian Status Quo. 1. You seem to be confusing early Catholicism with early Roman Catholicism, 2. You are also confusing Arianism with Arian Catholicism, Arian Catholicism is not pure Arianism although it may follow some of Arius' teachings but the main drive is to continue the early Christian line. Clearly a more "neutral" re-working of the syntax is needed here!

ITS HISTORY...it's history. History is not neutral. history is what it is. Refer to some of the "extensive" research on Arius himself and his disputes during the First Council of Nicea (325 CE). U'll c what I mean. W cannot change history, for it gives us the information for the future. There shouldn't be an issue on this article's neutrality.

[edit] Origins of the Cross

Early depictions on Jesus usually showed Jesus in the form of a shepherd carrying a lamb. Tertullian (140-230 AD), a Roman Montanist heretic, commented in his essay De Corona: "At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign." This might be an early reference to individuals tracing the sign of the cross on their body.

The use of the cross as a symbol was condemned by at least one church father of the 3rd century AD because of its Pagan origins. The first appearance of a cross in Christian art is on a Vatican sarcophagus from the mid-5th Century^[1]. It was a Greek cross with equal-length arms. Jesus' body was not shown. Prior to this it was used as the symbol of Sol (the Sun god) in Roman Paganism.

Fr. Brian :-| MacHanson 11:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History and practices of this Church?

I've looked up the site that is linked up with the article (the layout is very similar to the Vatican site) and even there I feel that a lot of information is lacking:

• It's unlikely it can claim unbroken episcopal succession since Arius' and Wulfila's time. Who revived this Arian tradition, then? If there is unbroken succession, in which diocese did it take place?

• Which dioceses are there and where are their Sees? What are the names of the most important bishops? There seems to be a bishop of York, but I could not find his name.

• Does it have buildings of its own? The canonization process of Arius seems to have been completed at the Cathedral of Leeds, but the site linked from there seems to imply that it is a Roman Catholic cathedral, rather than a specific Arian Catholic one.

They can have my place. 24.247.157.122 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Is there some sort of Missal? Does the Liturgic practice differ from Novus Ordo Missæ? If so, in which way?

[edit] Notes

1. ^  B.M. Metzger, M.D. Coogan, "The Oxford Companion to the Bible," Oxford University Press, (1993), Page 57

[edit] Cross and CHI-RHO

I do not really understand the point of the discussion regarding the true configuration of the cross. Is this a critical doctrinal point of the Arian Catholic Church? If so, it should be mentioned as such. The discussion right now, looks like somehow it is trying to either attack Romanism and most of the rest of Christianity or to justify the shape of the Chi-Rho, but it is not clear. If it is trying to attack other religions, its a POV push. If it is trying to justify the shape of the CHI-RHO, it does not do a good job because it does not connect the argument to the CHI RHO very well. If it is trying to expound on a critical doctrine of the Arian Catholic Church it completely misses. Right now, it looks like an unrelated POV Fork buried in the article and perhaps it should be covered under some other article like "Cross" or "Crucifixion" or something like that. I'm not really advocating that, but it seems it needs strong clarification. So what is the discussion about? --Blue Tie 12:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted most of this. It is all on their website Slackbuie 12:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Religion?

Arianism has been around roughly the same period as the orthodox Catholic Church. Why the label of "internet church?" Perhaps most of its support is now garnered through the internet, but is it seems misleading to immediately label it an "internet church" with little discussion of its true history and significance (such as its significance as a source of feuding between the kings of the Germanic Kingdoms and the leaders of the Catholic Church following the fall of the Roman Empire)? Can we not lose the "internet church" label or at least clarify its original conception?

Because this is not about Arianism but about a group on the internet who say they are Arian. In fact, the page should be renamed since it is not about "Arian Catholicism" (assuming such a term exists) but a church that professes to hold that belief. - DNewhall 21:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)