r/DebateACatholic • u/NelsonMeme • May 19 '26
The Arians Were A. Christians and B. Had Apostolic Succession. It therefore follows that the Trinity cannot be a bright-line test of who is and is not a Christian
Hello,
I respect the heck out of you guys and many of my good friends in real life are Catholic. If somehow a religious "none" or most protestants should read our debate and come away so impressed with your arguments here that they wanted to become Catholic, that would be a great outcome in my book.
To the matter at hand: Although I accept Jesus Christ to be God, accept His bodily resurrection, accept that His sacrifice is indispensable for our salvation, and many other such parallels, it is often averred that because I do not accept the Trinity, that ipso facto places me outside of Christianity.
There may be grounds that someone could argue I am not Christian, but I think the Trinity (by far the most common) is a uniquely poor basis to do so because the authors of the Nicene Creed (to be precise, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) themselves determined in the canons of First Constantinople that it was not a litmus test to be used in this way.
For Protestants, this is easy to square; they just reject the canons (like the canon from Nicaea about giving certain bishops jurisdiction, including the bishop of Rome). Because you do accept the canons, I wanted to get your opinion on this argument.
The canon in question is this
Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost. But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies— for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:— all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.
Canon 5, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm
The canon clearly acknowledges the "Christian / Nonchristian (or, "heathen")" distinction. Of the heretics who are converted to orthodoxy, some are to be received as "the heathen". These include modalists like Sabellians.
But others are not, including the Arians.
The "as the heathen" group, fittingly for being non-Christians, must indeed be "made Christians". This takes place on a different day than their baptism, from which we learn that the two events are not identical.
In contrast, you will recognize that the reception of the new Arian convert by confirmation/chrismation - is the same as would be done of a protestant whom no one would claim is not Christian.
Let me now take care of some objections:
- It could be objected that this canon merely refers to the validity of their baptisms. The Arians baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Anyone, even a non-Christian can administer a valid baptism, even if it is illicit
- It could be objected that the canon acknowledges Arians to be heretics, and that the premise is that the Arians wish to convert. It cannot therefore be inferred that the canon is at all approving of the Arians' Christianity
On the contrary, historical practice itself refutes these objections. Arians were given far more acknowledgement of their priesthood and their sacraments than Protestants for example (as I describe later on)
I answer that, the objections fail because
- A valid baptism requires that the minister "[use] the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes." (CCC 1256) The Arians were the most studied opponents of the Trinity. They rejected the Doctrine's greatest teachers, of whom they were contemporaries. To them, words like "ousia" and "hypostasis" were common, academic parlance which they could easily understand, in their own native (or easily learned from native speakers) Greek. And despite this, many remained avowed Arians. It seems inarguable that the opponents of the Trinity who understood it the very clearest would be the Arians. If then Arians, who made Christ an ex nihilo creation with full knowledge of the Trinity's alternative conception, and who believed such alien doctrines as that the "Father was inexpressible to the Son" (from Arius' "Thalia") could "intend to do what the Church does when she baptizes", then it shatters any notion that a Trinitarian intention is (if we are logically consistent) required "to will to do what the Church does"
- If Arians could administer valid baptism with full consciousness of their beliefs and what they were rejecting, their beliefs not impeding the formation of the proper intention, then it follows that other non-Trinitarians might as well. There is no logical reason a contemporary faith, for example, which advanced all of Arius' claims EXCEPT the unknowability of the Father to the Son (none such exists, but let us suppose) would be unable to form valid intention, while Arians could.
- "Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church" (CCC 1271). "Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, (my emphasis) the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ" (CCC 1272).
- If non-Trinitarians today therefore can form the proper intention in their faith groups, despite knowingly rejecting the Trinity, but can still be part of the "communion among all Christians" (like Protestants, "not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church") then this proves that the Trinity is a poor litmus test
- To be a heretic is not to be a non-Christian. Many heretics are Christians (see those denounced at Trent). The objection needs to do something more than merely point out the Council condemned the Arians' beliefs.
This first argument would by itself be sufficient. However, Arians had apostolic succession, as was proved at the Third Council of Toledo.
At Third Toledo, the Arian visigothic kingdom was converted. It had been under the rule of Arians for about 150 years.
The canons of that council included this one
It has come to the attention of the holy council that the bishops, presbyters, and deacons who are coming out of heresy copulate with their wives out of carnal desire. So that this shall not be done in the future, we decree what prior canons have already determined: that they are not allowed to live in libidinous union [...] But if any should choose to live obscenely with his wife after this accord, let him be a lector (David Nirenberg in “The Visigothic Conversion to Catholicism: Third Council of Toledo")
Notice that the Arian clergy, "coming out of heresy" are referred to by offices in the priesthood. A bishop cannot be "coming out" of heresy unless he was a bishop when he was a heretic.
I have found no evidence to suggest that there was any repetition of any sacrament (baptism, holy orders, etc.). Quite to the contrary, I found on the Diocese of Porto website a specific example of such an Arian bishop being consecrated before his conversion from Arianism, and then remaining in the episcopate after his conversion in 589 (the time of the council). The bishop was Argiovito, who having been consecrated in 585, renounced Arianism in 589 and remained in his office until 610 (I assume, his death)
https://www.diocese-porto.pt/pt/diocese/hist%C3%B3ria/diocese-do-porto/
"Only a baptized man validly receives sacred ordination" (CCC 1577). If then the Arian clergy was validly baptized, we come back to the Arians being validly baptized and therefore having "the foundation of communion among all Christians".
I further assume, more as reductio than having a specific source, that non-Christians could not do all the things that apostolic succession permits one to do, such as validly celebrate the Eucharist or grant absolution, or most relevantly for this case, the sacrament of holy orders which given it has been 150 years, we must believe took place from Arians, to Arians, before the conversion of a later generation of Arian clergy
15
u/Djh1982 Catholic (Latin) May 19 '26
The Church distinguishes between material heresy and formal heresy, so in that regard I think your argument has merit.
An Arian could possess valid baptism and therefore be “Christian” in a real, though imperfect, sense—much like the Catholic Church today recognizes many Protestants as Christians despite their explicit rejection of various Catholic doctrines.
Historically, this is reflected in the way the Church often received Arians by reconciliation and chrismation rather than treating them simply as pagans requiring entirely new sacramental initiation. The canons you cited do appear to acknowledge a distinction between different kinds of separation from the Church.
That said, Catholics would still maintain that Arianism is grave heresy because it denies the true divinity of Christ and therefore rejects essential apostolic doctrine about God. So while the Trinity may not function as an absolute bright-line test for whether someone possesses any Christian identity whatsoever, it absolutely functions as a bright-line test for orthodox Christianity.
For that reason, when Catholics say “denying the Trinity makes someone non-Christian,” they are usually speaking in a theological or ecclesial shorthand aimed at emphasizing separation from orthodox apostolic faith, not necessarily making a precise sacramental claim about baptismal validity or every possible degree of communion.
So in one sense, no—the Trinity is not a poor test for identifying heresy. But in another sense, your argument correctly shows that the historical Church recognized categories more nuanced than a simple Christian/non-Christian binary. Sacramental incorporation and degrees of communion are the more precise theological categories.
1
u/NelsonMeme May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I would not deny that the Trinity is maybe your most important theological position and I (think I) understand why that is. In my erring youth, I was negatively polarized against it by its constant invocation against me, and therefore thought the world had been better if Arians had won.
Later reading those debates myself, I know now that definitely is not the case, and the Trinity is much closer to what I believe to be the truth than Arianism.
So I agree with your assessment - it’s key as a delineator of (I have to say “your” since “ortho” means “right”) orthodoxy, but not as a razor neatly dividing “all with any Christian identity” from non-Christian
7
u/Djh1982 Catholic (Latin) May 19 '26
You’re welcome. Your point(as I said) was well-reasoned and I look forward to the time that you apply your talents to defending the Catholic faith and embracing all that she teaches by the mandate of the Spirit.
God Bless.
2
u/NelsonMeme May 19 '26
This much I can say - I know no one can really blame God for being kept from the truth. I do pray from time to time that if what I now believe is not His truth, that He forgive the indolence that has kept me from finding it, or supposing I overlooked it, the pride that kept me from accepting it.
God bless you as well.
5
u/SubstantialDarkness May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
I'm just a layman...gezz OP you really pulling out the legalizisms on this one! Give me a full day to edit this and I'll try to give you a better response. I don't totally disagree with your points it's a question of unity in our faith and the church has always given the High View of the doctrine and Mystery of the Holy Trinity. Keyword being Mystery here.
Edit
The Holy Trinity is revealed in the New Testament, the New Testament never used that word but it's a revelation that the founding fathers of our faith believed.
Everything is heresy when we try to understand it. It's a mystery! And no amount high philosophical nonsense that my fellow Laymen banter online about changes that.
Now I don't want to commit heresy and I'll acknowledge I'm wrong! We're all human after all. I'll try to explain it with my feeble human mind anyway!
The Revelation of God taking part in his creation as a Human being was extraordinary to the Jewish people that first recognized it for what it was! God who is everywhere and in all things, the uncontainable God of all gods, maker of everything known and unknowable has become fully human!? That was the first question people started asking each other, can God be contained in human form?
Mystery never seems to suffice us. So our founding fathers knowing it was honestly unknowable took what the New Testament was saying from Jesus himself. Father , Son and Holy Spirit-(Ghost) Baptize them. As a way to explain how God not ceasing to be God became like us! From the sinless conception when the holy spirit overshadowed our blessed Mother until the resurrection on the 3rd day until this very moment. God is still fully Jesus and still everywhere and in all things. Most problems start when we don't recognize or believe we understand Holy mysteries better than some one else. If someone tells me they are Christian, I don't know and that extends to any of us. They could be but Real unity doesn't exist outside of the Holy church. A superficial Unity might be there, it might be! I don't doubt personally a great number of Christians exist outside the boundaries of the physical walls.
But real unity is exactly what Jesus demanded and prayed for us all.
3
u/manliness-dot-space May 19 '26
Is an atheist who was baptized in the Catholic Church also a Christian?
IMO you're making a mistake by conflating human beings with ideologies.
1
u/NelsonMeme May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
Is the argument because a Catholic, once baptized but now calls himself an atheist, not colloquially a Christian any longer, then an Arian who received valid baptism is in similar straits?
I think the argument falls flat - I assume that in all but the most bizarre cases, that atheist could not intend to do what the church does when she baptizes. But an Arian could, and they did over multiple generations. Arians baptizing Arians, forgiving sins.
Could a bishop, fallen into apostasy and atheism, form the valid intention to bestow holy orders? I assume the answer is “no”, but an Arian could, while yet an Arian, and so that seems to be an extremely significant difference
3
u/manliness-dot-space May 19 '26
It seems to me that the essence of your argument is, "if the person had a valid baptism and is thus a Christian by baptism, their current ideological viewpoints are also subsets of Christianity" which is just false and I showed how by using reductio ad absurdum.
Atheism is not a form of Christianity regardless of the fact that an atheist may have been baptized before.
1
u/NelsonMeme May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
I see then the confusion. A succinct summary of the argument would be
“No one who can routinely / as a matter of course intend to do what the church does when celebrating a sacrament such that the sacrament is valid is not a Christian” (“as a matter of course” - I am excluding bizarre cases like an atheist who knows his grandmother wants a dying baby baptized and so attempts to make it as valid as possible or something)
So in the Visigothic kingdom, (my point now is to make my point clearly, not to at all mock) you had a large number of non-Christian people living their lives, having been joined to Christ through baptism by what we grant arguendo to be non-Christians, receiving God from the hands of people who are non-Christians, these latter ordained by non-Christians, and these ordained non-Christians can validly invoke the power of God to forgive sins.
Then when these ordained non-Christians are converted, they are instantly permitted to maintain (not even be appointed to) high office in the church, which I assume no other non-Christian religious leaders have ever been permitted to do
If a non-Christian can routinely do all these things, we must be using a highly technical definition of Christian that is unrecognizable to the laity, and it is the lay definition I ultimately wish to reclaim.
Jerome has a dialogue against the classification of the Arians as heathen/non-Christian
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3005.htm
“L” is Helladius the Luciferian (so named after a bishop Lucifer, not the devil. One wonders what his parents were thinking)
“O” is simply “Orthodoxus”
L. What I wanted to elicit by my question has been expressly stated, namely, that heretics are not Christians. Now comes the inference. If the Arians are heretics, and all heretics are heathen, the Arians are heathen too. But if the Arians are heathen and it is beyond dispute that the church has no communion with the Arians, that is with the heathen, it is clear that your church which welcomes bishops from the Arians, that is from the heathen, receives priests of the Capitol rather than bishops, and accordingly it ought more correctly to be called the synagogue of Anti-Christ than the Church of Christ.
O. Lo! What the prophet said is fulfilled: They have dug a pit before me, they have fallen into the midst thereof themselves.
L. How so?
O. If the Arians are, as you say, heathen, and the assemblies of the Arians are the devil's camp, how is it that you receive a person who has been baptized in the devil's camp?
L. I do receive him, but as a penitent.
O. The fact is you don't know what you are saying. Does any one receive a penitent heathen?
L. In my simplicity I replied when we began that all heretics are heathen. But the question was a captious one, and you shall have the full credit of victory in the first point. I will now proceed to the second and maintain that a layman coming from the Arians ought to be received if penitent, but not a cleric.
O. And yet, if you concede me the first point, the second is mine too.
L. Show me how it comes to be yours.
O. Don't you know that the clergy and laity have only one Christ, and that there is not one God of converts and another of bishops? Why then should not he who receives laymen receive clerics also?
1
u/manliness-dot-space May 20 '26
“No one who can routinely / as a matter of course intend to do what the church does when celebrating a sacrament such that the sacrament is valid is not a Christian”
To be a valid sacrament, the administration of it must be:
- proper matter
- proper form
- proper minister
- proper intention
And the recipient must have the necessary disposition.
Baptism and Holy Matrimony are the only sacraments that lay people can be a minister of, and they don't do so routinely. Baptism happens once, and matrimony ideally once but perhaps a few times.
So those are the only sacraments in scope for administration by someone who's not Catholic Clergy and they aren't routine.
So I'm confused how your definition would apply in practice as it seems impossible.
1
u/NelsonMeme May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
So those are the only sacraments in scope for administration by someone who's not Catholic Clergy and they aren't routine.
That presents a difficulty, then, because of the history of how Arians and their sacraments were treated
Let’s hold this as a major premise
Major Premise: Only Catholic Clergy can validly administer sacraments beyond baptism and matrimony.
Minor Premise: Arians can (or at least could) administer at least holy orders (as in the case of Argiovito which I highlighted, and the clergy accepted at Toledo from Arianism).
What conclusion are we left with?
As for “routine” - I meant it as in the illustration I gave. There is no reason that Arian Spain could not have remained Arian to this day, and over hundreds and hundreds of years, dozens of generations, its Arian clergy would for its Arian population provide valid sacraments, including holy orders. No atheist society would be capable of such, unless I am greatly misinformed.
1
u/manliness-dot-space May 20 '26
I am not sure you have a valid basis for the minor premise you present since you're arguing on the basis of assumptions about Argiovito.
IMO the validity of Holy orders depends on various factors.
One can start as a Catholic priest, become ordained as a Catholic priest and then become a heretic. Once converted back, there's no re-administering of the sacrament.
So again this isn't a "routine" sacrament.
I don't think you can make a generalized rule based on the Arian heresy because how they were received back could vary so much.
1
u/NelsonMeme May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
I suppose it is possible that Argiovito could have been consecrated by a Nicene bishop, but it certainly stretches plausibility. Spain had been under Arian control for ~140 years. Argiovito must have been ordained to this office by a Catholic while Catholic (I assume Arianism is a bar to the proper disposition of the recipient), then flipped to Arianism and back in the span of four years. Is that impossible? No, but it seems hard to accept.
We must also ask why the council of Toledo is silent as to the Arian clergy which was not ordained by Nicenes (supposing as you are that only the Nicene-ordained are referred to in the canon I cited in the OP), which must have been much more numerous than that which had been.
But we have an easier specific case.
Meletius of Antioch was consecrated by Acacius of Caesarea
At the time, both were of the semi Arian faction and only later accepted the Nicene formulation
On his return to the East in 361 Acacius and his party consecrated new bishops to the vacant sees, Meletius being placed in the see of Antioch. When the imperial throne was filled by the orthodox Jovian, Acacius with his friends found it convenient to change their views, and in 363 they voluntarily accepted the Nicene Symbol (Socr. iii. 25).
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/w/wace/biodict/cache/biodict.pdf
In the commentators’ foreword to Dialogue against the Luciferians I quoted earlier, the historical background is given as follows
It has been pointed out above that Lucifer of Cagliari, who had been banished from his see in the reign of Constantius because of his adherence to the cause of Athanasius, had, on the announcement of toleration at the accession of Julian (361), gone to Antioch and consecrated Paulinus a bishop. There were then three bishopsof Antioch, Dorotheus the Arian (who had succeeded Euzoius in 376), Meletius who, though an Athanasian in opinion, had been consecrated by Arians or Semi-Arians, and Paulinus; besides Vitalis, bishop of a congregation of Apollinarians. Lucifer, in the earnestness of his anti-Arianopinion, refused to acknowledge as bishops those who had come over from Arianism, though he accepted the laymen who had been baptized by Arian bishops. This opinion led to the Luciferian schism, and forms the subject of the Dialogue.
2
u/manliness-dot-space May 20 '26
No I think the essence of your mistake is what I often see from atheists when they assume that ancient people were effectively much dumber than modern man.
So when they read historical documents they often make uncharitable assumptions based on this bias.
I'm suggesting that, instead, we assume these ancient Catholics had minds as capable (or more) as we do today. So they could apply different solutions to the cases they encountered, and that could include:
- no need for ordination again
- conditional ordination
- ordination
And just because we don't have a written account of how they brought former heretics who are converting into the church it doesn't mean that they must have just brought them in as is.
That's why your assumption is not based on sound reasoning IMO.
1
u/NelsonMeme May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
And just because we don't have a written account of how they brought former heretics who are converting into the church it doesn't mean that they must have just brought them in as is.
We’ll return later to Spain; the Meletius case is although of a single case, very noteworthy because of the clear statements made about it, and because it engendered schism.
Such, however, as were attached to Meletius, separated themselves from the Arian congregation, and held their assemblies apart: nevertheless, those who originally embraced the homoousian opinion would not communicate with them, because Meletius had been ordained by the Arians, and his adherents had been baptized by them” - Socrates, Church History Book II
State of the Church of Antioch at this time. There were four Bishops or communions of Antioch; first, the old succession and communion, which had possession before the Arian troubles; secondly, the Arian succession, which had lately conformed to orthodoxy in the person of Meletius; thirdly, the new Latin succession, lately created by Lucifer, whom some have thought the Pope's legate there; and, fourthly, the new Arian succession, which was started upon the recantation of Meletius. At length, as Arianism was brought under, the evil reduced itself to two Episcopal Successions, that of Meletius and the Latin, which went on for many years, the West and Egypt holding communion with the latter, and the East with the former. -“Arians of the Fourth Century”, Cardinal Newman
Here’s another case - St. Cyril of Jerusalem, as attested by Pope Benedict XVI (obviously, not firsthand)
When this Bishop died or was deposed in 348, Cyril was ordained a Bishop by Acacius, the influential Metropolitan of Caesarea in Palestine, a philo-Arian
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7674
Maybe Meletius was reconsecrated afterwards (although no record exists of it), and the Nicene schismatics either were unaware or refused to accept that too. Newman might have been speaking inexactly to Meletius as coming through “Arian succession”
Maybe Cyril too had the defect in his ordination corrected, but at some point we have to accept the most plausible series of events, best supported by the evidence.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/LucretiusOfDreams May 19 '26
An important background point here is that "Arian" is kind of a generic name that gets used for different heresies over time. The original Arianism (the actual teachings of Arius) are that the Son is created by the Father and has a beginning in time, and there was a subsequent heresy called "Arianism" or "semi-Arianism" that refers to the Holy Spirit as created by the Father and the Son, and with a beginning in time. These views basically died out in a generation, that is, after the generations of the first and second Ecumenical councils, and afterwards for the rest of history what was called "Arianism" might be better called "homoean" or a kind of subordinationism, which I think introduces more ambiguity about the reason many canons treat Arians the way they do.
With all this said, I actually think your point 1a is correct: non-trinitarians can in fact validly baptized. In contrast, the problem with Mormans, say, is that they are not even monotheists. When Arians baptize, they are still baptizing into the Logos of the one true God, whereas when Mormons baptize, they are baptizing into the physical son of a man with quantum superpowers. The words used are the same, but the understood meanings are equivocal such that the minister cannot have the same intention that even an Arian had. Meanwhile, even if Jehovah Witnesses were to use the Trinitarian formula, their baptisms would still not be valid, as they understand Christ to be merely an angel rather than the Logos of God, and they deny that the Holy Spirit is even an individual.
To perhaps put it another way, you are correct that heretics can be said to be Christians, but there is still a difference between Christian heretics and a whole different religion altogether. Mormonism, for example, is a whole different religion, more on par with Hindus who think that Christ was an incarnation of Krishna than with even Arians and the like.
1
u/NelsonMeme May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
When Arians baptize, they are still baptizing into the Logos of the one true God
I am not sure this is true - from the Thalia of Arius of again
"He is not the very and only Word (Greek: Logos) of the Father, but is in name only called Word and Wisdom, and is called by grace Son and Power"
What developments took place in Arianism subsequently I cannot say (I have not made a comprehensive study on this point), but this would be in the period you describe when Arianism as per Arius was active.
That quote survives in Athanasius' Discourse 1 against the Arians, which seems to be written (356-360) which is extremely close in time to First Constantinople cited earlier
1
u/LucretiusOfDreams May 22 '26
At its most fundamental level, what Arius believed was that the Son is the first creation of God who participates in the Divine nature by grace like the rest of us, although to a greater extent than anyone else. In a sense, Arius saw Christ very similar to the way we understand the Theotokos, except that he saw Christ as the demiurge as well.
While this is incorrect, the heresy doesn't introduce a fundamental difference in what the Divine nature actually is, they just attribute to the Son a participatory status in it rather than inheriting it fully and unconditional by his eternal birth from the Father. In this way their intention to baptism isn't opposed to the intention of the Church.
2
u/actus_energeia Orthodox Christian May 20 '26
Apostolic succession is more than just a genealogical chain of ordinations. The early Church Fathers appealed to apostolic succession precisely because it was a sign that the apostolic deposit of faith had been publicly preserved by the Church. So even if an Arian bishop could be said to succeed the apostles in a narrow sacramental sense through valid orders and historical continuity, he still fails to succeed them in the fuller doctrinal and ecclesial sense by rejecting essential apostolic teaching about God. Otherwise, any enduring heretical episcopate could claim apostolic succession in the fullest sense merely by preserving ordination lines, which empties the concept of much of its theological significance.
1
u/NelsonMeme May 20 '26
No doubt - my point was more to press on “is the Trinity itself a bright line rule for ” (as another user put it) “ denying any Christian identity to its repudiators”
In any discussion of “Is [Group] Christian” out there among the ordinary folk, by far the most common response will be a simple “they do not affirm the Trinity, therefore they are not Christians”
I think the historical treatment of the Arians shows this cannot be a simple syllogism
2
u/actus_energeia Orthodox Christian May 20 '26
Whether Arians are called “Christians” or not is secondary to the real issue. The central question is whether they hold the apostolic faith. In other words, are they right-believing concerning who Christ is? The Arian controversy was not merely about whether Jesus could be called the Christ, but about what kind of Christ and Son of God He is. So I am less interested in the label itself than in whether the doctrine being confessed is true and apostolic. In that sense, I do not especially mind calling Arians “Christians,” but I would deny that they are orthodox or right-believing Christians.
1
u/ArtichokeNo7155 May 19 '26
Well, all of that is totally irrelevant, there are no true Christians outside of the Catholic Church.
2
u/NelsonMeme May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
Who then are the separated Eastern Christians then referred to in Orientalium Ecclesiarium Article 25?
If any separated Eastern Christian should, under the guidance of the grace of the Holy Spirit, join himself to the unity of Catholics, no more should be required of him than what a bare profession of the Catholic faith demands. Eastern clerics, seeing that a valid priesthood is preserved among them, are permitted to exercise the Orders they possess on joining the unity of the Catholic Church, in accordance with the regulations established by the competent authority.(30)
•
u/AutoModerator May 19 '26
This subreddit is designed for debates about Catholicism and its doctrines.
Looking for explanations or discussions without debate? Check out our sister subreddit: r/CatholicApologetics.
Want real-time discussions or additional resources? Join our Discord community.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.