NumberOneSon
I believe you meant 534AD; The Vandals only sacked Rome in 455AD. Typing mistake thanks.
Arianism was Satans attempt to defeat the prophecy of Catholic rule? That sounds like something a 6th Century Catholic would have said, lol. This is according to History my friend.
After their conversion to Arianism, the Goths split (into the western Goths or Visigoths, and the eastern Goths or Ostrogoths). The Ostrogoths, who settled into almost-wholly-Catholic Italy, gradually shed Arianism over a period of time. The Vandal kingdom was defeated by Emperor Justinian and his general Belisarius in the early 6th century and was won over to eastern Catholicism. Where they settled in Spain, the Visigoths retained Arianism until the late 6th century when their king, Reccared I, converted to Catholicism, inspiring most of the rest of his Arian subjects to do the same, and suppressing a revolt by a minority who did not.
That the barbarian kingdoms had been a refuge for Arianism had an interesting effect: By the 6th century most all of the Arians in the former Roman Empire were living in these kingdoms; Arianism had lurked in pockets throughout the central and western Empire, but these had largely dried up outside of the Vandal and Gothic kingdoms. When these regions went over to Catholicism, this had the effect of virtually wiping out Arianism. http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/index.html
None of the ten kingdoms had the faith at that time; they were all either Arian or pagan. The first of the kingdoms to convert to Catholic Christianity were the Franks in the 6th Century, but that only happened some 15 years after the fall of Odoacers Heruli kingdom in Italy in 493AD. The faith I was referring to was Catholicism.
Nah, there was never any real danger of that happening. Catholicism had the numbers and the infrastructure to stand the test of time. The Arianism of the barbarian tribes couldnt match that.
However, much of southeastern Europe and central Europe, including many of the Goths and Vandals respectively, had embraced Arianism (the Visigoths converted to Arian Christianity in 376), which led to Arianism being a religious factor in various wars in the Roman Empire. In the west, organized Arianism survived in North Africa, in Hispania, and parts of Italy until it was finally suppressed in the 6th and 7th centuries. Grimwald, King of the Lombards (662671), and his young son and successor Garibald (671), were the last Arian kings in Europe. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There were more German Tribes who accepted the Arian belief but was not as organized like Clovis and other Catholic reformers during this time. Read the Decline of the Roman Empire by Gibbons
Yet the ultimate triumph of Catholicism in Italy was probably never seriously in doubt. After all, the Arians, whether Goths or Lombards, were in the decided minority. The great mass of the population was Catholic. The invaders were inferior in culture to the conquered and must almost inevitably be assimilated by them. As the amalgamation proceeded, Arianism would disappear. Moreover, in its organization Arianism was at a disadvantage. It tended to split into churches dependent on monarchs. In contrast with it was Catholicism, with its hierarchy strongly entrenched in the life of Italy, its bishops often the chief representatives of Roman culture. Then, too, the Arians had nothing equivalent to the Papacy. While that had not yet developed all the powers which it later possessed, it was a centre around which Catholics, and especially those of the city of Rome, could rally, and under a Pontiff like Gregory I it gave aggressive leadership to their forces.
(Latourettes History of the Expansion of Christianity, Kenneth Latourette, Vol. II, pg. 26)
These German Tribes were large and powerful the Vandals had sack Rome, but they were not united. If they had been, they could have defeated the Catholics. For a while though the popery problem of the Catholic Church they grew but they also did not unite together as the Catholics did under Clovis and Charlemagne.
The Arian bishops took their fill of court favour and influence while it lasted, but made no provision for the future. They stood apart from one another in stupid and ignorant isolation. Untouched apparently by the great Augustinian thought of the world-encompassing City of God, they tended more and more to form local, tribal Churches, one for the Visigoths, another for the Vandals, another for the Burgundians. And thus in the end the fable of the loosened planks and the broken sticks was proved true of all the Arian monarchies.
(Italy and Her Invaders, Thomas Hodgkin, Vol. III)
The Arianism, indeed, of the Goths had not the fresh ardour of burning zeal of recent proselytism. It was a kind of religious accident, arising out of their first conversion, which happened to take place during the reign of an Arian Emperor, and through Arian missionaries. It had settled into a quiet hereditary faith. There was no peculiar congeniality in its tenets with the Teutonic mind, which was rather disposed to receive what it was taught with implicit faith; and, though no doubt averse to the subtleties of the Greek theology, neither comprehended, nor cared to comprehend, these controversies. It was content to adhere to the original creed, or, possibly, might feel some pride in differing from the abject race, over which it asserted its civil and military superiority.
(History of Latin Christianity, H.H. Milman, Vol. I, pg. 384)
If you read what you provided prove my point they were not united!
Happy Sabbathstinsonmarri
.
