If the Catholic Church obliterated all memory of heretics, why have we even HEARD OF Arius, Nestorius, Montanus, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
So somebody DID object to the invention of the Mass, the six other sacraments, the veneration of saints, etc., but the Church obliterated them from history? Unlike the THOUSANDS of OTHER heretics in history.
That’s a neat trick. The SAVAGERY of the Catholic Church against these proto-Lutherans is PROVEN by the fact that we have NO RECORD of the savagery.
Same kind of reasoning that Catholics use about the assumption of Mary. Since there's no record of her death, it means that she didn't die.
Funny how Catholics accept it when it favors them.
Against those whom sided with Arius -- there was murderous savagery --- beginning within days of the end of proceedings of the Council of Nicea.
First, those who agreed with Arius were brutally set upon by those whom sided with Athanasius.
Later, things turned the other way around, and Athanasius had to flee for his life, yet Romanists seem to always forget the first part, remembering only Athanasius later being driven to exile, multiple times.
It would serve us well to recall also that he was not "of" Rome, nor owed his own eventually acquired bishopric to Rome, but was instead of the "See" of Alexandria.
I could possibly dig out the quote from the historian Philip Schaff who noted that Athansius did not object (that there is record of) as for the Arians being savagely set upon, but only raised his own voice against the violence once that worm turned to look himself in the eye.
While we are noting things -- it should also be recognized that Arius himself -- his own positions in comparison to later heretical positions which {wrongly} came to be associated with that bishop's name, were {again, in comparison) extremely mild in the direction of differentiation between the Incarnate Christ -- and God the Father. Those two are indeed two different persons -- even as recognized by the Trinitarian definition championed by Athanasius.
The core principle within that definition is perhaps --- the three (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are all of one essence with myself using that particular word here rather than the more commonly employed word "substance", due to modern word usage.
In later centuries, so-called "Arians" took the thinking to places which Arius himself is attributed to having been firmly opposed to, while himself also being able to plead with a straight face in his own era -- that his own words concerning Christological conceptions were fairly traditional in a sense, for there was much wide-spread and orthodox history behind his own positions.
As for Nestorius -- he too was in danger for his own life -- and the proceedings there began before he himself arrived (by necessity, accompanied by armed guard). His opposition pleaded his case -- for him, and then those whom were there -- decided the matter before Nestorious even arrived. His later allowed reasoning and testimony was going against a stacked deck.
Following that -- those on the winning side banished Nestor and all of his church, with that schism persisting until late in the 20th century, wherein the RCC eventually relented and accepted that referring to Mary as "mother of the Incarnate Christ" was not heretical, while also browbeating the Nestorians into agreeing with the inherently problematic phrase "Mother of God" to be acceptable for Mary, also.
As for others who could possibly be looked upon as "proto-protestant (rather than just proto-lutheran) the list is rather longish -- with many of those having virtually all but entirely disappeared, the Roman Catholics having retained chiefly only record of what they themselves accused these others of -- by which I mean it can be rare to find these whom Rome persecuted explaining things in their own words, on their own terms (as Rome insists that all allow herself to do -- with no exception).
Burning such individuals as Jan Hus, and Jerome of Prague at the stake (lighting the fires when those both were alive) is inexcusable.
To reach for the excuse that the Council of Constance was not legitimate for reason of the papacy having been at that time contested --- serves, to an extent -- to bust up the claim of "uninterrupted succession" ---as if occupancy of THAT office was any guarantee of righteousness, and teaching only that which came from Christ and the Apostles.
What a SICK JOKE that claim is.
One simply must be born again. To properly stand in the shoes of the fisherman -- one themselves must receive the knowledge that Jesus was the Messiah, in the very self-same manner in which Peter did.
Even then -- from the earliest times of the Church, there was no singular bishop of bishops. That much is just so much Romish error -- even heresy.