Athanasius and the Arians

[JoabAnias]

even if Eusebius had Arian leanings, was he actually in a heretic Church? if he was in THE Church, then it doesnt matter what he believed -- the sacrament is still valid -- to say otherwise is Donatism.

Is it your assumption that because Constantine was baptised by an Arian that it wasn't a valid baptism?

The Church teaches that anyone can baptize under those conditions and we don't re-baptize.

Peace.

 

[ScottBot]

You all should clarify your terms so that the other participants aren't confused.

Donatism​

Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid.
Donatism developed as a result of the persecution of Christians ordered by Diocletian in 303 in which all churches and sacred scriptures of the Christians were to be destroyed. In 304 another edict was issued ordering the burning of incense to the idol gods of the Roman empire. Of course, Christians refused, but it did not curtail the increased persecution. Many Christians gave up the sacred texts to the persecutors and even betrayed other Christians to the Romans. These people became known as "traditors," Christians who betrayed other Christians. (Note: traditor, not traitor)​

At the consecration of bishop Caecilian of Carthage in 311, one of the three bishops, Felix, bishop of Aptunga, who consecrated Caecilian, had given copies of the Bible to the Roman persecutors. A group of about 70 bishops formed a synod and declared the consecration of the bishop to be invalid. Great debate arose concerning the validity of the sacraments (baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc.) by one who had sinned so greatly against other Christians. ​

Ater the death of Caecilian, Aelius Donatus the Great became bishop of Carthage and it is from his name that the movement is called. The Donatists were gaining "converts" to their cause and a division was arising in the Catholic church. They began to practice rebaptism which was particularly troublesome to the church at the time and was condemned at the Synod of Arles in 314 since it basically said the authority in the Catholic church was lost.

The Donatist issue was raised at several ecumenical councils and finally submitted to Emporer Constantine in 316. In each case the consecration of bishop Caecilian was upheld. However, persecution fuels emotions and by 350 the Donatists had gained many converts and outnumbered the Orthodox in Africa. But it was the apologetic by Augustine that turned the tide against the Donatist movement which eventually died out in the next century.​

The problem with Donatism is that no person is morally pure. The effectiveness of the baptism or administration of the Lord's supper does not cease to be effective if the moral character of the minister is in question or even demonstrated to be faulty. Rather, the sacraments are powerful because of what they are, visible representations of spiritual realities. God is the one who works in and through them and He is not restricted by the moral state of the administrant.​

 

[JoabAnias]

You all should clarify your terms so that the other participants aren't confused.

Donatism​

Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid.
Donatism developed as a result of the persecution of Christians ordered by Diocletian in 303 in which all churches and sacred scriptures of the Christians were to be destroyed. In 304 another edict was issued ordering the burning of incense to the idol gods of the Roman empire. Of course, Christians refused, but it did not curtail the increased persecution. Many Christians gave up the sacred texts to the persecutors and even betrayed other Christians to the Romans. These people became known as "traditors," Christians who betrayed other Christians. (Note: traditor, not traitor)​

At the consecration of bishop Caecilian of Carthage in 311, one of the three bishops, Felix, bishop of Aptunga, who consecrated Caecilian, had given copies of the Bible to the Roman persecutors. A group of about 70 bishops formed a synod and declared the consecration of the bishop to be invalid. Great debate arose concerning the validity of the sacraments (baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc.) by one who had sinned so greatly against other Christians. ​

Ater the death of Caecilian, Aelius Donatus the Great became bishop of Carthage and it is from his name that the movement is called. The Donatists were gaining "converts" to their cause and a division was arising in the Catholic church. They began to practice rebaptism which was particularly troublesome to the church at the time and was condemned at the Synod of Arles in 314 since it basically said the authority in the Catholic church was lost.​

The Donatist issue was raised at several ecumenical councils and finally submitted to Emporer Constantine in 316. In each case the consecration of bishop Caecilian was upheld. However, persecution fuels emotions and by 350 the Donatists had gained many converts and outnumbered the Orthodox in Africa. But it was the apologetic by Augustine that turned the tide against the Donatist movement which eventually died out in the next century.​

The problem with Donatism is that no person is morally pure. The effectiveness of the baptism or administration of the Lord's supper does not cease to be effective if the moral character of the minister is in question or even demonstrated to be faulty. Rather, the sacraments are powerful because of what they are, visible representations of spiritual realities. God is the one who works in and through them and He is not restricted by the moral state of the administrant.​

But don't you see how I become a Donatist for stating the fact that Constantine was baptized by an Arian?

No problem with that baptism from a Catholic view.

Think there is a catch 22 there?

Peace.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Montalban;History shows that the Pope had no authority over the whole church.

“Arius and his followers were first condemned by a synod of presbyters and deacons …and subsequently by a synod of bishops…, which the Pope and Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria summoned in Alexandria in the years 320 and 321 respectively.”[1]

This shows that even after the Popes condemnation another synod was held in Alexandria by the local patriarch in order to judge this teaching a heresy. In fact, the Emperor Constantine, called a council to be held at Nicea (325) in order to judge this teaching… this is five years after the Pope had condemned it.

Athanasius succeeded Alexander as Patriarch of Alexandria in 328. Arians there soon worked to have him deposed, charging that there were irregularities in his consecration.



Athanasius was forced to defend himself. He was vindicated before the emperor (331) and exonerated before Synods in Caesrea (334) but at Tyre of Phoenicia (335) he was exiled.



Later Athanasius was able to return but was dethroned a second time (339). He went to Rome and gained the support of the Pope Julius. The Pope called a synod (341) that exonerated Athanasius. The Arians conducted their own synod in Antioch and condemned the Roman Synod.



In 343 the emperor Constantius summoned a synod at Serdica. The over-whelming number of members supported Athanasius.[2] However, the minority had the meeting dissolved and reconvened in Philippoupolis where they secured both the condemnation of Athanasius as well as Julius of Rome. But the majority continued on Serdica and confirmed Athanasius’ restoration.



Athanasius was returned to Alexandria’s See but in 355 faced a third exile.



From these events we learn that the church was going through a turbulent time, thanks to the disquiet of Arianism. Despite the condemnation of the Pope, the church went on to have a formal meeting on the matter, the First Ecumenical Council. Despite the support of the Pope for Athanasius, the church went on to have a meeting to judge the merits of the case. The Pope’s word was not final because he had no authority over the church.

Anyone wish to comment?

Thanks for sharing that. I realy like Church history, but my reaction is to think that this kinda rips the whole fabric of orthodoxy eastern & western, because it does violence to the notion of an entire body of tradition & doctrine, etc. having been "believed by all since the begining".
-Not that I cling to that notion, but some here do.
I have no problem with being called "Donatist". I am proud to be one, as I understand the term.
I don't think moral purity equates with sanctifying power, but I don't restrict the power of sanctification to the hands of a ceremonialy ordained priest, so I don't have lawyer's paranoia over technicalities, nor do I presume to preside or pontificate over the congregation, so I am not "my own Lone Ranger Pope" or an NT "Nadab" or "Abihu" offering strange fire.

 

[Philothei]

But don't you see how I become a Donatist for stating the fact that Constantine was baptized by an Arian?

No problem with that baptism from a Catholic view.

Think there is a catch 22 there?

Peace.

You can laugh all you want ... since there is no point to your claim.... Even he did or not nothing changes and that is not what Jackstraw said... He questioned you what a smart way to turn the tables... I am glad that you and Scotbot did some research though ... it seems some of us needed it... and it was not .... us...

There is no catch 22 either. The only catch is that the authority of the Pope was not needed for councils...in a contravercy issue. He was not the ultimate authority as he could also err.... no one is infallable only Christ.

 

[Philothei]

Thanks for sharing that. I realy like Church history, but my reaction is to think that this kinda rips the whole fabric of orthodoxy eastern & western, because it does violence to the notion of an entire body of tradition & doctrine, etc. having been "believed by all since the begining".
-Not that I cling to that notion, but some here do.
I have no problem with being called "Donatist". I am proud to be one, as I understand the term.
I don't think moral purity equates with sanctifying power, but I don't restrict the power of sanctification to the hands of a ceremonialy ordained priest, so I don't have lawyer's paranoia over technicalities, nor do I presume to preside or pontificate over the congregation, so I am not "my own Lone Ranger Pope" or an NT "Nadab" or "Abihu" offering strange fire.

You do not have ....lawyer's paranoia but protestant relativism instead... how nice. Christianity is not "everything goes" religion it had from the beginning certain ethos based on monostheism and commandments that came down to us from our Lord and Saviour, Christ.

 

[Vasileios]

JoabAnanias, I don' get it. Aren't you Catholic?

Don't you honor St. Constantine as a saint?
What is that "it was by Arian hands" you keep posting over and over? Are you also a Donatist? If he was a member of the Church and not excommunicated, the mystery was valid. So, what's your point exactly?

This was my initial post Joab, and it still hasn't been answered. You kept posting that St. Constantine was bapized by "arian hands" as if to make a point, the most obvious being that he was a heretic and by implying that there was something wrong with his baptism.

If you weren't implying anything then you should have clarified instead of resorting to comments of intellectual laziness and scriptural ignorance.

Also, it's fairly obvious that we have absolutely no problem with St. Constantine's baptism, seeing as his honored as an equal to the apostles, not to mention of course the pretty obvious fact that it was WE that questioned your repetition of his "arian handed" baptism.

You still haven't addressed the fact that St. Constantine is also a saint in your church, nor of course the fact that your Church embraces the Nicean Council, as well as the rest which were presided by emperors.

 

[JoabAnias]

This was my initial post Joab, and it still hasn't been answered. You kept posting that St. Constantine was bapized by "arian hands" as if to make a point, the most obvious being that he was a heretic and by implying that there was something wrong with his baptism.

If you weren't implying anything then you should have clarified instead of resorting to comments of intellectual laziness and scriptural ignorance.

Also, it's fairly obvious that we have absolutely no problem with St. Constantine's baptism, seeing as his honored as an equal to the apostles, not to mention of course the pretty obvious fact that it was WE that questioned your repetition of his "arian handed" baptism.

You still haven't addressed the fact that St. Constantine is also a saint in your church, nor of course the fact that your Church embraces the Nicean Council, as well as the rest which were presided by emperors.

Don't know where your post went as I didn't see it. Must be this bug with the time.

Who ratifies a Council?

And you really should read the whole thread.

 

[Philothei]

The councils are radified by the next council as they radify the canons from the previous concil... ultimately the 'whole church' radifies them...by accepting them.
It is not the pope who does that is for sure... And BTW "Ecumenical" is a term given apriori... to the councils... they all are local at first.....

No need to read the whole thread as there was no connection to Constantine... You were the only one rasing this issue .... as it really has anything to do with the OP.... it does not...

 

[JoabAnias]

Thanks for sharing that. I realy like Church history, but my reaction is to think that this kinda rips the whole fabric of orthodoxy eastern & western, because it does violence to the notion of an entire body of tradition & doctrine, etc. having been "believed by all since the begining".
-Not that I cling to that notion, but some here do.
I have no problem with being called "Donatist". I am proud to be one, as I understand the term.
I don't think moral purity equates with sanctifying power, but I don't restrict the power of sanctification to the hands of a ceremonialy ordained priest, so I don't have lawyer's paranoia over technicalities, nor do I presume to preside or pontificate over the congregation, so I am not "my own Lone Ranger Pope" or an NT "Nadab" or "Abihu" offering strange fire.

Hey Ricko, how ya been? Did someone call you a Donatist too? Lemme at em!

The tearing you discribe is a good definition of schism. It's 99% free emotionalism I would say. Sort of like these backhanded topics to slander ones brother in the sneakiest and most sarcastic way possible and still not break the rules of the forum. As if I came into GA and made Sola this or that threads asking what it was but really wanted to give it a black eye.

I think you probably know where I stand on a Royal and Magisterial priesthood. Its a visible enough Roman development.

About the sanctity thing, don't you think God sheds more favor on the most pious/asthetic and will deify us into Gods at the end of our theosis if we debase ourselves in this life enough and make it through all 21 toll houses? I didn't think so, but some people do. Better get out your cat of nine tails and start carrying/suffering your cross bro. May the most sarcastic drive by post win! That aught to unify us.

P.S. If you read my mind - I will change it.

 

[Philothei]

this video is no longer available

 

[jckstraw72]

i thought you were saying St. Constantine was an Arian bc he was baptized by someone who may have had Arian leanings.

 

[JoabAnias]

i thought you were saying St. Constantine was an Arian bc he was baptized by someone who may have had Arian leanings.

Well, thats what the text says but that wouldn't mean his baptism was invalid or his conversion null if thats what you were thinking.

His mother could have baptized him for all that matters.

I think he believed the Arian heresy which at the time was the majority. After all, it was the cause of the council that he called. So not unreasonable to think so simply based on those facts without some exhaustive academic search.

The Pope himself may have believed it too. I don't know. Its really beside the point of the OP wether he did or not. I thought the point was who had the authority to call the council. I think that is also beside the point as its about who has the authority to ratify it. There is still a veto vote by virtue of truth handling charism.

Peace.

 

[xameni]

The Pope himself may have believed it too. I don't know. Its really beside the point of the OP wether he did or not. I thought the point was who had the authority to call the council. I think that is also beside the point as its about who has the authority to ratify it. There is still a veto vote by virtue of truth handling charism.

Your statement here makes a "nice little story" for those who believe in fairy tales. Sorry but the Primacy of the Pope little has to do with the primacy of Peter. I am afraid that taking the historical road there is not enough evidence that proves such a claim. The early church little has to offer to us as far as the "leadership" of the succesor of Peter's seat.

 

[xameni]

The Pope himself may have believed it too. I don't know. Its really beside the point of the OP wether he did or not. I thought the point was who had the authority to call the council. I think that is also beside the point as its about who has the authority to ratify it. There is still a veto vote by virtue of truth handling charism.

Your statement here makes a "nice little story" for those who believe in fairy tales. Sorry but the Primacy of the Pope little has to do with the primacy of Peter. I am afraid that taking the historical road there is not enough evidence that proves such a claim. The early church little has to offer to us as far as the "leadership" of the succesor of Peter's seat.

 

[JoabAnias]

The Pope himself may have believed it too. I don't know. Its really beside the point of the OP wether he did or not. I thought the point was who had the authority to call the council. I think that is also beside the point as its about who has the authority to ratify it. There is still a veto vote by virtue of truth handling charism.

Your statement here makes a "nice little story" for those who believe in fairy tales. Sorry but the Primacy of the Pope little has to do with the primacy of Peter. I am afraid that taking the historical road there is not enough evidence that proves such a claim. The early church little has to offer to us as far as the "leadership" of the succesor of Peter's seat.

One doesn't have to take just history though first one has to learn it. I gave scripture too. Of course many wouldn't believe that either if Jesus told them Himself.

 

[xameni]

One doesn't have to take just history though first one has to learn it. I gave scripture too. Of course many wouldn't believe that either if Jesus told them Himself.

been there, done that! Scripture does not support this claim by far.

 

[JoabAnias]

been there, done that! Scripture does not support this claim by far.

Doesn't support what claim? Do you mean the trinity, bible or authority of a book?

 

[Philothei]

that is our version of monastics fighting back secularization.... and social ills.

Free monks (sorry no lyrics in English... someday though they are working on it, the message is anticomformist though) This brotherhood has done lots of social outreach with youth and the poor... We are not lacking Christocentric work ....


http://www.freemonks.gr/pegen/h027/pegint.dll?faq00.peg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcFxqGoWsY8&feature=related

 

[WarriorAngel]

I am confused.

So i am just coming in to say....
Why were the Arians [who were in dispute with the Church on theology] upheld in the OP because they didnt obey the Pope?

Why was that the argument of proof?

If this was already answered..my bad.
This whole bug in the system has me confused now.