How do protestants explain history

[Isaiah45_9]

Not sure but I thought Constantine had him arrested.

Hmm, maybe… So much happened during that time. Could have been when he didn’t want to denounce Athanasius or when he didn’t want to sign a communion agreement with the Arians. I think he was forced to sign it and then he retracted it. Maybe that’s when he left for Spain and they caught up to him after the retraction… He never went against Athanasius though, he was just as strong against the Arians as Athanasius was.

It could have been Constantine’s son - Constantine II… I think that’s who it was…

Too much to read, too little time

 

[benhur]

Hmm, maybe… So much happened during that time. Could have been when he didn’t want to denounce Athanasius or when he didn’t want to sign a communion agreement with the Arians. I think he was forced to sign it and then he retracted it. Maybe that’s when he left for Spain and they caught up to him after the retraction… He never went against Athanasius though, he was just as strong against the Arians as Athanasius was.

It could have been Constantine’s son - Constantine II… I think that’s who it was…

Too much to read, too little time

Maybe. the post that was negative on Const. triggered something i thought i read recently that ringed true but it is a blur for I was digging into something else and not that specifically at the time. For sure I remember Anthanasius was a good guy, wearing the white hat on Christological issues.

 

[Contarini]

Don’t doubt that but it was over bigger issues, like Christology not over consubstantation vs transubsatnatiation or allegiance to Rome or not.

True, but the Real Presence is a Christological issue. And so is ecclesiology. It’s all connected, although certainly doctrinal development moves in the direction of finer and finer distinctions, for the most part.

Yes. Like the nicene creed is basic , universal stuff and if that is all we had to today I think we’d all be one, at least by that standard.

Yes, but it wasn’t basic when it first appeared. The “homoousios” was very controversial. It only became “universal” through fierce controversy.

I think CC has the largest amount of dogma to be believed to be considered a first class citizen of the kingdom today.

It’s not about being “first class” in oneself, but about fully adhering to the faith as it’s been handed down.

Like many P’s on this forum will say “well the main thing is to know Jesus, be born again” and the rebuttal is a littany of “qualifications”, beyond the Nicene Creed or qualifying it.

Well, the Nicene Creed goes beyond just “knowing Jesus.” The Arians believed that they knew Jesus. . . .

Of course the main thing is to know Jesus. No one, hopefully, disputes that. But we know Jesus fully as members of His Body, not just as individuals.

. Another words, not sure if any other denomination would say imperfection is due to not being a member of their church …They may say you are imperfect due to certain differing dogmas, but not directed to specific membership and not "imperfect or inferring second class in the Body. You are either in the Body or you are not.

Right. And you see this as a point against Catholicism. I see it the other way round, and here’s why:

Protestants who take doctrine seriously make doctrine the determiner of the Church. As you say, the most common position among evangelicals is that if you believe in the “basics” and have a living relationship with Jesus you are fully part of the Church, even if you are wrong about certain doctrines. But as you say, it’s the other way round for Catholics. What matters most is to be fully in communion with the Church. That means that you can differ on all sorts of theological matters and still be in fellowship. In doctrinally serious Protestantism, there is no way of dealing with significant disagreements other than schism. You and other Protestants think this is OK because people aren’t questioning each other’s full membership in the True Church. But if people’s differences over the validity of infant baptism, say, preclude their being part of the same community, then we have a problem. What does it mean to say that we are both part of the Church if we can’t worship together and if your baptism isn’t valid in my church or vice versa?

Furthermore, the all-or-nothing position you describe can lead to sectarianism–to writing people out of the Church entirely.

 

[Contarini]

It doesn’t need to explain anything. That’s irrelevant to the discussion.

Not at all. The Eastern Church includes the Eastern Catholics who are fully part of the Catholic Church. I’m not a fan of the fact that they venerate Constantine, but don’t you think it at least implies that his baptism was valid?

But more to the point, you haven’t actually shown that anyone at the time or since has ever questioned this validity. I mean anyone with the authority to do so.

And more important Constantine willingly embraced an heresy (arianism) in the year 337 a.D. with perfect knowledge about the explicit condemnation of this heresy (arianism) for the Catholic Church in the Council of Nicea 12 years before (325 a.D.).

It wasn’t that simple. Eusebius of Nicomedia claimed to subscribe to I Nicea.

Eastern Church can venerate whatever they want but from catholic perspective Constantine is without a doubt an heretic.

Then why didn’t the Church say so at the time? Why has no one said so since? Did it take you to figure out this devastating truth?

Look, the hard truth here is that the fourth-century Church let Constantine get away with all sorts of stuff they shouldn’t have. But also, things were much messier than they appear in hindsight.

First. The authority of the Canon 7 is doubtful at best (rather spurious). The 7th canon is an extract from a letter which the church of Constantinople sent to Martyrius of Antioch and it doesn’t belong to the Council.

But without considering this your assertion is problematic. The reason is easy. When Constantine is baptized in the arian faith (year 337 a.C.) the conditions of baptized heretics are established not for the Council of Constantinople (hold 44 years later of Constantine baptism) rather for the Nicea Council. And the lines of course were more clearly drawn in this moment than in Constantinople.

Not of course at all. Quite the reverse.

This council says the heretics must to be rebaptized (canon 17). The text mentions “paulianists” (followers of Paul of Samosata) but paulianists like later arians baptized with the formula “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”. So this formula is not enough to guarantee a valid sacrament like you point to.

That’s an ingenious argument, but of course the idea that this applied to the Arians is yours .

The bottom line here is that no one in the fourth century questioned C’s baptism. At least, not that I ever heard of. I have never heard of this suggestion until now. You’re applying a rigorist idea of sacramental validity and a harsh interpretation of C’s actions and motives to reach a novel conclusion–why?

Another false statement. The council of Nicea was presided by a bishop of my home town (Andalusia, Spain), Osio of Cordoba. Osio was exiled in today Serbia and hit with a whip to the dead for the thugs of the arian emperor (357 a.D.) He was 101 years old.

OK, Constantine called the Council and played a significant role. I’ll take back “presided.” i don’t want to take credit away from your countryman Hosius

“Mistaken historical information”. What? Explain where. Say that Constantine presided the Council of Nicea (wrong, Osio of Cordoba was) or Eusebius of Nicodemia had Arian Sympathies (wrong, he was without reservations an arian bishop who commited crimes to defend his heretic faith) is rather that I’d call to give mistaken historical information.

Eusebius of Nicomedia was a bishop of the Church in good standing when he baptized Constantine. You can argue that he was a hypocrite who had subscribed to Nicea for purely political reasons, but he did subscribe. Hence I stand by my claim. At the time Constantine was baptized. Eusebius was not excommunicated, and he was certainly not part of some rival Arian Church. See this Orthodox apologia. I think it goes too far in the other direction, but it makes a valid point that Eusebius was reinstated. See the Catholic Encyclopedia article on him, which makes clear that while he did have what I described as “Aran sympathies,” he claimed to accept Nicea and tried to reinstate Arius and banish Athanasius without explicitly going against the Council. Also, the CE article on Constantine never suggests that his baptism was invalid.

Edwin

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Eusebius of Nicomedia was a bishop of the Church in good standing when he baptized Constantine. You can argue that he was a hypocrite who had subscribed to Nicea for purely political reasons, but he did subscribe. Hence I stand by my claim. At the time Constantine was baptized. Eusebius was not excommunicated, and he was certainly not part of some rival Arian Church. See this Orthodox apologia. I think it goes too far in the other direction, but it makes a valid point that Eusebius was reinstated. See the Catholic Encyclopedia article on him, which makes clear that while he did have what I described as “Aran sympathies,” he claimed to accept Nicea and tried to reinstate Arius and banish Athanasius without explicitly going against the Council. Also, the CE article on Constantine never suggests that his baptism was invalid.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but assuming the bolded above is correct, it seems to me that Constantine’s baptism would have been valid, regardless of the bishop’s personal beliefs, due to the fact that the sacraments confer grace ex opere operato. This, of course, is assuming that Constantine was properly disposed to receive the grace conferred in the sacrament, but I don’t think that is a judgment we humans can make. It’s above our paygrade.

Wasn’t this one of the main issues addressed by the Church in condemning the Donatist heresy?

The second question was the validity of sacraments celebrated by priests and bishops who had been apostates under the persecution. The Donatists held that all such sacraments were invalid; by their sinful act, such clerics had rendered themselves incapable of celebrating valid sacraments. This is known as ex opere operantis, Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting. The Catholic position, according to Augustine, was ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God’s work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly. Hence, to the Donatists, a priest who had been an apostate but who repented could speak the words of consecration forever, but he could no longer confect the Eucharist. To Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ’s Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest’s faults.

 

[fasolislithuan]

…

Edwin

Well, knowing about “Donation of Constantine” and the fact that there was a legend about Constantine baptized by Pope Sylvester I is a clue that shows the general ignorance about the circumstances of Constantine’s baptism (few days before his dead). Or perhaps an imposible attempt to justify or legalize an “authentic” (catholic) baptism rather a false (heretic) one.

But the unquestionable fact is when Eusebius of Nicomedia baptized Constatine (337 a.D.) he wasn’t in good standing with Catholic Church. He (by plots against key bishops of the Nicean Council, who defended catholic trinitarian and nicean doctrine) was the responsible of the exile of Eustathius of Antioch (330), Athanasius of Alexandria (335) and Marcellus of Ancyra (336). All of them years before baptism of Constantine (337).

Paulinists and arians denied the divinity of Christ like JW today. All of them baptize with the trinitarian formula. Is JW baptism valid?
And of course Athanasius of Alexandria denied validity to arian baptism

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0295-0373,_Athanasius,Orationes_contra_Arianos%5BSchaff%5D,_EN.pdf

Read specially paragraphs 41-42-43 (page 784)

For where the Father is, there is the Son, and where the light, there the radiance; and as what the Father worketh, He worketh through the Son2477, and the Lord Himself says, ‘What I see the Father do, that do I also;’ so also when baptism is given, whom the Father baptizes, him the Son baptizes; and whom the Son baptizes, he is consecrated in the Holy Ghost. And again as when the sun shines, one might say that the radiance illuminates, for the light is one and indivisible, nor can be detached, so where the Father is or is named, there plainly is the Son also; and is the Father named in Baptism? then must the Son be named with Him.

…]

“I mean Baptism; for if the consecration is given to us into the Name of Father and Son, and they do not confess a true Father, because they deny what is from Him and like His Essence, and deny also the true Son, and name another of their own framing as created out of nothing, is not the rite administered by them altogether empty and unprofitable, making a show, but in reality being no help towards religion? For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work . And as a creature is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who simply says, ‘O Lord,’ gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith . On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, ‘Teach;’ then thus: ‘Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;’ that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism.”

Saludos

 

[Isaiah45_9]

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0295-0373,_Athanasius,Orationes_contra_Arianos%5BSchaff%5D,_EN.pdf

Read specially paragraphs 41-42-43 (page 784)

Saludos

Pages 123-126 of the pdf link

 

[Peter_J]

Early Christian texts, including NT ones, are very black-and-white: if you are a heretic (and in the NT “haeretikos” seems basically to mean “sectarian” or “schismatic”), you’re basically a child of the devil.

Are you quite sure you’re not Orthodox?

(kidding! Well, sort of.)

 

[benhur]

Protestants who take doctrine seriously make doctrine the determiner of the Church.

Not really. It may be the determiner of a congregation or denomination but not “Church” or the Body" (at least not as much doctrine as CC-)

What matters most is to be fully in communion with the Church. That means that you can differ on all sorts of theological matters and still be in fellowship.

Perhaps but if it is serious enough you (Catholics) also have schisms or drop outs.

You and other Protestants think this is OK because people aren’t questioning each other’s full membership in the True Church.

Right, so we still can have fellowship across such lines, or many lines.

But if people’s differences over the validity of infant baptism, say, preclude their being part of the same community, then we have a problem. What does it mean to say that we are both part of the Church if we can’t worship together and if your baptism isn’t valid in my church or vice versa?

Have never experienced that problem Fellowship still occurs or can occur despite baptismal differences.

Furthermore, the all-or-nothing position you describe can lead to sectarianism–to writing people out of the Church entirely.

Not sure where you get all or nothing . CC is technically not all or nothing and for sure P’s are not either . Unless you mean all or nothing like do you know Jesus as Savior or not , or have been born again or not .Still one can always hang out hopefully in any church in a loving, drawing atmosphere…So not sure why you say all or nothing. But yes, being in a church does not mean you are in the “Body”.

 

[Contarini]

Well, knowing about “Donation of Constantine” and the fact that there was a legend about Constantine baptized by Pope Sylvester I is a clue that shows the general ignorance about the circumstances of Constantine’s baptism (few days before his dead). Or perhaps an imposible attempt to justify or legalize an “authentic” (catholic) baptism rather a false (heretic) one.

That’s a good point.

But the unquestionable fact is when Eusebius of Nicomedia baptized Constatine (337 a.D.) he wasn’t in good standing with Catholic Church. He (by plots against key bishops of the Nicean Council, who defended catholic trinitarian and nicean doctrine) was the responsible of the exile of Eustathius of Antioch (330), Athanasius of Alexandria (335) and Marcellus of Ancyra (336). All of them years before baptism of Constantine (337).

Yes, I know those facts, but that doesn’t prove that he wasn’t a bishop of the Church. This was, again, a time of great confusion, when Eusebius and other “Arians” were making the case that their position didn’t contradict I Nicea, that Arius had modified his position or been misunderstood, and that Athanasius and his supporters had gone too far and were tainted by modalism (and in fact there appear to have been some good reasons for accusing Marcellus of Ancyra of modalism). It’s easy to read the post-Cappadocian clarity back into the earlier fourth century.

Again, I’m not saying he was orthodox. I’m saying that at he baptized Constantine as a bishop of the Catholic Church and according to the proper form, matter, and publicly expressed intention, and that in fact everyone has historically accepted this to be true. See Hefele’s History of the Councils, for instance.

You do have the valid point, of which I was unaware, that Eusebius of Caesarea (himself of questionable orthodoxy but much less clearly heretical than E of N) didn’t mention E of N’s involvement, and that in fact this involvement was named by Jerome together with an accusation that Constantine fell into Arian heresy. If this is all Jerome says about it, it doesn’t explicitly say that the baptism wasn’t valid. Your point about Canon 7 of Constantinople is interesting, but doesn’t it still reflect common practice?

Paulinists and arians denied the divinity of Christ like JW today. All of them baptize with the trinitarian formula. Is JW baptism valid?

No, although according to this link this is in part because there is no formula at all used. Again, you aren’t doing justice to the complexity of the situation in the 330s. Eusebius of Nicomedia subscribed to I Nicea (albeit reluctantly, and according to his enemies hypocritically). Athanasius wasn’t exiled for accepting I Nicea. In other words, Eusebius wasn’t acting as a bishop of a heretical church which as a matter of public faith denied the divinity of Christ (as the JWs do, very explicitly).

And of course Athanasius of Alexandria denied validity to arian baptism

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0295-0373,_Athanasius,Orationes_contra_Arianos%5BSchaff%5D,_EN.pdf

That’s a good point.

You have a stronger case than I initially thought, but I still think that you’re not doing justice to the messiness of the situation in the 330s, and that the fact that the Eastern Church venerates Constantine as a saint has some force (I know that there was no formal canonization and so infallibility isn’t involved).

Edwin