Orthodox view on baptism by a heretic (Constantine and Arianism)

[Dan-Man916]

There has always been something that has bothered me about the Orthodox claim of Constantine being a saint.

Constantine was not baptized till he was near death, and he was baptized by an Arian priest.
It is the position of the Orthodox that they are unsure whether or not baptisms performed by heretics are valid or not.

If Constantine was baptized by a heretical priest (Arian), then wouldn’t they question whether or not he was truly baptized?
And if so, then how can they consider him a saint, if there is a question as to whether he was baptized in the Church or not.

it seems to me there is an irreconcilable issue here between teh orthodox view of the sacraments outside of those who hold the orthodox faith, and the saintliness of a man baptized by an arian.

[Moderator Note: This discussion on Orthodoxy’s view of baptism by a heretic was sufficiently off-topic to create a new thread from it. Please http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=304379”]see here for the original discussion.]

 

[Aramis]

In Re Baptism by Arians: that was settled in an ecumenical council. The person doing it, so long as they do it correctly and intend what they do, matter not.

Canon 7 of the Second Council specifical considers arian baptism valid, but arians are accepted in via chrismation with holy myron (ie, re-confirmed).

 

[malphono]

In Re Baptism by Arians: that was settled in an ecumenical council. The person doing it, so long as they do it correctly and intend what they do, matter not.

Canon 7 of the Second Council specifical considers arian baptism valid, but arians are accepted in via chrismation with holy myron (ie, re-confirmed).

Yes, quite so. Thanks for supplying that.

… but there has always been something that has bothered me about the Orthodox claim of Constantine being a saint. …

It is the position of the Orthodox that they are unsure whether or not baptisms performed by heretics are valid or not. …

Further to the important point that Aramis clarified, I’m simply going to note that there was no “Orthodox Church” (as we know it today) at the time of Constantine. It seems to me, then, that any question or criticism of him commemoration on the Eastern and Oriental calendars is criticism of Rome ipso facto.

 

[Dan-Man916]

my intention was not to impugn St. Constantine, as I believe he is a saint in heaven.
My question stemmed from not understanding the Orthodox position on whether or not a heretic can baptize someone into the Church. It was always my understanding that the Orthodox are quite divided as to whether or not Roman Catholic baptism is really a baptism since outside the Church, they hold that the sacraments hold no grace.

 

[mystified]

Technically, one is not “baptized into the Church” but is baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, thus becomes an “adopted son (or daughter) of God.”
A baptism is valid it the baptizer intends to do it according to “the rules”. That’s why the Church recongnizes baptism by non-Catholic ministers, indeed by anyone, as long as the recognized Trinitarian form is used.

 

[3Sanctus]

Does the Orthodox Church now hold the same view about being baptized by non-Orthodox Christians as Rome holds on baptism by non-Catholics? Any Orthodox Christians here who could offer a definitive answer?

 

[Brian777]

If he was baptized as an adult by an Arian priest two problems arise.

1. He is well beyond the age of reason and by having an arian baptize him he is willingly accepting a heresy(one that his own creed (Nicene) condemns ironically) and rejecting the orthodox Faith
2. Since the baptizer is Arian, then one can assume that the baptism was not in the trinitarian form as orthodox(East and West)christians would understand it.

So then is it really a valid baptism? I’m not condemning Constantine by any means i’m just interested to see what arguments can be given against these points. Constantine was a great emperor and devoted to Our Lord.