Since when being baptized by an Arian heretic makes you a Catholic?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

In a Saints thread at the Catholic Forum, I actually received a response I wasn't expecting. I had posted to ask John Gecik about some e-mails I had received. The previous poster had asked a question about Emperor Constantine.

Here is the story as it evolves.... Is that the same Constantine responsible for comprising the Bible?

-- Andrew m Tillcock (drewmeister7@earthlink.net), July 21, 2004.

Gecik, I received to re: e-mails from you today. I don't think they were from you. I deleted them. I have not sent you anything since the Pope paper.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 21, 2004.

Andrew, I've never heard of a person "comprising" something, so I don't know what you mean. However, I can tell you that the lists (canons) of Bible books were fixed long before St. Constantine of Monte Cassino was born.

Gonzalez, you were right to delete that junk mail, which I did not send. One way for you to avoid getting that kind of stuff is not to post messages at a forum where you ought not to be interfering (since you are an ex-Catholic, non-Christian proselytizer.)

God bless you. John

-- ("jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 22, 2004.

I'm sorry JFG, wasn't Constantine one of those present at the council of Nicea when they took the already written books and made them into what we now know as the bible. I guess i worded my question a bit goofy sorry

Peace be with you...........

-- Andrew m Tillcock (drewmeister7@earthlink.net), July 22, 2004.

Jmj No, Andrew.

(1) Constantine the Great was a Roman emperor -- and he did not even become a Catholic until he was near death in A.D. 337. He took sole rule of the empire after 320 and was very unhappy about the fact that it was troubled by a conflict over the Arian heresy. Though himself a pagan, he wanted all the bishops who considered themselves Christians to meet and solve the problem. This desire resulted in the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. The "Catholic Encyclopedia" states: "It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement."

(2) Present at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) were the bishops of the Catholic Church. The emperor Constantine did not attend -- or, even if he ever visited, he had no right to interfere in the theological deliberations.

(3) But the Council of Nicea did not proclaim the lists (canons) of the Old and New Testaments anyway, Andrew. That happened later in the Fourth Century.

God bless you. John

-- ("jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

Constantine helped in creating Catholic Orthodoxy, even the Nicene Creed.... but he did not die a Catholic. He was baptized by Eusebius, a semi-Arian. His childrem were Arians.

The Christian Yahwist

The man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

Moderator, please delete this message and the preceding one by Elpidio Gonzalez, who is befouling a saints/blesseds thread with his proselytizing. He should have been banned from the forum two years ago, since he is an ex-Catholic ... an Arian (non-Christian) ... who constantly seeks to lead Catholics into heretical misery along with him. This forum is not truly "Catholic" if it cannot ban such an evil-doer as E. Gonzalez. Besides interfering on this thread, he feeds errors to readers. He says that "Constantine ... did not die a Catholic." That is false. Constantine became very ill and was baptized on his death- bed. There is only one Baptism -- Catholic Baptism -- and that is what the emperor received. It does not matter if was baptized by even a Hindu. It is still the Catholic sacrament of Baptism. Besides being totally irrelevant, Gonzalez's statement that Constantine's "children were Arians" is incorrect, since not all of them were. Gonzalez lies in calling himself a "Christian Yahwist," since he rejects the divinity of Jesus and is therefore not a Christian. He is simply an Arian heretic who is currently headed for hell (unless he is so stupid or mentally ill that he has become invincibly ignorant).

God bless you. John

-- ("jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 24, 2004.

Being baptized, even by a heretic, makes you a member of the Church. It doesn't make you a heretic. That decision must be made personally, later in life. Also, the decisions of faith of the children is completely irrelevant to the decisions of faith of the parent.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 24, 2004.

JFG,Paul,Thank's guy's for providing me with the answers on that topic. The more knowledge i collect the stronger my Catholic faith grows. Thank's again...

-- Andrew m Tillcock (drewmeister7@earthlink.net), July 25, 2004.

So if I baptized my children? Are they Catholic or Christian Yahwists like me?

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004

Answers

Interesting story about baptism.

In Book VII, Eusebius mentions a story by a Roman Bishop now considered a Pope, Xystus about Baptism by heretics.

CHAPTER 9 The Ungodly Baptism of the Heretics HIS fifth epistle was written to Xystus, bishop of Rome. In this, after saying much against the heretics, he relates a certain occurrence of his time as follows:

"For truly, brother, I am in need of counsel, and I ask thy judgment concerning a certain matter which has come to me, fearing that

I may be in error. For one of the brethren that assemble, who has long been considered a believer, and who, before my ordination, and I think before the appointment of the blessed Heraclas, was a member of the congregation, was present with those who were recently baptized. And when he heard the questions and answers, he came to me weeping, and bewailing himself; and falling at my feet he acknowledged and protested that the baptism with which he had been baptized among the heretics was not of this character, nor in any respect like this, because it was full of impiety and blasphemy. And he said that his soul was now pierced with sorrow, and that he had not confidence to lift his eyes to

God, because he had set out from those impious words and deeds. And on this account he besought that he might receive this most perfect purification, and reception and grace.

Time and time again people say I am an Arian or a Nestorian.I have more in common with Paul of Samosata than with Arius, Eusebius protegé. Eusebius talks bad about Paul. Again in Book VII, Eusebius writes,

After Xystus had presided over the church of Rome for eleven years, Dionysius, namesake of him of Alexandria, succeeded him. About the same time Demetrianus died in Antioch, and Paul of Samosata received that episcopate. As he held, contrary to the teaching of the Church, low and degraded views of Christ, namely, that in his nature he was a common man,

Interesting that most of what we have against Paul is his company with women,....stuff that is not related to scripture.Which goes to show that those who don't follow certain beliefs now considered Catholic were attacked and their names smeared. These taken from New Advent a Catholic Encyclopedia.

Baptism and Paul of Samosata .....

About Arius. Note how Arius dies. Most likely he was poisoned by the Catholics. Taken from http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism.html Condemned by the synod of Alexandria (320), he left the city; but he was kindly received both by Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, and it was evident that not a few of the Asiatic churches favored his ideas....A letter from Constantine, addressed to Alexander and Arius, and carried to Alexandria by Hosius of Cordova, availed nothing: the whole Christian world rang with the contest. But, in spite of his many and powerful friends, Arius was defeated at the Council of Nicaea (325), and banished to Illyria. Soon, however, a reaction in his favor set in. The Eusebian party espoused his cause more openly, and through Constantia, the sister of the emperor, he got access to the court. He was formally recalled from banishment; and all the chiefs of the Eusebian party were assembled in Constantinople to receive him back into the bosom of the church, when he suddenly died the day before the solemnity (336), at the age of over eighty years, at a time and in a manner that seemed to the orthodox party to be a direct interposition of Providence, and a condemnation of his doctrine; while his friends attributed the death to poison. Athanasius relates the fact in a letter to Serapion, on the authority of a priest, Macarius of Constantinople (De Morte Arii, Opera, ed. Bened. torn. I., pp. 1., 340), ...Soon after, a faintness came over him, and, together with the evacuations, his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines. More over, portions of his spleen and liver were carried off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died.” Sozomen (H. E., II., 30).....

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08717c.htm From the cross-bar of the spear, was suspended a purple banner with the Greek inscription TOUTO NIKA -- i. e. conquer by this (sign), usually rendered in Latin "In hoc signo vinces" (in this sign thou shalt conquer).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

A vision had assured him that he should conquer in the sign of the Christ, and his warriors carried Christ's monogram on their shields, though the majority of them were pagans. The opposing forces met near the bridge over the Tiber called the Milvian Bridge, and here Maxentius' troops suffered a complete defeat, the tyrant himself losing his life in the Tiber (28 October, 312). Of his gratitude to the God of the Christians the victor immediately gave convincing proof; the Christian worship was henceforth tolerated throughout the empire (Edict of Milan, early in 313). His enemies he treated with the greatest magnanimity; no bloody executions followed the victory of the Milvian Bridge. Constantine stayed in Rome but a short time after his victory. Proceeding to Milan (end of 312, or beginning of 313) he met his colleague the Augustus Licinius, married his sister to him, secured his protection for the Christians in the East, and promised him support against Maximinus Daia. The last, a bigoted pagan and a cruel tyrant, who persecuted the Christians even after Galerius' death, was now defeated by Licinius, whose soldiers, by his orders, had invoked the God of the Christians on the battle-field (30 April, 313). Maximinus, in his turn, implored the God of the Christians, but died of a painful disease in the following autumn. ....Not long before his end, the hostile movement of the Persian king, Shâpûr, again summoned him into the field. When he was about to march against the enemy he was seized with an illness of which he died in May, 337, after receiving baptism.

Throughout his life as Emperor Constantine was a Pagan, a believer in Mithras who was worshipped on Sunday and on December 25. The Church further obtained the right to inherit property, and Constantine moreover placed Sunday under the protection of the State. It is true that the believers in Mithras also observed Sunday as well as Christmas. Consequently Constantine speaks not of the day of the Lord, but of the everlasting day of the sun. According to Eusebius, the heathen also were obliged on this day to go out into the open country and together raise their hands and repeat the prayer already mentioned, a prayer without any marked Christian character (Vita Const., IV, xx). The emperor granted many privileges to the Church for the reason that it took care of the poor and was active in benevolence.

So, was Constantine a Pagan, a Catholic,a Semi- Arian, or someone who just played to the tune....?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.


Brief history of Constatine's Empire and his sons, the Arians

Excerpt: notice Arians were tolerant of Cathlics. Even Athanasius was allowed to return.

337 Baptism of CONSTANTINE I by Arian Bishop Death of Constantine I: Mass Executions within Imperial Family in which only Julian and Constantius Gallus Spared

Joint Accession of CONSTANTINE II (337-340), CONSTANS (337-350) and CONSTANTIUS II (337-361)

ARIANISM FAVORED AT IMPERIAL COURTS

Athanasius Returns from First Exile to Alexandria

As soon ast the last Arian Emperor dies, the Catholics under Theodosius get rid of the Arians. 379 Elevation of THEODOSIUS I "THE GREAT" (379-395) as Augustus Theodosius Restores Limes on Lower Danube Recruitment and Promotion of Germans in Roman Army

380 Imperial Laws against Heresies

381 SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE: Nicene Creed Upheld and Condemnation of Arianism

So historically, Catholics have not been tolerant of others beliefs.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.


From this place: http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/people/p/constantine.htm Constantine on Heresy: Constantine was not yet a Christian when he settled matters of Christian dogma and the Arian Controversy at the first Nicene Council, which ended on August 25, 325. As a result of his initial decision against the Arians, Constantine exiled his friend Eusebius for holding an heretical position, but then revised his opinion and recalled Eusebius.

Death of Constantine: Constantine died in 22 May, 337 at Nicomedia, shortly after his baptism by Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia.

So in essence, Constantine died an Arian. Period.

The Catholic Church has never made Eusebius a saint or a doctor of the Church. So, Eusebius cannot be classified as a Catholic. He joins others like Origen who was also considered one.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.


As to me going to Hell as John says... Gonzalez lies in calling himself a "Christian Yahwist," since he rejects the divinity of Jesus and is therefore not a Christian. He is simply an Arian heretic who is currently headed for hell (unless he is so stupid or mentally ill that he has become invincibly ignorant).

The answer is far from the truth.

The Christian Yahwist was sent by Yahweh and Jesus Christ for a mission.

He is not the first to send me to Hell. Others already did.(1983 was the first time. That man probably had a crazy dream because 3 months later he came knelt before me and started crying, he was in his 70s, asked me for forgiveness for sending me to Hell. He died 5 months later.).

Maybe he dreamed of Hell. He was probably told that is probably not the place I am going. Probably I was the one to show people to avoid that place.

His name: Antonio Jimenez. May Yahweh let him rest in Peace.

Maybe that is why he came back for me to help him not to get there.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.


Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 4:

"If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema."

So in answer to your question:

"So if I baptized my children? Are they Catholic or Christian Yahwists like me?"

If done properly as described by Trent, they would be Catholic.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 26, 2004.



Thanks, Emerald.

So Paul M. to a certain extent was right in stating what he did.

I say, right to a certain extent. The Catholic Church does not acept baptisms by many Christian denominations, even if done in the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit.

I remember this from my days at the parochial house when I used to work for the Church in my old Catholic days.

Think for a second Emerald. If Baptism could be even granted by heretics, then, what separtes Christians is dogmas, practices, faith only, born again, speaking in tongues, religious documents... and the like.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.


Yeah, it's true so long as the matter and form remains intact, and that's what Paul meant I'm sure. As far as intent, the minimums for the Sacraments of the Church are pretty "low" for validity; one might say it's God's way of taking into account the fallen condition of men and their less-than-pure motives and mistakes. For instance, it is true that a New-Age palm reader could baptise someone with the intent of "whatever those damn Catholics do", and to the best of my knowledge, that would suffice along with the matter & form. I'm pretty sure that was the situation that John was referring to.

Loosely speaking the balance is adherance to the Deposit of Faith. Faith (I don't mean the trust or confidence kind of small "f" faith here) compromise most of what's left that makes one what someone calls a Catholic. It's of the essence, though, to Catholicism that one accepts all of the Faith in it's entirety. If one even accepts most Catholic doctrine, but let's say not accepting one doctrine in particular, then all of what is held is not of supernatural Faith.

But wait. That's not all; there's more! Take one who is baptised and holds the whole of the Catholic Faith: it remains then to live by that Faith in regards to doing good and avoiding evil, or let's say staying in a state of grace. It's a long, narrow path.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 26, 2004.


"...compromise most of what's left that makes one what someone calls a Catholic."

Uh, make that comprise.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), July 27, 2004.


The reason true baptism can be actualized through anyone, even a non-believer, is that baptism is an act of God, not an act of men. To people who see baptism only as a human commitment to God, it makes sense that the minister receiving that commitment should at least have the same commitment. But if baptism is a direct sacramental action of God upon the person being baptized, as the Christian Church has believed for 2,000 years, then the intermediary or minister becomes relatively unimportant. Almighty God is not rendered incapable of baptizing just because the human minister is not a strong believer.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 31, 2004.

Thanks, Paul.

The first time you and I crossed paths was in a thread on purgatory. I also believe in purgatory. Though Hell for me is a place of darkness as opposed to fire.

I think the reason the Cathol;ic Church decided this early on ws because of the Novatian contraversy. When Novatian and Cornelius both claimed the Papacy.

Novatian contraversy from New Advent NOVATIANISM

The saint's remonstrance had its effect, and the confessors rallied to Cornelius. But for two or three months the confusion throughout the Catholic Church had been terrible. No other event in these early times shows us so clearly the enormous importance of the papacy in East and West. St. Dionysius of Alexandria joined his great influence to that of the Carthaginian primate, and he was very soon able to write that Antioch, Caesarea, and Jerusalem, Tyre and Laodicea, all Cilicia and Cappadocia, Syria and Arabia, Mesopotamia, Pontus, and Bithynia, had returned to union and that their bishops were all in concord (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, v). From this we gauge the area of disturbance. Cyprian says that Novatian "assumed the primacy" (Ep. lxix, 8) and sent out his new apostles to very many cities; and where in all provinces and cities there were long established, orthodox bishops, tried in persecution, he dared to create new ones to supplant them, as though he could range through the whole world (Ep. lv, 24). Such was the power assumed by a third-century antipope. Let it be remembered that in the first days of the schism no question of heresy was raised and that Novatian only enunciated his refusal of forgiveness to the lapsed after he had made himself pope. Cyprian's reasons for holding Cornelius to be the true bishop are fully detailed in Ep. lv to a bishop, who had at first yielded to Cyprian's arguments and had commissioned him to inform Cornelius that "he now communicated with him, that is with the Catholic Church

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), August 02, 2004.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ