The reason why i respond to these types of posts is something you proved in your post. All you care about is Orthodox and non Orthodox. All you worry about is the church and the orthodoxy and the this and that. Thats all great no questions. But you take it to an extreme and worry more about that than anything else. I love how thats the only part that you respond to. Not anything else that ive said.
Christ_rose please respect imikhail as he is quite right in what he is saying and that he has taken Athanasius's point of veiw he that he wanted the church to be true he Athanastius always was truthful as much as he could be. There is a conflict between been truthful and Contantines desire that all churches be together and this creates a hard decision, but we should always stay with our church fathers and that we are to stay true and always be the true bride of Christ.
With all due respect habibi that has nothing to do with what im saying. Thats true we must make sure the church does have keep the correct faith and we must pray that the church stay strong and we must take care of the church and its beliefs as much as we can. But this is rubbish. Whether King Constantine is a saint or not it doesnt make much of a difference in our beliefs at all. It is not a statement of changing our faith. There was another post on this site a while back about st isaac the syrian. HE is a saint as well. One of the most prominent priests in our area used him in his lecture yesterday and this man has a phd in saint athansius teachins alone. Dont sit here and tell me that these people are not saints. St ephrem the syrian people are saying he isnt a saint as well. say what you want but its not gonna change anyhting in our faith. I also told imikhail to pray and see what God tells him instead of just going with what hes learned or has been told. Him being an arian makes him not a saint so does that mean he also went to hell ? or what? where is this conversation leading? It is going towards a judgement in the end. So there is no reason for it
[quote author=christ_rose link=topic=13549.msg158303#msg158303 date=1343684992] With all due respect habibi that has nothing to do with what im saying. Thats true we must make sure the church does have keep the correct faith and we must pray that the church stay strong and we must take care of the church and its beliefs as much as we can. But this is rubbish. Whether King Constantine is a saint or not it doesnt make much of a difference in our beliefs at all. It is not a statement of changing our faith.
In your mind it is rubbish. May be because you are not able to comprehend the consequences of accepting Constantine in the Church.
If the Church, does in fact, accepts him as a saint, then why not Nestor, Arius, Pope Leo, ... Jehova witnesses, Adventists, .... etc?
If the Church accepts heretics as saints, then why have a Church that is founded on one faith and one baptism. There is no blame to be a Protestant, Catholic, Jehova Witness. If everything is acceptable, then let's accept the heresy of Universal Salvation.
Is this the teaching that we have received from our Holy Fathers, who some of them gave up their lives for the sake of one letter?
Is this the teaching that we should deliver to the generation after us?
May the Lord have mercy on us all and may He protects His Church.
I'm sorry Christ_rose, but I don't think you see the dangers in accept him as a saint even though he did do good for Christ. He was a ruler and he could not let this part of him go and humble himself for Christ and in doing so he had the church that followed him to be the same. The Apostle that they were following had been put not made as important as the ruler of the church. Then if this is so we can say we stayed with our Apostle and our Pope truely came from this descent and not from a ruler who was reneging on everything he had found true. It is a type of betrayal. He brought the council together and they decided on the nature of God and there was agreement, so how could it get lost from there?Schism?Power?This is not orthodox, the straight line in lineage but a slightly different but close direction.
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=13549.msg158307#msg158307 date=1343694522] I'm sorry Christ_rose, but I don't think you see the dangers in accept him as a saint even though he did do good for Christ. I'm not picking on you Joshuaa. I'm responding to your comment in a general sense.
It's not accepting Emperor Constantine as a saint that is the issue here. This is extremely trivial as Christ_rose has said. The problem is the conclusion imikhail wants us to accept based on Emperor Constantine's status. He has argued if Emperor Constantine is automatically disqualified from sainthood (and not just sainthood but Christianity and by default eternal life) on the basis that he (Constantine) was baptized Arian, then all people who are baptized Arian are disqualified. And not just Arians. And if they are disqualified from Christianity, then they must be rebaptized. And not just Arians. He then extends that to all non-Oriental Orthodox. His conclusion is that all non-Orthodox must be rebaptized based on one interpretation of Emperor Constantine's status.
He refuses to acknowledge subsequent ecumenical canons. He refuses to acknowledge patristic writings that did not require rebaptism of Arians and some other heresies. He refuses to acknowledge that no Coptic bishop has insisted that all non-Oriental Orthodox must be baptized. He refuses to acknowledge Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Christians can be married in Egypt without any conversion or rebaptism. None of the other Apostolic Churches, in general, take a tyrannical exclusive position on ecumenism. Only extremists believe in the "my way or the highway" exclusive position. All Church acknowledge that the truth in their sister churches.
And finally it has no biblical support. In fact, ecumenism and fraternal love is not a recommendation. It is a requirement in Christianity. We must seek unity with those who are different than us as long as there is no compromise in the faith. Taking the exclusive "my way or the highway" position creates division, not unity and love. I can give many biblical references to support this if anyone wants it.
Regardless of whether one wants to see Constantine as a saint or not is one thing. Concluding that Eastern Orthodox Christians are heretics or need baptism is a completely different issue.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13549.msg158323#msg158323 date=1343746046] [quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=13549.msg158307#msg158307 date=1343694522] I'm sorry Christ_rose, but I don't think you see the dangers in accept him as a saint even though he did do good for Christ. I'm not picking on you Joshuaa. I'm responding to your comment in a general sense.
It's not accepting Emperor Constantine as a saint that is the issue here. This is extremely trivial as Christ_rose has said. The problem is the conclusion imikhail wants us to accept based on Emperor Constantine's status. He has argued if Emperor Constantine is automatically disqualified from sainthood (and not just sainthood but Christianity and by default eternal life) on the basis that he (Constantine) was baptized Arian, then all people who are baptized Arian are disqualified. And not just Arians. And if they are disqualified from Christianity, then they must be rebaptized. And not just Arians. He then extends that to all non-Oriental Orthodox. His conclusion is that all non-Orthodox must be rebaptized based on one interpretation of Emperor Constantine's status.
He refuses to acknowledge subsequent ecumenical canons. He refuses to acknowledge patristic writings that did not require rebaptism of Arians and some other heresies. He refuses to acknowledge that no Coptic bishop has insisted that all non-Oriental Orthodox must be baptized. He refuses to acknowledge Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Christians can be married in Egypt without any conversion or rebaptism. None of the other Apostolic Churches, in general, take a tyrannical exclusive position on ecumenism. Only extremists believe in the "my way or the highway" exclusive position. All Church acknowledge that the truth in their sister churches.
And finally it has no biblical support. In fact, ecumenism and fraternal love is not a recommendation. It is a requirement in Christianity. We must seek unity with those who are different than us as long as there is no compromise in the faith. Taking the exclusive "my way or the highway" position creates division, not unity and love. I can give many biblical references to support this if anyone wants it.
Regardless of whether one wants to see Constantine as a saint or not is one thing. Concluding that Eastern Orthodox Christians are heretics or need baptism is a completely different issue.
Canon 7 is a forgery and is not accepted by the OO.
Whether there is eternal life to the Arians is not up to us.
Baptism is the sign of belonging to the Church of Christ. Those who refuse to be sealed by Christ through Church are outside the Lords's family.
The Lord gave the authority to the Church to bind and loose. Heretics are bound by that authority. We know from the Scriptures that whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven.
Again, it is ultimately up to God to determine one's eternity. For the sake of those living, the Church cannot but to abide by God's word.
Yes we love even the heretics, but that does not mean that they are accepted within the Church.
And finally it has no biblical support
"One faith one baptism." Do the heretics, specifically the Arians like Constantine, had the same faith and the same baptism as the Orthodox Church? They were condemned and they were excommunicated. The were bound by 318 bishops.
We must seek unity with those who are different than us as long as there is no compromise in the faith.
Unity based on what? The same faith. Do the Arians have the same faith as the Orthodox Church? No
This is why we cannot accept Constantine as a saint for his Arian belief. Just because another family wants to recognize him as a saint does not change the fact that he was not Arian.
He refuses to acknowledge Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Christians can be married in Egypt without any conversion or rebaptism
You are misrepresenting what I wrote either intentionally or for lack of understanding.
My posts are there to witness against your misrepresentation.
Regardless of whether one wants to see Constantine as a saint or not is one thing.
After all, this thread deals specifically with whether Constantine is a saint. You are shifting the focus to another topic that is being dealt with in another thread.
The reason the Church refuses his sainthood is because of his Arian belief and his Arian baptism. This heresy was condemned ecumenically.
Just because another Church recognize him as a saint does not make him a saint in our Church.
I really want to stop hearing about whats accepted and whats not accepted by the OO. Imikhail when you are ordained a bishop and have the right to excommunicate everyone in the church which im sure youd love to do then so be it. But you're not so enough. We have more important things to worry about in the church than who is a saint and who isnt. This is complete judgement as ive said countless times. If we pray as much as we have been talking on this topic God would do miracles in the world. But we just dont shutup. We talk talk talk about topics we cant do anyhting about. You are also forgetting that the letter kills. What we have been doing here is not defending our faith but persecuting a King who may or may not be a saint and it really makes no difference to us as laity. so plz lay off the excommunication of people will ya?
It's ok Remnkemi I didn't think you were picking on me or anyone. There is something in me that say to forgive and I know that it is healing and that it puts the things that were full of regret and may of being in the wrong direction on a better path. This is what I would like to see. I was reading about God's mercy last night, I think it was Romans 9, not sure, but I think it is a better guide to what he accepts and doesn't accept, and not only that but it is what we look for in our church when we want his grace.
[quote author=christ_rose link=topic=13549.msg158332#msg158332 date=1343753143] I really want to stop hearing about whats accepted and whats not accepted by the OO. Imikhail when you are ordained a bishop and have the right to excommunicate everyone in the church which im sure youd love to do then so be it. But you're not so enough. We have more important things to worry about in the church than who is a saint and who isnt. This is complete judgement as ive said countless times. If we pray as much as we have been talking on this topic God would do miracles in the world. But we just dont shutup. We talk talk talk about topics we cant do anyhting about. You are also forgetting that the letter kills. What we have been doing here is not defending our faith but persecuting a King who may or may not be a saint and it really makes no difference to us as laity. so plz lay off the excommunication of people will ya?
Then why are you taking the time to participate in such threads. Why not just worry about what is important to you?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13549.msg158346#msg158346 date=1343765667] Then why are you taking the time to participate in such threads. Why not just worry about what is important to you?
So that people who read for edification, or people who have done a Google search on Constantine in the Coptic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy from the Coptic position, will come here, read your comments and believe you speak as the exclusive authoritative position of the Coptic Church. It is imperative that people understand you have your opinion and you believe your opinion is fact. This is nothing new for us but it can be misconstrued by new anonymous readers. Making sure new readers are not misinformed is what really is important to us (me, at least).
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13549.msg158349#msg158349 date=1343769986] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13549.msg158346#msg158346 date=1343765667] Then why are you taking the time to participate in such threads. Why not just worry about what is important to you?
So that people who read for edification, or people who have done a Google search on Constantine in the Coptic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy from the Coptic position, will come here, read your comments and believe you speak as the exclusive authoritative position of the Coptic Church. It is imperative that people understand you have your opinion and you believe your opinion is fact. This is nothing new for us but it can be misconstrued by new anonymous readers. Making sure new readers are not misinformed is what really is important to us (me, at least).
So, you approve of empty attacks, statements with no substance like this one:
I really want to stop hearing about whats accepted and whats not accepted by the OO. Imikhail when you are ordained a bishop and have the right to excommunicate everyone in the church which im sure youd love to do then so be it."
This statement to you is for edification.
Lord have mercy.
will come here, read your comments and believe you speak as the exclusive authoritative position of the Coptic Church.
I have explained why Constantine's sainthood is not accepted. Basically for his Arian belief and Arian baptism.
The Church does and did excommunicate heretics. Constantine did fall into heresy and that is why he was not accepted.
Are we going to fight evil with evil? Constantine reneged on us so we get to reneg on him. We must think he is in Hades for wanting salvation but the wrong way of getting it.
It was Romans 9 that I woke up to read in the middle of the night and yes it is God's mercy that he told Moses in saying, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."If this is true, then I don't see any reason why he would condemn him for choosing a weaker path. If the catholic church was weakened by his being a ruler and governed then wouldn't it be better to just accept him as a probable reconcilation? Dogma can be arrogant and this is what power does to it and we to be the same in comdemning heritic like they did or veiw it with mercy?
how can we dare say hades or paradise? how do you know? Thats my point. This whole argument isnt just who is a saint and who isnt. But it extends to hes going to heaven and hes going to hell
[quote author=christ_rose link=topic=13549.msg158390#msg158390 date=1343859459] how can we dare say hades or paradise? how do you know? Thats my point. This whole argument isnt just who is a saint and who isnt. But it extends to hes going to heaven and hes going to hell
With all due respect, although I disagree with imikhails position due to his lack of evidence: If he is not a saint, even because he is a heretic, it doesn't mean he is going to hell. You are right: how dare we say hades or paradise? But we do have the right to say that he didn't hold the correct faith.
It's like Protestantism. The part of their faith which is not in agreement with Orthodoxy is false. But how dare I say heaven or hell. (this is important - we cannot say heaven either)
The evidence is very clear from the three ecumenical Councils our Church believes in. That is excommunication of the heretics.
We know for a fact, from history, that Constantine was baptized Aryan and he held Aryan belief. He falls under the Church excommunication.
As far as where he ends up, he'll or heaven, we cannot judge. Judgment is the Lord's.
But for the believers, it is very important that the Church holds on the true faith and excommunicate those who do not do so. This is what she has received from the Lord and must preserve it pure.
Excommunication is judgement. So where is reconcilation with a church who hold him as a saint? Are we to have him as a saint then reneg on that and remove him? We have God's mercy as a core value in our church and it is humble and shows our relationship with God's grace. Romans 9 is how I think we should be towards Contantine as he was an exception and being in Romans, it also represents the Catholic Church as well. Who's to say Constantine isn't there for ecumenical reasons?If we remove him then we have less to offer and have not being humble by the offer, but judgemental.
Excommunication is judgement. So where is reconcilation with a church who hold him as a saint? Are we to have him as a saint then reneg on that and remove him? We have God's mercy as a core value in our church and it is humble and shows our relationship with God's grace. Romans 9 is how I think we should be towards Contantine as he was an exception and being in Romans, it also represents the Catholic Church as well. Who's to say Constantine isn't there for ecumenical reasons?If we remove him then we have less to offer and have not being humble by the offer, but judgemental.
The Church cannot act from herself. It is not up to us to have mercy on whom we wish and judgment on whom we chose.
Excommunication for unbelief is what God instructed His apostles. God is not partial even towards the likes of Constantine; no matter how good deeds he might have done.
When the Church excommunicates as person, it is actually God who does so through the authority he handed to the Church.
Constantine did not abide in the faith of the Church and chose a different one for himself. Bu doing so, he himself separated himself from the Church, the body of Christ. In turn, Christ through the Church excommunicated him.
It is true in what you say concerning the Apostles but as explained in Saint Pauls letter to the romans in chapter nine the goal of the church was to be together, he didn't precisely say that he was looking at the reason why. If Saint Paul saw that what was being loosed or retained was losing the integrity of the church then wouldn't this letter of being to re-focas on being ecumenical.
It is true in what you say concerning the Apostles but as explained in Saint Pauls letter to the romans in chapter nine the goal of the church was to be together, he didn't precisely say that he was looking at the reason why. If Saint Paul saw that what was being loosed or retained was losing the integrity of the church then wouldn't this letter of being to re-focas on being ecumenical.
Dear Joshuaa,
I am not sure I am following your argument.
God does not change, he is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. His words do not change, the faith He delivered does not change.
It is God who delivered us the faith and will judge us accordingly.
Arianism and Orthodoxy cannot be both true. One of them is.
Constantine chose Arianism and thus brought upon Himself God's judgement.
What makes a saint a saint? I believe it's their works. Then this is what they are bound by and that it doesn't necessarily have to be our church. You have said excommunication for unbelief is what God instructed his apostles. Is it for unbelief in him or because they didn't understand his nature. The church does understand his nature and can say those who don't agree with it are heretics and excommunicate them, but if he is a saint then he is an exception by his works and Constantines works were to bring the church together as also in Saint Pauls letter. Saints are exceptional and are considered as christians whether they hold our dogma or not. Protestants don't have saints. The next question is where do saints go? If they go to paradise then being an exception constantine could well be there waiting judgement as to being rewarded for bringing the church together.
Sorry imikhail, my conscience isn't happy with this as you can see in my arguement. I've looked at both sides of it but I have decided that removing him maybe a mistake. I think you said Pope Shenouda the third said he should be removed. It seems strange as when I went to his commemoration service and they showed his belief in developing ecumenical ties. This seemed to be in his nature, so why would he want a possible link to another church cut off after his death?
Sorry imikhail, my conscience isn't happy with this as you can see in my arguement. I've looked at both sides of it but I have decided that removing him maybe a mistake. I think you said Pope Shenouda the third said he should be removed. It seems strange as when I went to his commemoration service and they showed his belief in developing ecumenical ties. This seemed to be in his nature, so why would he want a possible link to another church cut off after his death?
Constantine lived when the Church was one. He also died when the Church was still one.
Arius and his followers were condemned when the Church was one.
Should the addition of an Arian to the the Byzantines' dyptich, force us to accept this addition in the name of Ecumenism?
The thing we have to realize is that Constantine was not a saint since he died when the Church was one and now we alone want to remove him. He was added erroneously in our Church dyptich at a much later time. There is whole history of how the Byzantines influenced his addition to our dyptich.
Now that we have realized the error, should we continue with the error in the name of ecumenism?
Is St. Isaac of Syria (Ninevah) a Saint in our Church?
Surely our Oriental Orthodox communion believes in his Sainthood, despite the fact that he was most probably baptized by a Nestorian Priest and was a member of the Assyrian Church of the East.
We can accept St. Isaac on account of his holiness, despite being baptized by a Nestorian.
We can accept the veneration of St. Theophilus and the holy St. Cyril of Alexandria, despite their opposition to the golden mouthed St. John Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak. They're all in the same sentence in The Commemoration of The Saints.
We can accept St. Augustine, despite his theology being fundamentally flawed.
I can emulate the spiritual virtues of of H.H. Pope Shenouda III and H.H. Pope Kyrillos VI, despite their earthly disagreements with one another.
I see no reason why we cannot accept King Constantine on account of him spreading Christianity to the ends of the earth and saving the world from the clutches of paganism.
Saints can make mistakes.
They were still human. What makes them Saints is that they strove to perfect themselves in the fear of God and work out His divine will in their lives. Not that they were perfect without any human flaws or situational mishaps.
Its easy for us, with our 20/20 history goggles and our forgery detector in hand, to think that we know the heart and mind of someone who virtually turned the barbaric pagan world into a Christ-loving one. That by itself, is a completely monumental fact of history and is the best proof of his Sainthood in our Church.
After reading all of your posts imikhail, I respect you for your zeal. But zeal can easily turn into blind pride.
Is St. Isaac of Syria (Ninevah) a Saint in our Church?
Surely our Oriental Orthodox communion believes in his Sainthood, despite the fact that he was most probably baptized by a Nestorian Priest and was a member of the Assyrian Church of the East.
Isaac of Syria is not a saint in our Church. Neither is he a saint in our sister the Syrian Oriental Orthodox Church.
My intention is not to turn the discussion of who is a saint and and who is not. The idea is that people of different faith cannot be part of Christ's body, the Church. There is only one tree we are supposed to be part of.
Through his Arian belief and Arian belief, Constantine chose not to be part of that Tree which is Christ.
They were still human. What makes them Saints is that they strove to perfect themselves in the fear of God and work out His divine will in their lives. Not that they were perfect without any human flaws or situational mishaps
Saints are not ONLY saints not because of their good deeds. They are primarily saints because they were grafted into the Holy one. And heir good deeds are the fruits of their Orthodox faith.
[quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=13549.msg158408#msg158408 date=1343929924] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13549.msg158406#msg158406 date=1343929280] Isaac of Syria Is not a saint in our Church.
I rest my case...
He is indeed a Saint, and one the brightest.
St. Isaac is indeed not Egyptian, nor was he part of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. But he is indeed a Saint.
Just because he is not of Coptic descent, does not mean he is not a Saint that is quoted and recognized by our Church.
We didn't stop recognizing Saints after Chalcedon in 451 A.D.
✞✞✞
He is not a saint in the Oriental Orthodox Church.
Please read my previous post again. I have added to it since your response.
Comments
Christ_rose please respect imikhail as he is quite right in what he is saying and that he has taken Athanasius's point of veiw he that he wanted the church to be true he Athanastius always was truthful as much as he could be. There is a conflict between been truthful and Contantines desire that all churches be together and this creates a hard decision, but we should always stay with our church fathers and that we are to stay true and always be the true bride of Christ.
With all due respect habibi that has nothing to do with what im saying. Thats true we must make sure the church does have keep the correct faith and we must pray that the church stay strong and we must take care of the church and its beliefs as much as we can. But this is rubbish. Whether King Constantine is a saint or not it doesnt make much of a difference in our beliefs at all. It is not a statement of changing our faith.
In your mind it is rubbish. May be because you are not able to comprehend the consequences of accepting Constantine in the Church.
If the Church, does in fact, accepts him as a saint, then why not Nestor, Arius, Pope Leo, ... Jehova witnesses, Adventists, .... etc?
If the Church accepts heretics as saints, then why have a Church that is founded on one faith and one baptism. There is no blame to be a Protestant, Catholic, Jehova Witness. If everything is acceptable, then let's accept the heresy of Universal Salvation.
Is this the teaching that we have received from our Holy Fathers, who some of them gave up their lives for the sake of one letter?
Is this the teaching that we should deliver to the generation after us?
May the Lord have mercy on us all and may He protects His Church.
He brought the council together and they decided on the nature of God and there was agreement, so how could it get lost from there?Schism?Power?This is not orthodox, the straight line in lineage but a slightly different but close direction.
I'm sorry Christ_rose, but I don't think you see the dangers in accept him as a saint even though he did do good for Christ.
I'm not picking on you Joshuaa. I'm responding to your comment in a general sense.
It's not accepting Emperor Constantine as a saint that is the issue here. This is extremely trivial as Christ_rose has said. The problem is the conclusion imikhail wants us to accept based on Emperor Constantine's status. He has argued if Emperor Constantine is automatically disqualified from sainthood (and not just sainthood but Christianity and by default eternal life) on the basis that he (Constantine) was baptized Arian, then all people who are baptized Arian are disqualified. And not just Arians. And if they are disqualified from Christianity, then they must be rebaptized. And not just Arians. He then extends that to all non-Oriental Orthodox. His conclusion is that all non-Orthodox must be rebaptized based on one interpretation of Emperor Constantine's status.
He refuses to acknowledge subsequent ecumenical canons. He refuses to acknowledge patristic writings that did not require rebaptism of Arians and some other heresies. He refuses to acknowledge that no Coptic bishop has insisted that all non-Oriental Orthodox must be baptized. He refuses to acknowledge Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Christians can be married in Egypt without any conversion or rebaptism. None of the other Apostolic Churches, in general, take a tyrannical exclusive position on ecumenism. Only extremists believe in the "my way or the highway" exclusive position. All Church acknowledge that the truth in their sister churches.
And finally it has no biblical support. In fact, ecumenism and fraternal love is not a recommendation. It is a requirement in Christianity. We must seek unity with those who are different than us as long as there is no compromise in the faith. Taking the exclusive "my way or the highway" position creates division, not unity and love. I can give many biblical references to support this if anyone wants it.
Regardless of whether one wants to see Constantine as a saint or not is one thing. Concluding that Eastern Orthodox Christians are heretics or need baptism is a completely different issue.
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=13549.msg158307#msg158307 date=1343694522]
I'm sorry Christ_rose, but I don't think you see the dangers in accept him as a saint even though he did do good for Christ.
I'm not picking on you Joshuaa. I'm responding to your comment in a general sense.
It's not accepting Emperor Constantine as a saint that is the issue here. This is extremely trivial as Christ_rose has said. The problem is the conclusion imikhail wants us to accept based on Emperor Constantine's status. He has argued if Emperor Constantine is automatically disqualified from sainthood (and not just sainthood but Christianity and by default eternal life) on the basis that he (Constantine) was baptized Arian, then all people who are baptized Arian are disqualified. And not just Arians. And if they are disqualified from Christianity, then they must be rebaptized. And not just Arians. He then extends that to all non-Oriental Orthodox. His conclusion is that all non-Orthodox must be rebaptized based on one interpretation of Emperor Constantine's status.
He refuses to acknowledge subsequent ecumenical canons. He refuses to acknowledge patristic writings that did not require rebaptism of Arians and some other heresies. He refuses to acknowledge that no Coptic bishop has insisted that all non-Oriental Orthodox must be baptized. He refuses to acknowledge Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Christians can be married in Egypt without any conversion or rebaptism. None of the other Apostolic Churches, in general, take a tyrannical exclusive position on ecumenism. Only extremists believe in the "my way or the highway" exclusive position. All Church acknowledge that the truth in their sister churches.
And finally it has no biblical support. In fact, ecumenism and fraternal love is not a recommendation. It is a requirement in Christianity. We must seek unity with those who are different than us as long as there is no compromise in the faith. Taking the exclusive "my way or the highway" position creates division, not unity and love. I can give many biblical references to support this if anyone wants it.
Regardless of whether one wants to see Constantine as a saint or not is one thing. Concluding that Eastern Orthodox Christians are heretics or need baptism is a completely different issue.
Canon 7 is a forgery and is not accepted by the OO.
Whether there is eternal life to the Arians is not up to us.
Baptism is the sign of belonging to the Church of Christ. Those who refuse to be sealed by Christ through Church are outside the Lords's family.
The Lord gave the authority to the Church to bind and loose. Heretics are bound by that authority. We know from the Scriptures that whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven.
Again, it is ultimately up to God to determine one's eternity. For the sake of those living, the Church cannot but to abide by God's word.
Yes we love even the heretics, but that does not mean that they are accepted within the Church. "One faith one baptism." Do the heretics, specifically the Arians like Constantine, had the same faith and the same baptism as the Orthodox Church? They were condemned and they were excommunicated. The were bound by 318 bishops. Unity based on what? The same faith. Do the Arians have the same faith as the Orthodox Church? No
This is why we cannot accept Constantine as a saint for his Arian belief. Just because another family wants to recognize him as a saint does not change the fact that he was not Arian. You are misrepresenting what I wrote either intentionally or for lack of understanding.
My posts are there to witness against your misrepresentation. After all, this thread deals specifically with whether Constantine is a saint. You are shifting the focus to another topic that is being dealt with in another thread.
The reason the Church refuses his sainthood is because of his Arian belief and his Arian baptism. This heresy was condemned ecumenically.
Just because another Church recognize him as a saint does not make him a saint in our Church.
It's ok Remnkemi I didn't think you were picking on me or anyone. There is something in me that say to forgive and I know that it is healing and that it puts the things that were full of regret and may of being in the wrong direction on a better path. This is what I would like to see.
I was reading about God's mercy last night, I think it was Romans 9, not sure, but I think it is a better guide to what he accepts and doesn't accept, and not only that but it is what we look for in our church when we want his grace.
I really want to stop hearing about whats accepted and whats not accepted by the OO. Imikhail when you are ordained a bishop and have the right to excommunicate everyone in the church which im sure youd love to do then so be it. But you're not so enough. We have more important things to worry about in the church than who is a saint and who isnt. This is complete judgement as ive said countless times. If we pray as much as we have been talking on this topic God would do miracles in the world. But we just dont shutup. We talk talk talk about topics we cant do anyhting about. You are also forgetting that the letter kills. What we have been doing here is not defending our faith but persecuting a King who may or may not be a saint and it really makes no difference to us as laity. so plz lay off the excommunication of people will ya?
Then why are you taking the time to participate in such threads. Why not just worry about what is important to you?
Then why are you taking the time to participate in such threads. Why not just worry about what is important to you?
So that people who read for edification, or people who have done a Google search on Constantine in the Coptic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy from the Coptic position, will come here, read your comments and believe you speak as the exclusive authoritative position of the Coptic Church. It is imperative that people understand you have your opinion and you believe your opinion is fact. This is nothing new for us but it can be misconstrued by new anonymous readers. Making sure new readers are not misinformed is what really is important to us (me, at least).
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13549.msg158346#msg158346 date=1343765667]
Then why are you taking the time to participate in such threads. Why not just worry about what is important to you?
So that people who read for edification, or people who have done a Google search on Constantine in the Coptic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy from the Coptic position, will come here, read your comments and believe you speak as the exclusive authoritative position of the Coptic Church. It is imperative that people understand you have your opinion and you believe your opinion is fact. This is nothing new for us but it can be misconstrued by new anonymous readers. Making sure new readers are not misinformed is what really is important to us (me, at least).
So, you approve of empty attacks, statements with no substance like this one: This statement to you is for edification.
Lord have mercy.
I have explained why Constantine's sainthood is not accepted. Basically for his Arian belief and Arian baptism.
The Church does and did excommunicate heretics. Constantine did fall into heresy and that is why he was not accepted.
Are we going to fight evil with evil? Constantine reneged on us so we get to reneg on him. We must think he is in Hades for wanting salvation but the wrong way of getting it.
It was Romans 9 that I woke up to read in the middle of the night and yes it is God's mercy that he told Moses in saying, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."If this is true, then I don't see any reason why he would condemn him for choosing a weaker path. If the catholic church was weakened by his being a ruler and governed then wouldn't it be better to just accept him as a probable reconcilation?
Dogma can be arrogant and this is what power does to it and we to be the same in comdemning heritic like they did or veiw it with mercy?
how can we dare say hades or paradise? how do you know? Thats my point. This whole argument isnt just who is a saint and who isnt. But it extends to hes going to heaven and hes going to hell
With all due respect, although I disagree with imikhails position due to his lack of evidence:
If he is not a saint, even because he is a heretic, it doesn't mean he is going to hell.
You are right: how dare we say hades or paradise?
But we do have the right to say that he didn't hold the correct faith.
It's like Protestantism. The part of their faith which is not in agreement with Orthodoxy is false. But how dare I say heaven or hell. (this is important - we cannot say heaven either)
We know for a fact, from history, that Constantine was baptized Aryan and he held Aryan belief. He falls under the Church excommunication.
As far as where he ends up, he'll or heaven, we cannot judge. Judgment is the Lord's.
But for the believers, it is very important that the Church holds on the true faith and excommunicate those who do not do so. This is what she has received from the Lord and must preserve it pure.
Excommunication is judgement. So where is reconcilation with a church who hold him as a saint? Are we to have him as a saint then reneg on that and remove him?
We have God's mercy as a core value in our church and it is humble and shows our relationship with God's grace. Romans 9 is how I think we should be towards Contantine as he was an exception and being in Romans, it also represents the Catholic Church as well. Who's to say Constantine isn't there for ecumenical reasons?If we remove him then we have less to offer and have not being humble by the offer, but judgemental.
Excommunication is judgement. So where is reconcilation with a church who hold him as a saint? Are we to have him as a saint then reneg on that and remove him?
We have God's mercy as a core value in our church and it is humble and shows our relationship with God's grace. Romans 9 is how I think we should be towards Contantine as he was an exception and being in Romans, it also represents the Catholic Church as well. Who's to say Constantine isn't there for ecumenical reasons?If we remove him then we have less to offer and have not being humble by the offer, but judgemental.
The Church cannot act from herself. It is not up to us to have mercy on whom we wish and judgment on whom we chose.
Excommunication for unbelief is what God instructed His apostles. God is not partial even towards the likes of Constantine; no matter how good deeds he might have done.
When the Church excommunicates as person, it is actually God who does so through the authority he handed to the Church.
Constantine did not abide in the faith of the Church and chose a different one for himself. Bu doing so, he himself separated himself from the Church, the body of Christ. In turn, Christ through the Church excommunicated him.
How then can we say that he is a saint?
It is true in what you say concerning the Apostles but as explained in Saint Pauls letter to the romans in chapter nine the goal of the church was to be together, he didn't precisely say that he was looking at the reason why. If Saint Paul saw that what was being loosed or retained was losing the integrity of the church then wouldn't this letter of being to re-focas on being ecumenical.
It is true in what you say concerning the Apostles but as explained in Saint Pauls letter to the romans in chapter nine the goal of the church was to be together, he didn't precisely say that he was looking at the reason why. If Saint Paul saw that what was being loosed or retained was losing the integrity of the church then wouldn't this letter of being to re-focas on being ecumenical.
Dear Joshuaa,
I am not sure I am following your argument.
God does not change, he is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. His words do not change, the faith He delivered does not change.
It is God who delivered us the faith and will judge us accordingly.
Arianism and Orthodoxy cannot be both true. One of them is.
Constantine chose Arianism and thus brought upon Himself God's judgement.
What makes a saint a saint? I believe it's their works. Then this is what they are bound by and that it doesn't necessarily have to be our church. You have said excommunication for unbelief is what God instructed his apostles. Is it for unbelief in him or because they didn't understand his nature. The church does understand his nature and can say those who don't agree with it are heretics and excommunicate them, but if he is a saint then he is an exception by his works and Constantines works were to bring the church together as also in Saint Pauls letter.
Saints are exceptional and are considered as christians whether they hold our dogma or not. Protestants don't have saints. The next question is where do saints go? If they go to paradise then being an exception constantine could well be there waiting judgement as to being rewarded for bringing the church together.
Sorry imikhail, my conscience isn't happy with this as you can see in my arguement. I've looked at both sides of it but I have decided that removing him maybe a mistake. I think you said Pope Shenouda the third said he should be removed. It seems strange as when I went to his commemoration service and they showed his belief in developing ecumenical ties. This seemed to be in his nature, so why would he want a possible link to another church cut off after his death?
Sorry imikhail, my conscience isn't happy with this as you can see in my arguement. I've looked at both sides of it but I have decided that removing him maybe a mistake. I think you said Pope Shenouda the third said he should be removed. It seems strange as when I went to his commemoration service and they showed his belief in developing ecumenical ties. This seemed to be in his nature, so why would he want a possible link to another church cut off after his death?
Constantine lived when the Church was one. He also died when the Church was still one.
Arius and his followers were condemned when the Church was one.
Should the addition of an Arian to the the Byzantines' dyptich, force us to accept this addition in the name of Ecumenism?
The thing we have to realize is that Constantine was not a saint since he died when the Church was one and now we alone want to remove him. He was added erroneously in our Church dyptich at a much later time. There is whole history of how the Byzantines influenced his addition to our dyptich.
Now that we have realized the error, should we continue with the error in the name of ecumenism?
Is St. Isaac of Syria (Ninevah) a Saint in our Church?
Surely our Oriental Orthodox communion believes in his Sainthood, despite the fact that he was most probably baptized by a Nestorian Priest and was a member of the Assyrian Church of the East.
We can accept St. Isaac on account of his holiness, despite being baptized by a Nestorian.
We can accept the veneration of St. Theophilus and the holy St. Cyril of Alexandria, despite their opposition to the golden mouthed St. John Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak. They're all in the same sentence in The Commemoration of The Saints.
We can accept St. Augustine, despite his theology being fundamentally flawed.
I can emulate the spiritual virtues of of H.H. Pope Shenouda III and H.H. Pope Kyrillos VI, despite their earthly disagreements with one another.
I see no reason why we cannot accept King Constantine on account of him spreading Christianity to the ends of the earth and saving the world from the clutches of paganism.
Saints can make mistakes.
They were still human. What makes them Saints is that they strove to perfect themselves in the fear of God and work out His divine will in their lives. Not that they were perfect without any human flaws or situational mishaps.
Its easy for us, with our 20/20 history goggles and our forgery detector in hand, to think that we know the heart and mind of someone who virtually turned the barbaric pagan world into a Christ-loving one. That by itself, is a completely monumental fact of history and is the best proof of his Sainthood in our Church.
After reading all of your posts imikhail, I respect you for your zeal. But zeal can easily turn into blind pride.
✞✞✞
My intention is not to turn the discussion of who is a saint and and who is not. The idea is that people of different faith cannot be part of Christ's body, the Church. There is only one tree we are supposed to be part of.
Through his Arian belief and Arian belief, Constantine chose not to be part of that Tree which is Christ.
Saints are not ONLY saints not because of their good deeds. They are primarily saints because they were grafted into the Holy one. And heir good deeds are the fruits of their Orthodox faith.
Good works alone CANNOT save.
Isaac of Syria Is not a saint in our Church.
I rest my case...
He is indeed a Saint, and one the brightest.
St. Isaac is indeed not Egyptian, nor was he part of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. But he is indeed a Saint.
Just because he is not of Coptic descent, does not mean he is not a Saint that is quoted and recognized by our Church.
We didn't stop recognizing Saints after Chalcedon in 451 A.D.
✞✞✞
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13549.msg158406#msg158406 date=1343929280]
Isaac of Syria Is not a saint in our Church.
I rest my case...
He is indeed a Saint, and one the brightest.
St. Isaac is indeed not Egyptian, nor was he part of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. But he is indeed a Saint.
Just because he is not of Coptic descent, does not mean he is not a Saint that is quoted and recognized by our Church.
We didn't stop recognizing Saints after Chalcedon in 451 A.D.
✞✞✞
He is not a saint in the Oriental Orthodox Church.
Please read my previous post again. I have added to it since your response.