What Catholic sites did you find that in? A brief googling of "St. Constantine" yields a few DIFFERENT Constantines from Catholic sites, and many references from Orthodox sites. Catholic sites do not refer to the Roman Emporer as a Saint.
Now, I thought you were citing someone else's work, when I called it shameless. Someone who published his work should have done their homework to know that edits were perverting the text. Since you're not a scholar, I will rescind the comment about "shameless," and simply recommend you do a lot more learning about Catholic church history from a lot better sources before you see fit to edit the writings of a saint, and tell you that those citations do not refer to what you think they refer to at all.
As for other postings I've seen, your conclusion that hyperbole=lie is incorrect. St. Basil is using very strong language to address what is is a very grave problem. And yes! The Catholic Church agreed and stomped out the heresies St. Basil is addressing! What is meant by hyperbole is not a lie: When he says, "the bishops..." he is not meaning every bishop, as one might infer. Therein lies the hyperbole. Rather, he means many bishops, but not all. From the fact that their heresies were eventually suppressed, you can historically deduce that many bishops did not fall for the heresy.
I am certainly no scholar and in no way claim to be one.
And we argee that Basil was not lying or just some guy given to wild exageration but that he was not speaking of all the bishops.
What I see when I read this stuff is a systematic break down its like a slow motion car crash.
Every descission and every new doctrine that was created and I might add many with the best of intentions -- create a whole new series of questions that instead of stregthening and bringing consolidation they diluted the substance of God.
Let me make a case and point with Origen Comentary on the Gospel of John Book 1
Origen in 230 AD 3. In the Spiritual Israel the High-Priests are Those Who Devote Themselves to the Study of Scripture. (In a way Origen is arguing that the priesthood below is the firstfruits – virgins without guile without blemish – these were made fleshly traits whereas they are spiritual traits for who is without sin? I must comment on the effect of plucking the firstfruits and making them priests stops their growth from the vine that they were to be left in place for the local church and community – this circumvents believers to minister in their local Jerusalem their local Samaria and as the grace and power grows in them unto the utter most parts of the earth. But instead the church has a continual drain on those within who are hungry for God, and thus the local church is deprived from any benefit and instead what is most precious is scattered and hid.) But what is the bearing of all this for us? So you will ask when you read these words, Ambrosius, thou who art truly a man of God, a man in Christ. and who seekest to be not a man only, but a spiritual man.5 (This is probably a veiled reference to becoming baptized in the Spirit) The bearing is this. Those of the tribes offer to God, through the levites and priests, tithes and first fruits; not everything which they possess do they regard as tithe or first fruit. The levites and priests, on the other hand, have no possessions but tithes and first fruits; yet they also in turn offer tithes to God through the high-priests, and, I believe, first fruits too. The same is the case with those who approach Christian studies. Most of us (current failing experience of his day) devote most of our time to the things of this life, and dedicate to God only a few special acts, thus resembling those members of the tribes who had but few transactions with the priest, and discharged their religious duties with no great expense of time. But those who devote themselves to the divine word and have no other employment but the service of God may not unnaturally, allowing for the difference of occupation in the two cases, be called our Levites and priests.
(Origen in his day of 200 -230 AD roughly 100 years after the death of the Apostle John, Origen speaks of the rise of a priesthood and high priests within the church devote themselves to the study of scripture and the service of God for the rest of the people. And because of the lack of spirituality and dedication of the common believer that they have adopted a Levitical order to deal directly with God for the common believers they are the churches Levites or priests – note also the lack of the mention of Apostle and Prophet in this equation for as the gifts became rare so the ministration of these higher offices.)
And those who fulfil a more distinguished office than their kinsmen6 will perhaps be high-priests, according to the order of Aaron, not that of Melchisedek. Here some one may object that it is somewhat too bold to apply the name of high-priests to men,
( Origen here is saying that while the concept of priests for the people was already set in place, the concept of an order of priests for the priests themselves and their subsequent lack of spirituality and devotion was not universally accepted among in the church at that time)
when Jesus Himself is spoken of in many a prophetic passage as the one great priest, as7 "We have a great high-priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God." But to this we reply that the Apostle clearly defined his meaning, and declared the prophet to have said about the Christ, "Thou8 art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedek," and not according to the order of Aaron. We say accordingly that men can be high-priests according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedek only the Christ of God.
(So Origen flat tells us that they have re-established the order or Aaron within their ranks. And that the Church had passed from every believer being a priest unto God -- to kingdom having a representational priesthood)
So we take this into account and see how somethings progresssed afterwards.
Now a take into account this written by Orien in the same book a little later
As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." Then He says to His disciples,124 "Ye are the light of the world," and "Let your light shine before men." Thus we see the Church, the bride, to present an analogy to the moon and stars, and the disciples have a light, which is their own or borrowed from the true sun, so that they are able to illuminate those who have no command of any spring of light in themselves. We may say that Paul and Peter are the light of the world, and that those of their disciples who are enlightened themselves, but are not able to enlighten others, are the world of which the Apostles were the light.
Origen is telling us that there has been a decay of spirtuality between the Apostles that died off [John 90-100 AD] only 100 years earlier. Origen is saying that what the apostles had was unique that they were it was non transferable non refillable and subsequently the light is dimishing with every transferance.)
(The last point is also meaningful He says the Apostles were the light but their disciples and followers and I beelvie he himself in this are not the light but of the world. that would seem to say they are earthly and carnal.)
But the Saviour, being the light of the world, illuminates not bodies, but by His incorporeal power the incorporeal intellect, to the end that each of us, enlightened as by the sun, may be able to discern the rest of the things of the mind. And as when the sun is shining the moon and the stars lose their power of giving light, so those who are irradiated by Christ and receive His beams have no need of the ministering apostles and (NT) prophets -- we must have courage to declare this truth -- nor of the angels; I will add that they have no need even of the greater powers when they are disciples of that first-born light. To those who do not receive the solar beams of Christ. the ministering saints
(What origen is saying here is that there are people who receive revelation from Christ himself and need not any teachers -- these are not visions but spiritual understanding -- he says it takes courage to admit that there are those living who as christ said: "walk in the spirit" The greater powers are the levital priesthood and the priesthood above the priesthood. By this day Origen is telling us the church has lost its way and they can't find their way back -- God's power has lifted so they are filling in the gaps with programs and clergy. __ but he hold that there are those who hear from God that are hard wired into God and they bypass the whole system.)
Do afford an illumination much less than the former (Christ himself); this illumination is as much as those persons can receive, and it completely fills them
In the Gospels and the Epistles this level is not saints this was the normal state of being for all beleivers. It is only as it beomes watered down and corrupted that it disappears
Now if we take one more step closer to the the apostles in the writings of Justin Martyr in 170 AD we can see something tanglible that is lost.
Consider now the words of Justin Martyr 160 AD one of the foremost authorities in the Church of his day. "For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time. And hence you ought to understand that the gifts formerly among your nation (Israel) have been transferred to us (The church).
Justin Martyr dies in 170 AD he was one of the last teachers in the Church that was taught by people that were actually taught by the apostles themselves (Origen was not) So Justin here is speaking with Trypho the head of a Jewish Synagogue in Rome. Justin Martyr is saying that this transference of the Holy Spirit ie the gifts of the Holy Spirit; etc. from Israel to the church is one of the most important signs that God has rejected Israel and taken for himself another people – the church.
Say what you will but since John the Baptist and Jesus Israel and the church have had no prophets. This has continued for over 1970 years.
So by what authority did Justin Martyr come up with the astonishing doctrine that the spirit of the prophets and signs and wonders of the prophets were the proof that God had rejected Israel as his bride and selected in her place the church?
Acts 2:14-18 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words --This Is That -- which was spoken by the prophet Joel:" And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath:
What was Peter talking about when he said This Is That?
Acts 2:1-12 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs--we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "Whatever could this mean?"
So by the time of Origen the this is that had become the once was.
You don't have to respond you need to mull these things over and read the works cited and take your knowlege of what has happened in the US with the Constitution and see what has happened 200 years later and see men as men not as evil but just trying the best they can to save what once.
So where does that leave us?