You wrote:
“Oh....I stand corrected. I had no idea that Constantine had nothing to do with setting up a church/state. The idea!”
Gee, I’m glad you so readily admitted your error since it’s so obvious to anyone who has actually studied history.
And again, you provided ZERO evidence that Constantine established a church - and that’s the evidence I asked for.
“Where in the world would I have ever make that connection? Silly me!”
You would make the connection in the fantasy life known as anti-Catholicism where fairy tales are created and disseminated to appease the appalling lack of historiocity of Protestant sects by inventing a history that never was.
And again, you provided ZERO evidence that Constantine established a church - and that’s the evidence I asked for.
“The fact that the Roman Catholic Church is a State Run organization....”
Uh, no, the Catholic Church is a Church that also has a leader who runs a state. The pope has not always been a leader of a state. Certainly that was the case before St. Gregory the Great, for instance - and yet he born 200 years after Constantine died. So much for your whole thesis.
And again, you provided ZERO evidence that Constantine established a church - and that’s the evidence I asked for.
“a Church/State within its own political boundary. Where would I ever get that idea.”
Apparently you borrowed it from other ill-informed, less than savvy anti-Catholics. You certainly didn’t get that idea from the Catholic Encyclopedia no matter how much you might claim so.
And again, you provided ZERO evidence that Constantine established a church - and that’s the evidence I asked for.
“And prior to Constantine it must have had its own little country somewhere else......right?”
Did the pope run any country in the two centuries AFTER Constantine? NO. That came much later - at least 200 years later and even then it was not claimed to be a country but a city, and was not thought of as the patrimony of the pope. You see, when you actually study history - rather than make it up out of then air as you and your anti-Catholic buddies do - you don’t make such mistakes.
Here are the facts:
1) Constantine did not establish a Church, nor did he try.
2) Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
3) Constantine did try to co-opt the Church so that he could control it, but he failed and then tried to co-opt the Arians before his death.
4) No pope in Constantine’s day ran any country or city anywhere, anyhow.
5) Even after Constantine’s death, no pope ran any city or country in the fourth or fifth or early sixth century.
6) During the time of Pope Gregory the Great - who was born 200 years after Constantine died - the pope became the de facto administrator of Rome because there was no one else left who had the where-with-all to accomplish such a large task.
7) Gregory the Great never claimed that the city belonged to the papacy or the Church or to himself personally.
Thus, what you have claimed, you have utterly failed to prove. You haven’t even attempted a serious proof yet.
“Give me a break!”
No. I see no reason to stand by why someone makes things up or parrots rubbish like what you posted. There’s simply no cause for ignorance in a world filled with good, sound books and easy access to them.
ON THE KEEPING OF EASTER.
From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.
(Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.)
When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was
universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the
feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable,
than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of
immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same
manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the
holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the
Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and
whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may
transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter,
which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the
present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour
has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest
brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without
their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the
right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led
by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They
do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two
passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly
in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most
certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one
year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still
be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such
wicked people[the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an
important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought
not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of
our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired[to
establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is,
that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated
at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts,
whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine
Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a
uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on
the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the
murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed
by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of
the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it
has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent,
that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa,
in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the
dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only
that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but
also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we
should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few
words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the
most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one
and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there
should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully
the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes
place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding
from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been
decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we
can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted
me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together,
seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for
destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace,
and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my
beloved brethren.
from DOCUMENTS FROM THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA [THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL] A.D. 325
Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire He had issued an Edict making Sunday the day of rest In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine
They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day."
This is the Decree from the first Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world.
b'SHEM Yah'shua
declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire: "On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest,
Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were
and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture
may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day
is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment
for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."
to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath.