Constantine Has Been Beaten to Death (by anti-catholics)

I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “beating a dead horse.” It refers to something that has been said or done so many times that it has outlived its usefulness. This is especially true of arguments that are not only old but also untrue.

Like the proverbial horse, the Roman emperor Constantine has been beaten to death by anti-Catholics.

I make it a point to check all of the comments posted on our YouTube and Facebook pages at least twice a day. As sure as fish live in water, I have come to expect at least one message a day from a Christian Fundamentalist about how the Catholic Church was founded by Emperor Constantine sometime in the fourth century.

It’s almost unfathomable to me that in this day and age Fundamentalists still have not learned to verify the validity of their anti-Catholic arguments. But then again, with so many websites making claims like “Constantine founded the Catholic Church” living on in cyberspace, it’s no wonder some folks still cling to what blogger Mark Shea refers to as “pseudo knowledge.”

It would be nice if this falsity were confined to Fundamentalist circles, but sadly it is not. As atheist podcast host and blogger David Smalley explains on his website:

There’s no doubt that Constantine was favorable to Christianity. Still, many people mistakenly believe that he not only favored it but that he made it the state religion. He did not. He signed the Edict of Milan, which made it legal to practice Christianity and ordered that the Christians’ confiscated property be returned to them.

Another mistaken notion is that Constantine exercised complete control over the First Council of Nicaea in 325. The primary reason for the council was due to the growing Arian heresy. Jimmy Akin summarizes Arianism this way:

Constantine did not fully understand why Arianism was so controversial, and he even endorsed many of Arius’s ideas. Historian Dr. James Hitchcock explains:

If Constantine held as much sway over the Council as many claim, then it is a peculiar thing that the Christology he favored was the big loser.

The next anti-Catholic claim is summarized in Mr. Smalley’s quote above: It is the idea that Constantine decided which books belonged in the Bible and that the ones he did not favor were left out.

The Council Fathers discussed many things besides Arianism, including the proper dating of Easter, the validity of baptisms administered by heretics, and more. One issue they did not discuss, however, is which books belonged in the Bible. They drafted a list of canons (ecclesiastical laws) that you can read for yourself here.

Mr. Smalley’s assertion that “quick research on the Council of Nicaea” will prove his claim in fact proves otherwise; unless, of course, you are getting your information from anti-Catholic websites that don’t provide any primary sources to back them up.

Finally, there is the claim that Constantine introduced pagan elements into what was “pure” Christianity up to that point. Many Fundamentalists will claim that doctrines like transubstantiation, the communion of saints, or the sacrifice of the Mass were pagan ideas. But all of these teachings and more can be traced back to the time of the Apostles through the writings of the early Christians.

RobbyS: "You suppose that the Arian view is the traditional view.
That is to beg the question, for it can be argued that what Arian did was to expose the Christian mysteries to the public gaze and therefore force the Church to engage in an argument involving not only Christians but Jews and philosophers.
He was successful enough to force a schism in the Church...."

We have very few of Arius' own words, but here are some:

"Since Eusebius, your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aetius and all those in the East say that God pre-exists the Son without a beginning, they have been condemned, except for Philogonius and Hellenicus and Macarius, unlearned heretics some of whom say that the Son was “spewed out”, others that he was an “emanation”, still others that he was “jointly unbegotten.” (4.)
"We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths.
"But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full God, the only-begotten, unchangeable. (5.)
"Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist.
For he was not unbegotten.

"But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning.
We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being.
But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence.
That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest."

Note the name mentioned, Eusebius of Caesarea, a prolific Church historian.
Often criticized, to my mind he is the most sympathetic character of that time.
Apparently, he began in the Arius camp, but felt compelled to change sides, and was commissioned to produce 50 bibles by the Emperor.

So your suggestion that Arius was singularly responsible for "exposing Christian mysteries", and this somehow forced the good Fathers to respond with creeds carrying the death penalty, seems a bit, ah, far fetched?
I've certainly seen it suggested nowhere else.

It is what Newman proposes in his “Arians of the 4th Century.” This from his Anglican Days.” Many assume that the Christian movement was like the very public movements of the 16th Century reformers. But it was much like a mystery cult with its rituals not open to the public. The evidence of the Catacombs of Rome suggests this. Services were private. Initiates were carefully screened and their attendence limited to the first part of the service,the unbaptized were barred from the Eucharist. Not until after baptism were they instructed in the deeper mysteries. Think of the Mormons, especially in their early days. More to the point, attend an Orthodox Church today and the priests do much of the ceremony behind a screen and in a liturgical rather than vernacular Greek. The Scriptures were not available but were in the custody of the clergy. what outraged so many Christians during the persecutions is that priests would give up the Scriptures to the authority rather than go to prison. With the persecutions at an end. many who had aposticised now asked for readmission to the Church. In was in that context that Arius now “goes public,” and opens the Christian mysteries to scorn of the wider public. It was a scandal.

RobbyS: "what outraged so many Christians during the persecutions is that priests would give up the Scriptures to the authority rather than go to prison.
With the persecutions at an end. many who had aposticised now asked for readmission to the Church.
In was in that context that Arius now “goes public,” and opens the Christian mysteries to scorn of the wider public.
It was a scandal."

First, something appears amiss in these words you've apparently quoted.
They seem out of place or context, can't put my finger on it...

Anyway second, they also appear to be just a continuation of the original Argumentum ad invidiam against Arius' mentor, the martyr Lucian of Antioch:

The Trinitarian historian Socrates

Arius ignited the controversy

gave a sermon on the similarity of the Son to the Father

Sabellianism

"if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not.
It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."

"This quote describes the essence of Arius' doctrine.

"Socrates of Constantinople believed that Arius was influenced in his thinking by the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr.

"In a letter to Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople Arius' bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, wrote that Arius derived his theology from Lucian.
The express purpose of Alexander's letter was to complain of the doctrines that Arius was diffusing, but his charge of heresy against Arius is vague and unsupported by other authorities.
Furthermore, Alexander's language, like that of most controversialists in those days, is quite bitter and abusive.
Moreover, even Alexander never accused Lucian of having taught Arianism; rather, he accused Lucian ad invidiam of heretical tendencies—which apparently, according to him, were transferred to his pupil, Arius."

The noted Russian historian Alexander Vasiliev refers to Lucian as "the Arius before Arius."

Third, I am familiar with some Roman Empire era "mystery religions" of which early Christianity was one.
There is no historical suggestion that "exposing Christian mysteries" was involved with Arius -- only a theological dispute, of whose participants Arius was just one, albeit well known:

Because Arius and his followers had great influence in the schools of Alexandria—counterparts to modern universities or seminaries—their theological views spread, especially in the eastern Mediterranean

"By 325, the controversy had become significant enough that the Emperor Constantine called an assembly of bishops, the First Council of Nicaea..."

So, allow me to make a counter-suggestion to your "exposing Christian mysteries" theory:

Many Christians of Alexandria, Egypt, were descendants of the original Jewish converts to Christianity, for whom the conviction of God's oneness (not three-ness) and unknowable-ness caused them to take offense at Greek and Latin philosophical ideas of hypostasis and homoousios.

That was the real "root cause" of the Arian controversy / heresy.
So, what the Roman Emperor Constantine interpreted as just theological squabbling amongst silly Catholic bishops, actually had its origins in the very foundations of Christianity.

Indeed, I would suggest that in cutting off its nose ("Arianism") to spite its face, the now State Religion of the Roman Empire fatally weakened its hold on hearts and minds in its eastern provinces -- eventually making them vulnerable to a new religion, one whose first rule is: there is no God but God.

Newman says that Alexander did accuse Arius, because Arius was a pupil of Lucian and was therefore a member of the school of Antioch. Antioch was suspected of Judaizing tendences, of which the Patriarch Paul had been convicted. Arius was now suspected of the same, but Newman thinks that the can of worms Arius opened was to treat a matter of settled doctrine as a hypothesis subject to dialectical dispute, which would gain his party the public support of the Jews as well as the pagans. As for Lucian, yes, he eventually was a Martyr but not until after he had recanted views that were similar to Arius. Now of course Newman does have the last word in all this, since he other scholars have weighed in, albeit without his clarity. And I am pulling this all from memory. One think that Newman does remind me is that the Jews in that time and place were a wealthy and powerful and numerous community and the enemy of the Christians.

RobbyS: "Antioch was suspected of Judaizing tendences, of which the Patriarch Paul had been convicted."

Possibly you meant to say Paul of Samosata (lived from 200 to 275 AD) -- Bishop of Antioch from 260 to 268?

The first "Patriarch Paul of Alexandria" I can find lived in the sixth century -- two hundred years after Arius.

RobbyS: "Newman thinks that the can of worms Arius opened was to treat a matter of settled doctrine as a hypothesis subject to dialectical dispute, which would gain his party the public support of the Jews as well as the pagans."

All of that is pure speculation -- in your words, "hypothesis subject to dialectical dispute", and since you have no documentary evidence to support it, we should dismiss the whole notion out of hand.

In real history, what got settled at the Synods of Antioch (264 - 268 AD) was: they condemned the word homoousios as it was understood at the time.
But now (circa 320 AD) some like Bishop Alexander of Alexandria were trying to reintroduce "homoousios" under a different definition, one they hoped would be more acceptable.

Arius' opinion was that this new definition of the condemned word, "homoousios", was just more of the same-old same-old Sabellianism -- and he said so.
In response, his Bishop, Alexander of Alexandria complained to Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople, after which Roman Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea (325 AD).

The Council of Nicaea reinstated the word "homoousios" under a modified definition, and condemned Arius.

My point here is that the Council of Nicaea acted hastily and rashly, in condemning ideas that reflected original understandings of many Christians going back to the First Century.
One result of the Council's actions was alienating affections of many Eastern Provinces Christians, believers who then became easy prey to a new religion whose monotheism was beyond question.

RobbyS: "As for Lucian, yes, he eventually was a Martyr but not until after he had recanted views that were similar to Arius."

The record says that Lucian "reconciled" not "recanted", and that views of Eastern Church leaders in general more closely resembled those of Arius and, say Eusebius of Nicomedia (pupils of Lucian), than they did those of Trinitarians like Athanasius of Alexandria.
This was demonstrated as late as the 341 AD (16 years after Nicaea) Synod of Antioch.

So whatever small "recanting" Lucian may have done, it certainly did not involve his flipping over to the homoousians.

RobbyS: "One think that Newman does remind me is that the Jews in that time and place were a wealthy and powerful and numerous community and the enemy of the Christians."

Sorry FRiend, but that is a statement of such breath-taking ignorance, one which by itself should tell you that you don't know enough about this subject to take on the job of defending the Church, or Constantine, or anyone else of the period.

The fate, status, wealth, power and populations of Jews were radically and forever reduced as results of three Revolts against Rome in 66, 115 and 132 AD.
Yes, Constantine himself was friendly to Jews, and may have considered restoring them and their temple in Jerusalem, but nothing came of it, and Jews never again achieved the wealth and power they held before the Revolts.

Regarding the Jews, first, truth requires we forget what happened afterwards, after the Jews had been reduced in power and influence. It is simply not true that after the Jewish Wars that their nation did not recover. Once their political ambitions were put aside by their leaders, their natural talents asserted themselves, as they have continuously throughout their history, and they prospered again under Roman rule. But the same strife that rent the Christian Church in the 4th and fifth centuries, led Christians to harden their hearts to the Jews. Like it or not Christians and Jews were enemies, and neither give much quarter, and the one with the power prevailed, just as Catholics prevailed over Arians. As further divisions, we have the breach between Constantinople and Alexandria, and between Alexandria and Nestorius. Then, in the course of time, we have the Muslims who may be regarded as the definitive anti-Trinitarians.

RobbyS: "It is simply not true that after the Jewish Wars that their nation did not recover... they prospered again under Roman rule. "

Sure, after the Jewish Revolts, beginning with Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius (ruled 138 - 161 AD), Jews were legalized and required to pay an annual Fiscus Judaicus tax (circa $100 head tax, in today's values), whereas Christians were outlawed and persecuted by Rome.
But Jews were then a mere remnant of their previous population and wealth, and no recovery to those levels happened before persecutions resumed after Emperor Constantine.

RobbyS: " But the same strife that rent the Christian Church in the 4th and fifth centuries, led Christians to harden their hearts to the Jews.
Like it or not Christians and Jews were enemies, and neither give much quarter, and the one with the power prevailed, just as Catholics prevailed over Arians."

First, I don't like it, not even a little bit, FRiend.

Second, what you here call "strife", I call the Church's original sin in using its new-found political power to persecute and exterminate anyone -- be they heretics, pagans or Jews -- who disagreed with their non-biblical doctrines.
Imho, this is precisely the opposite of what Jesus preached, and made the Church a tool of the devil.

Third, if you lay the historical record of alleged Jewish persecutions (if any!) of Christians beside that of Christian persecutions of Jews, there is no comparison, none.

"No sooner was [the Church] armed than it forgot its most elementary principles, and directed the secular arm against its enemies." [37]

The results were, first to drive out many who previously considered themselves Christians, eventually making them easy prey for a new, aggressively anti-Trinitarian religion, and second, it set the patterns for well over a thousand years of Christians persecuting and murdering others based on adherence to certain non-biblical texts.

RobbyS: "As further divisions, we have the breach between Constantinople and Alexandria, and between Alexandria and Nestorius.
Then, in the course of time, we have the Muslims who may be regarded as the definitive anti-Trinitarians."

Clearly, the nature of God the Father and the nature of Jesus Christ as God are fundamental to Christian thought. Christ is self identified as the Yahweh of the OT. Yet, the NT shows a subservient son, born of woman, who grows from grace to grace as a natural child of God. Something’s lost in translation or missing.

It's obvious from the Bible that murder, idolatry, adultery et. al. were not OK prior to the Ten Commandments or Noachide Laws. Cain is punished as much for idolatry as murder. Perhaps it is our understanding of eternity and eternal things?

The other interesting issue is the consistent use of the term “Mysteries” by the Catholic Church. Eleusis, an ancient city of Attica just 12 miles NW of Athens, was the site of a large temple to Demeter, the Great Mother. Therein they held highly secret religious ceremonies that are believed to have had their origin in fertility ceremonies of the ancient religions of Greece prior to the advent of the Olympian gods.

The purpose of these ceremonies, known as Mysteries, was to achieve mystical union between worshipers and deities such as Demeter, Dionysus and Persephone. In ancient times, counterparts of the Greek Demeter could be found all over - Cybele in Persia, Isis in Egypt, Astarte among the Phoenicians, and Ishtar in Babylonia and Assyria.

It's curious that Christians seek this unity with God and are promised it by Jesus Christ. More curious is the Catholic assumption of the word “Mysteries” to describe the Trinitarian union. But, the thing that really startles me is that Protestant Reformers who wanted to ‘start fresh’ rejected so much unBiblical teaching from the Catholic Church, but kept the Trinity and threw out the priesthood. The one being unBiblical and invention and the other being Biblical and necessary. Any thoughts?

I question your assertion that the Jews were but a remnant. The Disaspora Jews in the Empire just had to pay the Temple tax to Caesar, and of course it extended outside the Empire, because, after all, only a minority had moved west from Persia to return to Jerusalem. And they were numerous enough to qualify as a possible ally for Constantine. Spain was and remained a favorite place for Jews for a thousand years. Jews, like Christians, did not practice infanticide, and any losses from the wars were made up by the Fourth Century. As to persecution, the" original sin" of the Jews, was the rejection of Jesus, and the New Testament shows that the relationship between Church and Synagogue was bad from the start. Christianity began as a kind of Jewish sect , and were treated as such. There was bad blood between them, no love lost. The Jews were persecuted because they had lost their political protector. But the same thing happened to Christians with the wrong views. The Vandals who took over Africa and Italy favored their own kind.

But going back to Arianism, it was and is a rationalistic faith, and by rejecting the doctrine of the Incarnation, it ends up with a faith as different from Trinitarian Christianity as Islam. At the time of the Reformation, Geneva and Rome were agreed on that.

1010RD: "But, the thing that really startles me is that Protestant Reformers who wanted to ‘start fresh’ rejected so much unBiblical teaching from the Catholic Church, but kept the Trinity and threw out the priesthood.
The one being unBiblical and invention and the other being Biblical and necessary.
Any thoughts?"

Sure, my opinion again is: any church has an absolute right to interpret the Bible howsoever it wishes, and to offer up its interpretations in market-places of ideas.
Let those which make the most sense win the most converts.

But when a church achieves worldly political power, and uses its power to have persecuted and murdered those who disagree with its interpretations, then the church becomes a weapon of evil, a tool of the devil, so to speak.

That is a burden of sin the Catholic Church will always carry.
But I also believe in forgiveness of sins, for those who honestly confess, sincerely repent and reliably promise not to repeat it.

And I'm not at all certain if the Catholic Church(s) ever quite came to grips with its terrible original sins.

The idea of burdening the Church of Rome with a unique is a Reformation conceit. Ironical to charge Rome while overlooking the involvement of all the great reformers in politics. Zwingli died on the battle field. Luther owed his life to the Elector of Saxony and sanctioned the slaughter of the peasants who rose against against the German princes. Calvin stated his Career on the Day of the Placards, which was a religious protest, and Geneva was deeply involved in the Huguenot movement in France, which was as much political and religious. Only the small sects were innocent of the blood of other Christians, the Mennonites and the Quakers. As for a thousand years of persecution, you forget that much of the Christianizing of Europe was done by monks armed with only Bible and cross. Ireland was converted without bloodshed, and Irish monks carried the Gospel everywhere, maybe to the Americas if the story of St. Brendan can be credited.

RobbyS: "The idea of burdening the Church of Rome with a unique is a Reformation conceit.
Ironical to charge Rome while overlooking the involvement of all the great reformers in politics..."

Then you misunderstand my point of view.
I would hold every church responsible for its own sins, but not for anybody else's sins.

But your example of Martin Luther (died 1546) is highly instructive, since he came at a time of many martyred "heretics", whose ideas and movements failed -- literally went up in smoke -- precisely because they lacked support from powerful political & military forces.
The names Jan Huss (died 1415) and Girolamo Savonarola (died 1498) come quickly to mind, but there were many others, persecuted throughout history -- not all by the Roman Catholic Church, of course.

Luther succeeded because he had what those others lacked: reliable political and military backing.

RobbyS: "As for a thousand years of persecution, you forget that much of the Christianizing of Europe was done by monks armed with only Bible and cross."

I forget nothing, and commend all those who so ventured forth.
But they were followed by political and military powers which imposed cruel and unusual punishments on anyone found to disagree with their teachings.
Unlike you, I do not forget them.

RobbyS: "Only the small sects were innocent of the blood of other Christians, the Mennonites and the Quakers."

Now you are talking about some of my ancestors, and many who helped found the United States.

RobbyS: "I question your assertion that the Jews were but a remnant."

Demography of the Roman Empire:

Traditional estimates put the Roman Empire's population under Emperor Agustus (ruled 27 BC to 14 AD) at around 50 million, of whom roughly half lived in Asia and North Africa -- call that 25 million.

Of the 25 million in Asia (Turkey, Syria, Palestine, etc.) and North Africa (Egypt, Lybia, etc.) about 4 million were Jews, plus some hundreds of thousands who lived east of the Empire.

Estimates of total killed in various Revolts total around 2 million Jews, and the next estimates we have come from the Middle Ages showing fewer than one million Jews worldwide.

So there's no direct evidence of Jewish populations fully recovering after their Revolts against Rome.
Instead, the evidence shows a long decline -- from over 4 million in the First Century to two million in the Third Century, to fewer than one million by, say, the Ninth Century.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.