Posted on 05/25/2013 4:22:36 AM PDT by NYer
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:
The Bible was 'canonized' around 325 C.E. (about 275+ years after Jesus' death) with Constantine in charge. . . . At the time Constantine was overseeing the canonization or 'building' of the Bible, if he didn't agree with the text, it was thrown out. There are tons of 'scriptures' that did not make it in. A quick research on the Council of Nicaea will prove this.
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:
[Arianism was] founded by Arius, a priest of Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 300s. Arius held that originally the Son of God did not exist. There was a time in which there was a single divine Person who became the Father when he created the Son out of nothing. The Son was the first of all created beings and thus separate from the Father in beginning. The heresy was condemned at the first ecumenical council—Nicaea I in 325—but the controversy intensified and lasted much longer (The Fathers Know Best, p. 85).
Constantine did not fully understand why Arianism was so controversial, and he even endorsed many of Arius’s ideas. Historian Dr. James Hitchcock explains:
[W]hen Constantine also endorsed Arius’s ideas, there was an uproar that led the emperor in 325 to call the Council of Nicaea (Asia Minor) to settle the issue. After an intense struggle, the Council condemned Arius, declaring the Son to be “consubstantial” with the Father, that is, sharing the same substance (History of the Catholic Church, p. 83).
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.
To counter this claim, I highly recommend Jimmy Akin’s book, The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Christians, available from Catholic Answers. I also recommend getting a copy of the May-June 2013 issue of Catholic Answers Magazine, in which I tackle several of the supposed pagan parallels to Catholic practices.
But it is true. Check the references given in the article.
See, here is that anti-Catholicism about Constantine, everybody!
Poor Constantine. Without him who would the practicioners of a deviant forms of Christianity have to blame for all the things that “they” say are Pagan in the church, that is, till “their” personal “prophet” got it “right”.
I have no problem with Constantine. The Eastern Empire lasted 1000 years longer than the Western Empire.
I always like to remember that it was Constantine who authorized the production of 50 huge bibles, written in Greek, for the churches, a few which are still around today.
The hijacking of this to promote Rome is more evident, while the statement in question maybe was due to the imagination that souls must meet Peter to get into Heaven, or was extrapolated from statements of papal power on earth, such as from Leo13m that , "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" (www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm), and those from the Dictatus Papae by Pope Gregory VII, that the pope's sentence cannot be repealed by anyone and he alone can review the judgements of all; he can depose emperors; he can absolve subjects from their allegiance to impious rulers; the Pope is the only man to whom all princes bend the knee; all princes should kiss his feet... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatus_papae)
To me, this is key to the story, and explains everything.
Constantine promoted Christianity, and also seized pagan wealth to pay for his imperial projects.
It was a win-win for Christians, with the added bonus of eliminating competing heresies.
It first established patterns of Church-State partnerships which lasted well into the 20th century.
You would almost think the Emperor Constantine a historical non-event around here. The sort of thing one might expect on a Roman Catholic website...which is apparently what FR is, just look at the threads. Pope this, and Pope that.
Truth is:
Under Constantine, Christianity was virtually made the state religion of the Roman Empire. the spirit of the Roman Empire entered Christianity: Christianity in the garb of the Roman Empire.
The church was founded, not as an institution of authority to force the name of Christ upon the world, but only as a witness-bearing institution to Christ. Constantine was the historical benchmark that changed all that.
The Church, founded in the days of the Roman Empire, gradually developed a form of government like the political world in which it existed, becoming a vast autocratic organization ruled from the top.
The Roman Catholic Church is not the church, but a political machine that took over the church.
Constantine and Licinius (the emperor of the East) met in Milan in Feb. 313 and agreed on religious toleration. Later, Licinius issued an edict of toleration (June 313) in Nicomedia.
Constantine was already not only tolerating Christianity in his half of the empire but actively favoring it. But he was also trying to compel the Donatists to submit to the Catholics in North Africa (that was a schism over who was the rightful bishop of Carthage rather than a question of heresy, at least at the outset).
I traveled to the so called “experts” site and I will have to throw out all the encyclopedias that teach otherwise. This site has become a catholic circus, where 1 roundhead posts to another and they all agree on their false postings. The world is in the shape it is and whom is the chief religion in charge in the world? The one that teaches the 9 commanments. What are the fruits of romanism? Look around you, clear as ever.
Are you SDA, Big Bopper? Or a RC agent provocateur posing as an SDA?
Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:
"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).
Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.
To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:
The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15).
A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his or her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church. Like the Chaldeans, the Maronites retain Aramaic for the Consecration. It is as close as one comes to being at the Last Supper.
Daily. RSS feed: Roman site syndication. A plethora of papal promotion by those seemingly driven to do so. Perhaps it gains an indulgence each time.
Constantine favored Christianity as a party but was not a Christian until he was on his deathbed, and he favored Arianism, which was not the faith of the majority because it was closer to his own faith, which was the worship of Sol Invictus. He also considered Judaism, but it was so peculiar, so national that he decided he could not subscribe to it, even though is many respects it was more like the pagan faiths. We see how he and his mother decided to build Christian temples to replace the old temples. She went to Jerusalem and laid the groundwork that led to the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and a Church of our Lady. If Constantine had chosen Judaism, he would have reconstructed the Jewish Temple.
What is it with you all and indulgences? They play about as much a role in Catholicism is a pardon does in our political system.
Well, almost correct...Constantine promoted a religious sect that claimed to be Christianity but was the beginning of the Catholic religion...
It was a win-win for the new Catholic religion since Constantine forced his armed forces to get baptized and become Catholics whether they wanted to or not...
This gave the new religion the massive power to overthrow by force those Christians who died holding their scriptures and refusing to bow down to the new state-religion...
And thank God, groups of those Christians and copies of those scriptures perservered thru-out history to this day...
I wouldn’t necessarily blame Constantine for the RCC. In fact, even by the time of Pope Gregory the first, the idea of the supremacy of Rome had yet to take hold. According to the Catechism, the Roman Bishop is:
882 ... the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”403
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”404
It was this same idea of universal power of a ‘general Father” that Gregory condemned in the then Bishop of Constantinople, who had taken the title Universal Bishop.
“What then, dearest brother, will you say in that terrible scrutiny of the coming judgment, if you covet to be called in the world not only father, but even general father? Let, then, the bad suggestion of evil men be guarded against; let all instigation to offense be fled from. It must needs be (indeed) that offenses come; nevertheless, woe to that man by whom the offense comes Matthew 18:7. Lo, by reason of this execrable title of pride the Church is rent asunder, the hearts of all the brethren are provoked to offense. What! Has it escaped your memory how the Truth says, Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a mill stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea (Ib. 5:6)? But it is written, Charity seeks not her own 1 Corinthians 13:4. Lo, your Fraternity arrogates to itself even what is not its own. Again it is written, In honour preferring one another Romans 12:10. And you attempt to take the honour away from all which you desire unlawfully to usurp to yourself singularly. Where, dearest brother, is that which is written, Have peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord Hebrews 12:14? Where is that which is written, Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God Matthew 5:9?”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360205018.htm
Some Catholics can read this letter and say that Gregory only condemned the title, but not the power they claim he still possessed. However, there are other instances where Gregory could have embraced his role as “universal” Bishop of the entire church. While at this time the idea of the “Primacy of Peter” was in vogue, yet this same primacy was not translated to a supremacy over the entire church. And, in fact, there wasn’t just one person who held the “throne” of Peter; it was held by one Apostolic see ruled by divine authority by THREE separate Bishops, which is that of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. Here is the letter in full, but first I am going to quote the RCC abuse of it:
The link first
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm
Now here are the Roman quotations of this letter, wherein they assert that Gregory is a champion of the Primacy of Rome. Take special note of the clever use of ellipses:
Pope Gregory I
“Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]” (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii
“Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?...Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles...received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate.” (Letter to the Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Ep. 7)
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm
I provide their versions of the quotations only to highlight for you the parts they omit. And, really, there is no reason for them to omit them. The lines they remove are small sentences, and then they continue quoting right after they finish. It’s quite an embarrassing display!
In this letter, Gregory is specifically attributing to the Bishops of Alexandra and Antioch the “Chair of Peter” and its authority that they bestowed upon him. In the first quotation, the Romans omit the sentence which says: “And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, [they omit here] yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. [They rebegin here]” After telling them about the “special honor” that is respectively given to both parties, Gregory immediately goes into a discussion on what that special honor is... which is the Primacy of Peter they all enjoy.
“Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21.”
Notice how different this reads when one does not omit what the Romans omit! Gregory declares that the See of Peter is one see... but in THREE places, over which THREE Bishops preside, which is Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, the latter of which he was now writing to.
So while the Romans insist that the Primacy of Peter refers to the Bishop of Rome, Gregory applies the Primacy of Peter to ALL the major Bishops of the See. They are, in effect, ALL the Church of Peter, and possess his chair and authority.
And Gregory, of course, isn’t alone in this. Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
So while you may have particular people saying that the Roman Bishop has authority, or has the chair of Peter, yet these same accolades are given to multiple Bishops, all said to have the “throne” or authority of “Peter.”
In this way we can truly understand Gregory’s rejection of the title of Universal, since to do so would be to steal the Throne from beneath the other Bishops he honored as equals in divine authority.
It wasn’t until after Gregory that the Roman Bishop took on the power he so enjoys today, though, of course, they’ve fallen quite far from when they used to boast about all the princes of the Earth bowing to them.
Roundhead? I think you might have the wrong historical pejorative, there.
Roundheads were Parliamentarians, supporters of Cromwell, Republican and “Protestant,” being mostly Puritan, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. although some were CoE and found being so described offensive. Some still do.
Cavaliers were Royalists and almost entirely CoE. Then there were the Catholics, allied with Royalists of course, since the whole kerfluffle initially centered upon the Catholicising tendencies, real or imagined, of King Charles I.
So, the historical pejorative you’re searching for would be “papist.”
Most Christians in the time of Constantine would today be called Eastern Orthodox, not Roman Catholic.
Constantine brought them together at Nicaea and required them to develop a single doctrine which all must subscribe to or be treated as heretics.
The bishops obliged, the majority ruled, and minority heretics fell into the same category as pagans: outlawed with property confiscated for the Emperor's treasury.
For on thing: it was the Emperor's alternative to raising everyone's taxes to finance his great imperial projects.
I believe you’re correct.
Correct! Those who use Constantine against the Catholic Church are historically inaccurate.
All one needs to do is listen to the words of Saint Hilary of Poiters- who was far more influential than Constantine.
From Saint Hilary of Poiters
‘But nowadays, we have to do with a disguised persecutor, a smooth-tongued enemy, a Constantius who has put on Antichrist; who scourges us, not with lashes, but with caresses who instead of robbing us, which would give us spiritual life, bribes us with riches, that he may lead us to eternal death; who thrusts us not into the liberty of a prison, but into the honours of his palace, that he may enslave us: who tears not our flesh, but our hearts; who beheads not with a sword, but kills the soul with his gold; who sentences not by a herald that we are to be burnt, but covertly enkindles the fire of hell against us. He does not dispute with us, that he may conquer; but he flatters us, that so he may lord it over our souls. He confesses Christ, the better to deny him; he tries to procure a unity which shall destroy peace; he puts down some few heretics, so that he may also crush the Christians....-Saint Hilary of Poiters
They play a very substantial role for RCs, as did money for them in the past, while the point was that there are so many FR posts on the pope and Catholicism - and far more than there used to be - that one can wonder if some RCs think they get an indulgence for posting them.
Meanwhile the pardon for sin is that of Christ by which a soul is justified by a kind of faith that will follow Christ, which faith is counted for righteousness.
And with growth in grace toward practical maturity taking place in this life with its temptations and afflictions, and not in purifying torments commencing at death so that one progressively becomes perfect enough to enter glory. One either has true faith which effects characteristic holiness, or he does not.
In Scripture, the only clear teaching as to the postmortem place for the believer refers to them being with the Lord. Not only would the penitent criminal go to "paradise" (Lk. 23:43; cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7) as well as Paul and be with the Lord upon their passing, (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8: “we”) but so would every resurrected/raptured Corinthian (1Cor. 15:51ff) or Thessalonian, “to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord,” (1Thess. 4:17) if He came, even though the believers among the former were in need of further purification. (2Cor. 7:1)
Nor does 1Cor. 3 refer to purgatory, as the judgment of believers which 1 Cor. 3 describes only takes place at His return, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:21-23; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) versus purgatory, which has souls suffering upon death.
And in which believers whose work (which he built the church with) is burned up are saved despite this loss (and which is their suffering, and the Lord's grievous disapproval), not because of this loss. More
Even Mal. 12 also does not teach purgatory, and RCs trying to find support this tradition do not have any clear Scriptural teaching for it, but try to extrapolate it from unclear texts which of suffering for sins and the need for holiness, but which do not say the redeemed realize postmortem suffering to expiate sin and become holy enough to see God. For it is part of Catholicism 's amorphous tradition, not Scripture.
But may I (fully be committed to being ) be as holy and useful as i can be, more than now.
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.