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.

You are beguiled by a clinging to Reformation legend and of course by Lutheran doctrine—and please do not say that you owe nothing to him because you owe everything this single priests private view of what is right and true. It boils down to a question of authority. The Church claims to speak with an authority given it by Jesus Christ. You reject that claim, but that does not mean your right but only that you have your own claims to make, which is that you rather than the Church know what the true Gospel is. Like Luther you reject the authority of pope, bishops and councils and accept only the authority of the Bible. Further that you are authorized to interpret the Bible by the Holy Spirit, although why you expect anyone to accept this is beyond me because you invoke an unseen authority who may not be in fact who you think him to be. Regarding Indulgences, this is like that of a Presidential pardon—it absolves a person of the consequences of his actions but not his guilt. It is different because it is conditional on the admission of guilt. More the person who has admitted the guilt and is asking for the indulgence or the person for who he is acting must truly be repentant, or the indulgence has no effect whatsoever. In the end, a person’s heart is known but to God.

The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Christians

HMMMmmm...

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

1 John 3:21-24

Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

I’ve been told that I’d answer to the Pope for my sins at the Pearly Gates

Oh NO!!

You have THAT wrong; my Friend!

What Joseph Smith Means to Us (From: various sources )

"He (Joseph Smith) is the man through whom God has spoken... yet I would not like to call him a savior, though in a certain capacity he was a god to us, and is to the nations of the earth, and will continue to be."

- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:321

"You call us fools; but the day will be, gentlemen and ladies, whether you belong to this Church or not, when you will prize brother Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Living God, and look upon him as a god..."

- Herber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 5:88

"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith]"

- (as quoted in 1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142)

There is "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God"

- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190

"I tell you, Joseph holds the keys, and none of us can get into the celestial kingdom without passing by him. We have not got rid of him, but he stands there as the sentinel, holding the keys of the kingdom of God; and there are many of them beside him. I tell you, if we get past those who have mingled with us, and know us best, and have a right to know us best, probably we can pass all other sentinels as far as it is necessary, or as far as we may desire. But I tell you, the pinch will be with those that have mingled with us, stood next to us, weighed our spirits, tried us, and proven us: there will be a pinch, in my view, to get past them. The others, perhaps, will say, If brother Joseph is satisfied with you, you may pass. If it is all right with him, it is all right with me. Then if Joseph shall say to a man, or if brother Brigham say to a man, I forgive you your sins, "Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them;" if you who have suffered and felt the weight of transgression—if you have generosity enough to forgive the sinner, I will forgive him: you cannot have more generosity than I have. I have given you power to forgive sins, and when the Lord gives a gift, he does not take it back again."

- Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.154-155

"It is because the Lord called Joseph Smith that salvation is again available to mortal men.... If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation,"

- Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 396, 670

They succeeded in killing Joseph, but he had finished his work.

He was a servant of God, and gave us the Book of Mormon.

He said the Bible was right in the main, but, through the translators and others, many precious portions were suppressed, and several other portions were wrongly translated; and now his testimony is in force, for he has sealed it with his blood.

As I have frequently told them, no man in this dispensation will enter the courts of heaven, without the approbation of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jun.

Who has made this so?

Have I?

Have this people?

Have the world?

No; but the Lord Jehovah has decreed it.

If I ever pass into the heavenly courts, it will be by the consent of the Prophet Joseph.

If you ever pass through the gates into the Holy City, you will do so upon his certificate that you are worthy to pass.

Can you pass without his inspection?

No; neither can any person in this dispensation, which is the dispensation of the fulness of times.

In this generation, and in all the generations that are to come, everyone will have to undergo the scrutiny of this Prophet.

They say that they killed Joseph, and they will yet come with their hats under their arms and bend to him; but what good will it do them, unless they repent?

They can come in a certain way and find favor, but will they?

Brigham Young,

--JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, vol. 8, p. 224

Elsie: "We sure have a LOT of words in this thread, talking ABOUT religion, but hardly ANYTHING Scriptural being posted. Strange... "

You might re-check the thread's title:

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

Yes, it is a religion forum but...
It's topics are: Apologetics; Catholic; History
key words: constantine; nicea

History is my "thing".
Of course, you may wish to debate the Council of Nicaea and its creed, as they relate to Emperor Constantine -- and that may (or may not) require reference to biblical verses -- but nobody else has raised those questions.

Consider: in Jon Sorensen's article, he pretends to defend Constantine -- who needs no defense, since Constantine was a perfectly good Roman Emperor -- but in fact Sorensen is defending the Catholic Church against claims (some true, some not so) that Constantine not only empowered but simultaneously corrupted it.

Sorensen's defense of the Church here is weak and incomplete, and you might wish to comment on that, comments which may require Biblical references.

But so far, NYer who posted this thread, has resisted most temptations to defend it... ;-)

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.