I've been studying Constantine and the following historical - fact based accounts of what happened in his time. And I've made several startling observations - some you will already be aware of.
1. Christianity in his time was a large amalgum of sects - not a single large sect surrounded by smaller sects.
2. One realizes Constantine was not Christian; but, here's a rather complicated one to get to. So pay close attention.
A)Licinius was a rival of Constantine - not an arm of constantine and was put down for several reasons. Defeated finally in 324, he was put down for his political aspirations and for causing division within the empire through political aspiration and persecution of Christians - and specifically the Donatists.
B)The Donatists were not put down by Constantine or on his behalf, they in fact well outlived him. The only thing Constantine actually did is order their church's siezed in an attempt to force them into unity with the other sects. Constantine was trying to unify the sects into a common harmoneous whole. Whether that was his aim or not, that is what ended up happening. His stated aim was unity of empire, not of religion.
C) Reading the factual record from countless historians at this point, it is clear that there was no central figure leading a unified church. The problem is there was no unified church. There was no unity of position. Reading the record of his forced gathering of the Bishops shows that these bishops were representative of disperate factions that had disagreements. And the biggest was with the Donatists and the Arians; but, those were not the only ones. It so happens that these two sects represented deal breaker postions to a coalescance of a combined sect or unified religion.
D) The issue on the table primarily at this forced meeting was The arian question of the nature of Christ. Now here's where it gets fun. Constantine was so ignorant of Christianity that he was clueless as to the importance of the issue at hand and was arguing for the Arian position in trying to get the other factions to accept language that would allow for the Arian view to be accepted along with the opposite view. IE, it would simultaneously allow for teaching that Christ and God were both of different nature and of the same nature. Sit and ponder this for a moment, then continue.
- The popular myth is that the Donatists were wiped out on Constantine's behalf in order to put down a heresy. Constantine's own direction on the matter was simply to attempt to unify the empire by stopping the wrangling between warring sects of the dominant religion against the backdrop of an empire struggling to survive under attack from it's enemies. The Old religions lost confidence of the people when the empire was attacked and suffered losses - which in turn fed the growth of 'Christian sects'. One can see the problem caused by religious infighting in a crumbling empire by turning on the news right now regarding post war Iraq. The different groups have to come together and learn to deal with one another or the country can't move on. This is the identical same situation Constantine was in. The factual record fails to mention a sect called 'Catholic'. A glaring abstention that had not escaped me before; but, it becomes all the more relevant when we realize that again, constantine is pulling a large group of different sects together to try and get them to cooperate and get along for the sake of the empire. And this is later punctuated by Theodosius who once and for all states there will be ONE sect called Catholic and all others thereafter will be heretics to be put down.. The price of political unity to drive out religious unrest was the creation of a common religion to the detriment of anyone who would disagree.
After reading the laws that were written by Constantine to deal with this stuff and putting it into context against what was supposed to already exist according to the popular myths. One wonders why it would be necessary for Constantine to impose laws on a body that already had such laws in place of their own. One also wonders why a common sect had to be established when one supposedly already existed. One wonders Why the sect name "catholic" isn't in the factual record until after constantine dies. The more I read, the more I'm convinced I've finally found the foundation of Catholicism. I've hinted at it and proffered it before; but, I can't see any alternatives at this point given what is known about the writings of Eusebius. If you dismiss Eusebius, Catholicism has no footprint in the world until Theodosius instituted it by name. And knowing the level of historical fraud perpetrated (and proven so) by Eusebius, dismissing him is no loss to the record. In short, Catholicism came into being over 300 years after Christ.
I could ramble on but; I will show a little constraint and not do so in the interest of brevity and hopefully clarity. But I will say I found it rather funny that Constantine outlawed divination through the reading of entrails and then had to revoke the law in order to allow himself to do so in the practice of his own religion of mithraism. The things you discover when you dig into the details...
I haven't bothered to consider the implications yet for the catholics. I was too stunned when I pieced it all together to even care. So have fun with it - bat it around for a while. And gimme some input if you would.
I thought you had disappeared. Stay around for a while.
1. Christianity in his time was a large amalgum of sects - not a single large sect surrounded by smaller sects.
I agree.
Constantine was trying to unify the sects into a common harmoneous whole.
Yep.
The problem is there was no unified church.
Right again.
In short, Catholicism came into being over 300 years after Christ.
19 June 325 C.E.
I think you've got it. I would add that all (small "o") "orthodox" Christians who accept the conciliar creedal formulations can trace their establishment as "orthodoxy" to Constantine. Before then, there was no "orthodoxy", but rather competing ideas/denominations/religions. It is only in retrospect that orthodoxy is assigned to earlier writers. How? By taking those whose writings mostly agree with Constantinian orthodoxy, and naming them "church fathers". And where their writings don't agree with "orthodoxy", well, they were just "fallible" and not speaking authoritatively for "the Church".
Additionally, the fabrication and/or creative editing of earlier writings, and the destruction of works whose theology did not square with "orthodoxy", and the repression of all "heretical" sects.