Yes, I'm aware of what you mean by "reputable" historians. It means they have a degree and agree with your group. It doesn't necessarily mean that Their findings match the facts - unfortuneatly. Else you could reconcile the facts with the Catholic propaganda. Alas, that is impossible. When the facts say one thing and your story says the exact opposite, there is no possibility for reconciliation. Black cannot be simultaneously white - save for in fantasy realms in which these storys get cooked up apparently.
But to speak to the point, the notion that catholicism and orthodoxy are the creation of Constantine is simplistic
I did not say that Constantine created Catholicism, I stated that the end of his meddlings was the coelessance of the institution of Catholicism. That is not at all either simple or simplistic. It is quite complex and politically intriguing. A clue that might have saved you from jumping to conclusions is that I said it was punctuated by Theodosius. You might check your history and find out when Theodosius made his proclaimation giving the institution a name. Hint, this happened some time after the death of Constantine whome the Donatists outlived. In essence - Donatism had a name before Catholicism - as did Christianity. Perhaps not something you can really appreciate. Again, I've not appraised the full impact of that yet. I'm still involved in how deep the rabbit hole goes re Constantine. A full appraisal cannot yet happen till I've learned all I can.
W.H.C. Frend proposes--and Gibbon certainly doesn't disagree with this-- that after the time of the Emperor Marcus to the Emperor Valerian, Christians became a power in the empire, provoking several pagan persecutions, esp under Maximin, Decian and Valerian.
This is not inconsistant with what I've said. Christians had an impact. That is not in dispute. Christians became a power; but, there were all sort of sects that are generally regarded as christian - just as in modern times. History speaks to this as a manner of a religious following and not as the effect of a single sect. And there were multiple factors driving it. Four are prominant - 1) people lost confidence in their pagan gods and turned to Christianity seeking the truth of the message of Christ 2) Forceable conversion 3) Conversion for political and socio-economic purposes and the ever popular conversion due to popularity as the growth reached critical mass. It is no secret that many people occupy church pews because their friends are there or because it seems to them a good place to be though they themselves are not christian. Constantine seized on this and used it as a political means of uniting a dying empire. It was a brilliant error from a secular standpoint. From a Christian standpoint, it was bittersweet and ultimately scandalous and destructive.
Finally, the only thing I've "simply" dismissed is your contention that I've "simply" dismissed anything. Consideration is taken to that which is relevant, factual and authoritative. If it can't meet those benchmarks, then inclusion is error. You're no stranger to inclusion of error based on appearance and have shown a reluctance to accept any fact that opposed your views. I reject stories that oppose facts. And I prefer my methods as they do not lead me off into believing false information. I guess I'm just too simplistic and naive to understand why people spread lies and then are angered or outraged when facts are unveiled that dash their lies to bits. I expect people to tell the truth - especially christians. Seems my expectations are too high or your church isn't christian. I do have an opinion on the matter but I prefer to let the facts speak.
One last thing. The notion that the Church was a conglomeration of sects is not new. The first century Christians were a collection of churches dotting the landscape moving outward from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. And their approaches to things are shown in the council of Jerusalem Overseen by James. There is nothing to show that there was any change in this arrangement till the time of Constantine. There is arguably no need for a human "leader" of all churches - nor is there any evidence that one was controlling things in the time of Constantine. The fact that no one was doing so was the reason that Constantine obligated himself to act in the case of the Donatists and the Arians. That and the fact that he was directly brought into it. The Donatists appealed to constantine stating that the issue was a disagreement between them and the other bishops of Africa and they appealed for a judge to be appointed from Gaul to hear the issue. There was no appeal to a leader of any church and no mention of an organized body policing the church. One can look far and wide in the factual record and everywhere find absence to any mention of any organized hierarchy beyond the Bishops. There is none. Moreover, Constantine didn't bother to discuss this with any church leader which he would have been to some extent obliged to at least consider - there was no such consideration till he'd had his fill. And when He'd had his fill, he called all the Bishops together and demanded that they settle their differences and that they may not leave until such settlement was reached. In all this time, there is no homage paid to a leader, no mention of a leader, no diplomatic pouches to a leader, no consideration of a leader's opinions, thoughts or influence in these matters and finally no collaboration with any leader to resolve the issue. From starting point to ending point the only existing authorities were Constantine and the Bishops of the individual churches.
The impact of the above is dramatic. Constantine was seizing upon the Christians as a political move. Slighting them by doing an endrun around the highest form of leadership in their body would be a fatal miscalculation. It is therefore no real wonder that no mention of any organized leadership beyond the Bishops themselves does'nt exist until long after Constantine is dead and buried and at a time when it was siezed upon for political gain to forge Constantine and abuse his name for a power grab over both empire and church. A great deal of history was fabricated at that time and was never ferreted out because it threatens power structures that now exist that would have to be obliterated - to mention nothing of the deep betrayal that would be felt by millions and the massive response that would inevitably follow. Some value their necks and their standing far more than the truth. And that is nothing new. Donatus was preaching against those that valued their necks and standing more than truth in Constantine's time. And history records that this is the reason he was so dispised. One wonders now what he would have to say about the paganization of the Church that came as time passed after him. I'm sure he'd have been put to death again at the wishes of those in error and convicted by his preaching.
It seems that you insist upon dismissing as "propoganda" what does not comport with your views. In place of counter evidence. however, you offer only speculation. What I am complaining about now is your ignoring of the simple fact that in the 3rd century orthodox Christians dominated the scene because they were organized and to a considerable extent centralized. Otherwise, why should the offical persecution aimed at decapitation rather than extermination?
The weakening of the state created a vacuum, psychological, spiritual, social, and as usual the Church attracted people by offering them roles parallel to those found in traditional society. And just as in a democratic society organizations like democratic forms, so in authoritarian states, they follow authoritarian forms.
Episcopacy offered many advantages over the original traveling missionary form. It of course built on the older Jewish forms, but as Christianity and Judaism developed differently after the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues, a bishop early on was a very different office from that of rabbi. Whereas a rabbi was primarily a teacher and retained little priestly authority, a bishop was both teacher and priest. As the Christian clergy assimilated into Roman society--that is, as the notion of Christian and Roman became less antithetical--the bishop also became more like a public figure,so that Cyprian's authroity was a bit like Cardinal Spellman's was in the 1950s. The process was completed in the 5th as the bishop became in effect a prelate, offical exercising both the secular and religious authority. A confederation of bishops--for that was what the Church was in the 3rd century--must be very different from a confederation of Baptist pastors. It is/was marked by both rivalry and collegiality. But there is always an advantage in size, and so a united front appeared despite personal differences. One can see this tendency today even in the SBC toward orthodoxy and "Catholicism,"which so scandalized many Texas Baptists. In Roman society, with no democratic tendencies,hierarchy early on became the dominate fact of church government. In this enviroment, the sects were been marginalized. Groups like the Marcionites and the Manicheans were centralized like the Catholics, not small and scattered secrs, although there were many of them.
Sounds interesting. I'll have to look into the Donatists to see what they believed.