Constantine Created the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter akasseb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

akasseb

Guest
The erroneous idea that Constantine created the Roman Catholic Church seems to come up again and again in my conversations with non-Catholic Christians. How frequently do you encounter this, and what are your strategies for countering the myth? Also, does anyone know the source of this myth? It seems that the main sticking points are the Council of Nicea (with Constantine presiding and determining doctrine, or so they say), the introduction of pagan practices into Christianity, and Constantine’s involvement with the building of the old St. Peter’s Cathedral. I have a few first principles that I mention, but I would like to hear the thoughts of others on this issue. Thanks!
 
When I encounter this, I ask them if they would accept the beliefs and practices of the Christian Church before the Edict of Milan.

For example, if I could clearly establish consensus of Early Church Fathers on topics such as the Papacy (both primacy and infallibility), the Real Presence, the necessity of water Baptism, Sacramental Confession, Apostolic Succession within Sacramental Orders, etc, etc long before Constantine was even born - would they accept that?

Because I can.

These people believe that the Early Christians were a bunch of Bible-believing protestants until Constantine came along and ruined everything. But the Catholic Church was well-established long before Constantine came about - and I can prove it.

Then I will point out that there was no consensus over what constituted the New Testament until 200 years AFTER Constantine. The New Testament, as we know it, did not exist when Constantine called for the Council of Nicea.

By the way, if you want to see a brief sampling of the testimony of the Early Church Fathers on various topics, check out these “Fathers Know Best” tracts from CA.
 
To add to David’s post of the writings of Early Church Fathers, akasseb have your objectors explain what Ignatius of Antioch said in 110AD:

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

This is the earliest writing I know of that states “Catholic Church” word for word. Examining the language and context, it’s extremely plausible to state that the creation of “Catholic Church” was much earlier. Funny yet, this one little paragraph affirms the authority of Bishops, the Eurcharist, Baptism, and the existence of the Catholic Church.
 
akasseb said:
The erroneous idea that Constantine created the Roman Catholic Church seems to come up again and again in my conversations with non-Catholic Christians. How frequently do you encounter this, and what are your strategies for countering the myth? Also, does anyone know the source of this myth? It seems that the main sticking points are the Council of Nicea (with Constantine presiding and determining doctrine, or so they say), the introduction of pagan practices into Christianity, and Constantine’s involvement with the building of the old St. Peter’s Cathedral. I have a few first principles that I mention, but I would like to hear the thoughts of others on this issue. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I think the onus of the proof in on the people who make those statements, which are totally against historical evidence.

There is a point of Truth. Before Constantine, the Christians were thrown to the lions, crucified, decapitated, set on fire. To those Christians want to go back to pre-Constantine Times? Were those times only Peace and Love (Agape)?
 
Since Constantine moved the capital of the Empire to Byzantium (then rename it to Constantinople) from Rome, he can’t even be considered by today’s standards to be Roman Catholic. He is Byzantine or Greek Catholic. So surely he couldn’t have created the particular Church he was never a part of 😉
 
I’m reading The Fathers Know Best, and this claim is laughable after exposure to all the documents and writings of the Church fathers before even the fourth century.
 
DavidFilmer said:
When I encounter this, I ask them if they would accept the beliefs and practices of the Christian Church before the Edict of Milan.

For example, if I could clearly establish consensus of Early Church Fathers on topics such as the Papacy (both primacy and infallibility), the Real Presence, the necessity of water Baptism, Sacramental Confession, Apostolic Succession within Sacramental Orders, etc, etc long before Constantine was even born - would they accept that?
Click to expand...
I think this is probably the best answer available. The problem is that there is usually a lack of time to respond adequately. Certainly the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers would absolutely destroy their made up arguments. I think there are two larger issues at play here, however. The first is closed-minded anti-Catholicism. Any fact (true or manufactured) that seems to undermine Catholicism is accepted without question. The second issue is that too many non-Catholics seem to think that the early Church is amorphous and unknowable.

Thanks for responding.
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
I think the onus of the proof in on the people who make those statements, which are totally against historical evidence.
Click to expand...
In a perfect world, the onus of proof would certainly fall on them. But as it stands right now, the Church and the faithful are, unfortunately, on the defensive, having to answer and refute the hundreds of allegations and insults hurled at the Church from all angles. I look forward to the day when the Church is back on the offensive!
 
akasseb said:
The second issue is that too many non-Catholics seem to think that the early Church is amorphous and unknowable.
Click to expand...
I think that’s the biggest problem. Most protestants are completely unaware of the extremely rich historical documentation that has survived from the ancient Church - even from the pre-Nicene period. They have absolutely no idea that we possess the testimony of hundreds of Early Church Fathers from every corner of the known world of Jesus’ time - or even that such a thing is possible! They think of the New Testament as the only Early Church writings.

Yet, even though they think the early Church is unknowable, they think it is very possible to know all about how Constantine messed things up. Ever since the Edict of Milan (313 AD) we know all sorts of things. Before that (according to them) we had only the Bible (though they do not realize we did not have even that - again, they have absolutely no idea that the pre-Nicene Church had no concept of a “New Testament”).

They have absolutely no idea. But, when we bring this up this history, the notion is so foreign to them that they cannot even comprehend it. It has never even crossed their minds that there is a clearly established (and VERY Catholic) Church history that long pre-dates the Edict of Milan.

As you say, this is a difficult avenue to explore during a coffee break (though smartphones and tablets are making it easier because we can call up references on-the-spot). And the evidence will not be persuasive to those with, umm, not very much intelligence.
 
Does anyone know the source of this myth? Was there an influential anti-Catholic who popularized this idea?

Also, what was Constantine’s role in the Council of Nicaea? I know that he provided his imperial grounds and also took care of the travel logistics. I read about this a couple years ago, but I do not remember the details.
 
“They think of the New Testament as the only Early Church writings…”

Even IF there was only the bible, the church in the bible still bears many marks of Catholicsm.

Man, I was taken aghast when I read the “Catholic” verses in the bible which show sacraments, heirarchal authority, Petrine primacy… The list could go on and on.

In my experience as a Protestant to Catholic convert, Protestants do not have a knowledge of the bible as they think they do. In fact, there happens to be much ignorance. They pick and chose passages and church father sayings to make a feeble attempt to make the early church Protestant, while it clearly was not.
 
akasseb said:
The erroneous idea that Constantine created the Roman Catholic Church seems to come up again and again in my conversations with non-Catholic Christians. How frequently do you encounter this, and what are your strategies for countering the myth? Also, does anyone know the source of this myth?
Click to expand...
to add to, what others have already said
  • Constantine legalized the Church. He didn’t start any Church. It meant that it was no longer legal to persecute Catholics, which had been going on since Nero…
  • The Church is called the Catholic Church, from the 1st century.
  • Ignatius Bp of Antioch was made bishop ~69 a.d. He died ~109 a.d. He is the 1st to write the name of the Church as the “Catholic Church” Which means it was already being used in 69 a.d. It’s probably safe to say he didn’t invent the name.
  • Polycarp Bp of Smyrna, calls the Church the Catholic Church ~130 a.d.
  • Irenaeus, Bp of Lyons, calls the Church the Catholic Church ~180 a.d.
  • fast forward to Nicea 325 a.d. “we believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” is made an article of faith in the creed
The myth of “Roman” as a qualifier to Catholic, OR “Catholic” as a proper name for the Church started by Jesus through His apostles, is the point of contension by either
jonny-come-latelys, who have no such pedagree for their OWN organizations, or it is a failed atempt by schismatics to rail against the true Church being the Catholic Church. They try and sell the idea the Catholic Church wasn’t started by Jesus and the apostles. These folks are jealous of the provable history of the Catholic Church in general, and the Chair of Peter, which exclusively belongs to the bishop of Rome specifically, and they hope nobody reads the ECF’s that proves them wrong…

As an aside, the “Roman” qualifier to Catholic, got traction with Anglicans during the Protestant revolt, oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Roman_Catholic
aka:
It seems that the main sticking points are the Council of Nicea (with Constantine presiding and determining doctrine, or so they say), the introduction of pagan practices into Christianity, and Constantine’s involvement with the building of the old St. Peter’s Cathedral. I have a few first principles that I mention, but I would like to hear the thoughts of others on this issue. Thanks!
Click to expand...
The Nicean creed states the belief in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It states what has been believed from the beginning…as you can see by the ECF references.

btw, Constantine didn’t introduce doctrine.
newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

The Church has always been Catholic Benedict XVI
Pentecost message
zenit.org/article-32832?l=english 2011
 
akasseb said:
In a perfect world, the onus of proof would certainly fall on them. But as it stands right now, the Church and the faithful are, unfortunately, on the defensive, having to answer and refute the hundreds of allegations and insults hurled at the Church from all angles. I look forward to the day when the Church is back on the offensive!
Click to expand...
Before, I used to react like that. But somebody taught me that you must choose the battles who fight, whether they are worthwhile fighting. Taught to to ACT and not re-ACT. Means, You act when you think worth and you do not act because the other acted. If you re-act, you are not free, you act because the other acted. If you act, you are thus free, you act when you think and feel you should so and no when the other provokes you. You choose the timing, the space and the arms of the battle.

It was a beloved priest, a great friend of mine whose sentence I never heard but saw splashed in the newspaper after his death. He told: “I only get offended by whom I want to get offend by” (and it is a rough translation from french).

Look. There are 200 Protestant Churches and each one has 200 principles. We had to spend our lifetime to analyze each one.

So, let’s Christ fight. If Christ is for us, who against us. Look at the Communism and its anti-theism and anti-Christ stance. It just imploded and you stood by seeing it collapse.

Christ won, Christ wins, Christ will win forever.
 
I simply ask them for PRIMARY historical sources to prove that claim.

They will almost always come up with a secondary or more often an opinion source with use of historical sources.

I then explain the difference between primary sources and opinion pieces.

then I tell them to come back to me when they do have primary sources, otherwise it is just an opinion as far as I know without historical merit.

Basic question, how do you know for sure what happened at nicea without primary sources? And, if the opinion you believe is wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top