"Constantine declared himself the first pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Mary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Little_Mary

Guest
:whacky:

…in 340 A.D. which established the Catholic church"

Why do some protestant groups believe this? Can’t they do a little research before they profess this as something they believe is true?

I am aware of Constantine’s involvement with the first Council of Nicaea, but nowhere on the internet can I find any sources that back this statement up.

Can anyone else?

Thanks…🤷
 
The answer would be “no”, because it simply never happened.

God bless.
 
The answer would be “no”, because it simply never happened.

God bless.
Thank you Pax. I can’t even find anything that says Constantine TRIED to declare himself pope.

I
 
If he did, that’s an achievement, given the fact he died in 337.
 
The Bishop of Rome existed before Constantine so you could use that to counter that argument.
 
Okay, as a protestant myself I can answer this.

Many believe this because there is a group called “chick tracts” or whatever and they are always talking bad about Catholics.

My interpretation of why protestants believe that Constantine was the first pope was the fact that he is also considered the founder of catholicism. When he signed the Edict of Milan and then (on his death bed) converted to Christianity, they feel that he “Started” the church. Or at least the organized church.

And if he founded catholicism and the pope is always the leader, it stands to reason that he was the first pope.

if that helps any… This is all my take on it, as I don’t agree with those mainline protestants.
 
Okay, as a protestant myself I can answer this.

Many believe this because there is a group called “chick tracts” or whatever and they are always talking bad about Catholics.

My interpretation of why protestants believe that Constantine was the first pope was the fact that he is also considered the founder of catholicism. When he signed the Edict of Milan and then (on his death bed) converted to Christianity, they feel that he “Started” the church. Or at least the organized church.

And if he founded catholicism and the pope is always the leader, it stands to reason that he was the first pope.

if that helps any… This is all my take on it, as I don’t agree with those mainline protestants.
Thank you AryAna. What I am looking for are sources that back these claims up. The individual that I am dealing with says very much the same things that you posted here but he can’t give me sources. I am looking for them myself, or I am going to be able to go back to him and tell him there are none.
 
The Bishop of Rome existed before Constantine so you could use that to counter that argument.
Doesn’t work. If one is convinced that Constantine was the first pope, then there was no bishop of rome before him. Sources to the contrary that are provided are ignored.
 
Doesn’t work. If one is convinced that Constantine was the first pope, then there was no bishop of rome before him. Sources to the contrary that are provided are ignored.
How about the evidence that Constantine wrote to Pope St. Mark to “request” an episcopal conference to settle the Donatist turmoil? (I put “request” in quotes because it’s by no means clear that the Bishop of Rome could have said “no” to the Emperor, but that doesn’t change the fact that the letter was sent, even if it was just pro forma. . . .) And of course we have the names of the Popes who held the See of Peter during Constantine’s rule, which makes the claim that Constantine was ever Pope even more bizarre:

Constantine: ruled 306-337

Popes:
29.St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30.St. Marcellus I (308-309) *
31.St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32.St. Miltiades (311-14)
33.St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34.St. Marcus (336)
35.St. Julius I (337-52)

*See vacant due to persecution and internal dissent for several years after the death of St. Marcellinus.
 
=Little Mary;7402158]:whacky:
…in 340 A.D. which established the Catholic church"
Why do some protestant groups believe this? Can’t they do a little research before they profess this as something they believe is true?
I am aware of Constantine’s involvement with the first Council of Nicaea, but nowhere on the internet can I find any sources that back this statement up.
Can anyone else?
Thanks…🤷
NOPE, cause it’s not ture as Hostory itself proves…

Here is the Historically list of Popes from AD 30 to AD 400…

***29 Marcellinus, Saint Reigned 296-304
30 Marcellus I, Saint Reigned 308-309
31 Eusebius, Saint Reigned 309 or 310
32 Miltiades, Saint Reigned 311-314
33 Sylvester I, Saint Reigned 314-335
34 Mark, Saint Reigned 336 aka Marcus
35 Julius I, Saint Reigned 337-352
36 Liberius Reigned 352-366
37 Damasus I, Saint Reigned 366-383
38 Siricius, Saint Reigned 384-399
39 Anastasius I, Saint Reigned 399-401 ***

There can be NO DOUBT that Constantine exerted Great Influence over the Church, BUT he never ruled it.

His Mother was a staunch TRADITIONAL Catholic, and the reason behind the Benevolence of Constantine’s actions. As Ruler of the then Known World he had his plate full with other pressing issues.

YES, he kept his fingers on what was taking place but that is a LONG way from proclaiming himself POPE.

God Bless,
Pat
 
Okay, as a protestant myself I can answer this.

Many believe this because there is a group called “chick tracts” or whatever and they are always talking bad about Catholics.

My interpretation of why protestants believe that Constantine was the first pope was the fact that he is also considered the founder of catholicism. When he signed the Edict of Milan and then (on his death bed) converted to Christianity, they feel that he “Started” the church. Or at least the organized church.

And if he founded catholicism and the pope is always the leader, it stands to reason that he was the first pope.

if that helps any… This is all my take on it, as I don’t agree with those mainline protestants.
Thanks AryaAna, and yes, Chick has spread this false story through bathrooms everywhere!

I want to ask you something else, that may help prove your point.

“What did the ‘Edict of Milan’ do for Christianity”, according to what you’ve heard?
 
There can be NO DOUBT that Constantine exerted Great Influence over the Church, BUT he never ruled it.

His Mother was a staunch TRADITIONAL Catholic, and the reason behind the Benevolence of Constantine’s actions. As Ruler of the then Known World he had his plate full with other pressing issues.

YES, he kept his fingers on what was taking place but that is a LONG way from proclaiming himself POPE.

God Bless,
Pat
Constantine never “ruled the Church” as you point out, but it certainly wasn’t from lack of trying!!!

The reason he called the Council of Nicaea was not so much to find out the Truth, but to keep peace in the Empire. The way I understand it, Christians numbered 10% (or 5 million people) of the Roman Empire, and with 100’s of religions in the Empire at the time, I would imagine Christianity would have to be one of the largest religions (probably the 2nd or 3rd largest).
 
:whacky:

…in 340 A.D. which established the Catholic church"

Why do some protestant groups believe this? Can’t they do a little research before they profess this as something they believe is true?

I am aware of Constantine’s involvement with the first Council of Nicaea, but nowhere on the internet can I find any sources that back this statement up.

Can anyone else?

Thanks…🤷
The problem is, they research the wrong sources, sources which confirm their already held predjudices
 
The problem is, they research the wrong sources, sources which confirm their already held predjudices
… and the problem with these sources is, they know that if you want to believe its true, you will believe its true.

Liberal and conservative pundits do this all the time in the media. Sadly, even the “News Agencies” do this today.
 
:whacky:

…in 340 A.D. which established the Catholic church"

Why do some protestant groups believe this? …can I find any sources that back this statement up. :
From his book “Catholicsim and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism By Bible Christians”, Karl Keating states,

"…they all seem to fall back on one source, Loraine Bottner’s Roman Catholicism, which might be called ‘The Bible’ of the anti-Catholic movement within Fundamentalism. It is in this book that the anti-Catholic position is most extensively expressed." In his book, Mr. Boettner (RIP) has a section where he details 45 supposed “Inventions” of the Catholic Church including the worship of crosses, images and relics “Imposed” on Christianity by the Pope in the year 786 and Transusbtantiation which was “Invented” by Pope Innocent III in 1215.

The most laughable claim is “Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Coucil of Trent…1546”

The book has all of twelve footnotes and uses anti-Catholic sources exclusively. To say that it is poorly researched is an understatement as most of it is simply not researched at all. Boettner’s Roman Catholicism is the anti-Catholic sourcebook for most of the anti-Catholic rhretoric you will hear including the charge that the Catholic Church was “Invented” in 325 or 340 or whatever date is used.

I hardly need to defend the charge that the Catholic Church was invented on this forum but it might help to provide a logical argument for other’s to use when confronted with such nonsense.

------FEEL FREE TO CUT AND PASTE INTO PROTESTANT WEBSITES------

The truth is that many of the Church’s institutions including buildings, lines of communication and administrative functions became visible in the early fourth century when Christianity was legalized by Constantine. Before that time, you would have been killed if you were caught in the possession of a Christian paper or book, let alone participating in public worship. That is why Christians worshiped in catacombs and was the basis for home Churches. The Church was hidden because of persecution.

After Christianity was legalized, Christians were able to come out of hiding and build proper Churches and were able to establish the visible hierarchical administrative institutions which we still see today. Whatever date is used, 325 or 340 or whatever, the fact that the Church was not visible due to persection prior to that date and became visible after that date does not mean that it was “Invented.” The Catholic Church was legalized and **became visible **in the early 300’s. The doctrines and forms of worship however, did not change. Mary was “Mother of God” and Christ was substantially present in the Eucharist before Constantine legalized Christianity and remained so after. If I remember correctly, Constantine called the Church leaders together for the Council of Nicea, facilitated it, and was physically present. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

To argue that Catholicism was invented in the early 300’s is to use the same argument that the insane Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad uses to claim that the US “Invented” the idea of Nazi concentration camps at the end of World War II. Nazi concentration camps were discovered - became visible - not invented.

Protestantism is what was invented, not Catholicism.

-Tim-
 
:whacky:

…in 340 A.D. which established the Catholic church"

Why do some protestant groups believe this? Can’t they do a little research before they profess this as something they believe is true?
🤷
Apparently some cannot. More likely they just don’t want to admit that The Catholic is The Church founded by Jesus Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, born in 50 A.D., descipled directly at the feet of The Apostles and the first martyr to be fed to the wild beasts in the Colleseum, spoke of The Catholic Church within living memory of The Apostles hundreds of years before the birth of Constantine.
 
=NotWorthy;7402653]Constantine never “ruled the Church” as you point out, but it certainly wasn’t from lack of trying!!!
The reason he called the Council of Nicaea was not so much to find out the Truth, but to keep peace in the Empire. The way I understand it, Christians numbered 10% (or 5 million people) of the Roman Empire, and with 100’s of religions in the Empire at the time, I would imagine Christianity would have to be one of the largest religions (probably the 2nd or 3rd largest).
Your understanding and my own are the same! IMAGINE THAT:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top