"Constantine declared himself the first pope

[Little_Mary]

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-

Thank you Tim. I whole heartedly agree with everything you say here. I am reading Keating’s book now, as a matter of fact. And you are correct about Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. I just researched that too.

Peace

 

[TimothyH]

Thank you Tim. I whole heartedly agree with everything you say here. I am reading Keating’s book now, as a matter of fact. And you are correct about Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. I just researched that too.

Peace

A guys pride could get inflated…

Pax.

 

[patricius79]

: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. the documents of the first century, 100s, 200s, and beyond don’t support this myth and do refute it

 

[Big_Dummy]

The only source I ever remember them using was his victory over Emperor Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, which was significant for its Christian symbolism & the fact that he hosted a church council. But, the fact that he was not even baptised until being on his death bed would say he could not have been the pope since he was not even offically catholic at those times.

 

[NHInsider]

the fact that he was not even baptised until being on his death bed would say he could not have been the pope since he was not even offically catholic at those times.

good point!

 

[NotWorthy]

The fact that Constantine supported Arianism and somehow the Church refrained from becoming Arian tells you that Constantine could not have been a pope.

 

[Zooey]

…the fact that he was not even baptised until being on his death bed would say he could not have been the pope since he was not even offically catholic at those times.

I have to remember this. I doubt that it has ever crossed the minds of any of those who use Boettner, Chick, &Co. as authority are aware of this.
Thank you!!

 

[NotWorthy]

I have to remember this. I doubt that it has ever crossed the minds of any of those who use Boettner, Chick, &Co. as authority are aware of this.
Thank you!!

Also, he was baptized by an Arian Bishop (I believe it was Eusebius of Nicomedia). I wonder if Arians used the Trinitarian formula since they didn’t believe in the Trinity…

 

[Randy_Carson]

: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…

Ask your friend to provide a reference or a link to the document containing this statement by Constantine.

 

[Big_Dummy]

newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

There are two main versions of Constantine’s baptism: an eastern one described by Eusebius in his Vita Constantini 4.61-64, and a western one, known as the Conversio Constantini and included in the Actus Sylvestri. A.‘s aim is to present an analysis of the sources that refer to Constantine’s baptism and to put both versions and their variants in their historical context. The book consists of three parts: 1. Constantine´s baptism as described in Eusebius’ VC; 2. Constantine´s baptism as an element in late-antique doctrinal discussions; 3. the repudiation of the Eusebian version and its replacement by that in the Actus Sylvestri. In part 1 A. sketches the background to Constantine and his conversion, and the reception of the VC in the fourth century before discussing the account of Constantine’s baptism in the VC. According to Eusebius, after he first fell ill, shortly after Easter of 377, Constantine left Constantinople to make use of the hot baths at the outskirts of his city; from there he went to Helenopolis where he offered supplicatory prayers and petitions to God at the shrine of the martyrs, and thinking he was about to die, announced his intention to seek baptism. He then went to Nicomedia and in the suburbs of that city – he probably stayed the suburban imperial villa Achyron3 – the emperor received baptism and shortly after died. A. discusses the Eusebian account in detail, comparing it to other primary sources which refer to the Constantine’s last days (mainly the fifth-century church historians) and to secondary scholarly literature on the subject. A. examines matters such as the character of Constantine’s baptism (which she calls a “battesimo clinico,” p. 44) and its liturgical aspects,4 the emperor’s wish to be baptised in the Jordan (which A. considers an authentic wish rather than a rhetorical device by Eusebius) and the practice of baptism shortly before death. Eusebius does not mention the bishop who baptised him. Jerome (Chron. a. 337), at the end of the fourth century, is the first to mention that Constantine had been baptized by Eusebius, the Arian bishop of Nicomedia, information that is generally considered reliable by modern scholars. It is often argued that Eusebius omitted mention of his namesake to avoid the scandal that Constantine was baptised at the hands of an Arian. Of more importance, however, is that Eusebius – and A. emphasizes this point (pp. 38 ff.) – focused only on the person of Constantine and generally suppressed the names of others, especially when describing Constantine’s baptism because this was the conclusion of a personal process of conversion.

bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2006/2006-04-03.html

roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm
historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac60

Back in his time it was common for some to delay baptism based on Hebrews 6

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

Did anyone ever quote this to support their claims?
fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html

 

[NotWorthy]

Back in his time it was common for some to delay baptism based on Hebrews 6

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

Did anyone ever quote this to support their claims?
fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html

It was common to wait til the approach of death (or better said, “it was not uncommon…”) for baptism. This abuse was probably occurring because of the extremely long penances that were handed out, especially in the eastern part of the Church.

 

[patrick457]

: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…

As pointed out:

1.) Constantine died in 22 May of the year 337. Unless he came back as a zombie, 340 is simply an unlikely date.
2.) Constantine is not even a priest, let alone a baptized Christian, during his life. While he did support the Church (but not only the Church, at least during the early part of his reign) as he disliked the risks to societal stability that religious disputes and controversies brought, preferring where possible to establish an orthodoxy, he was never a formal Christian until he was baptized in his deathbed by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia.
3.) If Constantine actually declared himself Bishop of Rome, don’t you think there would have been an uproar in all of Christendom, already wearied by the Arian controversy, at the time? I mean, a layman - an emperor - declaring himself bishop for some reason is not a light matter: complaints would have literally flown.
4.) The Church existed WAY before Constantine.

 

[Madaglan]

Also, he was baptized by an Arian Bishop (I believe it was Eusebius of Nicomedia). I wonder if Arians used the Trinitarian formula since they didn’t believe in the Trinity…

Christ enjoins his Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

I have not studied Arian baptismal ceremonies, but I imagine this formula would have been used by the Arians. The difference would have been in how the Arians understood this relationship of persons.

 

[patrick457]

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.

Amen.

Though St. Ignatius was not the first, and certainly not the last, Christian to be martyred in the Colosseum - or Amphitheatrum Flavium, if you want to get historically accurate.

I’ll go off on a tangent for a sec here. The interesting fact is that in the Middle Ages, the Colosseum was not regarded as a sacred site. Its use as a fortress and then a quarry demonstrates how little spiritual importance was attached to it, at a time when sites associated with martyrs were highly venerated. Part of the structure was inhabited by a Christian order, but apparently not for any particular religious reason. It appears to have been only in the 16th and 17th centuries that the Colosseum began to be widely regarded as a Christian site, when Pope Pius V recommended that pilgrims gather sand from the arena of the Colosseum, impregnated by the blood of martyrs, for relics.

 

[Zooey]

Also, he was baptized by an Arian Bishop (I believe it was Eusebius of Nicomedia). I wonder if Arians used the Trinitarian formula since they didn’t believe in the Trinity…

OK. So here is the story:

1. Constantine was dead at the time some people say he was pope.
2. Constantine was not baptized until he was dying.and:
3. Constantine [probably] never received Christian baptism at all.

Gee, no wonder Boettner says he was the pope. How could anybody NOT become pope if he’s an unbaptized dead Arian???
Sheesh. Some people’s logic.

 

[NotWorthy]

OK. So here is the story:

1. Constantine was dead at the time some people say he was pope.
2. Constantine was not baptized until he was dying.and:
3. Constantine [probably] never received Christian baptism at all.

Gee, no wonder Boettner says he was the pope. How could anybody NOT become pope if he’s an unbaptized dead Arian???
Sheesh. Some people’s logic.

…well, the thing about baptism is that if they use the proper Trinitarian formula, even if they don’t believe in the Trinity, then the Baptism is valid.

For instance, an avowed athiest can Baptize someone and, as long as they use the proper form and matter, then they’ve done their part. The rest is up to the receiver and, of course, God.

 

[patricius79]

there’s nothing really logical about the myths about the Catholic Church

 

[Contarini]

: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 fundamentalists who say this are thinking of the office of Pontifex Maximus. This title was held by the Roman Emperors, including of course Constantine, and was eventually (this article says in 360) transferred to the Bishops of Rome. The only sense in which Constantine was the “first Pope,” then, is that Constantine was the first Christian (though of course only a catechumen until shortly before his death) to use the title Pontifex Maximus which would some decades later come to be applied to the Bishops of Rome.

 

[Little_Mary]

The fundamentalists who say this are thinking of the office of Pontifex Maximus. This title was held by the Roman Emperors, including of course Constantine, and was eventually (this article says in 360) transferred to the Bishops of Rome. The only sense in which Constantine was the “first Pope,” then, is that Constantine was the first Christian (though of course only a catechumen until shortly before his death) to use the title Pontifex Maximus which would some decades later come to be applied to the Bishops of Rome.

Thank you Contarini. I am finding that it is very difficult to present facts such as this to deaf ears. Given your religious affiliation - Episcopal - I wish I could introduce you to my friend that I am discussing this with. Maybe he would listen to you.

Peace,
M