Constantine invented Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quaestor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josh987654321 said:
How do you know that?
Click to expand...
By comparing the way Christianity/Catholicism operates in countries where it was not adopted as the State religion, or for a much briefer time. Then there is the first 330 years as well. State religions are very different beasts.
 
Last edited:
In terms of the start of a claim on his influence on the Bible the only thing I can find is the root document that people keep citing. There is not much more before the Dan Brown era sadly and certainly no true scholarly work. The quote people see to use most comes from a request from Constantine for copies of scripture to be made.

(Constantine’s Letter to Eusebius on the Preparation of Copies of the Holy Scriptures.)

The only other hard and fast sources that are usually cited are pulled from “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”, which asserts that constantine altered christianity and ran with it. Most of the claims are rooted in that book. It is arguably the inspiration for the Da Vinci code claim that Constantine was all of the negativs things above.
 
Because he didnt really care about Christianity. He was a nominal Christian at best. There was a lot of dissension between various Christian sects and other idolators. It was a major political move, from what I have read about it. Constantine himself was a “Sun” worshiper. Hence, his edict that all - thats everybody - come to worship on the “venerable day of the sun”, his own proclamation.

Lets not forget that religion was very popular - and most everyone that were non-christian had multiple gods. To add Christianity, in theory, would not have been a problem.

Maybe he tried to be a Christian, and a lot of people think he was. But its a little hard to extract that from what history has quoted him as saying and doing.
 
Last edited:
By that reasoning, wouldnt there automatically be a “fork” where Christianity and Constantines religion went in two different directions?
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I think the logic is, because Constantine legalized Christianity, that somehow he must have had influence on how the Church was organized and on the Church’s beliefs. I don’t know when it started, but I can guess that it probably isn’t as new as the Protestant Reformation is. I would think, during Constantine’s Reign, people would know better than to say something like that. I mean, after all many of the Bishops that were at the Council of Nicaea, were Bishops before Christianity was legalized, I’d imagine.
Click to expand...
I’d say Constantine gave the Early Church the room to breath that it needed. By putting the force of the Roman state behind Christianity, and certainly taking a kind of leadership role, I’d say his reign, and in particular the Edict of Milan, saw the Early Church evolve into a more homogeneous institution, though I wouldn’t call it “Catholic”, in that the Church even in the 4th century, was still a number of independent or semi-independent churches. The big accomplishment was putting state power behind getting rid of some of the heresies of the period.
 
qui_est_ce said:
40.png
niceatheist:
I wouldn’t call it “Catholic”,
Click to expand...
And yet that’s exactly what St. Ignatius of Antioch called it in 100 AD.
niceatheist said:
still a number of independent or semi-independent churches.
Click to expand...
All under the bishop of Rome.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s what the Bishop of Rome liked to think, but the Eastern churches certainly had their own ideas.
 
niceatheist said:
Well, that’s what the Bishop of Rome liked to think, but the Eastern churches certainly had their own ideas.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t until 1054. We’re talking 325 here.

Even so, not all, went into schism. There are still 23 Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome.
 
Last edited:
lexscripta said:
… wouldnt there automatically be a “fork” where Christianity and Constantines religion went in two different directions?
Click to expand...
What does the title “Roman Catholicism” suggest to you?
Why isnt it Greek or Jewish Catholicism.
I wouldnt call it different directions, but certainly distinct ones.
 
No fork at all. Constantine didn’t start any religion, he simply created the climate and provided the political and financial resources to enable Christianity to flourish, and it flourished grew and ultimately spread across the globe.
 
Last edited:
You all are missing some important points. This shows the early church to be far from unified. Which Catholic church is traced back through Peter to Jesus? It took an unbaptized catechumen to call the first Christian council together not out of concern for Christian unity per say but out of concern for how Christian disharmony might effect the empire. Constantine was not a Christian formally when he called the council, participated in the council discussions and had the ultimate say in deciding the final decisions of the council. The Christian participants themselves never came to a unanimous decision on Christian doctrine. So much for being led by the holy spirit. The doctrines that were decided upon were enforced with worldly power not agreed upon in the spirit of holy unanimity. In this sense Constantine enforced the conception of a unified Catholic Church which was far from being a church unified under the guidance of the holy spirit. Perhaps this troubled beginning is why the Catholic Church has to continuously defend and apologize for her misdeeds and confusing doctrines?
 
setarcos said:
and had the ultimate say in deciding the final decisions of the council.
Click to expand...
Constantine did not have the ultimate say in deciding the final decisions of the council. The bishops did. Again, Constantine was no theological heavyweight. He deferred to the decisions of the bishops.
setarcos said:
The Christian participants themselves never came to a unanimous decision on Christian doctrine.
Click to expand...
The final vote was 316 - 2. Technically this is not unanimous. But it is pretty darn close. Further, it is a pretty strong indication that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Council.
setarcos said:
confusing doctrines
Click to expand...
Could you please specify what confusing doctrines?
 
BlackFriar said:
There is some truth to it.
Click to expand...
Truth to what? The. Catholic Church Teaches that Jesus started the Catholic Church. Do you deny that?
We still haven’t escaped an over emphasis on legalism, blind obedience and aggressive evangelisation and one true Church mentality.
Click to expand...
What does that bave to do with the OP? It sounds like your mere opinion. I happen to believe that the Catholic response to that slur is of the highest scholarship and well founded in history.
 
Constantine was NOT a sun worshiper! None of the Romans were. My Gosh you all have never read any actual history. I really thought as Catholics were were better educated in the classics! Let me explain. There was no pagan Roman religion. There was no thing call FAITH. The word fide (Latin) does not denote faith! It has a meaning closer to dutifulness, loyalty, fidelity etc. Romans were cultic - in the classical sense, meaning it was a social, cultural rather than a religious paganism! The did not worship their gods, instead they honored them through performing duties. While each home has a shrine to a minor cultural deity these were not worshipped, rather a minor ritual was performed for them to honor the ancestors and remembering and recalling them, that is why gens was important to them. The patricians would provide for the rituals for the temples in the larger cities as a duty rather than as religious fervor. Worshiping deities was very foreign to them instead they would pinch incense or provide a sacrifice for the deity. Romans did not worship the sun, the moon the stars as gods. They did not worship statues as deities. There deities were personal (meaning they were persons) beings and not statue or object contained the deity nor was any of these personified by any of these. Only the Roman Army has any sense of religion per se.

You all need an education in the classics and history. Also, the Mithras is not a roman deity. It was a cult supported by one of the Eastern kingdoms and not my the Romans. If I remember correctly, this cult only received recognition in around 270 AD and by this time it was on the wane. Constantine served in the provinces of Hispania, Britannia and Gaul and might not have had any meaningful exposure to the Mithras cult though there might be some archiological evidence it may have been practiced by some soldiers based in Britannia.

NEXT. The Romans did not have days of the week. Their calendar spaced by Kalends nones and ides! It was Constantine who introduced the seven day week in around 321 AD if I remember correctly! When the days of the week were introduced, these were named conventionally for the time… Sun Moon Mars,Mercury, Jupiter (Jove) Venus and Saturn … not after gods but after the planets which happened to be named after the gods.

Also be aware that the equinox and solstice fell anywhere between the 11 and the 14th of the months during that period of time (Ides) So Christmas would not have been celebrated at any time close to the solstice. Come on you people use your brains! So if anyone says such and such a deity feast is pagan festival and that is really what Christmas is, it would not make much sense… RIGHT?

THERE WAS NO SUN WORSHIP by romans. There was a group of military which celebrated the Sol Invictus but this was done on ante diem xvi Kalendas Januarias

If you ask why Jesus rose on the third day and only a day and half pasted? Well don’t forget Jews, Greeks and Romans use INCLUSIVE COUNTING so if you look at the date above dont forget to use inclusive counting.
 
Oh and Sola fide? Fide means DOING SOMETHING… Fide does note mean a mental belief, FIDE is a duty performed! So much for faith alone.
 
There is no such thing as ROMAN catholicism. It is the term Cranmer used in 1536 to refer to the Western Christian Church. We can be correctly call Latins or Western Christians or Western Catholics. Cranmer use “Roman” when addressing the reformation parliament which sat from 1529 - 1537. So if you are Catholic stop using the word Roman… it is a protestant term. Basically Cranmer took the Roman tact because Henry wanted to claim that his was just another catholic church - the ENGLISH catholic church or the English Church … and over there is the ROMAN catholic church. Prior to 1536 there was only one known usage of Roman Catholic and it was used by the Armenian church in the ninth century to refer to the Latins.
 
BlackFriar said:
What does the title “Roman Catholicism” suggest to you?
Click to expand...
That the universal (i.e. Catholic) Church has it’s headquarters in Rome.
Why isnt it Greek or Jewish Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Because it’s not in Greece or Israel.
I wouldnt call it different directions, but certainly distinct ones.
Click to expand...
Whatever that means. The fact is that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit guided Sts. Peter and Paul to establish the Seat of the Church, in Rome.

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top