Constantine invented Catholicism

[lexscripta]

I think the premise is not necessarily understood. I would agree that Constantine did not purposely create a “Catholic Church”. What he did do was attempt to unify the people through religion. This is not open for debate as it is firmly established history. Then the question becomes, how did his attempt at unification effect the Church?

 

[De_Maria]

That eluded me also when I tried to find it. I hope you have better luck.

 

[De_Maria]

Remember for Jews the point at which conversion occurs is the mikveh (baptism), circumcision makes you a son of the Law…

Interesting stuff. The continuity between Judaism and Christianity is a topic that is under emphasized.

 

[De_Maria]

Just curious, De_Maria. Do you only accept Encyclicals and internal Catholic Church Documents but no extraneous historical documents as evidence of Catholic Church History?

1. They are the strongest evidence of Church history.
2. Most of the earliest Church history was from Catholic Church documents. No one else was interested in what they probably considered another fad.
3. There are many extraneous historical documents which trace Catholicism all the way back to Jesus Christ.
4. Extraneous historical documents have some truth, but the idea that Constantine created the Catholic Church can only be found in anti-Catholic propaganda.

 

[De_Maria]

I think the premise is not necessarily understood. I would agree that Constantine did not purposely create a “Catholic Church”. What he did do was attempt to unify the people through religion. This is not open for debate as it is firmly established history.

Lol! Who said that you could decide what could be debated?

Your first statement is patently false, Constantine did not create a Catholic Church, period.

He certainly tried to unify people with religion, but the religion that his mother had accepted was in existence before he used it to unify his kingdom.

That’s established history and there is no room for debate.

Now the question becomes, how did his attempt at unification effect the Church? And it served the Church quite well, in my opinion.

 

[De_Maria]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.

But you’re looking at a goose and calling it a duck.

Well, I must respectfully, disagree:

And I disagree with you.

Constantine decreed (March 7, 321) dies Solis—day of the sun, “Sunday”—as the Roman day of > rest (Codex Justinianus 3.12.2):

"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."

Because the Church to which his mother adhered already celebrated SUNDAY as a day of rest.

Constantine Decrees “Sun-Day” as Day of Rest. On this day in the year 321, Constantine decreed “the day of the sun” as a day of rest. … From this point on, Constantine became a great patron of the Church, diverting vast sums to church-building projects and defending the rights of Christians.
Constantine Decrees “Sun-Day” as Day of Rest | History Channel on …
Watch Or Stream Documentaries Live & Online | Foxtel…

Constantine’s triumphal arch was carefully positioned to align with the colossal statue of Sol by the Colosseum, so that Sol formed the dominant backdrop when seen from the direction of the main approach towards the arch.

Constantine was a wise man. He knew that the cult of the sun was popular with the soldiers of the most powerful army in the world. The Roman army. Therefore, so as to avoid angering them and perhaps inciting an uprising, he permitted them to continue in their beliefs.

Yeah, I think my ducks are in a row.

 

[De_Maria]

Well when you can find where Jesus said circumcision was not necessary to be his disciple (as did Peter and Paul eventually) please let me know.

What does that have to do with the price of beans? Or are you now espousing sola Scriptura?

Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church. He taught the Church His Doctrines and then commanded the Church to Teach what He commanded. The Church then wrote the Scriptures. The Scriptures themselves acknowledge that not all the books in the world could contain everything Jesus did.

So, why are you asking for a quote from Jesus about circumcision?

 

[rcwitness]

Well when you can find where Jesus said circumcision was not necessary to be his disciple (as did Peter and Paul eventually) please let me know.

I certainly agree Jesus did not explicitly tell the Apostles circumcision was no longer necessary to be His disciple. This was decided as a Church, who lawfully assembled a council and listened to Peter, whom the Lord revealed that Gentiles were to be accepted into the Church. Peter did demand that Baptism was to be offered to these converts, however. This is why I believe Constantine (and whoever approved and practiced with withholding Baptism) was very wrong. Baptism is very important to believing in Christ and following His commandments. It should not be witheld. It is like witholding our sins!

I wonder what evidence we have of this practice being approved by the Church. I would be very surprised to see anything formal.

But I know you haven’t been addressing that matter. The Jerusalem Council dealt with circumcision long before Constantine.

 

[De_Maria]

The confusing doctrines of the Catholic Church of which I speak follow along the same lines and are an unnecessary source of much of her troubles concerning having to defending and explain them of which their belief in and understanding of would otherwise be unnecessary to the salvation of a person.

Where do you find the doctrine that one must “understand” a Catholic Doctrine in order to be saved?

A few are the insistence on defining the ineffable nature and constituency of the trinity, the adoration of the virgin Mary, the infallibility of the Pope, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and purgatory and indulgences.

I don’t find these confusing. The most difficult to understand is the Trinity, but if one merely looks at life, they can see the Trinity manifest. One very simple example. Time is one. Yet time has three aspects. Past, present and future. All three are seamlessly one.

So, what’s confusing?

None of which are revelations from Christ or his apostles.

They are all revelations from Christ. You must be a sola Scriptura adherent?

I am aware of the various arguments for each however it is not the arguments for it is the unnecessary confusions each has caused as unnecessary stumbling blocks for those who would otherwise have come to Jesus that I am against.

How does one come to Christ who doesn’t want to know what Christ taught?

I believe that by making them necessary to belief before one can enter the Church the Church is making a grievous mistake as belief in none of these is inherently necessary to salvation according to scripture.

According to Scripture? Where does Scripture say that one can pick and choose what to believe and still be saved?

 

[billcu1]

He also presided over one of the councils. I can’t remember the name I am sure you know. IDK if he had any (name removed by moderator)ut. And they say he never really got away from the Sun god. Through he professed to be Christian that’s the stories I have heard.

 

[De_Maria]

He also presided over one of the councils. I can’t remember the name I am sure you know. IDK if he had any (name removed by moderator)ut. And they say he never really got away from the Sun god. Through he professed to be Christian that’s the stories I have heard.

You’re apparently only reading one side of history. However, the Eastern Orthodox have considered him a Christian Saint, as far as I can tell, from the day that he died. Eastern Catholics do so, as well.

 

[De_Maria]

Just to clarify, if "Catholicism began with Christ’s commission of Peter

It did.

and during Constantine’s reign there was so much Christian discord and disharmony that Constantine felt his empire to be threatened by it, where is the unified Catholic Church?

Hm? How to explain?

Apparently, you’ve never read the Scriptures. Or if you did, didn’t you notice that from the very beginning, there were some Christians who were teaching false doctrine and the Apostles were struggling to correct their errors? St. John put it like this:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number;[a] if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

But the Church was there, Teaching Christ’s Doctrines, unifying the people and correcting false teaching.

Are we to reduce the answer to merely stating that in hind sight the Catholic Church is the one that was able to suppress all other disparate opinion on Christian doctrine?

Suppress? There have always been heretical opinions expressed by even good Catholics. But, again, let me take you to Scripture:

1 Corinthians 11:18 First of all, I hear that when you meet as a church there are divisions among you, and to a degree I believe it; 19 there have to be factions among you in order that [also] those who are approved among you may become known.[a] 20 When you meet in one place, then, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper,

 

[rcwitness]

He also presided over one of the councils. I can’t remember the name I am sure you know. IDK if he had any (name removed by moderator)ut. And they say he never really got away from the Sun god. Through he professed to be Christian that’s the stories I have heard.

I don’t think one can rightly be considered a Christian while intentionally refusing Baptism.

 

[De_Maria]

I don’t think one can rightly be considered a Christian while intentionally refusing Baptism.

Unfortunately, it was a common practice amongst Christians, back then. St. Augustine, for example, also put off Baptism until he was a grown man. His mother, St. Monica, concurred with the idea that he should sow his oats, so to speak, and get that behind him before he was committed to Christianity.

You’ll read that opinion expressed amongst many of the early Christians.

It was not then nor is now nor has ever been, a Catholic Doctrine.

 

[rcwitness]

I was under the impression (it’s been so long since reading Confessions), that Augustine did not convert all together until around 39 years old. That is different than believing, and claiming to be a Christian while intentionally refusing Baptism until near death.

I don’t believe St Augustine had this approach. And I would like to see where people are getting this “history” of such a common practice.

St Augustine was actually a big proponent of Infant Baptism. And many other Church Fathers expressed the Church practice of Infant Baptism.

Neither do I see how any unBaptized person could expect to have any influence over Church Doctrine. I think it is more likely that Constantine was undecided about fully committing to the faith, yet appreciated it and wanted to help it prosper.

Do we know if Constantine received Holy Communion prior to his Baptism? Isn’t Baptism a specific requirement for reception of His Eucharist according to The Didache?

 

[De_Maria]

I was under the impression (it’s been so long since reading Confessions), that Augustine did not convert all together until around 39 years old. That is different than believing, and claiming to be a Christian while intentionally refusing Baptism until near death.

I don’t believe St Augustine had this approach.

He had it before he was baptized. As did St. Monica. At least, from what I’ve read. I’ll see if I can find the proof.

As a boy, Augustine was introduced to Christianity. When he fell seriously ill, he pleaded to be baptized. His mother would have arranged it, but Augustine got better, so his baptism was postponed. Augustine laments that he was not baptized as a child, but his mother thought it better to let him face the temptations of adolescence before baptism.
Chapters 8-11

And I would like to see where people are getting this “history” of such a common practice.

In your opinion, is contraception a common practice amongst Catholics today? In the same way, delayed baptism was a common practice amongst the people, from earliest times to not so long ago, actually.

St Augustine was actually a big proponent of Infant Baptism.

After his deep conversion. But not before.

And many other Church Fathers expressed the Church practice of Infant Baptism.

But, they, like today’s Church and those who practice contraception, were powerless to stop the laity from doing what they wanted.

Neither do I see how any unBaptized person could expect to have any influence over Church Doctrine.

He didn’t influence Doctrine, at all. At least, in my opinion. He simply fortified the Church by his formidable alliance.

I think it is more likely that Constantine was undecided about fully committing to the faith, yet appreciated it and wanted to help it prosper.

I think he delayed his baptism for political reasons. He probably didn’t want to alienate his pagan constituents.

Do we know if Constantine received Holy Communion prior to his Baptism?

All I know is that he’s considered a Saint by the Eastern Church. So, I assume he did.

Isn’t Baptism a specific requirement for reception of His Eucharist according to The Didache?

Yes, but in those days, baptism and Eucharist were received together. Even infants received communion.

 

[rcwitness]

St Monica was wrong.

And if Constantine received His Eucharist prior to Baptism, that is an abuse. The fact that he is recognized as a Saint in the East has no bearing on whether or not he received Communion while unBaptized, and certainly not a support.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Well when you can find where Jesus said circumcision was not necessary to be his disciple (as did Peter and Paul eventually) please let me know.

Luke 10:16, whoever listens to you, listens to me.

 

[qui_est_ce]

setarcos:

Catholics themselves are confused about their own doctrines and practices at times.

Yes we are. I know few people of any denomination who know all the doctrines of their founders. Many choose their places of worship by what makes them feel good. Good music, good preaching, welcome.

That’s why we have the Catechism.

We must believe the good will prevail in the end as Christ tells us but might what it prevails over be the error propagated by the Church herself in some areas of belief which causes nothing but might what it prevails over be the error propagated by the Church herself in some areas of belief which causes nothing but stumbling blocks to some?

The Church clarifies errors that arise out of Satan’s lies.

 

[setarcos]

Of course they did…because the west declared them so. ;.)