Q
Quaestor
Guest
Does anyone know as to who and which book began to perpetuate this myth and its history?
- Status
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
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.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
There is some truth to it.
We still haven’t escaped an over emphasis on legalism, blind obedience and aggressive evangelisation and one true Church mentality.
We still haven’t escaped an over emphasis on legalism, blind obedience and aggressive evangelisation and one true Church mentality.
E
ErraticFaith
Guest
I’m always surprised at the hilarious amount of ignorance regarding Constantine.
He’s so well documented. A pity that Tiberius and certain other figures aren’t as well recorded.
Constantine wielded the power and influence you’d expect of a Roman ruler. He didn’t however have any dogmatic effect on the faith whatsoever. People continue to peddle this idea that Catholicism began with him. Not even close, when the ‘universal church’, Greek ‘katholikos’ itself, existed in the minds of those who predated him by hundreds of years.
Those in the line of Polycarp and so on, directly attuned to the apostles themselves couldn’t have made that clearer along the way either.
Constantine hardly had it easy. Arranging the adoption in the face of so many differing ideas. Yet his meticulous pursuit of getting the faith right - that of bringing people in from far and wide, is recorded well. A man who valued the insight of others as any successful rulers do.
Heaven knows what the ‘one true church’ argument above is supposed to be about either.
There is only one. The one that Jesus founded and has been guided by divine providence ever since.
How weary I grow of people acting like anything else is the case. All too readily you asign blame to popes and men of flesh and blood. As if they are anything other than claimed from the start? ‘Flawed and all short of the glory of God’.
Perfection was never expected. Not from any of them. What was is respect for the legacy of those Jesus selected as Apostles. Their consecutive ‘heirs’ and more importantly; that God still sits on the driving seat. Something that some seem to have forgotten in their pursuit to pass judgement on the physical church today.
How you believe in God, whilst failing to believe in his power or control over the institution he founded. Well don’t mind me - but how damn bizarre.
He’s so well documented. A pity that Tiberius and certain other figures aren’t as well recorded.
Constantine wielded the power and influence you’d expect of a Roman ruler. He didn’t however have any dogmatic effect on the faith whatsoever. People continue to peddle this idea that Catholicism began with him. Not even close, when the ‘universal church’, Greek ‘katholikos’ itself, existed in the minds of those who predated him by hundreds of years.
Those in the line of Polycarp and so on, directly attuned to the apostles themselves couldn’t have made that clearer along the way either.
Constantine hardly had it easy. Arranging the adoption in the face of so many differing ideas. Yet his meticulous pursuit of getting the faith right - that of bringing people in from far and wide, is recorded well. A man who valued the insight of others as any successful rulers do.
Heaven knows what the ‘one true church’ argument above is supposed to be about either.
There is only one. The one that Jesus founded and has been guided by divine providence ever since.
How weary I grow of people acting like anything else is the case. All too readily you asign blame to popes and men of flesh and blood. As if they are anything other than claimed from the start? ‘Flawed and all short of the glory of God’.
Perfection was never expected. Not from any of them. What was is respect for the legacy of those Jesus selected as Apostles. Their consecutive ‘heirs’ and more importantly; that God still sits on the driving seat. Something that some seem to have forgotten in their pursuit to pass judgement on the physical church today.
How you believe in God, whilst failing to believe in his power or control over the institution he founded. Well don’t mind me - but how damn bizarre.
Last edited:
J
josh987654321
Guest
How do you know that?
If Constantine the Great meddled in it, then why did he not give himself a more prominent position in the Church? Given that just prior was the great persecution of Christians in the empire, and that many went to their deaths defending the truth, I don’t think Constantine the Great would have scared them.
God Bless
Thank you for reading.
Last edited:
M
Mary888
Guest
“The Da Vinci Code” - Dan Brown - there it says this in clear.
There are atheists in Europe such as Michel Onfray who promote it, more or less vaguely, but considering that he and other philosophers are very hard to read by most people, I think it’s Dan Brown’s book that set the trend for this idea to become popular.
There are atheists in Europe such as Michel Onfray who promote it, more or less vaguely, but considering that he and other philosophers are very hard to read by most people, I think it’s Dan Brown’s book that set the trend for this idea to become popular.
A
anna
Guest
Jesus founded the catholic church, Constatntine gave his protection to the church ending persecutions…He made a decision that ‘legalized’ the catholic church and he supported it personally He wasn’t baptized until his death’God bless 
Last edited:
B
Brendan
Guest
Interestingly enough, it was not actually Constantine who ended the persecutions, it was his predecessor, Galerius, with the Edict of Toleration in 311. That ended the Diocletian persecutions.Jesus founded the catholic church, Constatntine gave his protection to the church ending persecutions…He made a decision that ‘legalized’ the catholic church and he supported it personally He wasn’t baptized until his death’God bless
Constantine’s 313 Edit of Milan was simply an order to return property confiscated from Christians by the State to the Christians.
A
anna
Guest
i’ve read alot about Constantine, will get back to you about who and when,but pretty sure what I stated about him was correct. God Bless:
1
1ke
Guest
Lorraine Boettner’s book was probably one of the first.
Responding to that book is the genesis of Catholic Answers. Karl Keating wrote a book rebutting Boettner and the rest is history.
Responding to that book is the genesis of Catholic Answers. Karl Keating wrote a book rebutting Boettner and the rest is history.
R
runningdude
Guest
Constantine preferred Arianism. He deffered to the rightful bishops instead.
Last edited:
A
anna
Guest
I stand by my statement, just looked it up God Bless
Last edited:
E
exnihilo
Guest
I don’t know who started it but I do know Seventh Day Adventists heavily promote the idea. They are more popular than many realize and may have given this idea more exposure.
I can’t see most early Protestants promoting this idea as it undermines all Christianity.
I can’t see most early Protestants promoting this idea as it undermines all Christianity.
A
AdherentToRome
Guest
It is actually an argument several denominations use to justify not being Catholic or to make an attempt to claiming there was an earlier faith that was not typical catholicism. You will find Baptists, adventists, and several other denominations who use Constantine as the point of their argument. The general calim points are that he made himself a “bishop”, he waited till death for baptism (meaning he was not really christian), and that he had too much control over the council of Nicea and altered the Bible. Most of these points are frivolous when examined. He was more of a forceful coordinator who wanted a set Christian faith than a man who wanted to create theology. The argument of the death bed baptism would be valid, except that it was a fairly commom practice to act as a final measure to insure forgiveness. As for the rest it will be noted that while he didbgive himself bishop level authority, he usually went with whatever the council had decided as official doctrine.
Last edited:
F
fredystairs
Guest
The assertion that Constantine “invented” Catholicism is pure bunk. First, Constantine was no theological heavyweight. He did not understand the nuances between the positions of the Arian bishops and the orthodox bishops. The reason that he called the Council of Nicaea was that he was concerned about the infighting that was going on between the two groups. He was concerned about outside forces, such as the Persians, and did not need infighting within the Empire.
In addition, some of the bishops who attended to Council of Nicaea were older and had suffered terrible abuses in the persecution of Diocletian. Some lost hands and feet, some had been whipped, starved, and at least one had lost an eye. So does anyone think that it is plausible that Constantine, who would not be baptized until he was on his deathbed, could come into an assembly of bishops and tell them that they had to drop the faith that they had been following all of their lives and start following the faith that he, Constantine, came up with? If he had tried to do that, he would have been laughed out of the Council. These bishops had suffered greatly for the Faith. They were not about to allow a neophyte to dictate doctrine to them.
In addition, some of the bishops who attended to Council of Nicaea were older and had suffered terrible abuses in the persecution of Diocletian. Some lost hands and feet, some had been whipped, starved, and at least one had lost an eye. So does anyone think that it is plausible that Constantine, who would not be baptized until he was on his deathbed, could come into an assembly of bishops and tell them that they had to drop the faith that they had been following all of their lives and start following the faith that he, Constantine, came up with? If he had tried to do that, he would have been laughed out of the Council. These bishops had suffered greatly for the Faith. They were not about to allow a neophyte to dictate doctrine to them.
E
exnihilo
Guest
And it testifies to two things. The first is that baptism washes away sins. It shows it a sacrament. The other that sin after baptism matters. Some hold to the error that you can sin after baptism and you are covered because you have been baptized.
Last edited:
Q
Quaestor
Guest
I am aware it is a myth, I am trying to trace its source for an article so that I can document it
Q
Quaestor
Guest
Blackfriar,
I am guessing that you are not a real black friar just a poser. No one who is a blackfriar would claim that catholics are aggressive in their evangelization, they would find it not enough. Legalism? Hmmm Blackfriars were among the most legalistic as compared with most other orders. Blind obedience? The Catholic Church has many cats and no one has got around to trying to herd them. I was under the impression that the Blackfriars were the one with the biggest one true church mentality. Somehow, I doubt your Black Friar tradition credentials you claim for yourself.
I am guessing that you are not a real black friar just a poser. No one who is a blackfriar would claim that catholics are aggressive in their evangelization, they would find it not enough. Legalism? Hmmm Blackfriars were among the most legalistic as compared with most other orders. Blind obedience? The Catholic Church has many cats and no one has got around to trying to herd them. I was under the impression that the Blackfriars were the one with the biggest one true church mentality. Somehow, I doubt your Black Friar tradition credentials you claim for yourself.
Q
Quaestor
Guest
running dude,
Constantine was indeed an Arian, most of his family were with the exception of his mother. Constantine imposed a death penalty on the bishop of Constantinople for not readmitting a heretical bishop, but did not carry it out as the heretic died at sea. One of the reason osius was chosen to preside over the council was that he would be less likely to be influenced by Constantine
Constantine was indeed an Arian, most of his family were with the exception of his mother. Constantine imposed a death penalty on the bishop of Constantinople for not readmitting a heretical bishop, but did not carry it out as the heretic died at sea. One of the reason osius was chosen to preside over the council was that he would be less likely to be influenced by Constantine
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Constantine didn’t create Catholicism, he legalised it, promoted it and established it as the dominant religion in the Roman empire. He gave us the buildings and financial support and facilitated the building up of our administrative structures. He (and his mother) did a lot for us, but his contribution was related to our administration. The Church was established by Christ, long before Constantine and the structures of the Church were established before Constantine.
Constantine enabled the Church to grow and spread rapidly throughout the Roman empire and this led to the long term establishment of the Christendom in the West. This led, in time, to the evangelisation of peoples throughout the entire planet.
Constantine enabled the Church to grow and spread rapidly throughout the Roman empire and this led to the long term establishment of the Christendom in the West. This led, in time, to the evangelisation of peoples throughout the entire planet.
Last edited:
- Status