Constantine started the Catholic Church? oh really?

[Luke65]

Yes, I know that - I know the truth is there for those to see… but, I’m just perplexed at the apparent absence of Constantine-oriented apologetics. It’s like there’s something embarrassing, something Catholics don’t want Protestants to know, and by rarely mentioning it unless when asked, it kinda sorta sends the message to anti-Catholics that, “Gee, maybe Constantine really did start the Catholic church.” Is there some rule book that dictates what subjects get “Apologetic Priority”?? Bible only, faith alone, Mary, the Eucharist… but never Constantine?? It’s like what Fr. Corapi said about someone told him he never has anything new to say…why don’t more Catholic apologetics interject Constantine-oriented subjects into the mix and throw the anti-Catholics a curveball? It’s not like the fundamentalists are going to ask us about it. Therefore, why not ‘pre-emptively’ make it a prominent apologetics “priority” so it doesn’t need to be asked? That’s what I don’t get.

I don’t know, but maybe it’s Divine Providence.

In 1456, following the miraculous victory at Nandorfehervar (one of the most important battles in history and a great read) by a Christian coalition in a last stand effort to halt the Ottoman Empire’s conquest of Europe, the CATHOLIC commanders of the coalition: Janos Hunyadi and Giovanni of Capistran (San Juan Capistrano) began organizing military forces to liberate Constantinople and restore the liberty of the Orthodox Christians. The only reason the city is still called: “Istanbul” is because both Janos Hunyad and Giovanni of Capistran died shortly after their victory at Nandorfehervar while still preparing to march on Constantinople.

See what I mean?

Someone (I think it was on this forum) made a good point: If Constantine turned Christianity into a corrupted pagan cult as Protestants claim, then why would Julian the Apostate attack it so viciously a few decades later?

Speaking of Julian the Apostate, and Divine Providence, he issued an order, and supplied the resources, to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. He died shortly after that. And you should hear what happened to those who tried to rebuild the Temple!

Aside from the fact that this argument is weak since the words “trinity” and “Bible” are not contained in Holy Writ either, is it really true that the Catholic Church is not named in the Bible? Well, take a look at the following verse from the Acts of the Apostles, and decide for yourself:

Acts 9:31 (Greek)
ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ****᾽ ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.

Act 9:31 (Transliteration)
aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto (russ.org/gtb/luke.html#a9)

Acts 9:31
So the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

From this text, we can see the Greek word “kath olays” which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”.

**εκκλησια καθ****᾽ **ὁλης = ekklaysiaye kath olays = “the church throughout all” = Catholic Church.

I do believe St. Luke was intentionally making a wordplay there, “veiling” the name Catholic Church in the Sacred Scriptures. Here’s more evidence for that (keep in mind, Luke was with St. Paul when he wrote Acts, or before that):

St. Victorinus (c.270AD): “In the whole world Paul taught that all the churches are arranged by sevens, that they are called seven, and that the Catholic Church is one. And first of all, indeed, that he himself also might maintain the type of seven churches, he did not exceed that number. But he wrote to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians; afterwards he wrote to individual persons, so as not to exceed the number of seven churches… Therefore in these seven churches, of one Catholic Church are believers, because it is one in seven by the quality of faith and election.” (Commentary on the Apocalypse, 1, 16)

 

[Filioque]

Yes, I know that - I know the truth is there for those to see… but, I’m just perplexed at the apparent absence of Constantine-oriented apologetics. It’s like there’s something embarrassing, something Catholics don’t want Protestants to know, and by rarely mentioning it unless when asked, it kinda sorta sends the message to anti-Catholics that, “Gee, maybe Constantine really did start the Catholic church.” Is there some rule book that dictates what subjects get “Apologetic Priority”?? Bible only, faith alone, Mary, the Eucharist… but never Constantine?? It’s like what Fr. Corapi said about someone told him he never has anything new to say…why don’t more Catholic apologetics interject Constantine-oriented subjects into the mix and throw the anti-Catholics a curveball? It’s not like the fundamentalists are going to ask us about it. Therefore, why not ‘pre-emptively’ make it a prominent apologetics “priority” so it doesn’t need to be asked? That’s what I don’t get.

I don’t think it is so much that the authentic history of Constantine and the apolgetics regarding Constantine is absent from Catholic Apologetics, but rather a number of issues.

Constantine historically was probably Arian or Semi-Arian, thus not a real defender of the Orthodox position, although he did bow to the Council which he had called to settle the issue.

He (as many of his day did) postponed his baptism until his deathbed. Penance in his day was severe, and one could be refused the Blessed Sacrament up until they were at deaths door for major sins.

They equate the Edict of Milan, (legalizing and tolerating the Church) as the establishment of a State Church. They ignore that Christianity did not become the State Religion in Byzantium, nor did Paganism die out for a couple of centuries. They are great at ignoring both Catholic, Jewish and Secular Historians as a conspiracy to hide the truth, and accepting their own historians who rewrote history 1800 years later.

When Protestants attack the Catholic Church, they frequently do so in a shotgun manner. Ten or twenty charges, hoping one will stick, or if the Catholic has no real idea what the answer is, the Protestant is taught that he has won the argument. At least that is the message that I have heard delivered at the anti-catholic tranings I have atteneded. People like the Late Bart Brewer, who told the crowd, “You have to act like a wolf in sheeps clothing, make the Catholic believe you are his brother, once you’ve gained their confidence, spring a series of questions at them, they will be able to defend one or two because the Catholic Church taught them wrong. But they won’t be able to answer them all, and that will put doubts in their minds about Romanism.”

 

[adstrinity]

One guy answered me once when confronted with this lie: “well, all history is written by liars”
Not a whole lot one can accomplish with that kind of logic.

…I trust that includes the Bible?

.Actually, that would be true, wouldn’t it? We all sin, I don’t think there’s none of us who haven’t lied, so, technically, all history IS written by liars.

 

[RNRobert]

Speaking of Julian the Apostate, and Divine Providence, he issued an order, and supplied the resources, to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. He died shortly after that. And you should hear what happened to those who tried to rebuild the Temple!

I recall reading that there were various explosions and other catastrophes…

 

[JustaServant]

…I trust that includes the Bible?

.Actually, that would be true, wouldn’t it? We all sin, I don’t think there’s none of us who haven’t lied, so, technically, all history IS written by liars.

Well, its one of those illogical reasonings that people say because they don’t know what else to say. IOW, they have reached the end of their intellectual reasoning power.
But there are certain facts in history one cannot erase or invent. One still needs proof.
The Normans really did invade England in 1066.
Columbus really did discover the New World (whether he was the ‘first’ is still up for grabs).
Napoleon really did invade Russia (and got his butt kicked).
We know these things happened.
I still await evidence, REAL EVIDENCE that Constantine started the Catholic Church.

Dang, those crickets are loud.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes, I know that - I know the truth is there for those to see… but, I’m just perplexed at the apparent absence of Constantine-oriented apologetics.

Maybe this is a Very Stupid Question - but, are there no decent libraries open to the public ? It really can’t be that difficult to find academically decent books on the early history of Christianity - or is it ?​

Maybe this - despite its age - will help:

• A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH to the Eve of the Reformation - [BlackJack (BlackJack)

It’s like there’s something embarrassing, something Catholics don’t want Protestants to know, and by rarely mentioning it unless when asked, it kinda sorta sends the message to anti-Catholics that, “Gee, maybe Constantine really did start the Catholic church.” Is there some rule book that dictates what subjects get “Apologetic Priority”?? Bible only, faith alone, Mary, the Eucharist… but never Constantine?? It’s like what Fr. Corapi said about someone told him he never has anything new to say…why don’t more Catholic apologetics interject Constantine-oriented subjects into the mix and throw the anti-Catholics a curveball? It’s not like the fundamentalists are going to ask us about it. Therefore, why not ‘pre-emptively’ make it a prominent apologetics “priority” so it doesn’t need to be asked? That’s what I don’t get.

Maybe it would be worth asking, what do people mean, when they say “Constantine started the Catholic Church” ?​

 

[LBSDBS]

Shoot, I’ve been telling people that “Catholic” means “one who is addicted to cats”

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think cata holic, being Latin, is pronounced: “ko-to hOl-Ek”. That IMO sounds closer to English “Catholic” then "cat oholic’

 

[havana1]

Maybe it would be worth asking, what do people mean, when they say “Constantine started the Catholic Church” ?​

What “they” (anti-Catholic folks) mean when they say, “Constantine started the Catholic Church” is - in their minds - *“Constantine - not Jesus - started the Catholic Church, and it’s corrupt, pagan-based, and un-biblical.” *

The people who call Easter Sunday “Resurrection Sunday,” they’re the same ones who believe this. Like I said, they’re not going to come right out and say it because they’d consider that to be rude and inconsiderate, but it’s practically a tenet of faith among Calvary Chapel, Vineyard Fellowship, the “Chick tract” types, and so on.

I ask again: Where are the books and guests (on CAL) who are taking a pro-active stance on addressing this? Like I’m said: I just puzzled that Constantine is pretty much ranked dead-last on priority of importance for Catholic apologetics when it’s highest priority for the anti-Catholic types who make this apostolate so worthwhile.