Did the church of Christ take on pagan qualities around the time of Constantine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zenas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zenas

Guest
I have heard it said many times that the Catholic Church is not the church founded by Jesus, i.e., the church of the New Testament. Invariably it goes something like this:
Despite persecution and hardships, the authentic church of Christ continued to thrive for the first 300 years of its existence. Then, when Constantine brought Christianity into the mainstream of Roman culture, it took on characteristics of the pagan religions of the empire. Statues and images were introduced, Mary assumed a god like quality in the church, and the papacy was established with Peter being designated as the first pope. Although pockets of true Christianity survived here and there, these people were marginalized by the Roman church and sometimes persecuted as heretics. This state of affairs continued until Luther and the other reformers of the 16th Century.
Click to expand...
So, according to these accounts, the Roman Catholic Church had it beginning at the time of Constantine and has continued as a neo-pagan, neo-Christian church ever since. Since I have heard this account, or similar accounts, so often, I am bringing it here for some of you who really know your history to comment on it. What changes really occurred in the Church around the time of Constantine?
 
The things mentioned, statues and images, Marian doctrine, the Papacy, etc., were present in the Church prior to legalization of Christianity by Constantine. Anyone who takes the time to read Christian writings of the first several centuries by people like Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc. will be able to see how “Catholic” their beliefs were.

As an example, Justin Martyr clearly speaks of the Eucharist here.

Even Luther’s own writings on Mary testify against those who claim otherwise.

-Tim-
 
I don’t have an answer but I have always heard it said that the first church established by Jesus is the Catholic church. I have always been fascinated by history and wanted to thank you for the information on your posts-will be sure to check it out 🙂
 
The first Christians did not have physical buildings to preach at. In fact the first Christians were persecuted and Martyred from the years 33AD to 313AD. Anyone who did not bow too, and worship the roman emperors were destroyed. Only when Constantine became emperor of Rome, the Church was then given pagan temples to conduct worship and to preach. Many Pagan practices carried over, when Rome was forced from a greek mythology based area. To the teachings of Christianity, This is where the Catholic church was born, because Constantine made Christianity a state religion, and put all teachers who were willing under Romes payroll. Many Christians did not agree with this type of worship, called it wrong, and separated themselves from Rome.

for more info check out Foxes book of Martyrs
 
Despite persecution and hardships, the authentic church of Christ continued to thrive for the first 300 years of its existence. Then, when Constantine brought Christianity into the mainstream of Roman culture, it took on characteristics of the pagan religions of the empire. Statues and images were introduced, Mary assumed a god like quality in the church, and the papacy was established with Peter being designated as the first pope. Although pockets of true Christianity survived here and there, these people were marginalized by the Roman church and sometimes persecuted as heretics. This state of affairs continued until Luther and the other reformers of the 16th Century.
Click to expand...
Problem… all of the above already existed in Judaism at the time that Judaism split off from Christianity.

Saints? Check, they’re called tzadikim.
Images? Check, the Temple was covered with them.
Shrines? Check. Ever been to the Wailing Wall? The Cave of the Patriarchs? The tomb of any of the prophets or kings?
Venerating a mother of the religion? Check, she’s called Rachel and her tomb ranks between the two above said shrines in importance.
A leader of the religion with authority to resolve disputes? Check, there has been one since Moses all the way up to Caiaphas, who got replaced with Cephas aka Peter.

Protestantism’s removal of the above was not “de-paganization.” It was de-Judaizing.
 
wolf_rebel said:
for more info check out Foxes book of Martyrs
Click to expand...
English Civil War propaganda written by those over a thousand years removed from the events in question does not constitute a reliable historical record.
 
Wolf, That is absolute fiction. Look into the truth, not modern lies to justify Protestantism.
 
“Although pockets of true Christianity survived here and there, these people were marginalized by the Roman church and sometimes persecuted as heretics.”

There is no historical evidence to back up this claim. None.
 
Hey Zenas,

As others have pointed out, many of these “pagan practices” were present far before the time of Constantine. About the images and statues, God commands the israelites to build 2 golden statues of angels to put on top of the ark of the covenant. I’m sure we could all agree that the angels on the ark served a different purpose than the golden calf did. Just because there are statues present that doesn’t mean there is any kind of idolatry or statue worship.

The papacy wasn’t added on around the time of Constantine. We have writings from the church fathers about the papacy before Constantine.

Pope Clement exercised his papal authority over the church at Corinth circa 97 AD ( 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1).

Irenaeus makes clear in Against Heresies 3:3:2 circa 180AD that all churches should agree with the church at Rome because of it’s preeminent authority.

Cyprian says in The Unity of the Church, 4-5 that Peter was given a primacy over the other apostles and that the chair of Peter is what keeps the church in union and undivided. (mid 3rd century)

The early fathers before Constantine held Mary in high regard as we do today. Mary is the new ark of the covenant, she is “blessed among women” (luke 1:42), because by her free will she said yes to the angel Jesus was born and salvation is now open to all, she is the mother of “all those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” (rev 17: 12)

Your quote says, " Although pockets of true Christianity survived here and there, these people were marginalized by the Roman church and sometimes persecuted as heretics."
I would like to see some kind of evidence for this. The early Church fathers prior to Constantine all describe Catholic doctrines. Many church fathers from very early on (Ignatius circa 110, Polycarp circa 150, Irenaeus circa 180, and more) talk about being apart of the “Catholic Church”. Many of these Bishops and martyrs of the faith were the same people refuting heresies and denouncing false apocryphal Gospels, and spreading the faith. Jesus said that he would send the spirit of truth to guide his followers and that the church is the foundation of truth. It is hard to imagine that while these early church fathers were guided to truth by refuting heresies and false gospels, they were also adding on non-Christian pagan practices. Here’s a good website that cites the difference scripture passages to defend Catholic doctrine and also quotes the early church fathers on various issues. I hope my response helped, God bless.

scripturecatholic.com/index.html
 
As a church is made of its members, and many of the early members came from pagan cultures, I would say yes, it may have taken on some of that culture. I am obviously not a Christian, but I am not trying to put down the church; I’m simply saying that nothing exists in a vacuum.

For example, you could compare someone like me to the same situation. I am an atheist. I also grew up in a largely Christian culture in a Christian family. Although I don’t share the beliefs I certainly share much culture and tradition with Christians. I have absolutely no problem with this and consider it part of my heritage.

All I am saying is that even if there was some pagan influence I don’t think it should bother you.
 
Zenas said:
I have heard it said many times that the Catholic Church is not the church founded by Jesus, i.e., the church of the New Testament. Invariably it goes something like this: So, according to these accounts, the Roman Catholic Church had it beginning at the time of Constantine and has continued as a neo-pagan, neo-Christian church ever since. Since I have heard this account, or similar accounts, so often, I am bringing it here for some of you who really know your history to comment on it. What changes really occurred in the Church around the time of Constantine?
Click to expand...
  1. Prior to Constantine getting control of the entire empire, Cesar Maximin tried to revivify Roman Paganism by imitating the structure of the Catholic Church whom he despised and persecuted. In other words, the structure of the Church’s hierarchy was already existed prior to Augustine.
  2. The Constantine was raised by Diocletian. In order to govern the growing empire, Diocletian split the empire into four parts. Diocletian gave himself the rank of Augustus which was now higher than a Cesar. He made Constantine’s father Constantius a Cesar and put him in charge of a big portion of Western Europe which included Spain, France, Great Britain. To make sure Constantius remained loyal, Diocletian took custody of Constantine. When he was around 16 he escaped to be with his father.
  3. Then came the battle for the Empire. The Pagans had predicted Constantine would lose. He then gets his vision in the sun of the cross.
  4. Of course he wins. Now he comes to the following conclusions: a) The Roman Empire had been falling apart for the past three hundred years because it had persecuted the Christians. b) Jews cause problems for the Empire by convincing them to kill Jesus, c) As already stated, prior to Constantine, the empire was divided into four parts. His father was the only emperor that did not persecute the Christians. He concludes that because of his father kindness to Christians, the Christian God was with him when he left York, England (where his father died) to conquer the entire Empire.
  5. He is not Christian at this point (although does become one later). He wants to serve the Christian God but for purely Pagan reasons. He fears that Christian God will punish him and take the Empire away from him. In addition the Edict of Milan, he also begins a campaign to make reparations to the Catholic Church by returning property as well as making monetary reparations.
  6. When all of the heresies start to occur he begins to panic under the belief that if schisms occur God will punish him.
The point of all of this is to show you that Constantine was obsessed with maintaining Orthodoxy even when he did not know what that was. He sought the Churches guidance and authority to maintain the Orthodoxy of the Church. He would never have paganized the Church simply out of fear of offending God. He believed his own prosperity as well as the Empire’s prosperity was dependant on not offending the Christian God. Personally, I think Constantine was a hero. There has never been a world leader so devoted to maintaining Christian Orthodoxy and Unity.
 
Christianity --bishops and churches experienced the worst afflictions by Roman emperors, not at the beginning of Christianity, but at the time prior to the coming of Constantine.

He gave public voice and prominence to the message of Christ by rebuilding great churches, and greater separation in worship space between the bishop and presbyters and the assembly…again to give prominence to Christ.

Later, about a million pagans converted to Christ, and with them brought some of their customs…genuflecting before the altar, the use of statues, and some other practices…but again, all for the glory of Christ. Constantine made Sunday a day of rest for all subjects.

And yes, he did not convert until days within his deathbed.

Recently, I have noted some websites making ‘shocking discoveries’ that Constantine started the Catholic Church and the pagan practices. In Europe, they are not so easily swayed to believe such claims, as their roots go back to ancient Christian times. Italy and other Latin countries to this day use ancient Latin deities for days of the week…such as Mercoli for Monday…remember that one…Lunedi for the moon…but they are not honoring Mercury or Saturn…

People can judgement on biased information instead of historical sources, and judge by appearances of language and customs. Onn the contrary, the Christians experienced the saving and liberating power of Jesus Christ.

St. Justin the Martyr was asked to describe the Mass to an emperor around 155 AD how it was said in Rome and the surrounding countryside, reflecting worship how it was practiced throughout the Christian world at that time…the tone, spirit, perspective, and parts are either identical or parallel to Mass said today.
 
freethinker83 said:
As a church is made of its members, and many of the early members came from pagan cultures, I would say yes, it may have taken on some of that culture. I am obviously not a Christian, but I am not trying to put down the church; I’m simply saying that nothing exists in a vacuum.

For example, you could compare someone like me to the same situation. I am an atheist. I also grew up in a largely Christian culture in a Christian family. Although I don’t share the beliefs I certainly share much culture and tradition with Christians. I have absolutely no problem with this and consider it part of my heritage.

All I am saying is that even if there was some pagan influence I don’t think it should bother you.
Click to expand...
What the Church did was “baptize” many holidays and customs (inculturalization, as we would call it now). There was nothing wrong with that. 🙂 For example, the Church choose Dec. 25, a pagan holiday that celebrated the lengthening of the day, to celebrate Christmas or more properly: The Mass of the Nativity of the Lord. We use the term “Lent”, which means “spring” for our penitential season leading up to the Easter Season. The basilicas were turned into Christian churches and the shape remained the standard for churches for centuries, and so on. The Church exists in the world and, like Christ, is both earthly and heavenly. We, unlike many of our Protestant brethren, do not deny the flesh, we embrace it and make it holy. We build on nature not negate it, and so on. So, you’re not far off the mark. 🙂
 
Zenas said:
I have heard it said many times that the Catholic Church is not the church founded by Jesus, i.e., the church of the New Testament. Invariably it goes something like this: So, according to these accounts, the Roman Catholic Church had it beginning at the time of Constantine and has continued as a neo-pagan, neo-Christian church ever since. Since I have heard this account, or similar accounts, so often, I am bringing it here for some of you who really know your history to comment on it. What changes really occurred in the Church around the time of Constantine?
Click to expand...
The very glaring part of this make-believe story is the fact that Constantine was never associated with the Roman Catholic Church. He moved the capital to Byzantium and renamed it Constantinople and ruled from there. He was part of what we know today as the Greek Churches or the Byzantine Rite Churches. In fact, the Roman Church felt slighted by this move of the capital to the East.
 
I would think it unrealistic to expect Christianity to survive if it didn’t adopt certain Pagan practices. If you’re trying to convert en masse, you have to make it easier and familiar to people. E.g. - Christmas being the same time as a pagan holiday. Same for Easter.

Not to say that Christianity’s beliefs were changed, but I think certain practices and non-scriptural things may have been influenced.
 
freethinker83 said:
As a church is made of its members, and many of the early members came from pagan cultures, I would say yes, it may have taken on some of that culture. I am obviously not a Christian, but I am not trying to put down the church; I’m simply saying that nothing exists in a vacuum.

For example, you could compare someone like me to the same situation. I am an atheist. I also grew up in a largely Christian culture in a Christian family. Although I don’t share the beliefs I certainly share much culture and tradition with Christians. I have absolutely no problem with this and consider it part of my heritage.

All I am saying is that even if there was some pagan influence I don’t think it should bother you.
Click to expand...
Your point is an interesting one to ponder. But I would distinguish the external and/or cultural aspects of the expression of Catholic faith (i.e. Wedding Bands, Easter Eggs and Christmas Trees), from the doctrinal development of the faith. While the former adapts readily to new cultures (e.g. adopting the wedding ring as symbols of God’s never-ending love, adopting the egg as a symbol of new life in Christ, and adoptig the Christmas tree as the Cross leading to eternal life), the latter remains constant regardless of the changes in how it may be expressed.

Peace,
Robert
 
Easter is a term used more by English and German speaking people.

Then you have to decide…what is just being human and what is being pagan…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top