Emperor Constantine Created/changed Catholicism? (Merged Threads)

[phil19034]

Have them check out two of the earliest Mass (Divine Liturgies) from the first century AD (60-69 AD)

“The Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles” - catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1877

and

“The Divine Liturgy of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist Mark, the Disciple of the Holy Peter” - catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1876

A lot more documents from the Church Fathers can be found here:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/

 

[guanophore]

– if you are looking 4 the silver bullet – or just trying to get the “upper hand” it wont work-- unless you can “raise some one from the dead” why should they believe you are any one??

I agree. Even history has very little weight for these kinds of Bible Christians. They will deny all kinds of historical evidence. I have had them tell me that Peter was never in Rome!

In fact, I would say that even raising someone from the dead would not even persuade such a person, who would probably just say it was by the power of Beelzebul.

but if you direct them to something written that "might identify to their understanding – well then they will read it – to see the full content !

Not usually. If it cannot be proved by Scripture, it carries little weight. People who say things like this have been misled about history, and are not very motivated to lear the facts.

I would highly recommend going back to the original context of the quotes to make sure the quotes are not being taken out of context

This is alwasy the best practice.

It is very important to understand the origins of the Calvinistic/ Reformed interpretation of scripture.
These ideas started with Gnostic cults who mixed philosophy with the Bible, were picked up by Augustine later in life and were later developed by Calvin and his followers.

Yes, one cannot have an intelligent discussion with any Christian who has been influenced by Calvanism unless they understand the history.

The way the modern Calvinists teach on election, forknowledge, free will, and other doctrines finds its roots in the gnostic cults who thought they were elite groups with special knowledge.

Most modern day Bible Christians don’t even realize that their theology has been influenced by Calvanism.

It looks like the Roman Catholic Church was the one Catholic organization who split away from the early Christians to go their own way by giving all power to the Roman Pope based on false documents such as the “Donation of Constantine”

Is this what you learned in your book?

Welcome to CAF.

 

[rfournier103]

It looks like the Roman Catholic Church was the one Catholic organization who split away from the early Christians to go their own way by giving all power to the Roman Pope based on false documents such as the “Donation of Constantine”

This book will open the eyes of most Roman Catholics as to what they have been taught compared to what the first Christians believed and were taught by the Bible and later the early Christian Leaders.

In fairness, I have not read the book you so graciously recommended. Also, I am 99.999% sure that I never will, either.

Why will I never read it? Because it sounds to me like it is an unsubstantiated anti-Catholic work of FICTION. To come to this site and promote such an anti-Catholic book is disturbing. Please don’t do it again. I am offended.

 

[guanophore]

In fairness, I have not read the book you so graciously recommended. Also, I am 99.999% sure that I never will, either.

Why will I never read it? Because it sounds to me like it is an unsubstantiated anti-Catholic work of FICTION. To come to this site and promote such an anti-Catholic book is disturbing. Please don’t do it again. I am offended.

And dangerously close to the violation of the Forum Rules for promoting anti-Catholic sources:

 

[Cricket2]

The Church did begin with Peter as the first Pope. Just because there may not have been a formal location as the leading Church or even the existence of actual physical Churches does not mean the Church did not exist. It existed in the people and through the people who came to believe in Christ and his Resurrection. The people are the Church, not buildings.

The Council of Nicaea addressed certain needs of the Church, and I guess the need for things to be more formally organized. To suggest that this Council alone would indicate the start of the Church is erroneous. People had to get started and spread the Word of God so we could come to the point of the Council.

At least that is my take on it. I could be wrong, but I think those that are trying to pigeon hole exact events as signs of the Church’s beginnings are on the wrong track. I will take what scripture tells us, which was Peter receiving from Jesus the keys to the kingdom of God, as the start of the Church.

 

[rfournier103]

In fairness, I have not read the book you so graciously recommended. Also, I am 99.999% sure that I never will, either.

Why will I never read it? Because it sounds to me like it is an unsubstantiated anti-Catholic work of FICTION. To come to this site and promote such an anti-Catholic book is disturbing. Please don’t do it again. I am offended.

And dangerously close to the violation of the Forum Rules for promoting anti-Catholic sources:

I am sick and tired of non-Catholics coming here and bashing the Faith when we can’t even become members of Protestant forums just because we are Catholic.

They are allowed to join; and repay the hospitality of CAF (which I help support financially, by the way…) by spewing out that???

Debate and dialogue are one thing, but to flat-out say that the Church is built on a non-Biblical foundation is absurd. And we can’t even meet them on their own turf and debate them there! We are banned after one or two posts, or never allowed to join at all.

To call it ‘unfair’ is an understatement.

 

[robwar]

Hi there,

In the recent past, I have had two different people tell me that The Catholic Church didn’t begin until 325 A.D. or the Council of Nicaea and I’m trying to understand their logic as well as have a rebuttal. I truly believe The Catholic Church began with Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. How do I go about answering them?

Thanks!

Daniel

Ask them what do they really know about the counsel of Nicea? why was it called and what was defined in that counsel? Did they ever read about it themselves or are they going by what someone else told them. Ask them if they know anything about the Nicean creed? What do they think about it? The best defense is a good offense and if they are going to spit out at you historic lies then they are going to have to prove it to you.

 

[phil19034]

dandingo;12408461:

Hi there,

In the recent past, I have had two different people tell me that The Catholic Church didn’t begin until 325 A.D. or the Council of Nicaea and I’m trying to understand their logic as well as have a rebuttal. I truly believe The Catholic Church began with Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. How do I go about answering them?

Ancient Church Fathers: What the Disciples of the Apostles Taught (Paperback)

hello-- if you are looking 4 the silver bullet – or just trying to get the “upper hand” it wont work-- unless you can “raise some one from the dead” why should they believe you are any one??

but if you direct them to something written that "might identify to their understanding – well then they will read it – to see the full content !

If you are interested in the historical development of theology, this is an excellent book.

I would highly recommend going back to the original context of the quotes to make sure the quotes are not being taken out of context

. However, I really enjoyed the amount of doctrines this book touches on.

I will be referring to this book often. It touches on many of the doctrinal controversy’s today such as Calvinism, dispensationalism, Catholicism, Cessation, Baptism, and many, many others.

I find myself generally agreeing with the author’s views on most of the controversies/ doctrines that he touches on.

It is very important to understand the origins of the Calvinistic/ Reformed interpretation of scripture.
These ideas started with Gnostic cults who mixed philosophy with the Bible, were picked up by Augustine later in life and were later developed by Calvin and his followers.

This book demonstrates that these doctrines were not emphasized by the disciples of the apostles as being essential to the true gospel.

The way the modern Calvinists teach on election, forknowledge, free will, and other doctrines finds its roots in the gnostic cults who thought they were elite groups with special knowledge.

My favorite quote in the book was this:

Papias AD 70-155

Fragment 6 – After the resurrection of the dead, Jesus will personally reign for one thousand years. I was taught this by the apostle John, himself.

When I went to search for this quote in the church Fathers I noticed that the phrase “I was taught this by the apostle John, himself.” seems to be the interpretation of this author and not the actual quote. The orginal context seemed to be saying that Papias learned this from those who learned from the apostle John.

You must be careful with this work. Check out the quotes in the original sources if you are going to use them. However, this is a useful and valuable work

Ancient Church Fathers: What the Disciples of the Apostles Taught (Paperback)

I was always told to read the church fathers to see what the early Christians believed

. After reading this book,

I came to the same conclusion the early fathers of the Catholic faith did of the Bible.

It looks like the Roman Catholic Church was the one Catholic organization who split away from the early Christians to go their own way by giving all power to the Roman Pope based on false documents such as the “Donation of Constantine”

This book will open the eyes of most Roman Catholics as to what they have been taught compared to what the first Christians believed and were taught by the Bible and later the early Christian Leaders.

Check out the quotes in the original sources if you are going to use them. However, this is a useful and valuable work

This is hogwash. Too many times, people confuse the founding of the Catholic Church with the founding of the Diocese of Rome (also called the Church of Rome) and the creation of the Roman Rite.

The Catholic Church is more than just one Diocese and more than just one Rite.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I am sick and tired of non-Catholics coming here and bashing the Faith when we can’t even become members of Protestant forums just because we are Catholic.

They are allowed to join; and repay the hospitality of CAF (which I help support financially, by the way…) by spewing out that???

Debate and dialogue are one thing, but to flat-out say that the Church is built on a non-Biblical foundation is absurd. And we can’t even meet them on their own turf and debate them there! We are banned after one or two posts, or never allowed to join at all.

To call it ‘unfair’ is an understatement.

The high ups who come up with those forums and run those Protestant churches, see us as a threat to their authority and their ideas. They know they are built on sand and we are built on rock, with truth on our side.

They prefer to live in their bubbles and not pay attention to what is real.

That is why we welcome them and they ban us.

Fear of the truth…plain and simple.

 

[rfournier103]

This is hogwash. Too many times, people confuse the founding of the Catholic Church with the founding of the Diocese of Rome (also called the Church of Rome) and the creation of the Roman Rite.

The Catholic Church is more than just one Diocese and more than just one Rite.

Thank you.

 

[dandingo]

idoits4christ;12408854:

This is hogwash. Too many times, people confuse the founding of the Catholic Church with the founding of the Diocese of Rome (also called the Church of Rome) and the creation of the Roman Rite.

The Catholic Church is more than just one Diocese and more than just one Rite.

I have no idea why it says that the second post (the long one pointing to an anti-Catholic book) was quoted by my. I asked the original question and someone else who, apparently, had their post deleted, posted the second one so please don’t think that was me. I’m on your side .

 

[boomerang]

St. Irenaeus lists the succession of Bishops of Rome from Peter to his day. There were twelve Popes by the time of Irenaeus. There were 33 Popes by the time of the Council of Nicea.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 2, 3 (c. 180 AD):

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
2. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

That would still be 1,200 years earlier than their denomination.

By my maths this is incorrect, I will send you a link to when a lot of the Protestant denominations were formed, the Catholic Church is 2000 years old, even if a denomination was 200 years old , that means the Catholic Church was around 1800 years before them.

How Old is Your Church?
AUTHOR UNKNOWN

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1608.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you are a member of the Churches of Christ your church began near the beginning of the 19th century in New England. Abner Jones, Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell were some of the most well known originators of your religion.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as “Church of the Nazarene,” “Pentecostal Gospel,” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

The lack of knowledge and ignorance out there is unbelievable, why come out with something when you have not checked it out, one is only showing up your own lack of education. Last year a woman on this Forum wrote that she was a Baptist - fine, but she said her Religion was founded by John the Baptist, how is that for not knowing your faith, and lack of knowledge of it, sad so it is instead it was founded by.and I sent the below
to her.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1608.

 

[KathleenGee]

Emperor Constantine did not order the Council of Nicea. He was a lay emperor, a pagan emperor.

What Constantine did do was sign the Edict of Milan making Christianity legal and making Sunday a day of no work for all subjects.

Going back…it was St. Ignatius of Antioch around 170 AD, who called the Church Catholic, its name being Universal Church.

Again, the books of Scripture, the liturgy in form of worship in Word and Eucharist, the hierarchical nature of the Church based on the one head, bishop model rather than conciliar where one can choose which one to follow as well as the basics of our creed of faith was in tact by 100 AD.

I would recommend people get Dr Hahn’s book, ‘Consume the World’, that goes more into early Church history. He is former Calvinist minister who became a Catholic, first by stepping into a Catholic church and witnessing the Mass for the first time, amazed at all he was seeing and understanding.

 

[guanophore]

Emperor Constantine did not order the Council of Nicea. He was a lay emperor, a pagan emperor.

While it is true that the power of Constantine to “order” the Bishops to a council that they did not want to have is in doubt, it is clear that Constantine had a great influence in bringing this council to fruition. Without his pressure and strenuious invitations, it might not have occurred, as the empire was split by the Arian controversy. He also had an economic investment in the Empire having all the same day as a day of worship. Half the empire was still celebrating the Sabbath on Saturn’s day, and the other half the Lord’s Day on Sunday. He wanted the bishops to pick one, so that the market did not have to be closed both days.

What Constantine did do was sign the Edict of Milan making Christianity legal and making Sunday a day of no work for all subjects.

He did, but that did not necessarily make it safe to travel. In the end, he had to send contingents of the army and funds to convey a number of the Bishops through hostile territory to Nicea. If he had not done so, it would not have been so well attended. This is why(among other reasons), in the East, he is celebrated as a Saint

the hierarchical nature of the Church based on the one head, bishop model rather than conciliar where one can choose which one to follow as well as the basics of our creed of faith was in tact by 100 AD.

I don’t think that the presence and authority of councils is in contradiciton to the authority of the Bishops. If this were true, the Church would not have continued to convoke councils and set forth decrees in them. The authority of councils and Bishops, just like Sacred Tradition and Scripture, are meant to compliment, not oppose, each other.

I would recommend people get Dr Hahn’s book, ‘Consume the World’, that goes more into early Church history. He is former Calvinist minister who became a Catholic, first by stepping into a Catholic church and witnessing the Mass for the first time, amazed at all he was seeing and understanding.

 

[bmonk]

The lack of knowledge and ignorance out there is unbelievable, why come out with something when you have not checked it out, one is only showing up your own lack of education. Last year a woman on this Forum wrote that she was a Baptist - fine, but she said her Religion was founded by John the Baptist, how is that for not knowing your faith, and lack of knowledge of it, sad so it is instead it was founded by.and I sent the below
to her.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1608.

Your post reminded me:
My mother, baptized and growing up in “St. John the Baptist Church” (a Catholic parish), along with the other families of the parish, were once listed as “Baptist” in a local history! It much amused most of them.

 

[KathleenGee]

You right, of course, about Emperor Constantine’s involvement in discussions of doctrine as well as assisting in rebuilding many places of worship…and making them much more prominent in declaring the Good News of Jesus Christ…as well as assisting in determining good leadership.

I have to get going…would answer more of your comments to mine.

Appreciate all the great work you are doing and infer you as one of those who are most highly educated here at CAF in providing all those Ph.D…details.

 

[KathleenGee]

Daddygirl…

I made a boo…blame it on my aging…

Ignatius of Antioch called the Church Catholic in 107 AD, not 170 AD…

By 100 AD, our entire church structure was intact: basic books of Scripture, the liturgy, the hierarchy of bishops and presbyters and deacons, and the basics of the Creed.

This is amazing considering the Mass was uniformly said throughout the entire Christian world at that time without splits and divisions…albeit disputes and misunderstandings…

The name of the Church as defined by St. Ignatius, a martyr is ‘he katholike ekklesia’…Universal Church.

I would highly recommend Dr Hahn’s book, ‘Consuming the Word’.

I don’t see any reference yet to Christians forming their own communities separate from the apostles…especially in the face of persecution in many places, although not always the case.

The Eucharist was called ‘Breaking of the Bread’,people coming together in their homes. It was also called ‘The Secret’ as the Eucharist was known to be the essence of God’s presence to us.

The Marconites, the Gnostics were the heretics of the day, dealt with by St. Ireaneas and then St. Athanasius with Arianism.

Constantine also did reflect on Arianism, as did the pope then at that time…but there was no definitive statement made by the Church until the Council of Nicea. That was a time 300 years after the Event of Christ that people,

 

[harlen]

ChristRocket;12382679:

Hello all,

I’m currently in a discussion revolved around supposable changes that came from Constantine’s signing of the Edict-

Basically, it goes like this-
Before Emperor Constantine’s Dream-

After Emperor Constantine’s Dream and his victory it went like this-

• The church now supported the state and its wars. God now sanctioned killing! God took sides to help one band of killers triumph over an other, as the church prayed for victory
  I doubt this one-but would like some clarification.

But if you read the OT books of Kings and Chronicles, they are filled with stories about God taking a side in a war. God helped the “good guys” plunder the “bad guys” time and again, after the “good guys” prayed to God for victory of course. The God of the Old Testament is absolutely, positively NOT a pacifist.

People take Jesus’ “love your enemies” out of context to say that Jesus condemned all war. Look at the entire passage. “You have heard it said an eye for an eye, but I say love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Jesus was speaking against vengeance/revenge against another person who wronged you, not war between nations. If some Muslim nation were to declare war on the USA in an effort to banish Christianity, profess glory only to Allah and Muhammad, and impose Sharia Law, I doubt very much that Jesus taught that we should be pacifists and love these enemies and thus let them walk all over us and do what they want.

I think this reversion to OT morality, when it suits, is unfair and denies the NT & Catholic understanding that our comprehension of God evolves.
We Catholics can’t have it both ways.
Do we believe that our doctrine “develops” or not?

(1)We tell Protestants obsessed with a “primitivist” idea of replicating the Early-Church…That the Church grows, develops & changes through time whilst remaining the same organism…the Body-of-Christ. (The oak is no more the acorn). And our understanding of morality deepens and (effectively) changes.

(2)Christ repeated a plain stricture “Thou shalt not kill” and he also toughened it and “developed” it …"Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, ‘Thou shalt not kill;’ and ‘whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment’: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-24).

He also told us to “love our enemies”, to “turn the other cheek” to “not resist evil” He rebukes Peter for drawing his sword …and He backs all this up with his own example of not resisting (& forgiving) the evil done to Him.
The early Christians/Catholics followed this example…but the later (establishment?) Christians seems to have reverted somewhat from this ideal.

I find it very, very odd that it is often those (“conservative”?) Catholics who defend the NT stricture against divorce/remarriage, but who defend the Catholic abrogation from the stricture “Thou shalt not kill”.
We can’t have it both ways.
We are inconsistent.

We can’t defend progressive “development” from the OT primitive views of an angry, vengeful God and then “dip back into it” because we want to kill!

Christ raised the commandments to ideals of perfection… and He lived up to them.
He was absolute about killing (or doing harm) and also about adultery (“every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).

But are we consistent?
We fail to live up to the ideals in every sphere
We forgive the soldier or bombmaker (who permanently exists to kill)
But we refuse to forgive the remarried.
We beieve in Doctrinal development and then revert to a primitive and rescinded OT view of God.