Emperor Constantine Created/changed Catholicism? (Merged Threads)

[dmar198]

I think this reversion to OT morality, when it suits, is unfair and denies the NT & Catholic understanding that our comprehension of God evolves.

First, what do you mean by “OT morality”? By my reading, the New Testament, and the early Church, cited the Old Testament’s moral system again and again and adopted it as their own. Therefore, there is no distinction between Old Testament morality and New Testament morality, but only misconceptions about what the Old and New Testaments teach regarding morality. Anyway, that’s what I think. What do you think about that?

We Catholics can’t have it both ways.
Do we believe that our doctrine “develops” or not?

Yes. And we know that a proper development does not contradict what was previously taught.

(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.

Can you give an example of what you mean by “effectively changes”? I think you are bordering on the idea that our moral teachings can change, which appears to deny that the Church’s teachings are everlasting.

(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).

This teaching is contained in both the Catechism and the Old Testament. But it does not contradict just war doctrine. One reason why is, the just war doctrine forbids making war because you are angry.

He also told us to “love our enemies”, to “turn the other cheek” to “not resist evil”

It is my understanding that the second two phrases you cited have a classic Catholic interpretation that categorizes them with the statement “sell all that you have,” because they do not apply to all circumstances. And in fact, some people have a duty to own property, some people have a duty to resist evil, and some people have a duty to defend themselves, for example when they are responsible for the protection of other people. Is that your understanding as well?

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.

First, not all of the early Christians gave up self-defense, nor did they all avoid participation in just warfare. Cornelius from Acts 10:1-2 was an early Catholic member of the military. Luke 7:1-9 mentions another. The New Testament has a general message for soldiers in Luke 3:14, and it is, “be content with your wages.” This is an explicit New Testament teaching that you can continue to do your job as a soldier and yet be a faithful Catholic.

Regarding self-defense, in Acts 23:12-31 St. Paul appears to respond to a plot against his life by securing himself with an armed guard. In Romans 13:4, St. Paul also teaches that the State has the right to use the sword, at least under certain conditions. This implies that the members of the political community have a right to defend themselves, because that is what the sword is for. That passage also has application to the principle of just war, which is based on the same principle as the right to self-defense.

The early Church maintained the doctrine of just warfare that had been handed on to them by the Apostles: see the article “The Just War Tradition in the Doctrine of the Pre-Nicene Church.” Therefore, if I’ve understood your post correctly, I think you completely misunderstand what the New Testament and the early Church teaches us about self-defense and just warfare.

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.

The right to self-defense is not an abrogation of “Thou shalt not kill.” It is my understanding that the classic Catholic understanding of self-defense is that, when you use lethal force to defend yourself, your attacker is to blame for causing his own death, and not you. Killing is wrong, but you have not killed, he has killed himself by unjustly entering a zone where you put up a legitimate lethal defense.

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!

God is not angry and vengeful in the Old Testament and “nice” in the New Testament. In both Testaments, He has just anger, justly takes vengeance, and authorizes both warfare and self-defense under the right conditions.

I hope that helps.

 

[estesbob]

JWH123;12383147:

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.

Fortunately Christ did not leave us on our own to parse scripture verses in an attempt to discern what is right. He left us his Church to guide us-the One true, holy and apostolic Church founded by Jesus on Pentecost

 

[dfjdyujjdf]

Standard anti-Catholic nonsense. Some are obviously incorrect, as you note. Christians worshiped on Sunday from Apostolic times, as the Bible indicates.

 

[KathleenGee]

I also read several years ago about how certain Baptists? or other non denominationals were around at the emerging Universal Church. Trail of Blood?..not sure but they brought up some kind of documents to prove their type of congregation was existing but separate.

In spite of the lack of mode of communications in those ancient days, the Holy Spirit definitely appears to have made up for it with all the definitive teachings about the nature and mission of the Church way back then around the 100’s. And the fruit of the teachings did not point to separate and oppositional faith communities if I am understood here.

There was this communion of one faith and one body.

 

[guanophore]

Standard anti-Catholic nonsense. Some are obviously incorrect, as you note. Christians worshiped on Sunday from Apostolic times, as the Bible indicates.

Welcome to CAF! You have a very interesting username.

 

[guanophore]

I also read several years ago about how certain Baptists? or other non denominationals were around at the emerging Universal Church. Trail of Blood?..not sure but they brought up some kind of documents to prove their type of congregation was existing but separate.

In spite of the lack of mode of communications in those ancient days, the Holy Spirit definitely appears to have made up for it with all the definitive teachings about the nature and mission of the Church way back then around the 100’s. And the fruit of the teachings did not point to separate and oppositional faith communities if I am understood here.

There was this communion of one faith and one body.

Here is a good Catholic review of that book.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Guanaphore, that is the one I need to read!

I agree that a conciliar model also does well…especially when bring to fore front conditions and needs of people in a particular time. We are seeing this happening at the Synod in Rome regarding family life.

I have a personal reserve about it as I lived through the time where it was said that when a bishop reflects on his own local diocese, he aligns with Rome. But when he is participating on bishops’ councils, then things get watered down.

So I have issues about modernism that deviates from our Universal Church.

 

[harlen]

First, what do you mean by “OT morality”? By my reading, the New Testament, and the early Church, cited the Old Testament’s moral system again and again and adopted it as their own. Therefore, there is no distinction between Old Testament morality and New Testament morality, but only misconceptions about what the Old and New Testaments teach regarding morality. Anyway, that’s what I think. What do you think about that? Yes. And we know that a proper development does not contradict what was previously taught. Can you give an example of what you mean by “effectively changes”?

**
Slavery (formerly allowed now condemned)**
Jesus said not a word against slavery as an institution or an evil. Nor did the writers of the New Testament. Peter and Paul exhort slaves to be obedient to their masters, and Popes kept slaves
But John Paul II (in veritatis splendor ) has listed slavery as an ‘intrinsically evil’ (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances”.
Quite a change!
Do you still condone slavery (according to early Catholic belief)?
Or do you condemn slavery (according to modern Catholic belief)?
Which?
Perhaps you view this new moral stance an infection from evil liberal tendencies? After all JPII also
included “ degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit” in this list of intrinsic evils.
We began to “discover” that slavery was wrong about 1400 years after Christ, but it’s been a long journey. And what of all the centuries of suffering caused by this evil that went unheeded and unconsoled by the Church?

Usury (formerly condemned now allowed)
**
Religious Tolerance & freedom**
Popes used to urge us to burn heretics now we would have to confess “burning a heretic” & probably do some penance!

… ***

-]The New Testament has a general message for soldiers in Luke 3:14, and it is, “be content with your wages.” This is an explicit New Testament teaching that you can continue to do your job as a soldier and yet be a faithful Catholic/-]

**"*.

This reads far to much into the text and denies subsequent development.
As above…In the NT Peter and Paul exhort slaves to be obedient to their masters. Therefore you could construe similarly this as * "an explicit New Testament teaching that you can continue to (keep slaves) OR (do your job as a soldier) and yet be a faithful Catholic"* The first option is no longer permitted as intrinsically evil.

… God is not angry and vengeful in the Old Testament and “nice” in the New Testament. In both Testaments, He has just anger, justly takes vengeance, and authorizes both warfare and self-defense under the right conditions".

God is immutable
I hope this helps

 

[guanophore]

So I have issues about modernism that deviates from our Universal Church.

It is my hopeful prayer and expectation that we all do!

I was listening to some radio interviews of Protestants who had been invited to the Synod, and was pleased to hear that our Lutheran and Anglican brethren are also discussing these pastoral concerns with us.

 

[harlen]

…And we know that a proper development does not contradict what was previously taught. Can you give an example of what you mean by “effectively changes”?

(1)Slavery (formerly allowed now condemned)
Jesus said not a word against slavery as an institution or as an evil.
Nor did the writers of the New Testament.
Peter and Paul exhort slaves to be obedient to their masters, and Popes kept slaves
But John Paul II (in veritatis splendor ) has listed slavery as an ‘intrinsically evil’ (intrinsece malum): "they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances”.
Quite a change!
Do you still condone slavery (according to early Catholic belief)?
Or do you condemn slavery (according to modern Catholic belief)?
Which? If the latter you accept changing moral teachings.

We only began to “discover” that slavery was wrong about 1400 years after Christ, but it’s been a long journey. And what of all the centuries of suffering caused by this evil that went unheeded and unconsoled by the Church?

(2)Usury (formerly condemned now allowed)

(3)Religious Tolerance & freedom
Popes used to urge us to burn heretics now we would have to confess “burning a heretic” & probably even do some penance! Religious liberty and freedom of concience in the matter was condemned as late as 1864 by Pius IX 's Syllabus of Errors.

Some Catholic moral teaching has “effectively changed” as I said.

… The New Testament has a general message for soldiers in Luke 3:14, and it is, “be content with your wages.” This is an explicit New Testament teaching that you can continue to do your job as a soldier and yet be a faithful Catholic.

You are reading far too much into this text.
By the same logic, when Peter and Paul exhort slaves to be obedient to their masters, this would be * “an explicit New Testament teaching that you can continue to (keep slaves) OR (do your job as a soldier) and yet be a faithful Catholic”*
If you followed this & kept slaves you might even be barred from communion under modern Catholic teaching?

.

… God is not angry and vengeful in the Old Testament and “nice” in the New Testament. In both Testaments, He has just anger, justly takes vengeance, and authorizes both warfare and self-defense under the right conditions.
.

God is immutable

I think you are bordering on the idea that our moral teachings can change, which appears to deny that the Church’s teachings are everlasting.

God is Love, & Love is everlasting.
The rules we make, in attempts to express the demands of love in a myriad of circumstances, can (& sometimes must) change in order to always express that love.

Christ promises to send the Holy Spirit who " will guide you into all the truth." He did not say how long this process would take!
It begins with Peter changing his mind about God’s favouritism towards the Jews (Acts 10:34) “The truth I have now come to realise is that God does not show favouritism”.
He also dispenses with the Jewish Law requirements for Gentile converts (Acts 15)

He does not appear to be in the least hampered by the express contradictory words of Christ in Matthew 5:18 “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”.!!

This first pope felt fully able to ignore a gospel saying of Jesus for patently pastoral reasons (Acts 15:10) “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear”
We have yet to test this with remarrieds and homosexuals.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Church does not change in providing us the Good News, but what changes are the conditions.

Jews had slaves, those who were ‘owned’ by them until a debt was paid.

Christian nobility in Rome had slaves. Callistus was freed and became a financial steward but was later accused of possible financial impropriety and sent to Sardinia for punishment. He was freed in 190 AD and sent to Rome where he became a deacon by Pope Victor’s successor and became the caretaker of the cemetery that contained the burials of popes, called the Catacombs of Callistus.

Callistus became a bishop and his later election to the papacy sparked the first schism in the Church. A faction was formed and another cleric was elected…anti pope, Appolitis.

Pope Callistus appeared too lax with lapsed Christians – those who apostacized, or murdered someone or committed adultery. He also went against Roman law by allowing Christian women to marry men of lower social status or slaves, causing one to ponder if Pope Callistus did so because he was at one time, a slave.

Usury written at that time was addressed to literally taking advantage of someone…a loan shark. We had some here in my area not too long ago who were finally put out of business. But today our economic system utilizes interest and likewise, there is tremendous giving to the needy of this world by the Church.

About burning witches at the stake, I am not aware of how much this happened at the hands of popes, but I do know that this was a practice by other Christian denominations so many hundreds of years ago.

About Constantine creating or changing Catholicism, any person with any sense of history, knows this is not true.

What is different about Constantinople is that its culture is imperial, with the State, whereas the Churches of Jerusalem – Where Christ was, Antioch and Rome both founded by Peter, and Alexandria by St. Mark, the ongoing rule of thumb was that Peter and Paul came to Rome for the Church under the leading of the Holy Spirit, not for imperial means.

The other point going back here to changing conditions, when there was a dispute, the Bishop of Rome was more pastoral in dealing with lapsed Christians who apostacized during persecutions, offering them help and reconciliation vs condemning them. The anti popes were more vigorous and strict in dealing with lapsed Christians.

So under the leadership of Rome, we find consistency in compassion and forgiveness vs rigorous punishment for those who failed and wanted to be restored to the Church.