How much did Constantine Shape the Church?

[CollegeKid]

I’ve been reading more of Paul Johnson’s “A History of Christianity.” As some of you may know, Johnson is a widely respected historian and an avowed Catholic. Often-times though, reading his work makes me question the state of the church today. For instance, he wrote that Constantine added the phrase “consubstantial with the Father” in the Creed as a formula for compromise among the bishops at the Council of Nicea, and that he arranged to have an overwhelming majority of the bishops condemn Arius, his followers, and their beliefs. Another statement in the book is that the clergy basically became a privileged, separated caste from the laity under Constantine’s reign, and that penance as an institution was virtually unknown in the earliest days of the Church. I’d really appreciate your guys comments on this information. Some questions:

1. I’ve read from Johnson, and other sources before, that the Church adopted some of the characteristics of the Roman Empire, such as its hierarchy of orders, but we also have evidence from the New Testament and early christian writings of a sacramental priesthood, don’t we? What changed regarding priests and bishops in between the Apostolic times and the times of greater alliance with the Roman Empire?
2. Did Constantine basically invent significant parts of the Nicene Creed and force the Church to accept his doctrines?

 

[CollegeKid]

Also, are there other doctrines, besides the Credal one I mentioned, that Constantine or other emperors influenced in the early centuries of the Church?

 

[kleary]

It is my understanding from history that Constantine was not a Bishop, never a Pope and therefore could not have possibly made any suggestions concerning the things claimed in this post.

Constantine officially remained a pagan, continuing to be involved with pagan worship until the day of his death when he was baptized.

As far as his “shaping the church” all I can see is that he summoned all the Bishops of Christianity to the first ecumenical council of Nicea to decide the issues at hand.

Ken

 

[CollegeKid]

kleary:

It is my understanding from history that Constantine was not a Bishop, never a Pope and therefore could not have possibly made any suggestions concerning the things claimed in this post.

Constantine officially remained a pagan, continuing to be involved with pagan worship until the day of his death when he was baptized.

As far as his “shaping the church” all I can see is that he summoned all the Bishops of Christianity to the first ecumenical council of Nicea to decide the issues at hand.

Ken

That’s my point- I know that Church dogma only permits the Magisterium to proclaim Divine Revelation, and Constantine was not part of the Magisterium, but from what I’m reading it appears that he was influential in determining Church beliefs during his reign. Now, whether or not his influence was so extreme that it led to him forcing the Church to accept beliefs completely of his own making, and whether or not this happening would invalidate any Church dogmas is something I don’t yet know.

 

[Milliardo]

CollegeKid:

That’s my point- I know that Church dogma only permits the Magisterium to proclaim Divine Revelation, and Constantine was not part of the Magisterium, but from what I’m reading it appears that he was influential in determining Church beliefs during his reign.

No, Constantine was never influential in determining Church beliefs; he was confused himself with Arianism, frequently switching back and forth between being pro-Arian to anti-Arian. As far as I could also tell, it wasn’t Constantine who coined the word; Tertullian was actually one of the first to use it. More about that term here: newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm

 

[yinekka]

Hi College kid ,

Are you reading the book for fun or as part of your college studies?

I haven’t heard of Mr Johnson and I haven’t read his book. A couple of questions you should ask before you take as gospel what anyone says about history are:

1. I did a Google search about Mr Johnson and came up with the comment that he is a pop historian who is not worried about footnotes etc. Now this is ok I suppose if you are reading the book for fun and therefor you shouldn’t take what he writes too seriously if he does not support statements he claims to be facts (the Da Vinci Code is an example of not sourcing ‘facts’)with sources but if you are reading this book as part of your college studies I consider that the book is flawed if he makes statements e.g. ‘Constantine added the phrase consubstantial with the Father’ and doesn’t support it with a citing of the original document from which the quote came so that you can check out for yourself whether he quoted correctly or not.
2. You state that Mr Johnson is a Catholic. What does that mean exactly and what does the fact that he was, at least, baptised a Catholic, have to do with the book? Does that make him biased for against the Church or is he objective?
   Original sources will help you determine the author’s biases because you can see if the author has quoted in context, taken account of the historical context of the time etc

A lot of questions you ask are too sweeping to be able to be adequately dealt with on a forum by people who are, in the main, just well meaning amateurs. You may have to do some legwork your self and try to find out some answers yourself. Try the Old Catholic Encyclopedia online at www.newadvent.org and you will be able to find some answers there.

Don’t believe everything against the Church that you read. There are a lot of people out there who use the words ‘I’m a Catholic’ in order to give their bashing of the Church more credence; always ask for the original source and check it before you make a negative conclusion against the Church.

I have just finished ‘Triumph, the Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church’ by Harry Crocker III. This book is quite light but every statement claimed to be a fact has a reference, it has a bibliography and an index. Most of your questions would be answered in this book if you have time to read it. My son is studying history at Uni and I know how much he has to read each week just to keep up.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ over 2000 years ago. He made Peter the first pope and Pope Benedict is his successor. He gave Peter and the apostles the power to teach and make laws in the His name. No other ecclesial community can make these claims. Sure there have been some baddies in the Church in 2000 years, it would have been impossible for there not to have been. If you are reading for interest only, my advice would be to concentrate on strengthening my knowledge of the Faith and developiny my prayer life and only then launch into apologetics - finding answers to objections about the Faith.

A great book is ‘Catholicism and Fundamentalism’ by Karl Keating . For example you asked about ‘penance ( I assume you mean Confession) as an institution’ and on p43 Karl says “Origen, writing around 244, referred to the sinner who 'does not shring from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord ’ (*Origen, In Leviticum homiliae 2,4) * - footnotes! Cyprian of Carthage, writiing in 251, said,” Finally, of how much greater faith and more salutary fear are they who…confess to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in worrow, making an open declaration of conscience." Cyprian, De lapsis 28. - footnotes Aphraates (4th century) gave this advice to priests:’ If anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance…And when he has revealed it to you do not make it public. Aphraates, Demonstrationes 7,3. Footnotes

Good luck

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

CollegeKid:

I’ve been reading more of Paul Johnson’s “A History of Christianity.” As some of you may know, Johnson is a widely respected historian and an avowed Catholic. Often-times though, reading his work makes me question the state of the church today. For instance, he wrote that Constantine added the phrase “consubstantial with the Father” in the Creed as a formula for compromise among the bishops at the Council of Nicea, and that he arranged to have an overwhelming majority of the bishops condemn Arius, his followers, and their beliefs. Another statement in the book is that the clergy basically became a privileged, separated caste from the laity under Constantine’s reign, and that penance as an institution was virtually unknown in the earliest days of the Church. I’d really appreciate your guys comments on this information. Some questions:

Constantine was an Arian (he denied the divinity of Christ). Why would he add that phrase? Tertullian is the one that thought of the word “Trinity”, but the concept had been around before his time, which was a lot earlier than Constantine. He may have been the one that called the council, but he wasn’t present there.

 

[Brian_C]

Yes, try Crocker’s work Trimuph and try Hillare Belloc’s The Great Heresies.

 

[CollegeKid]

yinekka:

Hi College kid ,

Are you reading the book for fun or as part of your college studies?

Personal interest, trying to learn more about Church history.

yinekka:

I haven’t heard of Mr Johnson and I haven’t read his book. A couple of questions you should ask before you take as gospel what anyone says about history are:

1. I did a Google search about Mr Johnson and came up with the comment that he is a pop historian who is not worried about footnotes etc. Now this is ok I suppose if you are reading the book for fun and therefor you shouldn’t take what he writes too seriously if he does not support statements he claims to be facts (the Da Vinci Code is an example of not sourcing ‘facts’)with sources but if you are reading this book as part of your college studies I consider that the book is flawed if he makes statements e.g. ‘Constantine added the phrase consubstantial with the Father’ and doesn’t support it with a citing of the original document from which the quote came so that you can check out for yourself whether he quoted correctly or not.

True, I’ll have to go back and check if he footnoted that statement.

yinekka:

1. You state that Mr Johnson is a Catholic. What does that mean exactly and what does the fact that he was, at least, baptised a Catholic, have to do with the book? Does that make him biased for against the Church or is he objective?
   Original sources will help you determine the author’s biases because you can see if the author has quoted in context, taken account of the historical context of the time etc

I’ve gotten mixed information on his orthodoxy. On the one hand, I’ve read that he’s a “conservative” Catholic who has dismissed liberation theologians as heretics and vigorously defended priestly celibacy, on the other, I saw an article by him in which he called the future admission of women to the priesthood “likely.”

yinekka:

A lot of questions you ask are too sweeping to be able to be adequately dealt with on a forum by people who are, in the main, just well meaning amateurs. You may have to do some legwork your self and try to find out some answers yourself. Try the Old Catholic Encyclopedia online at www.newadvent.org and you will be able to find some answers there.

You’re right, and some more tips on where to start would be much appreciated.

yinekka:

Don’t believe everything against the Church that you read. There are a lot of people out there who use the words ‘I’m a Catholic’ in order to give their bashing of the Church more credence; always ask for the original source and check it before you make a negative conclusion against the Church.

This is true.

yinekka:

I have just finished ‘Triumph, the Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church’ by Harry Crocker III. This book is quite light but every statement claimed to be a fact has a reference, it has a bibliography and an index. Most of your questions would be answered in this book if you have time to read it. My son is studying history at Uni and I know how much he has to read each week just to keep up.

Boy would I like to read something uplifting like that. I’ll probably get Triumph at some point; I’ve heard of it before. I would still have to keep in mind, however, that everyone brings their own biases to the table, even defenders of orthodoxy of faith, like H.W. Crocker.

yinekka:

A great book is ‘Catholicism and Fundamentalism’ by Karl Keating .

Got it. Read most of it so far.

yinekka:

For example you asked about ‘penance ( I assume you mean Confession) as an institution’ and on p43 Karl says “Origen, writing around 244, referred to the sinner who 'does not shring from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord ’ (*Origen, In Leviticum homiliae 2,4) * - footnotes! Cyprian of Carthage, writiing in 251, said,” Finally, of how much greater faith and more salutary fear are they who…confess to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in worrow, making an open declaration of conscience." Cyprian, De lapsis 28. - footnotes Aphraates (4th century) gave this advice to priests:’ If anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance…And when he has revealed it to you do not make it public. Aphraates, Demonstrationes 7,3. Footnotes

When Johnson wrote in his book that penance (confession) was virtually unknown as an institution in the earliest days of Christianity, I think he was referring to the age when the Apostles were still alive and spreading the Faith.