Mormons and the Emperor Constantine

[Sixtus]

lepanto

Mormons and the Emperor Constantine
Mormons claim that the Emperor Constantine essentially founded the Catholic Church to secure his empire.

Perhaps the Mormons read Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code Hoax!

Perhaps they could also explain how my namesake Pope St Sixtus [who came long before Constantine] decreed that 'only Consecrated Hands should touch the Sacred Vessels that contain the Sacred Elements used in the Mass.

He also initiated the Santus as it is prayed in every Mass

 

[BelFarfalla]

I guess I can comment here.

There is no official position within the CoJCoLDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) as to the time or cause of the apostasy. For most LDS the miracles of the restoration is evidence of the apostasy. Some LDS, me included, have looked into the history of the Catholic Church and find reason to believe there was an apostasy (I also find reason to believe there was not apostasy and I respect the opinion of those who find “no apostasy” more compelling than “apostasy”).

As has been posted Constantine does have a role in the progression of the church that became the Catholic Church, and I do think he has been declared a Saint. I would also be historically accurate to recognize that Constantine was the one who called the Council of Nicea. The question of who presided at the CoN is not decidable, but Constantine is definitely among the possible answers to this question. I would however generally side with Catholics when they say that Constantine was not a major theological mind at the CoN. Constantine did support the results and much political power was involved in the direction of the church for many years beginning largely with Constantine.

My personal (non-official as there is no official) apostasy paradigm says that Peter did not transfer the authority to lead the Catholic Church to Linus, Cletus, or Clement. I have read Cardinal Newman’s, On the Development of Christian Doctrine. I believe his position that the authority of the Pope was dormant within these early Bishops of Rome, because, “Love dispenses with laws,” is a plausible read on history.

I am generally interested in exploring topics such as predestination within the Catholic Church and Deification within the Catholic Church, but I will spend some time explaining/defending LDS doctrines (especially if you are interested in converting ). I do hope that before you post the “Boettner list” or such things, that you look for LDS apologetics that respond to your concerns. It took me less than a day to come to grips with Mary, Infallibility, and Transubstantiation (and I have to this day “holy envy” for the “real presence” within the Eucharist). So do as you will, but chances are pretty good that if you can find a silly anti-Mormon argument on the web, you can find a response to it on the web too.

Charity, TOm

LDS is a form of apostacy.

 

[BelFarfalla]

I’m curious how LDS interprets Christ’s words to St. Peter in Matthew 16:18

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

If my understandng is correct, LDS claims that the Church needed to be restored. If Christ Himself said that the netherworld will not prevail against it, why would restoration be necessary?

Maybe he was telling Pete that he as stoned?

 

[Lehl]

My personal (non-official as there is no official) apostasy paradigm says that Peter did not transfer the authority to lead the Catholic Church to Linus, Cletus, or Clement.

I’ve read several LDS that believe the same thing, including our now-banned friend, A Pac (Pacman).

I think it is the pot calling the kettle black when you look as the history of the LDS church. By such arrogant statements, you’d expect to find a clean and clear transfer of authority from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young, am I right?

Joseph Smith died without officially “transferring his prophethood and/or authority” to lead the LDS church.

There’s an apostasy for you. The Mormons had a succession CRISIS that resulted in several permanent SCHISMS. Since LDS are so hung up on “authority”, you’d think this should be a major issue.

The candidates for Joseph’s succession were his brother Hyrum (also assistant president of the church, but he was killed before Joseph) then younger brother Samuel who died days after Joseph and Hyrum. The last surviving brother, William laid claim…but with little following.

Joseph Smith apparently also gave indications that his sons were to succeed him. Smith’s oldest son was only 11 when Joseph died, though. However, many still followed him…including Emma Smith, Josph’s OWN WIFE…Well, one of them anyway.:extrahappy:

A little nepotsim anyone?

So Sidney Rigdon who was on a mission, was the first to return. He was the senior surviving counselor in the First Presidency. The very next day he announces a revelation appointing him “Guardian of the Church”.

Brigham Young was also out on a mission and when he returned, he " proposed an ad hoc Presidency of the Church in the Quorum of Twelve". The 12 apostles are considered lower ranking than the the First Presidency. Brigham Young was an apostle.

Then the campaigning began.

Obviously Brigham Young won the majority and actually reorganized the church. Rigdon did not go down lightly and still claimed his higher authority over the Quorum of the 12 apostles, organized supporters, which got himself disfellowshipped for “making a division in the church”.

Rigdon left and established a sect in Pennsylvania.

Then there was an elder who tried to exercise his claim from outlying branches. James Strang. He was a recent convert and had been charged to establish a branch in Wisconsin in case the LDS were driven from their headquarters in Nauvoo. He had a letter, purportedly written by Joseph the month of his death, appointing Strang to be his successor. He also claimed that angels visited him at the moment of Smith’s death to ordain him. Joseph’s own last surviving brother JOINED Strang’s group. When Strang was shot and killed later, most of his followers joined Joseph Smith’s son’s (Joseph Smith III) RLDS group.

Which I think is the most interesting group of all–the RLDS. Emma Smith, Joseph Smith’s OWN WIFE, didn’t follow Brigham Young upon the death of her husband, but her own son, Joseph Smith III.

I also find it VERY interesting that Brigham Young decades after Smith’s murder repeatedly asked Smith’s sons, Joseph Smith III and David Hyrum Smith, to join his church’s hierarchy in Utah. Which they refused, purportedly due to the practice of polygamy.

Talk about a disaster! So any LDS that offer up an “apostasy” theories due to unclear “transfer of authority” of the Catholic Church…I say:

"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Matthew 7:3

 

[John_Lawrence]

I do not care for the Mormon opinion HOWEVER to assume that Constantine had absolutely no secular and political reason ALONGSIDE his own spiritual reasons to officialize the Church, is to be completely ignorant.

Also he did not receive baptism until his deathbed. But that’s neither here nor there. But tosome people that means quite a bit.

 

[Allweather]

I do not care for the Mormon opinion HOWEVER to assume that Constantine had absolutely no secular and political reason ALONGSIDE his own spiritual reasons to officialize the Church, is to be completely ignorant.

Also he did not receive baptism until his deathbed. But that’s neither here nor there. But tosome people that means quite a bit.

I’m currently picking my way through a book, Inside Mormonism, What Mormons Really Believe, by Isaiah Bennet. Bennet was a Catholic priest who converted to Mormonism and spent 18 months as a Mormon before realizing the mistake he’d made, and returned to the Catholic Church as a layman.

In Chapter 12, which addresses some of James Talmadge’s errors in The Great Apostasy, Bennet states the following with respect to late baptism:

"Deferral of baptism until end of life did not indicate a lack of devotion. In Constantine’s age, it was a common practice, since the sacrament of penance was administered less frequently. Among Christians, in accord with the teaching of the New Testament (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Peter 3:20-21), it was universally acknowledged that baptism blotted out all sin prior to its reception, and since reception of the sacrament of penance, following baptism, was less frequent, many devout individuals chose to postpone their baptism until late in life. Thus, as historian Lietzmann wrote, ‘Constantine could look forward to receiving baptism and with it the forgiveness of all his sins. His enemies, in any case, have never accused him of hypocrisy, but of a conscience genuinely troubled by sin. Hence the logical inference, however reluctantly drawn [by some], is that he was a genuinely religious man’ (Hans Lietzmann, A History of the Early Church, vol 2, 161).

 

[John_Lawrence]

It doesn’t have to indicate lack of devotion, but that does not prove the opposite infallibly true. It could very well mean a lack of devotion. Still, the previous post and the passage cited in no way proves a lack of a secular political motive.

 

[Allweather]

It doesn’t have to indicate lack of devotion, but that does not prove the opposite infallibly true. It could very well mean a lack of devotion. Still, the previous post and the passage cited in no way proves a lack of a secular political motive.

“It seems that the moral strength of the Christians and their higher standards of morality impressed Constantine, so that he was almost certainly sincere in his admiration for Christianity and, indeed, he had his children educated as Christians.” (O’Grady, Early Christian Heresies, 75)

For sure, Constantine had secular motives as well. According to this book by Isaiah Bennet:

"Constantine understood that his relationship with the Church was one of temporal protector, rather than as spiritual ruler, just like the Old Testament kings. At a banquet, Constantine told bishops in attendance, ‘You have been installed as bishops for the inner affairs of the Church, and I have been installed bishop by God for its outer affairs’ (Eusebius, The Life of Constantine, 3:12)

 

[oremus]

Perhaps the Mormons read Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code Hoax!

Perhaps they could also explain how my namesake Pope St Sixtus [who came long before Constantine] decreed that 'only Consecrated Hands should touch the Sacred Vessels that contain the Sacred Elements used in the Mass.

He also initiated the Santus as it is prayed in every Mass

Exactly,

And what about the other popes buried in the Crypt of the Popes in St. Callixtus, including Pope St. Sixtus. All before Constantine came on the seen.

pax tecum

 

[John_Lawrence]

“It seems that the moral strength of the Christians and their higher standards of morality impressed Constantine, so that he was almost certainly sincere in his admiration for Christianity and, indeed, he had his children educated as Christians.” (O’Grady, Early Christian Heresies, 75)

For sure, Constantine had secular motives as well. According to this book by Isaiah Bennet:

"Constantine understood that his relationship with the Church was one of temporal protector, rather than as spiritual ruler, just like the Old Testament kings. At a banquet, Constantine told bishops in attendance, ‘You have been installed as bishops for the inner affairs of the Church, and I have been installed bishop by God for its outer affairs’ (Eusebius, The Life of Constantine, 3:12)

Good post. Was never my intention to make it seem purely political. Just wanted to remind people that Constantine was a man and as man, had certain flaws and nuances about him. His spirituality aside, he still had a political side of him.

 

[Allweather]

Was never my intention to make it seem purely political. Just wanted to remind people that Constantine was a man and as man, had certain flaws and nuances about him. His spirituality aside, he still had a political side of him.

I think the same can be said of all leaders. Including the Popes. Including the current Pope. The Popes, and in fact all bishops, move among world leaders, and as such must have a political consciousness. I don’t see anything wrong with this. In fact, one of the wonderful features if the Papacy is that it has mostly been occupied by men of exceptional ability, both in the spiritual as well as political realms.

 

[murtad]

Well, if that’s true, why is it that he is not called “Saint Constantine”? Of the thousands of people in the last 2000 years that the Catholic Church recognizes as saints, why is Constantine not one of them? One would think that if the Mormon claim is true, surely Constantine would’ve been declared a saint. Heck, he was never even a pope or a priest!

Perhaps, this is because this Roman Emperor was baptised by an Arian bishop, according to Wikipedia? Maybe his baptism was considered invalid?

Moreover, of all the thousands of Catholic parishes around the world, you’ll never see a single parish named in honor of Constantine (to my knowledge). Likewise, there are no formal prayers asking for Constantine’s intercession.

Eventhough our Catholic parishes are never called by the name of “Saint Constantine” nor do we ask for intercession from Constantine, but we must remember the Orthodox Church does recognise him as a saint.

The Greek Orthodox Church recognises Constantine as a saint for he is the father of the Greek nation and his city Constantinople, which is New Rome is the eternal capital of the Greek nation. The Eastern Orthodox Church honors him as “Saint Constantine” and gives him a feast day. You can read more about it here.

But Byzantine Emperor Constantine is not the only controversial person honoured in the history of the Orthodox Church, as Orthodox Christians also honour Serbian Orthodox Christian dictator Slobodan Milosevic as a saint. The Orthodox Patriarchate of Belgrade canonised him as “Most Blessed Slobodan of Belgrade”. There is an interesting article available here.

We honor Constantine as a pivotal historical figure in other ways, such as in artwork, but that’s about it.

Catholics and Orthodox differ on how we honor him. Catholics do not pray to him but Orthodox Christians, in particular Serb Christians pray not only to Constantine but also to the “Most Blessed Slobodan of Belgrade”, who was canonised by the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate of Belgrade. See this photograph and read the article that follows on how Serbs offer intercessions to Slobodan Milosevic

 

[murtad]

Actually, Constantine is recognized as a Saint ( as St. Constantine the Great)

his feast day is May 21

catholiconline.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=2731

There’s a Byzantine Catholic church in Chicago name “Sts Constantine and Helena” and a St. Constantine Ukranian Catholic parish in Minneapolis.

Byzantine Catholic Church is not part of the Catholic Church since they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome (Pope).

Catholic Church ex-communicated the Melchites in 1054 C.E. and until today Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (ie Melchite Church) have not yet become one.