"The Church was pure until Constantine"

[JustaServant]

Since I’m not getting an answer on this subject, and I don’t want to derail a thread, I thought it best to give the question a new thread.
“The Church was pure until Constantine”
I used to buy into this lie at one time.
Now, I have asked for proof of this assertion.
I await with baited breath, the results.

 

[bnbkaine]

Well, I don’t know how someone could prove that it was “pure” until Constantine, but I can certainly point out away it was not.

In the persecutions of Decius in AD 250, many Christians were tortured and killed. Many people became apostates including bishops and priests. There were many, led by a man named Novatian, who felt that this sin was unforgivable. When the pope condemned this position, Novatian revolted and caused a schism. It did not last long, though.

Of course, I may be choosing a different definition for “pure.”

 

[SonCatcher]

Seeing if I understand properly…

The claim is:
Before Catholicism was approved and embraced by the Roman government, the Church maintained its existence in a manner most consistent with what Jesus originally instituted through His apostles. Therefore, the changes that have happened since are all corruptions and deviations from that “pure” faith.

If that is the case, I can think of a couple of objections. Jesus promised he would always be with His church. Further, He promised the Holy Spirit would always guide us. This alleged Corruption would refute that (note: I’m not denying there have been corruptions at times - but none have permanently corrupted the Church). There is another thread discussing the “great apostasy” that may contain relevant arguments against this.

Also, would it be prudent for the “state religion” to continue in all ways as though still persecuted? It seems ludicrous to suggest they continue meeting in the catacombs and hiding out.

Perhaps the allegation pertains to the early church being finally able to discuss theological issues at length and in depth in some of the most influential councils of all time?

 

[kepha1]

Dr. Carroll, author of the Baptist church history entitled “The Trail of Blood,” makes the claim that Constantine called a council in 313 AD, the same year he issued the Edict of Milan, and this council first formed the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This theory breaks down, though, when one begins to read the history books and discovers that no Church council was held in 313.

But the main problem with all of these theories is that, if they were true, one would expect to be able to find all of the doctrines that are specifically “Catholic” coming about only after the “invention” of the Catholic Church. Whatever year one proposes as the beginning of Catholicism, one should expect to see none of these Catholic doctrines before it. Even a cursory reading of the Church Fathers from the first, second, and third centuries shows that this is not the case.
http://www.turrisfortis.com/hierarchy.html

Nicea, August 24, A.D. 325, 7:41 p.m. “That was powerful preaching, Brother Athanasius. Powerful! Amen! I want to invite any of you folks in the back to approach the altar here and receive the Lord into your hearts. Just come on up. We’ve got brothers and sisters up here who can lead you through the Sinner’s Prayer. Amen! And as this Council of Nicea comes to an end, I want to remind Brother Eusebius to bring the grape juice for tomorrow’s closing communion service . . .”

Ah yes, the Baptists at the Council of Nicea. Sound rather silly? It certainly does. And yet, there are those who claim the Church of Nicea was more Protestant in belief and practice than Catholic. I recently read an article in The Christian Research Journal, written by a Reformed Baptist apologist, who argued this very point. No, I’m not making this up. The article, “What Really Happened at Nicea?” actually claimed the Fathers of the Council were essentially Evangelical Protestants.
As a trained patristics scholar, I always feel a great deal of sadness and frustration when I encounter shoddy historical “scholarship,” whether it be in the pages of The Watchtower, a digest of Mormon “archaeology,” or a popular and usually well-produced Evangelical Protestant apologetics journal. But this article was so error-laden, so amateurishly “researched,” and so filled with historical and theological fallacies, that I simply couldn’t let it stand without response.
envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/coverstory.html

 

[DavidFilmer]

“The Church was pure until Constantine”

I’ll adopt SonCatcher’s approach in rephrasing the question in order to clarify its precise meaning. But I’ll rephrase it in more detail:

Before Constantine, the Church was pretty much indistinguishable from the modern protestant church - a bunch of “Bible believing,” “sola Fide” types who had no ties to typical Catholic doctrines such as the Eucharist, Papacy, etc. After the Edict of Milan (312 AD), the Church was flooded with pagans who took over and instituted all these Catholic doctrines. The “pure” church was driven underground, until it could finally return in the Sixteenth Century

If you are being asked to counter such a position, don’t try to take the whole thing on at once. It is absurdly unreasonable for someone to expect that you produce proof that every single Catholic doctrine pre-dates the Edict of Milan. Rather, you should ask your challenger to cite just one Catholic doctrine that was unknown to the pre-Nicene Fathers.

Hopefully (and most likely) your challenger will cite a Eucharistic or Papal doctrine. That’s good, because it is REALLY REALLY EASY to prove your point here - that these doctrines were all VERY familiar from the very origins of the Church, and are extremely well-documented from multiple reliable sources LONG before Constantine. Just go to the CA homepage (catholic.com) and click on “library” and then on “faith tracts” for whatever topic was chosen. Look for tracts marked as “(fathers)” to find ample evidence of firmly established, pre-Constantine Catholic doctrine among the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

(and, FWIW, I’m setting aside here the plain historic fact that there was no concept of the “New Testament” until the early Sixth Century (and Constantine was Fourth Century). If you asked a Nicene-era Christian to show you his collection of Scriptures, he would have shown you only his Old Testament. If you had asked him to show you his “New Testament,” he would not have even understood the question, as such a concept (namely, the Canon of Scripture, including the New Testament) had not yet entered into Christian understanding.)

 

[JustaServant]

What? Not one Protestant has offered smoking gun evidence?
sigh
Maybe I’ll ask the mods to move it non-Catholic forums.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

What? Not one Protestant has offered smoking gun evidence?
sigh
Maybe I’ll ask the mods to move it non-Catholic forums.

I don’t know what you are looking for. The church was a mess prior to the Great Persecution from which Constantine rose to power.

“And one could see the rulers in every church accorded the greatest favor by all officers and governors. But how can any one describe those vast assemblies, and the multitude that crowded together in every city, and the famous gatherings in the houses of prayer; on whose account not being satisfied with the ancient buildings they erected from the foundation large churches in all the cities?

No envy hindered the progress of these affairs which advanced gradually, and grew and increased day by day. Nor could any evil demon slander them or hinder them through human counsels, so long as the divine and heavenly hand watched over and guarded his own people as worthy.

But when on account of the abundant freedom, we fell into laxity and sloth, and envied and reviled each other, and were almost, as it were, taking up arms against one another, rulers assailing rulers with words like spears, and people forming parties against people, and monstrous hypocrisy and dissimulation rising to the greatest height of wickedness, the divine judgment with forbearance, as is its pleasure, while the multitudes yet continued to assemble, gently and moderately harassed the episcopacy.” (Eusebius E.H. 8:1:5-7)

The Great Persecution

 

[kepha1]

I don’t know what you are looking for. The church was a mess prior to the Great Persecution from which Constantine rose to power.
“And one could see the rulers in every church accorded the greatest favor by all officers and governors. But how can any one describe those vast assemblies, and the multitude that crowded together in every city, and the famous gatherings in the houses of prayer; on whose account not being satisfied with the ancient buildings they erected from the foundation large churches in all the cities?

No envy hindered the progress of these affairs which advanced gradually, and grew and increased day by day. Nor could any evil demon slander them or hinder them through human counsels, so long as the divine and heavenly hand watched over and guarded his own people as worthy.

But when on account of the abundant freedom, we fell into laxity and sloth, and envied and reviled each other, and were almost, as it were, taking up arms against one another, rulers assailing rulers with words like spears, and people forming parties against people, and monstrous hypocrisy and dissimulation rising to the greatest height of wickedness, the divine judgment with forbearance, as is its pleasure, while the multitudes yet continued to assemble, gently and moderately harassed the episcopacy.” (Eusebius E.H. 8:1:5-7)
The Great Persecution

Who is the “heavenly hand” watching over?

If the church is corrupt prior to the Great Persecution, as you say, why is the episcopacy harrassed? I don’t think “the multitudes” refers to the Church either, unless you have some kind of proof, or think that the multitude of Christians is harrassing Christians. The episcopacy is made up of Christians, in case you think there is some kind of wall between the episcopate and the rest.

It was not an easy time for the Church. Arianism was rampant, and some new converts: Roman government officials, were still sacrificing animals to pagan gods. “…rulers in every church accorded the greatest favor by all officers and governors…” First, there is nothing wrong with that, second, how long did that last before the next wave of persecution from Diocletian?

“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…”
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).
“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’”
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.”
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

“It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing… When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria…Linus …was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there…Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome.” *Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24, (A.D. 325). *

Are we talking about the same Eusebius here?
Do you think there is a possibility that your underlinings reveal a misguided agenda?

If the church was a mess prior to the Great Persecution, how did this messed up church set a universal date for the celebration of Easter, and deal with the Arian heresy? Or could it be that you disagree with selective canons of the Council of Nicae (a mere 20 years after the Great Persecution), and that is why you say the church was “messed up”?

Constantine didn’t turn over pagan temples to the Church. He didn’t even make Christianity the state religion. All he did was declare toleration for it so that it was no longer illegal to be Christian.

 

[Ismael]

Since I’m not getting an answer on this subject, and I don’t want to derail a thread, I thought it best to give the question a new thread.
“The Church was pure until Constantine”
I used to buy into this lie at one time.
Now, I have asked for proof of this assertion.
I await with baited breath, the results.

(Edited)

If we read Paul’s letters (example 1 Corinthians) we see that there were troubles in early churches too.

Paul does would not reccomend to stay away from many sins or even scold some of the churches in his letters if it was not necessary.

An extra-scriptural example is Pope Clement I in 80 AD who had to write the community of Corinth because of disputes among faithful and bishops…

The probmem is that there will always be bad people in a group.
Jesus warned us about this:

24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28" ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
"The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29" ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’

(Matthew 13)

So even in the Church we find good people (wheat) and bad people (the weed spread by the devil).

 

[kepha1]

The Great Persecution By Brian Culliton

The vision Constantine saw on that day is highly suspicious from a Christian perspective. But to the Christians of that time it represented a new level of secular freedom never before seen in the Christian church. Constantine confided to Eusebius that Christ commanded him to make a likeness of the sign and use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies. Such a concept would have been seen by the Christians as pure paganism;

“concepts” such as the usage of symbolism in art is found in the Roman Catacombs, predating Constantine by 200 years. This is an examaple of Brain projecting a Calvinist iconoclastic mentality of an early church of his own invention. The sign was a cross within the vision, by the way, and I have no doubt Brain has been in churches that have one.

but considering that their newfound liberty might have been the result of that very symbol, so accepting the idea wasn’t exactly preposterous. In fact, it opened the door to evolutionary change in the Christian church that would inevitably elevate objects and relics to a status thought worthy of dulia21 type adoration – a sort of pagan-influenced Christianity.

This is revisionism and hate speech. Relics are in the Bible. Physical matter can convey grace, contrary to Protestant Gnosticism. Ultimately, all attempts to prove Catholicism “pagan” fail. Catholic doctrines are neither borrowed from the mystery religions nor introduced from pagans after the conversion of Constantine. To make a charge of paganism stick, one must be able to show more than a similarity between something in the Church and something in the non-Christian world. One must be able to demonstrate a legitimate connection between the two, showing clearly that one is a result of the other, and that there is something wrong with the non-Christian item.

In the final analysis, nobody has been able to prove these things regarding a doctrine of the Catholic faith, or even its officially authorized practices. The charge of paganism just doesn’t work.
Is Catholicism Pagan?

 

[Publisher]

Since I’m not getting an answer on this subject, and I don’t want to derail a thread, I thought it best to give the question a new thread.
“The Church was pure until Constantine”
I used to buy into this lie at one time.
Now, I have asked for proof of this assertion.
I await with baited breath, the results.

I don’t know who is making the assertion that the “church was pure before Constantine”, but perhaps what they were claiming there was no formal " institutional Catholic church" prior to Constantine approving, accepting Christianity as the state religion.

Prior to Constantine, Christianity was quite fragmented into it’s various loose organized congregations through out the empire…“proto orthodox/catholic” just one of many such groups. The proto-orthodox/catholic group became the dominant group through the work of the ECF’s as they sought to designate a single doctrinal strain…instead of the various strains, whom many of them named “heretic”. There were numerous books used through out the Mediteranian world in the various churchs as scripture with diverse gospels all telling different stories and elaborating on the teaching of Jesus and Paul…it was this group that eventually became the dominant form of Christian thought and in turn labeled all other groups “anathema”.

For a more detailed account which doesn’t follow the “conservative relgious history” fabricated by the contenders of the “orthodox” the “Pre-Nicene New Testatment” by Robert Price is invaluable, along with Bart Erhman’s “Lost Christianities”, “Lost Scriptures”, “The Nag Hammaddi Library”, “The Gnostic Gospels” by Elaine Pagels, “Heresy” by Joan O’Grady and other “alternate” takes on the development of the early Christian church.

 

[DeusVult09]

I don’t know who is making the assertion that the “church was pure before Constantine”, but perhaps what they were claiming there was no formal " institutional Catholic church" prior to Constantine approving, accepting Christianity as the state religion.

Prior to Constantine, Christianity was quite fragmented into it’s various loose organized congregations through out the empire…“proto orthodox/catholic” just one of many such groups. The proto-orthodox/catholic group became the dominant group through the work of the ECF’s as they sought to designate a single doctrinal strain…instead of the various strains, whom many of them named “heretic”. There were numerous books used through out the Mediteranian world in the various churchs as scripture with diverse gospels all telling different stories and elaborating on the teaching of Jesus and Paul…it was this group that eventually became the dominant form of Christian thought and in turn labeled all other groups “anathema”.

For a more detailed account which doesn’t follow the “conservative relgious history” fabricated by the contenders of the “orthodox” the “Pre-Nicene New Testatment” by Robert Price is invaluable, along with Bart Erhman’s “Lost Christianities”, “Lost Scriptures”, “The Nag Hammaddi Library”, “The Gnostic Gospels” by Elaine Pagels, “Heresy” by Joan O’Grady and other “alternate” takes on the development of the early Christian church.

yes there were different sects in the early church but the earliest evidence is for proto-orthodox Christianity there is no evidence for other sects like the Gnostics , marcionists , arians , ebionites until the 2nd and 3rd centuries. This is often misrepresented and ignored especially by Mr ehrman who out of his anti-Christian bias true to present orthodox Christianity as being a later development which early church fathers corrupted the bible to gain support for. This is what Ehrman does in lost Christianities and especially in Misquoting Jesus and an orthodox corruption of scripture. Even Bruce Metzger his former teacher has criticized many of his arguments.

Catholic doctrine is the same as that of the proto-orthodox church which ahs by far the earliest evidence.

And if anyone is interested in the issue of whether or not Constantine invented the deity of Christ and trinity a popular claim made by skeptics view my blog on it

laveracruz09.blogspot.com/2010/04/did-constantine-really-invent.html

 

[JustaServant]

Okay, lets not dance around here, let’s stay focused.
Many evangelicals and fundamentalists claim that the Catholic Church or the doctrines of the Catholic Church were formed in CONSTANTINE’S day.
**Please provide the historical evidence of that claim. **
What claim?
**That Constantine changed the Church or changed in HIS lifetime. **
Simple request.

 

[Mayita30]

Since I’m not getting an answer on this subject, and I don’t want to derail a thread, I thought it best to give the question a new thread.
“The Church was pure until Constantine”
I used to buy into this lie at one time.
Now, I have asked for proof of this assertion.
I await with baited breath, the results.

The CHurch/Christians were PERSECUTED until COnstantine made Christianity legal in Rome.He allowed Christians to practice their religion.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Since I’m not getting an answer on this subject, and I don’t want to derail a thread, I thought it best to give the question a new thread.
“The Church was pure until Constantine”
I used to buy into this lie at one time.
Now, I have asked for proof of this assertion.
I await with baited breath, the results.

Not sure what is meant by “pure” but will assume that the common screed is that: (1) prior to Constantine’s calling an end to the persecution Church doctrine was essentially protestant in nature; and (2) Constantine encouraged (or compelled) the Church to adopt all sorts of “pagan” practices that corrupted its formerly “pure” protestant doctrine. There is an excellent prior post that shows the problem with that reasoning. If true, then historical documents and Church writings that predate 313 A.D would describe a Church that reflects reformed/protestant theology. However, pre-313 Church writings show that the Church was Catholic in practice and doctrine.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Mayita30]

The CHurch/Christians were PERSECUTED until COnstantine made Christianity legal in Rome.He allowed Christians to practice their religion.

**From The Catholic ENcycolpedia:

HISTORICAL APPRECIATION OF CONSTANTINE

Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State.**

 

[TriuneUnity]

Not sure what is meant by “pure” but will assume that the common screed is that: (1) prior to Constantine’s calling an end to the persecution Church doctrine was essentially protestant in nature; and (2) Constantine encouraged (or compelled) the Church to adopt all sorts of “pagan” practices that corrupted its formerly “pure” protestant doctrine. There is an excellent prior post that shows the problem with that reasoning. If true, then historical documents and Church writings that predate 313 A.D would describe a Church that reflects reformed/protestant theology. However, pre-313 Church writings show that the Church was Catholic in practice and doctrine.

Peace,
Robert

Right… I think that most of the argumentation about these points come from Baptist and fundamentalist churches. To the best of my knowledge, none of the magisterial reformers ever made this argument. It was chiefly the argumentation of the Anabaptist movements. While evangelical Baptists (both Reformed and non) aren’t influenced by anabaptism per se, they seem to have picked this up from them. The fact of the matter, however, as you rightly pointed out, there is nothing anabaptistic about Christian theology prior to 313. You will not find any arguments for a memorial view of the Lord’s Supper, you will not find any argumentation against infant baptism (and scores of instructions that view it as apostolic), nor the charismata, etc.

 

[Publisher]

yes there were different sects in the early church but the earliest evidence is for proto-orthodox Christianity there is no evidence for other sects like the Gnostics , marcionists , arians , ebionites until the 2nd and 3rd centuries. This is often misrepresented and ignored especially by Mr ehrman who out of his anti-Christian bias true to present orthodox Christianity as being a later development which early church fathers corrupted the bible to gain support for. This is what Ehrman does in lost Christianities and especially in Misquoting Jesus and an orthodox corruption of scripture. Even Bruce Metzger his former teacher has criticized many of his arguments.

Catholic doctrine is the same as that of the proto-orthodox church which ahs by far the earliest evidence.

And if anyone is interested in the issue of whether or not Constantine invented the deity of Christ and trinity a popular claim made by skeptics view my blog on it

laveracruz09.blogspot.com/2010/04/did-constantine-really-invent.html

While Mr. Erhman and Mr. Metzger may ahve their differences…the history of that period is much more believeable and credible by Mr. Erhaman, than it is the history recorded by the religious heiarchy of the day.

 

[Mayita30]

**From The Catholic ENcycolpedia:

HISTORICAL APPRECIATION OF CONSTANTINE

Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State.**

**–Just because Constantine legalized Christianity in Rome and stopped the persecution of Christians, that doesnt mean that he had the authority to change Christian beliefs!

Our Church today does not worship Constantine.I even havent heard about Constantine until a PRotestant came up to me and told me that the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine…hello?? the Church doesnt even consider Constantine as its founder , we just are thankful to him to have stopped the persecution of EARLY CHRISTIANS!**

 

[sonichuiscool]

Constantine took the Church in a different direction, no doubt about that.

However, any Protestant who says that there were only true Christians prior to Constantine is in effect historically ignorant or insane.

The real Protestant argument was that the Church became more corrupt over time, not all at once.