Why all the Fuss over the Reformation 2

[spina1953]

Can you provide a solid Catholic source for Constantine meddling in Church affairs which allowed Emperors since then to also meddle and allow heresies to grow?

From what I’ve read, Constantine once said, at the time of the Council of Nicea…“You are the bishops inside the Church,” he said to the Council Fathers, “I am a bishop outside the Church.” You can see that there is a distinction.

It was Constantine who urged the bishops to hold the Council of Nicea, which condemned the Arian heresy and gave the proclamation of the Creed which is the prototype for the all later Christian creeds, and the Christological foundations of the Faith were first codified at Nicea. There isn’t any indication that I’m aware of that Constantine meddled in the Council. He was rather busy with other things.

Hi Denise 1957: I read a book called a History of the Christian Church but do not remember the authors name. I will go to the library and see if I can get the book, as I was thinking about it when I posted. So I will have to get back to you so I can give you the chapter and page.
I would like to point out that Constantine’s Some who became emperors embraced the Arian heresy. That is history.

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise 1957: I read a book called a History of the Christian Church but do not remember the authors name. I will go to the library and see if I can get the book, as I was thinking about it when I posted. So I will have to get back to you so I can give you the chapter and page.
I would like to point out that Constantine’s Some who became emperors embraced the Arian heresy. That is history.

It’s good of you to take the time and trouble to go and get the book in question, and look up the reference.

As far a some of Constantine’s sons embracing the Arian heresy, to what extent did his sons meddle in Church affairs which may have been cause to change or influence Church teachings? Some might consider that Constantine’s encouraging the Catholic bishops to call a council might seem like meddling, and yet the Council of Nicea was a good thing. I’m not familiar, though, with the policies and practices of Constantine’s sons. But I would stress that its important to use good Catholic sources to find out what his sons actually did.

 

[Contarini]

It’s good of you to take the time and trouble to go and get the book in question, and look up the reference.

As far a some of Constantine’s sons embracing the Arian heresy, to what extent did his sons meddle in Church affairs which may have been cause to change or influence Church teachings? Some might consider that Constantine’s encouraging the Catholic bishops to call a council might seem like meddling, and yet the Council of Nicea was a good thing. I’m not familiar, though, with the policies and practices of Constantine’s sons. But I would stress that its important to use good Catholic sources to find out what his sons actually did.

Good scholarship is not limited to one religious perspective, though it’s always good to compare scholarship from several points of view.

Constantius in particular (the son who wound up ruling the whole empire) favored what came to be known as “Semi-Arianism,” a compromise view that stopped short of affirming the full divinity of Christ. St. Athanasius was exiled by him several times (also by Constantine before him, in fact).

Edwin

 

[spina1953]

It’s good of you to take the time and trouble to go and get the book in question, and look up the reference.

As far a some of Constantine’s sons embracing the Arian heresy, to what extent did his sons meddle in Church affairs which may have been cause to change or influence Church teachings? Some might consider that Constantine’s encouraging the Catholic bishops to call a council might seem like meddling, and yet the Council of Nicea was a good thing. I’m not familiar, though, with the policies and practices of Constantine’s sons. But I would stress that its important to use good Catholic sources to find out what his sons actually did.

Hi Denise 1957: From what I have been able to gather from reading different historical material it appears that while the emperors tried to control religious beliefs, it was more the politics that caused most of the problems. That is not to say that all of the Bishops attending the councils agreed but some did, and some left the Church over what considered heresies. Some of the Bishops from what I have been able to gleam is that they were somewhat influenced by those emperors who believed in the heresy that was being debated at the time. I do not say that they were successful, as history shows that these heresies were debunked. There was also the thinking that there was an papal caesarism going on in the East.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

You may be right about the American non-Denoms (believing that Christians went underground after Constantine), and that they might seem like “most” because they are more abrasive about it. I certainly don’t keep track of what views they hold. I can appreciate that some or even many Lutherans and Episcopalians may not hold to this view. But I have to wonder if the American mindset regarding the Catholic Church came from the two liturgical groups, or those which have had more of an impact on the American viewpoint.

I don’t really agree that the majority of American Catholics don’t agree with Catholic teaching, but that’s not really the subject at hand. I think that they are indifferent, for the most part, which is caused, IMO, by a variety of factors, but again, I don’t want to get started on that subject and be distracted away from the currant one.

Yes, the Puritans got it from every side, but the Founding Fathers weren’t just Puritans, if I recall correctly. The Puritans just got the ball rolling. But neither were they Episcopalians or Lutherans, I don’t think. It might be a good subject for a thread on just what religious viewpoints the framers of the Constitution came from. Freemasonry may also have had something to do with it, which of course is anti-Catholic, but I don’t want to get into a discussion about that, because I think that it’s a banned topic. The American mindset came from somewhere, and not from any Catholic or semi-Catholic beliefs that I’m aware of.

I join Denise. Can we get some insight into American Protestantism since founding of America?

 

[Denise1957]

Good scholarship is not limited to one religious perspective, though it’s always good to compare scholarship from several points of view.

Constantius in particular (the son who wound up ruling the whole empire) favored what came to be known as “Semi-Arianism,” a compromise view that stopped short of affirming the full divinity of Christ. St. Athanasius was exiled by him several times (also by Constantine before him, in fact).

Edwin

I would rephrase to say that good scholarship isn’t ALWAYS limited to one religious perspective. Rarely does a non-Catholic write in an unbiased and qualified manner when writing about the Catholic Church. I don’t intend to get into a long debate about it, though.

I’m not convinced that the “Semi-Arianism” that Constantine’s son favored was somehow able to change or influence Catholic teaching, if that’s what you’re inferring

Yes, the elder Constantine was an opponent of St Athanasius, but then Constantine was not Catholic, and did not understand Church teaching. He was theologically inept. And yet, despite the persecution, St. Athanasius prevailed in the end. He was very patient and devout. He always warmly welcomed and forgave those who had formerly embraced the Arian heresy, who came back to the Church, even though he refused to cave at all to the Arian belief, and was willing to endure even death, if need be, to stand up for Church teaching, but of course he wasn’t martyred.

 

[Denise1957]

I join Denise. Can we get some insight into American Protestantism since founding of America?

What sort of insight are you looking for? I’m certainly no expert on the subject.

 

[Denise1957]

What sort of insight are you looking for? I’m certainly no expert on the subject.

Oops, I thought you were asking me for insight. That’s what I get for reading too quickly. My bad.

 

[Denise1957]

More’s the pity.

I have both editions (1965 and 1997) of Kamen’s book. The earlier one is slightly shorter, perhaps that is what is meant by abridged. More accurately, the 2nd edition is longer. If there is an abridgement of either, I don’t know of it.

(amended)

GKC

Sorry, I didn’t originally provide the proper information. Dr. Moczar wrote that it is the abridged version of the second edition that she cannot recommend.

Here’s the entirely of what she wrote regarding Henry Kramer in the appendix 2 of the book, in the ‘sources used and recommended’ section:

“The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, by Henry Kamen, referred to in the text, was first published in 1965; a second edition came out in 1997, and that is probably the one to consult. I unwittingly acquired an abridged version of the second edition, which I cannot recommend. The related video is quite entertaining as well as informative.”

 

[spina1953]

Hi Denise 1957: I just came back from the library and got the book n question but also found another book with some interesting things that might be of interest. The first book is A Short History of Christianity by Geoffery Blainey. on page 74 he says: In saving the Church from persecution, Constantine exposed it to a new form of interference, his own. he valued the right to intervene in any Roman institution if the tranquility and security of the Empire was at stake. When the council of the entire Church met in AD 325 at Nicaca near the city of Byzantium , he personally attended and firmly shaped the final decision.

In the Book The First Thousand Years by Robert Louis Wilken chapter 9 page 91 he says “Even though the controversy involved complex matters of Christian theology, properly the responsibility of Bishops, Constantine decided to step in to adjudicate the matter. His decision, “To look after our affairs,” as a Christian historian observed somewhat innocently in a later century, set a precedent; later emperors would make it their business to intervene in ecclesiastical matters. The Church’s internal life was becoming a matter of state.”

Page 92 he say also" For the ancient Greeks and Romans, religion was an affair of rituals and practices, not doctrine." I think this makes it clear that politic 's was the cause of these councils where emperors at least tried to intervene in Church affairs and doctrines. it may be why the heresies in the East were able for a time to gain followers. It seems to be that before there was ever an ecumenical council, there were regional councils that were addressing the issues and the emperors needed not intervened at all and the Church would have addressed those issues and solved them in their own way without the interference of emperors. IMHO.

 

[Contarini]

I would rephrase to say that good scholarship isn’t ALWAYS limited to one religious perspective. Rarely does a non-Catholic write in an unbiased and qualified manner when writing about the Catholic Church. I don’t intend to get into a long debate about it, though.

I wonder how extensive your knowledge of Protestant (particularly Anglican) scholarship is (Henry Chadwick and J. N. D. Kelly, for instance, are among the most respected patristic scholars and you will find them frequently cited by Catholics), but fine, let’s not debate it.

I’m not convinced that the “Semi-Arianism” that Constantine’s son favored was somehow able to change or influence Catholic teaching, if that’s what you’re inferring

No, not at all. On the contrary, Catholic doctrine was formed in opposition to them.

Constantine certainly played a role in the formation of the Nicene dogma, but then, as you say, he later banished Athanasius. He was a catechumen until late in life, if that’s what you mean by “not being a Catholic,” but he certainly identified himself with the Catholic Church and in fact persecuted other churches, such as the Donatists, as well as those Arians who refused to subscribe to Nicea (many folks with Arian sympathies signed the Nicene Creed and interpreted it in an Arian-friendly fashion, while accusing Athanasius and his supporters of the opposite heresy, Sabellianism).

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Sorry, I didn’t originally provide the proper information. Dr. Moczar wrote that it is the abridged version of the second edition that she cannot recommend.

Here’s the entirely of what she wrote regarding Henry Kramer in the appendix 2 of the book, in the ‘sources used and recommended’ section:

“The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, by Henry Kamen, referred to in the text, was first published in 1965; a second edition came out in 1997, and that is probably the one to consult. I unwittingly acquired an abridged version of the second edition, which I cannot recommend. The related video is quite entertaining as well as informative.”

Well, there you have it. If I stumbled over the abridged version, I might pick it up. If cheap.

As to Moczar’s book, I’ll be ordering it this week. Only 10 bucks for 200 pages. I don’t expect to learn something I didn’t know, but what the heck. It’s a book, and I might.

GKC

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise 1957: I just came back from the library and got the book n question but also found another book with some interesting things that might be of interest. The first book is A Short History of Christianity by Geoffery Blainey. on page 74 he says: In saving the Church from persecution, Constantine exposed it to a new form of interference, his own. he valued the right to intervene in any Roman institution if the tranquility and security of the Empire was at stake. When the council of the entire Church met in AD 325 at Nicaca near the city of Byzantium , he personally attended and firmly shaped the final decision.

In the Book The First Thousand Years by Robert Louis Wilken chapter 9 page 91 he says “Even though the controversy involved complex matters of Christian theology, properly the responsibility of Bishops, Constantine decided to step in to adjudicate the matter. His decision, “To look after our affairs,” as a Christian historian observed somewhat innocently in a later century, set a precedent; later emperors would make it their business to intervene in ecclesiastical matters. The Church’s internal life was becoming a matter of state.”

Page 92 he say also" For the ancient Greeks and Romans, religion was an affair of rituals and practices, not doctrine." I think this makes it clear that politic 's was the cause of these councils where emperors at least tried to intervene in Church affairs and doctrines. it may be why the heresies in the East were able for a time to gain followers. It seems to be that before there was ever an ecumenical council, there were regional councils that were addressing the issues and the emperors needed not intervened at all and the Church would have addressed those issues and solved them in their own way without the interference of emperors. IMHO.

According to a statement from the first book you have cited, I’d like ask: how did he (Constantine?) shape the final decision of the Council, exactly?

And regarding the second book mentioned, how exactly did the later Emperors intervene in Eccesiatical affairs? If they chose Popes, or bishops, as sometimes happened, I’m not personally concerned much with that. More importantly, how did they shape, change, or influence Church teaching? So far, I’ve seen no evidence that Church teaching was in any way affected. “Affairs” and “Doctrines” may mean two different things. As I said earlier, Constantine urged the Bishops to hold a Council, which infers meddling in Church affairs, but the Council was a good thing for the Church. I’d like to see proof that it wasn’t.

 

[Denise1957]

Well, there you have it. If I stumbled over the abridged version, I might pick it up. If cheap.

As to Moczar’s book, I’ll be ordering it this week. Only 10 bucks for 200 pages. I don’t expect to learn something I didn’t know, but what the heck. It’s a book, and I might.

GKC

Glad that you’ll be reading the book. I’ll be interested to learn your thoughts on it.

 

[guanophore]

The only thing I would like to chime about is that Constantine did in fact meddle in Church affairs> he thought himself as the 13th apostle and as all Roman emperors thought an those times that they had the right to control religious beliefs.  From history it seems that since the time of Constantine the emperors who followed him did just as Constantine did meddle in Church affairs which allowed heresies to grow taking sides on the issues of what was to be believed and accepted.

I think it is more accurate to say that they “attempted” to meddle, as did a number of prominent heretics, but all of those attempts eventually failed. I think it was difficult for the Emperors to take a back seat to the Bishops with regard to Church affairs, just as it was for secular rulers to do so up until and after the Reformation. For a time, the Pope had what seemed like an equal seat at the table of secular matters during the middle ages.

But so far as I have understood the history of the early Church and of the 300's AD Constantine did not reshape the CC structure or doctrines, he tried to and it did cause problems, but those who did not agree with the Councils left, so that it might be they who are underground not the Church. That's IMHO.

I agree with this Spina. I think that God has always been infallibly guiding His Church to prevent this kind of interference. That is why those who accept this myth are basically saying that Jesus failed in His promises.

 

[Denise1957]

Constantine certainly played a role in the formation of the Nicene dogma, but then, as you say, he later banished Athanasius. He was a catechumen until late in life, if that’s what you mean by “not being a Catholic,” but he certainly identified himself with the Catholic Church and in fact persecuted other churches, such as the Donatists, as well as those Arians who refused to subscribe to Nicea (many folks with Arian sympathies signed the Nicene Creed and interpreted it in an Arian-friendly fashion, while accusing Athanasius and his supporters of the opposite heresy, Sabellianism).

Edwin

What role, specifically, did Constantine play in Nicene “Dogma?”

He was not baptized until he was near death. He put it off, as is well-known. He was not a baptized Catholic during his reign as Emperor. It’s baptism that gain admission to the Church.

I don’t know much about his persecution of Donatists. He did, however, tolerate the Pagan Temples in Rome, though, as far as I know. I’m not concerned that he interpreted the Council in an Arian-friendly fashion. Councils of the Church are sometimes interpreted differently even by Catholics, let alone non-Catholics. We’ve already discussed St. Athanasius. Constantine did whatever he wanted - he was Emperor after all. That doesn’t mean that he influenced Church teaching.

 

[GKC]

Glad that you’ll be reading the book. I’ll be interested to learn your thoughts on it.

I’ll report.

GKC

 

[Denise1957]

I’ll report.

GKC

Looking forward to it.

 

[Contarini]

What role, specifically, did Constantine play in Nicene “Dogma?”

According to Eusebius, he suggested the key term “homoousios.” Now a case can be made that the idea was suggested by his closest theological advisor Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, but he appears to have been the one who formally suggested it to the Council. That’s a pretty key piece of influence right there.

He was not baptized until he was near death. He put it off, as is well-known. He was not a baptized Catholic. It’s baptism that gain admission to the Church.

I’m sure the fourth-century bishops who gave Constantine an honored place at the Council and treated him in many ways as if he were a bishop himself would appreciate your correction, if it weren’t a bit too late.

In fact, catechumens are in a “liminal” position, not quite in or out of the Church. And Constantine was a very special catechumen.

Edwin

 

[Denise1957]

According to Eusebius, he suggested the key term “homoousios.” Now a case can be made that the idea was suggested by his closest theological advisor Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, but he appears to have been the one who formally suggested it to the Council. That’s a pretty key piece of influence right there.

I’m sure the fourth-century bishops who gave Constantine an honored place at the Council and treated him in many ways as if he were a bishop himself would appreciate your correction, if it weren’t a bit too late.

In fact, catechumens are in a “liminal” position, not quite in or out of the Church. And Constantine was a very special catechumen.

Edwin

So you’re saying that Constantine suggested the key term…“homoousios.” What does that have to do with Nicene Dogma?

I’d give Constantine an honored place at the Council, too. After all, the Christians no longer were persecuted thanks to him. They were no doubt grateful to him, and he was the Emperor.

Being a special catechumen does not infer that he was Catholic.