Emperor Constantine's Faith

[Archbishop 10-K]

I'm going hyper on the thread-starting, I know, but I want to get some feedback on your thoughts of Constantine. I mean, did he really see the cross in the sky with "in hoc signo vinces" on it? What about the murder of his son that I keep hearing about? Was he actually just a bad guy that God used in His divine plan for the rise of the Church? Are there any official Church stances on him at all?


My mom's Seventh-day Adventist Church tends to believe that Constantine introduced Christianity to the Roman Empire in order to consolidate power and introduced pagan elements. I question the logic of this since his immediate predeccessor, Diocletian, was responsible for some heavy persecution and that when Constantine introduced the faith, many of the social elite thought he was whacked. As for me, I personally believe right now that the vision was genuine, his full conversion came somewhere later in life, and that as an emperor and political leader, he fully deserves the title of "the Great."

[dairygirl4u2c]

It's good that you're questioning. If you're questioning Constantine, look back before him for some substantial proof for the papacy.

Read about victor and the easter deal. Read about stephan, cyprian, and firmilian.

Go to newadvent.org and read about Cyprian. Read it keeping in mind their bias. Read it for what it says that can be known with certitude.

Both situations can be interpreted.

Look at catholic.com at the papacy quotes, and read them in the light of a large and influential church. You'd think if the Catholic Church was God given it'd be more evident. How can we believe that the alledge development of the papacy is legit considering the evidence is lackin at the outset and considering the tendency for man to draw power onto himself?

Edited June 14, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

it is clear with the Papacy it never began as a quest for power, people assumed the bishop of Rome had the authority of Peter, the bishop of Rome didn't go around telling people "i have this authority: obey!" they simply obeyed in allegance to the Lord who they believed built His Church on solid Kephas.

Anyway, about CONSTANTINE, which this thread is about, i'm not too sure. I always thought he really did have that vision of the cross, i'm not sure how faithful he was to that faith but i do think he believed what he was doing was for the Christian God. It's perposterous to say he did it for political reasons, because Christians were the minority in the Empire before him so it's not gonna get him alot of support. He never introduced pagan elements to Christianity, so that's ruled out that he was trying to paganize Christianity (unless he just horribly failed at the task) I believe he was sincere in his belief, i don't know how much he lived by his faith though. he clearly tried to do God's will by Christianizing the Roman Empire.

PAX

[Aloysius]

the Orthodox Churches consider him a saint, FYI

[BeenaBobba]

I need to read more on this. I, personally, believe that his vision was legitimate. But, I'm not sure where he stood in regards to his personal faith. Wasn't he baptized by Arians? Does anyone know if he adhered to the Arian heresy at any time during his life?

God bless,

Jen

[Winchester]

Most early Christians were baptised on their deathbeds. His deathbed baptism would make him the average Catholic.

It behooves people to study cultural norms when deciding on the actions of the outstanding.

[P3chrmd]

Hey now! His mother is one of my fav. patron saints...St. Helen!!!

[justfran]

I remember reading something about Constantine's vision, and I've dug it up...

[url="http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/meteorchangedhistory/meteorchangedhistory&floc=wn-ns"]http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.j...tory&floc=wn-ns[/url]

It hardly keeps with the details of the vision, but it's still interesting, and remember that ***what the article discusses is pure speculation***, not to be considered as the definite truth (keep in mind the words "may have", "around", "speculates") with only the date to back it up.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The most likely theory on Constantine's faith in my opinion:
Constantine did not yet fully understand Christianity after his vision of the cross. He commited some atrocities after becoming emporer that would not be considered Christian in any sense. As you can see by his coinage, his conversion was not instantaneous, for he kept pagan symbols on them for a short time, before taking all religious symbols off his coins. He learned about the faith from priests that he brought in to replace pagan advisors. It is usually accepted that he was fully converted by the time of the Council of Nicea. He waited for baptism until he died because baptism wipes away sin as well as temporal punishment, a common practice in the day.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]the Orthodox Churches consider him a saint, FYI [/quote]
If Constantine is not legitimate, which is being argued, then he probably created more out of christianity and himself than he should have. In that sense he WAS the orthodox Church. You need to find other evidence to find him credible besides that.


[quote]Anyway, about CONSTANTINE, which this thread is about[/quote]
Sorry. I notice that he is questioning about Constantine. If he does find problems with Constantine, I'm just advising him to check out history before him. I assumed he was in a healthy and open questioning mode. Hopefully he's not like most people on this site that go at the situation trying to legitimize the Catholic Church. Either way, I don't think it's out of line, just making some suggestions.

I think no one here wants to admit what they can not know. I don't think I'm approaching the situation trying delegitimize the Catholic Church, just what can be known with certainty. In fact, I invite you to show me how the early church was it so "clearly" known. (that word's like my pet peeve!)

[quote]people assumed the bishop of Rome had the authority of Peter, the bishop of Rome didn't go around telling people "i have this authority: obey!" they simply obeyed in allegance to the Lord who they believed built His Church on solid Kephas.[/quote]
I'd like some evidence for that statement. Something substantial that doesn't require anything to be read into. Like don't make me assume when someone mentions the Rock of Christ as Peter that they are talking about the pope unless it says it or at least is probable based on secondary evidence.

In fact, I'll go into my proof again against the papcy in the early church if ya'll want. I'll argue both sides of the issue. You can contine reading into what is not said if you want, but I'd like some reasons why if you do. Otherwise I'll just think you're in denial.

Edited June 14, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I am convinced the early church was Catholic.

[quote]Origen
"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).[/quote]

[quote]Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet [b]he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity[/b]. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but [b]a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair[/b]. . . . [b]If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?[/b]" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and [b]one chair founded on Peter[/b] by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that [b]even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ[/b]. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and [b]if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church[/b]. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. [b]For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another[/b]" (ibid., 66[69]:8).[/quote]

[quote]Firmilian
"[b]But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], [/b]can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

"[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the [b]succession from Peter[/b], on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by [b]succession the throne of Peter[/b]" (ibid., 74[75]:17).[/quote]

[quote]Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that [b]in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter[/b]; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).[/quote]

[quote]Augustine
"Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: [b]that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer[/b]." [Psalmus contr Partem Donati(A.D. 393)][/quote]

Edited June 14, 2004 by thedude

[Archbishop 10-K]

I didn't start the thread to try to legitimize the Catholic Church (the Catholic Church is "legit" regardless of whether or not Constantine was a true Christian/Catholic since he was not the Pope.) I was just curious as to the Church's stance on him.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I apologize, I've gotten off the topic. Sorry.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I'll reply to that post later this week in a new thread. It will be thourough and honest.. perhaps a little in your face for those who are not ready.

[Aloysius]

Why was the early Church Catholic?

Because there's absolutely no evidence that in Constantine's conversion he worked to change Christianity. Constantine brought in priests to advise him, not the other way around. Instead of obsessing over quotes and stuff, because most of the Early Church's history wasn't necessarily WRITTEN and KEPT (seeing as it was the time of persecution and it was hard enough for them to be preserving the Sacred Scriptures) it seems foolish to obsess over their quotes trying to proove one way or the other. The fact is they passed their faith down to their kids and their converts with the same apostolic zeal it was passed down to them in, they held strong in the midst of persecution, and when Constantine finally issued the Edict of Tolerance, they didn't loose their zeal but rather used his action to go out and convert an entire empire!

If you're gonna accept Jesus, I can't understand how you could have a view of history in which everyone basically forgot about Him (He was God come to earth to teach the people, and they just forgot?) and then rediscovered him centuries later.

Proove to me moreso that there was anyone who changed the teachings that were being passed down, because that's what the teachings were: PASSED DOWN. Through words, through sermons and scripture readings at the early liturgies and through parents telling their children stories. You're not gonna find your answers in a limited collection of the Early Church's teachings (limited because they were being persecuted so it's not easy to find all their history in simple documents)

PAX