YB Catholic?

Did Constantine Paganize the Catholic Church? Part 2 By Graham Osborne

If Jesus founded a church two millennia ago, and that Church is still in existence, if you’re a Christian and not part of it, you would need some pretty strong justification for why not. So, inherent – in fact, necessary – in many Protestant, Mormon and Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teachings is the idea that while Jesus may have founded the Catholic Church, this Church has now undoubtedly totally apostacized and fallen from the truths Jesus left it.

Otherwise, their denominations have little or no justification for existing, especially given Jesus’ prayer for perfect Christian unity in John 17.

 

For example, returning to two of my previous columns, the existence of Mormonism hinges on their belief that the Church Jesus initially founded fell away. If this did not happen, then their founder, Joseph Smith’s “mission” is misguided and the establishing of his church absolutely unnecessary. “If the alleged apostasy of the primitive Church was not a reality, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the divine institution its name proclaims“ (James E. Talmadge, The Great Apostasy).

 

This is a serious charge, because it has the potential to lead people away from, or out of, Jesus’ true Church, and it is often accompanied by misrepresented Scripture quotes and falsified history.

 

With this in mind, my last column examined this “total apostasy” theory. We saw that while Scripture does speak of individuals falling away from the Church – and sometimes in large numbers, particularly, just prior to Jesus Final Coming – there is not a single verse of Scripture that attests to a total apostasy of the Church Jesus founded. In fact, we see quite the opposite.

 

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus, the wisest of builders (cf. Matthew 7:24-25), builds his Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), on rock: “You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” “Built upon the foundation of the Apostles … with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone” (Ephesians 2:20-21), we can trace every Pope, in an unbroken line, back to St. Peter, and every Catholic Bishop, Priest and Deacon in the Catholic Church in an unbroken line back to one of the Apostles.

 

There is simply no doubt that the Church Jesus founded in Matthew 16 above is the Catholic Church. This is just simply a fact of history – with the name, “Catholic”, being applied to the Church as early as the first century AD! And built upon rock, Jesus has promised his Church will never fall: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

But some still insist that the Catholic Church did, in fact, apostacize, regardless of Jesus’ promises and the “rock” solid Scriptural testimony to the contrary.

 

In an attempt to offer a plausible scenario for this theory, and apparently unaware of the actual historical situation of the first 300 years of Christianity, some literally invent a story of the Church falling away when the pagan Emperor Constantine came into power in the 300’s.

 

Constantine, after receiving a vision from Heaven that led to a seemingly miraculous military victory that secured the Roman Empire for him, eventually converted to Catholicism. From here, the fabricated story goes on to claim that Constantine proceeded to make Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire, and in doing so, somehow paganized the Church in the process.

 

Some further speculate that by making conditions more favorable for Christianity in the Roman Empire, many may have entered the Church half- heartedly, seeking to gain social, political or economic advantage, and this further contributed to pagan influences eventually overtaking the true Christian faith.

 

Additionally, some insist that Constantine himself also introduced pagan elements into Christianity, such as Transubstantiation, Papal authority, the Communion of the Saints and more. And those on the more extreme end of the scale further allege that he actually started the Catholic Church, placing himself at its head!

 

Some also appeal to the notorious “Donation of Constantine” as further proof that the Papacy was a pagan construct implemented by Constantine. While space doesn’t permit a full refutation of this fraudulent decree and associated anti-Catholic claims, there is irrefutable historical evidence that this was a forged document dating from the eighth or ninth century, with no connection to Constantine whatsoever. No reputable historian would even reference it to Constantine today, but it had much impact in medieval Europe before it was indisputably proven to be a forgery.

 

These wildly inaccurate claims are saddening, and they should shame any legitimate Christian genuinely interested in the truth. The true history of the situation is quite different.

 

For starters, Constantine did not make Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire. In signing the Edict of Milan with Emperor Licinius in 313,

often referred to as the Edict of Toleration, he simply made it permissible to be a Christian, officially ending centuries of Christian persecution – which was extremely intense under the previous Emperor, Diocletian – and restoring confiscated Christian property as well. Christianity would not become the official state religion of Rome until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD – long after Constantine’s death.

 

Long before Constantine, the Catholic Church – the only Christian Church in that period of history incidentally – had already been solidly in existence for almost three centuries – since the time of Jesus and the Apostles. And If you look at the pre-Constantine writings of the early Church, they clearly testify to the very same doctrines the Catholic Church teaches today: the Eucharist, Baptism, Apostolic Succession, the Papacy, Marian doctrines, and much more – all Catholic!

 

But undaunted by this incontrovertible history, some still try to claim that Constantine presided over and directed the Council of Nicaea in 325 – the first ecumenical/universal council of the Christian Church since the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 – again speculating that he introduced various pagan elements into Christianity specifically through this council. Some even allege that he determined the canon or list of books of the Bible at this council as well, keeping those books he liked, while tossing others.

 

Now these are certainly some interesting claims! While there is no doubt that Constantine was concerned about the religious disagreements going on in the Roman empire, and did play an important role in convoking the council (it is uncertain whether Constantine initially consulted with Pope Sylvester I over the calling of the council, but the aging Pope unable to travel, sent his representatives who became the first signatories on the final council document), Constantine did not participate in the discussions of the council or even have a vote!

 

And while Nicaea may have discussed a lot of things, the canon of Scripture was not one of them. Constantine had absolutely nothing to do with determining which books were truly inspired and part of Scripture. This determination was finalized with the help of the Holy Spirit through several Popes and Church Councils in the late 300’s and early 400’s.

 

Another noteworthy point is that Constantine himself initially had fairly strong leanings towards Arianism, a devastating and growing heresy of the time that denied the divinity of Jesus, claiming he was created by the Father, and so was neither eternal nor of the same nature as the Father.

It was precisely the Council of Nicaea that not only condemned this heresy, but gave us the foundations for the Nicene Creed – arguably the greatest formulation of Christian faith in the history of Christianity. If Constantine was really guiding the council – which he absolutely was not – why did this pivotal council not adopt his Arian views?

 

And if Constantine was such a pagan influence on the Christian Church as some insist, how did this council give us some of the most foundational doctrinal pronouncements about Jesus and the Trinity in the history of Christianity? Pronouncements that virtually every Christian – Catholic and Protestant – holds today?

 

In the end, the theory of Constantinian paganization of the Catholic Church is simply a sad misrepresentation of history at best, and a flat out lie at worst.

While Constantine may not have been a perfect Christian – for example, there is suggestion that he withheld his own baptism until on his deathbed to ensure forgiveness of all the sins of his whole life, an illicit but occasional practice of his day – he made changes in how Christians were treated that helped lead to the evangelization of the whole world.

 

What Christian today would not have cheered Constantine’s decision to permit Christians to practice their faith unpersecuted, and to allow the teaching of Christianity to proceed freely throughout the world? Would this not be the desire of every Christian: to convert the greatest pagan empire in the world to Christianity?

By Graham Osborne

 

This is the question of all questions! Here are some good responses:

 

1) The Church Jesus built was the Catholic Church!

Whether you agree or not, this is just an unarguable fact of history. The church Jesus founded almost 2000 years ago is unquestionably the Catholic Church. Now some may suggest that this church apostacized in the early 300’s with Constantine, or at some other point in history. But I definitely wouldn’t want to make this argument -because you might find yourself arguing against Jesus Himself!

 

In Mat 7, Jesus tells the parable of the wise builder, who builds his house on rock –a house that will never fall. A few chapters later in Matthew 16, Jesus, the wisest of all builders will build his church, His “house” [St. Paul calls the church “the household” of God” in 1 Tim 3:15], on rock: “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”. Even Peter’s name means “rock” in Greek [Petros]! Then Jesus carries on and promises that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against” His Church. His Church will never fall!

 

 

2] The early church had an authoritative leader and successor of St Peter –the office of the Papacy

In Matthew 16, where Jesus is building His Church on Peter, He gives Peter, and only Peter, something remarkable: “the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” And in John 21:15-17, the Good Shepherd will appoint Peter as His shepherd on earth. Three times Jesus will tell Peter to “Feed my lambs…Tend my sheep… Feed my sheep.”

 

Scripture further shows Peter unquestionably being the leader of the early church, leading all the great apostolic firsts of the church [admits the gentiles (Acts 10), leads the first doctrinal council of the Church (Acts 15), the first raising from the dead (Acts 9)] and being mentioned some 191 times in the New testament, with St John a distant second at 39.

 

But the real question here is, did Jesus intend Peter’s office as a perpetual office to be filled at Peter’s death or not. I would answer that if Judas had an office that needed to be filled [see Acts 1:16-26], how much more Peter! But perhaps the most conclusive answer comes from the first centuries of the

Church. Do we see an authoritative, apostolic office of St Peter -a single man leading the Christian Church in an office that is identified as a perpetual succession of Peter’s own office? And the answer is a resounding yes!

 

Around 80AD, the Church at Corinth wrote to Clement of Rome [the 4th Pope] to decide a doctrinal issue for them, even though St. John the Apostle was still alive -and living much closer by in Ephesus! They wrote to Clement because he was the Pope! And St. Clement wrote a strongly authoritative letter back to them, clearly telling them what they were to do, and reminiscent of St Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement in Acts 15 at the first Church Council of Jerusalem: “If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgressions and in no small danger… being obedient to the things we have written through the Holy Spirit”.

 

Around 250AD, St Cyprian would write: “It is on him [Peter] that He [Jesus] builds the church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although He assigns power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the churches’ oneness… a primacy is given to Peter and it is thus made clear that there is but one church and one chair. …If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? ”Wow! If you desert the Chair of Peter, the Catholic Church, St Cyprian is saying how can you be sure you are even in the Church anymore – i.e. are you still Christian?!

 

 

3] The Sacraments

These are the main ways that Jesus left us to confer His grace to us, and they are critical to our growing in faith, hope and love –in holiness! And they come to us in their entirety, all seven of them, through the Catholic Church.

 

Consider just the Eucharist alone. In John 6, Jesus says an incredible thirteen times in 9 verses that unless we eat His Body and drink His Blood, we cannot have eternal life. A few verses later, Peter repeats this, saying that these words Jesus has just spoken are the “words of eternal life”. Could we not then say quite safely that this is the heart of Christianity: eternal life?

 

Now if you felt that perhaps Jesus was speaking symbolically here, you would be disagreeing with Jesus literal words, both here in John 6 [where the Jews clearly understand Jesus to be speaking literally and leave him because of it – and He let’s them go because He IS speaking literally], and in the various accounts of the last supper, including St Paul’s. There is not a hint of inferred

symbolism in ANY of them. And you would be disagreeing with essentially every Church Father in the history of Christianity.

 

The constant teaching of the Christian Church, right from the time of the Apostles to the Protestant Reformation, is that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. Even Martin Luther believed this, going so far as to summarize the history of all the writings of the Early Church on the matter: “Not one of the Fathers, though so numerous… ever said, “It is only bread and wine”; or,” the body and blood of Christ is not there present… Certainly in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” The founder of the Protestant Reformation defending the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist -stunning!

 

 

4] The early Church was Catholic!

So often, we hear people say, “let’s go back and be like the Early Church”. Yes, lets do that, because it was absolutely, stunningly Catholic. Everything is there, the Eucharist, confession, infant baptism, teachings on the Blessed Mother, the papacy –and much more! For the first thousand years of the Church or so, virtually everyone who was Christian was Catholic. There really were no other options!

 

 

5] The Catholic Church is Apostolic

Every bishop, priest and deacon in the Catholic Church can trace his ordination back in an unbroken line to one of the Apostles. Every one! When small schismatic groups would separate themselves from the early Church, one of the first things a Bishop would do would be to ask them to roll out their list of bishops and trace them back to the Apostles. In this way, he would point out to them that they were not “Apostolic” in origin, because invariably, they would not be able to do this.

 

In 110AD, St Ignatius of Antioch [martyred for the faith and taught by St John himself!!!] would confirm that: “In the same way all should…respect the bishop as representing the Father and the priests as the council of God and the college of the Apostles. Apart from these there is nothing that can be called a Church.” If someone was in a denomination that didn’t have validly ordained bishops and priests, that couldn’t trace their ordination back to the Apostles, St Ignatius wouldn’t even consider it part of the Church.

 

Similarly, St. Irenaeus [≈ 190 AD] would write: “…we shall confound all those… by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest

and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome… that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all the Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.”

 

 

6] In 2000 years, the Church has NEVER contradicted itself in teaching faith and morals. NEVER!!!

This is truly incredible when you think about it. And the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church today that has remained constant and unchanging on all the great moral truths of Christianity. How could this happen in a human institution? But my point is just that: the Catholic Church is a divine institution, guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised to it [see places like John 14:26, John 16:13, 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2 Tim 2:2].

 

Yes, it is full of weak sinful human beings, but that should not shake our faith in God’s ability to work through the Church He founded, sent the Holy Spirit to, promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against, and promised to be with always.

 

If scandals have troubled you, yes, these are deeply saddening –discouraging to some. But not excusing or diminishing the damage done, we must still remember that personal sin is involved here, and not the infallibility of the Church – its ability to teach “officially” on matters of faith and morals without error. Jesus picks 12 and one is Judas. We should expect weeds and wheat. When the Scribes and Pharisees failed to live up to their calling, Jesus replied that they “have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” [Mat 23: 1-3].

 

We can answer similarly today. A person does not have to be perfect to teach morality. If that were so, most parents could probably teach very little at all to their children. And similarly with the Church. Jesus can still guide the Church into teaching all truth, despite the unworthiness of some of Her members.