Baptist view of Constantine

[Avid]

... I'm not a medieval fief of the Pope...

Does the history of this institution bother you at all?

 

[Avid]

The question about loyalty to the US Constitution in the 1928 presidential campaign of Alfred E. Smith, the Democratic governor of New York, brought the following comments from lawyer, Charles Marshall, in an article in the Atlantic Monthly, April 1927. The whole article is quite long. Here is a link and an excerpt:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5074/

The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly so declares: “In case of direct contradiction, making it impossible for both jurisdictions to be exercised, the jurisdiction of the Church prevails and that of the State is excluded.” And Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus asserted: “To say in the case of conflicting laws enacted by the Two Powers, the civil law prevails, is error.”
​

(emphasis, mine...)

We can see it was not ignorance and bias , but a serious concern for stated reasons that brought opposition to Smith, and later, to JFK in their presidential aspirations.

 

[Tallguy88]

I am saying they were for a very long time for this very reason. This is how the Roman Catholic Institution was able to control whole nations. and even whole continents. The ones in positions of power in government had sworn allegiance to the pope, and did according as they were told by their Church.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution was diametrical opposed to the the way things were done all over the world. JFK had to answer these questions specifically, and not only one time.
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkKiPbsmcuI

.
Again, these questions were asked many times for this reason.

The struggles between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Pope for political power are quite famous. So it wasn't some massive politocal conspuracy from time immemorial. When it comes down to it, most secular rulers did what they wanted and only paid enough lip service to the Papacy to keep the Pope off their back. Having said that, what the Pope wanted and what the rulers wanted were often the same thing. So just because a King enforces Catholicism as state religion, doesn't necessarily mean he's doing it because the Popes told him to.

Basically, look at how many Catholic politicians support gay marriage and abortion when the Church is strongly against both. They clearly aren't getting their marching orders from the Vatican. And neither are the 60% of the laity who support gay marriage, or the 90% who have used contraception, which is against Church teaching.

We aren't the Borg.

 

[Tallguy88]

The question about loyalty to the US Constitution in the 1928 presidential campaign of Alfred E. Smith, the Democratic governor of New York, brought the following comments from lawyer, Charles Marshall, in an article in the Atlantic Monthly, April 1927. The whole article is quite long. Here is a link and an excerpt:

Should a Catholic Be President?: A Contemporary View of the 1928 Election

The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly so declares: “In case of direct contradiction, making it impossible for both jurisdictions to be exercised, the jurisdiction of the Church prevails and that of the State is excluded.” And Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus asserted: “To say in the case of conflicting laws enacted by the Two Powers, the civil law prevails, is error.”
​

(emphasis, mine...)

We can see it was not ignorance and bias , but a serious concern for stated reasons that brought opposition to Smith, and later, to JFK in their presidential aspirations.

I can't answer your points as fully as would be required. This is your safe haven, I'm a guest, and I can't challenge your teaching here. We can debate on neutral ground if you would like. Perhaps GT or Denomination Specific Theology. Let me know.

 

[Avid]

... They clearly aren't getting their marching orders from the Vatican. And neither are the 60% of the laity who support gay marriage, or the 90% who have used contraception, which is against Church teaching.

We aren't the Borg.

I hope you are not, and maybe, we might find areas to discuss, and even agree.

The people you mention are Americans, right? These are the true Protestants. If they disagree with the pope, they are as much against the pope as Luther was. His objections were on something that was NOT of as much gravity as what you mentioned!

Welcome to the other side - the side considered to be Protestant.

Had a similar discussion with someone 25 years ago. I was asked abunch of questions about the Popes first visit to the US, and I asked a few myself. It was clear that this professed Catholic was actually Protestant, as she did not believe the things that were considered Canon Law by the Pope. She stated the exact same beliefs that were stated by many people as they were burned for heresy.

 

[Bluelion]

I discussing the concept of "symphonia" in the Eastern Orthodox thread (the idea that Church and State should work together and complement each other in building a Christian society), I noticed several comments to the effect that Constantine had an extremely negative influence on the Church, and basically perverted Christianity. This especially seemed to come from Evangelicals and other conservative Protestant denominations.

In my view Constantine probably did more to spread the message of Christ than anyone outside of the Scriptures and should be celebrated. He never proselytized but only indirectly supported the Church, providing money for churches, relief for the poor, and facilitating efforts to resolve disputes in the Church like the Council of Nicaea. He really had little or nothing to do with developing any church doctrine or in governing the Church in any way. The Roman Empire was probably 5-10% Christian when he legalized worship of Christianity in 313 with the Edict of Tolerance. By his death in 337, the Empire was probably a quarter Christian and well on its way to being mostly Christian within a couple of centuries. Sure, many of these Christians were nominal or not devout to what we would want, and probably not saved, but how many people heard the Gospel because of his policies that wouldn't have heard otherwise?

Just wondering if any Baptist, as the largest conservative denomination in the U.S., have any strong opinions on Constantine and his role in the growth of the Church? Is it the Da Vinci Code book? Personally, after Jesus and Paul, I can't think of another human who did more to spread the faith in human history. What do you'll think?

you do know he was not even a Christian really until his death? He feared God and that is why he gave so much and helped the church, but he was not actually a christian. He was baptized on his death bed and that is truly when he converted i think he feared God and hell.

 

[Tallguy88]

I hope you are not, and maybe, we might find areas to discuss, and even agree.

The people you mention are Americans, right? These are the true Protestants. If they disagree with the pope, they are as much against the pope as Luther was. His objections were on something that was NOT of as much gravity as what you mentioned!

Welcome to the other side - the side considered to be Protestant.

Had a similar discussion with someone 25 years ago. I was asked abunch of questions about the Popes first visit to the US, and I asked a few myself. It was clear that this professed Catholic was actually Protestant, as she did not believe the things that were considered Canon Law by the Pope. She stated the exact same beliefs that were stated by many people as they were burned for heresy.

So are you going to take me up on the offer to discuss on neutral ground? I'm very limited in my ability to respond here.

 

[Avid]

So are you going to take me up on the offer to discuss on neutral ground? I'm very limited in my ability to respond here.

Someone Catholic asked a question about Constantine on a Baptist forum, and seemed bothered by the responses. If you can answer a few simple questions, we can discuss a little. I do not HATE anyone generally, but am wary of people who ignore history, and then get bothered if I do not. BTW, the point about revisionist history is included in the concern about people who ignore history.

I had asked a few simple questions you can answer without worry about anything, but a few follow-up questions. It is not that any of us do not understand that there are Roman Catholics here. You and I can discuss some things civilly here. A civil response would not likely bother any of us, and would go a long way to clear up misunderstandings. Having a person equate our understanding, and the very word of God, with heresy is not going to be welcomed by many, though.

There are people of other denominations here (a minor distinction in some cases) who discuss things civilly, and we get along just fine. They make responses, express opinions, and we learn from each other. I don't think they ever asked if I thought they should not be allowed to hold public office, about "the intensity of the level of dislike toward the Catholic Church over historical events from hundreds of years ago," or anything so inflammatory. There are even Lutherans who have (with a little coaxing) managed to remain civil, and we still discuss things. No reason we could not do that here with you.

Since you asked, there are things like this that have caused a number of people to leave here (CF,) and not return (some many years ago, and some very recently. Someone recently asked about others because they are contemplating leaving permanently.) If that could change for the good, we have made progress. Otherwise, be prepared for even more to leave, and CF can mean Catholic Forums in a more concentrated fashion.

 

[TillICollapse]

Thank you for pointing out these truths.

You're welcome

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Reading these comments, it's hard for me to comprehend the intensity of the level of dislike toward the Catholic Church over historical events from hundreds of years ago. To boot, the SBC has been the largest Protestant denomination in the US for a while and Protestants have always outnumbered Catholics by a wide margin. If anything, it seems it would be Catholics who would be angry, if anyone is, because discrimination has affected them more recently (i.e. the 1857 anti-Catholic riots in Louisville, KY, anti-Catholic sentiment against Al Smith and JFK running for President). The Reformation up through the English Civil War happened, at the least, over 300 years ago. Are most Baptist still this angry over events occurring hundred of years ago?

The Catholic church has not changed, the political climate has changed so they had to stop killing the heretics. Enter the Muslims........

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Someone Catholic asked a question about Constantine on a Baptist forum, and seemed bothered by the responses. If you can answer a few simple questions, we can discuss a little. I do not HATE anyone generally, but am wary of people who ignore history, and then get bothered if I do not. BTW, the point about revisionist history is included in the concern about people who ignore history.

I had asked a few simple questions you can answer without worry about anything, but a few follow-up questions. It is not that any of us do not understand that there are Roman Catholics here. You and I can discuss some things civilly here. A civil response would not likely bother any of us, and would go a long way to clear up misunderstandings. Having a person equate our understanding, and the very word of God, with heresy is not going to be welcomed by many, though.

There are people of other denominations here (a minor distinction in some cases) who discuss things civilly, and we get along just fine. They make responses, express opinions, and we learn from each other. I don't think they ever asked if I thought they should not be allowed to hold public office, about "the intensity of the level of dislike toward the Catholic Church over historical events from hundreds of years ago," or anything so inflammatory. There are even Lutherans who have (with a little coaxing) managed to remain civil, and we still discuss things. No reason we could not do that here with you.

Since you asked, there are things like this that have caused a number of people to leave here (CF,) and not return (some many years ago, and some very recently. Someone recently asked about others because they are contemplating leaving permanently.) If that could change for the good, we have made progress. Otherwise, be prepared for even more to leave, and CF can mean Catholic Forums in a more concentrated fashion.

Is this the Catholic forum?

 

[Avid]

This guy is only here to insult Baptists

I know. I am giving him a chance to be civil. After all, I would not go to a Catholic Sub-Forum, and ask if they still like burning Baptists.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Someone Catholic asked a question about Constantine on a Baptist forum, and seemed bothered by the responses. If you can answer a few simple questions, we can discuss a little. I do not HATE anyone generally, but am wary of people who ignore history, and then get bothered if I do not. BTW, the point about revisionist history is included in the concern about people who ignore history.

I had asked a few simple questions you can answer without worry about anything, but a few follow-up questions. It is not that any of us do not understand that there are Roman Catholics here. You and I can discuss some things civilly here. A civil response would not likely bother any of us, and would go a long way to clear up misunderstandings. Having a person equate our understanding, and the very word of God, with heresy is not going to be welcomed by many, though.

There are people of other denominations here (a minor distinction in some cases) who discuss things civilly, and we get along just fine. They make responses, express opinions, and we learn from each other. I don't think they ever asked if I thought they should not be allowed to hold public office, about "the intensity of the level of dislike toward the Catholic Church over historical events from hundreds of years ago," or anything so inflammatory. There are even Lutherans who have (with a little coaxing) managed to remain civil, and we still discuss things. No reason we could not do that here with you.

Since you asked, there are things like this that have caused a number of people to leave here (CF,) and not return (some many years ago, and some very recently. Someone recently asked about others because they are contemplating leaving permanently.) If that could change for the good, we have made progress. Otherwise, be prepared for even more to leave, and CF can mean Catholic Forums in a more concentrated fashion.

This kind of Catholic teaching is allowed in the Baptist Forum?. Somehow, the rule violation is being overlooked and then you are going to be the one accused of "flaming" or "goading". This is a battle tactic by which Baptists are attacked and silenced.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The struggles between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Pope for political power are quite famous. So it wasn't some massive politocal conspuracy from time immemorial. When it comes down to it, most secular rulers did what they wanted and only paid enough lip service to the Papacy to keep the Pope off their back. Having said that, what the Pope wanted and what the rulers wanted were often the same thing. So just because a King enforces Catholicism as state religion, doesn't necessarily mean he's doing it because the Popes told him to.

Basically, look at how many Catholic politicians support gay marriage and abortion when the Church is strongly against both. They clearly aren't getting their marching orders from the Vatican. And neither are the 60% of the laity who support gay marriage, or the 90% who have used contraception, which is against Church teaching.



This Catholic teaching and Catholic Church support is not a forum violation?
Baptists to do not believe in any Holy Roman Emperor and do not obey or uphold any Potentate (Pope) other than Jesus Christ.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I know. I am giving him a chance to be civil. After all, I would not go to a Catholic Sub-Forum, and ask if they still like burning Baptists.

I found his insults entirely uncivil

 

[SaintJoeNow]

How can Constantine be held responsible for something that happened roughly 1200 years after his death? There's plenty of things to criticize him for (killing family members, supporting Arianism later in life, being a generally brutal Emperor, etc) that it is unnecessary to try to connect him to things from a Millennium later If your point is that he was a bad guy.

edited....It's still the same Catholic church, a religious/political organization with world domination intentions.

by insulting Baptists to say they should forget about the atrocities of the Catholic church in the dark ages and in it's attempts to quelch the Protestant Refromation, the Catholic is trying to claim moral superiority and leadership over Baptists. This is the tactic of the modern Catholic church...bury the past and appeal to unity, ecumenicalism.

Constantine was in bed with politics and was the attempt to control Christianity as a last ditch effort to stop the crumbling of the Roman Empire. The Catholic church always has and always will do whatever is politically expedient. Constantine was for that moment in time, a political pawn. The connection to the modern day Catholic church is valid, as is the connection to the Inquisition and all the atrocities of the dark ages.

 

[now faith]

In General I have a hard time with the fundamental beliefs of Roman Catholics.

All of their ceremony is completely outside of God's Word.

They Pray to Angels.

They Pray to Mary.

They believe a Priest can forgive sin.

They believe the Preist becomes Christ during the Eucharist,as well the wafers are the physical body of Christ.

They Pray and bow to statues .

They Forbid marriage


There are so many things UN Bibical it is dangerous.

 

[Avid]

In General I have a hard time with the fundamental beliefs of Roman Catholics...

... There are so many things UN Bibical it is dangerous.

I know. I have had a few catholics tell me they do not believe those things, though, and I have the opportunity to show them they are Protestant. They are not so vastly different from Luther.

This kind of Catholic teaching is not supposed to be allowed in the Baptist Forum...

This is true. I just would like to see if he could be civil enough to discuss anything. I guess it was too late before we started.

 

[Tallguy88]

I know. I have had a few catholics tell me they do not believe those things, though, and I have the opportunity to show them they are Protestant. They are not so vastly different from Luther.


This is true. I just would like to see if he could be civil enough to discuss anything. I guess it was too late before we started.

I'm sorry if you feel I was trying to teach. I really was just trying to understand.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I discussing the concept of "symphonia" in the Eastern Orthodox thread (the idea that Church and State should work together and complement each other in building a Christian society), I noticed several comments to the effect that Constantine had an extremely negative influence on the Church, and basically perverted Christianity. This especially seemed to come from Evangelicals and other conservative Protestant denominations.

In my view Constantine probably did more to spread the message of Christ than anyone outside of the Scriptures and should be celebrated. He never proselytized but only indirectly supported the Church, providing money for churches, relief for the poor, and facilitating efforts to resolve disputes in the Church like the Council of Nicaea. He really had little or nothing to do with developing any church doctrine or in governing the Church in any way. The Roman Empire was probably 5-10% Christian when he legalized worship of Christianity in 313 with the Edict of Tolerance. By his death in 337, the Empire was probably a quarter Christian and well on its way to being mostly Christian within a couple of centuries. Sure, many of these Christians were nominal or not devout to what we would want, and probably not saved, but how many people heard the Gospel because of his policies that wouldn't have heard otherwise?

Just wondering if any Baptist, as the largest conservative denomination in the U.S., have any strong opinions on Constantine and his role in the growth of the Church? Is it the Da Vinci Code book? Personally, after Jesus and Paul, I can't think of another human who did more to spread the faith in human history. What do you'll think?

Many Baptists would see Constantine as mixing some paganism into Christianity. Both paganism and Christianity were allowed under Constantine. Perhaps in his efforts to allow and encourage Christianity, some things were okay that were not before.

Most Baptists who have studied the history would be aware that Constantine had nothing to do with the Inquisition and that the doctrines Reformers later protested against largely developed after Constantine's time. After Constantine, hostilities between pagans and Christians intensified under Julius II until Theodosius I.

BTW, the DaVinci Code would have nothing to do with anything. It is a bit insulting to be asked that.