Did Constantine save Christianity?

[seeking633]

I just caught a bit of an episode from the six-hour series "Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine".

Going into it, I thought that the series would offer an interesting rehash of what historians know of the events leading from the early Nazarene assembly to the conditions surrounding the rise of Constantine as the champion of the changing Christian church in Rome. But having only caught the narration of host Jonathan Phillips on the conversion of Constantine and his subsequent influence on Christendom, I had already found myself in constant disagreement with what he was saying and refused to listen any further.

In short, Mr. Phillips suggests that if Constantine had not accepted Christianity, this weird Judaic sect would have died out or at least become fatally splintered in the thousands of so-called "heresies" that the Roman Church was able to eventually put down.

Is this what Catholics believe? That the millions living far beyond the pale of Rome and Constantinople held to nothing more than weak and dying iterations of Christian faith? I somehow believe that the Vaudois of Southern France would have disagreed considering that they were the epitome of what every well-bred citizen of Europe should aspire to.

I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.

 

[Norbert L]

I just caught a bit of an episode from the six-hour series "Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine".

Going into it, I thought that the series would offer an interesting rehash of what historians know of the events leading from the early Nazarene assembly to the conditions surrounding the rise of Constantine as the champion of the changing Christian church in Rome. But having only caught the narration of host Jonathan Phillips on the conversion of Constantine and his subsequent influence on Christendom, I had already found myself in constant disagreement with what he was saying and refused to listen any further.

In short, Mr. Phillips suggests that if Constantine had not accepted Christianity, this weird Judaic sect would have died out or at least become fatally splintered in the thousands of so-called "heresies" that the Roman Church was able to eventually put down.

Is this what Catholics believe? That the millions living far beyond the pale of Rome and Constantinople held to nothing more than weak and dying iterations of Christian faith? I somehow believe that the Vaudois of Southern France would have disagreed considering that they were the epitome of what every well-bred citizen of Europe should aspire to.

I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.

The idea that Christianity would die out at that time without Constantine is absurd considering who has all power in heaven and earth. Matthew 28:18 Also as the book of
Esther 4:14 makes the point that it could be Constantine that was in danger of dying out.

 

[Radrook]

I just caught a bit of an episode from the six-hour series "Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine".

Going into it, I thought that the series would offer an interesting rehash of what historians know of the events leading from the early Nazarene assembly to the conditions surrounding the rise of Constantine as the champion of the changing Christian church in Rome. But having only caught the narration of host Jonathan Phillips on the conversion of Constantine and his subsequent influence on Christendom, I had already found myself in constant disagreement with what he was saying and refused to listen any further.

In short, Mr. Phillips suggests that if Constantine had not accepted Christianity, this weird Judaic sect would have died out or at least become fatally splintered in the thousands of so-called "heresies" that the Roman Church was able to eventually put down.

Is this what Catholics believe? That the millions living far beyond the pale of Rome and Constantinople held to nothing more than weak and dying iterations of Christian faith? I somehow believe that the Vaudois of Southern France would have disagreed considering that they were the epitome of what every well-bred citizen of Europe should aspire to.

I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.

Quite to the contrary, there are those who view Constantine as ushering in the Apostasy from true Christianity by encouraging the influx of pagan ideas into the Church in order to unify his empire religiously.

Great Apostasy - Wikipedia

 

[tz620q]

I just caught a bit of an episode from the six-hour series "Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine".

Going into it, I thought that the series would offer an interesting rehash of what historians know of the events leading from the early Nazarene assembly to the conditions surrounding the rise of Constantine as the champion of the changing Christian church in Rome. But having only caught the narration of host Jonathan Phillips on the conversion of Constantine and his subsequent influence on Christendom, I had already found myself in constant disagreement with what he was saying and refused to listen any further.

In short, Mr. Phillips suggests that if Constantine had not accepted Christianity, this weird Judaic sect would have died out or at least become fatally splintered in the thousands of so-called "heresies" that the Roman Church was able to eventually put down.

Is this what Catholics believe? That the millions living far beyond the pale of Rome and Constantinople held to nothing more than weak and dying iterations of Christian faith? I somehow believe that the Vaudois of Southern France would have disagreed considering that they were the epitome of what every well-bred citizen of Europe should aspire to.

I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.

I do not know if Professor Phillips is Catholic or not; but even if he were, he would not be speaking for the Catholic Church. So I think your question can be divorced from the series and taken in a general way.

First, I don't think Catholics believe that fellow Christians at the time of Constantine that were outside Rome were any less faithful. In fact to set up a dichotomy between Constantine/Rome and Christianity is a later development used by Reformation historians to show an early apostasy and hence a need for change. In fact Constantine cared little for Rome. He was not born there and his primary task as emperor was to solidify the Roman Empire again and move the capital to a city that he built for its defensive location and for its location closer to the more affluent and strategically important Eastern part of the Roman Empire. So if anything, Constantine set in motion the events that would lead to Rome being sacked 21 times in the next few centuries. With the movement of the Capital of the Empire to Constantinople, there was an increase in the power of the created position of Bishop or Patriarch of Constantinople that led to a conflict between that post and the Pope in Rome.

Try to see this from Constantine's viewpoint. He inherited a Roman Empire that was effectively split three ways and worked through military victories to combine these into an effective whole again. When he had succeeded with that, his reign as emperor was one of trying to heal and forge the Roman empire into a more unified and stable group of divergent cultures. One way to do that was to get the Christians of that time to formalize their beliefs and come up with a set of doctrines that everyone could agree with. This led to the Nicene Creed, which is used by CF as a formal statement of what a Christian should believe. So in a way Constantine's influence extends even to this forum. It also led to several councils to canonize the Bible and declare what was acceptable to be used in the Church and what was to be considered what we would call scripture.

I see all of this as an improvement, not a divergence to a syncretic partially pagan Christianity. But then I see one of the primary fundamentals of Christianity being unity.

Thank you for the recommendation of the series. I will try to find it and watch.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Short answer: No, Constantine wasn't necessary to keep Christianity from dying out. For one, Christianity continued to thrive and survive outside the limits of the Roman Empire rather fine, there was no risk, for example, of the Church in Persia, Mesopotamia, or India as they were never under a formally Christian political banner but always subjects of non-Christian, and often hostile, governments.

What Constantine did do was put an end to the persecutions in Rome, and that certainly was a welcome relief considering what the Church within the Roman Empire had suffered under the tyranny of Diocletian.

There are frequently two images put forward of Emperor Constantine:

1. Constantine is the great hero of Christendom, saintly and to be revered.
2. Constantine is the great villain who led to the collapse of some kind of earlier "true Christianity" and paganized it.

Both are completely false, though the latter is probably more false than the former. The truth about Constantine is that he was a shrewd politician who did work to favor Christians, ended the persecutions, whether it was from true conversion and devotion or merely a clever political move (Christians were a very steadily growing group at the time, long gone were the days that they were merely just an obscure minority) we'll never know. But chances are that, at the very least, Constantine did believe by the end of his life, or at the very least he did eventually receive baptism on his death bed, albeit by the hands of the Arian heretic Eusebius of Nicomedia; and it seems that Constantine at the end of his life had effectively taken the Arian side in the theological debates of the time.

He was a flawed individual, a politician at heart, and as for his faith--only God knows. But he was neither the savior of Christendom nor the arch-villain who ushered in a mythical apostasy. He was just a man. A man with a lot of power, a man with a lot of flaws, and a man who did a lot of things both good and bad.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radrook]

In order to determine if indeed the influx of pagans into Christendom transformed Christianity in any significant way you need to compare the beliefs prior to Christianity becoming officially the empire's religion and its beliefs and practices after it became the empire's preferred religion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In order to determine if indeed the influx of pagans into Christendom transformed Christianity in any significant way you need to compare the beliefs prior to Christianity becoming officially the empire's religion and its beliefs and practices after it became the empire's preferred religion.

And when I compare the writings of the fathers of the 2nd and 3rd century, and the writings of the fathers in the 4th and later centuries, I find the same religion, the same beliefs, and the same practices.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Constantine is given far more prominence in theological matters than I think he deserves.
He organised Nicaea, but he was just interested in a creed, any creed. There wasn't some imperial cabal active behind the scenes, just a legitimate church council. Of the 381 or 270 attendees (depending on your historian) we see only 22 in disagreement with trinitarian orthodoxy initially, but after debate only 3 actually dissented but agreed to sign the conclusion out of Church unity.

Likewise, to say Constantine somehow 'saved' Christianity is laughable. By his time the Church had been growing steadily for centuries and the very fact that he could adopt it and rule succesfully the viper's pit of Roman politics clearly shows this. By the early fourth century Christianity had already reached critical mass in many areas - for instance Lower Egypt was probably mostly Christian by this time as were significant areas of Gaul and Anatolia.
It is significant that the first nation to become officially Christian is not the Roman Empire, but Armenia.

Even if Constantine had not converted, we see that Diocletian's persecution, even if zealously done by the likes of Galerius, was largely ineffectual. It is likely that the Roman Empire would have converted to Christianity at some point in the fourth century regardless, as can be seen by the fact that anti-pagan legislation largely stems from the later reigns of Valentinian II, Gratian and of course Theodosius. This means that we see old-style Paganism continue to be tolerated for 50 odd years and the state cults still practiced, yet the spirited rear-guard defence by Julian completely failed to gain traction.

Roman Paganism was a dead religion. In late Republican times we already see augurs faking signs and educated Romans laughing in their toga sleeves while performing sacred rites. Mystery Religions and Christianity spread easily into the Empire as its own religion had long ago become a dead letter. It was more the question what religion would replace it and when it would take over. Christianity with its 'Summus Dei' or Highest God, coupled with high moral values, universality and inclusiveness for both male, female, slave or noble was well placed to exploit this gap. Mithraism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism or Neoplatonism all failed in this due to inherent deficiencies or exclusionary facets of their metaphysics, which to me also points to the sheer 'correctness' of Christianity.

We often see pagan states converting to Christianity gradually until one King converts and then finishes the project. This does not mean this king is enforcing his will or that the nation wouldn't have converted otherwise. Good examples are the Scandinavian states or the Kievan Rus in this regard. Iceland is a nice example as they had no king but debated their religion in the althing and then decided Christianity, which was growing and replacing Norse religion there, was to become the official religion.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I somehow believe that the Vaudois of Southern France would have disagreed considering that they were the epitome of what every well-bred citizen of Europe should aspire to

What a laudatory impression of the Waldensians! Many Catholics strongly disagree and see these proto-Protestants as little more than heretics.
As a descendent of Savoyard Huguenot Waldensians that fled France, this ringing endorsement made my day.

What may I ask makes you call them the 'epitome'? Most of our sources on them are either from the perspective of their Catholic enemies for the Mediaeval period or from later Protestantism where the independant Waldensian tradition had largely become grafted into Protestantism as a whole.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Short answer: No, Constantine wasn't necessary to keep Christianity from dying out. For one, Christianity continued to thrive and survive outside the limits of the Roman Empire rather fine, there was no risk, for example, of the Church in Persia, Mesopotamia, or India as they were never under a formally Christian political banner but always subjects of non-Christian, and often hostile, governments.

What Constantine did do was put an end to the persecutions in Rome, and that certainly was a welcome relief considering what the Church within the Roman Empire had suffered under the tyranny of Diocletian.

There are frequently two images put forward of Emperor Constantine:

1. Constantine is the great hero of Christendom, saintly and to be revered.
2. Constantine is the great villain who led to the collapse of some kind of earlier "true Christianity" and paganized it.

Both are completely false, though the latter is probably more false than the former. The truth about Constantine is that he was a shrewd politician who did work to favor Christians, ended the persecutions, whether it was from true conversion and devotion or merely a clever political move (Christians were a very steadily growing group at the time, long gone were the days that they were merely just an obscure minority) we'll never know. But chances are that, at the very least, Constantine did believe by the end of his life, or at the very least he did eventually receive baptism on his death bed, albeit by the hands of the Arian heretic Eusebius of Nicomedia; and it seems that Constantine at the end of his life had effectively taken the Arian side in the theological debates of the time.

He was a flawed individual, a politician at heart, and as for his faith--only God knows. But he was neither the savior of Christendom nor the arch-villain who ushered in a mythical apostasy. He was just a man. A man with a lot of power, a man with a lot of flaws, and a man who did a lot of things both good and bad.

-CryptoLutheran

More good than bad I'd've said.

Then we have St. Theodosius, who smashed the altar of victory and outlawed Paganism. Without him I expect the Arians would have prevailed in the Empire, and Hellenic paganism would have survived to some extent.

This of course would not have mattered, because of the Church in Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Ethiopia, Armenia, Georgia, India and across Asia (the Church of the East reached Tibet, China and Mongolia before being the victim of a 13th century genocide under Timur the Lame).

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I just caught a bit of an episode from the six-hour series "Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine".

Going into it, I thought that the series would offer an interesting rehash of what historians know of the events leading from the early Nazarene assembly to the conditions surrounding the rise of Constantine as the champion of the changing Christian church in Rome. But having only caught the narration of host Jonathan Phillips on the conversion of Constantine and his subsequent influence on Christendom, I had already found myself in constant disagreement with what he was saying and refused to listen any further.

In short, Mr. Phillips suggests that if Constantine had not accepted Christianity, this weird Judaic sect would have died out or at least become fatally splintered in the thousands of so-called "heresies" that the Roman Church was able to eventually put down.

Is this what Catholics believe? That the millions living far beyond the pale of Rome and Constantinople held to nothing more than weak and dying iterations of Christian faith? I somehow believe that the Vaudois of Southern France would have disagreed considering that they were the epitome of what every well-bred citizen of Europe should aspire to.

I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.

The Vaudois were a proto-Protestant breakaway from the Roman church.

The legitimate Christian populations never under Roman Imperial control: Edessans, Mesopotamians, Persians, Georgians, Armenians (except during the late Byzantine Empire, but this was as much of an alliance against Islam as anything), Indians, Ethiopians.

There were also the Paulicians, a disagreeable dualistic Gnostic sect in the Caucaucus region which rejected most of the New Testsment, and which mercifully disappeared into history in the 19th century.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Quite to the contrary, there are those who view Constantine as ushering in the Apostasy from true Christianity by encouraging the influx of pagan ideas into the Church in order to unify his empire religiously.

Great Apostasy - Wikipedia

A great apostasy means our Lord did not tell the truth in Matthew 16:18 and is therefore impossible.

 

[victorinus]

I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.

constantine is the third most influential person of all time -
he made the world safe for christians -
he made christianity a world religion -
he was an instrument of God

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

More good than bad I'd've said.

Then we have St. Theodosius, who smashed the altar of victory and outlawed Paganism. Without him I expect the Arians would have prevailed in the Empire, and Hellenic paganism would have survived to some extent.

This of course would not have mattered, because of the Church in Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Ethiopia, Armenia, Georgia, India and across Asia (the Church of the East reached Tibet, China and Mongolia before being the victim of a 13th century genocide under Timur the Lame).

The Arians were largely a spent force within the Empire by the time of Theodosius. It was more the missionary zeal of Wulfilas that secured the Germanic tribes adjacent to the Empire to Arianism. These were the more dangerous Arians that Theodosius opposed, but Arianism does not appear to have ever been a majority view within the Empire itself.
We see even these Arians converting piecemeal to orthodoxy when they ruled their own post-Roman states or defeated by orthodox ones.
It is true that some elites espoused Arianism within the Empire and that Valens and Constantius II favoured them, but at no point were they more dominant within the religious framework of the Empire. This can be clearly seen by the popular riots in support of orthodox prelates when Arian-leaning Emperors tried to depose them. The Arians had lost the theological and popular battles within Christianity by Theodosius's time, so that he could basically scotch the snake before it again reared its head.

I also do not think Hellenic Paganism would have survived either. It had a gradual decline for centuries and even late attempts to give it new life like Julian's or the Neoplatonists largely failed. Theodosius and his successors dealt a coup de grace to what was effectively a corpse with little opposition. This shows that Paganism did not have much time left. I am sure a later Christian monarch would have outlawed it or merely by attrition it would have disappeared anyway, perhaps similar to Egyptian paganism or Hinduism in Indo-China.

Theodosius was definitely one of the better emperors though.

 

[seeking633]

What a laudatory impression of the Waldensians! Many Catholics strongly disagree and see these proto-Protestants as little more than heretics.
As a descendent of Savoyard Huguenot Waldensians that fled France, this ringing endorsement made my day.

What may I ask makes you call them the 'epitome'? Most of our sources on them are either from the perspective of their Catholic enemies for the Mediaeval period or from later Protestantism where the independant Waldensian tradition had largely become grafted into Protestantism as a whole.

Well I'm really pleased to actually converse with a descendant.

From what I've learned of these Christians is that they were highly regarded by all within their society even to the point where the secular leaders protested against the accusations against them.

I cannot say one way or another whether I took this from credible sources but I see no reason to doubt it.

 

[seeking633]

The Vaudois were a proto-Protestant breakaway from the Roman church.

The legitimate Christian populations never under Roman Imperial control: Edessans, Mesopotamians, Persians, Georgians, Armenians (except during the late Byzantine Empire, but this was as much of an alliance against Islam as anything), Indians, Ethiopians.

There were also the Paulicians, a disagreeable dualistic Gnostic sect in the Caucaucus region which rejected most of the New Testsment, and which mercifully disappeared into history in the 19th century.

I believe the Vaudois were pre-Nicene and therefore pre-Protestant.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I believe the Vaudois were pre-Nicene and therefore pre-Protestant.

This is of course quite inaccurate; they dated from the 12th century and were Nicene; their theology was basically Protestant, to the point that in the 16th century they enthusiastically embraced the ideas of Calvin.

The Vaudois were unrelated to the dualistic Gnostic-influenced Albigensians, who were in turn also post-Nicene.

 

[seeking633]

This is of course quite inaccurate; they dated from the 12th century and were Nicene; their theology was basically Protestant, to the point that in the 16th century they enthusiastically embraced the ideas of Calvin.

The Vaudois were unrelated to the dualistic Gnostic-influenced Albigensians, who were in turn also post-Nicene.

I believe you are drawing on what is commonly understood. From what I read of this group, they provided a basis of doctrine for evangelists such as Peter Waldo and Peter de Bruys before him. The name "Vaudois" means "Valley Dwellers".

I'll offer these sources:
A History of The True Religion by Dugger and Dodd, chapters 9, 10, 11, and 20
Edward’s History of Redemption, period 3, part 4, sec. 2
Jones’ Church History, ed. 1837
Persecutions and Atrocities on the Vaudois, pp. 348-349
Excursions to Piedmont, p. 259
Dr. Rankin’s History of France, vol. III, p. 198, 202; Jones’ Church History, p. 233
Gilly, Waldensian Researches, pp. 118-119
Dictionary of Sects and Heresies, p. 423
A Short History of the Waldenses in Italy, Sophia Bompian

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I believe you are drawing on what is commonly understood. From what I read of this group, they provided a basis of doctrine for evangelists such as Peter Waldo and Peter de Bruys before him. The name "Vaudois" means "Valley Dwellers".

I'll offer these sources:
A History of The True Religion by Dugger and Dodd, chapters 9, 10, 11, and 20
Edward’s History of Redemption, period 3, part 4, sec. 2
Jones’ Church History, ed. 1837
Persecutions and Atrocities on the Vaudois, pp. 348-349
Excursions to Piedmont, p. 259
Dr. Rankin’s History of France, vol. III, p. 198, 202; Jones’ Church History, p. 233
Gilly, Waldensian Researches, pp. 118-119
Dictionary of Sects and Heresies, p. 423
A Short History of the Waldenses in Italy, Sophia Bompian

Whereas some of those texts are scholarly, several I would observe are roughly equivalent to Ancient Aliens in terms of historical veracity.

 

[seeking633]

Whereas some of those texts are scholarly, several I would observe are roughly equivalent to Ancient Aliens in terms of historical veracity.

Of course, there must be detractors in this debate but as long as there's a shadow of doubt on the pro-Nicene side, I see no reason to accept it.