What did Constantine actually do?

Matt Black · Jul 12, 2005

I raise this question primarily because there appears to be the theory going round in this forum that he somehow started the Catholic Church. First, I'd like those who hold to this view to expand on the 'somehow' bit eg: how exactly is he supposed to have founded the RCC?

Secondly, where is the evidence for this contention? All the history books I read tell me that he, far from making Christianity the state religion of the Empire, merely tolerated it (as opposed to persecuting it which his predecessor Diocletian did so vigorously less than a decade before). Please show in particular how the doctrine and practice of the Church changed during his reign so as to result in apostasy. Please also explain what therefore happened to the 'true Christians' and why there were no objections by them to this supposed apostasy; remember, these were the guys who less than a decade before Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 313 were willing to give their lives for their faith and their church - you would have thought that at least one of them would have stood up against a bit of apostasy.

So, let's have some evidence, please

Yours in Christ

Matt

BobRyan · Jul 12, 2005

Well - lets have one of the RC's OWN historians and best-selling authors address the point.

Surely THEY can be trusted - even if non-Catholic ones can not - eh?

Who finally stopped Rome’s persecution of the Christians?

The struggle for the soul of the Empire raged on a vast scale for though only a sprinkling in the West, Christians in the East numbered around 10 percent of the population, and in some cities even formed the majority. And it was mainly in the East that the blood flowed under Galerius (Diocletian’s successor) and Maximinus Daia.

It all came to a halt suddenly when Galerius by decree of 311 permitted Christians to resume their religious assemblies.. But a cruel reversal occurred when Galerius died and Maximinus Daia once more called for Christian blood.. But then as suddenly he ordered the whole business to cease again…. Pressure to stop persecuting had been put on Maximinus by the new conqueror of Italy and Africa, Constantine. (Bokenkotter "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" page 37)

When Constantine finally emerged victorious (over Maxentius) in 312, he attributed his victory to the help of the Christian God. According to the Christian writer Lactantius (d. 320) on the eve of Constantine’s fateful battle with Maxentius, Constantine had a vision of Christ, who told him to ornament the shields of his soldiers with the Savior’s monogram – the Greek letters chi and rho[/b]. Constantine obeyed and in the ensuing battle was victorious as promised Writing somewhat later Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine, gave a more sensational account. Constantine and his whole army saw a luminous cross appear in the afternoon sky with the message “in this conquer” (Ibid 38)
Click to expand...

How much influence did Emperor Constantine have on the RCC “really”. How much of a role in moving it past the point of merely “Not persecuted” ?

At first Constantine observed an attitude of formal correctness toward paganism. He remained its Supreme Pontiff, paid homage to the sun god on the official coinage, and in general was careful not to alienate the pagan masses…But he gradually revealed his true feelings. He imposed restrictions on pagan practice and publicly displayed the Christian symbols He attached the standards of the army to a cross emblazoned with the monograme of Christ and issued coins picturing himself wearing a helmet stamped with the same monogram…he increasingly identified the interests of the state with those of Christianity.
(Bokenkotter "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" page 38)

“The emperor showed great generosity to the Church in lavishing donations on it and erecting numerous sumptuous basilicas, including the magnificent one over the supposed site of the tomb of Peter at Rome and another over the tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. He surrendered HIS Lateran palace in Rome to the bishop of Rome for a residence and it remained the Papal residence until 1308. When in 324 he moved the capital of the Empire to Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople after him, he erected numerous churches there…

"This alliiance with the state profoundly influenced every aspect of the church's thought and life. It carried many advantages, but it also entailed
some serious drawbacks; ... Mass conversions where social conformity was the chief motivating factor; the widening gap between clergy and laity thanks to the official status conferred on them; persecution of dissenters as a menace to the unity of the state. The church would never be the same again - for better and for worse - and so Constantine's conversion is certainly one of the greatest turning points in the history of the Catholic church and of the world." Ibid - Pg 39
Click to expand...

D28guy · Jul 13, 2005

Point...set...match.

...That was quick.

I wonder if this will be the shortest thread in the history of BB?

Mike

D28guy · Jul 13, 2005

Here is some more enlightening information regarding this topic...

What the Constantinian establishment of the Catholic Church meant was that the bishops (note that the Biblical, Presbyterian form of church government had been abandoned by the churches before the time of Constantine) now joined the bureaucrats to form a new governing class in the Empire.

The bishops of Italy became the heirs of the Roman Senate, and the bishop of Rome became the Emperor's successor. Throughout the Empire, Catholic bishops used monks (communist ascetics) as terrorists to enforce their rule:

"Bands of monastic vigilantes, led by Schenudi of Atripe (died c. 466) patrolled the towns of Upper Egypt ransacking the houses of pagan notables for idols. In North Africa, similar wandering monks, the Circumcellions, armed with cudgels called 'Israels,' stalked the great estates, their cry of 'Praise be to God' more fearful than the roaring of a mountain lion" (Brown, p. 104).

[And we wonder where the Muslims got the idea for their war cry, "Allah Akbar."]

"The Christian bishop," Brown reports, "now ruling large congregations and backed by the violence of the monks, had come to the fore. The Emperor Theodosius committed the bloodbath of Thessalonica [massacring the residents of the city in 390] … yet he went down to history as Theodosius the 'Great,' the exemplary Catholic monarch" (Brown, p. 106).

With its legal establishment, the Catholic Church became wealthy as well as bloody:

"Wealth might be used to cover the costs of an acquittal at the Last Day…. From the fifth century onwards, this rich flood welled into the Christian Church 'for the remission of sins.' The rise of the economic position of the Christian Church was sudden and dramatic: It mushroomed like a modern insurance company. By the sixth century, the income of the bishop of Ravenna was 12,000 gold pieces; the bishop of a small town drew a salary as great as that of a senatorial provincial governor" (Brown, p. 109).

The time-honored, traditional Roman system of exploitation of inferiors by superiors, with all the hierarchy exploiting the people, had been adopted by the Catholic Church-State. This exploitation was possible only because the Catholic Church had already rejected the Gospel of salvation by free grace.

The Catholic Church's rejection of the Gospel of justification by faith alone made all its subsequent errors and atrocities not only possible, but inevitable.

Constantine did not establish Christianity as the only lawful religion of the Empire (an act that would have been Antichristian); he established the Catholic Church as the only lawful church in the Empire, a different Antichristian act.
Click to expand...

Fifteen centuries after the birth of Christ, little had changed in Western Europe but the names of the gods worshiped.

The Western Europeans of the fifteenth century still lived in an enchanted world—a world of magic and miracles.

Instead of the twelve gods of ancient Rome, there were the cults of the twelve apostles, whose relics could cure diseases, control the weather, and inflict harm on those who opposed them.

Instead of the departmental deities of ancient Rome, there were the departmental Saints of papal Rome.

Instead of the cult of Diana, Queen of Heaven, there was the cult of Mary, Queen of Heaven.

The holidays (in pre-Reformation Germany, there were 161 days of holy fasting and abstinence each year), processions, sacrifices, and rituals continued; the apparitions, pilgrimages, relics, and shrines remained; the gladiatorial contests were replaced by autos da fe at which the religious would chant the Psalms and pray the liturgy.

Laing wrote, "though there is a notable difference in the character of the supernatural beings that in the fourth century succeeded to the multitudinous functions of the old departmental spirits, there is little or no change in the attitude of mind …."

The founders of the Catholic Church-State "were keenly interested in winning the pagans to the faith, and they succeeded. But undoubtedly one element in their success was the inclusion in their system of the doctrine of the veneration of Saints.

They seem to have felt that in order to make any headway at all, it was necessary for them to match the swarms of spirits available for the pagans with a multitude of wonder-working Saints and Martyrs. How far they were prepared to go is indicated by their favorable attitude toward the pagan veneration of Virgil that amounted almost to deification ….

The Saints succeeded to the worship of the dead just as they had succeeded to the cult of the departmental deities and to the little gods of the Roman household …. Reports of miracles wrought by human beings were common among the ancient Romans and were accepted by the great mass of people without question …. The [Roman] Christians adapted themselves to the pagan attitude.

They matched the miracle-workers of the pagans with the wonder-working Saints; and with their success the number of miracles increased. The sanctity of relics, well established as it has been among the pagans, acquired far greater vogue in [medieval] Christian times and was given a degree of emphasis that it had never had before

…. Like the deified heroes and emperors of pagan times, the Saints were honored with altars, sacred edifices, incense, lights, hymns, ex-voto offerings, festivals with illuminations and high hilarity, prayers, and invocations. They became intermediate divinities …." (Gordon J. Laing, Survivals of Roman Religion, pp. 8-9, 83, 120-121).

One Roman Catholic historian described the religion of early sixteenth-century Europe in these words:

"In 1509 when John Calvin was born, Western Christendom still shared a common religion of immanence. Heaven was never too far from Earth. The sacred was diffused in the profane, the spiritual in the material. Divine power, embodied in the [Roman] Church and its sacraments, reached down through innumerable points of contact to make itself felt: to forgive or punish, to protect against the ravages of nature, to heal, to soothe, and to work all sorts of wonders.

Priests could absolve adulterers and murderers, or bless fields and cattle. During their lives, saints could prevent lightning from striking, restore sight to the blind, or preach to birds and fish.

Unencumbered by the limitations of time and space, they could do even more through their images and relics after death.

A pious glance at a statue of St. Christopher in the morning ensured protection from illness and death throughout the day.

Burial in the habit of St. Francis improved the prospects for the afterlife.

A pilgrimage to Santiago, where the body of the apostle James had been deposited by angels, or to Canterbury … could make a lame man walk, or hasten a soul's release from purgatory.

he map of Europe bristled with holy places; life pulsated with the expectation of the miraculous. In the popular mind and in much of the official teaching of the [Roman] Church, almost anything was possible. One could even eat the flesh of the risen Christ in a consecrated wafer.

"Much of late medieval religion was magical, and … the difference between church men and magicians lay less in what they claimed they could do than in the authority on which their claims rested.

This is illustrated by the crucifix that 'controlled' the weather at Tallard …. Late medieval piety showed an almost irrepressible urge to localize the divine power, make it tangible, and bring it under control" (Carlos Eire, War Against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin, Cambridge, 1986, pp. 1 & 11).
Click to expand...

Link...click here

Interesting reading for sure,

Mike

Matt Black · Jul 13, 2005

If all the above were true, then what happened to the Christians? What does that make of Jesus' promise that "I will build me Church and the gates of Hell will not overcome it"? I note in addition that the writer whom Mike quotes refers to the churches already having abandoned what he calls the Biblical model; that would suggest that he thinks the alleged 'rot' had set in before Constantine; I find that odd as again we have these Christians who were willing to be martyred for their faith.

Yours in Christ

Matt

Ben W · Jul 13, 2005

Constantine?

Doesnt he hunt down and kill demonic entities?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360486/

Doubting Thomas · Jul 13, 2005

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If all the above were true, then what happened to the Christians? What does that make of Jesus' promise that "I will build me Church and the gates of Hell will not overcome it"? I note in addition that the writer whom Mike quotes refers to the churches already having abandoned what he calls the Biblical model; that would suggest that he thinks the alleged 'rot' had set in before Constantine; I find that odd as again we have these Christians who were willing to be martyred for their faith.

Yours in Christ

Matt
Click to expand...

As expected, Matt, you go a post-full of the typical historically (and very selectively at that!) revisionist, antiCatholic, Constanstanine-paganized-Christianity schtick. For a much more balanced view of the tension that remained between church and state even after Constantine's ascendancy, I recommend Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism by D.H.Williams. (And no one can honestly accuse the author of Roman bias/propoganda, since he is a BAPTIST professor of patristics.)

Ed Edwards · Jul 13, 2005

Does anybody know why Pope Liberius (was Pope 352-366)
was never sanctified? He is the first Pope that
wasn't sanctified (made a Saint).

The following data i pulled out of the Reader's Digest 1976
edition (Love those old year books )
(starred data is NOT from Reader's Digest)

From 283 to 323 there were multiple emperors of the
Roman Empire.

From 308AD to 313 there were 4 emperors:
1. Maximian [to 313]
2. Galerius to 311, Licinius after 311 [to 323]
3. Maxentius
4. Constantine

After 323, Emperor Constatine the Great was
exclusive Emperor over all the Roman Empire.

Significant dates during this time:

*303 - the 10th and last Roman Persecution
inthe area of Diocletian (mostly Asia Minor)

313 - The Edict of Milan makes Christianity the
official religion of the Roman Empire

325AD - The First Council of Nicaea.

[ July 13, 2005, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]

mioque · Jul 13, 2005

Liberius wasn't declared a saint because he didn't show any backbone when got caught up in the Arian controversy. Emperor Constantius (not to be confused with Constantine) who supported Arianism had Liberius banned to Thracia because the pope did not support that heresy. When overthere he caved in.

Doubting Thomas · Jul 13, 2005

Originally posted by mioque:
Liberius wasn't declared a saint because he didn't show any backbone when got caught up in the Arian controversy. Emperor Constantius (not to be confused with Constantine) who supported Arianism had Liberius banned to Thracia because the pope did not support that heresy. When overthere he caved in.
Click to expand...

That is correct. As I mentioned above, tension continued to exist between church and "state", particularly when emperors at various times supported the heretical factions (Arianism especially) against the orthodox. As a result of these factors Athanasius, the great defender of Nicene orthodoxy, was exiled on five different occasions.

BobRyan · Jul 13, 2005

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If all the above were true, then what happened to the Christians? What does that make of Jesus' promise that "I will build me Church and the gates of Hell will not overcome it"?
Click to expand...

#1. Well we know that we can not simply turn a blind eye to what BOTH Catholic and nonCatholic historians admit - just because we made some wrong assumptions in one of the Gospel texts eh?

#2. God ALSO made FOREVER promises about His TEACHING WORD and the Spirit of God to the ONE TRUE Nation Church - and yet pronounced THEM as being in doctrinal error (substituting their own tradition for the Word of God) in Mark 7.

So does this mean that the promise has failed?

Funny you should ask --

Rom 9

3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service AND THE PROMISES
5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

6But it is not as though the Word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.”
8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
Click to expand...

If it is true of God's ONE TRUE NATION Church -- then it is even MORE true of the Persecuted Church!!

It is NOT the fleshly "organization" that stands the test - but it is the INDIVIDUALS who are FAITHFUL.

Rom 2
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
Click to expand...

This means that the 1260 years of the dark ages and persecution of the PURE church that follows the resurrection of Christ (as we see in Rev 12) - is a correct picture of the long centuries of persecution against Christians by both pagan and Papal Rome.

This means that the church "apostacy" - the "falling away" Paul predicted in 2Thess 2 - actually DID happen inside the church.

And those who REMAINED faithful and stood firm against error - were persecuted in fact the RCC said they were to be "exterminated" in the Lateran IV council.

The RCC's OWN histians admit to the permanent pagan influence in the RCC from the very earliest days!

How can one be sol willing to turn a blind eye to all of this.

It is one thing not to interpret the future - but not to "get history" even when both RC and non-RC historians "admit to it" to some degree??

Details - details - please!

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Jul 13, 2005

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic work "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

"the clergy at first were not sharply differentiated from the laity..the clergy married, raised families, and earned their livelihood at some trade or profession. But as the practice grew of paying them..they withdrew more and more from secular pursuits, until by the fourth century such withdrawal was deemed obligatory"

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder (as they were really known) avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and, in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest. He (the real Christian leader) saw his primary function as the ministry of the word. ..but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character."

"the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception, for infants could not be preached to. "

"before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred (priesthood of all) as opposed to the profane world. After Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between the church and the world, the polarity between the sacred and profane was transformed into one between the sacred clergy and the profane laity"

"legislation to this effect was first passed at the local synod of Elvira, Spain and taken up by the popes beginning with Siricius (d. 399), who enforced clerical celebacy (which was adopted mainly on the grounds that sex was incompatible with the sacred character of the clergy)"
Click to expand...

BobRyan · Jul 13, 2005

Ibid - Page 42
"the liturgy itself was considerably influenced by the Constantinian revolution. Millions of pagans suddenly entered the church
and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy; the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects, the practice of genuflection,
devotion to relics, use of candles, incense and other ceremonial features derived from the imperial court. Under this pagan influence Christians
began to face the east while praying which made it necessary for the priest to lead prayers while his back was toward the congregation."
…
pg 43
for a long time the celebrant was left considerable freedom to improvise in conducting the liturgy. Even wording of the canon was left to his
discretion.
Click to expand...

I just can't believe that EVEN RC historians are to be ignored when they admit to some unflattering fact of RC history!!

Is there no limit??

BobRyan · Jul 13, 2005

Catholics of the 20th century publish the connection to paganism for the world to see and understand.

Pagan prayer methods.

Catholic Digest 12/1994 pg 129

“The Rosary is, unsurprisingly, Not mentioned in the Bible. Legend and history place its beginning in the 13th century long After the Bible was completed. As a Pagan practice, praying on counting beads goes back centuries before Christ…

Buddhists use prayer wheels and prayer beads for the same purpose… Counting prayer beads is common practice in religious cultures”.

Click to expand...

Cath Digest 9/1993 pg 129
Question:
“My husband has been transferred to Japan and we have been here in Hiroshima for about two months. On a site seeing tour the Japanese guide brought me to a Buddhist shrine. There were statues of Buddha everywhere. The guide told me they represented different aspects of life and that the people offer food to the Buddhas and ask for Favors. It made me think of Our Catholic praying to the saints and wonder whether they have anything like the Ten Commandments to guide them.

There were fountains at the gate where pious visitors washed their hands before entering the shrine grounds. Could this be the same as our holy water?”

Ans:
“Very probably the physical washing signifies some kind of spiritual cleansing, AS it does with Us! Some Muslims say prayers on rosarylike beads Just as We do, so there is no copyright enforced on prayerful customs among the great world religions. The Pagan Romans prayed, each family to its Own household gods, JUST as we do to our patron saints. In Old Testament times the gentile had local gods for their town or country, and our Christian Saints eventually supplanted Them!

The Hebrews, of Course, had the mission of Wiping Out such heathen worship with the worship of the one true God, and while they have always had great respect for spiritual heroes, they Never set up any of their own race as substitutes for the local pagan gods!!
They had no need to make distinctions between praying TO the saints for their intercession with god and total adoration of God as the source of everything, as we must!
Click to expand...

Matt Black · Jul 13, 2005

Except there is no record of anyone 'standing firm against error' against this supposed creeping corruption. So where's the evidence, Bob? I find it absolutely astonishing that true believers who had been in the catacombs and seen their brothers and sisters martyred less than a decade before and were willing to stand up for their faith against heresies such as Arianism scarcely a decade after the Edict of Milan would have said NOTHING about the paganism and corruption which you suppose came into the Church contemporaneously. Please produce at least one primary source document from that period to support your contention that anyone other than Arian heretics opposed and propsed an alternative to the Catholic-Orthodox Church in the 4th century

Yours in Christ

Matt

Doubting Thomas · Jul 13, 2005

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Please produce at least one primary source document from that period to support your contention that anyone other than Arian heretics opposed and propsed an alternative to the Catholic-Orthodox Church in the 4th century

Yours in Christ

Matt
Click to expand...

Yes, "primary" is the key word.
(BTW--Matt, great point you made with the rest of your post. )

BobRyan · Jul 13, 2005

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Except there is no record of anyone 'standing firm against error' against this supposed creeping corruption.
Click to expand...

Is your claim "corruption is ok as long a detailed and well preserved record of opposition is not available"????

IS that a "historical" argument for what Constantine did -- or simply a rabbit trail?

OR are you claiming that we currently have exhaustive accounts of all history for the past 2000 years??? Did you not "notice the detail" that even in the most successful region of the Roman empire the Christian component was no more than 10 PERCENT at the start of the 4th century???

Did you fail to read that RC historian account showing that violence and persecution began EARLY in the church of Rome -- with a permanent affect on the RCC???

OR are you not reading the non-Catholic histories that detail the record of WHY the RCC was calling for "extermination of heretics"???

OR are you simply trying to find how in the world God COULD have had a PERSECUTED church during the dark ages when the RCC dominated and "exterminated" at her pleasure??

Is it that the scenario of Rev 12 with the DARK AGES of persecution following the resurrection of Christ - does not seem to "fit history" in your view?

What is the "real" problem?

In Christ,

Bob

Matt Black · Jul 13, 2005

What I am saying Bob is that I find the following facts convincing:-

1. That the persecuted Catholic-Orthodox Church kept records of its opposition to persecution prior to 313 (and indeed during the brief revival of paganism under Julian in 361-363)

2. That the above persecuted Church kept records of its opposition to heresy prior to 313 (eg: Gnosticism, Montanism, Marcionism, Donatism, Novationism etc)

3. That the tolerated Church kept record of both its opposition to heresies (eg: Arianism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism) and paganism (eg: Julian) after 313.

4. That Christians were willing to risk exile and even death for their opposition to all of the above.

And yet you would have us believe that the 'true Christians' kept no records of their opposition to your alleged paganism and corruption after 313???!!!!

Yours in Christ

Matt

BobRyan · Jul 13, 2005

The 1260 years of persecution predicted in Rev 12 "can not be ignored".

The CHRISTIAN church was persecuted for FAR more than 1260 literal DAYS by pagan Rome ALONE after the resurrection of Christ. So - it is 1260 YEARS - not days that covers the timeline for the dark ages.

The RCC slaughter as many or more of ITS OWN during this time -- so it would be hard to accuse OTHERS of inflicting that amount of damage.

That the RCC was infested with Paganism (at least to some decree WITH EXAMPLES GIVEN) is admitted to in the RC quotes above. Interesting that you choose to ignore that.

There is no doubt that the RCC had many derogatory terms for all those they claimed to "exterminate" during the dark ages. I have no doubt about that at all.

I never claimed that the TRUE Christians were WIPED OUT by the RCC as it embraced the paganism IT CLAIMS to have embraced in the quotes above!!

You are simply going down a rabbit trail - which is surprising since your OP was supposedly about the IMPACT of paganism on the RCC - NOT about the ability of the RCC to squash the RECORDS of her victims.

Want to see some more "RC" Confessing??

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Jul 13, 2005

Catholic Digest 11/1997 pg 100
The question:
A Baptist family who lives across the street gave me a book called the “Trail of Blood”, by J.M. Carroll. It attacks Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism, indulgences, purgatory, and so on. But I am writing to learn if there is anything in history that would justify the following quotation:

“The world has Never seen anything to compare with the persecution heaped upon the Baptists by the Catholic hierarchy of the Dark Ages. The Pope was the world’s dictator. This is why the Anabaptists before the Reformation called the Pope the Anti-Christ”. Then: “Fifty million died by persecution over a period of 1200 years because of the Catholic Church”
Click to expand...

The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan:

“There weren’t any Baptists until 1609, generally thought of as a year occurring after the Dark Ages. (that is why the article above includes Anabaptists) Anabaptists (means anti-baptism of infants – so they re-baptized them as adults) means “re-baptizers” and was a name given to groups existing in the 3rd, 4th, 11th and 12th centuries but they had no connection with the violent civil-religious (Catholic) reformers who appeared in 1521 at Zwickau in Saxony. These 16th century Anabaptists rejected Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism and Lutheran justification by faith, among other things, and intended to substitute a new “Kingdom of God” for the social and civil order of their time. John Leyden was proclaimed King of New Sion at Munster where museums and libraries were destroyed and polygamy was introduced. This group AND Many others were Exterminated during the Peasants Wars by a Combination of civil and religious authority. Whether they were persecuted or punished depends on your point of view”
Click to expand...

In the article above – Fr. Ken Ryan makes the meaning of “extermination” of that group and “many other groups” clear for modern readers.
Catholic apologists like Catholic Digest’s Fr. Ken Ryan quoted above often argue that the RCC isn't accountable for the Inquisition, since the state carried out the torturing and the executions. It was the RCC who defined these people as "heretics", however, and the RCC handed them over to the state (John 19:11).

So whether you "like it or not" even the RC sources are ADMITTING to the extermination of fellow Christians!!

In Christ,

Bob

What did Constantine actually do?

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

BobRyan Well-Known Member

D28guy New Member

D28guy New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Ben W Active Member
Site Supporter

Doubting Thomas Active Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

mioque New Member

Doubting Thomas Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Doubting Thomas Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Useful Searches

What did Constantine actually do?

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

BobRyan Well-Known Member

D28guy New Member

D28guy New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Ben W Active Member Site Supporter

Doubting Thomas Active Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

mioque New Member

Doubting Thomas Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Doubting Thomas Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Ben W Active Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter