ejh@sei.cmu.edu (08/04/89)
i watched a show on the discovery channel last night called 'testament'. i suspect it's a series, but this is the first one i ever saw or even heard about. in it, the guy put forth the notion that constantine was not so much a christian as a realist wanting to hold on to his temporal power. it seems that constantine made a deal with the christians along the lines of: i'll grant you power over the spiritual, if you cede me power over the temporal. apparently there was a lot of problems with martyrs, etc., causing lots of unrest in the empire. in other words, i'll back you guys as the official state religion, if you make my life as emperor simpler. the really interesting part was that it was constantine's secretary who actually put forth what became known as the nicaean creed, which constantine used as a way to make all the sects agree and stop their wars. from this, i conclude that constantine wasn't interested in christianity per se, just in peace. indeed, he was not baptized until he was on his deathbed. other things that came out of the show: constantine was obsessed with the idea of ancient things and ideas. when he built constantinople, he had various ancient obelisks, etc. brought there, from such varied sources as ancient egypt and 5th century bc greece. he and i share this fascination with ancient religions. diocletian (one of his predecessors) first set up 'dioceses', which were simply provinces, in charge of each of which he placed a 'vicar'. anyhow, all this may be old hat to some of you (i find it fascinating), but can anyone comment on the validity of the statements made on the show? thanks. erik yaccity yacc (don't awk back) [I think somebody was confusing opinion with fact. There are certainly many Christians who believe that the combination of Church and State created by Constantine was a mistake. Many Protestants identify the beginning of the corruption of the church with that point (though often they exaggerate the change that happened -- most of the characteristics of later Catholic belief can be found well before Constantine). With such a negative view, one naturally tends to suspect Constantine's motives. But I don't know of anyone who has found unambiguous documentation for the motives indicated here. The fact that Constantine wasn't baptized until his deathbed means nothing. That was common practice at the time. This account of the Nicene creed is, to say the least, oversimplified. It's certainly true that Constantine was quite upset that Christians were fighting on theological grounds, and that he insisted that they come to agreement. In many ways he seemed interested that they come to some agreement than in the details of what it was. But the Nicene creed was developed out of a very complex political process, and is not the result of any one person. --clh]
COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu (08/09/89)
In article <Aug.3.22.54.38.1989.250@athos.rutgers.edu>, ejh@sei.cmu.edu writes: > i watched a show on the discovery channel last night called 'testament'. > i suspect it's a series, but this is the first one i ever saw or even heard > about. in it, the guy put forth the notion that constantine was not so much > a christian as a realist wanting to hold on to his temporal power. That part is moderately true. Constantine did scrupulously observe boundaries between Church and State. He had problems with Civil Unrest because of the Arian-Catholic Rift. The Council of Nicea was his way of having the Church definitively settle their dispute, that is, to formulate a Statement of Faith as a sort of a Church Constitution. The Arians were sore loosers, and retaliated by getting Constantine to backslide. Though Constantine apparantly recanted on his death bed, the damage had been done, and his sons took the Arian position. Fortunately, when Theodosius came to power, he held another Council that reaffirmed the Creed. Theodosius, though also scrupulously observing the boundary between Church and State, dealt with the Arians as the cause of the Civil Unrest. The Creed withstood the Test of Time. There are opponents, even today, who espouse some of the Arian positions, who seek to challange various points. To do so is also to challenge the Church'es duty to govern itself in doctrinal matters, and thus to challenge the theme of the Book of Acts, if not the Book of Acts itself. > > it seems that constantine made a deal with the christians along the lines > of: i'll grant you power over the spiritual, if you cede me power over the > temporal. apparently there was a lot of problems with martyrs, etc., > causing lots of unrest in the empire. in other words, i'll back you guys > as the official state religion, if you make my life as emperor simpler. Oversimplified, but basically agrees with the Separation of Church and State Principle. Does not mention the Civil Unrest problem in any detail. A King certainly has the right to delegate authority, and to enlist assistance in quelling Civil Unrest. Constantine and Theodosius chose the Carrot instead of the Stick. > > the really interesting part was that it was constantine's secretary who > actually put forth what became known as the nicaean creed, which > constantine used as a way to make all the sects agree and stop their wars. > from this, i conclude that constantine wasn't interested in christianity > per se, just in peace. indeed, he was not baptized until he was on his > deathbed. St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, was the man who did the work. How did he get to be Constantine's Secretary in Constantinople? An obviously suspect statement. Besides, if Constantine & staff concocted it, as Wierville of "The Way International" claims, why did Constantine backslide to the Arians? [Unfortunately, we simply don't know exactly where they got the Nicene Creed. It's certainly based on baptismal creeds already in use. E.g. a creed from Caesarea (apparently from Eusebius) is very similar to the Nicene creed. To complicate things, the creed that we normally call "Nicene" isn't. It is later than Nicea. It is traditionally connected with the council of Constantinople (381), but doesn't appear specifically in the records of that council. However it was accepted by the council of Chalcedon (451) as being the result of Constantinople. --clh] > > other things that came out of the show: > > constantine was obsessed with the > idea of ancient things and ideas. when he built constantinople, he had > various ancient obelisks, etc. brought there, from such varied sources as > ancient egypt and 5th century bc greece. he and i share this fascination > with ancient religions. > No problem with this. > diocletian (one of his predecessors) first set up 'dioceses', which were > simply provinces, in charge of each of which he placed a 'vicar'. This is suspect. Diocletian was one of the worst of the persecuting Roman Emperors. Interesting Pun. [I think the intent is that Diocletian set up this organization as a secular administrative tool, which was then adopted by the church. Surely no one could believe that Diocletian set up the church organization directly. --clh] > > anyhow, all this may be old hat to some of you (i find it fascinating), but > can anyone comment on the validity of the statements made on the show? For the Doctrinal point of View, look up Anthony Conairis work on the Nicene Creed. (This man is probably a distant relative of Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, Chief of the Abwehr, who concieved Operation Valkurie, the plan to assinate Hitler, incarcerate the SS, and surrender. Many of the Abwehr were motivated by their faith to participate.) For the historical perpective, St. Athanasius'es works gives good insight. > [I think somebody was confusing opinion with fact. There are > certainly many Christians who believe that the combination of Church > and State created by Constantine was a mistake. But I don't know > of anyone who has documented any cynical motives on the part of > Constantine. I agree. See Jack Sparks'es Mindbenders. The theme of this book is to equate heterodox with non-compliance with already accepted standards, such as the Nicene Creed. Interesting is his argument that the Church of Christ's "No Creed but Christ." led to the infiltration by Jim Jones, and the Jonestown massacre. Sparks goes on to demonstrate the slogan's sophistery and nihilism. > > This account of the Nicene creed is, to say the least, oversimplified. > It's certainly true that Constantine was quite upset that Christians > were fighting on theological grounds, and that he insisted that they > come to agreement. In many ways he seemed interested that they come > to some agreement than in the details of what it was. But the Nicene > creed was developed out of a very complex political process, and is > not the result of any one person. > > --clh] Right! Separation of Church and State is not simple (Example, all Islamic States, and the Habsburg Empire opt for Union of Church and State.), but is almost a necessity. What is an Emperor to do? Let a little Civil Strife develop into a Full-blown Civil War? His original objective was to keep the peace, and his power. Objectives change. I consider his conversion a milacle, but are not miricles involved in the lives of Saints? Think of St. Ambrose, who was Governor of Rome. He had to bring his Police/Guards/Private Army (whichever is applicable) to Milan to see to it that the election of the new Bishop was fair and peaceful. Ambrose was elected ! He might have been happier seeing someone else get the job, and definitely richer, because he had to resign his governmental post to become Bishop. On the other hand, to do his job as Governor, he had to maintain domestic tranquility, even if it meant resigning. What is a Governor to do? The man became one of the 4 Fathers of the Church. -ceb
COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu (08/12/89)
[When you read this note, please keep in mind that what we have here is a case of two people being in violent agreement. The message quoted here was a response to claims by a TV show that Constantine was responsible for the contents of the Nicene Creed, and in particular that it was written by his secretary. The intent of my response was (1) that the overall contents can't have been invented by Constantine, because it is very close to baptismal creeds that predated Nicea, and (2) specifically that we don't know the details of what happened during the council, so the role of Constantine's secretary could at best be conjecture. I certainly did not intend to throw doubt on the fact that the Creed was the product of the Council. --clh] > [Unfortunately, we simply don't know exactly where they got the Nicene > Creed. This is suspect. The Council of Nicea was held 325 A.D. I have ran into skads of material in my Medieval History books that mention it. Further, I have a copy of a woodcut of Constantine presenting the work of the Council to Christ in "The Lost books of the Bible". This same book contains the Apostle's Creed, which was not considered cannonical because it was more a commentary than a new doctrinal revelation. It would be easier to contest the existence of Julius Caesar based upon primary and secondary references. > It's certainly based on baptismal creeds already in use. E.g. > a creed from Caesarea (apparently from Eusebius) is very similar to > the Nicene creed. What did you expect? The first creed was "Jesus was Lord". As Christains were being less often fed to lions, the had more time to elaborate on the theme, hence the Roman Creed (aka the Apostle's Creed). >To complicate things, the creed that we normally > call "Nicene" isn't. It is later than Nicea. It is traditionally > connected with the council of Constantinople (381), but doesn't appear > specifically in the records of that council. You forget that Emperor Theodosius held this Council to REAFFIRM THE NICENE CREED before taking action. > However it was accepted > by the council of Chalcedon (451) as being the result of > Constantinople. --clh] > Chalcedon dealt with new enemies of the Church. The Arians had faded. The Monophysites,Nestorians, Pellagians and Manicheans appeared. Chalcedon was to take care of the first 2, Orange was to take care of the second 2. Chalcedon did not generate the Creed, but it was certainly a plausible topic of discussion. Nicea also determined that the first Sunday after the first Pascal Full Moon (roughly the "Real" Full Moon) after Spring Solstice (usually March 21) would become Easter. The followers of St. Athanasius developed, over a period of decades, their own Creed, the Athanasian Creed. You might want to examine Anthony Coniaris'es book for both theological and historical perspective. Finally, the because the Nicene Creed has the unique distinction of being the only Creed from a Church Council of the entire Church, it can be considered as the Original Church Constitution. -ceb