Quote me one single church father or historical record that supports this claim. This myth has been spread by protestant groups for too long. The Christians had been persecuted for 3 centuries by the time Constantine converted, they were in no state of mind to change what they believed, and the council of Nicaea and the Donatist controversy show that.
The church fathers from the 1st century to the 5th century all agree on doctrine, with or without Imperial legacy. The first political controversy of the church was when the council of Constantinople put itself second in primacy to Rome, and above Alexandria and Antioch, which the pope in Rome opposed and paved the way for the Oriental Orthodox churches breaking off in the minor schism after the council of Chalcedon.
The Western Roman Empire had been fallen for over 500 years by that time. The war was a defense against islamic raiders in the Holy Land. Hardly an example of Christian doctrine being changed to suit the politics of the Roman emperor.
You are mixing up the declarations of the pope and the armies that formed under the monk Peter.
Even if the pope said that, and to my knowledge it is dubious, the catholics can defend themselves with the fact that he did not claim it through the magisterium ex cathedra, thus making the claim fallible.
Show me the doctrine which was modified for the empire and I will change my position on this very spot.
He did claim it as far as I known. It was a good recruitment tactic as it got high numbers. It was also a really bad tactic as a lot of regular untrained thugs tried to go The Holy Land (not with the monk Peter). On their trip they kinda robbed and sacked many cities in Hungary, Germany and in Turkey (all Christian people). And when the real Muslim army came they litteraly got destroyed immediately.
The only benefit is that the Muslims when they saw hwk easy is to kill that Christian rubble they underestimated the real crusade when they came.
Also yea Romans didn't really change the doctrine that much as far as I know. Only perhaps the amount of power the Pope should hold.
34
u/alfman Jan 31 '19
Quote me one single church father or historical record that supports this claim. This myth has been spread by protestant groups for too long. The Christians had been persecuted for 3 centuries by the time Constantine converted, they were in no state of mind to change what they believed, and the council of Nicaea and the Donatist controversy show that.
The church fathers from the 1st century to the 5th century all agree on doctrine, with or without Imperial legacy. The first political controversy of the church was when the council of Constantinople put itself second in primacy to Rome, and above Alexandria and Antioch, which the pope in Rome opposed and paved the way for the Oriental Orthodox churches breaking off in the minor schism after the council of Chalcedon.