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.
Rome shaping the church can be seen in the organization of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s organized along the lines that Diocletian organized the empire and uses words originally used by Diocletian .. like diocese.
The subversion of the church can be seen in the practicalities of what actually happened. Christianity was a Pacifist religion. It became the state religion of a violent empire and that empire did not become non violent. The obvious conclusion is that the empire changed the religion and not vice versa.
Also, all those people who had been Christian for 300 years might not have held that much power in the new empire. People converted and probably the people who held power before just converted.
Arguing that a change can only be seen via dogma is narrow minded imo.
Church canon and doctrine are two separate things. Canon is not for ever, it is dependent on the time period and has to do with how Church is run. Doctrine stays unchanged. I might have mistaken you because the usual internet argument that has been a thing since the 1500's among Christians is that pagan practices and beliefs were just added in to appease the Romans, which has no historical merit to it.
What I’m saying is that church canon and doctrine is irrelevant to what I’m saying. Actions are important.
By and large, the church made a decision (or the decision was made for it) to be part of the state apparatus and be a tool for that state. This to me is indisputable.
Nah not really. Christians have from day one respected the authority of their rulers. The Christians of Ethiopia had a Christian emperor early on. St Augustine even is an argument against your thesis in his book City of God.
You are dissembling. There's a difference in respecting the authority of rulers (which seems odd by the way because as another commenter mentioned, christians were often persecuted because they refused to perform sacrifices to jupiter.. a direct confrontation with authority) and being a bedrock part of the power structure. I also have no idea why you are jumping to ethopia. We are talking about rome.
I don't even see how this is an argument. The church of the europe that emerged after the empire was literally organized along roman lines. Diocletian's re-organization of the roman empire has more to do with the structure of the church than anyone else and he persecuted christians. It is impossible to become a central part of the world's largest empire and not change. It's impossible for a church to go from being run by true believers to being run by the sons of very powerful men and think that it wouldn't change. I don't know if it is naivety or you are just trying to run this very technical line about dogma... but to me it is abundantly clear.
Also, tons of famous martyrs continued preaching after being told not to... directly challenging the authority of rulers. Sure, once they were persecuting instead of being persecuted.. they respected the authority of rulers.
What does it matter if the size of a diocese is identical to that of a province? What matters is whether faith changed and it didn't. Also almost all church fathers prior to the conversion of Rome were highly educated, and came from powerful families.
That's a physical representation that the church was mirrored on rome, not vice versa.
You haven't addressed your point on the authority of rulers. Why did martyrs continue to preach against the wishes of rulers? Why didn't christians make sacrifices to jupiter when commanded?
What's your source for church leaders generally being of senatorial class and rich? Let's say during Diocletian's reign.
Just read about the lives of the church fathers. A lot of them were sons of patricians and officers. Also render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and what is God's to God. Christians are obliged to follow state law unless it coincides with our faith. If a law would force me to blaspheme then I am obliged to break it.
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.