Constantine and the ordering of the Church

[Speros]

Dear Spero,
The Orthodox Church is the church of the Nicene Creed, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church.. It is up to the individual christians to live to the standard, some do it better than others.


The Nicene Creed is a product of Constantine's usurpation of Christ's role as true head of the church. Constantine co-opted the Christian faith to unify his empire. He was a brutal dictator who converted to Arianism on his deathbed, the very heresy that he condemned at Nicea. After his death, Arianism became the official religion of the empire, and Athanasius was exiled.

I confess faith in Christ alone, the sole mediator between God and man, and not in an institution.

"Christianity is an absolutely personal faith. We are judged and saved eternally, not by our relation to the church but by our relation to Christ the Redeemer." - P. T. Forsyth

If you look at the matter historically, the hierarchical structure you know as Eastern Orthodoxy developed over time. Worship was informal, in believers' homes, and everything was shared in kind. The love feast was a full meal, not bread and wine in a ritualistic setting. There was no system of the episcopacy, since every Christian community was purely congregation in polity. The differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and the first century church are numerous and well attested by historical fact.

[Paul Cowan]

I am so happy to be set straight now. Wow 2000 years of living a sham. I am seeing the light. The world's oldest faith broken down to it's most basic elements and then dismissed as the fraud it is. How wrong we all have been. I am off to find the nearest salvation army post so I can sign up to live the rest of my life in minimalism. The burden is gone. The oppression is off. Now I can go ring the little bells in front of walmart and KNOW my Jesus loves me because I, love, Him. Thank you Thank you Thank you. No more fasting, no more alms giving, no more confession, no more church buildings, no more community of believers; just me and MY Jesus.

[Kosta]

Well its quite obvious you know nothing of Church history, I see that from the people you quote. The semi-arianism (basically the only kind that existed after Nicea) was not a monolithic group and most of them participated and accepted Nicea. The controversy after Nicea was over the word homoousios and its understanding.

As far as Church structure we read about bishops and elders in the NT and if you want to read authentic historical material try reading the writings of Ignatius of Antioch the antiochan bishop of the latter half of the first century and contemporary of John the Evangelist.. And the only mystical portion of the love feast was the consecration of the bread and wine. As Ignatius of Antioch taught in 1od a.d. befire his martyrdom, "It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptise or to celebrate a ove Feast" (Ante-nicene Fathers vol 1.90). Yes, when christianity was persecuted people held worship in houses. The oldest excavated house-church being in Dura Europos Syria dating to 220 A.D. A quintessential Orthodox house church.

Since i struck down everyone of your arguments with authentic history, and you cannot do the same. Afterall what is the Salvation Army but a marketing gimmick riding on the coatails of the commercialization of Christmas. Oh and dont give credit to the Salvation Army for its "charitable work" give credit to those that support it. The 99.9 % of the people that are atheists, jews, muslims, hindusm bhuddists and all the other christian persuasions that actually dump their change into those red cannisters. Likewise with those clothes donations, etc.

We have given you the truth while you have given us the protestant apologetic lies that we have heard a thousand times over, you can join the thousands of ex-protestants leaving heresy and joining to their true home of the BBody of Christ with him in his Humanity as the head, or stay in the dying religion of sectarian protestantism.

[Nina]

The Nicene Creed is a product of Constantine's usurpation of Christ's role as true head of the church. Constantine co-opted the Christian faith to unify his empire. He was a brutal dictator who converted to Arianism on his deathbed, the very heresy that he condemned at Nicea.

Do not worry about *Saint* Constantine. Worry about your own salvation, as we all. However, I can tell you with complete guarantee that Saint Constantine is interceding to God for you (like he does for us). However, my friend, we have to open our hearts to God for the intercession and the blessing to take place.



If you look at the matter historically, the hierarchical structure you know as Eastern Orthodoxy developed over time. Worship was informal, in believers' homes, and everything was shared in kind. The love feast was a full meal, not bread and wine in a ritualistic setting. There was no system of the episcopacy, since every Christian community was purely congregation in polity. The differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and the first century church are numerous and well attested by historical fact.Ha ha ha... this reminded me of what I was reading yesterday about Bartolome de Las Casas, a Spanish priest who condemned the genocide against the Native Americans (he went in the Caribbean area in 1502 and witnessed many atrocities against the natives of that area) and whose book 'A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies' contains many of the author's first-hand-witness accounts. However his book and facts were criticized 500 years later by many Marx-influenced "critics" who can't accept the book since the idea of a social structure and system in the communities of the Native Americans does not fit in their neatly arranged idea of these people being savages. Pity that I do not have the book here to quote it. But these tactics are well-known.

[Owen]

The Nicene Creed is a product of Constantine's usurpation of Christ's role as true head of the church. Constantine co-opted the Christian faith to unify his empire. He was a brutal dictator who converted to Arianism on his deathbed, the very heresy that he condemned at Nicea. After his death, Arianism became the official religion of the empire, and Athanasius was exiled.

I confess faith in Christ alone, the sole mediator between God and man, and not in an institution.

"Christianity is an absolutely personal faith. We are judged and saved eternally, not by our relation to the church but by our relation to Christ the Redeemer." - P. T. Forsyth

If you look at the matter historically, the hierarchical structure you know as Eastern Orthodoxy developed over time. Worship was informal, in believers' homes, and everything was shared in kind. The love feast was a full meal, not bread and wine in a ritualistic setting. There was no system of the episcopacy, since every Christian community was purely congregation in polity. The differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and the first century church are numerous and well attested by historical fact.

Your historiography is inconsistant and not in agreement with the consensus of most unbiased historians. It is, in fact, just another regurgitation of the Protestant anti-Catholic line, which I have heard much too often. It's flawed major premise is that, since the primitive Church did not develope in the way you thought it should, all subsequent Christian history is, in fact, the history of an apostate Church.

[Michael C.]

Here's historical truth about St. Constantine:

http://www.oodegr.com/english/paganismos/sykofanties/kwnstantinos_ist_alithia1.htm

[David Hawthorne]

Here's historical truth about St. Constantine:

http://www.oodegr.com/english/paganismos/sykofanties/kwnstantinos_ist_alithia1.htm

Thank you for posting this, Michael, it looks very good and I am looking forward to reading it closely.

[Andreas Moran]

The Nicene Creed is a product of Constantine's usurpation of Christ's role as true head of the church. Constantine co-opted the Christian faith to unify his empire. He was a brutal dictator who converted to Arianism on his deathbed, the very heresy that he condemned at Nicea. After his death, Arianism became the official religion of the empire, and Athanasius was exiled.

I confess faith in Christ alone, the sole mediator between God and man, and not in an institution.

"Christianity is an absolutely personal faith. We are judged and saved eternally, not by our relation to the church but by our relation to Christ the Redeemer." - P. T. Forsyth

If you look at the matter historically, the hierarchical structure you know as Eastern Orthodoxy developed over time. Worship was informal, in believers' homes, and everything was shared in kind. The love feast was a full meal, not bread and wine in a ritualistic setting. There was no system of the episcopacy, since every Christian community was purely congregation in polity. The differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and the first century church are numerous and well attested by historical fact.

From memory, the Nicene Creed states belief in one God, the Father Almighty, one Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Constantine is not mentioned.

The Church is not an institution but the Body of Christ.

The eucharist is described in many early Christian writings before Constantine and was clearly ritualistic.

I do think that if trenchant and challenging opinions are posted, they must be supported by authority. Since nothing asserted by Speros was so supported, then the opinions put forward have no value.

[Ben Johnson]

The Nicene Creed is a product of Constantine's usurpation of Christ's role as true head of the church. Constantine co-opted the Christian faith to unify his empire. He was a brutal dictator who converted to Arianism on his deathbed, the very heresy that he condemned at Nicea. After his death, Arianism became the official religion of the empire, and Athanasius was exiled.

I confess faith in Christ alone, the sole mediator between God and man, and not in an institution.

"Christianity is an absolutely personal faith. We are judged and saved eternally, not by our relation to the church but by our relation to Christ the Redeemer." - P. T. Forsyth

If you look at the matter historically, the hierarchical structure you know as Eastern Orthodoxy developed over time. Worship was informal, in believers' homes, and everything was shared in kind. The love feast was a full meal, not bread and wine in a ritualistic setting. There was no system of the episcopacy, since every Christian community was purely congregation in polity. The differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and the first century church are numerous and well attested by historical fact.
From reading Roman history I always thought Constantine was a typical Roman emperor. He was not warm and fuzzy but was certainly was not brutal. His battles and punishments were typical of the time. He wasn't baptized until it was time for him to kick the bucket. Can we say what was going through his mind when he had an Arian baptize him? Perhaps he just picked that one because he liked him. I see no evidence of Constantine trying to upsurp the LORD's place.

-Ben

[Speros]

I did not start this thread and I'm uncertain as to whether I'd like to participate in it. I can provide you with this article, which I hope you might find informative:



Constantine: An Anti-Christ?

Much is written and spoken today concerning the "anti-Christ". A common interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 says that the "anti-Christ" will take his position in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and will rule the world from this point. For this reason, Christians are often warned not to participate in activities concerning the possible rebuilding of the temple. There is an alternative view of Paul's word to the Thessalonians. In every other reference where Paul speaks of the "temple", he is referring to the Church. The Church is seen as the "Temple of God". Therefore, it is possible that a future world ruler could "take his seat in the temple" by assuming authority over the Church and by controlling the position and direction of it. This is much more subtle than going to Jerusalem and usurping a position in a rebuilt "third" Temple. We believe that this is a much more likely development. Indeed, we maintain that there is a historical precedent for such an event. It happened in 325 AD when Emperor Constantine convened and orchestrated what has come to be known as the First General Conference of the Church at Nicea.




Historical Background Of The Council Of Nicea

During the third century AD, the Roman empire began to experience decline due both to internal corruption and to external assault. Throughout this time, the Church was growing throughout the empire. Churches were established in every city. Local churches were under the authority of bishops. There were five main or regional centers of authority including: Rome, Ephesus, Antioch, Alexandria, and Carthage. Indeed, it appears that, to some degree, the Church became "a state within the state". During the reign of Decius (249-251) and Diocletian (284-305), general persecutions of the Church were implemented in an effort to destroy it. The opposite occurred. The Church grew in strength and resolve.

When Constantine became emperor, he reasoned that the Church could serve as the grassroots backbone for the crumbling empire. He therefore legalized Christianity and made it the official religion of the empire. The fortune of the Church was suddenly reversed. Church property was returned to the Church. Bishops and pastors that had suffered loss during the periods of persecution were given government pensions. Laws were passed that strengthened the position of the Church.



For the Church to serve in the capacity envisioned by Constantine, unity was essential. Unfortunately for Constantine, it was at this very time that the Arian dispute arose. Arius was a presbyter at Alexandria. He wrote concerning his belief that Jesus was a "created being". His bishop. Alexander, disagreed with this position and a lively dispute resulted. This dispute spread throughout the Church and threatened to be the source of a major schism. Obviously, such a division in the Church would destroy its role as envisioned by Constantine.



The threat felt by Constantine was so strong that he embarked upon the unprecedented calling for an assembly of the bishops from throughout the empire to deal with this question and to resolve the issue. He personally invited the bishops, paid for their conveyance and maintained them through the conference which lasted for two months. Upon convening the assembly, he told the bishops what he expected to be accomplished and even defined their responsibility to the society. Finally, when the council ended, he gave the bishops "valuable" gifts and sent them on their way. He implemented and enforced the findings of the council, even to the point of the death sentence for anyone harboring materials written by Arius. All of this was done by Constantine while he was the undisputed secular world leader. He was not officially a part of the Church during this time. Constantine as a secular world leader literally "took his seat" in the midst of the Church and ruled over it. He usurped the position of the rightful "Lord" of the Church, Jesus the Messiah; therefore, he was an "anti-Christ".
http://www.tzemach.org/articles/const.htm


I recommend reading the Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder, one of the most well regarded theologians of the 20th century. It should make you think twice about whether the Christian faith was originally intended to become a state religion, and whether Constantine ultimately hurt rather than helped the faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard_Yoder

[Olga]

I recommend reading the Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder, one of the most well regarded theologians of the 20th century. It should make you think twice about whether the Christian faith was originally intended to become a state religion, and whether Constantine ultimately hurt rather than helped the faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard_Yoder

First it was Phyllis Tickle, now John Howard Yoder. By what authority can these people speak of Orthodox Christianity? One could apply the "well-regarded theologian" description to a great variety of people, whose theological "flavour" ranges from Pope Benedict XVI to Bishop Shelby Spong, and everything else in between. Simply referring to someone as "one of the most well-regarded theologians of the 20th century" won't wash, I'm afraid. Well-regarded by whom?

[Ben Johnson]

The Church has always had to deal with strong governments in Rome, Persia, Parthia, Russia, the Mongolian empire, the Ottoman empire, China, and the United States, to name a few. Are they all anti-Christs? Just because they were not pacifist theologians like Professor Yoder does not mean they were anti-Christs. Have you ever read the Pulpit Commentary? I remember the author of the Commentary on Revelation thought the anti-Christ would be the Pope. There have been a lot of evil rulers in this world, but none turned out to be the ultimate anti-Christ. I find it is better to think more about following the LORD rather than guessing who the anti-Christ is.

[Paul Cowan]

He usurped the position of the rightful "Lord" of the Church, Jesus the Messiah; therefore, he was an "anti-Christ".


I am also an anti-christ. The Holy fathers say anyone who does not the will of God is an anti-christ. We are all little anit-christs. None of us do the will of God.

[Michael C.]

Thank you for posting this, Michael, it looks very good and I am looking forward to reading it closely.

My mother has a special devotion to Sts. Constantine and Helen, since in her home village (in Greece), the patron saints are Sts. Constantine and Helen. I grew up in the US, and in school I learned what a bad man he was. I never considered him a saint...sadly.

But he was Roman Emperor and a child of his age. He stopped the persecutions of Christians. He allowed Christianity to exist. He was considered worthy to receive visions from God.

No amount of slander from the West can change what he did. And of course the west has never forgiven him; imagine moving the capital of the US from Washington, DC to Columbus, OH. Who would ever forgive that president (and congress)?

[David Hawthorne]

My mother has a special devotion to Sts. Constantine and Helen, since in her home village (in Greece), the patron saints are Sts. Constantine and Helen. I grew up in the US, and in school I learned what a bad man he was. I never considered him a saint...sadly.

But he was Roman Emperor and a child of his age. He stopped the persecutions of Christians. He allowed Christianity to exist. He was considered worthy to receive visions from God.

No amount of slander from the West can change what he did. And of course the west has never forgiven him; imagine moving the capital of the US from Washington, DC to Columbus, OH. Who would ever forgive that president (and congress)?

I know what you mean, Michael. I remember feeling a little shocked early on in Orthodoxy when I heard that Constantine was regarded as a saint by the Church. My entire frame of reference was what I had been taught by teachers who only drew their opinions from his defamers. I put it on the shelf for a number of years trusting that the Church knew what it was doing but always wanting to go more in-depth. The article you posted is a great start for that. Thank you, again.
As far as moving the capital is concerned, I understand completely. Moving the capital to Ohio would be unforgivable. Moving it to Richmond, Va. on the other hand..........

[Owen]

I do remember, some years back, that certain right-wingers were suggesting that the American capital be moved from the east coast to the Midwest "where people are more sensible." Haven't heard anything about that since the economy went South.

[S. Rey]

The Nicene Creed is a product of Constantine's usurpation of Christ's role as true head of the church. Constantine co-opted the Christian faith to unify his empire. He was a brutal dictator who converted to Arianism on his deathbed, the very heresy that he condemned at Nicea. After his death, Arianism became the official religion of the empire, and Athanasius was exiled.

The Nicene Creed is nothing else than the writing down of the beliefs that the Church has professed since the beginning, in order to protect it from heresies--Arianism, Marcionism, etc. If you read it and yet assent to what it says, then do you therefore approve usurpation? If you disagree with what it says, what then do you believe? Note also that most mainline Protestant churches still uphold the Creed, although they never recite it, and very few outside the pastors even know what it is.
Constantine was not a dictator, but Emperor, i.e. the ruler of the Roman empire. He was not perfect, as no one of us is, and lived in his own age. We must judge him according to his age, not our own. Is our own age then better? If he was a dictator, then how is his heritage still alive in the whole Orthodox world, and also in the West, even in the land touched by the Reformation? Violence and dictatorship do not accomplish such things. Arianism did NOT become the faith of the Empire: if it was the case, then why are Greece, Romania, Russia, and other Eastern European countries not Arian today?



I confess faith in Christ alone, the sole mediator between God and man, and not in an institution.
"Christianity is an absolutely personal faith. We are judged and saved eternally, not by our relation to the church but by our relation to Christ the Redeemer." - P. T. Forsyth

We have faith in Christ alone; the Church, which is His body, helps us through Her mysteries to attain unity with Him by sending the Holy Spirit upon us. It is the truth of the mysteries that is important, not the institution, which is merely the outward aspect. When shall we cease from viewing the Holy Church as we see Roman Catholicism?




If you look at the matter historically, the hierarchical structure you know as Eastern Orthodoxy developed over time. Worship was informal, in believers' homes, and everything was shared in kind. The love feast was a full meal, not bread and wine in a ritualistic setting. There was no system of the episcopacy, since every Christian community was purely congregation in polity. The differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and the first century church are numerous and well attested by historical fact.


There have always been bishops, priests, and deacons in the Church:

"xl. Therefore they that make their offerings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, for in following the ordinance of the master they do not err. TO the high priest are given his specials ministrations, a special place is reserved for the priests, and special duties are imposed upon the levites, while the layman is bound by the ordinances concerning the laity.
xli. ...and even there the offering is made not in every place, but before the sanctuary at the altar, when the offering has been inspected by the high priest and ministers aforesaid...
xlii. The Apostles for our sakes received the gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ then is from God, and the Apostles from Christ... And so, as they preached in the country and in the towns, they appointed their first fruits (having proved them by the SPirit) to be bishops and deacons [overseers and ministers] of them that should believe. And this was no novelty, for of old it had been written concerning bishops and deacons; for the Scripture says in one place, 'I will set up their bishops [or 'princes', or 'officers'] in righteousness, and their deacons [or 'overseers' or 'task-master'] in faith' (Is. lx: 17).
xliv. Our Apostles knew also, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the dignity of the bishop's office. FOr this reason therefore... they appointed the aforesaid, and after a time made provision that on their death other approved men should succeed to their ministry."
Clement of Rome, ca. 95 AD, Epistle to the Corinthians.


Again, St. Justin Martyr ca. 150 AD describes a Christian worship:
"Then is brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of water and wine... When the president has given thanks and all the people have assented, those who are called deacons with us give to those present a portion of the Eucharistic bread and wine and water, and carry it away to those who are absent. This food is called with us the Eucharist, and of it none is allowed to partake but he that believes that our teachings are true... For we do not receive them are ordinary food or ordinary drinks, [but] this food is the flesh and blood of Jesus who was made flesh..."
Apology I. lxv-lxvi

Unless the Church had already apostasized by 95, the holy orders that we have today have always been present. Suppose there are indeed differences between the Holy Orthodox Church and the early Christian communities; then how are the churches issued from the Reformation less different and more like the original 15 centuries and more after the early Church?

[Andreas Moran]

I did not start this thread and I'm uncertain as to whether I'd like to participate in it. I can provide you with this article, which I hope you might find informative:



I recommend reading the Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder, one of the most well regarded theologians of the 20th century. It should make you think twice about whether the Christian faith was originally intended to become a state religion, and whether Constantine ultimately hurt rather than helped the faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard_Yoder

It really becomes tiresome to have to defend historical facts. Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. That was done many years after his death by an edict of Theodosius I dated 27 February 380. If the 'authorities' quoted by Speros cannot get basic facts right, what sort of authorities are they?

[Paul Cowan]

I do remember, some years back, that certain right-wingers were suggesting that the American capital be moved from the east coast to the Midwest "where people are more sensible." Haven't heard anything about that since the economy went South.


The economy came south and stayed. Might as well bring the capital to Texas too. We used to have our own, we might have it back again (http://forums.mysanantonio.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/22587/The_Country_of_Texas).

Paul

[David Hawthorne]

The economy came south and stayed. Might as well bring the capital to Texas too. We used to have our own, we might have it back again (http://forums.mysanantonio.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/22587/The_Country_of_Texas).

Paul

Amen, brother. It is a little known Biblical fact that the word Texas translates into Hebrew as "Promised Land".

[Andreas Moran]

Amen, brother. It is a little known Biblical fact that the word Texas translates into Hebrew as "Promised Land". . . . of the New World - Yorkshire is the Promised Land of the Old.

[Paul Fowler]

. . . of the New World - Yorkshire is the Promised Land of the Old.

Herumph!!!! I have a book entitled "These From God's Own County" by SL Bensusan-its about Essex, as well you ought to know Andreas!!!


Ex-patriate Essexman Paul

[Andreas Moran]

Herumph!!!! I have a book entitled "These From God's Own County" by SL Bensusan-its about Essex, as well you ought to know Andreas!!!


Ex-patriate Essexman Paul

I'm not impressed. God made Yorkshire, stepped back, looked at His handiwork, and said, 'by, that's a grand bit of work that is'. And after all, it took a man from north of the Humber - St Cedd - to evangelize Essex, and he very sensibly died at Lastingham, a most beautiful part of Yorkshire.

Andreas who, for his sins, is exiled from the Promised Land (of great saints, friendly folk, Yorkshire puddings, Tetley beer, brass bands, stout stone dwellings, etc. etc, etc).

PS To keep on thread, remember that Constantine lived in and was proclaimed emperor at York.

[Paul Fowler]

I'm not impressed. God made Yorkshire, stepped back, looked at His handiwork, and said, 'by, that's a grand bit of work that is'. And after all, it took a man from north of the Humber - St Cedd - to evangelize Essex, and he very sensibly died at Lastingham, a most beautiful part of Yorkshire.

Andreas who, for his sins, is exiled from the Promised Land (of great saints, friendly folk, Yorkshire puddings, Tetley beer, brass bands, stout stone dwellings, etc. etc, etc).

PS To keep on thread, remember that Constantine lived in and was proclaimed emperor at York.

And his mother came from Colchester

[Andreas Moran]

And his mother came from Colchester

She had to come from somewhere.

[Anna Stickles]

It's probably two cents too much, but I thought I would throw mine in here.

If God could use pagan rulers like Nebuchadnezzar to tear down Israel, and use Cyrus and Darius in His purpose in restoring and rebuilding Israel, why do we have trouble with the fact that God used Constantine to help build up His Church? If God was sovereign over the doings of Israel, how can He not be sovereign over the doings of His Church? The main issue with postulating that the Church went astray shortly after the apostles died and was not restored until modern times is the fact that this completely denies that God is competent to protect His own people. It infers that God is unable to make sure that there is a witness to Truth and Righteousness in every generation. It infers that He is unable to direct the growth and development of His own body.

Personally I am not ready to call God incompetent. Neither am I ready to postulate that the witness to truth and righteousness existed in some tiny corner that no one has ever heard of.

Here maybe is a veiw of the history of the Church that might be worth considering.


"If we look at the major events in the life of the Church during the first six centuries of its existence we can easily distinguish certain trends, or stages of growth. Each such stage of growth seems to deal with some one major task or challenge on which the Church concentrates its efforts. In the first chapters of the book we studied the period of the Apostolic missionary effort of the 1st and 2nd centuries which brought the Christian Gospel to the furthest corners of the then known world. Even before this Apostolic mission reached its climax, began the period of persecutions of Christians by the Roman state, during which the new faith was tempered in the fire of martydom. The persecutions were scarcely over, with Christianity becoming almost overnight the state religion of the Roman Empire, when the Church undertook the formidable task of defining of defining and expressing its faith in terms of doctrine. It was a relentless, endlessly painstaking, uncompromisng effort to define the basic Christian teaching about God, the Holy Trinity, and especially about the Person of Jesus Christ. This labor of the church councils did not take place in a spiritually and intellectually serence environment and fellowship of thought. It had to be carried out under political pressure influenced by intrigues in imperial palaces, swung by the passions of city crowds." Of course even before the persecutions were over, even before the death of the first Apostles heresies and false doctrines were popping up. The main point here, though, is that the Church did not exist in a vaccume.

There are three possibilities available -
either the real church retreated under pressure to some odd corner of the empire and suddenly reapeared at the Reformatinon (I've heard this)

or it completely lost its integrity and identity to such an extent that we can say that the secular forces of the empire which could not overpower it by martial force in the persecutions, now overpowered it by political coercion during the time of the councils. We have to say that secular culture overpowered it by corrupting it's doctrine and practice.

Or we can accept that God did not let His Church be overcome despite political intrigues and popular passions and that it has maintained its identity intact from the time of the Apostles until now through the guidance and strengthening of the Holy Spirit. Not all things are perfect, but we can accept that the basic identity, belief, eccesiology, and praxis - the fundamentals that make up the foundation of what the Church is - remained intact.

The question then becomes, in a situation where Satan is trying to destroy the Church, not only by external political pressure, but also internally by sowing tares among the wheat, how do we recognize the wheat? God gave Israel certain criteria by which to recognize the false prophet from the true. Christ gave the Church criteria by which to recognize the false apostle, prophet and teacher from the true. It is the Church herself (the body as a whole, not by heiarchical decree) over time, once the passions have died down and the politics settled, which has looked back and affirmed - these teachers we accept unconditionally, these others conditionally and these others we reject. A body of accepted dogma and has developed that goes far beyond "mere Christianity".

Certainly the Church would take advantage of Constantine's favor while seeing this as God's blessing. But later when the political winds shifted and Orthodoxy was out of favor, and Arianism was in, still they were not moved. If those early Fathers were willing to suffer exile and die for the sake of a right articulation of the faith, undistorted by Greek philosophy and pagan culture, maybe we should consider that what they were defending was important. And if the Orthodox bishops of the Church were not willing to compromise their faith even under Arian emporers how can we say that these same bishops were simply Constantine's puppets, accepting him as the "true head of the Church" and being willing to obey him against their own convictions of the truth?

[Owen]

The question then becomes, in a situation where Satan is trying to destroy the Church, not only by external political pressure, but also internally by sowing tares among the wheat, how do we recognize the wheat?

You can't. The wheat, and the tares, while they are growing together, are indistinguishable (Matt. 13):


24Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Note the following (Rev. 22):


11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

This is the only safe course for a Christian to follow.

[S. Rey]

If we accept that the Church that Christ Himself left to His Apostles to build and spread is the True Church, then we also accept the Church in its entire historical experience--whether in martyrdom persecuted by non-christian rulers, muslims, or atheist power, or whether in glory as the faith of an entire civilization that gave us art and a sound doctrine of the faith. Denying this historical reality, and complaining that the Church somewhat became corrupt after it was made "the official religion of the Roman Empire" is simply lack of love for the Church, and therefore lack of faith. Christianity became the faith of the Roman or formerly Roman lands; this event made possible our own Western world as we know it today: the belief in the Incarnation and Resurection of the Logos Himself redirected our entire thought, and developped into a distinctive Byzantine and 'Western' thought, which made possible our own conception of the cosmos and our own purpose as human beings. If Christianity had remained an underground and persecuted faith, none of this would have been possible. How, then, can we decry Constantine's toleration act and keep enjoying the fruits of this event? This is hypocrisy.

The Church exists as a reality, among men here on earth, and therefore it undergoes a variety of experiences, while it ought at the same time to preserve the faith uncorrupt. The Church is and remains the same, whether persecuted or glorified, in the diversity of Her experiences. By denying this truth, we make of the Church simply an object of our private interest, and not an object of our faith.