|WikiProject Christianity / Theology||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Links from this article with broken #section links (check):
- 1 Citations
- 2 Newer Comments
- 3 Older comments
- 4 Names wrong and date?
- 5 Horrible
- 6 bearing the labarum - where?
- 7 OR label
- 8 "Criticisms"
- 9 What the Anabaptist actually state
- 10 Pre Constantinian Christianity
- 11 Criticism section
- 12 Constantine's Sword
- 13 Proposed Edits
- 14 (pic) I believe in the sword....
Lovemonkey, I am confused why you insisted I post references regarding the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, and even more so regarding Theodosius' decree. Using this logic, shouldn't someone have to post a reference proving that Constatine issued the Edict of Milan? The sentence on this Edict was located right above the one you asked me to reference, but does not have a "citation needed" tag. Obviously I do not believe this needs to be referenced, but it shows a lack of consistency on the page. Mattf123 5:22pm 2 Nov 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattf123 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well I am just making sure I have "clean hands". I have gotten a lot of guff on calling this POV of an article what it is- a conspiracy theory. So I apologize but the last thing I need to have to defend myself from why did you ask me and not -so and so- for sources. PS I dont think I even added the original citations tags.. But I have to be even handed.
- I can understand that. I didn't mean to be too critical, it's just that it become too much to cite everything in an article. And it can lead people who are not aquainted with the history to believe that some information is unreliable, or unproven when it is not really a controversial piece of info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the following phrase when looking at this article: "... standard with the first two Greek letters of Christ's name." Of course, the word Christ is not a name, it is a title (e.g., Mahatma is a title, not part of Ghandi's name). So this phrase should be re-worded slightly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
In trying to edit the Criticism section, I removed the following. They did not seem to fit and are partly incoherent. I made quite a few other cosmetic changes, but it is still something of a grammatical mess.
"Though while being in the status of state religion none could guarantee not being removed from this position (see Julian the apostate), no religious tradition appears to have been able to keep such a role permanently either, with the possible exceptions being in the Muslim world (see Turkey). With pre-Christian pagan empires being run by the emperor as a designated pagan god."
"This criteria also appears to be unsatisfiable in that either the religion is subjective to the state aka Caesaropapism or the religious tradition is the state aka Theocracy. Either characteristic being depicted as a negative one."
Hello whomever you are. Could you A) sign your comments B)not blanket out or remove entire passages at least without discussing the removal here first. C)Please explain what is unclear and if the issue is grammatical please just fix them instead of blank deleting. Thanks LoveMonkey 03:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Just came from the Constantinianism article, which (as I saw it) had POV problems. I would appreciate if someone from here, hopefully knowing more about the topic, could look at it. Should it be a separate article at all? Kevinsam 07:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article separate from Constantine I and Christianity, and why is the term alleged to be used by "Anabaptist and Post-Christendom theologians" (whatever these are)? dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- The term Constantinian Shift is a specific theological term used to describe the effect Constantine had on Christianity. It is used by those (like Anabaptists) who are skeptical of the path in which Constantine took the church. Constantine I and Christianity is a more historically focused article which compliments this article, but does not duplicate it. Constantine I and Christianity does not deal in any significant way with the theological ramifications of the Constantinian shift. Constantinian shift should deal not only with the definition of the term, but also how, when and why it is used. A look at the Constantinians shift: what links here page shows how it is referenced differently (and more frequently) than the Constantine and Christianity article. mennonot 22:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- This concept is of ongoing importance in the U.S. among progressive Christians. See Joe Loconte does the twist for an example. The author does not mention the Constantinian shift by name, but discusses the concept as the beginning of "Constantinianism." I plan to add more on contemporary relevance to the article in the future. mennonot 12:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, keep both articles separate, do not merge. "Constantinian Shift" is a specific view held by some Christians, including Christian anarchists and many peace churches. The article will grow over time. --nirvana2013 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I see -- this appears to be an US issue; I see no reason why "Constantine and Christianity" should not also deal with theological issues. Of course "progressive Christians" have tried to go back before Constantine's time since the 1500s. But it will be satisfactory to mark this article clearly as the theological sub-article of the Constantine and Christianity one. dab (ᛏ) 11:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, keep both articles separate, do not merge. "Constantinian Shift" is a specific view held by some Christians, including Christian anarchists and many peace churches. The article will grow over time. --nirvana2013 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is by no means exclusively a US issue, indeed I think that the British Lion History of Christianity employs a version of what I know as the "Constantinian Hypothesis," namely that the descent of the church into nominalism came with Constantine's reign, and this is a view that is very common among both Evangelicals and Liberals. It was also behind the symbol of the Restoration house church movement in 1980s Britain. It had support from political theologians like Alistair Kee in England and James Bulloch in Scotland, but its most articulate opponent from a historical perspective was an American, Ramsay MacMullan. Some go as far (I think Alistair Kee is one) to deny that Constantine ever became a Christian. MnJWalker 23:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for all these details on the British angle. By all means add this information to the article. It sounds like the beginnings of a "Impact on the modern church" section that lays out how the Constantinian shift has affected churches in more recent history. mennonot 08:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Names wrong and date?
Please explain how and what names I got wrong and information I have that is incorrect? Str1977 the Constantinian shift is at best a theory if not entirely POV. LoveMonkey 13:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
LoveMonkey, I will address all points raised by the recent edits:
- first of all, the 1054 schism is simply the schism between the Roman Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, not with some Orthodox Churches of the "Middle East" (which is a terribly anachronistic term). At best, you could say Rome and Greek Orthodox Church, but no more.
- The change to "From the Eastern Christian traditions this part of their history does not contain any modern address of refutation" was simply reverted with all the other stuff. This is one of those incomprehensible sentences.
- "This would also be to deny the history that followed Constantine's legalization of christianity. A history that contained a brief unity between the Arius and Trinitarians when Justian the Apostate ascended to the throne of the Eastern Roman Empire and began to reinstitue paganism at the expense of christianity. This also would be to deny that Constantine was considered himself to partial Arianism as is the case of his historian Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius' conflict with Athanasius of Alexandria and Marcellus of Ancyra."
- This is where you get facts and names totally wrong, which makes me feel uneasy about the entire thing. It's like reading about US President Phil Clinton. I suggest you follow the red link in the text and work it out for yourself. As for the facts - the Apostate's rule did not create "a brief unity" but rather the opposite - he recalled the exiled bishops to create trouble among the Christians. Apart from the fact that the sentence misses words, it is wrong to make Constantine an Arian, just because he recalled Arius and banished Athanasius. (And Marcellus is and remains a heretic no less). All in all, I do not know what this is trying to say anyway. It certainly doesn't come across.
- These are the main points with your first edit. It is beyond me why in your second edit you also reinstated the following stuff:
- "As for the matter of state religion. None of the major world historical religious traditions have ever functioned within the framework of not being a state religion at some point in their history." is just silly and factually wrong (is this a typo?) - no major religion has ever functioned as a state religion?
- "With pre-Christian pagan empires being run by the emperor as a designated pagan god." grammatically incomplete and actually off-topic.
- "This can be seen in India even in its "Republic of India" referring to itself as Hindustan which reflects in the name of the nation through the religion to which its people adhere though at times not its leaders." nonsense (Hinduism takes its name from the country) and off-topic.
- "Also with the Buddhist traditions such as the theocracy of Tibet that was only brought to an end by the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1959." - what has Tibet 1959 (the invasion was BTW 1950) to do with the Constantinian shift?
- "In the Hebrew tradition this practice can be seen in starting in the Tora with Abraham and then followed by the Levite continuing through to the Sadducees." -what can be seen? Again of topic.
- "The case with Islam and its relationship to the state would be exemplified by the monarchy of Saudi Arabia and its governing power coming from the monarchy and the Quran and Shari'a being literally Saudi Arabia's constitution." - also off-topic
- "After the Reformation, many European state churches themselves were and remain Protestant (see Church of Denmark, Church of Norway, Church of Iceland (Protestant churches being outside the Roman catholic and Eastern orthodox communion,) and also the Anglican state churches of the Church of England and the Anglican Church of Canada." - is off topic and why did you reinstate this substandard version and my corrected one?
As for theory and POV. Yes, the Constantinian shift is a theory, or rather a name for apparently a whole bunch of theories (I do not know whether it is identical with the German term "Konstantinische Wende", which is not restricted to fringe views). There are POV problems in the article. But the main problem is at the moment that it is just babbling, substandard collection of words, especially in the Criticism section. If I could tell what this section wanted to say I had tried to improve it. But I cannot tell. Str1977 (smile back) 16:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
"1. first of all, the 1054 schism is simply the schism between the Roman Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, not with some Orthodox Churches of the "Middle East" (which is a terribly anachronistic term). At best, you could say Rome and Greek Orthodox Church, but no more. The change to "From the Eastern Christian traditions this part of their history does not contain any modern address of refutation" was simply reverted with all the other stuff. This is one of those incomprehensible sentences."
Completely misleading, the Non-chaldeaon churchs did not reconcile with the Roman church after the schism. They remained separate from both Rome and the Byzantine Orthodox church, though we are neighbors and do chit chat and intermarry and things like that. Rome can not claim such a relationship with the middle east that Jesus came from. Jesus was from the middle east Isreal, not Italy. These churches included the Oriental orthodox as well as the churches of Nestor. There is no mention about their stance on the "Constantinian shift" in the article. What you have reduced the argument to is A. They where part of either the church of Constantinople or Rome, not true. B. That they have no opinion about Constantine. C. That what they are and say has no worth in this article. I was trying to at least address that they do follow that Constantine is a saint and that they also do not accept the primacy of the Roman See. That the middle eastern churches maintain "orthodoxy" in their titles for a reason. As the schism it was against the other patriarchs of the Catholic chuch like Patriarch Leontius of Alexandria and or oriental such Pope Christodolos of Alexandria ALIKE. Neither sided with Rome. Therefore the schism effected not just the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople but the other Patriarchs of the middle east. But you deny that there where other patriarchs then just Constantinople and Rome. That these other patriarchs had as much a say as either Rome or Constantinople. According to you there where no other significate Catholic patriarchs in the world. Of course these christians and their patriarchs did not fall off the planet and Rome does not speak for them.
"This is where you get facts and names totally wrong, which makes me feel uneasy about the entire thing. It's like reading about US President Phil Clinton. I suggest you follow the red link in the text and work it out for yourself."
"As for the facts - the Apostate's rule did not create "a brief unity" but rather the opposite -he recalled the exiled bishops to create trouble among the Christians. Apart from the fact that the sentence misses words, it is wrong to make Constantine an Arian, just because he recalled Arius and banished Athanasius. (And Marcellus is and remains a heretic no less). All in all, I do not know what this is trying to say anyway. It certainly doesn't come across.
"These are the main points with your first edit. It is beyond me why in your second edit you also reinstated the following stuff:"
Because this is part of the article.
During the 4th century, there was no such unity between church and state, though: In the course of the Arian controversy, leading trinitarian bishops such as Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, and Gregory of Nyssa were banned by Arian emperors.
The edit you made implies that church and state where one in motive regardless of if that was Arian Church or orthodox and then they were not. As if being an Arian Emperor meant you held no alliance to Arianism. Hence my explaination that church and state ain't so uncommon. The above statement is illogical and contridicts itself since you like ad homm'ing so much. LoveMonkey
- first of all, I am not "ad homm'ing at all" - I have no clue who put these things there and did not address them, therefore I cannot be "ad homming" (since this is often misused, I'll explain it to you: the argument "ad hominem" is attacking or criticizing the person who holds certain opinions instead of tackling these opinions on their own merit - it is not a mere personal attack - though I did not indulge in these either)
- secondly, your nice diatribe against Rome and Italy is also completely off topic and I will only say this much: Rome had the second largest Jewish population in the Empire and part of this Jewish elements formed part of the Roman Church. And Peter and Paul are not nobodies either.
President Phil Clinton is an insult to my intelligence. It served not other purpose. I have made no attempt to insult your intelligence please reciprocate.
- As for the schism: the schism of 1054 was what it was. The schism with the "Monophysites" and "Nestorians" is much older - 1054 did not cause it.
No one stated it did. It would be to your greatest benefit to see the historical context of the roman church. You see schism does not means heresy. It does mean that may of those schisms where to get roman control out of their churches but this leads you to a different history then you know.
- "Because it's part of the article" is no proper reason for the inclusion of certain text. Otherwise we would never be able to remove anything. And this is clearly off-topic.
If it is addressed within the scope of the article it is on topic. Not my rule to break.
- Also, nothing is further from me than to imply that Church and Empire always were one in objective or action. Not at all. I have many times combatted this fallacy on WP. The issue here is merely that some facts are wrong and most of the text simply incomprehensible, at least for me, and I have some historical and theological knowledge. What will someone understand with less knowledge.
Now this is off topic. I was hoping to focus this discussion on this article.
- I can reply no more since your reply did not contain more substance.
Browbeat then run away. Next thing you know you'll start a revert war.
I was trying to when wiki went down this afternoon and went nuts. Funny you must not notice? LoveMonkey 03:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
1. Constantine if you remember at first not only punished Arius but at the same time and in the same address he also punished Eusebius, Eusebius recanted. Arius did not. It was Eusebius of Caesarea who influenced Constantine to re-enstated Arius by forcing Athanasius to reinstate Arius. Athanasius and Marcellus were supporters of one another. Here's one place I get some of these "facts". Tell me what I got wrong specifically. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/BARATH.html http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067400549X?v=glance
2. "As for the facts - the Apostate's rule did not create "a brief unity" but rather the opposite -he recalled the exiled bishops to create trouble among the Christians."
3. Please define state religion? Define specifically what you found incorrect.
4. Well maybe if you have tried to discuss it you would have a better perspective. I also think that you have missed some points about the criticism section. I think your POV is Roman Catholic. I think that this theory comes from European Protestants who like you can not see the middle eastern christianity as middle eastern but rather roman. I don't think you are able to separate up your Roman Catholic POV from an article. I think you can throw critical comments about typos and grammar around all day but it will not mask this. That this opinion about Constantine and the bishops and churches of the middle are not outside of Rome and Europe but they where and very much so still are. I think it best that maybe you create a Roman Catholic criticism of the Constantinian shift section. LoveMonkey 19:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear LoveMonkey, I have taken the liberty of straigthening out the structure of this talk page. Hope you don't mind. I am replying here below to maintain readability. Please return the favour.
Now as for your points:
1. Constantine did not punish either Eusebius or Arius at that time.
Sure he did.."The death of Constantine followed hard upon that of Arius; and Eusebius, who was promoted in 339 to the see of Constantinople, became the leader of the anti-Nicene party till his own death in (probably) 341. The real activity of Eusebius and his party must be studied in connexion with the Arian controversy."
Like I stated Eusebius recanted.
If you think that you already fall prey to the "Constinian shift"-theorists who however have no source for this. Arius was excommunicated by his bishop Alexander of Alexandria, moved on to Syria where he could muster some support. But eventually, Eusebius of Caesarea, his main supporter, was excommunicated by a Syrian synod at Antioch (the same elected Eustathius as bishop of Antioch; Marcell of Ancyra was also present). It was planned to hold a synod at Ancyra to try the case of Eusebius. Only at that point did Constantine interfere: he took an interest in the case, had the synod relocate to his residence Nicaea and has ensured that Western bishops attended. At this synod Arius again was condemned, while Eusebius defended himself by putting forth his creed. This creed was amended by ths synod to become the Nicaean Creed. Since Eusebius accepted it he was reinstated in his former rights and dignities. Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea and two Lybian bishops did not accept the creed, were excommunicated by the bishops and exiled by the Emperor. Now, later Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis signed some equivocal statement of faith and were called back from exile. Later, the same thing happened to Arius ( but he died before he could return to Egypt). Constantine acted this way because his main objective was peace and unity within the Church (he was no theologian) and hence he allowed the three to return after they seemed "reasonable" to him. However, he never ever ever put the Nicaean Creed into question. Now, Athanasius, the new bishop of Alexandria, did not trust the three Arians (and history proved him right) - Constantine considered this nitpicking and a needlessly strict and unforgiving attitude and therefore exiled Athanasius after a synod had excommunicated him (the leader was Eusebius of Caesarea). Marcellus was at some point as excommunciated and exiled and the Semi-Arians around the Caesarean had a hand in that too. But Marcellus, though allied to Athanasius in their opposition to Arianism, actually was condemned a heretic - a verdict never rescinded and even confirmed. When the Creed says of the Son "and His Kingdom will have no end", this is directed against Marcell's heresy.
This above contradicts --1. Constantine did not punish either Eusebius or Arius at that time.--
2.Your link does not support your claim. It is correct to say that Julian allowed Athanasius to return. Julian allowed all exiles to return. However, his aim was specifically to create as much quarelling among Christians as possible, to further his own pagan agenda. And don't think for a minute that Athanasius' return created peace in Alexandria. After all, now there were two bishops. And if I remember correctly, Julian later exiled Athanasius again (thoug I am not sure, Athanasius might have remained in Alexandria until Valens).
That link supports that the Arians and Trinitarians united AGAINST Julian. Or at least the book on the links does.
3.Define state religion? A religion that is adopted by the entire community as such. This was the standard up to Christianity, as any political community had their gods. Among the Jews this was the same, though they only worshipped one God.
This above contridicts your statement misread of my statement that you removed from the article, your comment was-is just silly and factually wrong (is this a typo?) - no major religion has ever functioned as a state religion? As I stated I was addressing the misnomer of the Constantinian shift demonizing state religion as an oppressive thing.
(In the East, Buddhism was different, as it does not need any community. However it was later adopted as state religion by Ashoka.)In the West, the Christians were the first that distinguished between political adherence to their respective community and their religious adherence to God, who is independent of states. Christianity however was adopted as state religion by the Armenians, the Abyssinians and the Romans (Theodosius I). But this is all irrelevant to my original point, as the text said that "no major religion ever functioned as a state religion".
No it clearly stated this. "As for the matter of state religion. <<NONE>> of the major world historical religious traditions have ever functioned within the framework of, <<NOT>> being a state religion at some point in their history." Thats not a typo just a misread on your part read it out loud if you missed it.
And that is just plain silly ... so silly that I think it a typo. Is it maybe trying to say that any religion at one point was a state religion? This would be true!
Your statement, your misread.
4. Well, my attempt at discussing it was answered with a more widespread reverting under the non-argument "this is part of the article". Before that I have explained myself in edit summaries, which is in line with WP rules.
I am a (Roman) Catholic and this is where I am coming from, but I also can understand and consider other views. And yes, this view (at least in its extreme form, as covered in this article) comes from Protestants but their aim is different from what you state. Protestantism from the beginning rests on the view (a myth in my view) that they are restoring Christianity to its true form after it had been corrupted at some point in time.
You speak for the middle eastern christians and now the protestants too.
Luther originally thought the corruption to have occured only a few centuries before his time, but gradually the "corruption event" was pushed earlier (and modern liberal Protestant theologians have placed it within the New Testament, calling some books "proto-Catholic". A popular and widespread choice for the "corruption" was Constantine. And this is the topic of this article. Your comment about "can not see the middle eastern christianity as middle eastern but rather roman" is wrongheaded, as as far as this thesis and Protestantism is concerned, we - Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Old Oriental Churches - are indeed sitting in the same boat, notwithstanding our differences.
Nonsense. There was no protestant like churches in the middle east until the protestants came and built them. As for Roman Catholics being in the same boat as the middle east. I don't think so. The Schisms were by products of nationalities wanting control of their own churches without Rome in the mix. Egypt broke away not for purity of faith (yeah yeah I know what they say) but so that the Egpytan church was Egyptian not Roman and not Byzantine or Greek. The Antiochian church as well as the Bulgarian orthodox churches still struggle with this power issue today. And this is without everyone having to maintain a specific language like say LATIN. You seem to not understand this. And this is at the heart of my contention. People are not listening they are imposing their view on the circumstance.
I think it insulting and indeed against against Wiki policy that you accuse me of pushing a Catholic POV.
It is completely within the framework to point out and criticise POV.
I am indeed able to separate. I want to have a readable, accurate, neutral article on this thesis (with which I do not agree).
How can it be neutral when you admit that you see the issue for the middle eastern churches (this term which you attacked) as being the same as the issue for Roman Catholics? The comment we are in the same boat clenched it. The christians of Byzantium and Jeruselm be it best to not have a difference of opinion with the Roman Catholics? How soon was the Filioque clause inserted into the Nicene Creed after the council of Nicea? After the East-West Schism? Nope. The Filioque clause was a direct by product of Arianism. But you seem to miss the west's solution to the Arian problem. Yes another disaster.
But it is hard to edit an article that is so wrecked that you cannot even tell what it is trying to say.
Now thats POV. You are the only one to have stated this. As of right now the only one go back and check on the time between edits.
My comments on grammar and typos etc. are highlightin one thing: whoever put this there did not put sufficent effort into his posts and forgot that articles are written not for the writers but for readers. I think I can demand that some one posting information at least aims in that direction. And this is why I was enraged by your "Justian the Apostate". Here we have one of the most important characters in all of world's history (much more important in the end than Bill Clinton). Typos are somthing different. Things like that happen all the time.
You should not be posting on this resource if you get enraged. PERIOD. As for the misspell on Julian you could easily have just changed it. Thats the beauty of wiki. No one would have cared but your removal and rewording of the article to make it sound like something dfferent then it was, well that one is on you. All your above comments are distractions and dodges to redirect attention from the fact that you reworded an article section to make it fit inline with belief that the churches in the middle east during the time of Constantine where the Roman Catholic church we see today and that the criticisms made in this article do not effect any remaining people or churches in the middle east no one lives under Islam which decries crusader even though they weon the crusades. No effect. Because, how could it since "we're all in the same boat". This is a distortion, your POV leaves you blind too.
"That this opinion about Constantine and the bishops and churches of the middle are not outside of Rome and Europe but they where and very much so still are."
I am not sure what you are trying to say. That there still Christians in the Middle East? I know that, and some of these are my Catholic brethren, while others are my separated brethren of either the Greek Orthodox or Old Oriental Churches. And I know that you have no easy path behind you. But, please forgive me if I am so blunt, I must say that you are not more Christian than we are, just because you are geographically closer to the land our Lord trod.
Hopefully if I too maybe so blunt. The Filioque clause was a total screw up. But since the Roman Catholic church can't seem to stick to the argeed plan but can decide for everyone else to not listen to the fix everyone else argeed too, at least I admit that resembles consistency. Consistenly trying to take over and too hard headed to listen.
Previous post.. "I think it best that maybe you create a Roman Catholic criticism of the Constantinian shift section."
No, that is absolutely superfluous. There is no argument against this thesis in which RCs, Greek Orthodox and Old Orientals differ.
Now being ignorant is radically different then putting up Justian instead of Julian. Your comments deny the path that the Roman Cathlic church took OUTSIDE the nicene council by adding the Filioque, you made no mention of it. Nor effects. This all within the framework of our beloved Serbian Saint's controversies.
We all say that Christianity was not corrupted by Constantine, don't we.
Funny we all celebrate christmas too-Dodge. This is your way to silence an opinion that deviates from your POV. The creed set in motion actions by the western church that led to conflicts that manifest themselves in things like the constantian shift. The middle eastern churches do not condone the heavy handed conduct of the roman church that is the heart of the schisms. Bloody politic. And yes the eastern churches have made simular mistakes but we lack the scale on purpose. And it would be nice for the protestant to know there is a destinction to be made. Your edits reduce and confuse that distinction. Look at your first comment you made about there only being two popes. Thats nonsense and ignorant there were five. This within the Roman Cuch atbthctime of the Eas-West schism. Four broke away from only one of Rome. Bloody politic. The protestant make arguments like the constantine shift arguments that reek of cconspiracy when they know very well that real issue or issues are power.
The little I can gather from the Criticism section and your comments is that Constantine and other Emperors could not corrupt Christianity as attempts of dictating to the Church (Constantius and Valens in particular) are documented but apparently failed. I don't understand your vitriolic approach especially since we (I think, I am trying to understand) essentially agree. Please understand that I have very much an interest in a proper criticism section.
You agreed to make the criticism section read as a Roman Catholic apology and thats ok as along as you leave the eastern churches part alone. I am hoping to get a coptic editor to make section on their take as well. I don't see that happening with you browbeating around and getting enraged as you put it.
Finally, this article is about the "Constantinian shift", not about post-Reformation state church in Sweden or the Buddhist state religion in India. "There have been other state religions" is no refutation of the claims put forth.
In your opinion, but then you are wrong because you are criticising me for making a statement and then backing it up with examples as to why I have made the statement. Without examples there isn't a whole of reason for people to agree.
No I will not post in such a way that people have to keep jumping all over the page to read the arguments and then pan down to see my response. So much for writing for readers. LoveMonkey 05:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This will make the talk page uneditable (because I cannot read it properly when trying to reply ... you could at least indent your replies) and hard to archive, especially since you address many issues with no bearing on the matter. Str1977 (smile back) 08:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please abstain from editing my comments. You have made this completely unreadable. I now am beginning to doubt your sincerity. LoveMonkey 02:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please abstain from editing my comments.
- Please read some talk pages and learn how to post on them.
- Please do not post interspersed within my comments.
- Please spare me your attacks that are completely beside the issue (the Filoque issue has nothing to do with Constantine - and was BTW not a product of Arianism but rather an attempt to preclude any Arian interpretation. Arianism BTW was mostly an Eastern problem. Arianism in the west existed only because of government pressure. Str1977 (smile back) 08:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
bearing the labarum - where?
The text for the picture is: "Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Raphael, Vatican Rooms. The artist depicted the troops of Constantine bearing the labarum."" I see a cross on the standards, but I don't see the chi-rho: Px.
- MartinGugino 22:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with some people here that there is little reason for this to be separated from the article on Constantine. In fact, the article on "Constantine and Christianity" is already pushing it - repeating some of the same info under a veiled debate on Christianity. But I'm not going to be the one to delete it if people think its necessary.
As for "Constantinian Shift" I'll have to admit I didn't know this term existed, so I don't have any real say-so on its validity. This article spends more time criticizing it than it does explaining what it is or its significance. Therefore, I'm "flagging it for POV". Wow- I'm using wiki terms! But seriously, the criticism section needs to be majorly pruned or at least equally rebutted.
- I still see nothing wrong with the term "Constantinian shift", but it seems evident that the article belongs merged into Constantine I and Christianity. dab (𒁳) 10:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This article or section may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. Please help Wikipedia by adding sources whose main topic is "Constantinian shift".
Well lets cover each part of the section and I can source the comments here as well. Please post your objections. LoveMonkey 03:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The Criticisms section is incoherent and appears largely irrelevant to the topic. Much of it is devoted to discussing the relationship of Constantine to Arianism, or rebutting Constantine's personal contribution to church theology. These topics are irrelevant; the Athanasian/Arian conflict has nothing to do with the "Shift", as it's quite clear that a Church with Arian theology (of whatever sort) was going to be (and was) just as much driven by concerns of state as one with Athanasian theology. And Constantine's personal contribution to the theology isn't at issue -- rather it's the fact of making one branch of the Church licit and indeed dominant within the Empire, and how the Church responded to the changed state of affairs, that constitutes the "Shift". Let the content of the Shift be driven by individual Church hierarchs as much as may be -- that doesn't change the fact that they now found themselves in a radically different relationship to the State, and had to change their outlook to cope with the new relationship. RandomCritic (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This above is full of logical fallacy. One, since when has any topic been above critical analysis? For starters your comments appear to make an argument of circular logic. Why are you even making such nonreleated statements about what the actual Constantian Shift is in print as actually being? If Constantine caused a shift of which "rather it's the fact of making one branch of the Church licit and indeed dominant within the Empire" -then why was his son and successor Arian? If Constantine chose one faction of Christianity as the name of the article implies "Constantinian Shift" then why was he baptized by an Arian? Why did Arian christianity not become the official "one branch of the Church licit and indeed dominant within the Empire"? Your dodging this by your statements. If the speculation and Eurocentric theory that this historically inaccurate theory is, is not based on Constantine changing christianity then why is the article named after him? What is his shift? Why did Armenian do that same thing before Constantine? Why are they not mentioned? Why is there no Armenian shift? Maybe because this is nothing but Eurocentric pseudo history? This concept is Eurocentric and is flawed there should not even be an article because the concept is completely inaccurate. This is a revisionistic history based on playing on the modern persons ignorants of the historical context that the theory of a Constantinian shift is based on, that is the criticism section. Also how can you on one hand make the statement that "personal" does not count as a factor when the article is named after the person in question?LoveMonkey (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have made a small list of your fallacies. Since you are making up your own Constantian Shift and not actually talking about the one the article is linked to and based on.
1."Athanasian/Arian conflict has nothing to do with the "Shift","
So the council that Constantine called was not about Arius? So Constantine is responsible for his actions but then Constantine is not responsible for his actions. Pure logical fallacy.
2."Much of it is devoted to discussing the relationship of Constantine to Arianism, or rebutting Constantine's personal contribution to church theology. These topics are irrelevant:"
So define what shift Constantine made. Was it theological or not? Cause the council that Constantine called sure was all about theology. If it was for "preferred treatement then who got the treatement the Arians or the Orthodox?
3.the Athanasian/Arian conflict has nothing to do with the "Shift", as it's quite clear that a Church with Arian theology (of whatever sort) was going to be (and was) just as much driven by concerns of state as one with Athanasian theology.
Again so was the church in Armenia and the Ethiopian, so is any church that because state recognized, Constantinian shifted? If so why did the Armenians and Ethopians not get called the same effect? Or the Protestant state churches of Europe? Since the Oriental churches became state churches first why not Armenians and Ethopians shifted. Why are the Armenians and Ethopians then not anything even remotely resembling the Anabaptists or the Protestants? Why are the Armenians and Ethopians churches in schism and not heresy? I mean look at the mess between Frumentius and Theophilus. Such a shift would indicate that Theophilus would have been bishop. It would seem that the Armenians and Ethopians and Egyptians could make such an argument more then a group of Germans who at the time of Constantine really where not all that exposed to Christian theology. But the Oriental do not accuse Constantine of anything but being a man and honor him as a saint. The Nestorian, well thats a different story but they too along with the Orientals make no such allegation that Christianity was corrupted by the Nicene council or Constantine. And I mean they as a church.
4. rather it's the fact of making one branch of the Church licit and indeed dominant within the Empire, and how the Church responded to the changed state of affairs, that constitutes the "Shift".
This above statement is not what is in the actual article. Your statement implies that there was at the time of Constantine some alternative to the path he took. Historically and globally there is no such animal. This is i.e. "In 325, the First Council of Nicaea signalled consolidation of Christianity under an orthodoxy endorsed by Constantine though this did not make other Christian groups outside his definition illegal". This is what is actually in the article. So again what orthodoxy did Constantine espouse? Please clarify. Also in the article this article is referenced- [] which is noted as reference for this article what your stating is not what the Anabaptists are stating.
5."Let the content of the Shift be driven by individual Church hierarchs as much as may be -- that doesn't change the fact that they now found themselves in a radically different relationship to the State, and had to change their outlook to cope with the new relationship."
This is possibly the most illogical of any of your statements. One why would Christianity's legalization be framed to mean that there was a shift aren't you maybe thinking of Caesaropapism? This implies that Christianity was engaging in some new inconsistencies or was now not a true Christiantity but a corrupted one. It was now changed? Well where is the complaints of this change making Constantines christianity any different then say the Christianity in Persia where it was not the state religion?
Now just to clarify since your statement is completely inconsistent with what the actual theory states here is a section of the article from the Anabaptist website which shows just how crazy and lunatic this theory that you are stating is above criticism actually states and is. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What the Anabaptist actually state
- "A departure from authentic Christianity
- The disaster of which Gunton speaks is the Constantinian reversal in the fortunes of the church, that watershed in the fourth century when emperor Constantine and the Roman imperial government embraced Christianity as a state religion. I take the view that Constantine represents a huge departure from authentic Christianity. From that time on Christianity was pressed into service to provide a religious justification for the exercise of power. By speaking of a "land polluted", Gunton means the church we have received is profoundly defective, polluted by Constantinianism, and stands in need of extensive reform. Gunton goes on to argue that we will not understand correctly the nature of the church unless we first develop a satisfactory theology of the church."
I understand that people are entitled to their opinion. Yes people are free to all kinds of stupid and terrible things. But being ignorant, though a right does not make something above being called into question. As for the allegations this set of theories Constantinian shift, Constantinian heresy and Constantinianism they are wrong. They are historically inaccurate. These theories are at their core skeptical fallacy which is that nothing is to ultimately be trusted or believed or that there is no possible answer to this Constantinian conspiracy theory. But I am sorry there is. http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/patrology/heroes_of_4th_century_pt2.htm LoveMonkey (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fine, Get a secular historian to cite for that, and put it in. Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Pre Constantinian Christianity
It appears that this theory which is of European origin plays on the idea that the Christianity of Pre Constantine was radically different. That the Christianity of the first 300 years was a different Christianity then the Christianity that established the Ecumenical Councils. That the multitude of Christians during this time had become proselytes of the state over their own religion, a religion that they had been practicing illegally. A religion that many of them had died for at the hands of the Roman Pagan state. This also right after the worse persecution the Christian faith had experienced so far from the Roman state via Diocletianus. Also this conspiracy theory implies that many early saints who suffered for the church after Constantine where not valid that they knew that the Christianity that they practiced before Constantine was now not the Christianity that this theory claims Constantine made. A Christianity that they had embraced that was corrupted or different then the one they originally practiced. To understand just how completely inaccurate such a concept is historically it is important to clarify first the degree of corruption that is being supposed. Second it is important to then use historical evidence to see which type of idea holds to be truest ethnic and church history from the region in question and a European history that seems to be more a matter of interruption then fact. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where to start, but how about this: the Anglican Church of Canada is not a state church. We have no such thing in this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The logical continuation would be to point out that this article is largely PoV, lacks neutrality, is not written in an encyclopedic style, and seems to start defending the shift from a Christian perspective before it even bothers to define and explain what the shift was.
agreed...the "Criticism" section is defensive and rantish in the extreme. it's a fairly typical Orthodox complaint that their voice is not often heard in western discussions of christian history (and a fairly legitimate complaint at that), but for the article to acknowledge that Orthodox historians and theologians have not contributed much academically, and then to ignore the lack of sources and rant on and on about typical Orthodox sore-points (the Filioque clause?) is just inappropriate. I sincerely doubt the Anabaptists have any more love for Charlemagne than for Constantine. they should just go ahead and rename this section of the article "Eastern Orthodox Criticism"--126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed the whole section (now titled "Viewpoint of modern Eastern theologians"). It was unsalvagable. The whole passage simply re-iterated the argumentative position of some theologians, without any neutral distance, simply adopting their viewpoint as Wikipedia's own. This was so overtly tendentious I could see no way of saving any of it, short of rewriting from scratch. It was also poorly written. Its author, LoveMonkey (talk · contribs), of course has a history of this kind of disruptive additions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this article needs a lot of work. I intend on making the following changes when I get around to it unless anyone objects:
1. The article says, "In 380 Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the Roman Empire's official religion (see State church of the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire and the Goths) and did enforce the edict."--did enforce what edict? The only edict mentioned is the Edict of Milan, a so called edict which provided for the freedom of all religions, which Theo obviously did not enforce, since he made all religions but orthodox Christianity illegal. I will say something about the Edict of Thessalonica in place of the quoted sentence.
2. The article then goes on to speak of the suppression of what would become "orthodoxy" by "Arian" emperors as somehow inconsistent with the unity between church and state. On the contrary, it illustrates just how bound up imperial and ecclesiastical affairs were at this time. It merely shows that the church at this time was divided, and that certain eastern emperors attempted to enforce an "Arian" unanimity which ultimately failed. So I think the two paragraphs ending that section need to be rewritten or eliminated.
3. In the Theological Implications section the article says, " Before him, Athanasius believed that violence was justified in weeding out heresies that could damn all future Christians. This continued a line of thought started by Athanasius who felt that any means was justified in repressing the Arian belief."--This is poorly written and I do not think that the second sentence is justified given the Barnes citation, though Barnes can be cited to illustrate the point that is trying to be made...that Athanasius was not opposed to using violence (according to Barnes). The second sentence should be edited to accurately reflect the citation.
4. The article would be improved by the addition of a criticism section. Evidently there had been such a section that was removed b/c it was poorly written by someone with an ax to grind. But there are plenty of scholarly articles and at least one book (that I know of) which are critical of Yoder's thesis.Ocyril (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
(pic) I believe in the sword....
What does this image have to do with this page? It's obviously a cartoon of German Kaiser Wilhelm, drawn at the start of the first world war, as an anti-German propaganda cartoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)