Buzsaw writes:
He became the first pontifix maximus (pope), declaring that there should be only one religion. Thus he became ruler of both the only lawful church and the state/empire.
This is very misleading, and not accurate.
1. Ponitfex Maximus (High Priest) was the title of the leader of the college of pontiffs. And they became religious advisers of the roman kings, way back in the 500s bce ( 6th century BC). By the time of Constantine the title had existed for hundreds of years. He was by no means the 1st. (Peter the apostle was the 1st Pope)
2. Constantine also legalized Christianity. This is far cry from declaring that it should be the only religion.
So as to keep the peace in the empire he mingled some paganism into Christianity.
The Romans had also been doing this for centuries by the time of Constantine. For example when the Romans conquered Britannia (the future UK) in the mid 1st century ce (AD), and came across the natural spring at Bath (present day Bath, Somerset, England), it was a place a reverence and religion for the native Celtic Bretons. They revered a goddess of wisdom their named Sulis. The Romans had a goddess of war wisdom named Minerva, guess what? They (Romans) built a marvelous structure and shrine at the spring and they named it Sulis Minerva, combining the two faiths and yet still recognizing the significance of the location.
To blame or credit all this on Constantine is not accurate.
I've cited this to say that the precedence was early established in the RCC to adopt some paganism into Christianity.
Also not entirely accurate. The Romans as Pagans adopted other pagan beliefs into their system (Celtic and Germanic), and later on when the Romans became Christian, and set of their own Church (the Roman Catholic Church) hundreds of years later, the people (former pagans) used days and holidays they knew already and implemented their new beliefs into them. This
DOES NOT mean that the Roman Catholic Church specifically targeted pagan ideals for syncretism. It was more just an evolution of ideas and practices by the people who converted to the faith. Your misreading of history and bias against us sounds like Jack Chick. I admit my bias is Catholic, but yours is definitely anti-Catholic, and while I am here, I am going to point out the misinformation that you are trying to spread.
Hey man religious syncretism happens. Sometimes regardless if the church wants it are not, but to blame the church for actively doing it, and maintaining that some old Jewish text is against it, and therefore you are is cool (I guess), but get your historical data correct before you make points about us.
Further Example:
Dia de los Muertos, y los Inocentes, y Angelitos are holidays that were more recently pagan (Aztec) that have been adopted by the local people who converted, and have spread (
Araw ng mga Patay in the Phillippines) to some places but not others. It was not an active church policy to create this celebration, but more of something that happened. You can say they shouldn’t let it happen, but to say that the RCC specifically created these combinations is silly. The Day of the Dead (Dia de los Muertos), is not big in the United States except in areas with a large Mexican population (Arizona, California, and Texas), if you were correct and the church was actively promoting aspects of paganism then Irish Catholic kids in Massachusetts would also be instructed in the Day of the Dead, and it would be another holiday here in the USA. Just as people in Honduras would celebrate St. Patrick's day with a big parade and a day of fun in the middle of Lent, but that is not the case, is it?
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : worse title