The Lord and Builder of the Church
Isahel said...
Naming Emperor Constantine as the founder of the Catholic Church is an evidence of poor scholarship and gross ignorance of history. Even Protestant writers admit that Constantine is not the founder of the Catholic Church.
The church in Rome was by far the most important church in Christendom: it was situated in the ancient imperial capital of the empire; it had the largest congregation of Christians; and its ROOTS WENT BACK TO PETER AND PAUL, the two greatest saints in the church. (A HANDBOOK OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, By: John SCHWARZ, page 153)
John Schwarz is a protestant writer he admit that the history of the Catholic Church can be traced back into the time of the apostles Peter and Paul. During the time of Peter and Paul Emperor Constantine was not yet born!
At one level, of course, the interpretation of Roman Catholicism is closely related to the interpretation of Christianity as such. For by its own reading of history, Roman Catholicism began with the very beginnings of the Christian movement. (A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, By: Robert A. Guisepi)
Christianity began at 33 A.D when Christ established the Church, and according to this source the history of the Catholic Church began at the beginning of Christianity itself! At 33 A.D Emperor Constantine was not yet born!
That the Emperor was sincere, and not a dissembler, in regard to his conversion to Christianity, no person can doubt who believes that men's actions are an index of their real feelings. It is indeed true that Constantine's life was not such as the precepts of Christianity required; and it is also true that he remained a catechumen all his life, and was received to full membership in the Church, by baptism, only a few days before his death, at Nicomedia. (CONVERSION OF CONSTANTINE: DECLINE OF PAGANISM, By: Johann Lorenz Von Mosheim)
Constantine converted to Christianity 2 days before his death! Why would he convert to Catholicism if he founded it? clearly Constantine is not the founder of the Catholic Church! If Constantine is not the founder then who is?
No other than but JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF
Groiler Encyclopedia Vol. V. page 10, International Encyclopedia Vol XV page 520 and World Almanac page 732.
You cannot accuse us of being bias since our source is from secular writers.
August 1, 2010 9:26 PM
N.B. BRO. DON HAS A VERY GOOD APOLOGETIC BLOG ALSO - "The Catholic Eternal Truth". Please visit it here:
http://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com/
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
That Constantine the Great was the founder of Roman Catholic Church is an example of believing without thinking. LOL
ReplyDeleteExactly.
ReplyDeleteMAGANDANG GABI PO FATHER!
ReplyDeleteI was just thinking lang po, kung naging posible para sa mga Anglican na magbalik sa iisang simbahan ni Cristo sa pamamagitan ng Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, magiging posible rin kaya ito para sa Iglesia Filipina Independiente if ever they decide to have communion with us?
Kasi po, meron pong diskusyon sa Flickr account ng IFI, "Full Communion ng IFI with The Roman Catholic Church. Yes or No?" at base po sa mga comments marami ang open to the idea.
Ito po yong link Father, http://www.flickr.com/groups/ifi/discuss/72157624206325087/
Kung pwede pakitingnan nyo po Father, I was just so excited with the move of some of our brothers in the IFI.
Thanks po Father!
Unitas
"Even Protestant writers admit that Constantine is not the founder of the Catholic Church." I agree completely.
ReplyDeleteThank you Cammie.
ReplyDeleteDear Unitas,
ReplyDeleteActually Brod my friends and I are already discussing that since the release of the Papal Document Anglicanorum Coetibus.
We were sharing that the Archbishop of Manila and the CBCP must exert effort to apply the document in the Philippines especially with the Aglipay who are affiliated with the Episcopalian Church of the United States.
I think the Aglipay priests and Bishops can avail of that privileges charitably given by Pope Benedict for Anglicans and Episcopalians clergy.
It is a pity that great opportunities of this kind is being allowed to pass by.
With reference to the general attitude that Roman emperors of the third and fourth centuries had toward religion, the book Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous (History of the Greek Nation) says: “Even when those who occupied the imperial throne did not have such profoundly religious dispositions, surrendering to the mood of the era, they found it necessary to give religion precedence within the framework of their political schemes, to lend at least a religious flavor to their actions.”
ReplyDeleteCertainly, Constantine was a man of his era. At the beginning of his career, he needed some “divine” patronage, and this could not be provided by the fading Roman gods. The empire, including its religion and other institutions, was in decline, and something new and invigorating was needed to reconsolidate it. The encyclopedia Hidria says: “Constantine was especially interested in Christianity because it backed up not only his victory but also the reorganization of his empire. The Christian churches that existed everywhere became his political support. . . . He surrounded himself with the great prelates of the times . . . , and he requested that they keep their unity intact.”
Constantine sensed that the “Christian” religion—albeit apostate and deeply corrupted by then—could be effectively utilized as a revitalizing and uniting force to serve his grand scheme for imperial domination. Adopting the foundations of apostate Christianity to gain support in furthering his own political ends, he decided to unify the people under one “catholic,” or universal, religion. Pagan customs and celebrations were given “Christian” names. And “Christian” clergymen were given the status, salary, and influential clout of pagan priests.
Seeking religious harmony for political reasons, Constantine quickly crushed any dissenting voices, not on the grounds of doctrinal truth, but on the basis of majority acceptance. The profound dogmatic differences within the badly divided “Christian” church gave him the opportunity to intervene as a “God-sent” mediator. Through his dealings with the Donatists in North Africa and the followers of Arius in the eastern portion of the empire, he quickly discovered that persuasion was not enough to forge a solid, unified faith. It was in an attempt to resolve the Arian controversy that he convened the first ecumenical council in the history of the church.i. Concerning Constantine, historian Paul Johnson states: “One of his main reasons for tolerating Christianity may have been that it gave himself and the State the opportunity to control the Church’s policy on orthodoxy and the treatment of heterodoxy.”
Did He Ever Become a Christian?
ReplyDeleteJohnson notes: “Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins.” The Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “Constantine showed equal favour to both religions. As pontifex maximus he watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights.” “Constantine never became a Christian,” states the encyclopedia Hidria, adding: “Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote his biography, says that he became a Christian in the last moments of his life. This doesn’t hold water, as the day before, [Constantine] had made a sacrifice to Zeus because he also had the title Pontifex Maximus.”
Down to the day of his death in 337 C.E., Constantine bore the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus, the supreme head of religious matters. Regarding his baptism, it is reasonable to ask, Was it preceded by genuine repentance and a turning around, as required in the Scriptures? (Acts 2:38, 40, 41) Was it a complete water immersion as a symbol of Constantine’s dedication to Jehovah God?—Compare Acts 8:36-39.
A “Saint”?
The Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Constantine was entitled to be called Great in virtue rather of what he did than what he was. Tested by character, indeed, he stands among the lowest of all those to whom the epithet [Great] has in ancient or modern times been applied.” And the book A History of Christianity informs us: “There were early reports of his violent temper and his cruelty in anger. . . . He had no respect for human life . . . His private life became monstrous as he aged.”
Evidently Constantine had serious personality problems. A history researcher states that “his temperamental character was often the reason for his committing crimes.” (See the box “Dynastic Murders.”) Constantine was not “a Christian character,” contends historian H. Fisher in his History of Europe. The facts do not characterize him as a true Christian who had put on “the new personality” and in whom there could be found the fruitage of God’s holy spirit—love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, and self-control.—Colossians 3:9, 10; Galatians 5:22, 23.
The Consequences of His Efforts
As the pagan Pontifex Maximus—and therefore the religious head of the Roman Empire—Constantine tried to win over the bishops of the apostate church. He offered them positions of power, prominence, and wealth as officers of the Roman State religion. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “Some bishops, blinded by the splendour of the court, even went so far as to laud the emperor as an angel of God, as a sacred being, and to prophesy that he would, like the Son of God, reign in heaven.”
As apostate Christianity came into favor with the political government, it became more and more a part of this world, of this secular system, and drifted away from the teachings of Jesus Christ. (John 15:19; 17:14, 16; Revelation 17:1, 2) As a result, there was a fusion of “Christianity” with false doctrines and practices—the Trinity, immortality of the soul, hellfire, purgatory, prayers for the dead, use of rosaries, icons, images, and the like.—Compare 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
From Constantine, the church also inherited the tendency to be authoritarian. Scholars Henderson and Buck say: “The simplicity of the Gospel was corrupted, pompous rites and ceremonies were introduced, worldly honours and emoluments were conferred on the teachers of Christianity, and the Kingdom of Christ in good measure converted into a kingdom of this world.”
Historical facts reveal the truth behind the “greatness” of Constantine. Instead of being founded by Jesus Christ, the Head of the true Christian congregation, Christendom is partly the result of the political expediency and the crafty maneuvers of a pagan emperor. Very aptly, historian Paul Johnson asks: “Did the empire surrender to Christianity, or did Christianity prostitute itself to the empire?”
ReplyDelete[Historical facts reveal the truth behind the “greatness” of Constantine.]
ReplyDeleteINDEED, HISTORICAL FACTS PROVE THAT AFTER CONSTANTINE ASSUMED THE THRONE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE THE PREVIOUSLY PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS WERE GIVEN FREEDOM TO PRACTICE THEIR FAITH. THAT IS THE GREATNESS OF CONSTANTINE. HE GAVE US FREEDOM. HE STOPPED THE SYSTEMATIC PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIANS BY BREAKING THE INHUMAN LAW OF HIS PREDECESSORS.
IF THAT IS NOT GREATNESS FOR YOU THEN THE TORTURES AND MURDERS COMMITTED BY THE PREVIOUS EMPERORS MUST BE THE ONE PALATABLE TO YOUR TASTE.
[Instead of being founded by Jesus Christ, the Head of the true Christian congregation, Christendom is partly the result of the political expediency and the crafty maneuvers of a pagan emperor.]
THIS IS AN ILLOGICAL AND UNFOUNDED ASSERTION. IT IS HISTORICALLY PROVEN THAT CHRISTIANITY IS PRIOR TO CONSTANTINE. JESUS OF NAZARETH LIVED HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE CONSTANTINE. THE CHRISTIAN FAITH HAS SPREAD ALREADY IN THE ROMAN WORLD BEFORE CONSTANTINE BECAME EMPEROR. HIS MOTHER HELENA WAS A CATHOLIC.
WELL, CONSTANTINE BECAME EMPEROR WITH THE HELP OF THE CHRISTIAN GOD. SO HE BELIEVED. IT IS BUT NATURAL THAT HE WILL FAVOR THE CHRISTIANS. WHY ARE YOU JEALOUS THAT THEY WERE FAVORED BY THE EMPEROR.
HINDUISM WAS FAVORED BY THE EMPERORS OF INDIA, CHINA, JAPAN, KOREA AND OTHERS. SO WHAT?
ISLAM WAS FAVORED BY THE SULTANS OF MOROCCO, ARABIA, SYRIA, ETC. SO WHAT?
CATHOLICISM WAS FAVORED BY THE EMPERORS OF ROME, FRANCE, GERMANY, SPAIN, ETC. SO WHAT?
PROTESTANTISM WAS AND IS FAVORED BY THE KINGS OF GERMANY, DENMARK, HOLLAND, THE PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE KING OF ENGLANG... SO WHAT?
ATHEISM WAS SUPPORTED BY ADOLF HITLER, THE SOVIET EMPIRE UNDER STALIN, ETC. ALSO THE POWERS IN CHINA LIKE MAO, DENG XIAO PING, ETC. ALSO IN NORTH KOREA. SO WHAT?
RECEIVING EMPERIAL FAVOR IS NOT EVIL UNLESS THE EMPEROR IS EVIL. CONSTANTINE GAVE FREEDOM AND FREEDOM IS GOOD. HE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE POSTHUMOUSLY.
[Very aptly, historian Paul Johnson asks: “Did the empire surrender to Christianity, or did Christianity prostitute itself to the empire?”]
CHRISTIANITY IS ANTI PROSTITUTION THEN AND NOW. THE BELIEF AND FAITH AND PRACTICES OF CHRISTIANITY IS THE SAME BEFORE AND AFTER CONSTANTINE. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT BEFORE CONSTANTINE THEY WERE PRACTICING THEIR FAITH IN HIDING AND LATER THEY COULD COME OUT INTO THE OPEN.
INSTEAD OF REJOICING FOR THAT IT SEEMS THAT YOU ARE SO BITTER ABOUT IT.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAD THE COURAGE TO OPPOSE MANY ROMAN EMPERORS, AS WELL AS KINGS AND QUEENS OF MANY NATIONS INCLUDING NAPOLEON, THE SOVIET EMPIRE, THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS AND NUMEROUS TYRANTS AND DICTATORS. UNLIKE THE ATHEISTS WHO KOWTOW TO THE POLITBURO POWER AND TO THE NAZI REGIME.
WE DO NOT PROSTITUTE OURSELVES WE FOUGHT SO HARD WHEN FIGHT WAS A MUST.
[With reference to the general attitude that Roman emperors of the third and fourth centuries had toward religion, the book Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous (History of the Greek Nation) says: “Even when those who occupied the imperial throne did not have such profoundly religious dispositions, surrendering to the mood of the era, they found it necessary to give religion precedence within the framework of their political schemes, to lend at least a religious flavor to their actions.”]
ReplyDeleteTHAT STATEMENT IS GENERALIZATION. AND AS EVERY EDUCATED PERSON KNOWS GENERALIZATIONS ARE NOT REALIABLE BECAUSE THEY ARE BIASED AND UNFOUNDED BECAUSE EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT.
THERE WERE EMPERORS IN THE 3RD AND 4TH CENTURIES THAT WERE SINCERE IN THEIR LIVING OF THE FAITH. THEY WERE EXCELLENT ADMINISTRATORS THAT BROUGH THE HEIGHT OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE TO GREATER GLORY AND THEY WERE ALSO MEN AND WOMEN OF FAITH.
THEY HAVE LIMITATIONS AND MISTAKES YES. WE CANNOT DENY THAT THEY WERE POLITICIANS AND THEREFORE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR STAY IN POWER BUT THEY ALSO GAVE THEIR BEST FOR THE EMPIRE, THE CHURCH AND GOD.
[Certainly, Constantine was a man of his era.]
OF COURSE. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THAT HE IS THE MONKEY OF HIS ERA?
DON'T TELL ME THAT THESE EMPERORS ARE NOT LIKE THE POLITICIANS TODAY. THE BUSHES, THE CLINTONS AND THE OBAMAS ARE MEN OF THEIR ERAS TOO. BUT AMONG MEN THERE ARE GOOD AND BAD POLITICIANS TODAY AS THERE WERE BEFORE.
[At the beginning of his career, he needed some “divine” patronage, and this could not be provided by the fading Roman gods.]
ReplyDeleteWHY NOT? BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKES. BECAUSE THE CATHOLICS OF 3RD AND 4TH CENTURIES PROVED THEM WRONG BY PROVIDING A MORE LOGICAL PHILOSOPHY AND THE MOST REALISTIC THEOLOGY. WE DEFEATED PAGANISM WHEN OUR WITNESSES OFFERED THEIR LIVES IN MARTYRDOM BY HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS. THEY WERE FED TO THE LIONS AND WERE BURNED ALIVE OR HUNG AT THE STAKES OR CRUCIFIED ALONG THE HILLS YET THEY REMAINED STEADFAST IN THEIR PROCLAMATION IN THE LORDSHIP OF CHRIST.
[The encyclopedia Hidria says: “Constantine was especially interested in Christianity because it backed up not only his victory but also the reorganization of his empire.]
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? INDEED CHRISTIANITY WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN HIS VICTORY BECAUSE THE CHRISTIAN GOD, OUR CATHOLIC GOD, GAVE HIM VICTORY THROUGH THE SIGN IN THE MELVIAN BRIDGE... THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
[The Christian churches that existed everywhere became his political support. . . .]
EVERY RELIGION IS A POLITICAL SUPPORT. PAGANISM, JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, BUDDHISM, TAOISM, HINDUISM... ARE ALL POLITICAL SUPPORT. AND WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? THE BELIEVERS ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY IT IS THEN BUT PROPER THAT THE CATHOLICS SUPPORT THEIR BENEVOLENT EMPEROR. OF COURSE THE CATHOLICS WERE GRATEFUL TO GOD THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING AN EMPEROR FEEDING THEM TO THE LIONS THEY ARE BEING TAKEN GOOD CARE INSTEAD.
ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT?
He surrounded himself with the great prelates of the times . . . , and he requested that they keep their unity intact.”]
[He surrounded himself with the great prelates of the times . . . , and he requested that they keep their unity intact.”]
ReplyDeleteVERY GOOD. EVER SINCE THE LEADERS OF RELIGIONS ARE CONSIDERED ADVISERS AND CONFIDANT OF KINGS, PHARAOS, SHAHS, EMIRS, SULTANS, KHANS, EMPERORS AND TSARS. IT IS BUT NATURAL THAT CONSTANTINE WAS SURROUNDED BY PRELATES... IT IS BETTER THAN SENDING THEM TO DUNGEONS AD DONE BY HIS PREDECESSORS.
IT IS ALSO GOOD THAT THE EMPEROR WANTED THE CHURCH TO BE UNITED. UNITY IS GOOD AND DISUNITY IS EVIL. UNITY BRINGS HARMONY AND DISUNITY BRINGS WAR.
[Constantine sensed that the “Christian” religion—albeit apostate and deeply corrupted by then—could be effectively utilized as a revitalizing and uniting force to serve his grand scheme for imperial domination.]
O NO, NO, NO... THE CHURCH NEVER BECAME AN APOSTATE. INSTEAD, IT ALL THE MORE BECOME STRICT IN DESTROYING HERESIES IN THE CHURCH. IT PRESERVED THE FAITH THAT IT INHERITED FROM THE APOSTLES. WHAT ASPECT OF FAITH DID THE CHURCH BECOME APOSTATE?
THE CHURCH WAS NOT CORRUPTED BY CONSTANTINE. INSTEAD HE LED THE CHURCH TO HER GLORIOUS TRIUMPH OVER PAGANISM.
[Adopting the foundations of apostate Christianity to gain support in furthering his own political ends, he decided to unify the people under one “catholic,” or universal, religion.]
WRONG. EVEN BEFORE CONSTANTINE CAME CHRISTIANITY IS ALREADY UNITED AND WORKING WITH UNIVERSAL ORGANIZATION UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF POPES, BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS. IT HAS UNITY OF DOCTRINE, UNITY OF WORSHIP AND UNITY OF SACRAMENTS.
THESE THINGS DIDN'T COME FROM CONSTANTINE.
[Pagan customs and celebrations were given “Christian” names.]
NO, NO, NO... INSTEAD THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DESTROYED ALL PAGAN TEMPLES AND STOPPED PAGAN PRACTICES. WE BURNED THE SORCERERS AND WITCHES. WHY DO WE HAVE TO ADOPT THE PRACTICES AND BELIEFS OF OUR ENEMIES WHO TORTURED US FEW YEARS BACK. INSTEAD WE DEMOLISHED THEM ALL.
[And “Chistian” clergymen were given the status, salary, and influential clout of pagan priests.]
WRONG. THE CATHOLIC CLERGY BECAME HIGHER IN STATUS BECAUSE MORE AND MORE CHRISTIANS WERE BECOMING CATHOLICS. THE MORE CATHOLICS THE MORE OUR CLERGY BECAME INFLUENTIAL. THAT IS NORMAL. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. IF YOU HAVE MANY FOLLOWERS MANY WILL LOVE YOU. IF YOU ONLY HAVE FEW FOLLOWERS YOU ARE NOT RECOGNIZED IN THE SOCIETY.
WE DO NOT INHERIT THE CLOUT OF THE PAGAN PRIESTS. WE GOT OUR OWN WHILE WE DESTROYED THEIRS.
OUR CLERGY HAS NO SALARIES. IT SO HAPPENED THAT DURING THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE AS IN THE TIME OF THE GOLDEN AGE OF SPAIN AND FRANCE AND ITALIAN KINGDOMS PEOPLE WERE DONATING MORE FOR THE CHURCH.
[Seeking religious harmony for political reasons, Constantine quickly crushed any dissenting voices, not on the grounds of doctrinal truth, but on the basis of majority acceptance.]
ReplyDeleteTHIS GUY SPEAKS AS IF HE KNOWS THE HEART AND MIND OF CONSTANTINE. THIS IS NO LONGER BASED ON FACTS BUT ON BIASED OPINION.
CONSTANTINE WAS CRUSHING DISSENT IN THE CHURCH BASED ON DOCTRINAL REASONS BECAUSE HE ALLOWED THE BISHOPS TO FREELY DEBATE DOCTRINES AMONG THEMSELVES IN THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NICEA [325AD]. IF IN THE COURSE OF DEBATES AND TESTIMONIES ARIANISM HAD WON IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UPHELD. BUT THE BISHOPS REJECTED ARIANISM SO THE TRUE FAITH OF CHRISTIANITY WAS KEPT OVER THE INVENTION OF ARIUS.
[The profound dogmatic differences within the badly divided “Christian” church gave him the opportunity to intervene as a “God-sent” mediator.]
I THINK THE AUTHOR HERE IS IGNORANT OF THE BIBLE. THE KING IS REFERRED TO IN THE BIBLE AS GOD'S ANOINTED. THUS, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ALSO REFERS TO THE KING AS REPRESENTATIVE OF GOD ON MATTERS OF ADMINISTRATION AND POLITICS LIKE KING DAVID. THE FACT THAT CONSTANTINE WAS ALSO DEFENDER OF THE FAITH IS A PLUS FACTOR NOT NEGATIVE:
1Sa 2:10 The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed.
[Through his dealings with the Donatists in North Africa and the followers of Arius in the eastern portion of the empire, he quickly discovered that persuasion was not enough to forge a solid, unified faith.]
BECAUSE IT WAS THE CENTURIES OF WARS AND FIGHTINGS. THE BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS WERE NOT YET WRITTEN IN THOSE DAYS. HE, HE, HE... IT IS STUPID TO JUDGE TO THOSE PEOPLE USING THE LEGAL NORMS OF THE MODERN TIMES.
CALVIN AND LUTHER DID THE SAME TO THEIR OPPONENTS THROUGH THE HELP OF GERMAN AND DUTCH PRINCES WHO FOLLOWED THEIR DOCTRINES.
DON'T EVER THINK THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ONLY AGGRESSOR HERE. THE ARIANS ALSO VIOLENTLY ATTACKED AND DEPOSED THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS SUCH AS ST. ATHANASIUS. IF YOU THINK THAT THE OTHER SIDE WERE GENTLE YOU ARE DREAMING.
[It was in an attempt to resolve the Arian controversy that he convened the first ecumenical council in the history of the church.i. Concerning Constantine, historian Paul Johnson states: “One of his main reasons for tolerating Christianity may have been that it gave himself and the State the opportunity to control the Church’s policy on orthodoxy and the treatment of heterodoxy.”]
CONSTANTINE'S AUTHORITY WAS POLITICAL AND MILITARY AND FINANCIAL. THE AFFAIRS OF THE CHURCH HE LEFT ON THE HANDS OF THE BISHOPS. HE WAS CONCERNED WITH THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH BECAUSE HE LOVED THE CHURCH. DURING HIS TIME THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS A MINORITY RELIGION, YET HE SUPPORTED IT BECAUSE HE LOVED IT.
[Did He Ever Become a Christian?]
ReplyDeleteYES HE DID. THAT IS A HISTORICAL FACT UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. ARE YOU NOT AWARE OF IT?
[Johnson notes: “Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins.”]
THIS IS A VERY ILLOGICAL REASONING. IT IS NON SEQUITUR. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT FOLLOW. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CARRIES THE LOGO OF AN EAGLE, DOES IT MEAN HE IS A SECRET PAGAN? THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES CARRIES THE LOGO WITH AN IMAGE OF A FISH, DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PHILIPPINE PRESIDENTS WORSHIP THE PAGAN GOD OF THE FISH?
A VERY CHEAP SHOT.
[ The Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “Constantine showed equal favour to both religions. As pontifex maximus he watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights.”]
IT MEANS THAT CONSTANTINE IS AN UNBIASED AND A BENEVOLENT EMPEROR. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE EMPEROR TO TAKE GOOD CARE OF ALL HIS CITIZENS REGARDLESS OF RELIGION. THE KING OF THAILAND, JORDAN, SPAIN, ENGLAND [now a Queen] ARE DOING THE SAME. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? THAT IS GOOD. THE EMPEROR MUST SERVE HIS PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF RELIGION.
NOW, YOU ARE CHANGING TUNES. EARLIER YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT CONSTANTINE FAVORED CHRISTIANITY OVER PAGANISM. NOW YOU ARE ARGUING THAT HE REMAINED PAGAN. HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE SHOWING INCONSISTENCIES IN YOUR CLAIMS.
[“Constantine never became a Christian,” states the encyclopedia Hidria,]
CONSTANTINE IS THE FIRST CHRISTIAN EMPEROR. THAT FACT CANNOT BE DENIED. BESIDES, YOUR CLAIM QUOTES FROM THESE SOURCES ARE SUSPECT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA WILL COMMIT SUCH A PLAIN STUPIDITY AS TO DENY THE BAPTISM OF CONSTANTINE.
[adding: “Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote his biography, says that he became a Christian in the last moments of his life. This doesn’t hold water, as the day before, [Constantine] had made a sacrifice to Zeus because he also had the title Pontifex Maximus.”]
THE TITLE PONTIFEX MAXIMUS IS NOT EXCLUSIVE OF THE ZEUS WORSHIPPER. THAT IS WHY YOUR QUOTE FROM EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA IS HIGHLY SUSPECT. IT IS FAKE. EUSEBIUS WILL NOT BE UNGRATEFUL TO CHRISTIANITY'S GREASTEST BENEFACTOR. ACTUALLY, THE EASTERN CHURCHES WHERE EUSEBIUS BELONG CONSIDER CONSTANTINE AS SAINT. SO DREAM ON. YOU ARE FREE TO HALLUCINATE.
[Down to the day of his death in 337 C.E., Constantine bore the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus, the supreme head of religious matters.]
ReplyDeleteTHE TITLE PONTIFEX MAXIMUS IS NOT EXCLUSIVE OF THE PAGAN WORSHIPPERS. THAT TITLE BELONGS TO THE EMPEROR SIMPLY BY POPULAR ACCLAIM BECAUSE AS THE EMPEROR HE REPRESENTS GOD. WHEN HE ABANDONED PAGANISM CONSTANTINE BECAME THE PONTIFEX MAXIMUS OF THE CHRISTIANS AS THEIR 'POLITICAL LEADER'. LIKE DAVID AND SOLOMON WHO WERE KINGS YET ALSO REPRESENTATIVES OF GOD AS HIS ANOINTED.
CONSTANTINE SERVES THE GOD OF THE CROSS... THE GOD OF THE CHRISTIANS. HE IS THE POLITICAL AND MILITARY LEADER OR PONTIFEX MAXIMUS OF THE PEOPLE UNDER THE BANNER OF THE CHRISTIAN GOD.
YOUR CLAIM THAT CONSTANTINE WORSHIPPED ZEUS STILL IS PATHETIC AND A HISTORICAL DISTORTION. BECAUSE IT WAS CONSTANTINE WHO ORDERED THE DESTRUCTION OF THE PAGAN TEMPLES AND BUILT OVER THEM THE CATHOLIC BASILICAS INSTEAD.
[Regarding his baptism, it is reasonable to ask, Was it preceded by genuine repentance and a turning around, as required in the Scriptures? (Acts 2:38, 40, 41)]
YES. BESIDES, WHAT IS THERE FOR HIM TO REPENT OF EXCEPT HIS NORMAL SINS AS A HUMAN PERSON? HE LIVED A MORAL AND CHRISTIAN LIFE. HIS MISTAKES ARE NORMAL MISTAKES OF A GREAT LEADER BUT HE WAS EXEMPLARY IN HIS VIRTUES AND STEADFAST IN FAITH.
[Was it a complete water immersion as a symbol of Constantine’s dedication to Jehovah God?—Compare Acts 8:36-39]
EXCUSE ME. READ THE TEXT CAREFULLY. THERE IS NO STATEMENT THERE SHOWING IMMERSION INTO THE WATER. HERE:
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Act 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
YOU SEE, THERE IS NO IMMERSION THERE. GOING DOWN INTO THE WATER DOES NOT MEAN IMMERSION. IT MEANS THAT THEY WENT INTO LOWER PLACE WHERE THERE IS THE WATER. THE EUNUCH COULD HAVE BEEN STANDING WHEN BAPTIZED LIKE ST. PAUL OF TARSUS:
Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and ENTERED INTO THE HOUSE; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
Act 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and AROSE, and was baptized.
A “Saint”?
ST. PAUL WAS BAPTIZED STANDING INSIDE THE HOUSE. SO YOU ARE LYING TO US IN CLAIMING THAT BAPTISM IS BY IMMERSION. BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATEMENT THERE THAT BAPTISM IS BY IMMERSION ONLY.
Besides, the REAL Name of God is NOT JEHOVAH... NO, NO, NO... That is wrong rendition of the Tetragrammaton. The REAL NAME OF GOD IS 'YHWH'.
SO PLEASE STOP YOUR HALLUCINATIONS.
[A “Saint”?]
ReplyDeleteMOST PROBABLY. THE PEOPLE OF CONSTANTINOPLE RECOGNIZED HIM AS SUCH. UNTIL NOW THAT IS THE BELIEF OF THE GREEK CHURCH.
[The Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Constantine was entitled to be called Great in virtue rather of what he did than what he was.]
THAT IS JUST AN OPINION. THE TESTIMONY OF OUR CHRISTIAN FOREFATHERS IS DIFFERENT.
[Tested by character, indeed, he stands among the lowest of all those to whom the epithet [Great] has in ancient or modern times been applied.”]
YEAH, THE ANGLICAN CHURCH COMPOSED OF BRITS WHO MADE THAT ENCYCLOPEDIA CONSIDERS AS GREAT QUEEN ELIZABETH WHO BURNED OUR CHURCHES, MARTYRED OUR PRIESTS AND MONKS, DESTROYED OUR MONASTERIES AND ELIMINATED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ENGLAND.
[And the book A History of Christianity informs us: “There were early reports of his violent temper and his cruelty in anger. . . .]
CONSTANTINE IS NOT A DIPLOMAT. HE IS A WARRIOR. ALL WARRIORS OF THOSE TIMES WERE STRONG IN CHARACTER. HE WAS MAJESTIC AND TERRIBLE IN ANGER. THAT WAS A PLUS FACTOR THAT TIME.
CRUELTY? HE WAS THE ONE WHO REMOVED THE CRUELEST TORTURES BEING APLIED AGAINST THE ENEMIES OF CHRISTIANS THAT TIME. HE STOPPED FEEDING PEOPLE TO THE LIONS OR BURNING THEM ALIVE. HE STOPPED THE CRUCIFIXIONS AND THE DEADLY GLADIATORIAL GAMES. HOW CAN THIS CAN OF MAN BE CRUEL?
[He had no respect for human life . . .]
HE HAS RESPECT OF HUMAN LIFE. HE WAS BENEVOLENT AND KIND. HE WAS ONLY TERRIBLE IN WAR. BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT ONCE THE ENEMIES BECAME VICTORIOUS THEY WILL DESTROY THE EMPIRE. CONSTANTINE IS GODLY BUT NOT STUPID. HE WAS A GREAT MILITARY COMMANDER AS HE WAS GODLY. LIKE GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON. HE WAS THE BEST GENERAL, FIERCE AND DEADLY, STRIKING TERROR TO THE ENEMIES... BUT HE WAS VIRTUOUS IN HIS LIVING.
[His private life became monstrous as he aged.”]
O NO. THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORY IS THAT HE WAS CLOSER TO GOD AS HE WAS BECOMING AGED AND SICKLY. HE WAS SURROUNDED BY PRAYERS OF THE PRIESTS OF THE CHURCH.
[Evidently Constantine had serious personality problems.]
CONSTANTINE HAS GREATER PROBLEMS THAN ANY MAN OF HIS TIME. BEING THE EMPEROR OF BOTH EAST AND WEST HIS BURDEN WAS GREATER THAN ANYBODY ELSE. THUS, IT IS REASONABLE THAT HE SHOWED STRESS OR WHATEVER.
BUT, THE FACT THAT HE WAS DOING GREAT AS YOU'VE STATED IS A MANIFESTATION THAT HE WAS SANE, HE WAS CARING, HE WAS BENEVOLENT AND HE FULFILLED HIS DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WELL. ONLY A BALANCED PERSON CAN ACHIEVE THIS.
[A history researcher states that “his temperamental character was often the reason for his committing crimes.”]
WHO IS THIS ANIMAL?... RESEARCHER?
[(See the box “Dynastic Murders.”)]
HA, HA, HA... IT IS VERY OBVIOUS THAT YOU JUST COPIED THIS FROM ANOTHER WEBSITE. HA, HA, HA... EVEN THE DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN COPIED. HA, HA, HA...
[Constantine was not “a Christian character,” contends historian H. Fisher in his History of Europe.]
IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF HISTORIANS TO JUDGE PEOPLE BUT TO PRESENT THEIR FINDINGS AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE. HIS OPINION IS NICE BUT WHAT COUNTS WAS THE UNANIMOUS LOVE, RESPECT, ADMIRATION AND HONOR CONFERRED TO THE FIRST CHRISTIAN EMPEROR BY HIS OWN PEOPLE.
[The facts do not characterize him as a true Christian who had put on “the new personality” and in whom there could be found the fruitage of God’s holy spirit—love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, and self-control.—Colossians 3:9, 10; Galatians 5:22, 23.]
CONSTANTINE WAS FILLED WITH LOVE. HE LOVED ALL HIS PEOPLE. HE LOVED CHRISTIANITY AND GAVE FREEDOM TO THE CATHOLICS. IT WAS ALSO AN ACT OF GREAT CHARITY AND GOODNESS. YOU ARE SIMPLY BLIND ON THE FACT OF HIS GREATNESS THAT ONLY A MAN OF GOD CAN GIVE AND CAN ACHIEVE.
[The Consequences of His Efforts]
ReplyDeleteTHE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS EFFORTS ARE FREEDOM FOR CHRISTIANITY. THE DEFEAT AND DESTRUCTION OF PAGANISM WITH ITS TEMPLES, AND THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY AS THE NEW WORLD RELIGION. VERY GOOD.
[As the pagan Pontifex Maximus—and therefore the religious head of the Roman Empire—Constantine tried to win over the bishops of the apostate church.]
HA, HA, HA... CONSTANTINE IS THE PONTIFEX MAXIMUS OF THE PEOPLE AND NOT OF PAGANISM. HE IS THE EMPEROR. EMPEROR NERO IS THE PONTIFEX MAXIMUS OF THE PAGANS BUT NOT CONSTANTINE. HIS BANNER IS THE CROSS OF CHRIST.
AND IT IS VERY ILLOGICAL FOR HIM TO TRY TO WIN OVER THE BISHOPS OF THE APOSTATE CHURCH. WHY THE APOSTATE CHURCH? WHY NOT THE TRUE CHURCH? BECAUSE DURING THAT TIME THERE IS ONLY ONE, TRUE CHURCH, THAT IS, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE APOSTATE CHURCH WAS ARIANISM.
DEFINITELY THERE WAS NO BORN AGAIN THEN, NO PROTESTANTS, NO MORMONS, AND NO JEHOVAH WITNESSES. THESE ARE NEWLY INVENTED RELIGIONS.
[He offered them positions of power, prominence, and wealth as officers of the Roman State religion.]
WRONG. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS NOT THE STATE RELIGION DURING CONSTANTINE'S TIME.
THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS BECAME PROMINENT DURING THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE BECAUSE CONSTANTINE LOVED AND RESPECTED THEM MORE THAN OTHERS. WHOM WILL HE HONOR THE INSANE MINISTERS OF THE JEHOVAH WITNESSES?
[The Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “Some bishops, blinded by the splendour of the court, even went so far as to laud the emperor as an angel of God, as a sacred being, and to prophesy that he would, like the Son of God, reign in heaven.”]
THIS IS FAKE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. THIS IS FAKE.
CITATION PLEASE. WHAT VOLUME AND WHAT PAGE OF CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AND WHAT EDITION?
[As apostate Christianity came into favor with the political government,]
ReplyDeleteCHRISTIANY NEVER BECAME APOSTATE. THE CHURCH REMAINED STEADFAST IN ITS FAITH.
BEING IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT EVIL. IT IS GOOD. DURING THE TIME OF DAVID AND SOLOMON THE TRUE FAITH WAS FAVORED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND IT WAS GOOD.
[it became more and more a part of this world, of this secular system, and drifted away from the teachings of Jesus Christ.]
O NO. THE CHURCH WAS THE ONLY INSTITUTION THEN PROCLAIMING THE TRUE TEACHING OF JESUS CHRIST. THE ONLY CHRISTIAN FAITH THEN IS CATHOLICISM. THE OTHERS WERE THE HERETICS.
[(John 15:19; 17:14, 16; Revelation 17:1, 2)]
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TAUGHT AND UPHLED THESE PASSAGES DURING THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE, BEFORE CONSTANTINE AND EVEN AFTER CONSTANTINE.
As a result, there was a fusion of “Christianity” with false doctrines and practices—the Trinity, immortality of the soul, hellfire, purgatory, prayers for the dead, use of rosaries, icons, images, and the like.—Compare 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
[As a result, there was a fusion of “Christianity” with false doctrines and practices—]
ReplyDeleteO NO. THERE IS NO FUSION WITH FALSE DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES BECAUSE WE WERE THE ONE WHO DEFEATED THE PROPONENTS OF THOSE FALSE DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES. NOT THE JEHOVAH WITNESSES WHICH IS RECENTLY ESTABLISHED BY A FOOL FROM THE UNITED STATES.
[the Trinity,]
THE TRINITY IS BIBLICAL:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
[immortality of the soul,]
HA, HA, HA... WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT SOULS ARE MORTAL? THE BIBLE SPEAKS OF THE HUMAN SOUL AS BEING KEPT BY GOD:
1 Pet 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
IF THE SOUL IS KEPT BY GOD IT WILL NOT BE DESTROYED. THE KEEPER-GOD IS NOT THE KILLER OF THE SOULS.
[hellfire,]
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with FIRE and brimstone: which is the second death.
IMAGINE, YOU ARE SO IGNORANT EVEN OF BASIC BIBLICAL DESCRIPTION OF HELL. HA, HA, HA...
[purgatory,]
Jud 1:22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
Jud 1:23 And others save with fear, PULLING THEN OUT OF THE FIRE; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
THERE IS A FIRE FROM WHICH A SOUL CAN BE SAVED OR PULLED OUT. THAT IS THE PURGATORIAL FIRE.
[prayers for the dead,]
Ruth 2:20 And Naomi said unto her daughter in law, Blessed be he of the LORD, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and TO THE DEAD. And Naomi said unto her, The man is near of kin unto us, one of our next kinsmen.
SEE, NAOMI THE HOLY WOMAN OF ISRAEL MENTIONED THE DEAD IN HIS PRAYER TO GOD.
[use of rosaries,]
ROSARIES IS THE RECITATION OF HAIL MARY. HERE IS THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATION:
Luk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Luk 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
[icons, images,]
Eze 41:18 And it was made with cherubims and palm trees, so that a palm tree was between a cherub and a cherub; and every cherub had two faces;
Eze 41:19 So that the face of a man was toward the palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side: it was made through all the house round about.
SEE, THE PROPHET EZEKIEL DESCRIBED THE SACRED IMAGES IN THE TEMPLE, CHERUBS, FACE OF A MAN AND OF A YOUNG LION, WITH IMAGES OF PALM TREE... THESE IMAGES ARE ALL AROUND THE HOUSE OF THE LORD, HIS HOLY TEMPLE.
[nd the like.—Compare 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.]
WHAT IS THIS?
[From Constantine, the church also inherited the tendency to be authoritarian.]
ReplyDeleteHA, HA, HA...THIS IS THE MOST STUPID ARGUMENT I'VE EVER HEARD.
EVERY ORGANIZATION HAS AUTHORITY IN ORDER TO BE EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT AND UNITED. THE CHURCH HAS ITS OWN AUTHORITY THAT CAME FROM JESUS AND THE APOSTLES. IT HAS THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER - THE POPE. IT HAS THE BISHOPS AND THE PRESBYETERS, THEN THE DEACONS.
IT IS NOT AUTHORITARIAN BUT A BIBLICAL DISTINCTIONS OF AUTHORITY AS ESTABLISHED BY CHRIST AND HIS HOLY APOSTLES.
[Scholars Henderson and Buck say: “The simplicity of the Gospel was corrupted, pompous rites and ceremonies were introduced,]
HA, HA, HA... YOUR SCHOLARS ARE IGNORANT OF THE BIBLE. JESUS WAS ENTERING AND PRAYING IN THE TEMPLE:
Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God
THE APOSTLES WERE ALSO ENTERING THE TEMPLE TO WORSHIP AND PRAY:
Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Act 3:1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.
WHAT KIND OF WORSHIP DO THEY HAVE IN THE TEMPLE? THEY HAVE RITES:
Exo 29:7 And thou shalt pour the oil of unction upon his head: and by this RITE shall he be consecrated. [Douay-Rheims]
Exo 40:4 And thou shalt bring in the table, and set upon it the things that are commanded according to THE RITE. The candlestick shall stand with its lamps,
Lev 8:34 As at this present it hath been done, that THE RITE OF THE SACRIFICE might be accomplished.
Num 3:26 The tabernacle itself and the cover thereof, the hanging that is drawn before the doors of the tabernacle of the covenant, and the curtains of the court: the hanging also that is hanged in the entry of the court of the tabernacle, and whatsoever belongeth to THE RITE OF THE ALTAR, the cords of the tabernacle, and all the furniture thereof.
Num 8:7 According to this RITE: Let them be sprinkled with the water of purification, and let them shave all the hairs of their flesh. And when they shall have washed their garments, and are cleansed,
I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR SCHOLARS ARE CHRISTIANS AT ALL OR IF THEY HAD READ THE BIBLE. THERE ARE RITES IN THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD. THEY HAVE VESSELS, PRIESTLY GARMENTS, CANDLESTICKS, ALTAR, SANCTUARY, SHOWBREAD, HOLY WATER, HOLY OIL, ETC.
PRIOR TO CONSTANTINE THE CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE TEMPLES BECAUSE THEY WERE PERSECUTED. BUT WHEN FREEDOM WAS ACHEIVED THEY STARTED BUILDING HOUSES OF WORSHIPS FOR THE LORD PATTERNED AFTER THE HOLY TEMPLE OF GOD.
[worldly honours and emoluments were conferred on the teachers of Christianity,]
DON'T BE HYPOCRITES. YOUR MINISTERS AND PASTORS ARE ACCORDED HONOURS AND EMOLUMENTS TOO. ARE YOU INSULTING YOUR PASTORS AND MINISTERS? NO, YOU ARE HONOURING THEM. TEACHERS ARE ALWAYS HONOURED IN EVERY CULTURE. JESUS WAS HONOURED BY HIS DISCIPLES. PAUL WAS HONORED BY HIS CONVERTS AND WAS PETER AND JAMES AND OTHERS.
THE EVIL IS IN YOUR MIND AND HEART. THEY ARE FULL OF MALICE AND EVIL PLOTS.
[and the Kingdom of Christ in good measure converted into a kingdom of this world.”]
DEFINITELY NOT. THE CHURCH IS THE ONLY INSTITUTION WITH COURAGE TO OPPOSE THE POWERS OF THIS WORLD. WE FOUGHT AND DEFEATED THE PAGAN ROMAN EMPERORS, WE DISMANTLED THE PAGAN TEMPLES, WE FOUGHT THE MOSLEMS IN CRUSADES, WE FOUGHT AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, WE FOUGHT THE SOVIET UNION AND THE COMMUNISTS... IN THE PHILIPPINES WE DEPOSED THE DICTATOR MARCOS AND THE CORRUPT JOSEPH ESTRADA.
WE LOST A LOT OF LIVES BY MARTYRDOM FIGHTING THESE EVIL REGIMES BUT ITS ALRIGHT. WE WON AT THE END.
TODAY WE ARE FIGHTING AGAINST OBAMA AND THE U.N. ON ABORTIONS, CONTRACEPTIONS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WHILE YOU AND YOUR KIND ARE BUSY ATTACKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH INSTEAD.