The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Hakons]

Tbh Constantine's canonization is one of the few entirely political canonizations, he was legitimately a terrible person who doesn't deserve to be considered a saint.

Plus, may have been an Arian heretic.

He credited his victory and rise to power to God, ended the persecutions, supported Christianity in the Empire, and presided over the Council of Nicaea, one of the most important events in Christianity and a unifying/clarifying force in Christendom. Why should we seek to disrepute with our own limited personal opinion the judgement of the universal Church?

[Luminesa]

Plus, may have been an Arian heretic.

He credited his victory and rise to power to God, ended the persecutions, supported Christianity in the Empire, and presided over the Council of Nicaea, one of the most important events in Christianity and a unifying/clarifying force in Christendom. Why should we seek to disrepute with our own limited personal opinion the judgement of the universal Church?

He did have Arian leanings, but I think he converted over from Arianism later?

[Kowani]

He credited his victory and rise to power to God, ended the persecutions, supported Christianity in the Empire, and presided over the Council of Nicaea, one of the most important events in Christianity and a unifying/clarifying force in Christendom. Why should we seek to disrepute with our own limited personal opinion the judgement of the universal Church?

He did have Arian leanings, but I think he converted over from Arianism later?

From my understandings, he died as an Arian.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Plus, may have been an Arian heretic.

He credited his victory and rise to power to God, ended the persecutions, supported Christianity in the Empire, and presided over the Council of Nicaea, one of the most important events in Christianity and a unifying/clarifying force in Christendom. Why should we seek to disrepute with our own limited personal opinion the judgement of the universal Church?

He literally boiled his pregnant wife to death and didn't regret it. I'm sorry, but he was an awful person.

[Tarsonis]

Plus, may have been an Arian heretic.

He credited his victory and rise to power to God, ended the persecutions, supported Christianity in the Empire, and presided over the Council of Nicaea, one of the most important events in Christianity and a unifying/clarifying force in Christendom. Why should we seek to disrepute with our own limited personal opinion the judgement of the universal Church?

Because it’s true. He was an Arian supporter.

[Tarsonis]

He credited his victory and rise to power to God, ended the persecutions, supported Christianity in the Empire, and presided over the Council of Nicaea, one of the most important events in Christianity and a unifying/clarifying force in Christendom. Why should we seek to disrepute with our own limited personal opinion the judgement of the universal Church?

He literally boiled his pregnant wife to death and didn't regret it. I'm sorry, but he was an awful person.

To be fair, there was cause. It’s not like it happened out of the blue. Roman family law and custom could be quite severe.

[United Muscovite Nations]

He literally boiled his pregnant wife to death and didn't regret it. I'm sorry, but he was an awful person.

To be fair, there was cause. It’s not like it happened out of the blue. Roman family law and custom could be quite severe.

Yes, there was cause, but that doesn't mean the cause was just. Even if his wife's execution was just, the leading theory is that the method was chosen symbolically to kill an unborn child.

[Salus Maior]

Plus, may have been an Arian heretic.

He credited his victory and rise to power to God, ended the persecutions, supported Christianity in the Empire, and presided over the Council of Nicaea, one of the most important events in Christianity and a unifying/clarifying force in Christendom. Why should we seek to disrepute with our own limited personal opinion the judgement of the universal Church?

Constantine did a lot of historically huge things that were major for the Church as well, that is why the Church wanted to recognize him.

But the Church is not made of clairvoyants, nor is it the Church that gets people Sainthood. God grants Sainthood, and the Church recognizes those they believe received Sainthood. But that's not necessarily an infallible statement.

[Tarsonis]

To be fair, there was cause. It’s not like it happened out of the blue. Roman family law and custom could be quite severe.

Yes, there was cause, but that doesn't mean the cause was just. Even if his wife's execution was just, the leading theory is that the method was chosen symbolically to kill an unborn child.

Anachronisms aside, I agree he’s not a great fellow, but the early saints are complicated people.

[Hakons]

He credited his victory and rise to power to God, ended the persecutions, supported Christianity in the Empire, and presided over the Council of Nicaea, one of the most important events in Christianity and a unifying/clarifying force in Christendom. Why should we seek to disrepute with our own limited personal opinion the judgement of the universal Church?

He literally boiled his pregnant wife to death and didn't regret it. I'm sorry, but he was an awful person.

I understand why you have misgivings, since every Roman emperor pretty much did terrible things, but I simply would ask what other saints recognized by the Church do you hold aren't actually saints? By what method are you ignoring the judgement of the Church and propping up the opinion of your own conscience? That is my main worry about saying certain saints shouldn't really be saints. It's contrary to Church unity and seems to set our opinion over that of the Church.
,

[United Muscovite Nations]

He literally boiled his pregnant wife to death and didn't regret it. I'm sorry, but he was an awful person.

I understand why you have misgivings, since every Roman emperor pretty much did terrible things, but I simply would ask what other saints recognized by the Church do you hold aren't actually saints? By what method are you ignoring the judgement of the Church and propping up the opinion of your own conscience? That is my main worry about saying certain saints shouldn't really be saints. It's contrary to Church unity and seems to set our opinion over that of the Church.
,

By the method that he murdered not only a woman, but a child in a horrific manner, and expressed zero remorse for it before his death. It's not rocket science.

[Tarsonis]

I understand why you have misgivings, since every Roman emperor pretty much did terrible things, but I simply would ask what other saints recognized by the Church do you hold aren't actually saints? By what method are you ignoring the judgement of the Church and propping up the opinion of your own conscience? That is my main worry about saying certain saints shouldn't really be saints. It's contrary to Church unity and seems to set our opinion over that of the Church.
,

By the method that he murdered not only a woman, but a child in a horrific manner, and expressed zero remorse for it before his death. It's not rocket science.

Once again you’re looking at this anachronistically. If the infidelity accounts are true, then his actions would have been within the norms of Roman custom.

[United Muscovite Nations]

By the method that he murdered not only a woman, but a child in a horrific manner, and expressed zero remorse for it before his death. It's not rocket science.

Once again you’re looking at this anachronistically. If the infidelity accounts are true, then his actions would have been within the norms of Roman custom.

So was burning Christians, but we don't excuse Diocletian.

[Hanafuridake]

By the method that he murdered not only a woman, but a child in a horrific manner, and expressed zero remorse for it before his death. It's not rocket science.

Once again you’re looking at this anachronistically. If the infidelity accounts are true, then his actions would have been within the norms of Roman custom.

This seems really close to relativism.

[Tarsonis]

Once again you’re looking at this anachronistically. If the infidelity accounts are true, then his actions would have been within the norms of Roman custom.

So was burning Christians, but we don't excuse Diocletian.

Once again you’re looking at this anachronistically. If the infidelity accounts are true, then his actions would have been within the norms of Roman custom.

This seems really close to relativism.

You can’t expect him to show remorse for something that was customary for his time and place. You’re expecting him to understand modern legal sensibilities and apply them to his time and place. Hence the comment of anachronism.

As for relativism, it’s not. I’m not making a claim that it was morally acceptable, in saying what he did was customary for his time and place and to hold him accountable to our time and place is unreasonable. It’s like blaming middle age executions for being too violent compared lethal injection. The sensibilities of the day were different. Under the legal system of the Roman day, I’m not sure what he did would be considered murder, but rather it would be justice. Even though we acknowledge execution to be wrong, Constantine would be ignorant of that knowledge, and thus not accountable.

[Grenartia]

He literally boiled his pregnant wife to death and didn't regret it. I'm sorry, but he was an awful person.

I understand why you have misgivings, since every Roman emperor pretty much did terrible things, but I simply would ask what other saints recognized by the Church do you hold aren't actually saints? By what method are you ignoring the judgement of the Church and propping up the opinion of your own conscience? That is my main worry about saying certain saints shouldn't really be saints. It's contrary to Church unity and seems to set our opinion over that of the Church.
,

Have you considered the possibility that the Catholic church is not infallible?

Also, the only consistent position for someone who is pro-life is to condemn the action as inherently evil.

So was burning Christians, but we don't excuse Diocletian.

This seems really close to relativism.

You can’t expect him to show remorse for something that was customary for his time and place. You’re expecting him to understand modern legal sensibilities and apply them to his time and place. Hence the comment of anachronism.

As for relativism, it’s not. I’m not making a claim that it was morally acceptable, in saying what he did was customary for his time and place and to hold him accountable to our time and place is unreasonable. It’s like blaming middle age executions for being too violent compared lethal injection. The sensibilities of the day were different. Under the legal system of the Roman day, I’m not sure what he did would be considered murder, but rather it would be justice. Even though we acknowledge execution to be wrong, Constantine would be ignorant of that knowledge, and thus not accountable.

"Its not relativism, but actually it is". --you, just now.

[United Muscovite Nations]

So was burning Christians, but we don't excuse Diocletian.

This seems really close to relativism.

You can’t expect him to show remorse for something that was customary for his time and place. You’re expecting him to understand modern legal sensibilities and apply them to his time and place. Hence the comment of anachronism.

As for relativism, it’s not. I’m not making a claim that it was morally acceptable, in saying what he did was customary for his time and place and to hold him accountable to our time and place is unreasonable. It’s like blaming middle age executions for being too violent compared lethal injection. The sensibilities of the day were different. Under the legal system of the Roman day, I’m not sure what he did would be considered murder, but rather it would be justice. Even though we acknowledge execution to be wrong, Constantine would be ignorant of that knowledge, and thus not accountable.

The Roman legal system doesn't decide if something is a sin or not. It doesn't matter if he thought it was wrong or not, it was. Otherwise we could make the same argument for any historical figure.

[Salus Maior]

I understand why you have misgivings, since every Roman emperor pretty much did terrible things, but I simply would ask what other saints recognized by the Church do you hold aren't actually saints? By what method are you ignoring the judgement of the Church and propping up the opinion of your own conscience? That is my main worry about saying certain saints shouldn't really be saints. It's contrary to Church unity and seems to set our opinion over that of the Church.
,

Have you considered the possibility that the Catholic church is not infallible?

He's not arguing for the infallibility of canonization.

[Tarsonis]

You can’t expect him to show remorse for something that was customary for his time and place. You’re expecting him to understand modern legal sensibilities and apply them to his time and place. Hence the comment of anachronism.

As for relativism, it’s not. I’m not making a claim that it was morally acceptable, in saying what he did was customary for his time and place and to hold him accountable to our time and place is unreasonable. It’s like blaming middle age executions for being too violent compared lethal injection. The sensibilities of the day were different. Under the legal system of the Roman day, I’m not sure what he did would be considered murder, but rather it would be justice. Even though we acknowledge execution to be wrong, Constantine would be ignorant of that knowledge, and thus not accountable.

The Roman legal system doesn't decide if something is a sin or not. It doesn't matter if he thought it was wrong or not, it was. Otherwise we could make the same argument for any historical figure.

Your ability to miss the point is astounding

[Tarsonis]

I understand why you have misgivings, since every Roman emperor pretty much did terrible things, but I simply would ask what other saints recognized by the Church do you hold aren't actually saints? By what method are you ignoring the judgement of the Church and propping up the opinion of your own conscience? That is my main worry about saying certain saints shouldn't really be saints. It's contrary to Church unity and seems to set our opinion over that of the Church.
,

Have you considered the possibility that the Catholic church is not infallible?

Also, the only consistent position for someone who is pro-life is to condemn the action as inherently evil.

You can’t expect him to show remorse for something that was customary for his time and place. You’re expecting him to understand modern legal sensibilities and apply them to his time and place. Hence the comment of anachronism.

As for relativism, it’s not. I’m not making a claim that it was morally acceptable, in saying what he did was customary for his time and place and to hold him accountable to our time and place is unreasonable. It’s like blaming middle age executions for being too violent compared lethal injection. The sensibilities of the day were different. Under the legal system of the Roman day, I’m not sure what he did would be considered murder, but rather it would be justice. Even though we acknowledge execution to be wrong, Constantine would be ignorant of that knowledge, and thus not accountable.

"Its not relativism, but actually it is". --you, just now.

“I don’t understand what relativism is” you just now.

[Luminesa]

I understand why you have misgivings, since every Roman emperor pretty much did terrible things, but I simply would ask what other saints recognized by the Church do you hold aren't actually saints? By what method are you ignoring the judgement of the Church and propping up the opinion of your own conscience? That is my main worry about saying certain saints shouldn't really be saints. It's contrary to Church unity and seems to set our opinion over that of the Church.
,

Have you considered the possibility that the Catholic church is not infallible?

Also, the only consistent position for someone who is pro-life is to condemn the action as inherently evil.

You can’t expect him to show remorse for something that was customary for his time and place. You’re expecting him to understand modern legal sensibilities and apply them to his time and place. Hence the comment of anachronism.

As for relativism, it’s not. I’m not making a claim that it was morally acceptable, in saying what he did was customary for his time and place and to hold him accountable to our time and place is unreasonable. It’s like blaming middle age executions for being too violent compared lethal injection. The sensibilities of the day were different. Under the legal system of the Roman day, I’m not sure what he did would be considered murder, but rather it would be justice. Even though we acknowledge execution to be wrong, Constantine would be ignorant of that knowledge, and thus not accountable.

"Its not relativism, but actually it is". --you, just now.

It is pretty awful and I actually never knew that about him. UMN reads more than I do, though. That being said, I would want a source for this act, I don’t recall ever learning about this. As for why he was canonized, he did do a lot to spread Christianity, and he did convert on his deathbed. I guess it would be the same case as Oscar Wilde-didn’t live a virtuous life all the way, but in the end he did want to be remembered in Paradise. Deathbed conversions generally mean a person is in Heaven as well, especially if they receive the Sacraments.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The Roman legal system doesn't decide if something is a sin or not. It doesn't matter if he thought it was wrong or not, it was. Otherwise we could make the same argument for any historical figure.

Your ability to miss the point is astounding

You could try making a relevant point.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Have you considered the possibility that the Catholic church is not infallible?

Also, the only consistent position for someone who is pro-life is to condemn the action as inherently evil.

"Its not relativism, but actually it is". --you, just now.

“I don’t understand what relativism is” you just now.

If you can't be held morally accountable for something, then that thing is morally acceptable. Ignorance of moral law doesn't grant immunity.

[Tarsonis]

“I don’t understand what relativism is” you just now.

If you can't be held morally accountable for something, then that thing is morally acceptable. Ignorance of moral law doesn't grant immunity.

That’s not correct. Morality exists to independent of accountability. Whether something is morally wrong or not is an objective quality. Whether one can be held accountable, however is individually dependent. Three things are required for mortal culpability, full knowledge, full consent, and grave issue. We have a grave issue and full consent, but full knowledge is not met. By nature of his time and upbringing in Pagan Rome and it’s reasonable to deduce that in this given scenario, what he did would have been justIce by his understanding. Uncorrected he cannot repent, therefore he cannot be expected to repent. Thus your criteria is in appropriate.

Your ability to miss the point is astounding

You could try making a relevant point.

Your lack of comprehensive ability at the moment doesn’t make the point irrelevant. What we’ve got here is a case where you’ve completely climbed up your own ass making yourself completely obtuse to all contradictory positions. So why don’t you simmer the fuck down, and think about what’s being said to you instead blindly repeating the same thing ad nauseum

[Salus Maior]

If you can't be held morally accountable for something, then that thing is morally acceptable. Ignorance of moral law doesn't grant immunity.

That’s not correct. Morality exists to independent of accountability. Whether something is morally wrong or not is an objective quality. Whether one can be held accountable, however is individually dependent. Three things are required for mortal culpability, full knowledge, full consent, and grave issue. We have a grave issue and full consent, but full knowledge is not met. By nature of his time and upbringing in Pagan Rome and it’s reasonable to deduce that in this given scenario, what he did would have been justIce by his understanding. Uncorrected he cannot repent, therefore he cannot be expected to repent. Thus your criteria is in appropriate.

So then, there might as well not be a standard of morality, if not fully knowing it means you get off scot free.

How could Christianity ever act as a means of reform in that case? If it's not important that people know (because not knowing means you're better off), then why seek to better society and culture along Christian lines? Perhaps it would be better for the souls of people who commit abortions to not have priests and Christians let them know they're killing children, since apparently it's knowing that condemns their souls rather than the act of destroying an innocent life itself.

Honestly, this is the one thing in Catholicism I just don't think I can fully accept. I certainly don't see the world and morality that way, at least not to this extreme.