The year 2025 is a special “Holy Year” for the Catholic Church. With the Council of Nicaea, further cornerstones of Catholicism were laid and Emperor Constantine was therefore the pioneer and patron of Christians. A misunderstanding due to the constant confusion between Christianity and Catholicism.
Inhalt / Content
- 1 “Holy Year 2025” – return to Constantine
- 2 Constantine is stylized as a Christian
- 3 Was Constantine a Christian or a Catholic?
- 4 If the Church of Rome makes a statement…
“Holy Year 2025” – return to Constantine
The year 2025 will be a “holy year” according to the definition of the Roman Catholic Church. The reason for this declared exceptional year 2025 is the Synod of Nicea held in 325. This marks the 1700th anniversary of this meeting of the then elite clergy. During this meeting, the supposed interpreters of the gospel laid down drastic dogmas. These established teachings could be called the laying of the foundation stone of Catholicism. No surprise, then, that this illustrious circle of bishops irradiated with fictitious solar disks is not only held in high esteem by the Roman Church today, but also held sacred.
Mandatory Sunday rest
Only four years before the meeting in Nicaea, the then Emperor Constantine set the course for the continued existence of the Church of Rome, which was now forming. With the establishment of the “Sunday law” in honor of the Roman sun god, the emperor commanded the observance of Sunday (“sun day”) of general rest. Domradio quotes the decree of Constantine:
The focus of this legislation was without a doubt the Roman sun god and not some concern which to this day is referred to as the “day of Christ’s resurrection”.
Constantine is stylized as a Christian
The Catholic online magazine “Die Tagespost” sheds light on the developments of Constantine during the years leading up to the Synod of Nicea, on the occasion of the upcoming “Holy Year 2025”. In attempting to portray Emperor Constantine as a truly converted Christian, however, the author – probably unintentionally – makes clear the striking difference between Gospel Christianity and Catholicism.
The Imperial Dream
Accordingly, in 312, after his victory at the Milvian Bridge (Rome) against his opponent Maxentius, Constantine was free to declare Christianity, which was then still referred to as a sect, to be a recognized religion. According to several sources, Constantine won the victory because of the monogram of Christ he used on the banners and shields of the soldiers for this decisive battle.
These historical sources tell of a dream Constantine is said to have had in which he was called upon to use this monogram. Critics of this variant, however, counter that every Roman emperor claimed a form of “divine assistance” and thus Constantine’s visions could also be classified as a propagandistic self-portrayal.
Constantine professed Christianity
The author describes a triumphal arch erected by the Roman Senate in honor of Emperor Constantine, depicted as the invincible sun god (“sol invictus”). While this still did not testify to any hints of Christianity, Constantine had had a different attitude. In 314 Constantine called the Council of Arles. He intended to end the dispute between the bishops of the Roman delegation and the clergy of Donatism (North Africa). The representatives in North Africa did not agree with various teachings of the Church of Rome. To this end, the bishops intended to establish the ceremonies for the Easter festivities.
On this occasion, according to the author, Constantine is said to have professed the Christian faith. “God Almighty, who dwells on high in heaven, bestowed what I did not deserve. Certainly it cannot be said or enumerated what he has graciously given to me, his servant“, so an expounded quote (without reference to source).
The protector of Christianity
In 324 Constantine gained sole rule after defeating Licinius. In the same year the emperor moved his headquarters to Byzantium and in all his “modesty” renamed this city Constantinople (now Istanbul). From this point on, Constantine had every freedom to realize “his ideas about the role of the Christian faith in all parts of the empire”, according to the author in “Die Tagespost”. While Constantine stood out as a defender of Christianity, Licinius was an outspoken opponent of the Christian faith. Accordingly, the people in the dominion of Licinius were rather hostile to Christianity. Constantine’s victory over Licinius is understood as a victory of Christianity over paganism.
Ernst Dassmann, quoted by the author, had the following summary ready for the developments in the time of Constantine:
“Die Tagespost” did not explain who Dassmann is. The research shows that Dassmann was born in Coesfeld at the end of January 1931 and is a German church historian, Christian archaeologist and patrologist.
There are still unanswered detailed questions about the “sincerity of Constantine’s conversion”. Nevertheless, research comes to the “clear result” that Constantine is considered a Christian.
A “universal monarchy, religious and also secular, declared as a “monarchy of God” for a “universal kingdom”. With such tones, the heart of the pontifex in Rome should universally audibly beat faster.
Was Constantine a Christian or a Catholic?
The mixture of Christian teachings and those of the Roman Empire are unmistakable and can still be seen today in the Catholic Church. Be it the “halo” behind the heads of the “saints” who died many years ago and are still worshiped today, the radiant sun of the monstrance, the sun over many a Catholic altar or the sun symbol declared as the host at every mass, the sun is in Catholicism ubiquitous. This applies to the revered Sunday (“sunny day”) as well as to the theories of the philosophy-born nature worship of a Francis of Assisi, taken “to heart” by Pope Francis and as “Laudato si’” to the borne public.
Emperor Constantine may well have taken on Christian traits. The author also emphasizes that Constantine is considered a Christian, so this quality is only used by the Catholic Church. But Constantine was definitely not a Christian, but definitely a Catholic.
If the Church of Rome makes a statement…
As emperor, Constantine was superior to the bishop of Rome. The calling of councils was still subject to the discretion of the emperor. With his death, however, the situation changed very quickly.
Constantine gave away everything?
As early as around the year 800, a document appeared that allegedly dates back to the years 315 to 317 Emperor Constantine should have been issued. So at a time when Constantine did not yet have sole power. This document went down in history as the “Donation of Constantine” (Constitutum Constantini or Donatio Constantini). According to the Church of Rome, the then Bishop of Rome, Silvester I (Pontifex from 314 to 335), received this document. With this document, Constantine gave the bishop of Rome and all his successors, for all time, political supremacy over Rome and Italy, as well as the entire western half of the Roman Empire and also supremacy over the entire “world”.
Rome’s fraud was exposed
Only in 1440 did the humanist Lorenzo Valla prove that the document of the Donation of Constantine was a forgery. For the popes, this charter was a useful means of establishing their territorial supremacy and dominance over Christianity. The pope’s claim to power as the successor to the Roman Empire was therefore based on a (clumsy) forgery. Although this lie was exposed as early as 1440, it took several decades before this massive fraud of the Roman Catholic Church became known to a wider public. This happened during the Reformation.
The next lie follows immediately
Since the beginning of the 17th century, the Church of Rome has openly admitted that the document is a forgery, but Constantine’s gift was given nonetheless. In addition, the responsibility for this forgery of documents does not lie with the Church, but with the Greeks.
This claim turned out to be yet another lie on the part of the Roman Church in the 19th century. Ignaz Döllinger, a Catholic scholar, demonstrated that the account of Greece’s responsibility and the translation of the document into Latin could not possibly be true. Since then, the Vatican has also taken the view that these must be forgeries and that no claim to secular power can be made from them.
Even the (sandy) foundation of this church is based on lies and deceit. This character based on the nature of a Simon Magus and not Simon Peter is thus innate and continued through the “Dark Ages”, the time of the “Enlightenment” and the current upheavals up to the present time. The seduction and deception of people is genetically determined in this church and the Bible knows this “Beast” very precisely.
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Bible verses from King James Version