This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Christianity in the 4th century's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CC":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Christianity in the 4th century. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I love this article! It is really well done. I want to add some on the shift from sect to church that took place in the latter half of the third century. It's what set the stage for the conflicts that followed. But I don't want to mess anything up! Does anyone have an opinion? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 21:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The accession of Constantine was a turning point for the Christian Church. In 313, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan affirming the tolerance of Christians. Thereafter, he supported the Church financially, built various basilicas, granted privileges (e.g., exemption from certain taxes) to clergy, promoted Christians to high ranking offices, and returned property confiscated during the reign of Diocletian. [1] Constantine utilized Christian symbols early in his reign but still encouraged traditional Roman religious practices including sun worship. Between 324 and 330, he built a new imperial capital at Byzantium on the Bosphorus (it came to be named for him: Constantinople)–the city employed overtly Christian architecture, contained churches within the city walls (unlike "old" Rome), and had no pagan temples. [2] In 330 he established Constantinople as the new capital of the Roman Empire. The city would gradually come to be seen as the center of the Christian world. [3]
Sociologist Joseph Bryant asserts that, by the time of Constantine, Christianity had already changed from its first century instantiation as a "marginal, persecuted, and popularly despised Christian sect" to become the fully institutionalized church "capable of embracing the entire Roman empire" that Constantine adopted. [4]: 304 Without this transformation that Peter Brown has called "the conversion of Christianity" to the culture and ideals of the Roman world, Brown says Constantine would never have converted himself. [5]
By the end of the second century Christianity was steadily expanding and its membership was socially rising. The church was becoming increasingly institutionalized, and there is evidence of moral erosion and declining commitment amongst its expanding membership. [4]: 313 Bryant explains that, "The governing principle of the [sect is] in the personal holiness of its members". [4]: 320 A church, on the other hand, is an organization where sanctity is found in the institution rather than the individual. [4]: 306 To become a church, "Christianity had to overcome its alienation from the 'world' and successfully weather persecution, accept that it was no longer an ecclesia pura, (a sect of the holy and the elect), but was instead a corpus permixtum, a 'catholic' Church geared to mass conversions and institutionally endowed with extensive powers of sacramental grace and redemption". [4]: 333 This "momentous transformation" threatened the survival of the marginal religious movement as it naturally led to divisions, schisms and defections. [4]: 317, 320 Bryant explains that, "once those within a sect determine that "the 'spirit' no longer resides in the parent body, 'the holy and the pure' typically find themselves compelled – either by conviction or coercion – to withdraw and establish their own counter-church, comprised of the 'gathered remnant' of God's elect". [4]: 317 According to Bryant, this describes all the schisms of Christianity's first 300 years including the Montanists, the schism created by Hippolytus in 218 under Callistus, the Melitian schism, and the Donatists.
It is the Donatist schism that Bryant sees as the culmination of this sect to church dynamic. [4]: 332 During the Melitian schism and the beginnings of the Donatist division, bishop Cyprian had felt compelled to "grant one laxist concession after another in the course of his desperate struggle to preserve the Catholic church". [4]: 325 Roman emperors had always been religious leaders, but Constantine established precedent for the position of the Christian emperor in the Church. These emperors considered themselves responsible to God for the spiritual health of their subjects, and thus they had a duty to maintain orthodoxy. [6] The emperor did not decide doctrine – that was the responsibility of the bishops – rather his role was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity. [7] The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship consisted of was the responsibility of the church. Constantine had commissioned more than one investigation into the Donatist issues and they all ruled in support of the Catholic cause, yet the Donatists refused to submit to either imperial or ecclesiastical authority. [4]: 332 For a Roman emperor, that was sufficient cause to act. Brown says Roman authorities had shown no hesitation in "taking out" the Christian church they had seen as a threat to empire, and Constantine and his successors did the same, for the same reasons. [8]: 74 Constantine's precedent of deferring to councils on doctrine, and accepting responsibility for their enforcement, would continue generally until the empire's end, although there were a few emperors of the 5th and 6th centuries who sought to alter doctrine by imperial edict without recourse to councils. [9]
In 325 Constantine called for the Council of Nicaea, which was effectively the first Ecumenical Council (the Council of Jerusalem was the first recorded Christian council but rarely is it considered ecumenical), to deal mostly with the Arian heresy, but which also issued the Nicene Creed, which among other things professed a belief in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, the start of Christendom. John Kaye characterizes the conversion of Constantine, and the council of Nicea, as two of the most important things to ever happen to the Christian church. [10]: 1
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This needs some fact checking. Diocletian abdicated in 305, and he did not die in 310. 69.172.156.244 ( talk) 16:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Christianity in the 4th century's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CC":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Christianity in the 4th century. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I love this article! It is really well done. I want to add some on the shift from sect to church that took place in the latter half of the third century. It's what set the stage for the conflicts that followed. But I don't want to mess anything up! Does anyone have an opinion? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 21:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The accession of Constantine was a turning point for the Christian Church. In 313, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan affirming the tolerance of Christians. Thereafter, he supported the Church financially, built various basilicas, granted privileges (e.g., exemption from certain taxes) to clergy, promoted Christians to high ranking offices, and returned property confiscated during the reign of Diocletian. [1] Constantine utilized Christian symbols early in his reign but still encouraged traditional Roman religious practices including sun worship. Between 324 and 330, he built a new imperial capital at Byzantium on the Bosphorus (it came to be named for him: Constantinople)–the city employed overtly Christian architecture, contained churches within the city walls (unlike "old" Rome), and had no pagan temples. [2] In 330 he established Constantinople as the new capital of the Roman Empire. The city would gradually come to be seen as the center of the Christian world. [3]
Sociologist Joseph Bryant asserts that, by the time of Constantine, Christianity had already changed from its first century instantiation as a "marginal, persecuted, and popularly despised Christian sect" to become the fully institutionalized church "capable of embracing the entire Roman empire" that Constantine adopted. [4]: 304 Without this transformation that Peter Brown has called "the conversion of Christianity" to the culture and ideals of the Roman world, Brown says Constantine would never have converted himself. [5]
By the end of the second century Christianity was steadily expanding and its membership was socially rising. The church was becoming increasingly institutionalized, and there is evidence of moral erosion and declining commitment amongst its expanding membership. [4]: 313 Bryant explains that, "The governing principle of the [sect is] in the personal holiness of its members". [4]: 320 A church, on the other hand, is an organization where sanctity is found in the institution rather than the individual. [4]: 306 To become a church, "Christianity had to overcome its alienation from the 'world' and successfully weather persecution, accept that it was no longer an ecclesia pura, (a sect of the holy and the elect), but was instead a corpus permixtum, a 'catholic' Church geared to mass conversions and institutionally endowed with extensive powers of sacramental grace and redemption". [4]: 333 This "momentous transformation" threatened the survival of the marginal religious movement as it naturally led to divisions, schisms and defections. [4]: 317, 320 Bryant explains that, "once those within a sect determine that "the 'spirit' no longer resides in the parent body, 'the holy and the pure' typically find themselves compelled – either by conviction or coercion – to withdraw and establish their own counter-church, comprised of the 'gathered remnant' of God's elect". [4]: 317 According to Bryant, this describes all the schisms of Christianity's first 300 years including the Montanists, the schism created by Hippolytus in 218 under Callistus, the Melitian schism, and the Donatists.
It is the Donatist schism that Bryant sees as the culmination of this sect to church dynamic. [4]: 332 During the Melitian schism and the beginnings of the Donatist division, bishop Cyprian had felt compelled to "grant one laxist concession after another in the course of his desperate struggle to preserve the Catholic church". [4]: 325 Roman emperors had always been religious leaders, but Constantine established precedent for the position of the Christian emperor in the Church. These emperors considered themselves responsible to God for the spiritual health of their subjects, and thus they had a duty to maintain orthodoxy. [6] The emperor did not decide doctrine – that was the responsibility of the bishops – rather his role was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity. [7] The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship consisted of was the responsibility of the church. Constantine had commissioned more than one investigation into the Donatist issues and they all ruled in support of the Catholic cause, yet the Donatists refused to submit to either imperial or ecclesiastical authority. [4]: 332 For a Roman emperor, that was sufficient cause to act. Brown says Roman authorities had shown no hesitation in "taking out" the Christian church they had seen as a threat to empire, and Constantine and his successors did the same, for the same reasons. [8]: 74 Constantine's precedent of deferring to councils on doctrine, and accepting responsibility for their enforcement, would continue generally until the empire's end, although there were a few emperors of the 5th and 6th centuries who sought to alter doctrine by imperial edict without recourse to councils. [9]
In 325 Constantine called for the Council of Nicaea, which was effectively the first Ecumenical Council (the Council of Jerusalem was the first recorded Christian council but rarely is it considered ecumenical), to deal mostly with the Arian heresy, but which also issued the Nicene Creed, which among other things professed a belief in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, the start of Christendom. John Kaye characterizes the conversion of Constantine, and the council of Nicea, as two of the most important things to ever happen to the Christian church. [10]: 1
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This needs some fact checking. Diocletian abdicated in 305, and he did not die in 310. 69.172.156.244 ( talk) 16:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)