Apostasy. 1000 years. Constantine the Great

Constantine the Great legalized Christianity to unite a Roman Empire fractured by crises and to secure the support of a rapidly growing and well-organized religious community; his first joint decree was the Edict of Milan in 313.

Constantine endowed the church with immense privileges to strengthen its influence:

Constantine believed that the unity of the empire depended directly on religious unity. Faced with internal disputes among Christians, he began to intervene personally in matters of dogma:

The pinnacle of the alliance between Constantine and the Church was the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, which the emperor personally convened and funded:

Despite immense support from the Church, Constantine remained the high priest of the pagan cult (Pontifex Maximus) throughout his life and postponed his own baptism until the very end. He was baptized only shortly before his death in 337 by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia—a move that reflected his complex political maneuvering among the various factions of the Church.

Until the 4th century, the Church was independent of the state, as it existed illegally. After 313, the situation changed radically:

The Christological controversies of the 5th century led to the tragic division of the Christian Church following the Council of Chalcedon (451). The demand to accept the "formula" of the Council of Chalcedon—in essence, the "formula" of an unresolved dispute—led to the extermination of the Copts as a people.

The "formula" refers to the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith (dyophysitism), which affirmed that two natures—divine and human—are united in Christ "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation" (in Greek: ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως).

The Copts (Egyptian Christians) rejected this formula, remaining faithful to the Alexandrian theological tradition (Miaphysitism), which acknowledges "one incarnate nature of God the Word." From that point on, their faith became a cause for severe persecution by the Byzantine Empire and the Western Church.

Criterion	Alexandrian Tradition (Copts / Miaphysitism)	Chalcedonian tradition (Dyophysitism)
The main formula	"One incarnate nature of God the Word" (formula of St. Cyril of Alexandria)	"One Christ in two natures" (The Chalcedonian Definition)
The essence of the position	Divinity and humanity merged into a single, unique God-man nature. They are not separated; they cannot be conceived as two distinct entities following the Incarnation.	Christ exists in two natures—divine and human. They retain their properties but are united in one Person (Hypostasis).
Key terms	Miaphysitism (from the Greek physis — nature, as a single whole)	Dyophysitism (from the Greek dyo — two, physis — nature)
The position's greatest fear	If Christ is divided into "two natures," it follows that only the man suffered on the Cross, while God remained apart. This undermines the very essence of humanity's salvation.	If the natures were merged into one, Christ’s human nature would dissolve into the divine (like a drop of honey in the ocean). In that case, Christ would not be truly human, and He would not have saved mankind.
Formula of the union	Without division, without separation	Without confusion, without change, without division, without separation (four "not")

The formula "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation" (in Greek: ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως) was formulated by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

These four negative terms (apophatic definitions) formed the basis of the Council’s principal document—the Chalcedonian Horos (Definition of Faith).

Surprisingly, the Church of Alexandria took no issue with any of these four words individually. The primary and most vehement objection raised by the Alexandrians was directed not at these four "nots," but at a single small Greek preposition—the preposition "in" (ἐν)—in the context of the assertion that Christ is known "in two natures."

The Alexandrians ardently supported the terms "without separation" and "without division," as these fit perfectly into their logic of a single Christ. They also accepted the terms "without confusion" and "without change," since the moderate wing of the Alexandrian school—unlike the radical heretic Eutyches—never claimed that Christ’s humanity was dissolved into the Divinity or that it had altered its essence.

Thus, the schism arose not from a denial that the natures are united "without confusion" or "without division," but because Chalcedon affirmed the duality of natures as a permanent fact following the Incarnation (using the preposition "in"), whereas Alexandria insisted on absolute unity (using the preposition "from").

Thus, in essence, purely theological disagreements among the episcopate—which ought to have been resolved patiently and persistently—led to a bloody outcome for ordinary Christians who had little grasp of theology.

Here is how the modern Coptic priest Father Lazarus describes the massacre of the Copts:

And after we split, the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Church simply have been killing us. They killed us because we didn't accept this formula. … There were stories of one story where 30 000 people were killed. … And then another where 200 000 people were killed at once. 200,000. … So, according to estimates, in Egypt alone there were between 500 000 and a million.

In Syria, there were probably more. They killed all the bishops and priests. Only three bishops remained.

Coptic Priest Father Lazarus
Protestant Talks to Orthodox Priest For The First Time

Наконец-то, “Институционализация и «обмирщение» церкви” проявило себя во всей красе. Католичество превратилась в государственно-подобное учреждение (Святой Престол). Православие стало государственной религией в Российской Империи.

“Современная религия есть вещь очень жалкая — собственно говоря, религии как господствующего начала, как центра духовного тяготения, нет совсем, а есть вместо этого так называемая религиозность, как личное настроение, личный вкус: одни имеют этот вкус, другие нет, как одни любят музыку, другие — нет” (Владимир Соловьев).

… I say that those who at the present time refuse religion are right, because religion appears in reality not what it ought to be.

Religion, speaking generally and abstractly, is the connection of man and the world with the unconditional beginning, which is the focus of all that exists. … If we admit the existence of such an unconditional centre, thenall points on the circle of life must be linked to that centre with equal radii. It is only then that unity, wholeness, and accord appear in the life and consciousness of man. It is only then that all his deeds and sufferings in life, great or small, are transmuted into intelligent, inwardly necessary events from a state of aimless and senseless phenomena. It is quite certain that such all-embracing, central importance must belong to the religious principle, once it is admitted at all; and it is equally indubitable that in reality, for the contemporary civilized humanity, even for that part of it which recognizes the religious principle, religion does not possess this all-embracing and central importance. Instead of being all in all, it hides in a very small and remote corner of our inner world, and appears as one of a multitude of the different interests which divide our attention.

Contemporary religion represents a very pitiful thing: properly speaking, religion as the dominating principle, as the centre of spiritual attraction, does not exist today; instead, there is the so-called religiosity as a personal mood, a personal taste: some people have this taste, others do not, just as some people like music and others do not.

In the absence of the unconditional centring [of all interests in religion] we have as many relative, temporary centres of life and consciousness as we have different requirements and interests, tastes and inclinations, opinions and points of view.

It would be superfluous to dwell upon the mental and moral discord and the lack of principle, at present prevalent in the realm of society as well as in the minds and hearts of the individuals, for that fact is too well known to anyone at all introspective or observant.

Vladimir Solovyov
Lectures on Godmanhood
year 1878
Lecture One

Under Constantine the Great, a type of Christian emerged—the dissembler or hypocrite—such as had never been seen before.

Later, paganism was banned by law, and—with the exception of a scattered handful of barely tolerated Jews—every subject of the Greco-Roman Empire was compelled to be a Christian under pain of severe criminal penalties.

From this point of view, the cessation of persecution and the official recognition of the new religion, first as a full-fledged, and then as the dominant religion, actually produced an important change for the worse. Under Constantine the Great and under Constantius, the pagan masses were brought to Christianity not out of conviction, but out of slavish imitation or selfish calculation. An unprecedented type of feigned Christians, hypocrites, has appeared. It multiplied even more when, under Theodosius, and finally under Justinian, paganism was prohibited by law and, except for a scattered handful of semi-tolerant Jews, every subject of the Greco-Roman Empire was forcibly obliged to be a Christian under pain of severe criminal penalties. Of course, between the type of Christians formed in this way, unwillingly, under pressure, and the remaining type of true Christians, many transitional shades of superficial and indifferent Christianity were formed, according to deep conviction. But all this, without any distinction, was covered up by the general organization of the external church, in which all categories of internal dignity were erased and mixed up. The former really Christian society blurred and dissolved into a Christian community in name, but in fact — a pagan community. The overwhelming majority of superficial Christians not only actually preserved the pagan beginnings of life under a Christian name, but tried in every possible way - partly instinctively, and partly consciously — to establish alongside Christianity, to legitimize and perpetuate the old pagan order, excluding in principle the task of its internal renewal in the spirit of Christ. It was here that the first foundation was laid for that Christian-pagan compromise, which determined the medieval world outlook and life.

Vladimir Solovyov
Об упадке средневекового миросозерцания
October 19, 1891

The Christian-pagan compromise is when life remains as before pagan, the worldly kingdom remains worldly, and the Kingdom of God, being not of this world, remains outside the world, as a mere appendage to the worldly kingdom.

But when the pagan world accepted Christianity, it was not a matter of actual compromise, which was already there, but of principle. Most of the new converts wanted things to stay the same. They recognized the truth of Christianity as an external fact and entered into some external formal relations with it, but only so that their life remained as before pagan, so that the worldly kingdom remained worldly, and the Kingdom of God, being not of this world, would remain outside the world, without any vital influence on it, i.e. would have remained as a useless adornment, as a mere appendage to the worldly kingdom.

Vladimir Solovyov
Об упадке средневекового миросозерцания
October 19, 1891

Apostasy
1000 years
Constantine the Great

See also

Links

Bibliography

Apostasy 1000 years Constantine the Great

See also

Links

Bibliography

Apostasy
1000 years
Constantine the Great