Jesus founded a Church two millennia ago, and that Church is still in existence. If you’re a Christian and not part of it, you would need some pretty strong justification for why you’re not. Yet inherent in Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, and some Protestant teaching is the assertion that, while Jesus may have founded the Catholic Church, this Church has now undoubtedly totally apostatized.

This is a serious charge because it has the potential to lead people away from Jesus’ true Church. Additionally, it is often accompanied by misrepresented Scripture quotes and false historical claims.

In my last column, I examined this “total apostasy” theory. We saw that while Scripture certainly does speak of individuals apostatizing from the Church, sometimes in large numbers, there is not a single verse of Scripture that attests to a total apostasy and collapse of the Church Jesus founded. In fact, we see quite the opposite.

To recap, in Matthew 16:18, Jesus, the wisest of builders (Mt 7:24-25), builds his Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15), on rock: “You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church.” It is a matter of history that this Church Jesus founded is the Catholic Church: we can trace every pope, bishop, priest, and deacon in the Catholic Church in an unbroken line back to one of the Apostles. And built upon rock, Jesus has promised, his Church will never fall: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

But some still insist that the Catholic Church did, in fact, apostatize, regardless of Jesus’ promises and rock-solid scriptural testimony to the contrary.

In an attempt to offer a plausible scenario for this theory, and apparently unaware of the actual history of the first 300 years of Christianity, some literally invent a story of the Church falling away when the pagan Emperor Constantine came into power in the 300s.

Constantine, after receiving a vision from heaven that led to a seemingly miraculous military victory that secured the Roman Empire for him, eventually converted to Catholicism. From here, this fabricated story goes on to claim that Constantine proceeded to make Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire, somehow paganizing the Church in the process.

Some insist that Constantine himself introduced pagan elements into Christianity, such as transubstantiation, papal authority, the communion of saints, and more. Those on the more extreme end of the scale allege that he actually started the Catholic Church, placing himself at its head!

Some further speculate that by making conditions more favourable for Christianity in the Roman Empire, many may have entered the Church half-heartedly, seeking to gain social, political, or economic advantage, and that this further contributed to pagan influences eventually overtaking the true Christian faith.

The Triumphant Entry of Constantine into Rome. Contrary to some claims, Constantine did not make Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire. (Rubens/Wikimedia)

Some also appeal to the notorious Donation of Constantine as further proof that the papacy was a pagan construct implemented by Constantine. While space doesn’t permit a full refutation of this fraudulent decree and associated anti-Catholic claims, there is irrefutable historical evidence that this was a forged document dating from the eighth or ninth century, with no connection to Constantine whatsoever. No reputable historian would even reference it to Constantine today, but it had much impact in medieval Europe before it was indisputably proven to be a forgery.

These wildly inaccurate claims are saddening, and they should shame any legitimate Christian genuinely interested in the truth. The true history of the situation is quite different.

For starters, Constantine did not make Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire. In signing the Edict of Milan in 313, often referred to as the Edict of Toleration, he simply made it permissible to be a Christian, officially ending centuries of Christian persecution – which was extremely intense under the previous emperor, Diocletian – and restoring confiscated Christian property as well. Christianity would not become the official state religion of Rome until the Edict of Thessalonica in AD 380 – well after Constantine’s death.

Long before Constantine, the Catholic Church – the only Christian Church in that period of history, incidentally – had already been solidly in existence since the time of Jesus and the Apostles. And if you look at the pre-Constantine writings of the early Christian Church, they clearly testify to the very same doctrines the Catholic Church teaches today: the Eucharist, baptism, apostolic succession, the papacy, Marian doctrines, and much more – all Catholic!

But undaunted by this incontrovertible history, some still try to claim that Constantine presided over and directed the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 – the first ecumenical/universal council of the Christian Church since the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 – again speculating that he introduced various pagan elements into Christianity specifically through this council. Some even allege that he determined the canon or list of books of the Bible at this council as well, keeping those books he liked, while tossing others.

While there is no doubt that Constantine was concerned about the religious disagreements going on in the Roman Empire and did play an important role in convoking the council, Constantine did not participate in the discussions of the council – or even have a vote.

And while Nicaea may have discussed a lot of things, the canon of Scripture was not one of them. Constantine had absolutely nothing to do with determining which books were truly inspired and part of Scripture. This determination was made with the help of the Holy Spirit through several popes and Church councils in the late 300s and early 400s.

Another noteworthy point is that Constantine himself initially had fairly strong leanings towards Arianism, a devastating and growing heresy of the time that denied the divinity of Jesus, claiming he was created by the Father, and so was neither eternal nor of the same nature/substance as the Father.

It was precisely the Council of Nicaea that not only condemned this heresy but gave us the foundations for the Nicene Creed – arguably the greatest formulation of Christian faith in the history of Christianity. If Constantine was really guiding the council – which he was not – why did this pivotal council not adopt his Arian views?

And if Constantine was such a pagan influence on the Christian Church as some insist, how did this council give us some of the most foundational doctrinal pronouncements about Jesus and the Trinity in the history of Christianity – pronouncements that virtually every Christian – Catholic and Protestant – holds today?

In the end, the theory of Constantinian paganization of the Catholic Church is simply a sad misrepresentation of history at best, and a flat-out lie at worst.

While Constantine may not have been a perfect Christian – for example, he may have withheld his own baptism until on his deathbed to ensure forgiveness of all the sins of his whole life, an illicit but occasional practice of his day – he made major changes in how Christians were treated that helped lead to the evangelization of the whole world.

What Christian today would not have cheered Constantine’s decision to permit Christians to practise their faith unpersecuted, and to allow the teaching of Christianity to proceed freely throughout the world? Would this not be the desire of every Christian: to convert the greatest pagan empire in the world to Christianity?