Although I am inclined to take a stance that Constantine did have an inordinate influence over the Roman church of his time, this assertion has escaped me in my studies for it has revealed that Constantine as well as Constantinus were of the Arian belief, could you please provide some supporting documentation on this, something from that era would greatly improve your stance on this.
Sure, though I am not certain what you want sources on. Here’s a bit:
"So under imperial protection and with imperial financial support the First Oecumenical Council met in 325 at Nicaea. Constantine himself presided over the assembly, (Eusebios, Vita Constantini, ed F. Winkelmann (Berlin, 1975) 2;61-3:24) which is unlikely to have the numbered as many as 318 bishops, the traditional figure (Athanaios claims 318, Eusebios over 250; Chadick, The Early Church, 130, suggests 220), and took part in its proceedings… Four aspects of the first council need to be stressed here. First, from the outset the emperor was intimately associated with it, and association deepened by the fact that subsequent universal councils were always held in the East at imperial initiative - Constantine I had established the model.” (Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom, pp. 99-100 (member if editorial board of Past and Present, and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London, graduated in history at Cambridge, PhD at Birmingham University and studied in Paris, Munich, Istanbul and most recently a Fellow at the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies, Princeton University.)
“The council’s major task was to agree on a creed, a concise and formal statement of belief. It met in an imperial palace under imperial auspice, and Constantine presided over it’s opening session.” Brian Moynahan, The Faith - A History of Christianity, p.121
“Finally, since we are now dealing with late testimonies, let us recall that Pope Stephen V (885-891), in his letter to Emperor Basil, gives the presidency to the Council of Constantine…” Hefele, Historire des Conciles… Vol 1, Part 1, pp 425, 426, 427
"Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church. Richard Kieckhefer (1989). “Papacy”. Dictionary of the Middle Ages.
“It must be supposed that Constantine himself, who was not very much at home in Greek, did not have a particularly clear idea of what homoousious was supposed to mean. But he reckoned that it would serve to obtain more or less general agreement (against Arius), and he was right: less for theological reasons than because hardly anyone had he nerve to contradict him.” Michael Grant, Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times, p. 173 (Fellow of Trinity College, Professor of Humanity at Edinburgh University).
That Constantine presides at Nicaea is entirely consistent with how the emperor had been operating. When the Donatist controversy had broken out over a decade earlier, it was to Constantine, not the Church proper that the Donatists made their appeal. Constantine reponded by appointing 5 judges - then with the pope appointing 14 Italian bishops, it was transformed into a Council of Synod. The die was being caste. “True, the emperor completely controlled the bishops himself. His dominance over them, embodied in the statement ‘my will must be considered binding’ (H.M. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe pp 142f; another version is in J. Holland Smith, Constantine the Great pp. 191f)) which some earlier Christians would never have accepted - was a prime example of that monarchical control of church described as Caesaropapism. Athanasius declared that the Fathers never sought imperial sanction (R. MacMullen, Constantine, p. 237 ), but in Constantine’s time they had to and they did. And it was he himself who chose every bishop when a vacancy arose.” Michael Grant, Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times, p. 159
Note: Though there is no evidence of it, some believe that Constantine conferred with Pope Silvester on convening the Council.
