Constantine

[Augustine3]

I was reading a book about the Church’s history and it mentioned that it was Constantine that summoned Church councils and decided when they were to end. He also decided who was to become a Bishop. I know that Protestants use this fact against Catholics, that the Church compromised in order to gain favour with the emperor and Roman power. How do we explain this?

 

[followingtheway]

I was reading a book about the Church’s history and it mentioned that it was Constantine that summoned Church councils and decided when they were to end. He also decided who was to become a Bishop. I know that Protestants use this fact against Catholics, that the Church compromised in order to gain favour with the emperor and Roman power. How do we explain this?

From “The Top ten misconceptions about the Catholic Church”

Misconception: Emperor Constantine invented the Catholic Church in 325 AD

In 313 AD, Emperor Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan, which removed penalties for professing Christianity. At the age of 40 he converted to Christianity and in 325 he convened the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Because of the importance of this council, many people believe that Constantine created the Church, but in fact there had been many councils (though not as large) prior to Nicaea and the structure of the Church already existed. Constantine was at the council merely as an observer and the Bishops and representative of the Pope made all of the decisions. Before the council of Nicaea, priestly celibacy was already the norm, baptism of infants was practiced (as were all 7 sacraments), and the structure of priests and Bishops was already 300 years old.

Hope this helps! God bless

 

[Augustine3]

It does slightly…but it was Constantine that decided when the council should come to a close and it was Constantine the appointed suitable candidates (not all) to become Bishops.

Kind regards,

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

And the availible evidence seems to suggests that Constantine favored the Arian (heretical) position–and the bishops he selected obviously had no problem disagreeing with him.

 

[Usagi]

While “the Emperor picks” may not be the best method, I don’t think the matter of who summoned a council or who nominated candidates for the episcopate is particularly relevant as long as it was valid bishops who were meeting in council and ordaining the nominees.

There have been periods when the Church got a bit too snugly in bed with temporal rulers, or even when bishops and popes acted like temporal rulers, and those are generally acknowledged in hindsight to have been low periods, but they don’t change what the Church is or invalidate her claims.

Usagi

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was reading a book about the Church’s history and it mentioned that it was Constantine that summoned Church councils and decided when they were to end. He also decided who was to become a Bishop. I know that Protestants use this fact against Catholics, that the Church compromised in order to gain favour with the emperor and Roman power. How do we explain this?

It is true in a sense, but now it depends how much exaggeration one side will take it or how they would interpret it to mean.

Constantine the Great (thus the alias I have) started a line of Holy Roman Emperors where secular rulers worked hand in hand with the Church. Think “New Testament King David”. They have the power to summon bishops to a council because they are the secular ruler. Because of the ecclesiology of the First Millennium, no one bishop had the authority to summon all the bishops of the empire. The emperor, being a temporal ruler, had that authority. It helped stem the issue whether one bishop had authority to summon another, especially if these were two Metropolitans. Patriarchates were just beginning to come into order at this time.

The Emperor has the perogative to choose who can become bishop, but the Church was not beholden to it. Usually it is part of the politics between Church and state. But the emperor surely did not choose bishops for the entire empire, nor is his choice final. The other bishops can surely refuse, but then they have to face the possible strain in relationship.

Remember when there were 3 claimants to the Papacy in Rome, the Emperor helped sort that out.

 

[Augustine3]

And the availible evidence seems to suggests that Constantine favored the Arian (heretical) position–and the bishops he selected obviously had no problem disagreeing with him.

Wow that’s interesting!

Can you please post some of this evidence?

God bless,

 

[ConstantineTG]

From “The Top ten misconceptions about the Catholic Church”

Hope this helps! God bless

Priestly celibacy certainly is NOT the norm by the 4th century. That article you quoted is erroneous to that regard. There were married Popes well past the 4th century.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Priests have never been allowed to marry. We have had, however, some married priests, and do even today. But once a priest, he can never “get married,” even if he had a wife before ordination and she died.

 

[billcu1]

I have read that Constantine never really stopped following Apollo the Sun god. And it was he or the council(s) he preseided over that determined Sunday would be the sabbath.

Bill

 

[billcu1]

And the availible evidence seems to suggests that Constantine favored the Arian (heretical) position–and the bishops he selected obviously had no problem disagreeing with him.

You know I heard that when the councils declared them heretical he sent armies to destroy the heretics. He helped spread if only by force the church.

 

[bogeydogg]

Wow that’s interesting!

Can you please post some of this evidence?

God bless,

I think the best evidence is found in The City of God where Augustine says that the Arian position had carried away the bishops and so the Church and he viewed the radical reversal that happened at Nicea (which cut against the Emperor’s will) as a divine preservation of the Church by the Holy Spirit.

But the controversy did not die there as Constantinople proves which again anathematized Arius and even St Ambrose having to lock the doors of the Church in Milan against the Arian Bishop whom the Governor favored even going so far as to live under death threat against himself and his parishioners as troops were ordered to take the Church by force. The governor eventually backed down because of the extreme mess of killing a bunch of people in a Church.

BTW during that standoff parishioners locked themselves in the Church with the Bishop and among them was one St Monica who’s faith so impressed her son St Augustine that he began to seriously consider the Christian faith and would convert later that year.

God Bless

 

[october_baby]

Priestly celibacy certainly is NOT the norm by the 4th century. That article you quoted is erroneous to that regard. There were married Popes well past the 4th century.

If this is the fact, was St.Peter celibate?

 

[Cachonga]

ConstantineTG:

It helped stem the issue whether one bishop had authority to summon another, especially if these were two Metropolitans. Patriarchates were just beginning to come into order at this time.

Seems that the idea that the Pope in Rome had a primacy was a little in doubt. How does this help with an alleged “2000 year” tradition that I’ve heard from some RC apologists (not to mention what Vatican I had to say about the pope)? Did anyone at the Council of Nicea think the Pope in Rome was infallible in any way (ex cathedra or otherwise)? This explanation (the entirety of your response, not just the snippet I’ve quoted) seems to make it clear that such was not the case.

BTW - Isn’t the Council of Nicea considered the 1st ecumenical council? Strange that this would be called by a secular ruler (“Holy” or otherwise) instead of the pope).

 

[farpinho]

It is true in a sense, but now it depends how much exaggeration one side will take it or how they would interpret it to mean.

Constantine the Great (thus the alias I have) started a line of Holy Roman Emperors where secular rulers worked hand in hand with the Church. Think “New Testament King David”. They have the power to summon bishops to a council because they are the secular ruler. Because of the ecclesiology of the First Millennium, no one bishop had the authority to summon all the bishops of the empire. The emperor, being a temporal ruler, had that authority. It helped stem the issue whether one bishop had authority to summon another, especially if these were two Metropolitans. Patriarchates were just beginning to come into order at this time.

The Emperor has the perogative to choose who can become bishop, but the Church was not beholden to it. Usually it is part of the politics between Church and state. But the emperor surely did not choose bishops for the entire empire, nor is his choice final. The other bishops can surely refuse, but then they have to face the possible strain in relationship.

Remember when there were 3 claimants to the Papacy in Rome, the Emperor helped sort that out.

Well, if Constantine HIMSELF says so, who’ll say otherwise?

 

[bogeydogg]

If this is the fact, was St.Peter celibate?

Considering St Peter was married that would be surprising.

God Bless

 

[57Bill]

I was reading a book about the Church’s history and it mentioned that it was Constantine that summoned Church councils and decided when they were to end. He also decided who was to become a Bishop. I know that Protestants use this fact against Catholics, that the Church compromised in order to gain favour with the emperor and Roman power. How do we explain this?

In our denomination it’s a benchmark (a positive one). Although there is debate about his political motives with “uniting” the more organized and popular religion at the time which was Catholicism with the secular empire. Constantine may have been more of a facilitator than a true believer, yet great things came out of the Council because of Constantine. (IMHO)

There is myriad Protestant beliefs, some, maybe many which would agree with the anti-Catholic position of Constantine’s role but not all and probably most not completely in line with the Catholic position. When Protestants debate this issue it bugs me because it seems to be picking nits yet often Apologetics don’t sway but can always be a dialog if defended with a shield instead of a sword.

Certain essentials are shared by some Protestant faiths obviously the Trinity and the Nicene Creed.

BTW I appreciate your posts and your reaching out. I need to send a PM soon

 

[Evan]

I was reading a book about the Church’s history and it mentioned that it was Constantine that summoned Church councils and decided when they were to end. He also decided who was to become a Bishop. I know that Protestants use this fact against Catholics, that the Church compromised in order to gain favour with the emperor and Roman power. How do we explain this?

The Church has always tried to work so as to assist those who God has placed in authority (ie secular rulers). To this end, it would be best to have bishops and rulers who are on good terms. The ruler did not decide, but he would put forth candidates. If they were deemed acceptable, then it is wise to choose someone faithful to the Church and in good standing with the temporal rulers.

When it was time to appoint the first Bishop in the United States, the pope asked George Washington who he would prefer. The only Catholic he knew well was Charles Carroll, a Signer of the Declaration of Independence, and a Senator in the First U.S. Federal Congress.

He suggested his cousin John, a Jesuit, who then became archbishop of Baltimore.

This is no longer the norm, but it has a looong history!!.

 

[JK8619]

And the availible evidence seems to suggests that Constantine favored the Arian (heretical) position–and the bishops he selected obviously had no problem disagreeing with him.

From what I read, Constantine was pretty harsh on the Arians until later in his life. I’m not sure if it was Constantine or the Church that exiled Arians, but I know he did support that policy. Also, I read that after the council of Nicaea a (during Constantine’s reign) that a person could be executed for possessing Arian literature.

Everything I have read has said that towards the end of his life, Constantine allowed many of the exiled Arians to return to Rome. This included Arius, who mysteriously died while being escorted back.

I can not recall the name of the bishop who baptized Constantine on his death bed, but I know he was an Arian. I am not sure if that bishop still held Arian beliefs privately or publicly at that time. Or for that matter if Constantine did.

JK

 

[Julia_Mae]

Priestly celibacy certainly is NOT the norm by the 4th century. That article you quoted is erroneous to that regard. There were married Popes well past the 4th century.

I never knew! Names, please?