D
- Status
I
inkaneer
Guest
Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop.
I
inkaneer
Guest
WHOA there, Pardner. Did Constantine summoned the bishops on his own or did he propose to the pope to summon a council? That question has not been definitively answered. But the authority of the pope was well established by the end of the first century and most historians agree that he and Pope Sylvester conferred on the matter and agreed to the council. Constantine was very interested in settling the Arian heresy matter because it was creating civil unrest. Constantine was not so much interested in the theological aspects of it but when the theological debate spilled over into creating problems in the civil administration of the Empire then that was his backyard. Constantine did oissue letters to the bishops in which he practically begged them to meet in council. Constantine provided all the material support for the council. It met in Nicea using the central hall of the imperial palace as a meeting place. He even paid for the travel expenses of the participants and provided for their lodging, upkeep and food. He made a grand entrance befitting his office as emperor at the beginning of the council but then let the bishops do their work. Constantine was, in my opinion, the ultimate politician and would run rings around out current crop of candidates for political office.
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
While Constantine’s Arian-sympathies are unclear during the Council (325) we have to remember the Bishops who met there were veterans and survivors of some pretty ferocious persecutions–many of them bearing the marks of torture on their bodies. The fact they overwelmingly rejected Arianism (even allowing for some vague language to satisfy the straddlers, later corrected in 381 at Constantinople) shows the idea “Trinity idea came from Constantine” is so much nonsense.
A
abucs
Guest
I think a parallel today might be if the Chinese communists called a Christian Council.
I’m sure the Catholic Church would work with that power without being subordinate to it.
We also have to remember that is was Constantine that moved the capital from Rome to Anatolia with all his army and governmental structure while the head of the Church stayed in Rome.
Also we have to remember that Constantine’s son, when he became ruler went back to persecuting the Church.
None of this could have happened if the church was the creation of the Roman state.
I’m sure the Catholic Church would work with that power without being subordinate to it.
We also have to remember that is was Constantine that moved the capital from Rome to Anatolia with all his army and governmental structure while the head of the Church stayed in Rome.
Also we have to remember that Constantine’s son, when he became ruler went back to persecuting the Church.
None of this could have happened if the church was the creation of the Roman state.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Not quite the same. Constantine was the sole ruler of the empire and the council only included those in the empire while the Chinese are not anywhere near to being a ruler of an empire. Secondly given the problems with state appointed bishops in China I would doubt the Church would agree to any council proposed by the communists.
G
gus
Guest
Despite 250 years of pesucution Christains made up between a third and a half of the empire and growing.
Constantine realized it was in his best interests to be on good reclations with the greatest force in the Empire.
Christains had infiltratred the Army and even the Empiriral household.
He was not a stupid man. Why wouldn’t he have a ligitimate intestest in what the beliefs of this group were.
He had been given conflicting stories. By inviting the local Bishops to gather he would gain a view of the majority.
The most important thing this council did was to exspand on long. existing beliefs to specifically target the Arian heresy.There were no Western Bishops present as this meeting.This Heresy in the early 4th century was still localizied.
Its considered Ecumenical in that the resulting creeds were reviewed and accepted by The Pope…
As a Westerner I think(aside from legalizing. our faith)
His move of the. capital from Rome left a series of weak Emperors and finally destruction of secular authority in the west which giving the Church unique freedoms and power in the West
That implication could be a full lenght book.
PS There was a. successor of Constantine who tried to restore The Empire to paganism. ---- the apostate
It was until Theodocius that Christianity actually triumphed for good.
Constantine is an to the Church but had no impact on beliefs.
A
abucs
Guest
hello Inkaneer,
It is true that Constantine was the last man standing (of four Roman Emperors) and became the sole emperor after internal civil war. It is also true that although he was from the Serbian region his original 1/4 of the empire was based in the west where relatively few of his citizens were Christian (about 20%).
Christians weren’t persecuted in his realm because they were such a low percentage. In the eastern realms, the Christian population was nearing 50%.
When Constantine became sole emperor it made political sense to stop the persecutions in his new Eastern realm. In doing so he had ready made support from a large section of the population there (i.e. Christians).
As such Constantine was in no position to dictate to the Christians, he needed them politically.
Also, the Christians are hardly going to go through persecution and then turn over and do what they are told once they have been legalised and become a political force.
I agree the parallel with China is not entirely congruous, as you suggest. I mentioned it with regards to the Christian Papacy taking its opportunity to reconcile with an aggressive and powerful enemy. China has been both of those and i think the Papacy would jump at the chance at reconciliation.
Reconciliation of course from a Catholic view cannot mean capitulation but assistance.
Regards.
It is true that Constantine was the last man standing (of four Roman Emperors) and became the sole emperor after internal civil war. It is also true that although he was from the Serbian region his original 1/4 of the empire was based in the west where relatively few of his citizens were Christian (about 20%).
Christians weren’t persecuted in his realm because they were such a low percentage. In the eastern realms, the Christian population was nearing 50%.
When Constantine became sole emperor it made political sense to stop the persecutions in his new Eastern realm. In doing so he had ready made support from a large section of the population there (i.e. Christians).
As such Constantine was in no position to dictate to the Christians, he needed them politically.
Also, the Christians are hardly going to go through persecution and then turn over and do what they are told once they have been legalised and become a political force.
I agree the parallel with China is not entirely congruous, as you suggest. I mentioned it with regards to the Christian Papacy taking its opportunity to reconcile with an aggressive and powerful enemy. China has been both of those and i think the Papacy would jump at the chance at reconciliation.
Reconciliation of course from a Catholic view cannot mean capitulation but assistance.
Regards.
I
inkaneer
Guest
What you wrote about Constantine goes to my assertion that he was the ultimate political figure not only of his time but I can’t think of anyone to compare with him. Julius Caesar was more of a militarist than a politician and none of the other Roman emperors came close.
As far as Red China is concerned as long as the Chinese insist on appointing their own bishops there will be no reconciliation. Every bishop appointed by the Chinese government has been excommunicated.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
No, obviously in Scripture it is pretty clear he had a mother-in-law. There is debate whether his wife was living at the time he was called by Christ. Some traditions point out that his wife was martyred alongside him in Rome.If this is the fact, was St.Peter celibate?
The concept of infallability did not exist then. Certainly there was nothing pronounced ex cathedra until much later in the Second Millennium. But that is for another debate.
Ecumenical Councils aren’t called to be Ecumenical Councils. Nobody says something like, “hey guys, let’s have an Ecumenical Council.” The bishosp have a council and discuss important issues. And later on the character of the council determines if it becomes Ecumenical or not. It would be years before they would look back on a council and say it was Ecumenical. The role of the Emperor here is just to assemble the bishops. Obviously even back then the issue of whether a bishop has the right to summon another bishop has already been a hot topic. Metropolitans can summon their suffragan bishops, but that was it. What about one Metropolitan to another? The only temporal authority over all the bishops is the secular one, that is the Emperor. That is why the Emperor is the one that calls for councils that involve most, if not all, the bishops of the world (that is, the Roman Empire).
I hate how they renamed the list from “List of married Popes” to “List of sexually active Popes” on Wikipedia, but the list nevertheless is a good source to begin with.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
No, the Pope could not have called the council. When the Emperors start becoming religious (to some extent), they started getting involved in Church matters. While they never settled or defined anything by themselves, sometimes even their own curiosity would lead them to summon a council to settle matters.
There have been instances where bishops are the ones who approached the emperor and asked him to call a council. There were times the Emperor himself decided to call a council to settle an important matter (probably the bishops involved him in some way). But in any case, the Emperor does not decide on the issue. The temporal authority of the Emperor sees to it that the bishops are summoned to the council. Once they get there, the Emperor’s role ceases.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
It is not a good comparison. There is no one world leader that encompasses over all Christian Churches (say we want a council with all Apostolic Churches including the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East). No one leader can do that. Back then the Churches all existed within the Roman Empire and thus heeded the Emperor’s call.
To be more specific, Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium and renamed it Constantinople. And yes, the Emperors weren’t always consistent with the Church. Even at times when the Emeprors were solidly Christian, a lot of them supported heretical views rather than the orthodox ones. Like during the Sevent Ecumenical Council, the Emperor back then was actually an iconoclast. And it took another council later on to affirm the teaching of the Seventh because the Emperor insisted on iconoclasm.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
There were many Christians outside the Roman Empire at the time–some scholars think even perhaps the majority of Christians lived outside of the purview of Rome by the fourth century.
C
Cachonga
Guest
OK, so what about papal primacy? The documents of Vatican I (Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter, paragraph 4) clearly states, “as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church” (this is in reference to the primacy of Peter and his successors), which certainly seems to indicate that this primacy should have been recognized within the Church (at the very least)… I realize that just giving a snippet like this doesn’t do justice to the context. I pulled this from the Faith Database (CA may have it available in the store, as it is a Catholic program), but you should be able to find the Council documents in a variety of locations.
Just to clarify, when I compare what you said with what was said at Vatican I, there seems to be some inconsitency. (BTW - according to what I found in the Faith Database on Vatican I, it was meant as an Ecumenical Council before it was ever convened.) Seems to me that either you’re wrong, Vatican I is wrong, or there is another explanation that I’m not getting.
I will agree that infallibilty could be saved for another debate, so I didn’t bother going into what Vatican I said about that (though it was very similar to the statement quoted above).
I
inkaneer
Guest
I disagree, the role of the pope as universal bishop was certainly understood much earlier than 325 AD. Look at the writings of Ignatius and Irenaeus in the early and mid second century. Cyprian of Carthage in the third century [251AD]
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
WHOA there, Pardner. Did Constantine summoned the bishops on his own or did he propose to the pope to summon a council? That question has not been definitively answered. But the authority of the pope was well established by the end of the first century and most historians agree that he and Pope Sylvester conferred on the matter and agreed to the council. Constantine was very interested in settling the Arian heresy matter because it was creating civil unrest. Constantine was not so much interested in the theological aspects of it but when the theological debate spilled over into creating problems in the civil administration of the Empire then that was his backyard. Constantine did oissue letters to the bishops in which he practically begged them to meet in council. Constantine provided all the material support for the council. It met in Nicea using the central hall of the imperial palace as a meeting place. He even paid for the travel expenses of the participants and provided for their lodging, upkeep and food. He made a grand entrance befitting his office as emperor at the beginning of the council but then let the bishops do their work. Constantine was, in my opinion, the ultimate politician and would run rings around out current crop of candidates for political office.
Well, apparently you have access to information that historians do not. Please share with us your source for this information and please don’t say Wikipedia!
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
Back then the Churches all existed within the Roman Empire and thus heeded the Emperor’s call.
Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
Back then the Churches all existed within the Roman Empire and thus heeded the Emperor’s call.
Indeed, the Apostle Thomas evangelized India. This wasn’t known until the fourteenth century when the Portugese ‘discovered’ India and found all these christians there.
A
abucs
Guest
There were of course Christians outside of the Roman Empire.
Ethiopia was the first Christian empire and there was also the Armenian Christian state outside of Rome.
The Sassinad Empire also had Christians and they were even encouraged whilst Rome was persecuting Christians because it was seen as a movement that stood against Rome, a fifth column if you like.
After Rome became a Christian state with Emperor Theodosius I the Sassinad rulers then discouraged Christians and tried to set up their own national Church for those Christians in their empire because they looked to Rome for guidance and the fifth column was then in the Sassinad empire.
Christians of course were also spread out into Arabia, some parts of Ireland and as far as India, all outside the Roman Empire.
Again, my comparison with China is one of where a papacy would look to help an aggressive large power if they should signal that they want such a change in relations with the Church.
It is simply common sense.
The Council would not change nor create doctrine as this has already been settled, but it would work out the practicalities with the Chinese state and define relationships with that state.
Ethiopia was the first Christian empire and there was also the Armenian Christian state outside of Rome.
The Sassinad Empire also had Christians and they were even encouraged whilst Rome was persecuting Christians because it was seen as a movement that stood against Rome, a fifth column if you like.
After Rome became a Christian state with Emperor Theodosius I the Sassinad rulers then discouraged Christians and tried to set up their own national Church for those Christians in their empire because they looked to Rome for guidance and the fifth column was then in the Sassinad empire.
Christians of course were also spread out into Arabia, some parts of Ireland and as far as India, all outside the Roman Empire.
Again, my comparison with China is one of where a papacy would look to help an aggressive large power if they should signal that they want such a change in relations with the Church.
It is simply common sense.
The Council would not change nor create doctrine as this has already been settled, but it would work out the practicalities with the Chinese state and define relationships with that state.
G
guanophore
Guest
Not at all. the primacy has to do with orthodoxy of leadership in the Church and the purity of doctrine. It is not at all related to temporal power and authority. As a matter of fact, the first 7 bishops of Rome were martyrd before the NT had even been finished being written. The Church in Rome, just like all the other patriarchies, was an underground church with the secular powers attempting to annhiliate it.
I guess I don’t understand the question. Did you think that primacy meant temporal/secular authority?
Not in the sense that we understand it today. The early Christians took Jesus words to heart, and believed that the Church was preserved from error by the power of the HS. The Apostles taught their disciples to identify the Church as those surrounding the validly ordained bishop. The bishops in communion with one another made decisions along with the HS, just as is described at the council of Jerusalem in Acts. Since the HS is infallible, decisions made in this manner could be relied upon as valid.
Actually, not strange at all. There had been a number of regional councils before this, but since it was very dangerous for Christians to travel in an empire that wanted to assasinate them, it was not prudent for any to gather in one place because they might all be made the target of a slaughter. It would be especially dangerous for Bishops to do so, since it was one of the favorite ways of Rome to cut off movements by dispensing of their heads. If you recall, this was the method used in Palestine see Acts 5:39 with Theudas, then John the Baptist, Jesus and so on. The Roman policy was to dispatch the leaders so the movement would die out.
Once Constantine decrimminalized Christianity, and guaranteed safe passage to all the Bishops, it was possible to meet without all of them being dispatched summarily. Even so, many of the bishops went still in fear of their lives, thinking the invitation was just a ruse to lure them to death.
Indeed it was. It is obvious from the Gospel accounts, since he is always listed at the top of the Apostolic college.
I think the explanation is that you are expecting to insert your modern view into history. In the early church, the role of the successor of Peter was still in the form of a seed, and a small plant. By Vat. 1 it had become a full grown tree. The fact that it looks different does not mean that it is not the same plant.
P
paul_c
Guest
I caution every one on this thread to be careful with historical accounts. They are after all, written by people, many with obvious biases. Only by finding consensus can you feel a little bit comfortable that you have found the truth. Really, the only trusted source is the Church, and of course that is only trusted by the faithful.
What seems to be true is that Constantine decriminalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan in 313AD. His mother, St. Helen was a Christian, that much is known. She went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem and retrieved the Holy Cross, pieces of which are held in Rome in the Church of the Holy Cross, not far from St. John Lateran, the official church of the papacy.
It is well understood that Constantine did call the Council of Nicea in 325 and supported the proceedings financially. The catholic encyclopedia has this to say about the leadership:
The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement (see POPE ST. SYLVESTER I)
The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established. He had opened the session as honorary president, and he had assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the ecclesiastical leaders of the council. The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope’s legates, Victor and Vincentius.
–http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
What seems to be true is that Constantine decriminalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan in 313AD. His mother, St. Helen was a Christian, that much is known. She went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem and retrieved the Holy Cross, pieces of which are held in Rome in the Church of the Holy Cross, not far from St. John Lateran, the official church of the papacy.
It is well understood that Constantine did call the Council of Nicea in 325 and supported the proceedings financially. The catholic encyclopedia has this to say about the leadership:
The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement (see POPE ST. SYLVESTER I)
The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established. He had opened the session as honorary president, and he had assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the ecclesiastical leaders of the council. The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope’s legates, Victor and Vincentius.
–http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
- Status