Refuting Constantine as First Pope

[jtav]

Any advice for refuting the Constantine as first Pope argument put forth by some Protestants? I know it’s not true and, if anything, the bishop of Rome took on increased political responsibility as the Western Empire disintergrated and Constantine was much more concerned with unity than orthodoxy at Nicea. Still, the assertion seems so “out there” that I’m not sure how to begain.

 

[Fidelis]

Any advice for refuting the Constantine as first Pope argument put forth by some Protestants? I know it’s not true and, if anything, the bishop of Rome took on increased political responsibility as the Western Empire disintergrated and Constantine was much more concerned with unity than orthodoxy at Nicea. Still, the assertion seems so “out there” that I’m not sure how to begain.

If someone challenges you with this, politely ask them to show you a reputable historian who makes this claim (polemic material from anti-Catholic cranks doesn’t count). If they can’t or won’t, but still persist in their self-imposed bigotry, buy them a tin-foil hat and move on.

 

[Mickey]

If they can’t or won’t, but still persist in their self-imposed bigotry, buy them a tin-foil hat and move on.

img78.imageshack.us/img78/4133/imagesxv3.jpg

 

[Ignatius]

Any advice for refuting the Constantine as first Pope argument put forth by some Protestants? I know it’s not true and, if anything, the bishop of Rome took on increased political responsibility as the Western Empire disintergrated and Constantine was much more concerned with unity than orthodoxy at Nicea. Still, the assertion seems so “out there” that I’m not sure how to begain.

This contention always gives me a chuckle. A little research (and it really takes so very little), will reveal that Constantine supported the Arian heretics, not the Catholic Church. He and his sons even attempted depose the Pope and Catholic Bishops and set up his own Arian puppet bishops in their place. In fact, Athanasias, was one of the Bishops exiled by him.

 

[Mickey]

This contention always gives me a chuckle. A little research (and it really takes so very little), will reveal that Constantine supported the Arian heretics, not the Catholic Church. He and his sons even attempted depose the Pope and Catholic Bishops and set up his own Arian puppet bishops in their place. In fact, Athanasias, was one of the Bishops exiled by him.

…and further research will show that he ended the bloody persecutions under Diocletian. His mother, Helen, discovered the true Cross under a patch of sweet basil. Constantine was finally baptized on his deathbed and he and his mother are known as Saints in the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church.

Careful who you calumniate!

 

[MariaG]

…and further research will show that he ended the bloody persecutions under Diocletian. His mother, Helen, discovered the true Cross under a patch of sweet basil. Constantine was finally baptized on his deathbed and he and his mother are known as Saints in the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church.

Careful who you calumniate!

Where were the slander and lies about Constantine? What Constantine did on his deathbed does not wipe out what he did earlier. His baptism certainly would have wiped out the sin, but what was said about what he did earlier in life is true and certainly refutes the postition that Constantine was pope.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Todd_Easton]

Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110) writes of the presidency of the Church of Rome among all the churches in his letter to the Romans.

Irenaeus of Lyons (A.D. 189) writes that all churches must agree with the Church of Rome in his writing Against Heresies, 3. 3. 2.

Tertullian (A.D. 220) describes the bishop of Rome as “the bishop of bishops” in his writing on Modesty.

Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 252) refers to the bishopic of Rome as “the chair of Peter” and the Church of Rome as “the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source” in his letter to Cornelius of Rome and in similar words in his writing on The Unity of the Catholic Church, first edition.

As early as A.D. 250, bishops, including the bishop of Rome, were commonly addressed by the title “Pope,” as indicated in the letter from the clergy of Rome to the clergy of Carthage.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

You might as well argue against someone saying Thomas Jefferson was first pope (issuing bulls in between clandestine meetings with Sally Hemmings ). In other words, a waste of time.

Scott

 

[prv]

Any advice for refuting the Constantine as first Pope argument put forth by some Protestants? I know it’s not true and, if anything, the bishop of Rome took on increased political responsibility as the Western Empire disintergrated and Constantine was much more concerned with unity than orthodoxy at Nicea. Still, the assertion seems so “out there” that I’m not sure how to begain.

Didn’t Constantine not accept baptism until the end of his life? Can anyone clarify this? Then how can he possibly be pope, except maybe for a few minutes or days?

 

[Church_Militant]

Didn’t Constantine not accept baptism until the end of his life? Can anyone clarify this? Then how can he possibly be pope, except maybe for a few minutes or days?

[SIGN]Bingo![/SIGN] You win the prize for thinking for yourself!

Not long before his end, the hostile movement of the Persian king, Shâpûr, again summoned him into the field. When he was about to march against the enemy he was seized with an illness of which he died in May, 337, after receiving baptism.

Constantine
Pax tecum,

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Any advice for refuting the Constantine as first Pope argument put forth by some Protestants? I know it’s not true and, if anything, the bishop of Rome took on increased political responsibility as the Western Empire disintergrated and Constantine was much more concerned with unity than orthodoxy at Nicea. Still, the assertion seems so “out there” that I’m not sure how to begain.

For a start, Constantine was a layman - not a member of the clergy. Only members of the clergy could be elected Bishop of Rome.​

Constantine could not have ben ordained a deacon, let alone a priest or bishop: he was not baptised until he was on his death-bed, & he had shed human blood; which was a canonical impediment to ordination.

There was a succession of Roman bishops throughout his life - he could no more be bishop of Rome, than you could be President of the USA , because every time there was a vacancy, there was an election; & he was never elected, for the reasons given. Sylvester of Rome was elected bishop of Rome in 314 - he died after Constantine, on the last day of 337.

The positions of Emperor & Bishop could not be combined; & they never were.

Bishops of Rome had to be taken from among clerics resident in Rome - Constantine spent most of his reign in the East, not in Rome.

There was a Constantine who was bishop of Rome - from 708 to 715. He was a Syrian by birth; whereas the Emperor Constantine the Great whom we are discussing came from what is now Bosnia, and was born perhaps in 272, or perhaps in 288, & died in 337. He succeeded his father Constantius in 306 - the Empire was divided into four for the purposes of administration after 295; it was under the supreme rule of the Emperor Diocletian, assisted by three colleagues; Diocletian abdicated in 305 because of advancing age - & Constantine got rid of his enemy Maxentius in 312 & his colleague (& enemy) Licinius in 324.

So there is no basis at all for the idea - it is wholly impossible. The one fact that might lead people to believe it, is that an Roman Emperor and a Roman bishop are both named Constantine.

The sort of people who think C. was ever a pope, tend not to know much about canon law or the Roman Empire in the late third century. They are not representative of most Protestants - no Anglican cleric would be guilty of such howlers. ##

 

[The_Augustinian]

For a start, Constantine was a layman - not a member of the clergy. Only members of the clergy could be elected Bishop of Rome.

Actually, in theory any Catholic male can be elected Pope, as unlikely as it could be. However he would of course have to be ordained after his election.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Unless I misread the accounts of that council in 325 he greeted his guests and left them alone to work out a solution on the question related to christology. Then he came back at the end to find out the results. Bottom line, he did not participate in the theological part of Nicea at all.

Is there a canon law that says a pope can not be involved in war while he is in office, but must be a man of peace? or is the example of JPII influencing me to think that way?

 

[Mickey]

what was said about what he did earlier in life is true and certainly refutes the postition that Constantine was pope.

God Bless,
Maria

I never said he was a Pope–it is common knowledge that he was never a Pope. I said he and his mother are saints.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[MariaG]

I never said he was a Pope–it is common knowledge that he was never a Pope. I said he and his mother are saints.

Peace,
Mickey

No, you accused someone of slandering Constantine. There was no slander involved. As for “common knowledge” apparently there is at least one person, the op’s friend who is not aware of this fact.

My point was that the information posted was in fact not slander, but true and showed that Constantine was not pope, which was the question of the OP. The fact that they did not then go on to tell the “rest of the story”, does not mean the previous information was slander.

God Bless,
Maria

…and further research will show that he ended the bloody persecutions under Diocletian. His mother, Helen, discovered the true Cross under a patch of sweet basil. Constantine was finally baptized on his deathbed and he and his mother are known as Saints in the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church.

Careful who you calumniate!

 

[Verita]

A little research (and it really takes so very little), will reveal that Constantine supported the Arian heretics, not the Catholic Church.

That’s not strictly true. Constantine himself didn’t necessarily believe the doctrines of Arianism. What he wanted was for everyone to get along so there would be peace in the Empire. He couldn’t understand why the Orthodox Catholics refused to compromise with the Arians. He thought they were just being obstinate.

Any advice for refuting the Constantine as first Pope argument put forth by some Protestants?

Laugh in their face and tell them to go read a genuine history book?

To take a page from Todd Easton, go to the Fathers. If you can get ahold of a copy of Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens (I was able to borrow a copy through inter library loan.) there are writings from many of the Early Fathers who actually make lists of all of the Popes from Peter until their own time. There are so many quotes that confirm the Papal succession that you probably won’t even be able to use them all.

 

[Mickey]

No, you accused someone of slandering Constantine. There was no slander involved. As for “common knowledge” apparently there is at least one person, the op’s friend who is not aware of this fact.

My point was that the information posted was in fact not slander, but true and showed that Constantine was not pope, which was the question of the OP. The fact that they did not then go on to tell the “rest of the story”, does not mean the previous information was slander.

God Bless,
Maria

Settle down Maria. I will not be lured into fighting with you.

Ignatius wrote: He and his sons even attempted to depose the Pope and Catholic Bishops and set up his own Arian puppet bishops in their place.

This sounds like grave criticism of St Consantine to me. St Constantine was under immense political pressure at times during his reign. The Arian heresy was a complicated and terrible disruption. The majority of the Church was Arian. There is a whole lot more to this history than stating a quick comment about St Constantine **attempting **toset up “puppet bishops”. A thorough study of the history during this era will reveal struggles, triumphs, and mistakes on all sides.

Perhaps Ignatius did not intend to calumniate St Constantine or perhaps I just took it the wrong way. For that, I apologize to Ignatius. If you Maria, would like to continue to accuse me of accusing someone else, then that is your perogative.

Peace and blessings,
Mickey

 

[MariaG]

Settle down Maria. I will not be lured into fighting with you.

Ignatius wrote: He and his sons even attempted to depose the Pope and Catholic Bishops and set up his own Arian puppet bishops in their place.

This sounds like grave criticism of St Consantine to me. St Constantine was under immense political pressure at times during his reign. The Arian heresy was a complicated and terrible disruption. The majority of the Church was Arian. There is a whole lot more to this history than stating a quick comment about St Constantine **attempting **toset up “puppet bishops”. A thorough study of the history during this era will reveal struggles, triumphs, and mistakes on all sides.

Perhaps Ignatius did not intend to calumniate St Constantine or perhaps I just took it the wrong way. For that, I apologize to Ignatius. If you Maria, would like to continue to accuse me of accusing someone else, then that is your perogative.

Peace and blessings,
Mickey

Lure you into a fight? No.

As for the information posted, I did go to New Advent to see what I could find. They have a very different slant to Constantine than you do, including his Baptism.

from New Advent, Arianism
His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.

One should be able to understand that even a diligent Catholic may have a different view, and uninformed from your point of view, of Constantine.

 

[Mickey]

One should be able to understand that even a diligent Catholic may have a different view, and uninformed from your point of view, of Constantine.

As you wish.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Actually, in theory any Catholic male can be elected Pope, as unlikely as it could be. However he would of course have to be ordained after his election.

Ambrose was, true - but that was later than Constantine’s time.​

As to canon law today, it’s no guide to the canonical requirements of Constantine’s time, so it’s irrelevant to the issue

But thanks - I had forgotten about Ambrose. ##