Refuting Constantine as First Pope

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

He regarded himself as an episcopos - but it doesn’t follow he meant anything more than an overseer; rather than an overseer in the Church. Being keen to get a particular result, is not quite the same as taking part in the process which brings it about. ISTM that his position was that of the “Godly prince” - he didn’t dictate to the bishops what exactly they were to do; but he didn’t leave any doubt as to what he would like from them. ISTM that his approach was strongly political, & imperfectly Christian. This is not quite the iron hand in velvet glove approach - but it could easily lead to it. I think he was a Christian, without having much insight into it - rather like Charlemagne, whom he so much resembles. The real problem is the tendency of the Church to cuddle up to the Emperors, and to lose its prophetic independence in the process. Having the Cross as a battle-standard is a bad sign.​

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?

In Constantine’s time a warrior bishop of any see would have been an impossibility - &, soldiers were not readily baptised; & murder was commonly regarded as being impossible to remit. FWIW, after Hastings the army of William the Bastard had to do penance because of the blood-guilt incurred.​

After Constantine’s time - I don’t know when - the Latin Church found ways round the irregularity incurred by clerics guilty of bloodshed. So one of the Johns in the early 10th century fought in person against the Saracen pirates who were causing trouble in Southern Europe; and by 1066, Odo of Bayeux, the half-brother of William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, was fighting at Hastings. He fought with a mace - swords shed blood, maces did not, they crushed bones instead; so bishops got round the canonical irregularity incurred by shedding blood, by using maces (which is why, later on, heretics were relaxed to the secular arm, not burned by churchmen; again, the clerics got others to do the work, so that they would not incur any irregularity. The Pharisees had similar scruples, as the Gospels show ##

 

[kleary]

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?

Actually there are some warrior popes who have even worn armor into battle I believe.

Ken

 

[kleary]

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.

Constantine was never “Pope”. Secular and religious historians prove this fact. Any Protestant who claims this must be uneducated in history.

Anyone coming to you must prove to you that Constantine was the first Pope. The fact that he called the first Council of Nicea for his own reasons is immaterial.

Ken

 

[jay29]

I always ask what church did the first 33 Bishops of Rome/popes belong to BEFORE constitine came around?

 

[jazzbaby1]

To the OP – are you sure your friend isn’t confusing Constantine and Charlemagne?

 

[Mystophilus]

Still, the assertion seems so “out there” that I’m not sure how to begin.

“All hail Pope Constantine!”



Well, I started by nearly falling off my chair, and followed that up by agreeing with the good Fidelis. I suspect that anyone daft enough to believe such a thing is very likely to belong in the foil-hat category.

 

[asteroid]

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.

Laughing at the hat.

That’s the thing isn’t it? I’m sure we’ve all seen it how something is repeated as “truth” and so is believed and nobody bothers to check it but just spreads the story further.

Sometimes it can take a lot for someone to look beyond the “truth” they have received from someone they trust, someone who themselves isn’t being deceitful, and check out the facts to see if they are true or not facts at all.

It took years before I did that. But after one “fact” falls, quite often someone is challenged to look at other “facts” and then they start to tumble in quick succession.

Anyway, you’ve all given the “true facts” about this so I won’t repeat anything.

(yes, I know, “true facts” is a horrible phrase with a horrible redundancy but it seemed almost appropriate here!)

 

[Montalban]

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.

I think some refer to Constantine as ‘equal of the Apostles’* but I’ve never heard of anyone calling him the first Pope!

But who was indeed ‘the first Pope’? “Marcellinus (d. 304) is the first Bishop of Rome whom sources show used the title of pope.”[1]

The earliest accounts mention the fact that Rome’s Christian community was founded by Sts. Peter and Paul. Irenaeus wrote that Peter was not acting alone… “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”[2]

Ireneaus goes on to say

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.”[3]

Eusebius also accepts this role for Linus "The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.[4]

Reading Irenaus further we see that he doesn’t count a bishops line from St. Peter at all, but from Linus…“Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.”[5] What also is important to note again is the repeating of the idea that Linus’ tenure came after and upon the foundation of all the Apostles, plural.

Many people of course accept the idea that Peter was the first Pope. Some early sources state that St. Peter did not even ordain Linus as the first Bishop of Rome!

“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens (Clement), after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter."[6]

It is worth repeating these points. Both Sts. Peter and Paul were instrumental in the foundation of the church in Rome. That, and the fact that Rome was the heart of the empire lead Rome to have a degree of ‘honour’ amongst the churches.

Endnotes

---

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papacy

[2]Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.1.1 (quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859)

[3] Ibid. Book III.3.2-3

[4] Eusebius “The History of the Church” Book V Chapter VI. Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome cited at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P2930_1381485

[5] Irenaus. Book III.3.3

[6] “Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions,” Book 7, Chapter XLVI – “Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?” quoted at

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-47.htm#P6959_2343426

*The term used was “Isapostolos” the “Equal of the apostles”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Apostles

 

[Ignatius]

As you wish.

Puleese! Our brothers in the Eastern Church are fully aware of St. Constantines support of the Arian heretics prior to his conversion. All of the historic evidence shows that St. Constante was an Arian. He tried to depose the pope and persecuited the Catholic Church prior to his deathbead conversion therefore he could not have been, as the OP’s friend contends. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please present it so that we can be enlightened also.

God bless.

 

[Vidi_Aquam]

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.

Well I would respond by saying Martin Luther never existed and hold to that belief no matter what they throw in your face. (just to show how difficult bold claims are to fight)
Always keep in mind that their countless recordings of luthers life are dwarfed by our accounts of the Council of Nicea and the history of the Papacy. So its even.

 

[minkymurph]

My friends son is studying history at university and can quote so much more history than I can. He claims that Roman history is totally unreliable and claims he has read so much contrary to what it would say and the things the Church did you wouldn’t believe. He’s also a Calvanist! aaaaaaahhh! He claims the Nicean creed was Constantines idea and that Constantine would have had the Bible, if not all of the New Testament he would have had some of it and had the Old Testament and read it. He claims Constantine was Christian. I said as far as I knew he was baptised on his deathbed but I suppose this guy would not accept that does not mean he was not Christian. So was Constantine Christian or not? Did he, as this guy claims, formulate the Nicean Creed because he was the Emperor, and in relation to History, there are so many conflicting views. Obviously any Roman or Catholic historian is in this guys eyes going to be wrong so maybe I just shouldn’t bother to discuss it but let’s face it, history can sometimes be a little biased no matter who writes it so what is true?