The Nicene Council and Constantine

  • Thread starter Thread starter xmydreamsfadex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

xmydreamsfadex

Guest
I know a little about this subject, that Christ divinity was challenged and i think this is where the trinity was explained too.
Today, for the second time, i heard that this is where the Catholic Church changed all of it’s teachings and went pagan. i asked for examples but recieved none both times. Can anyone point me in the right direction on the truth of this matter?
 
xmydreamsfadex said:
I know a little about this subject, that Christ divinity was challenged and i think this is where the trinity was explained too.
Today, for the second time, i heard that this is where the Catholic Church changed all of it’s teachings and went pagan. i asked for examples but recieved none both times. Can anyone point me in the right direction on the truth of this matter?
Click to expand...
Actually… Jesus divinity was never in question (Unlike what Dan Brown would like you to believe) What was in questions was the point of “Was Jesus eternally begotten of the father or not” There was a priest called Arius that by reinterpreting some passages from scripture in a new way was claiming that there was a time that The Father was but Jesus was not.

To this effect, very significant statement in this council was given by Athanasius . He said:

“But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops assembled at Nicea] did not write: ‘It has been decided,’ but ‘Thus the Catholic Church believes.’ And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did to show that their judgment was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times…”
(Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338).

Athanasius also asks rhetorically, “… how many fathers can you (Arious) quote for your phrases?” (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p325)

Meaning, how many of the writings of the first Christian can you quote that back your interpretations of these passages.
To the Nicean fathers, scripture can only be interpreted through the eyes of those closest to the apostolic source, the first fathers.

In short, the council fathers reason that Arius argument had to be wrong because it was new. Meaning it did not conform to the teaching of the Church that had been received from the apostles, and had been interpreted by the first fathers.This is an event of tremendous significance for our Church. This is the first example in history in which the church presents a Magisterium (Meaning all the bishops together teaching as one). In Nicea they all speak together in what should be the correct way of interpreting scripture. I like to think of Nicea as the birth of Tradition.

One last point to make is that It was not until the reformation 1200 years later that the Church interpretation of scripture was challenged.

For more detailed description of this council you can go to:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

A Catholic Deacon
 
thanks. i’m wondering if anyone else has come across people that bring this up to try to take away the CCs authority. i thought the best thing to do was to ask them “what did the CC change?” but never got a response. just “that they did” and “constitine is the head of the Catholic Church.” didn’t early church fathers call the Church Catholic?
 
I get this all the time. The Roman Church, under Constantine, kid-napped the faith and wrested control of the whole church. Again, the details are often vague. When you refute any arguments that are brought up, the next thing you hear is the church went heretical in the 3rd century, then the 2nd. I’m ready to hear that St. Paul brought the church into heresy!😉
 
Catholicdeacon said:
Actually… Jesus divinity was never in question
Click to expand...
Well yes, it was, but it depends on how you define it. The Arians believed Jesus was divine in a sense–but the orthodox pointed out that they were simply setting up a demigod, which was true polytheism–ironically they fell into this in the course of trying to preserve monotheism. That’s how I understand it, anyway.

I get what you are saying–no one was claiming that Jesus was just a man, which is what Dan Brown says the debate was about:mad:

Edwin
 
Some say the Catholic Church ended with Constantine (285-337), with the “Edict of Milan” which he issued in 313 A.D., which allowed the Church to practice openly. Others say that is when the Church began. A big problem with these versions of history is that there was no council in 313 AD. Furthermore, if it were true that Constantine revamped Christianity into Catholicism, then there would be little or no evidence of Catholic teachings before Constantine showed up. There is mountains of evidence to prove otherwise.

Constantine collaborated with the Pope to hold a council because as emporer, it was his job to keep order, and Arianism was dividing the empire. That is as far as he goes. Constantine was never ordained as priest or bishop, had no ecclesiastical authority, and he is not named in any of the canons of Nicae.
If Constantine really did start the Catholic Church, it would have been a monumentous event, and SOMEBODY would have noticed it a long time ago. Here is one source that shows how such misinformation can become so widespread:

The Trail of Blood was written by J. M. Carroll in 1931 and is published by Ashland Avenue Baptist Church in Lexington Kentucky. It is a small booklet of fifty-six pages containing a proposed timeline of Baptist churches back to Jesus. By 1994 over 1,955,000 copies had been printed and it has gained great popularity among Fundamentalist groups. The author unabashedly attempts to denigrate the Catholic Church while attempting to establish his own legitimacy as the true church.
Code: 
    Carroll presumes to lay out the true marks of the Church through his interpretation of the Bible alone. Several of his marks of the Church-"landmarks or earmarks of this religion"-are the belief that the Bible, actually "the New Testament and that only," is the sole rule of faith; Jesus is the only head of the church with no visible head possible, and each congregation is autonomous. Carroll says the authority of each local congregation is "to be congregational, democratic. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people" (p. 8). Carroll presumes to found all his assertions on Scripture, yet this "prerequisite" of church government is found not in Scripture but in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Carroll makes great use of Catholic tradition and history when it suits his purpose, but rejects and ignores them both when they contradicted his presuppositions. 

    The Trail of Blood theory alleges that true churches--as opposed to the Catholic Church--have been persecuted and forced underground throughout most of history. The alleged carnage and bloodshed following the persecutions is called the "Trail of Blood". There is no evidence that any "Baptist churches" ever existed before the Reformation, but that, it is claimed, is because the Catholic Church destroyed all the evidence as they chased the Baptists to the ends of the earth. :whacky:
The Trail of Blood-Baptist Successionism
By Steve Ray

Another oldie but goodie:
“Ancient Baptists” and Other Myths by Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.
 
Contarini said:
Well yes, it was, but it depends on how you define it. The Arians believed Jesus was divine in a sense–but the orthodox pointed out that they were simply setting up a demigod, which was true polytheism–ironically they fell into this in the course of trying to preserve monotheism. That’s how I understand it, anyway.

I get what you are saying–no one was claiming that Jesus was just a man, which is what Dan Brown says the debate was about:mad:

Edwin
Click to expand...
I almost agree with you… Although I would rather say “The Arians believed Jesus was divine in a lesser sense”

Nice to meet you

In his love

A Catholic Deacon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top