Emperor Constantine, The Father Of Roman Catholicism

[Truth7t7]

Who do you think donated the Popes Throne and The Roman Catholic Cathedrals, on the very ground that exist today in Italy, "Roman Emperor Constatine"!

Constatine Is The Father Of The Very Ground The Pope Calls His Cathedral, Constatines Old House, The Laternn Palace, And The Cathedral The Roman Catholic Church Calls It's Headquarters, Saint Peters Basilica.

Constatine Is The Father Of Roman Catholicism, And It's Founding Headquarters In Buildings.

Wikipedia: Old Saint Peters Basilica
Construction began by orders of the Roman Emperor Constantine I between 318 and 322,[2] and took about 30 years to complete. Over the next twelve centuries, the church gradually gained importance, eventually becoming a major place of pilgrimage in Rome.

Wikipedia: Archbasilica of St. John Lateran
Saints John the Baptist and [John] the Evangelist".[5] The inscription indicates, along with its full title (see below), that the archbasilica was originally dedicated to Christ the Savior and, centuries later, co-dedicated to St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist. As the Cathedral of the Pope qua Bishop of Rome, it ranks superior to all other churches of the Roman Catholic Church, including St. Peter's Basilica, and therefore it alone is titled "Archbasilica" among all other basilicas.

The Lateran Palace fell into the hands of the Emperor when Constantine I married his second wife Fausta, sister of Maxentius. Known by that time as the "Domus Faustae" or "House of Fausta," the Lateran Palace was eventually given to the Bishop of Rome by Constantine I.

 

[FHII]

Hmm...

I have done quite a bit of reading on this subject. Everything from Gibbon's classic book "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" to more recent books (and there have been some good ones released in the last 10 years). I have also read a few of the "early Church fathers".

That's a funny term... The reason is because many refer to early Church fathers as Ireaneus, Tertillian, Clement, etc... Just a name a few. Without snubbing them of their place... I consider the early Church fathers as being Peter, Matthew, John, Andrew, Thomas, Paul, Simon, James...

But that's just me.

Look... What Constantine did was great. It was a major turning point. But its not like everything was hunky dory after that. Arianism was still a major foe and proved to be a deadly enemy. Plus, lets not forget that the empire split before this. Paganism didn't go down without a fight either.

Officially, Christianity was no longer under attack. That however was not reality.

As for your claim that Constantine is the Father of the Catholic Church...I don't see it that way. They point to Peter through Jesus. I disagree in that I believe Paul had more to do with it than Peter. But even so... What Paul and Peter and Jesus is a far cry doctrinally than what we see today. But for better or worse, what they started is what evolved into today's Catholic Church.

Too much historical tgings to consider. But just because Constantine gave property and freedom doesn't make him the father of Catholism. A decisive turning point? Absolutely. But again... Christianity (not just Catholicism) had a fight on their hands.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Who do you think donated the Popes Throne and The Roman Catholic Cathedrals, on the very ground that exist today in Italy, "Roman Emperor Constatine"!

Constatine Is The Father Of The Very Ground The Pope Calls His Cathedral, Constatines Old House, The Laternn Palace, And The Cathedral The Roman Catholic Church Calls It's Headquarters, Saint Peters Basilica.

Constatine Is The Father Of Roman Catholicism, And It's Founding Headquarters In Buildings.

Wikipedia: Old Saint Peters Basilica
Construction began by orders of the Roman Emperor Constantine I between 318 and 322,[2] and took about 30 years to complete. Over the next twelve centuries, the church gradually gained importance, eventually becoming a major place of pilgrimage in Rome.

Wikipedia: Archbasilica of St. John Lateran
Saints John the Baptist and [John] the Evangelist".[5] The inscription indicates, along with its full title (see below), that the archbasilica was originally dedicated to Christ the Savior and, centuries later, co-dedicated to St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist. As the Cathedral of the Pope qua Bishop of Rome, it ranks superior to all other churches of the Roman Catholic Church, including St. Peter's Basilica, and therefore it alone is titled "Archbasilica" among all other basilicas.

The Lateran Palace fell into the hands of the Emperor when Constantine I married his second wife Fausta, sister of Maxentius. Known by that time as the "Domus Faustae" or "House of Fausta," the Lateran Palace was eventually given to the Bishop of Rome by Constantine I.

And Constantine had absolutely nothing to do with Catholic doctrine - which wouldn't make his the "Father" of anything - except for legalizing Christianity.

And, as I educated you in another thread - there is no such thing as the "Roman Catholic Church" - so you
re staring a thread under a false premise.

Anti Catholics come and anti-Catholics go but the ONE thing you all have in common - besides blind hatred - is an abject ignorance of the Catholic faith . . .

 

[Truth7t7]

Hmm...

I have done quite a bit of reading on this subject. Everything from Gibbon's classic book "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" to more recent books (and there have been some good ones released in the last 10 years). I have also read a few of the "early Church fathers".

That's a funny term... The reason is because many refer to early Church fathers as Ireaneus, Tertillian, Clement, etc... Just a name a few. Without snubbing them of their place... I consider the early Church fathers as being Peter, Matthew, John, Andrew, Thomas, Paul, Simon, James...

But that's just me.

Look... What Constantine did was great. It was a major turning point. But its not like everything was hunky dory after that. Arianism was still a major foe and proved to be a deadly enemy. Plus, lets not forget that the empire split before this. Paganism didn't go down without a fight either.

Officially, Christianity was no longer under attack. That however was not reality.

As for your claim that Constantine is the Father of the Catholic Church...I don't see it that way. They point to Peter through Jesus. I disagree in that I believe Paul had more to do with it than Peter. But even so... What Paul and Peter and Jesus is a far cry doctrinally than what we see today. But for better or worse, what they started is what evolved into today's Catholic Church.

Too much historical tgings to consider. But just because Constantine gave property and freedom doesn't make him the father of Catholism. A decisive turning point? Absolutely. But again... Christianity (not just Catholicism) had a fight on their hands.

You will closely note 1400+ invited church bishops did not attend Constatines State Church meeting, you will closely note the newly formed assembly looked towards the civil government to carry out punishment, you will closely note Constatine built the new headquarters for his religious government in Rome that exist today.

"The Roman Catholic Church" Located In Vatican City, Established By Roman Emperor Constatine 322AD.

The true lineage of christianity will be found in those 1400+ bishops that opposed Constatine and his new State Church.

Wikipedia: First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈnikεa]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Bursa province, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. Constantine I organized the council along the lines of the Roman Senate and presided over it, but did not cast any official vote.

Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[20] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[11] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[21] (all three were present at the council).

Constantine assisted in assembling the council by arranging that travel expenses to and from the bishops' episcopal sees, as well as lodging at Nicaea, be covered out of public funds.[74]He also provided and furnished a "great hall ... in the palace" as a place for discussion so that the attendees "should be treated with becoming dignity"

Thereupon, the debate about Arius and church doctrine began. "The emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties" and "deferred" to the decision of the bishops.[75]The bishops first pronounced Arius' teachings to be anathema, formulating the creed as a statement of correct doctrine. When Arius and two followers refused to agree, the bishops pronounced clerical judgement by excommunicating them from the Church. Respecting the clerical decision, and seeing the threat of continued unrest, Constantine also pronounced civil judgement, banishing them into exile. This was the beginning of the practice of using secular power to establish doctrinal orthodoxy within Christianity, an example followed by all later Christian emperors, which led to a circle of Christian violence, and of Christian resistance couched in terms of martyrdom.[76]

 

[epostle1]

Hmm...

I have done quite a bit of reading on this subject. Everything from Gibbon's classic book "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" to more recent books (and there have been some good ones released in the last 10 years). I have also read a few of the "early Church fathers".

That's a funny term... The reason is because many refer to early Church fathers as Ireaneus, Tertillian, Clement, etc... Just a name a few. Without snubbing them of their place... I consider the early Church fathers as being Peter, Matthew, John, Andrew, Thomas, Paul, Simon, James...
But that's just me.

You are the only one that calls Peter, Matthew, John, Andrew, Thomas, Paul, Simon, James early church fathers. They are not. Apostles are never called ECF.

Look... What Constantine did was great. It was a major turning point. But its not like everything was hunky dory after that. Arianism was still a major foe and proved to be a deadly enemy. Plus, lets not forget that the empire split before this. Paganism didn't go down without a fight either.

Ultimately, paganism did go down. Whoever started this thread I have on ignore.

Officially, Christianity was no longer under attack. That however was not reality.

Of course not. Just look at the stupid thread title.

As for your claim that Constantine is the Father of the Catholic Church...I don't see it that way. They point to Peter through Jesus. I disagree in that I believe Paul had more to do with it than Peter. But even so... What Paul and Peter and Jesus is a far cry doctrinally than what we see today. But for better or worse, what they started is what evolved into today's Catholic Church.

The CC didn't evolve, she DEVELOPED. Unlike Protestantism, the doctrines of the CC HAVE NEVER CHANGED IN ESSENCE. What Paul and Peter and Jesus taught is the same as what essentially is taught today and it can be proven.
It's amazing the denials that come up when it comes to the canon of scripture.

Too much historical tgings to consider. But just because Constantine gave property and freedom doesn't make him the father of Catholism. A decisive turning point? Absolutely. But again... Christianity (not just Catholicism) had a fight on their hands.

There were no pagans left by the 4th century. Schisms aside, Catholicism was the only Christianity in existence for 1500 years.

 

[epostle1]

Emperor Constantine, The Father Of Roman Catholicism. What a joke.

This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable.

13 Logical Problems with the Constantine Founder Myth:

If Constantine started the Catholic Church, then it would, therefore, seem to follow that Constantine himself was a Catholic Christian. This was not the case. Constantine (possibly) would not be baptized into the faith until he was on his deathbed on May 22, 337 A.D. (SEE ALSO: Was Constantine Baptized an Arian).

For Christianity to become the official religion of the Roman Empire, would require an Edict.The Edict of Milan, which was issued by Constantine and Licinius (as noted above) only put Christians on equal footing with all the other recognized religions in the Roman Empire; granting the same religious freedom that was already being extended to the pagans and Jews. It would not be until 392 A.D. when Emperor Theodosius removed government support from the old Roman pagan religions and established the Christian Faith (Catholicism) as the sole religion of the empire.
If by virtue of Constantine calling a general council of all the bishops of the Church to meet with him at Nicaea (a resort town in the hills of Asia Minor just south of Constantinople), a Church was created, it then, therefore, follows that:
(a) the Church that existed prior to the Council from which all the bishops were called merged themselves into the new church of Constantine;
(b) we should see no continuity between the preexisting church and the new Church;
(c) we should see no continuity between the pre-Nicaea Church and modern day Catholic Church.

The reason why Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even an counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.

That Constantine assembled together all of the bishops of the Roman Empire proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior the First Council of Nicaea who were in agreement with each other. Further research into this area will demonstrate the precise areas in which they agreed, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, about many of the books which were thought to be inspired Scripture, and the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter and the head of the universal Church.

 

[epostle1]

218 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, appointed by Saint Peter, wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in which he used the word ‘Catholic’ to denote the Church established by Jesus Christ:
“Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: as Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

In that same letter Saint Ignatius gave a teaching about the Holy Eucharist that continues to be taught only by the Catholic Church today:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from the public offices; because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ; which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness, raised again from the dead. And for this cause contradicting the gift of God, they die in their disputes: but much better would it be for them to receive it, that they might one day rise through it.”

170 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Justin Martyr wrote in First Apology (a letter to pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.) explaining what Christians did at Mass)...

136 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, and a disciple of Saint Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, proclaimed that all churches must be in unity with the Church of Rome, which was established by Peter and Paul.

If Emperor Constantine started the Catholic Church, then there should be no way to trace the continuity of every Bishop of Rome, from Peter to Francis today. To the contrary, there is only one Church on the face of this earth that can verifiably point to the Church in Rome, established by Peter and Paul, and by continuity in leadership, doctrine, and tradition show a seamless continuity from the first century until today, and that Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Prior to the Council of Nicaea there had been many local councils where local bishops, priests, and deacons gathered to issue canons to the faithful; such as the Councils of Carthage, where Saint Cyprian presided at the Seventh Council in 256 A.D.
Another example of the Council of Elvira, Spain in 300 A.D. where 19 bishops and 26 priests and deacons gathered together to issue 81 canons. Canon 16 stated, “Heretics, if they do not which to come over to the Catholic Church, are not to be given Catholic girls in marriage.” Therefore, how could Constantine have started the Catholic Church in 325 A.D. if it already existed in Spain in 300 A.D.?

The Romans were aficionados when it came to documenting the legal affairs and history of the Empire. If it had been the case that Constantine established his own state religion or established a new state Church, we would have been able to find it documented somewhere in history that such an event happened, but when we examine the history and legal documents from ancient Rome, we find no traces that the myth that Constantine founded the Catholic Church is true.

Moreover, if Constantine did found the Catholic Church at the First Council of Nicaea then we should be able to find at least some once reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.

There is no concern whatsoever in these canons for the Roman Empire or the Roman Emperor in the Canons of the Council of Nicaea.

In regards to the Nicene Creed, it was dealing with more fully proclaiming the Apostle’s Creed, which the Church already affirmed in manner that resolved the Arian heresy. We find nothing in the Creed of this Council that supports the Myth of Constantine Founding the Catholic Church:

Conclusion of the Emperor Constantine Founder Myth

Those who posit that Constantine founded the Catholic Church either with the Edict of Milan or by calling together the First Council of Nicaea are unable prove their claim. There is no documentation from that time, either explicit or implicit by historian or theologian that even hints that such an event transpired or was the intention of Constantine or the bishops of the Catholic Church to transpire.

This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable. The myth is that because the Church of the Apostles fell in to apostasy, a remnant of the true and orthodox believers of Jesus remained hidden from and often persecuted by the Catholic Church until THEY brought the reform and true faith back. Prior the rise of Protestantism, no one ever dared to tell this lie. Only in the space of the unintelligent, uncurious, and hostile can such a myth and lie bear fruit.

Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church

 

[Truth7t7]

Emperor Constantine, The Father Of Roman Catholicism. What a joke.

This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable.

13 Logical Problems with the Constantine Founder Myth:

If Constantine started the Catholic Church, then it would, therefore, seem to follow that Constantine himself was a Catholic Christian. This was not the case. Constantine (possibly) would not be baptized into the faith until he was on his deathbed on May 22, 337 A.D. (SEE ALSO: Was Constantine Baptized an Arian).

For Christianity to become the official religion of the Roman Empire, would require an Edict.The Edict of Milan, which was issued by Constantine and Licinius (as noted above) only put Christians on equal footing with all the other recognized religions in the Roman Empire; granting the same religious freedom that was already being extended to the pagans and Jews. It would not be until 392 A.D. when Emperor Theodosius removed government support from the old Roman pagan religions and established the Christian Faith (Catholicism) as the sole religion of the empire.
If by virtue of Constantine calling a general council of all the bishops of the Church to meet with him at Nicaea (a resort town in the hills of Asia Minor just south of Constantinople), a Church was created, it then, therefore, follows that:
(a) the Church that existed prior to the Council from which all the bishops were called merged themselves into the new church of Constantine;
(b) we should see no continuity between the preexisting church and the new Church;
(c) we should see no continuity between the pre-Nicaea Church and modern day Catholic Church.

The reason why Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even an counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.

That Constantine assembled together all of the bishops of the Roman Empire proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior the First Council of Nicaea who were in agreement with each other. Further research into this area will demonstrate the precise areas in which they agreed, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, about many of the books which were thought to be inspired Scripture, and the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter and the head of the universal Church.

Are you blind to the fact that 1400+ bishops didn't attend Constantines State Church meeting?

Are you blind to the fact that the newly formed State Church was governed by places in Rome Italy, built by State Roman Emperor Constatine, Every Roman Catholic Owes Patronage To Constatine For It's Founding Cathedrals, I Don't My Lineage Isn't Found In Constatines Rome, this is a fact!

The true lineage of christianity will be found in those 1400+ bishops that opposed Constatine and his new State Church.

My Christian lineage has absolutely nothing to do with Martin Luther or Roman Catholicism.

The Christian Church is found outside of Rome, and Constatines control.

Wikipedia: First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈnikεa]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Bursa province, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. Constantine I organized the council along the lines of the Roman Senate and presided over it, but did not cast any official vote.

Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[20] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[11] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[21] (all three were present at the council).

Constantine assisted in assembling the council by arranging that travel expenses to and from the bishops' episcopal sees, as well as lodging at Nicaea, be covered out of public funds.[74]He also provided and furnished a "great hall ... in the palace" as a place for discussion so that the attendees "should be treated with becoming dignity"

Thereupon, the debate about Arius and church doctrine began. "The emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties" and "deferred" to the decision of the bishops.[75]The bishops first pronounced Arius' teachings to be anathema, formulating the creed as a statement of correct doctrine. When Arius and two followers refused to agree, the bishops pronounced clerical judgement by excommunicating them from the Church. Respecting the clerical decision, and seeing the threat of continued unrest, Constantine also pronounced civil judgement, banishing them into exile. This was the beginning of the practice of using secular power to establish doctrinal orthodoxy within Christianity, an example followed by all later Christian emperors, which led to a circle of Christian violence, and of Christian resistance couched in terms of martyrdom.[76]

 

[brakelite]

Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, appointed by Saint Peter, wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in which he used the word ‘Catholic’ to denote the Church established by Jesus Christ:
“Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: as Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

When one considers that the words of earlier apostates are given a status equal to the words of the apostles, then it comes as no surprise that a distorted mindset should develop do quickly within Christendom. Thank God that Jesus' promise to protect His true church was fulfilled elsewhere, or some may be deceived into thinking that the Catholic church was so protected. For in that statement quoted above is the essence of antichrist... That mindset that places the church, or its bishops on a par with, or on a pedestal exalted above Christ himself.

 

[brakelite]

It is somewhat concerning that when a war is fought, the first casualty as we are all aware, is truth. After the council of Nicea, Arius was persecuted, and 99%of everything he wrote destroyed. The few remaining texts attributed to him could very well have been forged, as was common in the church that was then growing in Rome. (The"donation"of Constantine a classic example.) Thus we have no real trustworthy or reliable record as to what Arius actually believed and taught. That it was different to the bishop of Alexandria and of Rome, there can be no doubt. But the decisions of the council were by no means unanimous. The trinity as defined in the Creed and later refined in subsequent councils was not unanimously accepted by even a majority of those present. That Constantine favoured Athanasius and Eusebius is clear by his treatment of Arius after. What did the arians truly believe? A clue may be found in texts that were written by Wulfilas, an evangelist to the Goths. While the Goths and other "barbarian" tribes were known as Arian, and subsequently destroyed by the church's proxy state puppet army, those so called Arians did believe in the divinity of Christ. They also believed that Christ was begotten, and the Father unbegitten... That is, eternal. In other words, they believed the Bible without deeming it necessary to define the Godhead by turning it into s trinity. But like all people's who weren't in agreement with the Catholic church, they were eventually destroyed.
Though warlike in temperament, the Goths, the Vandals and Heruli, all Arian Christians, had a record of leaving the populace where they were Victor's in a far greater state of civilised order and peace than they had previous.

 

[Philip James]

If all others were destroyed, where is the Church that 'the gates of hell would not prevail against' where is the 'beacon set on a hill that cannot be hid'?

On affirming that no other variants of 'christianity' survived you prove that the Church catholic is Christ's church, else you make Him a liar...

 

[epostle1]

Are you blind to the fact that 1400+ bishops didn't attend Constantines State Church meeting?

Are you blind to the fact that the newly formed State Church was governed by places in Rome Italy, built by State Roman Emperor Constatine, Every Roman Catholic Owes Patronage To Constatine For It's Founding Cathedrals, I Don't My Lineage Isn't Found In Constatines Rome, this is a fact!

How does that prove Constantine started the CC??? A church that goes from being persecuted to being protected DOES NOT PROVE A STATE CHURCH. It would not be until 392 A.D. when Emperor Theodosius removed government support from the old Roman pagan religions and established the Christian Faith (Catholicism) as the sole religion of the empire, and Constantine was long dead. Removing government support from pagan religions does not prove a state run church. You have to prove that temporal and spiritual jurisdictions were one and the same, and YOU HAVEN'T A SHRED OF EVIDENCE. Just JW/funnymentalist lies.

The true lineage of christianity will be found in those 1400+ bishops that opposed Constatine and his new State Church.

First, there never was a "state church".
Second, Hitler made Lutheranism the state church in Germany, and nobody persecutes Lutherans the way you do Catholics.

My Christian lineage has absolutely nothing to do with Martin Luther or Roman Catholicism.

Yes it does. Luther started the same hate propaganda, you just have the lies more refined. You claim the same phony revisionism as the Jehovah's Witlesses, the SDA, the Christadelphians and ignorant paranoid funnymentalists.

The Christian Church is found outside of Rome, and Constatines control.

Again, you fail to give any names, you fail to name any location, and are in denial of historical facts. You can't defend lies with more lies. Too many people are better read than your nonsense, and you can't fool everybody.

Wikipedia: First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈnikεa]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Bursa province, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. Constantine I organized the council along the lines of the Roman Senate and presided over it, but did not cast any official vote.

Convening , organizing and presiding does not mean he had any say or vote because he had no spiritual jurisdiction. Only bishops could cast an official vote. If your infallible wikipedia is correct, we should be able to find at least one reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons
nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all. How about you re-write the creed and canons to force fit them into your man made system?
All councils are modeled after the Council of Jerusalem, not the Roman senate.

Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[20] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[11] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[21] (all three were present at the council).

So what. Your numbers don't add up.

Constantine assisted in assembling the council by arranging that travel expenses to and from the bishops' episcopal sees, as well as lodging at Nicaea, be covered out of public funds.[74]He also provided and furnished a "great hall ... in the palace" as a place for discussion so that the attendees "should be treated with becoming dignity"

What is so evil about that? The church had been heavily persecuted for 300 years prior and anti-Catholics always forget about that. You expect the bishops to pay for their own lodging??? Constantine set the table and chairs, he had no spiritual jurisdiction whatsoever. There is not a shred of evidence that he did.

Thereupon, the debate about Arius and church doctrine began. "The emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties" and "deferred" to the decision of the bishops.[75]The bishops first pronounced Arius' teachings to be anathema, formulating the creed as a statement of correct doctrine. When Arius and two followers refused to agree, the bishops pronounced clerical judgement by excommunicating them from the Church. Respecting the clerical decision, and seeing the threat of continued unrest, Constantine also pronounced civil judgement, banishing them into exile. This was the beginning of the practice of using secular power to establish doctrinal orthodoxy within Christianity, an example followed by all later Christian emperors, which led to a circle of Christian violence, and of Christian resistance couched in terms of martyrdom.[76]

Do you know what "deferred" means? You make no mention of later emperors that resisted the church, and you are in denial of the historical facts of the role of the Pope. How Constantine ruled had nothing to do with the Church. I am still waiting for at least one name of one martyr. Instead you give a mythical resistance movement to bolster the oppressed "true believer" theory. (invented by baptist secessionists in the 20th century, the funnymentalists have been running with it since)

Did the Emperor Constantine found the Catholic Church? | Catholic Answers

 

[epostle1]

It’s almost unfathomable to me that in this day and age Fundamentalists still have not learned to verify the validity of their anti-Catholic arguments. But then again, with so many websites making claims like “Constantine founded the Catholic Church” living on in cyberspace, it’s no wonder some folks still cling to what blogger Mark Shea refers to as “pseudo knowledge.”

It would be nice if this falsity were confined to Fundamentalist circles, but sadly it is not.
There’s no doubt that Constantine was favorable to Christianity. Still, many people mistakenly believe that he not only favored it but that he made it the state religion. He did not. He signed the Edict of Milan, which made it legal to practice Christianity and ordered that the Christians’ confiscated property be returned to them.

Another mistaken notion is that Constantine exercised complete control over the First Council of Nicaea in 325. The primary reason for the council was due to the growing Arian heresy. Jimmy Akin summarizes Arianism this way:

Arianism was] founded by Arius, a priest of Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 300s. Arius held that originally the Son of God did not exist. There was a time in which there was a single divine Person who became the Father when he created the Son out of nothing. The Son was the first of all created beings and thus separate from the Father in beginning. The heresy was condemned at the first ecumenical council—Nicaea I in 325—but the controversy intensified and lasted much longer (The Fathers Know Best, p. 85).

Constantine did not fully understand why Arianism was so controversial, and he even endorsed many of Arius’s ideas. Historian Dr. James Hitchcock explains:

If Constantine held as much sway over the Council as many claim, then it is a peculiar thing that the Christology he favored was the big loser.

The next anti-Catholic claim is summarized in Mr. Smalley’s quote above: It is the idea that Constantine decided which books belonged in the Bible and that the ones he did not favor were left out.

The Council Fathers discussed many things besides Arianism, including the proper dating of Easter, the validity of baptisms administered by heretics, and more. One issue they did not discuss, however, is which books belonged in the Bible. They drafted a list of canons (ecclesiastical laws) that you can read for yourself here.

Mr. Smalley’s assertion that “quick research on the Council of Nicaea” will prove his claim in fact proves otherwise; unless, of course, you are getting your information from anti-Catholic websites that don’t provide any primary sources to back them up.

Finally, there is the claim that Constantine introduced pagan elements into what was “pure” Christianity up to that point. Many Fundamentalists will claim that doctrines like transubstantiation, the communion of saints, or the sacrifice of the Mass were pagan ideas. But all of these teachings and more can be traced back to the time of the Apostles through the writings of the early Christians.

Constantine Has Been Beaten to Death | Catholic Answers

 

[Truth7t7]

How does that prove Constantine started the CC??? A church that goes from being persecuted to being protected DOES NOT PROVE A STATE CHURCH. It would not be until 392 A.D. when Emperor Theodosius removed government support from the old Roman pagan religions and established the Christian Faith (Catholicism) as the sole religion of the empire, and Constantine was long dead. Removing government support from pagan religions does not prove a state run church. You have to prove that temporal and spiritual jurisdictions were one and the same, and YOU HAVEN'T A SHRED OF EVIDENCE. Just JW/funnymentalist lies.

The true lineage of christianity will be found in those 1400+ bishops that opposed Constatine and his new State Church.[/quote] First, you can't give names of any of these alleged bishops because they never existed.
Second, there never was a "state church".
Third, Hitler made Lutheranism the state church in Germany, and nobody persecutes Lutherans the way you do Catholics.

Yes it does. Luther started the same hate propaganda, you just have the lies more refined. You claim the same phony revisionism as the Jehovah's Witlesses, the SDA, the Christadelphians and ignorant paranoid funnymentalists.

Again, you fail to give any names, you fail to name any location, and are in denial of historical facts. You can't defend lies with more lies.
Convening , organizing and presiding does not mean he had any say or vote because he had no spiritual jurisdiction. Only bishops could cast an official vote. If your infallible wikipedia is correct, we should be able to find at least some once reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons
nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.

So what.

What is so evil about that? The church had been heavily persecuted for 300 years prior and anti-Catholics always forget about that. You expect the bishops to pay for their own lodging??? Constantine set the table and chairs, he had no spiritual jurisdiction whatsoever. There is not a shred of evidence that he did.

Do you know what "deferred" means? You make no mention of later emperors that resisted the church, and you are in denial of the historical facts of the role of the Pope. How Constantine ruled had nothing to do with the Church. I am still waiting for at least one name of one martyr. Instead you give a mythical resistance movement to bolster the oppressed "true believer" theory. (invented by baptist secessionists in the 20th century, the funnymentalists have been running with it)

Did the Emperor Constantine found the Catholic Church? | Catholic Answers[/QUOTE]
Your in denial of the fact that 1400+ bishops didn't attend Constatines State Church Meeting.

Your in denial of the fact Constatine established the Roman Catholic Church in St. Peters Basilica.

Your in denial of the fact that Jews and the Christian Church were persecuted by Sylvesters Roman Catholicism and the Emperors.

See there below, Eusebius was disciplined and removed from the Christian church for Arianism, Constatine made Eusebius his counselor, The Newly formed Church State, that 1400+ bishops opposed.

See there below, your pope Sylvester was already working with Constatine on persecuting Jews, before the Church State meeting in Nicea 325AD, why ya think 1400+ bishops didn't attend the dog and pony show of Sylvester, who led the Council with Constatines authority.

Wikipedia: Eusebius Of Caesarea
During the Council of Antiochia (325) he was excommunicated for subscribing to the heresy of Arius,[2] and thus withdrawn during the First Council of Nicaea where he accepted that the Homoousion referred to the Logos. Never recognized as a Saint, he became counselor of Constantine the Great, and with the bishop of Nicomedia he continued to polemicize against Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, Church Fathers, since he was condemned in the First Council of Tyre in 335.

JerusalemPost

CELEBRATING AN ANTI-SEMITIC POPE ON SYLVESTER
The Israeli New Year's celebration on December 31st is named after an anti-Semitic Pope from the Roman period.
Israeli New Years, most commonly known as Sylvester, is named after an anti-Semitic pope. Not exactly what you’d expect in a Jewish state.

It's origins come from Pope Sylvester, whose saint's day falls on December 31st, what is now known as New Years Eve. He served as pope from 314-335 CE, and while very little is known about his actual life, it is known that he oversaw both the First Council of Nicea as well as Roman Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity.

Pope Sylvester convinced Constantine to prohibit Jews from living in Jerusalem, the year before the Council of Nicea convened, and during the council, the Pope arranged for the passing of various anti-Semitic legislation. Some say he is one of the most anti-Semitic Popes of all time.

Wikipedia: Athanasius of Alexandria (296–298 – 2 May 373), His on-again-off-again episcopate spanned 45 years (c. 8 June 328 – 2 May 373), of which over 17 encompassed five exiles, when his episcopate was replaced on the order of four different Roman emperors. Athanasius was a Christian theologian, a Church Father, the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism, and a noted Egyptian leader of the fourth century.
Conflict with Arius and Arianism as well as successive Roman emperors shaped Athanasius' career. In 325, at the age of 27, Athanasius began his leading role against the Arians as a deacon and assistant to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria during the First Council of Nicaea. Roman emperor Constantine the Great had convened the council in May–August 325 to address the Arian position that the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, is of a distinct substance from the Father.[3] Three years after that council, Athanasius succeeded his mentor as archbishop of Alexandria. In addition to the conflict with the Arians (including powerful and influential Arian churchmen led by Eusebius of Nicomedia), he struggled against the Emperors Constantine, Constantius II, Julian the Apostate and Valens. He was known as Athanasius Contra Mundum (Latin for Athanasius Against the World).

 

[BreadOfLife]

The true lineage of christianity will be found in those 1400+ bishops that opposed Constatine and his new State Church. First, you can't give names of any of these alleged bishops because they never existed.
Second, there never was a "state church".
Third, Hitler made Lutheranism the state church in Germany, and nobody persecutes Lutherans the way you do Catholics.

Yes it does. Luther started the same hate propaganda, you just have the lies more refined. You claim the same phony revisionism as the Jehovah's Witlesses, the SDA, the Christadelphians and ignorant paranoid funnymentalists.

Again, you fail to give any names, you fail to name any location, and are in denial of historical facts. You can't defend lies with more lies.
Convening , organizing and presiding does not mean he had any say or vote because he had no spiritual jurisdiction. Only bishops could cast an official vote. If your infallible wikipedia is correct, we should be able to find at least some once reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons
nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.

So what.

What is so evil about that? The church had been heavily persecuted for 300 years prior and anti-Catholics always forget about that. You expect the bishops to pay for their own lodging??? Constantine set the table and chairs, he had no spiritual jurisdiction whatsoever. There is not a shred of evidence that he did.

Do you know what "deferred" means? You make no mention of later emperors that resisted the church, and you are in denial of the historical facts of the role of the Pope. How Constantine ruled had nothing to do with the Church. I am still waiting for at least one name of one martyr. Instead you give a mythical resistance movement to bolster the oppressed "true believer" theory. (invented by baptist secessionists in the 20th century, the funnymentalists have been running with it)
Did the Emperor Constantine found the Catholic Church? | Catholic Answers
Your in denial of the fact that 1400+ bishops didn't attend Constatines State Church Meeting.
Your in denial of the fact Constatine established the Roman Catholic Church in St. Peters Basilica.
Your in denial of the fact that Jews and the Christian Church were persecuted by Sylvesters Roman Catholicism and the Emperors.
See there below, Eusebius was disciplined and removed from the Christian church for Arianism, Constatine made Eusebius his counselor, The Newly formed Church State, that 1400+ bishops opposed.
See there below, your pope Sylvester was already working with Constatine on persecuting Jews, before the Church State meeting in Nicea 325AD, why ya think 1400+ bishops didn't attend the dog and pony show of Sylvester, who led the Council with Constatines authority.

Wikipedia: Eusebius Of Caesarea
During the Council of Antiochia (325) he was excommunicated for subscribing to the heresy of Arius,[2] and thus withdrawn during the First Council of Nicaea where he accepted that the Homoousion referred to the Logos. Never recognized as a Saint, he became counselor of Constantine the Great, and with the bishop of Nicomedia he continued to polemicize against Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, Church Fathers, since he was condemned in the First Council of Tyre in 335.

JerusalemPost
CELEBRATING AN ANTI-SEMITIC POPE ON SYLVESTER
The Israeli New Year's celebration on December 31st is named after an anti-Semitic Pope from the Roman period.
Israeli New Years, most commonly known as Sylvester, is named after an anti-Semitic pope. Not exactly what you’d expect in a Jewish state.

It's origins come from Pope Sylvester, whose saint's day falls on December 31st, what is now known as New Years Eve. He served as pope from 314-335 CE, and while very little is known about his actual life, it is known that he oversaw both the First Council of Nicea as well as Roman Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity.
Pope Sylvester convinced Constantine to prohibit Jews from living in Jerusalem, the year before the Council of Nicea convened, and during the council, the Pope arranged for the passing of various anti-Semitic legislation. Some say he is one of the most anti-Semitic Popes of all time.
Wikipedia: Athanasius of Alexandria (296–298 – 2 May 373), His on-again-off-again episcopate spanned 45 years (c. 8 June 328 – 2 May 373), of which over 17 encompassed five exiles, when his episcopate was replaced on the order of four different Roman emperors. Athanasius was a Christian theologian, a Church Father, the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism, and a noted Egyptian leader of the fourth century.
Conflict with Arius and Arianism as well as successive Roman emperors shaped Athanasius' career. In 325, at the age of 27, Athanasius began his leading role against the Arians as a deacon and assistant to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria during the First Council of Nicaea. Roman emperor Constantine the Great had convened the council in May–August 325 to address the Arian position that the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, is of a distinct substance from the Father.[3] Three years after that council, Athanasius succeeded his mentor as archbishop of Alexandria. In addition to the conflict with the Arians (including powerful and influential Arian churchmen led by Eusebius of Nicomedia), he struggled against the Emperors Constantine, Constantius II, Julian the Apostate and Valens. He was known as Athanasius Contra Mundum (Latin for Athanasius Against the World).

Yes, I know you keep pasting this moronic manure in multiple threads but, as I already destroyed your position on another thread - I may as well do it here, too . . .

These were not prohibitions on the READING or even ownership of Bibles. They were directed against the perverse interpretations and spurious copies that were being produced. There were MANY bad and even heretical translations floating around during these periods.

You might also want to take not of the fact that Martin Luther himself, after editing 7 books from the OT as well as portions of Daniel and Esther - ALSO wanted to delete several Books from the NT. These Books included the Epistles of James and Jude as well as Hebrews and Revelation.

If it hadn't been for some of his contemporaries, like Philip Melanchton - YOUR Protestant Bible would be a LOT thinner than it already is . . .

ALSO -
The Church never forbade the reading the Scripture. Te historical facts are this:

- As many as 85% of the general population was functionally ILLITERATE until the dawn on the 20th century and would have have very LITTLE use for a printed bible.

- Because Bibles were handwritten - they were chained to pulpits prior to the invention of the printing press because they were so rare and expensive and difficult to acquire.

- Contrary to the Protestant lie that the Bible was only available in Latin - the Catholic Church had MANY translation in the vernacular PRIOR to the Protestant Revolt.

Sorry - but them's the facts, Einstein.

 

[epostle1]

See there below, your pope Sylvester was already working with Constatine on persecuting Jews, before the Church State meeting in Nicea 325AD, why ya think 1400+ bishops didn't attend the dog and pony show of Sylvester, who led the Council with Constatines authority.

The lies keep multiplying. No council was ever led by any emperor. Constantine was present, but there is not a shred of evidence of his leading it. We should be able to find at least one reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons
nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all. How about you re-write the creed and canons to force fit them into your man made system?

 

[epostle1]

For the last two years, I have been forwarded by many people a complete fabrication by a forum website that generally circulates BS and falsehood without any leg to stand on.

The deceitful website says:

“Sylvester,” was the name of the “Saint” and Roman Pope who reigned during the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.). The year before the Council of Nicaea convened, Sylvester convinced Constantine to prohibit Jews from living in Jerusalem. At the Council of Nicaea, Sylvester arranged for the passage of a host of viciously anti-Semitic legislation. All Catholic “Saints” are awarded a day on which Christians celebrate and pay tribute to that Saint’s memory. December 31 is Saint Sylvester Day – hence celebrations on the night of December 31 are dedicated to Sylvester’s memory.​

WHY THIS IS A LOAD OF CRAP

Sylvester was too ill to attend the Council of Nicaea. No, he did not convince Constantine to ban Jews from Jerusalem. Nicaea was not about anti-Jewish statements- it was when the Church changes their calendar so that Easter did not have to be calculated by means of contact with Jews to find out when they were celebrating Passover. Here are the decrees of Nicaea.

There are no records to prove his created anti-Jewish legislation and no historian claims it. For the little we know see James Parkes, The Conflict of Church and Synagogue page 186
For the up to date bibliography,see Paula Fredriksen & Oded Irshai, Christianity and Anti-Judaism in Late Antiquity Polemics and Policies, from the Second to the Seventh Centuries. The anti-Jewish decrees were by Constantine, not Sylvester. As far as we know, Sylvester did not convince him of anything and (temporal) power was vested in Emperor.
lies6t6 has to keep changing his lies, it's the only tactic he has to support one lie after another. It's like sitting on a manure pile with a fly swatter.

Ignorant bigots never tire of fabricating lies.

"Pope Sylvester convinced Constantine to prohibit Jews from living in Jerusalem, the year before the Council of Nicea convened, and during the council, the Pope arranged for the passing of various anti-Semitic legislation. Some say he is one of the most anti-Semitic Popes of all time.
Wikipedia: Athanasius of Alexandria (296–298 – 2 May 373), "​

You should post the link to wikipedia because of 2 wikipedia articles on Pope Sylvester I found, NONE OF THEM SAY THIS.
Pope Sylvester I - Wikipedia
Saint Sylvester's Day - Wikipedia
Wikipedia: Athanasius of Alexandria is also false. The article says nothing of the sort.
Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia

Of course, a lying bigot can violate copy write laws on forums. They have to bolster a credibility they lost with the first lie.

 

[epostle1]

Your in denial of the fact that 1400+ bishops didn't attend Constatines State Church Meeting.

Of course I deny a meeting that never happened. It's one of your silly fabrications.

Your in denial of the fact Constatine established the Roman Catholic Church in St. Peters Basilica.

The burial site of St. Peter? Did everyone in Rome forget that?

Your in denial of the fact that Jews and the Christian Church were persecuted by Sylvesters Roman Catholicism and the Emperors.

I did sufficient research; you haven't got a leg to stand on. It's another stupid anti-Catholic fabrication without a shred of scholarly evidence.

See there below, Eusebius was disciplined and removed from the Christian church for Arianism, Constatine made Eusebius his counselor,

He was a heretic. What this proves is Constantine favored Arianism to a large degree. What you can't explain is why Constantine supported a losing Christology (Arianism) if he supposedly founded the non-Arian Catholic Church!. DUH!!! HELLO???

The Newly formed Church State, that 1400+ bishops opposed.

Oh, I get it. These opposing bishops are founders of your church. Funny that out of 1400 bishops you can't come up with a single name. There were 318 bishops at Nicae so how did you dream up 1400???
There were not 1400 bishops in existence in the entire known world at that time.

See there below, your pope Sylvester was already working with Constatine on persecuting Jews, before the Church State meeting in Nicea 325AD, why ya think 1400+ bishops didn't attend the dog and pony show of Sylvester, who led the Council with Constatines authority.

I've already dealt with your hate rant. Sylvester was too sick to make it to Nicaea; he sent 2 legates with his full authority. Why would he do that with Constantine supposedly in authority? Why don't the Jews have any record of your invented persecution? Please, grow a brain cell.