When Constantine Coerced The Bishops

[jwhitlock]

Hi Wade Englund. Long time. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

So getting back to my first contention, that "the winners write history" means nothing after over 1500 years, what do the rest of you think? You sure have a lot of histories to read that opposes the winners now. I have conceded that the winners didn't take any special interest in explaining the loser's side, and then the loser's disappeared. But my argument is that there is nothing necessarily sinister in that.

I have been asking you guys to defend the crowd you are against and have found no takers. How can you expect the winners to defend the losers? The LDS observers, who in a certain sense shouldn't care less who won, don't even seem able or willing to defend or find mitigating factors against perceived crimes committed against the Arian party by the so-called "orthodox".

It seems like you could concede that the "winner's write the histories" comments don't mean that winners are necessarily bad...and furthermore, that over time, historians take all that into consideration anyway. Sixteen centuries later, it is clear that the pendulum has swung back and there are histories aplenty that condemn the winners.

3DOP

I don't think anyone contests the point about winners and losers being good or bad; winning and losing in this case has little to do with who was right or who was wrong - or if either were right or wrong. It's more instructive to look at the circumstances of the councils and to determine whether the outcomes were of man or of God. So far in our minds, at least, the way the councils were run would indicate that the results were pretty much man made.

[3DOP]

That's certainly one perspective to consider. However, it has always been dangerous for religions to combine with secular powers to meet their own ends. They too often find that the tiger they thought they could tame and use to their own ends becomes their master. The historical record after the councils certainly portrays a church completely wedded to secular methods of wielding power to produce any punishment - including death - for those who disagreed with them. Repugnance for such an unholy union is certainly not just a 21st century concept.

I look at the extensive political maneuvering that took place during the councils as something that doesn't suggest a benign delight that the bishops would now have the protection of the emperor. It was jockeying for position, which is something that Christ chastened his own disciples for when they engaged in it.

The problem with looking at the councils as something benign, or just bringing unity is that you have to ignore the ugly things that were happening. From what I've read elsewhere (and I'm still waiting for Drake's book to come), it's tough to find much benevolence or a good spirit of cooperation in the councils. Hammering out agreement on doctrine via a combination of political maneuvering, threats, and the oversight of secular powers does not make me confident that God approved of the results.

Hi jwhitlock.

I deliberately referred to the dangers of having the patronage of the secular powers. Later, I will probably have to take issue with your view that in those times, the very concept would have been considered repugnant or an unholy union. The tiger definitely threatens to become the master. Yes. Agreed. More on that too perhaps.

As for the rest, I am not aiming at making you think that the Nicene Creed is true! I am just trying to reduce the impression of villainy that seems so pervasive, not just in this thread, but among LDS toward the Council. I had missionaries over for a visit once. Many years ago. Guess what they wanted to talk about? The Council of Nicea! The Council of Nicea? I may be wrong, but I think you guys have spent a lot more time on this subject than other faith systems, certainly a lot more than Catholics, and have a lot of intellectual baggage tied up with vilifying the parties involved. No. I don't imagine to convince anyone LDS that the Council gave us true teaching. I am only trying to show that the political outcome, which all agree was not desirable, was from their perspective not predictable. I think there are ways to exonerate the bishops and Constantine from the worst motives. That is why I made the comparison between manslaughter and first degree murder. I am arguing about motives. I have not the slightest illusion that I could convince a crowd of Mormons to believe the Nicene Creed.

[Storm Rider]

3DOP, I am quite sure that I am not the brightest bulb here. I also am not sure that I grasp all your points.

We have a vested interest in proving the apostasy. The process of the Council of Nicea to reach its outcome is of strong interest. The mere fact that Constantine called for it and had an influence on it is of interest. We tend to think that most/some of the products resulting from the Councils was the result of man and not of God. The mere fact that it was a council and people voted on it can be taken issue with by LDS. However, this position has weakened as the Council of the Twelve Apostles and a unanity must be achieved before Proclamatoins and revelations are announced. That was difficult for me to swallow once I learned about it. I had always thought that the prophet spoke to God and then the prophet spoke to everyone else as God's mouthpiece. This does not happen now and it certainly did not happen during any of the Councils. I digress.

It does not appear to me that the Councils should be villified, but understood. I do believe that for LDS we can point to where doctrines became contradictory to what we believe Jesus taught. This does not mean that the men were evil or unrighteous. Individual members are not the Church or even representative of the majority of the members.

[jwhitlock]

Hi jwhitlock.

I deliberately referred to the dangers of having the patronage of the secular powers. Later, I will probably have to take issue with your view that in those times, the very concept would have been considered repugnant or an unholy union. The tiger definitely threatens to become the master. Yes. Agreed. More on that too perhaps.

As for the rest, I am not aiming at making you think that the Nicene Creed is true! I am just trying to reduce the impression of villainy that seems so pervasive, not just in this thread, but among LDS toward the Council. I had missionaries over for a visit once. Many years ago. Guess what they wanted to talk about? The Council of Nicea! The Council of Nicea? I may be wrong, but I think you guys have spent a lot more time on this subject than other faith systems, certainly a lot more than Catholics, and have a lot of intellectual baggage tied up with vilifying the parties involved. No. I don't imagine to convince anyone LDS that the Council gave us true teaching. I am only trying to show that the political outcome, which all agree was not desirable, was from their perspective not predictable. I think there are ways to exonerate the bishops and Constantine from the worst motives. That is why I made the comparison between manslaughter and first degree murder. I am arguing about motives. I have not the slightest illusion that I could convince a crowd of Mormons to believe the Nicene Creed.

Look forward to your further comments as to whether heavy secular involvement and direction in the councils was a bad thing or not.

LDS often get slammed for not being Christian because we don't subscribe to the creeds. Since the creeds originated in the councils, it is only appropriate that we evaluate the validity of the councils for formulating Christian doctrine.

You're correct in that we're probably not going to convince each other; the rub in trying to determine actual motivations is that they're usually not directly recorded. We have to extrapolate them from the available records of the councils. In doing so, we take a look at a variety of aspects of the counsels, and then draw differing conclusions on what those aspects really mean.

I would disagree a bit on LDS being fixated on the councils; most LDS don't really know that much about them, in many respects. However, due to the sheer number of Catholic theologians vs. LDS scholars, I would say that there's more ink on the subject from the Catholic side than the LDS side. But that would be just my opinion. Most of the books written attacking the councils are not LDS, so we don't have any kind of monopoly on our perspective of the councils, though I do actually suspect it's generally softer than you might think.

[Fanayal]

Hi. I am doing some research on early christian history, starting with the time of the original apostles to the time of the first councils.

An american friend of mine who is LDS told me that your church claims to be first century christianity come again. I have examined

the organisation of your church and have several questions. Which form of early christianity did have hold of the priesthood keys in the first century? Most historiens believe that the original apostles had spread across the roman empire in the middle of the first century, so probably shortly after Jesus ascension. So they never had time to form a fully developed church. For example did the early christians in rome had the true priesthood, when they where they where tormented by emperor Nero? And when all the original apostolic sees had

the priesthood, how is it possible that all of them could fall into apostasy so quickly. Would this not imply an total failure of the original apostles? Your church claims to have leaders who are biblical apostles and prophets. I have never read that Peter, Paul or Andrew the First called claimed to be prophets. Do you assume that your modern LDS leaders succeeded where those failed who walked with Jesus in the flesh? Would this not imply a tragical misjudgment on the part of Jesus himself ? I have to say that at the moment I find the position of the catholic and orthodox churches more convincing than any christian restoration church, although my belief is that all who believe in Jesus in some form can be called christians, no matter if catholic, orthodox , protestant or restoration.

Thanks

Fanayal

[Anijen]

I think my point is being overlooked.

Why did Constantine convene this council? If the Bishop of Rome [sylvester] was considered the Pope why did he not have a hand in it? He didn't even go himself but sent others, and neither he or those he sent had an important role in it.

There was not much battling between church and state at this time. It was soon after the period of Diocletian who persecuted Christians relentlessly. To say so soon after Diocletian that Constantine (a pagan), also known as the Pontifex Maximus was governing the affairs of the church (which he was and thought it his role to do so) is tantamount to saying the Bishop of Rome was not in charge of the church and therefore shows that apostasy has occurred to some limit. Even up to the time of Charlemagne it was the Emperor (State) and not the Bishop of Rome (the Church) who appointed Bishops.

Those who have studied this period in history (which I have) know that after the death of the apostles, the church operated as local congregations, and not under a central command from one supreme spiritual leader.

In A.D. 258, Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, called a council of eighty-seven bishops to discuss a response to what Cyprian called;

“the bitter obstinacy of our brother Stephen.”As part of their response, these bishops expounded that there was no successor to Peter, there was no pope, and there was no supreme bishop. They wrote:

“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.

~The Anti-Nicene Fathers 5:565

I think this goes directly to the point, that apostasy was very much apart of the church at this time.

[LeSellers]

An american friend of mine who is LDS told me that your church claims to be first century christianity come again.

This is not an accurate description of our claim.

We do not claim to be the Restoration of the I Church of Jesus Christ—we do claim to be the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ. The subtle, but important, distinction is that God adapts His Church to the needs and culture of the Saints (meaning the members of that Church, not some nebulous group of near-perfect people who have most likely died). His Church in Abraham's time was very different in practice from that of Moses' day, and again wehn Isaiah or Peter were the Priesthood leaders responsible for the Saints.

The brass tacks of the Church in any age are these, among others I have forgotten to mention:

• Priesthood power and keys.
  
• The nature of God and our relationship to Him—He is the literal Father of our spirits and actively wants us to return to Him and become like Him.
  
• The knowledge that we have divorced ourselves from God's family by sin (willful rebellion against His commandments).
  
• That this divorce requires that we be redeemed from the slavery into which we have sold ourselves and that we cannot pay that price.
  
• That our Redeemer, Jesus Christ is willing to repurchase us from sin, but that we must bind ourselves to Him as "indentured servants" and thus owe Him an allegiance higher than any other.
  
• That, along with the price of our individual sins, He paid the price required to overcome the power of hell (the tomb), and that we will, through Him, be resurrected.
  
• That God will welcome those of us who do accept His Son's offer of salvation (grace) will not have to pay any price for our own sins, but that those who do not will pay the same price Christ did, "[w]hich suffering caused [Him], even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that [He] might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink".
  

I have examined the organisation of your church and have several questions. Which form of early christianity did have hold of the priesthood keys in the first century?

The one with living Apostles of Christ. Without Apostles, the keys of the Priesthood are inoperative, and the ordinances of the Priesthood are unauthorized and ineffectual.

Most historiens believe that the original apostles had spread across the roman empire in the middle of the first century, so probably shortly after Jesus ascension. So they never had time to form a fully developed church.

It doesn't take a "fully developed church" to have Priesthood keys. John the Baptist (although not a Melchizedek Priesthood holder) had such keys (limited to performing baptism), and there was no functioning Church for at least another two years.

For example did the early christians in rome had the true priesthood, when they where they where tormented by emperor Nero?

Yes. The Apostles were still active in the mid-to-late I, and there were organized branches of the Church with a fully operational organization. Baptisms, bestowals of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and other ordinances were dine legitimately and effectually.

And when all the original apostolic sees had the priesthood, how is it possible that all of them could fall into apostasy so quickly. Would this not imply an total failure of the original apostles?

Time and distance matter. Anyone reading the New Testament without preconceptions will see that Paul, Peter, Jude, James, and the other writers were confronting an on-going apostasy even while they were alive. The infamous Galatians passage, chapter 1, verses 6~9 (8 is the only one we Saints ever hear quoted, but which is not even a full sentence, much less a complete thought), is one great example of many.

6 I marvel that ye [you Galatians, the ones I, personally preached to] are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

It is quite obvious that Paul was not concerned about some future time—he was worried about his own converts who had "so soon" started perverting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, even as he and the other Apostles still lived. We are left to ponder the time when, with no Apostles left to guide and correct such false doctrines as the Galatians were teaching, what the Church of Jesus Christ would become.

Your church claims to have leaders who are biblical apostles and prophets. I have never read that Peter, Paul or Andrew the First called claimed to be prophets.

Yet Paul is insistent that God gave first Apostles and then prophets

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

11 And he gave some, [as] apostles; and some, [as] prophets; and some, [as] evangelists; and some, [as] pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

It seems a bit of a stretch to claim that we are all in the unity of the faith, and have a perfect knowledge of the Son of God. Thus, by the Bible, we still need both Apostles and prophets.

Do you assume that your modern LDS leaders succeeded where those failed who walked with Jesus in the flesh?

In regards to this issue only, yes, they have and are. Which is no slam on any of those earlier servants of God. They did the best they could with what they had. But they did not have the ease of transportation and communication that even Joseph Smith had nearly two centuries ago, and certainly not what Thomas S. Monson can employ in our age of satellites and world-circling passenger aircraft.

I marvel at the efforts of Peter and Paul and how well they fulfilled their apostolic callings in spite of the barriers they faced. That they "failed" (although I do not believe they will be seen by God as failures in any sense) does not mean they did not do everything they were called to do.

Would this not imply a tragical misjudgment on the part of Jesus himself ?

Since He predicted that very thing, I cannot see how this would impugn His judgement. I assume you believe that He called Judas Iscariot to the Twelve, just as much as He did Peter or James. If these "mistakes" were not fatal to His claims of being the Messiah, then why would His prophecy regarding the apostasy of His Church give anyone reason to doubt Him?

I have to say that at the moment I find the position of the catholic and orthodox churches more convincing than any christian restoration church, although my belief is that all who believe in Jesus in some form can be called christians, no matter if catholic, orthodox , protestant or restoration.

If we assume, for the moment, that there was, indeed, an apostasy, then it is irrefutable that no mere reformation could possibly be legitimate. So, you are correct, all Protestant churches are in error if for no other reason than that they do not have, and cannot have, any valid Priesthood.

God has a pattern for restoring His Church: He calls a prophet (see, e.g., Moses, Noah, John the Baptist) and gives him a charge to preach the Gospel. He does not merely inspire some man and have him reform His Church.

Now, we are left with the task of demonstrating there was an apostasy. The evidence is irrefutable: the doctrine of the Church were changed (see the original post for a couple of relatively minor details). There was no Priesthood remaining in Rome (or Jerusalem, or Athens) nor any keys. God does not leave His power and authority among people who do not obey Him, and it is clear that obedience was far from common, as we see in Paul's plea to the Galatians, if not even more dramatically later in history.

Thus, we are left with the need for Apostles and prophets, with a need for a return of the Priesthood, with a lack of correct doctrine. For these reasons, God called Joseph Smith and Restored his Priesthood and His Church.

No other Church can make that claim validly. We not only can, but we do.

Welcome to the cuckoo' nest. I hope you will consider what we say here and let God guide you in deciding which church is true. You would not be alone in this.

Lehi

P.S.: It's my real name. Please use it. LS

[Xander]

Constantine coerced the bishops?

Precisely the question I was about to ask. I've read and written quite a bit on this topic, but it has been more than a decade,. Even still, I remember enough about this subject to know that there are obvious problems with this opening post.

LeSellers never really says what it was they were "coerced" to do, but it should be obvious to Mormons where he was going with this. Popular anti-Catholic myth that travels in Mormon circles, says Constantine forced these bishops to accept his personal theory about the nature of the Trinity and that Arianism (which is closer to Mormon doctrine) was something he wanted to see destroyed.

What LeSellers fails to mention is that Constantine only "coerced" bishops to have this meeting so they could resolve the matter among themselves. The notion of homoousia was used as a suggestion, not a commandment. And it was suggested to Constantine by Bishop Hosius. It wasn't something the evil dictator threw out there and forced everyone to accept.

In reality, Constantine was more interested in seeing this growing dispute being resolved. He didn't really care which side won. Once the bishops made their decision, the losing side was to be condemned and of course anyone refusing to accept the officially mandated doctrine would be exiled. This was for the purpose of unity, and this happened to Arius when he and his followers refused to back down from their position, stating that Jesus Christ was a created being, not co-eternal with the father, etc.

But what the anti-Trinity folks also refuse to mention is the fact that Arianism gained popularity again and became the theological position of preference for decades, and Constantine was so influenced by it that he removed Arius and his supporters from Exile. Now how does any of this make sense if, according to Mormon myth, the evil dictator was the one who saw to it that Arius was denounced a heretic?

That seems like an important detail to leave out doesn't it?

It is also important for the anti-Catholics to keep misrepresenting this event as if all the Bishops did was fight and rely on threats and violence. The fact is they were constantly quoting scriptures to support their cases. So in their minds they were essentially relying on the Word of God to guide them.

Incidentally, the Trinity was hardly conjured up with some last minute recipe at Nicea. JP Holding demonstrated that the fundamentals of the doctrine were understood by early Christians like Philo, who relied on Wisdom literature to formulate a Trinitarian position that dovetails quite nicely with the traditional, orthodox view.

For an apologetic Catholic perspective, here is a fairly decent summary.

I do get a kick out of the way some LDS apologists living in glass houses like to throw stones. If a Catholic were to use any Mormon historical event to bash its theology, the apologists here would be foaming at the mouth with indignation, and cries of intolerance and bigotry would be screamed from their rooftops.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Xander

[Fanayal]

Hi Lehi.

Thank you for your answers. I am a member of the Maronite church of Syria . We are a eastern brach of catholicism mostly unknown in the west. Our

founder Maron, who is venerated as a saint accepted the primacy of the pope of rome so where are part of the global catholic church since our foundation in

the fifth century, although our rites are closer to the orthodox churches. For example the lower levels of clergy are often married.

I have been fascinated by the different claims of supremacy by the various different christian churches from very early on. I know that my church is true the same way as you practicing mormons do. Yet I can not deny the faith of other people. I never felt comfortable saying; I am right and you are wrong.

Or denying someone other believer the term christian. What I have heard of your branch of christianity was mostly positive so far.

As I said from what I have read so far I mostly believe that either the Catholic church or orthodoxy are closer to the absolut truth than any other brach of christianity. One of the problems of theist religions is that all of them seem to be a product off their own time and culture. For example our church has been

lead for 400 years by Italian popes before John Paul and Benedict. Was that the will of god? I do not know. When I lock at the LDS leadership I can not fail to

notice that all your LDS apostles save one are white americans and come from the upper class of your society. Is this truly the will of god? Should god not have called apostles from other countries and races and social standings by know, if your church is truly the one true church. I read that half your members live in other countries.

Why did god allow apostate christianity to grow to over 2 billion if non of us had any true priesthood power?

Why did he allow a gap of over 1700 years in your opinion? Could he not have done it earlier? My friend said america is special, but that is typical to say by an american. I can not accept that as as someone, who comes from a culture that is thousands of years older than his.

America is nice but there is nothing special there, compared to other cultures and countries.

At the moment I am comfortable in my believe. I believe in the original apostles and believe they did not fail us. The problem I see with your point that I do not

see the exact point when the priesthood keys where lost. As I said the apostles did not stay in the holy land and founded a church in the modern sense there.

There is no historical prove that such an organisation existed . By 50 a.d they where had everywhere from rome to alexandria. So there is no prove of a quorum

of the 12 apostles as a ruling body of any organisation. So the decentralized spreading of early christianity seems to have been the will of the original apostles. Since I do not believe that Jesus left them without any instructions, I have to assume it was the will of Jesus himself. We catholics believe that Peter held primacy over the other apostles so his successor the pope has primacy over the other pariarchs and bishops. Of course the orthodox disagree and say the primacy is only of honor.

When I say that my that my church is true I am not saying yours is not. I have traveled my countries and cultures and come to the conclusion that I do not want

a single religion and culture to dominate everything . I think we should seek common ground as christians. Not attack each other. That can not be the way.

I do not believe god wants all 7 billion people on earth to bow to the pope, nor your prophet. You can have a testimony of your religions but you can not lock into

the heart and soul of another believer and say you are all wrong. Maybe the various branches of christianity are all more or less valid because Jesus knew from the beginning that humanity was so diverse that we could never unit under a single leader or organisation.

Thank you

Fanayal

[3DOP]

I think my point is being overlooked.

Why did Constantine convene this council? If the Bishop of Rome [sylvester] was considered the Pope why did he not have a hand in it? He didn't even go himself but sent others, and neither he or those he sent had an important role in it.

There was not much battling between church and state at this time. It was soon after the period of Diocletian who persecuted Christians relentlessly. To say so soon after Diocletian that Constantine (a pagan), also known as the Pontifex Maximus was governing the affairs of the church (which he was and thought it his role to do so) is tantamount to saying the Bishop of Rome was not in charge of the church and therefore shows that apostasy has occurred to some limit. Even up to the time of Charlemagne it was the Emperor (State) and not the Bishop of Rome (the Church) who appointed Bishops.

Those who have studied this period in history (which I have) know that after the death of the apostles, the church operated as local congregations, and not under a central command from one supreme spiritual leader.

In A.D. 258, Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, called a council of eighty-seven bishops to discuss a response to what Cyprian called;

“the bitter obstinacy of our brother Stephen.”As part of their response, these bishops expounded that there was no successor to Peter, there was no pope, and there was no supreme bishop. They wrote:

~The Anti-Nicene Fathers 5:565

I think this goes directly to the point, that apostasy was very much apart of the church at this time.

Anijen,

I took note of your first post and tried to address it later in post #21 at the top of page 2. Either you missed it or felt it was inadequate. You will have noted that we don't quite agree with your assesment of Constantine as a mere pagan. It seems certain that some kind of conversion took place whereby he accepted Christianity as true. In case you missed it here was my suggestion which was partly directed to your concerns:

Constantine coerced the bishops? That gives the impression that his assistance/interference was resented. Why would he do that? It was a time when everything was rosey...except for this one little stink in the garden that was causing some divisions, particularly in the East. What would be gained by deliberately alienating his own bishops? There is no reason to think that he didn't consult with many of them before settling on a meeting, following the precedent found in Acts 15 when a similar episode caused chaos in the Church. Who was better placed to arrange such a meeting than a patron like the emperor himself? John Henry Newman explains how he understood the benefits of having the emperor's help in convening this first council:

(quote from Newman available at top of page.)

As for your questions about the bishop of Rome, I don't take the position that his participation was essential except for the technicality as to whether the council could be considered ecumenical. Because he sent legates who approved the Council his name, Catholics say that Nicea was the first ecumenical council. But the practical ramifications would probably have been the same. It was mostly an eastern council to deal with a mostly eastern controversy. I thought that participants from the West were few. Did any other western bishops send legates? I don't know. But if they didn't, the fact that the bishop of Rome did speaks to the desire on the part of the parties that the pope's name would be associated with the council decisions. Why would that be thought necessary?

The Roman Church, and by extension, the Roman bishop seemed from the beginning to be involved in controversies all over the Christian world. Why? Because of what St. Irenaeus said regarding the Church at Rome:

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 unauthorizedmeetings; [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, Peterand Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our timeby 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 preeminent authority, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

----St. Ireaneus, Against the Heresies, 3:3:32

Before this question of baptism came up there was a little skirmish about the date for the celebration of Easter. It was the Roman bishop who stepped in to exercise his authority. Before that the Roman church was giving admonition to the Church at Corinth. Cyprian's party is in disagreement with Rome. Why should we be surprised that they would deemphasize his authority?

Edited February 21, 2012 by 3DOP

[Anijen]

3DOP, I always appreciate your intelligent posts. I must have missed that your post [21] was for me. I too do not think Constantine needed much coercion, against Bishops or any other subject. Because it was his way or the highway. Bishops need not be coerced at this time they were selected by him anyway. After kingdoms fragmented the church became more powerful and kings etc had to make sure they had the support of the church or they would probably have to face rebellion from their subjects.

It really does not matter if there were Bishops who supported the Bishop of Rome or not, the point is before there was a schism between church and state there was a schism between Bishop and Bishop. Some were for a universal church with a supreme leader others were not. This schism was not a new thing, however starting about 1050 AD a universal Bishop was well on its way but still had to wrest power from the state (See Gregory VII and Henry 4 and 5th) up to Innocent III.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Anijen

[Xander]

I too do not think Constantine needed much coercion, against Bishops or any other subject. Because it was his way or the highway. Bishops need not be coerced at this time they were selected by him anyway. After kingdoms fragmented the church became more powerful and kings etc had to make sure they had the support of the church or they would probably have to face rebellion from their subjects.

This is all wrong for reasons already explained. Nicea wasn't about Constantine getting his way. As I said, and historians agree, Constantine didn't approach this issue with a position already set in stone. It was irrelevant to him as a politician, which is what he was, not a theologian. His goal was unity, and when Arius started preaching in 318 that Jesus was a creature, that unity was threatened by theological scuffling. He called the Council so the Bishops could debate who was right, and decide for themselves which side to take. He didn't force his will on the council, except in the sense that he require them to come to some conclusion. He didn't force his position because he had no position.

Arianism quickly gained supporters after Nicea, including Constantine. So it makes no sense for Mormon critics of Catholicism to keep asserting that Nicea was about Constantine coercing Bishops to accept his view of the Godhead. We know this isn't true and no historian would ever support such nonsense. Arianism didn't really come to an end until 381 when the Council at Constantinople declared it so. This was long after Nicea and long after Constantine's death!

Edited February 21, 2012 by Xander

[LeSellers]

One of Drake's theses is that, in the ancient world, there was no difference between church and state, not merely that there was no separation of the two. The church was the state, and vice versa. Constantine faced a dilemma: there were two churches, one traditional pagan (in which he was raised), and the other Christian (to which he converted, although exactly when and to what degree are very open questions). Drake does not dispute Constantine's conversion, and, I'm finding that I don't much, either, leaning toward not caring either way, since the Christianity to which he would have been drawn was apostate in any case.

The word "coercion", as I used it here, describes, not necessarily the convocation to the council (although there was a lot of pressure placed on the bishops to attend), but the coercion of conscience present in the council itself.

Constantine did not "vote", he vetoed or vetted the proposals of others there, as well as proposing his own solution to the fillial relationship quandary. His gauge, as we seem all to agree, was whether the result would be unity and getting along. If so, he approved, if not, more pressure to reach consensus until all either agreed, or were so hopelessly outnumbered that he could banish them (as he did for two).

The point I (and others) have raised is whether Constantine, emperor or layman, had any authority to call the council in the first place (even though it was bishops who asked that he do so). Whether, as emperor, he had the authority to propose solutions to the Arian (or any other) controversy. To enforce those resolutions once reached, irrespective of how or who agreed to them.

Constantine, like it or not, did not hold the Priesthood, had no legitimate authority in any matter between Saints (running up against Paul's commandment not to bring even a case of civil tort before government courts, much less one of theology). His interference in matters ecclesiastical was no trivial breach: he was a usurper, no less than Uzza, the ark-steadier. But, by that time, the church was so deep into apostasy that it was not a matter for God to take in hand, and the IV Uzza lived.

History, being written by the winners may or may not indicate who was "right", but it does, always and by definition, give us the winner's slant on the issues. Whatever Constantine's role and his reason for playing it in 325~360, we know that he got the desired outcome: unity, but we do not know (except by revelation) whether this result was from God (it was not), or merely from men playing god (it was).

Lehi

[Xander]

The word "coercion", as I used it here, describes, not necessarily the convocation to the council (although there was a lot of pressure placed on the bishops to attend), but the coercion of conscience present in the council itself.

Sorry, but you'll have to explain better what it is Constantine "coerced the bishops" to do.

[volgadon]

Hi Lehi.

Thank you for your answers. I am a member of the Maronite church of Syria . We are a eastern brach of catholicism mostly unknown in the west. Our

founder Maron, who is venerated as a saint accepted the primacy of the pope of rome so where are part of the global catholic church since our foundation in

the fifth century, although our rites are closer to the orthodox churches. For example the lower levels of clergy are often married.

Thank you

Fanayal

Hello, Fanayal! I know a lot of Maronites and even helped organise an Easter party for Maronite children back in 2000.

[3DOP]

One of Drake's theses is that, in the ancient world, there was no difference between church and state, not merely that there was no separation of the two. The church was the state, and vice versa. Constantine faced a dilemma: there were two churches, one traditional pagan (in which he was raised), and the other Christian (to which he converted, although exactly when and to what degree are very open questions). Drake does not dispute Constantine's conversion, and, I'm finding that I don't much, either, leaning toward not caring either way, since the Christianity to which he would have been drawn was apostate in any case.

The word "coercion", as I used it here, describes, not necessarily the convocation to the council (although there was a lot of pressure placed on the bishops to attend), but the coercion of conscience present in the council itself.

Constantine did not "vote", he vetoed or vetted the proposals of others there, as well as proposing his own solution to the fillial relationship quandary. His gauge, as we seem all to agree, was whether the result would be unity and getting along. If so, he approved, if not, more pressure to reach consensus until all either agreed, or were so hopelessly outnumbered that he could banish them (as he did for two).

The point I (and others) have raised is whether Constantine, emperor or layman, had any authority to call the council in the first place (even though it was bishops who asked that he do so). Whether, as emperor, he had the authority to propose solutions to the Arian (or any other) controversy. To enforce those resolutions once reached, irrespective of how or who agreed to them.

Constantine, like it or not, did not hold the Priesthood, had no legitimate authority in any matter between Saints (running up against Paul's commandment not to bring even a case of civil tort before government courts, much less one of theology). His interference in matters ecclesiastical was no trivial breach: he was a usurper, no less than Uzza, the ark-steadier. But, by that time, the church was so deep into apostasy that it was not a matter for God to take in hand, and the IV Uzza lived.

History, being written by the winners may or may not indicate who was "right", but it does, always and by definition, give us the winner's slant on the issues. Whatever Constantine's role and his reason for playing it in 325~360, we know that he got the desired outcome: unity, but we do not know (except by revelation) whether this result was from God (it was not), or merely from men playing god (it was).

Lehi

Hi Lehi.

Thanks for that good clarification.

You bring up some important considerations to ponder from LDS, Catholic, and Protestant perspectives. I will briefly say that I think Drake's thesis, as presented here, is more fatal to the Catholic point of view which has to defend the existence of a visible church and valid priesthood. I am not here to defend some "orthodox" party that wants to dismiss LDS claims as non-Christian. For over twenty years I have remained persuaded that an LDS type response, with revelation and restoration, is a viable option could it be demonstrated that the Catholic priesthood has been lost. I do not claim to be able to demonstrate that the Scriptures clearly and unambiguously proclaim Nicene distinctives with clarity. But I am unalterably persuaded that the Scriptures are compatible with Nicene distinctives. As time permits, any reply I might make after thinking further about this subject will reflect those basic premises. I will have virtually nothing satisfactory to say to those who are fully perusaded that the Scriptures extant at the time of the Council were alone adequate to either resolve the controversy (many Protestants) or with certainty point in a different direction altogether (many LDS).

3DOP

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Christianity was already deep in the universal apostasy before Constantine as evidenced by the wholesale change or rejection of true doctrines.

It does not take long...how long will it take us?

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

We are promised that God will not take the Priesthood from the earth again. That doesn't mean that we individually can't reject it.

[3DOP]

Hi again Lehi.

According to your understanding Drake suggests that "the Church was the State and vice versa..."

I understand that you already believe the Church was apostate. I believe that the Church was alive and well. That is not the question. The question is about whether assistance (or interference, depending on your point of view) on the part of the temporal (political) power to the degree extended by Constantine may be rightly considered as a symptom of ecclesiastical corruption. I hope we can agree about the question before I continue to lay some groundwork with presuppositions on which I hope to find agreement.

Secondly, I want to acknowledge that there are dangers when the temporal power should be so united with the spiritual power as to be willing to enforce the laws of the Church upon society in general. I am sure we are all familiar with the danger from the background to our own Western history lessons.

The greatest danger occurs when the State begins to insist on ideological and theological conformity in a manner that is incompatible with the necessary freedom to make true conversions possible. I am prepared to acknowledge that this has occurred in Catholic history. (However, at the point where it ioccurs, the temporal power is no longer united with the spiritual. It has rejected for political reasons the Church's constant teaching that a coerced conversion is no true conversion.) Many other unwanted consequences result if the State is imprudent in using its heavy arm against souls who are unpersuaded of the religion adopted by the State.

But allow me to suggest thirdly that there are dangers associated with the alternative point of view which does not permit the predominant faith of the population of the State to inform the State as to its duties in enforcing morality. Looking at America today, I find activities that are said to be Constitutional, which the authors of the Constitution would never have imagined could be permitted. In my opinion, it is folly to speak of a "wall of separation" between church and state. Without deliberate forethought one's most deeply held beliefs (or unbeliefs) will ordinarily inform one's politics. What we have in America is a situation where the State tends to enact legislation in accord with the deeply held beliefs of those who can be classified as non-religious, while those who would outlaw strip clubs, abortion on demand, and marriage between people of the same sex, are unable to prevail, even if they are in the majority, because their reasonings are "tainted" by a religion. (A notion that corrupts the original intent of the authors of the Constitution)

I am prepared to defend a Constantinian type of government as well as an American type. (Of course, the American is in less need of defense in America in 2012!) But I am also suggesting that there is not a perfect model. I cannot fail to see the potential for terrible, tragic, and unhappy results when the state and church are "married". But "divorce" is not the answer either.

What do we think so far? Is the complete separation model perfect? Is it the evolutionary product of centuries of upward progress? Or has the West accepted a merely different form of historical determinism than Marx's discredited theory?

After any discussion, I am prepared to defend the idea that we will find "dangers" no matter what way we organize the relationship between our ecclesiastical and political systems. This will be the way of it so long as the Lord tarries His Coming. I don't see much sense in attempting to be controversial, (comparing Constantine with John F. Kennedy), if we can't find some toehold of common ground about these most basic premises.

3DOP

Edited February 27, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

After any discussion, I am prepared to defend the idea that we will find "dangers" no matter what way we organize the relationship between our ecclesiastical and political systems. This will be the way of it so long as the Lord tarries His Coming. I don't see much sense in attempting to be controversial, (comparing Constantine with John F. Kennedy), if we can't find some toehold of common ground about these most basic premises.

3DOP

Okay...not much interest in this I see. Fine with me...I need to scoot anyway. Long day ahead.

Moving on quickly...

Lehi said...

The point I (and others) have raised is whether Constantine, emperor or layman, had any authority to call the council in the first place (even though it was bishops who asked that he do so). Whether, as emperor, he had the authority to propose solutions to the Arian (or any other) controversy. To enforce those resolutions once reached, irrespective of how or who agreed to them.

I would offer the counterpoint that whoever calls a council, or however it is convened, the Bishop of Rome has authority to either accept or reject its decrees. In this instance, the legates which lawfully represented the pope accepted and Pope Sylvester never repudiated the Council, nor have hundreds of popes since. Even though Popes John and Paul were in the same city they never attended the proceedings of the Second Vatican Council either. They heard what was being discussed and eventually approved the bishops' decisions. There is no practical difference between either Council.

Edited February 28, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

When Jesus was an infant, His family took Him to the Temple where Holy Simeon praised God and prophesied of the suffering of Jesus and Mary. When He was twelve, Jesus' parents found Him in the Temple asking and answering questions of the scribes who were gathered there. He explained to His parents that He was "about His Father's business". Jesus' clearly recognized the Temple, built only years before His birth, established at Jerusalem during His lifetime, as the true and authentic worship center of God's people. When He observed the moneychangers sitting on the steps, making profit from those who wanted to make sacrifice, He accused them of abusing "my Father's house".

But Herod's Temple, we are informed was built not by the Jews, but by the appointee of the Roman Senate to rule Judea, KIng Herod. Known as "Herod's Temple", he lavishly restored the site to its former grandeur according to the writing of Josephus, in hIs Wars of the Jews, Book 1, ch. 21.

I mention this to demonstrate that if the authority of the state is so inclined as to assist the Church, we can see from the very life of Christ that it is permissible. Jesus didn't preach separation of church and state, and neither did the successor's of the Apostles when another ruler, Constantine, provided room, travel, food, and lodging to bishops gathered for the good of the Church. When he later built many churches for the faithful, as recorded by Eusebius, we can be instructed by the knowledge that Christ set the precedent for allowing "Caesar" to assist the Church when He affirms that Herod's Temple was His Father's House.

This is one reason tt seems difficult to me to see in the episcopal behavior toward Constantine, a violation of any apostolic rule against cooperation between church and state.

Understand, I know I have not proven that the Apostasy was non-existent. I am just saying that if I were LDS, I could never accept that the relationship between church and state at the time of the Council of Nicea is of necessity, a symptom of that Apostasy in which LDS must believe.

3DOP

Edited February 29, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Lehi

Constantine did not "vote", he vetoed or vetted the proposals of others there, as well as proposing his own solution to the fillial relationship quandary. His gauge, as we seem all to agree, was whether the result would be unity and getting along. If so, he approved, if not, more pressure to reach consensus until all either agreed, or were so hopelessly outnumbered that he could banish them (as he did for two).

3DOP

The reason Constantine didn't vote is that he was not the church, or even a bishop. He was only a pious emperor. He exhorted the few who disagreed to unity. Among those who agreed were the papal legates. That can't be overlooked. So I agree he wanted unity...but not any old unity...unity that just so happened to coincide with the great majority of bishops as well as the envoys from Rome.

[Anijen]

The reason Constantine didn't vote is that he was not the church, or even a bishop.

Constantine was the head of the church and he thought he was also the head of the church. He was considered the Pontfex Maximus by both the secular and Bishops. Constantine did not vote perhaps because he did not need to. To say he did not vote because he felt he had no authority, I would have to disagree.

The word "pontifex" later became a term used for Christian bishops,^[4] including the Bishop of Rome,^[5] and the title of "Pontifex Maximus" was applied within the Roman Catholic Church to the Pope as its chief bishop. It is not included in the Pope's official titles,^[6] but appears on buildings, monuments and coins of popes of Renaissance and modern times

Source

• Bishops would ask Constantine to judge disputes (not the Bishop of Rome).
  
• It was Constantine who summoned the ecumenical councils (not the Bishop of Rome).
  
• It was Constantine who made laws regarding different religions (not the Bishop of Rome).
  

Much later the church was worried about Constantine and his role in the church seemed to supplant the authority of the Pope in which forgeries were made to look as if the Pope had more authority in Constantine's time; If the Pope had authority over the church why would forgeries need to be made to make this assumption? Meaning; even back then the church knew Constantine saw himself as having all the authority he needed to appoint Bishops etc. A tradition that followed well past Charlemagne up to Henry the 4th and 5th. Kings and Emperors felt they could depose Popes and fill that with who they saw fit.

.

He was only a pious emperor.

He was pious, and he was an emperor, but that is not only what he was. He was seen by his subjects as a supreme ruler over all and at this time in history the church fell under his rule. Edited March 1, 2012 by Anijen

[saemo]

Pontifex Maximus was a title used by the Roman Emperors from 19BC until 382AD when Emperor Gracian denounced the title, refusing to wear the insignia associated to it (pagan insignia and Gracian was a Christian). Constantine held the title of Pontifex Maximus as a title of the Roman Emperor, not as the Bishop of Rome. The term, Pontifex Maximus, was later applied to the office of the Bishop of Rome as head of all bishops (not accepted by the east of course). It is not in the list of official titles of the Pope. At the time of Constantine, no one was calling the Bishop of Rome, Pontifex Maximus.

Bishops have not always been appointed by the Pope, and today, there are Bishops who are not. The Eastern Catholics are appointed by their Patriarchs, submitting their appointment for approval from the Pope (which is more of a formality than anything). At the time of Constantine, Bishops in the east were not appointed by the Bishop of Rome.

Edited March 1, 2012 by saemo

[3DOP]

Anijen7

Much later the church was worried about Constantine and his role in the church seemed to supplant the authority of the Pope in which forgeries were made to look as if the Pope had more authority in Constantine's time; If the Pope had authority over the church why would forgeries need to be made to make this assumption?

3DOP

Hi Anijen

There are quite a few different schools of thought regarding the motive behind the Donation of Constantine. It was about power and money, the usual corrupting influences. None of the theories I've seen say it was out of theological desperation. You say "the church was worried". At what? Like this was some kind of medieval Catholic Answers guy making up stories and twisting stuff for apologetics reasons? There is no need and there was no need. Nobody is disputing the facts and they are all compatible with biblical standards of separation of church and state. In addition, the facts on which we are agreed are compatible with Catholic teachings on the authority of the pope. It would be pretty convenient to insist that the facts square with LDS teachings on the authority of the pope. If I were LDS, I would be unwilling to say that the Council of Nicea is a symptom of apostasy unless the facts are incompatible with Catholic teaching on papal authority.

The pope sent legates. If the pope had personally attended the sessions, we would be told that the pope was subject to fear of banishment. Instead, he was in far off Rome and could examine the documents at leisure without fear of banishment when they arrived. Catholics teach that if the pope had wanted he could have rejected the Council. The papal legates accepted it. And so did the pope!

The pope, by virtue of his primacy of jurisdiction, has the

authority to send legates to provide for the unity of Faith and for ecclesiastical discipline, and to choose them at will.

---The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917), entry on legate

It seems self-evident that any authority can send who he will to represent him. Are we against diplomacy and embassies in the secular realm? As for the faith, The Father sent the Son. The Son sent the Apostles. But the pope can't send anybody? There was no reason for Pope Sylvester to accept the Council of Nicea except that what it was lawfully accepted by his deputies and he believed it. There has never, ever been a pope who repudiated the Council of Nicea, saying that Sylvester or his legates were coerced by this naughty emperor. Two bishops accepted banishment. Dozens of bishops had suffered worse than that from Diocletian. It is unreasonable to think that all save two "heroes" signed on to Nicea, merely to placate Constantine when they had already faced down a tyrant who made good on far weightier threats.

I understand that Mormons don't believe in the decrees. But LDS objections to the fact that the pope didn't attend or didn't initiate a Council seem based on the way Mormons perceive the papal office. The LDS view fails to recognize the pope's freedom to regard or disregard the decrees of the Council of Nicea after the results were known. Clearly, there was no objection to what it taught. The LDS also fails to make allowance for the pope's authority to send representatives who would be authorized to speak for him and sign for him on this particular mission.

3DOP

Edited March 1, 2012 by 3DOP