When Constantine Coerced The Bishops

[cdowis]

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 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

I do not question that he sent a representative -- I understand that he may have been ill at the time, that he accepted the Nicene Creed. The elephant in the room is that the other bishops did not recognize the Bishop of Rome (his representative) as a presiding authority, that he had no special influence on the final document, rather he was merely a peer among peers. The legate should have the authority of Rome behind him in such a serious matter, and the bishops would have recognized that authority.

The representative should have been recognized, no just that he could sign a document, but also make authorative statements, rather than deferring to Constantine for such decisions.

It is clear that the pre-eminance of the Bishop of Rome is a later political development, and was not recognized by the church leaders until Constantine was off the scene. For example, when handling with the so-called eretics, where did the church leaders turn-- to the Roman Pope? Nope, they turned to Constantine.

The Pope was merely a peer among peers.

Now tell us how we Mormons are mistaken.

Edited March 1, 2012 by cdowis

[saemo]

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

only adding...Arius had already been condemned as a heretic and excommunicated in 321 at Alexandria by a synod of 100 Egyptian and Libyan bishops. He fled to Palestine, where Eusebius of Nicomedia took him in and supported his teachings. Eusebius was already in favor with Constantine. At Nicaea, Arius was banished to Illyricum. Eusebius petitioned the emperor to have his banishment and excommunication lifted. Athanasius would not agree to returning Arius to communion. A synod in 335AD then deposed Athanasius. Arius then presented his creed to Constantine, which was accepted by him as "orthodox". By imperial decree, Arius was to be returned to communion but he died before this happened (he was by this time, nearly 100 years old).

It should also be noted that at the time of the Council of Nicaea, Pope Sylvester was very old and could not travel. Papal legates are empowered by the Pope for matters of Catholic faith and for the settlement of ecclesiastical matters.

Edited March 1, 2012 by saemo

[3DOP]

Hi cdowis.

I have prepared the replies to your latest post. For readability, I have decided to make multiple posts. You can respond to none, or one, or more as you see fit.

cdowis

I do not question that he sent a representative -- I understand that he may have been ill at the time, that he accepted the Nicene Creed.

3DOP

It wouldn't have mattered if we was water skiing. Seriously. Popes usually seem to try to not be involved in conciliar proceedings. I think you might see the prudence of it if you will ponder the matter. He didn't have to send a legation either. Things went at the Council as he had hoped and probably known that they would. He was not an Arian and he doesn't always need to go throwing his weight around.

[3DOP]

cdowis

The elephant in the room is that the other bishops did not recognize the Bishop of Rome (his representative) as a presiding authority, that he had no special influence on the final document, rather he was merely a peer among peers. The legate should have the authority of Rome behind him in such a serious matter, and the bishops would have recognized that authority.

3DOP

Why do you think the pope needed to use special influence? The result was in accord with his beliefs. Ecumenical Councils are not an exercise primarily of papal infallibility, but of the collegial authority of the bishops. The popes rarely intervene in the proceedings. In all of the pages and pages of around a dozen documents, Pope Paul VI inserted a very short corrective paragraph at the last Council, and didn't attend any of the sessions even though he was in the peak of health and the meetings were footsteps away from his own residence, in the Vatican. Maybe you don't understand the authority that the bishops have in Council?

Edited March 3, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

cdowis

The representative should have been recognized, no just that he could sign a document, but also make authorative statements, rather than deferring to Constantine for such decisions.

3DOP

According to who? Pope is a word of affection, like papa. A good daddy doesn't issue commands and corrections to his children when they agree with him. Why should he? Just so they can know who is in charge?

Everyone acknowledges that the title pope was of later development. People didn't start calling the bishop of Rome this endearing title because he was was a domineering commander who was continuously reminding his children of his power over them. The first "popes" were so-called because they were perceived to be mild, and good, and like the best of loving fathers to his children in how he leads them to union with God, using his full authority rarely.

Edited March 4, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

cdowis

It is clear that the pre-eminance of the Bishop of Rome is a later political development, and was not recognized by the church leaders until Constantine was off the scene. For example, when handling with the so-called eretics, where did the church leaders turn-- to the Roman Pope? Nope, they turned to Constantine.

3DOP

I can almost agree with this at first.

I agree that the pre-eminence of the Roman bishop is of later theological development. It was 1870 before the doctrine of infallibility was even defined! Obviously, Catholics are at home with the idea that there are many revealed apostolic truths, the depths of which still remain to be fully understood. Some good and devout Christians believe that the Apostolic deposit of faith arrived in the first century and was fully comprehended best at that time because they were closest to the Apostles. Apparently that is what you believe. According to Catholic Tradition, this is a false understanding of the nature of apostolic revelation in relation to the Church. This is not the time to begin a treatise on the question of legitimate doctrinal development, but I must insist that if all doctrines were fully known and understood at the time of their writings, we would be looking for that Church which travels through history in a state of perfect theological stagnation. I can cite magesterial authorites that affirm the truth that the Catholic Church teaches that the true Church must make continual, legitimate theological progress.

Those who think the Apostles understood the full import of every word they ever wrote think that the Catholic Church is false if it can be proven that a later development wasn't fully understood until...the later development. It is a belief in a need for theological stagnation that leads many to reject the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is incompatible with theological stagnation. I am not committed to believing that St. Peter knew exactly what Jesus meant when He gave him the keys. But there are plenty of hints throughout the first centuries to show that the later developments are compatible with a Tradition which recognized a special authority conferred upon the Roman Church, and later to the Roman bishop. It is not difficult to find and I'll cite them later if asked.

The bishops turned to Constantine for patronage because he had a good will towards Christian unity, and because only he had the ability to accomodate such gathering with a laudable desire to help insure that those who claimed unity with the whole church would refrain from teaching a false doctrine. I have already demonstrated that in spite of dangers associated with a too close relationship between church and state, that Catholic teaching is in accord with the Scriptures in permitting Caesar to assist in building up the faith if he should be so inclined. So he supported the one doctrine over the other. He wasn't a theologian. The divisions were causing political chaos and it is understandable that he would want to offer his assistance to help the Church sort out the difficulty. The Church was understandably inclined to accept.

Just so you know, many Catholics love Constantine. I am learning to like him more and more just from these studies. But you have to remember that we reject the predominant LDS and modern view that would not permit this kind of cooperation between church and state. Was it a high priest who wrote most the Psalms? No wait...it was King David. Many Catholics think King Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes. Was it the priests who built the worship centers in ancient Jerusalem, the Temples, or was it persons of political authority, Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod? If kings can write Scripture and construct spiritual edifices, Constantine's role in the 4th Century seems a little tame in comparison. In any event, it is established that we can by no means dismiss any religious institution, be it Islam, Calvin's Geneva, Joseph Smith's desire for the political presidency(!), or the Church at Nicea merely because they might be incompatible with 18th Century novelties about separation of church and state.

Edited March 4, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

cdowis

The Pope was merely a peer among peers.

3DOP

I don't want to lessen the collegial authority of the bishops. I have to concede that to be a peer in that group is no small thing. When gathered in Council, if a pope should ever attend the sessions, perhaps he ought not necessarily appear so much as pope, but in equal union with his fellow bishops. But that is academic. If you think that there was no recognition among the bishops of the world that the Roman Church and the Roman bishop had pre-eminence, you are not looking in the right places. Already by the 4th Century there have been well-known controversies which have been settled by popes with claims and counterclaims regarding his authority. There is none of that for the bishop of Ephesus or Crete. Even apart from his special claim as Bishop of Rome, if nothing else, he was more than a peer because of his pre-eminence as the representative of one of four Apostolic sees. The churches in these cities had more prestige and deference was given to their traditions because of their direct founding by apostles. The others would if I recall correctly, be Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria (someone correct me I am wrong). Providentially, two of those cities no longer exist, and the other has for long been under the dominion of Islam, and would have lost any special links to tradition.

Edited March 3, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

cdowis

Now tell us how we Mormons are mistaken.

3DOP

I don't think you necessarily speak for "we Mormons", though I know you speak for many. I told earlier in the thread how missionaries came over once and I was astounded that they wanted to talk about this very thing. I think perhaps you speak for a sizable minority of Mormons who have some kind of imprudent investment in believing the worst about events long ago that have virtually nothing to do with whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet. Surely it can't be an important factor in LDS apostasy theories? Maybe it causes difficulties for Protestants or uninstructed Catholics. The missionary arguments had no effect on me, as you see, but maybe we are discussing an effective missionary tool in convincing non-LDS that there was an apostasy? Maybe the missionaries are still being given this tool to use on my unsuspecting neighbors. Shorn of an acquaintance with how popes have historically allowed ecumenical councils to be conducted, I see how your arguments could be disconcerting. That is why I am belaboring this thread. These ARE mistakes that you are making about someone else's beliefs and teachings.

"Now tell us how we Mormons are mistaken"? Sigh...I dunno. I am not saying that "you Mormons" are wrong about your faith. I am saying you are wrong about mine. Is that too much to consider as a possibility? I would not have speculated publicly except for your specific request to explain how "we Mormons are mistaken". I can only guess. I don't accuse anybody of malice, but there is a tenacity sometimes, even after I have explained how there might be other ways of interpreting Catholic events, that takes me by surprise. I wonder why it seems so important to some of you to vilify certain characters in history that I easily find to be benign at worst or even saintly. Is it really that necessary to the LDS view of the ancient world to understand the Council of Nicea in a sinister light? Isn't it enough to disagree with the result? What happens if you admit that Pope Sylvester's influence on Nicea was typical of other ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church? Would it be the beginning of the fall of a house of cards? Why would an LDS even care to debate about it?

Regards,

3DOP

Postscript: I have to leave for a couple of days this morning. I look forward to considering any replies on Tuesday evening. A Blessed Lord's Day to all, 3DOP.

Edited March 4, 2012 by 3DOP