Constantine was so ignorant of Christianity that he was clueless as to the importance of the issue at hand and was arguing for the Arian position in trying to get the other factions to accept language that would allow for the Arian view to be accepted along with the opposite view. IE, it would simultaneously allow for teaching that Christ and God were both of different nature and of the same nature. Sit and ponder this for a moment, then continue.
Constantine's own direction on the matter was simply to attempt to unify the empire by stopping the wrangling between warring sects of the dominant religion against the backdrop of an empire struggling to survive under attack from it's enemies. The Old religions lost confidence of the people when the empire was attacked and suffered losses - which in turn fed the growth of 'Christian sects'. One can see the problem caused by religious infighting in a crumbling empire by turning on the news right now regarding post war Iraq. The different groups have to come together and learn to deal with one another or the country can't move on. This is the identical same situation Constantine was in. The factual record fails to mention a sect called 'Catholic'. A glaring abstention that had not escaped me before; but, it becomes all the more relevant when we realize that again, constantine is pulling a large group of different sects together to try and get them to cooperate and get along for the sake of the empire. And this is later punctuated by Theodosius who once and for all states there will be ONE sect called Catholic and all others thereafter will be heretics to be put down.. The price of political unity to drive out religious unrest was the creation of a common religion to the detriment of anyone who would disagree.
So, it is your (as usual) conflicting contention that Constantine simultaneously was the absolute ruler of this gathering, had Arian views, and yet they failed to prevail.
Pretty weak emperor you've got there.
This veyr fact shows that there was some other authority in the Church that was able to determine what was orthodox.
After reading the laws that were written by Constantine to deal with this stuff and putting it into context against what was supposed to already exist according to the popular myths. One wonders why it would be necessary for Constantine to impose laws on a body that already had such laws in place of their own.
Duh. It's about enforcement. Constantine, for good or bad, established the authority of the orthodox Catholic church to enforce orthodoxy.
That you confuse this with the establishment of the Church itself is akin to thinking that on July 4th, 1776 Thomas Jefferson established the idea of men being created equal.
The rest of your screeds are just as fanatical, and just as fantastically ill-reasoned.
SD
You've got it all wrong. Obviously Constantine established the Catholic church.... just like Nebuchadnezzar established the Judaism.
It is not a conflict, It is reporting the facts. Constantine argued for language that allowed for the Arian View to be included. His intent was to force the Bishops to resolve the problem they had aforetime FAILED to address and settle amongst themselves. He could have imposed His position upon them; but, he did not. You are begging the question. They had no more or less authority than they would otherwise have had if they were 1st century apostles. And they excercised no more or less. This is not a show of a centralized authority or progression from what had been. It is rather an example that showed the Bishops of the various sects and regions were rendered impotent by their infighting over the matters.
This veyr fact shows that there was some other authority in the Church that was able to determine what was orthodox.
No more or less than in the 1st century. This lacks evidence of any progression. Calling it orthodoxy buys you nothing.
Duh. It's about enforcement. Constantine, for good or bad, established the authority of the orthodox Catholic church to enforce orthodoxy.
No, if it were about enforcement, then all he'd have had to do was pen and edict and be done with it. He'd done so with the Donatists so it's not as though it were not in his power to so do. Constantine did not establish the authority of bishops to do anything of the like. On the contrary, he forced them to do their jobs because they were not doing them as they were directed by their own scriptures. Something that rings true even to this day.
That you confuse this with the establishment of the Church itself is akin to thinking that on July 4th, 1776 Thomas Jefferson established the idea of men being created equal.
Christianity had long existed; but, to this point in time, there was no sect called "Catholic" and no Hierarchical scheme which even remotely allows for the philisophical philandering that Catholicism has allowed itself. What Constantine started was a progression toward hierarchical organization leading away from the biblical model and ultimately establishing the groundwork for the fulfillment of prophecy regarding the empire - a system that would replace Christ as the head of the Church on earth with a man - among other things. Theodosius provided the name and the civil muscle to destroy anyone that made trouble. Thus the fall of Dontus who was in the right in preaching against paying homage to the Roman gods. Can't have people running around willy nilly preaching God's message and screwing things up now can we.
The rest of your screeds are just as fanatical, and just as fantastically ill-reasoned.
Ah, yes. The traditional bat it away because you're in an inferior position having to defend the indefensible. Can't attack the facts so you have to resort to something else. Not unexpected. But thanks for playing anyway.