How "Christian" of him!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Did you not read Eusebius? He's very clear that there are patriarchs, of whom 3 of the 4 at the time were there. The only one who was not was Pope Sylvester, and he sent others to represent him. The head of the entire session was the Patriarch of Alexandria, not Constantine who convoked the session. Constantine wanted the divisions settled because it was causing serious unrest in the Empire.

Please. What precedent do you think the Roman and Holy Roman Emperors (Charlemagne considered himself a successor of Constantine) used to exert control over the faith until the Investiture Crisis?

After all, he was the one who summoned the council in the first place, and then enforced it dictates afterwards. Making it so that the Emperor was the one who was responsible for making sure that ecumenical differences were resolved.

[Ben Kenobi]

What precedent do you think the Roman and Holy Roman Emperors used to exert control over the faith until the Investiture Crisis?

That's 700 years later.

Are you forgetting that Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope? If the HRE has authority over the pope, why would the pope crown Charlemagne?

Yes, the investiture Controversy was a problem with the Salians, but that is a problem of the high middle ages, not of ancient times.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, it took 700 years. And do you really have that little knowledge of the Investiture Crisis? It's also refered to as the "Papal Revolution" for a reason. It was the Pope finally wresting power of the faith back from the Emperors.

The monarchs of Britain have been crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury for ages. Are you suggesting this means the Archbishop had the power and the Kings of England were subservient?

[MrFun]

He has very little knowledge about a lot of things.

[Ben Kenobi]

After all, he was the one who summoned the council in the first place, and then enforced it dictates afterwards. Making it so that the Emperor was the one who was responsible for making sure that ecumenical differences were resolved.

I'll agree that he enforced the decision and summoned the council. The decision was through the consensus of the bishops, not Constantine.

The interesting thing is that after Constantine, his decisions on this matter were wildly popular, which is why they persisted through hostile emperors and long after the fall of Rome. This is why we talk about the council today.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Can you not see the difference in appearance between a group of high church elders convening their own conference and the Emperor of the Roman Empire convening a conference so that high church elders can come up with one viewpoint so that the Emperor can enforce that order?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, it took 700 years.

The history is far more complicated.

You are trying to draw a straight line from Constantine to Charlemagne. The reason Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope is because of Papal authority at the time extended throughout the west and he wanted that connection!

No pope, no connection with Rome and no connection to the old Empire which the Carolingians desperately wanted. The Salians only gained authority over Rome after the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire such that the Germans gained northern Italy and Rome.

You even leave out Gregory the Great!

What about the influence of the emperor Justinian? So much cool stuff. Why don't you stop and take a walk through the Garden path? 350 to 450 AD is nothing like 450 to 600, which is nothing like 600 to 850, which is nothing like 850 to the investiture crisis.

And do you really have that little knowledge of the Investiture Crisis? It's also refered to as the "Papal Revolution" for a reason. It was the Pope finally wresting power of the faith back from the Emperors.

I'm not arguing it was insignificant. I'm arguing it cured a problem brought about by the Salian Emperors when the civil authority increased. Prior to that it wasn't an issue.

The monarchs of Britain have been crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury for ages. Are you suggesting this means the Archbishop had the power and the Kings of England were subservient?

Well that was the point of Henry VIII in appointing the Archbishop and declaring himself to be Pope.

That the pope used to appoint the Archbishop was a significant feature of the Angevin empire.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can you not see the difference in appearance between a group of high church elders convening their own conference and the Emperor of the Roman Empire convening a conference so that high church elders can come up with one viewpoint so that the Emperor can enforce that order?

Can you not see that the HRE is neither Holy, nor Roman at all? It was a creation of Carolus Magnus. That the Salians drew upon the example of Constantine does not mean there was an unbroken chain between the two or that the Popes laboured under the emperors in the vast plain of the early middle ages. They asserted the relationship because they literally believed they were the new Rome. That doesn't mean it was a factual relationship between the two.

It makes sense to me why he would call the council, the ecclesial unrest lead to civil unrest between the two parties.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, Charlemagne did enjoy the PR that came with having the Pope bless him. However, that does not mean the Pope was more powerful than Charlemagne. Far from that. Charlemagne constantly had to bail the Pope out (and not just out of the kindness of his heart, he gained a lot of property from doing so). He also was very concious of trying to link himself back to Constantine, as the precedent Constantine set was very desirable (obviously).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Can you not see that the HRE is neither Holy, nor Roman at all? It was a creation of Carolus Magnus. That the Salians drew upon the example of Constantine does not mean there was an unbroken chain between the two or that the Popes laboured under the emperors in the vast plain of the early middle ages. They asserted the relationship because they literally believed they were the new Rome. That doesn't mean it was a factual relationship between the two.

It makes sense to me why he would call the council, the ecclesial unrest lead to civil unrest between the two parties.

Where does this strawman of an unbroken line come from? Precedence doesn't have to be unbroken (as any lawyer can tell you). Of course it makes sense as to why Constantine would call the council... aside from potential civil unrest, he's the one who gets to be seen as exerting influence. Constantine was a smart cookie, he knew the value of PR as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, Charlemagne did enjoy the PR that came with having the Pope bless him. However, that does not mean the Pope was more powerful than Charlemagne. Far from that. Charlemagne constantly had to bail the Pope out (and not just out of the kindness of his heart, he gained a lot of property from doing so). He also was very concious of trying to link himself back to Constantine, as the precedent Constantine set was very desirable (obviously).

Popes such as Gregory the Great were very strong and civil authority extremely weak in the early part of the middle ages. To me that Charlemagne sought to be crowned indicates a power shift to Charlemagne and an acknowledging of the authority of the Papacy and how it was an unbroken link back to Rome and Constantine.

Like anything, Papal power was not a constant. The period from 350 to about 800 is extremely chaotic in Italy. The one constant through all of this was the Bishop of Rome.

Are you aware that the papacy from 850 to about 1050 was considered to be abnormally weak?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, it took 700 years

You seem to imply that the popes laboured under the emperors for 700 years, but that is not so. It is significant that the Carolingians sought out the Popes and that the Popes asserted that they had the right to crown emperors.

This was Gregory's argument in the Investiture conflict, and we've not even gotten into the mess with Justinian and the Papal grant. There wasn't just one emperor of Rome, Imran.

Constantine was a smart cookie, he knew the value of PR as well.

Which is why he gets remembered. I'm just arguing that lets look at some of the other Emperors to get a better idea of Constantine and his influence. There were big changes even from Nicaea to Chalcedon, and that's only 125 years or so. Yes, Constantine was important, but so were the other councils in the east and so were the Emperors who called them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Charlemagne wasn't asserting the supremacy of the Papacy when he sought to be crowned. We are jaded by Napoleon taking the crown from the Pope and crowning himself, but it was done for somewhat symbolic and PR purposes. After all, the Queen of England is required to accept the Prime Minister these days, but it isn't to assert that the Queen has any governing power (if she tried to reverse the will of the people, there would be a full scale revolt).

And yes, other councils were important, but they took their idea to convene them from Constantine. In fact his son tried to do so to get Nicaea reversed (somewhat) and was referred to as attempting to impose his will on the Church. Without Constantine's example, Emperors wouldn't really have the precedent to convene councils to make final theological decisions.

[Ben Kenobi]

Charlemagne wasn't asserting the supremacy of the Papacy when he sought to be crowned.

Of course he wasn't, but the pope was, and did assert that this was so.

We are jaded by Napoleon taking the crown from the Pope and crowning himself, but it was done for somewhat symbolic and PR purposes. After all, the Queen of England is required to accept the Prime Minister these days, but it isn't to assert that the Queen has any governing power (if she tried to reverse the will of the people, there would be a full scale revolt).

Perhaps, but this may well change. We shall see.

And yes, other councils were important, but they took their idea to convene them from Constantine.

Theodosius and Theodosius II convened both of them, and yet they are not considered to be 'meddling' in Church affairs. Both Chalcedon and Constantinople dealt with pressing ecclesial issues, Constantinople with elevating the Bishop of Constantinople, and Chalcedon with dealing with monophysitism. Theodosius, imo, was far more influential than Constantine in establishing Nicaean Catholicism throughout the Roman Empire. Constantine vacillated wrt to Arianism, leading to the intervening three emperors pushing back.

In fact his son tried to do so to get Nicaea reversed (somewhat) and was referred to as attempting to impose his will on the Church. Without Constantine's example, Emperors wouldn't really have the precedent to convene councils to make final theological decisions.

Emperors always had that precedent, Imran. Where did the persecutions come from? The precedent is not Constantine, but Caesar Augustus who arrogated the power of the Censor. That Constantine established the edict of toleration, is an indication of the growth of Christianity through the empire at that time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I see you list all of those councils and all of those councils convened by Emperors. They weren't considered to be meddling in the Church's affairs, because the Church accepted the decisions of those councils (unlike Constantius II). And Caesars had the power to enforce religious orthodoxy over the Roman cult, but Constantine expanded it to include the power to enforce orthodoxy over Christianity.