How "Christian" of him!!

[Ben Kenobi]

They weren't considered to be meddling in the Church's affairs, because the Church accepted the decisions of those councils

The same is true of Constantine. This is my point.

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.

Again, all he passed is an Edict of Toleration permitting open Christian worship. He convened the council because of civil unrest. He enforced the decision of the council reached by the bishops. Are you aware that only 3 of the entire mass of bishops rejected Nicaea at the council?

[Imran Siddiqui]

But Constantine started it with Christianity, you see? The Edict of Toleration is one thing. But beginning the practice of calling a council to establish orthodoxy of faith in Christianity, EVEN if it was solely to stave off civil unrest, had massive, massive consequences. Regardless of the agreement (and I believe it was 2, not 3), it was still the Emperor that had to convene the council. That's huge potential power.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, and it makes sense that he would call one after passing the Edict of Toleration. Why would a Pagan emperor who's trying to crush Christianity permit an ecumenical council to occur? Besides, it was a way for Constantine to show his support for Christianity by calling a council, which is how Christians have always settled their disputes. The Christians were only to happy to have his assistance after 2 centuries of persecution.

I believe that even if it didn't happen that year, whether Constantine called it or not, it was inevitable that there would be a Council of some sort.

I don't believe his intervention was decisive, it was helpful but the Council represented an underlying need within the Church to resolve this conflict.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it was inevitable that there would be a Council of some sort.

But convened by the Church elders, not by an Emperor.

[Arrian]

What the **** are you two arguing about? Summary?

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Whether Emperor Constantine I's convening of the Council of Nicaea in 325 (ish) was good or bad or irrelevant for the independance and/or future of the Christian church.

[Nikolai]

It's called Catholicism.

Correct. And a prize to you.

Man, it's a good thing that Luther stripped away all those monasteries so that the Danes got them.

And yet again you defer to secterism. Where did I say that the Lutheran churches were any better?

So Arianism was a small reform movement? It contradicts the fact that Christ has both a human and divine nature.

Where did I mention Aranism? Do you think it's remotely possible that some reform movements are for the good and some aren't?

Seriously Ben, you need to pick your fights. You and me and more often than not in agreement in all but details, and it makes no sense for you to attack everything I say like it was said to litter Catholisism. I'm not even close. A house divided can not stand, and here's no reason to have any divisions at all.

[Nikolai]

Whether Emperor Constantine I's convening of the Council of Nicaea in 325 (ish) was good or bad or irrelevant for the independance and/or future of the Christian church.

Many of the results were good. Some borders needed to be placed for what was the core of the Christian beleif. The caecaropapism on the other hand, was not so good. But probably unavoidable at that point.

[Ben Kenobi]

Seriously Ben, you need to pick your fights.

I suggest you follow your own advice.

You and me and more often than not in agreement in all but details, and it makes no sense for you to attack everything I say like it was said to litter Catholisism.

It made no sense for you to jump in and make the comment that Constantine was evil, throw rocks at him. I personally expected better.

These 'individual reform movements' you refer to can you give me some names, peoples, dates, places and history? The folks who kept the light when the Catholic church lead all others into utter darkness?

[Nikolai]

Easy. Reform movements within the Catholic Church. Those are the most important. Without institutions like the monestary reform movements that popped up from time to time, when the established Church had grown lazy, the Church would not have survived. Those movements did not split, but they renewed. The reforms of Gregor at the hight of the middle age could be seen as such a movement too. Later came movements that did split, like the Protestant movement. Those again soon faced the same problems as the Catholics, and in their turn had similar reform movements.

BTW, I never said Constantine was evil, but what he set in motion did not give good fruits. He was but a tool though, I believe it would have happened anyway.

[Ben Kenobi]

what he set in motion did not give good fruits.

Good fruits? I beg to differ. We should be thankful just for the Edict of Toleration. He was one of the good emperors, in a time when good ones were unusual.

Reform movements within the Catholic Church.

I'm asking because a, these movements tended to be ran by Popes (see Gregory the Great, or Leo).

Without institutions like the monestary reform movements that popped up from time to time, when the established Church had grown lazy, the Church would not have survived.

Such as when Benedict set up his rule? Or when Augustine did his? I'm with you here on this, I'm also curious if you can name them and the people involved.

Later came movements that did split, like the Protestant movement. Those again soon faced the same problems as the Catholics, and in their turn had similar reform movements.

I think the most far-ranging and significant was St. Francis in the Counter-Reformation. He proved that it was unnecessary to split in order to 'reform'. I found his arguments rather provocative in that he accepted Luther's challenges and in return asked him if it was about himself or what was best for the congregation.

In the light of what St. Francis accomplished I find it difficult to side with Luther and Calvin who argued that the Catholic system was irredeemably corrupt and could not be fixed from within.

[Imran Siddiqui]

To be fair, re: reform movements, the success of some of the movements led to elevation of some of the reformers to Pope. For example, the Cluny reformers at the turn of the first millenium led to the elevation of Pope Alexander II and Hildebrand himself as Pope Gregory VII.

Also, Lutherans (and some other Protestants) would point out that Martin Luther didn't leave the church, but was tossed out - excommunicated by Leo X .

[Kidlicious]

You ain't getting it. Christ explicitly says render unto Caesar, meaning that Christians have an obligation to respect the lawful authority and to pay taxes. They shouldn't need to be collected against their will.

You pwned yourself in Post #340. Even if it God let the Romans occupy Israel and tax them, that doesn't absolve the Roman's of their sin. If you steal my car God let it happen, but you still sin bud.

Look, it's this simple, and I'm not saying that you don't walk in the way of Christ, but remember that when you don't walk in the way of Christ you sin. Satan tempted Jesus and offered to make him King of the biggest empire ever to exist on earth. Jesus chose his own way.

[Kidlicious]

Seriously Ben, you need to pick your fights. You and me and more often than not in agreement in all but details, and it makes no sense for you to attack everything I say like it was said to litter Catholisism. I'm not even close. A house divided can not stand, and here's no reason to have any divisions at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, Lutherans (and some other Protestants) would point out that Martin Luther didn't leave the church, but was tossed out - excommunicated by Leo X

3 and a half years after the Theses were nailed on Wittenburg. He wasn't excommunicated until 1521, and excommunication wasn't even under discussion until 6 months prior to the formal excommunication.