Replies

There are many people throughout history that have done things for Christians and Christianity. That Constantine is one of them no more makes him a Christian than it made Microsoft a division of IBM because they helped IBM become the leader in business pcs.

Had the Bishops been able to get together to solve their own problems, the Emperor would not need to involve himself.
Solving the Arian problem was not a feather in his hat - he didn't do it. Constantine forced the issue and forced the
leaders to discuss it. But religious preferentialism was not on his agenda. Unity was. He preferred the Arians but allowed the bishops to make the call on the issue though he lost in a bid to resolve it himself. It was Constantines language that was rejected - remember. Though he had the authority as Emperor to call the Bishops together, he didn't
force his decision upon them.

Unity, is the key here. Constantine was emperor; but, He wouldn't be an emperor for long if he couldn't get warring factions within the empire to stop fighting one another.
He was attempting to pull together a disintegrating empire and hold it together. He preferred the Arians which you duly note; but, he expelled Arius to maintain peace in the empire so he could focus on what was important to him - his rulership. Constantine was an exempliary politician. There is nothing to confirm he was a christian. Giving preference to the dominant religion of the empire is Roman to the core. Anyone who's studied Rome to any extent is fully aware of this. And to not be aware of it displays a lack of understanding of Roman Culture. So, again, saying that the emperor preferred a religion or clung to it because he operated in that sect's favor is a major knard.
Political oportunism is not religious zealotry.

As for whether it was some kind of Holy "Eccumenical" coucil or not is quite another thing. When the Emperor requires the presence of the leaders of a sect within the empire to come into the office to settle things, they aren't being settled because the leaders were moved by the spirit to get together and settle things. They're being settled because the emperor sees they're mucking up the works and need to get it resolved before he has to act.
He gave them lattitude and ultimately resigned himself to their decision because he was seeking unity. Until they reached a decision, they were going nowhere. It ultimately served neither side well. Constantine didn't get unity, he got a comfortable majority - not the same thing. And the leaders only came away sure that anyone who didn't believe as they did was heretical - which is to say the entire christian world if you believe the number of sects they ended up destroying as time went on. That's another story.

As far as my orthodoxy, I have a very good understanding that when three ingredients are required in something, they have to all be present before the oject can exist that is being created. Simple scientific method. A+B+C = D. A, B and C must be present to equal D if we follow the logic of the equation. You're giving us B and saying that suffices.
It's akin to saying if you have paper with writing on it and bind it, it's a book. But if you just have the paper, that too is a book. Doesn't take long to paint such an absurdity for what it is. However it doesn't fit well into the fable to hover about such unpleasantries as demonstrable
errors in the story. It really further exascerbates things to mention that Eusebius had no real objectivity and very little understanding of the difference between fact and fiction. If fiction served the story, then fiction becomes the history. And there isn't a Historian who's given Eusebius a proper look that doesn't say this - even if grudgingly so. I stand by the facts and tell us Constantine was not a Christian. He was an Emperor who used a religion to further his political ambitions. No different than any of the Ceasars and just as bloody.

The religious aspects of this can be a little difficult for non-christians to follow; but, the Apostles taught and practiced confession + baptism of the spirit. In practice, they included water baptism. Christ did not. Christ in practice taught the requirement of belief + confession and spirit baptism. The record says Constantine was baptised.
That is all it says. But it's said by someone with no real credibility on the subject. And with no support from anywhere else to confirm it. Essentially, it is the only basis upon which to say Constantine was Christian. When the credibility of that is shown, there no longer is a basis - tenuous as it is to begin with.

In short, You say you have a warehouse full of eggs, I investigate and show the warehouse to be empty, It matters not how you decorate your sentances describing the eggs - even assuring us they are ten feet tall and a feast for 2000. Unless they're there, it's all elementry. Trying to fill the warehouse a hundred years later through remanufactury of the evidence don't cut it. Which is why Isidore and Gracian are so insidious. But, I have to address that with another. Have fun.

No quarrel from me that Isidore and Gracian are insidious. They misappropriate the legacy of St. Constantine, making false histories to support the Roman Papacy.

I really do think you have a serious problem, though: the selection of which books really constitute Holy Scripture for the Church founded by Christ was settled by an Ecumenical Council called by a Roman Emperor--the Council of Chalcedon, which ratified the list given by the local Council of Carthage. (Unless you want to accept the Latin notion that the acceptance of the Council of Carthage and its acceptance by the Bishop of Rome sufficed.)

You can rail all you want, because in your vain judgement as an infallible Protestant Pope who thinks the Christian Faith is whatever you think Holy Scripture means, St. Constantine fails your test. The judgement of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is that St. Constantine is not only a Christian, but a saint worthy of the title Equal-to-the-Apostles.