That does not follow. Your statement was inaccurate. I said your spelling was as accurate as your statement, therefore I am saying that your spelling is inaccurate.
I'm not Catholic.
Where you can happily post falsehood without fear of reprisals.
That was your point but it’s good that you see the foolishness if your statement.
You mean you personally disagree.
Inplying thereby the statement is therefore inaccurate.
But you believe their teaching.
Truth can be posted without fear either. Falsehood is generally accepted.
No, history disagrees with you. All Constantine did was to first end the persecution of the Church and make Christianity a legal religion in the empire, then later provide the ways and means for bishops from all over to gather for a general council to deal with theological issues which were causing strife across the empire, notably the Arian heresy and also the different dates on which Churches were celebrating the death and resurrection of Christ. Constantine did not make any decisions in that council but did put his considerable weight behind the decisions made by the bishops at the council.
If I believed their teaching, I would be Catholic, and I would not be arguing against certain Catholic claims as I have been in this thread.
This is an incorrect statement. While it's a matter of interpretation, there are many ways to point to Peter as the first head of the Catholic Church (regardless of what you call him). When Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, the Church had already spread to Rome, much of Greece and Macedonia, and Asia Minor. Why is Rome the center of the Catholic Church? Because it was the center of the world in 33 AD and for centuries following. If you're interested in real Catholic Church history, I can point you to a very detailed audio program, and it's free. There are 46 hours of Church History of the Early Church, as well as about 180 hours of Medieval and Modern history. It's a lot to listen to, but it's good for binging. Better than Netflix, too, and more accurate.
That is setting a very high standard indeed, Prodromos. I have had the odd Protestant apologist who choose to ignore the early Church fathers because we could not produce the very parchment or papyrus on which they wrote. Of course, these types would say it is a forgery if we did produce such a thing. So all of what we have today has been copied, quoted, translated several times and we can only try our best academically to recover the truth that they meant to convey.
It is the standard Aspect used earlier to dismiss another work as potentially unreliable. Your beef is with him, not with me.
No, the statement you made lacks historical veracity. Constantine was not Pope, Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, and was only baptised a short time before his death. Constantine is a very complex character, and whilst indeed the Church was relieved of persecution in his time, and indeed prospered and grew in his time. At Nicaea it is clear he sought to let the Church determine the matter, and in all likelihood he would have preferred another outcome, yet he lived by the Churches decision. The Inquisition, is a thousand years away from Constantine, and indeed in that intervening period the Great Schism had come to pass and that changed the character of what you might see as the Catholic Church. The truth is that what your purport to be true is clearly untrue in this matter, spelling aside.
I am sorry to hear about your mother.
Your opinion is shaped by your experience which makes you overly sensitive.
