If Constantine invented the Catholic Church why were there

>>2571986
There weren't.

>>2571986
There were bishops of Rome before him. The title of Pontifex maximus was claimed by the pope in an attempt to legitimatize their claim to being the most powerful of the Patriarchs

>>2571986
>Catholic
Emperor CONSTANTINE, founder of CONSTANTINOPLE, seat of the ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH

>>2572000
And it didn't work for 700 years; they just held councils and did their ungodly work through them. the Bishop of Rome, aka the pope, was nothing prior to 1000 AD.

>>2571986
There wasn't a pope until the 7th century

File: arch_of_constantine.jpg (245KB, 938x675px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 938x675px

>>2572025
>has the best looking arch
>the capital of the empire named after him
>was the founder the Catholic Church

It boggles my mind how influential this guy was.

>>2571986
Because St. Peter and each Bishop of Rome thereafter was the Pope of the Catholic Church ex officio.

>>2572394
If by ex officio you mean "in papist fantasyland where papists are the good guys, and Christians are the heretics", then yes.

>>2572408
No, I mean that even if not acknowledged as such at the time, anyone who holds the office of Roman Pontiff is in fact the Pope.

>>2571986
False history!

>>2572440
Yes, just like anyone we say was President of the United States really was President of the United States. Like Martin Luther King, Jr. President Martin Luther King, Jr.

You have a problem with that, racist?

>>2572477
This is not what I am saying, my dear racially sensitive friend. I mean that the office of Bishop of Rome is inherently gives the office-holder the office of Pope. Any valid Bishop of Rome is also the Pope.

MLK would be a valid example is some office he held--Reverend of an ecclesial community, leader of a civil rights organization, etc. had the ex officio property of making the holder President of the United States.

An example would be in our day to day posting on 4chan, wherein OP is always, ex officio, a faggot.

>>2572491
And we keep telling you that there was no office of the Bishop of Rome until post-Constantine.

You know, facts.

>>2572491
>wherein OP is always, ex officio, a faggot.

Solid argument.

>>2571986
The problem with this explanation, however, is that there is no evidence to sustain it. The best explanation of Matthew 16:18–19 is that the church will be built, not on an ecclesiastical position, but on Peter’s confession regarding Christ’s divinity. Correlative to this understanding is the fact that there is no biblical evidence to support the view that Peter spent a long time in the church in Rome as its leader. The Book of Acts is silent about this; it is not to be found in Peter’s own letters; and Paul makes no mention of it, which is strange if, indeed, Peter was in Rome early on since at the end of Paul’s letter to the Romans, he greets many people by name. And the argument that Peter’s authority was universally recognized among the early churches is contradicted by the facts.

>>2571986
He didn't.

Also, the Pope was just the bishop of Rome at the time and for the following 5 centuries.

>>2571986
Constantine created the idea f universal orthodoxy as not only something that was desirable, but as something that could be achieved by putting the power of the state behind it.

Prior to that, disagreement on points of doctrine, and hurling anathemas at each other, was the common practice and heretical thought flourished. ("Heretical" here used in the technical sense in Theology, not as a value judgment.)

File: FB_IMG_14796072183732884.jpg (332KB, 720x717px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 720x717px

The fuck? Who told you Constantine founded the catholic church? Catholic was an anocronism and it was called nicene creed or nicenism.
Also Constantine was baptized by an arian.

>>2571986
Consantine did not invent the catholic church. That is lie perpetuated by the media.