No need to worry about not being on the thread; we all (hopefully) have lives outside of TOL. If not, then skynet has become self-aware.
Before I provide my cent's worth, I would just like to give a brief overview of the approach that I take to history, especially Church History. I try to be as logical as possible, while distancing myself from personal bias. Therefore, I view and utilize secular sources first, as means of establishing a foundational view of history. Then, I utilize the plethora of Christian sources (the older the better) in order to create an organic framework with which to build upon. Whichever sources, oldest is preferred, align most with the secular materials, seems to be the most reliable. Any outliers can obviously be cast aside, or any source that claims it is correct, when it provides a distinctly different set of events, and is written at a later date (this is very common for many fringe groups).
Having said that, I would immediately question any source material from which I am deriving my view of the historical record, and would encourage you to do the same.
Yes, my information regarding Pope Gregory was obviously wrong due to the timeline I am currently trying to construct. There is a secondary and equally confusing issue. I am unable to determine whether the initial connection with Christianity was commenced under Constantine the elder or younger? The Elder Constantine, three Western Emperors before the younger, of Nicaene Creed fame seems to be the most likely candidate. This, of course brings yet another unknown Pope into the picture and may well be the source of the events previously attributed to Pope Gregory?
....Another is the combination of apparently most unusual events surrounding the Council of Churches at Nicea which was called, not by the Pope but by Constantine the younger, Pagan, to address was is referred to as a critical event in the Christian Churches and their teachings. The report I found said that it was attended by about 300~3500 Bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and around 10x that many assistant priests and clergy. This is the equivalent in modern terms to Vladimir Putin Calling all the Christian Leaders in the world to Moscow to 'fix a few critical and unresolved problems' and having everyone turn up! It is worth noting that this Constantine, although originally Emperor of the Wester Roman Empire, had just been made Caesar of the entire Roman Empire, at the time.
Historically, the Emperor who ended the state persecution of Christians was Constantine the Elder. Note, Constantine was not a pope. Nor was any emperor of Rome. Granted, when Rome became the Holy Roman Empire, the pope ruled, but there was still an emperor; these were two separate political offices.
To add even more historical context, when Constantine "legalized" Christianity, that was in 324 AD. It was a year later that the Council of Nicaea convened. And this makes sense; a persecuted group could not have such a meeting before, especially with such attendance, and not be the target of massacre. Constantine did not call for there to be a council, but he allowed it. This is where many false views arise. Constantine allowed the Christians to meet, without fear of state persecution.
Now, Constantine did not convert to Christianity until on his death bed in 337 AD. One could easily question if it was a legitimate conversion, but we all surely hope it was. When Constantine allowed the Council to meet, the Church was on its 33rd Pope, Pope Sylvester I. From this time (being 325 AD) until 386, there were 6 more emperors to rule Rome. Constantine II (who you call the younger), Constans I, Constantius II, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian I, Theodosius I, and finally Augustine. It was Augustine who converted in 386 to Christianity, and declared it the official religion of the empire. The Pope was Siricius (the 38th Pope).
From this, one can see that Constantine I is given way too much credit, as far as being influential on Church history. Sure, he ended state persecution and
allowed Christians to hold a Council, but that was pretty much the extent of it. We can also see that emperors were not popes or church leaders in any capacity.
As for Pope Gregory, his time as Pope was not until 590 AD. Also, there is no historical record of exile or excommunication, as I stated before. I would question your source material from which these ideas are arising.
Although I try to be as balanced as possible from an historical view, I must admit that the further I dig into this history the more alarms sound. Firstly I consider that Canon Law and its like are almost always used to silence debate even in the eventual light of new information. Similar to Mohammed declaring himself as "the last prophet" does the same thing only approached from an opposite perspective.
I would say that the comparison of Canon Law and Sharia Law is only topically similar. They are in fact, quite different on every level and in aspect. Canon Law, which here I think you are specifically referring to things that are Dogmatic or Moral law/teaching, are things that cannot change. Such as Christ being Mary's son; there will never be any information that can alter this. And when we look at new introductions into Canon Law, we can see that they occur when there is a debate going on. Historically, if something is not being debated or questioned, and is generally accepted by the populous, then there is no need for official declaration. This is logical. It is only when questionings of said doctrines increase and spread that a "new law" in introduced. However, we can see historically that these "laws" are not new teachings.
So, yes, while your phrase "used to silence debate" is true, it is more of a firm declaration of teachings by the official Church. This is why we see so many doctrines being declared in 325 at Nicaea; the Church wanted to establish a foundation of set beliefs and doctrines that would be unquestionable when one wondered what the Church believed.
I keep reading that the problem to be addressed was Heretical teachings amongst many of the churches but, alarm bells ring as the teachings weren't heretical until after they Nicene Creed was entered into the Canon at that meeting and that there were only two(2) dissenting votes, being in favour of Arianism, cast. Hardly an alarming number. So, a meeting called by the most powerful, pagan, politician, warrior, in the known world, to fix a problem with a religion, with which he has only a political connection, somehow has a massive attendance and only 2, dare I say surviving naysayers, are in attendance and the results entered into Canon silencing all and sundry forever.. oh dear me the hair is standing up on the back of my neck. I haven't touched on how a man, not baptised until he is on his deathbed, is canonised a Saint by the Orthodox Churches.
First, we need to understand the definition of heresy. Heresy, and by extrapolation, anything heretical, is anything that goes against the teachings and doctrines of the Church. So, without a firm set of doctrines in place, nothing could really be considered heretical. This is why after 325, we see various doctrines, even those which were around before 325, being declared heretical.
Second, the reason Emperor Constantine I is an Orthodox saint is due to his ending of state persecution of Christians. This, combined with his, what I would argue superstitious, belief that a crucifix in the forefront of his army brought victory. I would compare this notion of his to that of Hitler wanting to use the Ark, in Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark. For these two reasons, the Orthodox canonized Constantine. Now, the Roman Catholic Church does not hold Constantine as a saint. While I understand the reasons of the Orthodox, I do question the act.
Sources: History of the West, 2008
Western Civilizations, 2008
Documents from Council of Nicaea, compiled 1988
