who was at the council 325?

[BreadOfLife]

He sounds a lot like Bread of Life,have you noticed?

Because we're both Catholic - or because we both do our homework?

 

[Truth7t7]

If I remember correctly, Constantine greeted the Bishops and left them to their business. At the end, he thanked them, nothing more.

Oh Sure

Emperor Constantine was directly involved in the 325AD council and participated in their discussion, he was the one who invited the bishops and paid for the event

 

[Truth7t7]

what is NPR?

News (National Public Radio) in America, that reported the "Fact" that Roman Catholic pope Francis has allowed Catholics to "Bless" homosexual unions

 

[Taken]

…..anti-Catholic
…..anti-Catholic
…..anti-Catholic
…..hostile anti-Catholic revisionists,
…..You are so neck deep in anti-Catholic lies you can't think straight.
…..That garbage rots the mind.

Would you agree adopting your perspective of anti that anti-Protestant would be suitable to apply to you?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Oh Sure

Emperor Constantine was directly involved in the 325AD council and participated in their discussion, he was the one who invited the bishops and paid for the event

The discussions at the Council were recorded; Constantine's name was never mentioned once in any of the canons.
Post #3 asks:

OK, how did each of those who attended suffer for Christ? which is what I was trying to get at.

My answer was:

After the Edict of Milan in 313, it was illegal to persecute any religion. Before that, persecution varied in intensity and in various places. So we have to find the biographies of each bishop on your list. That's a lot of work for us amateur apologists.

No one answered the question because it takes a lot of honest research.
A better question would be, "what did the Church believe before 325 A.D.?"
Athanasius, whom you said was a godly man, proved the Church was always trinitarian before the heresiarch Arius showed up.

Things were hard for the Church in A.D. 325. A certain Arius, a wildly popular presbyter in Egypt, was publicly denying the full divinity of Christ. In his view, Jesus was godlike, but not God Almighty (Jehovah's Witnesses are the modern day purveyors of this position). A charismatic figure, Arius gathered about himself a school of followers, and his influence spread. The local Catholic bishops condemned him, yet his activities continued. Finally, fearing that perhaps a split in Christendom would lead to disruption in the empire, the Emperor Constantine called a general council of bishops. There is some question as to whether the emperor acted on his own, or in concert with Pope Sylvester. While the accounts contemporary to the event mention only Constantine, a statement made in the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680) indicates Nicea was called by both the emperor and the pope. It is interesting to note this statement was made during the general session, and was received as true without question or objection. Surely they would have known better, were it not true.

Most of the Nicene Council's 318 episcopal attendees were representatives of eastern churches, like Ephesus, Jerusalem and Antioch. Pope Sylvester, too ill to make the journey himself, sent two legates. According to the ancient historian Gelasius, the Roman Church was represented by Hosius, bishop of Cordova (Spain) and the leading proponent of the orthodox position regarding Christ's divinity. Not only was Hosius representing Rome, but it seems he also presided over the council after Constantine's introduction. St. Athanasius, an attendee and tireless defender of orthodoxy, wrote admiringly about Hosius, "What council can be mentioned in which he did not preside?" (Apologia de Fuga, 5).

So the Council proceeded, led by a bishop officially representing the Church of Rome. The debate was heated, but the outcome was clear: Christ is not some kind of minor deity, but He is one in Being with the Father — God, in the fullest sense of the term. An important question, then, arises: Just how did the Council arrive at this position?

The Reformed Baptist author of the Christian Research Journal article claims, "The council had no idea that they (sic), by their gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority." This statement, though brief, is littered with errors.

First, even if the proceedings of the Council were nothing more than a debate on Scripture, it is thunderingly clear that the participants believed they had the authority to give the definitive interpretation of the data. According to the position of the Protestant apologist, the Church had no final interpretive authority; if an individual Christian believed the conciliar arguments to be unbiblical, he could reject them. How different this is from the position of the Council itself. The very end of the original Nicene Creed reads: "And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made of things that were not, or that He is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that He is a creature, or subject to change or conversion — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them."

Again, recall that the real issue is whether or not the Council believed itself to be the final authority in interpreting the data regarding Christ's deity. Clearly, the Church that anathematizes (cuts off) those who disagree with its findings is a Church that believes itself to have the last word.

So was St. Athanasius a "true Protestant," as the Baptist apologist claims?

• The Athanasius who believed that a Christian could lose his salvation through mortal sin (cf. Discourses Against the Arians 3, 25)?
• The Athanasius who venerated Mary as "the Mother of God" (Greek: theotokos; cf. Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, 8)?
• The Athanasius who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity (cf. Discourses Against the Arians II, 70)?
• The Athanasius who believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Sermon to the Newly Baptized)?

If indeed Athanasius can be called a Protestant, (whom you said was a godly man) then the word "Protestant" has no meaning at all.

Baptists at Nicea by Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem. ::

 

[Truth7t7]

The discussions at the Council were recorded; Constantine's name was never mentioned once in any of the canons.
Post #3 asks:

My answer was:


No one answered the question because it takes a lot of honest research.
A better question would be, "what did the Church believe before 325 A.D.?"
Athanasius, whom you said was a godly man, proved the Church was always trinitarian before the heresiarch Arius showed up.

Things were hard for the Church in A.D. 325. A certain Arius, a wildly popular presbyter in Egypt, was publicly denying the full divinity of Christ. In his view, Jesus was godlike, but not God Almighty (Jehovah's Witnesses are the modern day purveyors of this position). A charismatic figure, Arius gathered about himself a school of followers, and his influence spread. The local Catholic bishops condemned him, yet his activities continued. Finally, fearing that perhaps a split in Christendom would lead to disruption in the empire, the Emperor Constantine called a general council of bishops. There is some question as to whether the emperor acted on his own, or in concert with Pope Sylvester. While the accounts contemporary to the event mention only Constantine, a statement made in the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680) indicates Nicea was called by both the emperor and the pope. It is interesting to note this statement was made during the general session, and was received as true without question or objection. Surely they would have known better, were it not true.

Most of the Nicene Council's 318 episcopal attendees were representatives of eastern churches, like Ephesus, Jerusalem and Antioch. Pope Sylvester, too ill to make the journey himself, sent two legates. According to the ancient historian Gelasius, the Roman Church was represented by Hosius, bishop of Cordova (Spain) and the leading proponent of the orthodox position regarding Christ's divinity. Not only was Hosius representing Rome, but it seems he also presided over the council after Constantine's introduction. St. Athanasius, an attendee and tireless defender of orthodoxy, wrote admiringly about Hosius, "What council can be mentioned in which he did not preside?" (Apologia de Fuga, 5).

So the Council proceeded, led by a bishop officially representing the Church of Rome. The debate was heated, but the outcome was clear: Christ is not some kind of minor deity, but He is one in Being with the Father — God, in the fullest sense of the term. An important question, then, arises: Just how did the Council arrive at this position?

The Reformed Baptist author of the Christian Research Journal article claims, "The council had no idea that they (sic), by their gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority." This statement, though brief, is littered with errors.

First, even if the proceedings of the Council were nothing more than a debate on Scripture, it is thunderingly clear that the participants believed they had the authority to give the definitive interpretation of the data. According to the position of the Protestant apologist, the Church had no final interpretive authority; if an individual Christian believed the conciliar arguments to be unbiblical, he could reject them. How different this is from the position of the Council itself. The very end of the original Nicene Creed reads: "And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made of things that were not, or that He is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that He is a creature, or subject to change or conversion — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them."

Again, recall that the real issue is whether or not the Council believed itself to be the final authority in interpreting the data regarding Christ's deity. Clearly, the Church that anathematizes (cuts off) those who disagree with its findings is a Church that believes itself to have the last word.

So was St. Athanasius a "true Protestant," as the Baptist apologist claims?

• The Athanasius who believed that a Christian could lose his salvation through mortal sin (cf. Discourses Against the Arians 3, 25)?
• The Athanasius who venerated Mary as "the Mother of God" (Greek: theotokos; cf. Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, 8)?
• The Athanasius who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity (cf. Discourses Against the Arians II, 70)?
• The Athanasius who believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Sermon to the Newly Baptized)?

If indeed Athanasius can be called a Protestant, (whom you said was a godly man) then the word "Protestant" has no meaning at all.

Baptists at Nicea by Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem. ::

Yes Constatine persecuted the Church, yes his hand picked "State Church" buddies requested that many Christians be removed from their positions and banished, the civil authority "Constatine" carried out the punishment, Athanasius of Alexandria was one of many who was removed and banished by Constantine who supported the Arians and persecuted the Trinitarians as you have been shown

You aren't going to change the fact that Constatine called the 325AD council, he participated in its discussions just as Britanica stated, he donated the land and built St. Peter's Bascilica that's presently Vatican City, that's built over the evil Circus of Nero and innocent Christian blood

Emperor Constatine is the foundational father of Roman Catholicism and Vatican City (The Truth) and you're not changing these facts

Yes Italy's fascist dictator "Benito Mussolini" in 1929 made Vatican City a nation of refuge for catholic criminals, with Boston's Cardinal "Bernard Francis Law" escaping prosecution in the US, fleeing to the Vatican Nation being protected by pope John Paul from extradition back to the US in 2002 to face 400 charges of sexual child abuse, this being just one prime example

Pope Francis and the Roman Catholic Church has approved blessing homosexual unions, Pope Francis isn't God's representative on this earth

"The Truth" Jesus Is The Lord!

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Yes Constatine persecuted the Church, yes his hand picked "State Church" buddies requested that many Christians be removed from their positions and banished, the civil authority "Constatine" carried out the punishment, Athanasius of Alexandria was one of many who was removed and banished by Constantine who supported the Arians and persecuted the Trinitarians as you have been shown

The Arians persecuted Athanasius. Constantine collaborated with Pope Sylvester, and I gave evidence for this that you ignore. For the second time, :

While the accounts contemporary to the event mention only Constantine, a statement made in the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680) indicates Nicea was called by both the emperor and the pope. It is interesting to note this statement was made during the general session, and was received as true without question or objection. Surely they would have known better, were it not true.​

You aren't going to change the fact that Constatine called the 325AD council, he participated in its discussions just as Britanica stated, he donated the land and built St. Peter's Bascilica that's presently Vatican City, that's built over the evil Circus of Nero and innocent Christian blood

Yet again for the 5th time, you give no names of "innocent Christian blood", just empty generalities. You don't explain why Constantine's name is not mentioned in any of the canons. I haven't changed the fact that Constantine called the 325AD council, you arrogantly insist he did it without the pope, which is impossible.
Did Constantine compose the Nicene Creed? No.
Did Constantine give final approval of the findings of the Council? No. The Pope did, after he received the findings from the 2 legates he sent, that you are forced to deny.

Emperor Constatine is the foundational father of Roman Catholicism and Vatican City (The Truth) and you're not changing these facts

It's a lie you refuse to substantiate with evidence.

Yes Italy's fascist dictator "Benito Mussolini" in 1929 made Vatican City a nation of refuge for catholic criminals, with Boston's Cardinal "Bernard Francis Law" escaping prosecution in the US, fleeing to the Vatican Nation being protected by pope John Paul from extradition back to the US in 2002 to face 400 charges of sexual child abuse, this being just one prime example

Mussolini wasn't at the Council of Nicae, neither was Cardinal Law, and this has NOTHING to do with the topic.

Pope Francis and the Roman Catholic Church has approved blessing homosexual unions, Pope Francis isn't God's representative on this earth

"The Truth" Jesus Is The Lord!

More lies. A "blessing" is not approval of same sex unions. You accept some secular misleading headline but don't cite anything from the Church.

Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (18 December 2023)

Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (18 December 2023)

www.vatican.va

explanation

Doctrinal declaration opens possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations - Vatican News

With the Declaration “Fiducia supplicans” issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Francis, it will be possible to ...

www.vaticannews.va

You have to run all over the map with derailing emotional zingers because you can't support your false histories.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

 

[Truth7t7]

The Arians persecuted Athanasius. Constantine collaborated with Pope Sylvester, and I gave evidence for this that you ignore. For the second time, :

While the accounts contemporary to the event mention only Constantine, a statement made in the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680) indicates Nicea was called by both the emperor and the pope. It is interesting to note this statement was made during the general session, and was received as true without question or objection. Surely they would have known better, were it not true.​

I have clearly stated your proclaimed pope in "Sylvester" is in the lineage of the first "Roman Pope Miltiades" who was established by Constatine in his "State Church" he was given the lateran palace to live in by Emperor Constatine, the same Emperor that donated the land and built the Roman Catholic Seat in St. Peter's Bascilica at Vatican City, a controlled "State Church" sorta like the Russian Orthodox church today

"The True Lineage of Christianity" would be found outside the control of Emperor Constatine and his "State Church" and they were persecuted by the Roman Catholic "State Church" at St. Peter's Bascilica that's present day Vatican City

A few honorable mentions of the true Church outside of Roman Catholic Control were the Donatists, Montanist, Novatianist, and the Melitians

Britannica:
St. Miltiades (born, Africa?—died January 10, 314, Rome [Italy]; feast day December 10) was the pope from 311 to 314.

Miltiades became the first pope after the edicts of toleration by the Roman emperors Galerius (ending the persecution of Christians), Maxentius (restoring church property to Miltiades), and Constantine the Great (favouring Christianity). He also received a palace (the Lateran) from Constantine that served as the papal residence. Concurrently, however, dissension within the church was caused by the Donatists, North African schismatics who contested the election of Caecilian as bishop of Carthage. At the Lateran Council of 313, Miltiades supported Caecilian and condemned the Donatists, who refused to submit. Constantine then ordered the Council of Arles (Arelate), the first representative meeting of Christian bishops in the Western Roman Empire, but Miltiades died before the council convened. Miltiades is considered a martyr because of earlier sufferings under the Roman emperor Maximian.

Britannica:
Donatist, a member of a Christian group in North Africa that broke with the Roman Catholics in 312 over the election of Caecilian as bishop of Carthage; the name derived from their leader, Donatus (d. c. 355). Historically, the Donatists belong to the tradition of early Christianity that produced the Montanist and Novatianist movements in Asia Minor and the Melitians in Egypt. They opposed state interference in church affairs, and, through the peasant warriors called Circumcellions, they had a program of social revolution combined with eschatological hopes. Martyrdom following a life of penance was the goal of the religiously minded Donatist. Despite almost continuous pressure from successive Roman, Vandal, and Byzantine rulers of North Africa, the Donatist church survived until the extinction of Christianity in North Africa in the early European Middle Ages.


The ultimate causes of the schism were both doctrinal and social. Throughout the 3rd century the prevailing tradition in the African church had regarded the church as a body of the elect. This view, which was espoused by Cyprian and developed in response to earlier controversy, had as its corollary the belief that the validity of sacerdotal acts depended on the presence of the Holy Spirit in the minister and that a minister who was not in a state of grace could not administer a valid sacrament. At the same time, riches and sin had tended to become identified; mammon and the Roman world were equally to be shunned.

 

[Truth7t7]

Mussolini wasn't at the Council of Nicae, neither was Cardinal Law, and this has NOTHING to do with the topic.

Mussolini in 1929 established Vatican City as a "Nation" and its a fact that Boston's Cardinal "Bernard Francis Law" escaped standing prosecution and trial by fleeing to Vatican City being protected by Pope John Paul from extradition to answer for his charges of 400 counts of child sexual abuse

You try to paint the Catholic Church as God's church on earth, with the many historical popes being God's spokesperson and leader, the provided information shows otherwise

To think pope John Paul protected Cardinal Law from extradition to the US to stand trial for 400 counts of child sexual abuse?

 

[Truth7t7]

More lies. A "blessing" is not approval of same sex unions. You accept some secular misleading headline but don't cite anything from the Church.

Your living in denial of the actions of Roman Catholic Pope Francis, he has openly before the world allowed same sex blessings, and yes to give God's blessing to same sex unions is contrary to God's word, and partaking in their evil deeds as scripture teaches below

Blessing/God Speed

2 John 1:9-11KJV
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

The Doctrine Of Christ Concerning Homosexuality And Same Sex Unions

Romans 1:26-32KJV
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[The Learner]

Oh Sure

Emperor Constantine was directly involved in the 325AD council and participated in their discussion, he was the one who invited the bishops and paid for the event

That is not in the history.

 

[The Learner]

News (National Public Radio) in America, that reported the "Fact" that Roman Catholic pope Francis has allowed Catholics to "Bless" homosexual unions

I think I remember that has already been refuted as nonsense, friend.

 

[The Learner]

Would you agree adopting your perspective of anti that anti-Protestant would be suitable to apply to you?

more likely just pro-Catholic on his part

 

[The Learner]

The discussions at the Council were recorded; Constantine's name was never mentioned once in any of the canons.
Post #3 asks:

My answer was:


No one answered the question because it takes a lot of honest research.
A better question would be, "what did the Church believe before 325 A.D.?"
Athanasius, whom you said was a godly man, proved the Church was always trinitarian before the heresiarch Arius showed up.

Things were hard for the Church in A.D. 325. A certain Arius, a wildly popular presbyter in Egypt, was publicly denying the full divinity of Christ. In his view, Jesus was godlike, but not God Almighty (Jehovah's Witnesses are the modern day purveyors of this position). A charismatic figure, Arius gathered about himself a school of followers, and his influence spread. The local Catholic bishops condemned him, yet his activities continued. Finally, fearing that perhaps a split in Christendom would lead to disruption in the empire, the Emperor Constantine called a general council of bishops. There is some question as to whether the emperor acted on his own, or in concert with Pope Sylvester. While the accounts contemporary to the event mention only Constantine, a statement made in the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680) indicates Nicea was called by both the emperor and the pope. It is interesting to note this statement was made during the general session, and was received as true without question or objection. Surely they would have known better, were it not true.

Most of the Nicene Council's 318 episcopal attendees were representatives of eastern churches, like Ephesus, Jerusalem and Antioch. Pope Sylvester, too ill to make the journey himself, sent two legates. According to the ancient historian Gelasius, the Roman Church was represented by Hosius, bishop of Cordova (Spain) and the leading proponent of the orthodox position regarding Christ's divinity. Not only was Hosius representing Rome, but it seems he also presided over the council after Constantine's introduction. St. Athanasius, an attendee and tireless defender of orthodoxy, wrote admiringly about Hosius, "What council can be mentioned in which he did not preside?" (Apologia de Fuga, 5).

So the Council proceeded, led by a bishop officially representing the Church of Rome. The debate was heated, but the outcome was clear: Christ is not some kind of minor deity, but He is one in Being with the Father — God, in the fullest sense of the term. An important question, then, arises: Just how did the Council arrive at this position?

The Reformed Baptist author of the Christian Research Journal article claims, "The council had no idea that they (sic), by their gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority." This statement, though brief, is littered with errors.

First, even if the proceedings of the Council were nothing more than a debate on Scripture, it is thunderingly clear that the participants believed they had the authority to give the definitive interpretation of the data. According to the position of the Protestant apologist, the Church had no final interpretive authority; if an individual Christian believed the conciliar arguments to be unbiblical, he could reject them. How different this is from the position of the Council itself. The very end of the original Nicene Creed reads: "And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made of things that were not, or that He is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that He is a creature, or subject to change or conversion — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them."

Again, recall that the real issue is whether or not the Council believed itself to be the final authority in interpreting the data regarding Christ's deity. Clearly, the Church that anathematizes (cuts off) those who disagree with its findings is a Church that believes itself to have the last word.

So was St. Athanasius a "true Protestant," as the Baptist apologist claims?

• The Athanasius who believed that a Christian could lose his salvation through mortal sin (cf. Discourses Against the Arians 3, 25)?
• The Athanasius who venerated Mary as "the Mother of God" (Greek: theotokos; cf. Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, 8)?
• The Athanasius who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity (cf. Discourses Against the Arians II, 70)?
• The Athanasius who believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Sermon to the Newly Baptized)?

If indeed Athanasius can be called a Protestant, (whom you said was a godly man) then the word "Protestant" has no meaning at all.

Baptists at Nicea by Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem. ::

I already posted the church fathers quotes that were before 325AD

 

[The Learner]

rth

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I already posted the church fathers quotes that were before 325AD

The CofN made no changes to the general consensus of the Early Church Fathers, but affirmed them. "The Roman State Catholic Church" is a myth implying the state told the Church what to teach. Furthermore, Pope Miltiades had been dead for 11 years before the Council. Truther should read his own sources more carefully.

​

 

[Truth7t7]

That is not in the history.

Of course it is

 

[RedFan]

That is not in the history.

These things are mentioned in R.P.C. Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988), and in Rowan Williams’ Arius: Heresy and Tradition (rev. ed. 2001)., distilled from available ancient sources.

Constantine's speech at the opening of the council is found in Schaff, History of the Christian Church (1884):

“It was my highest wish, my friends, that I might be permitted to
enjoy your assembly. I must thank God that, in addition to all other
blessings, he has shown me this highest one of all: to see you all gathered
here in harmony and with one mind. May no malicious enemy rob us of
this happiness, and after the tyranny of the enemy of Christ is conquered
by the help of the Redeemer, the wicked demon shall not persecute the
divine law with new blasphemies. Discord in the church I consider more
fearful and painful than any other war. As soon as I by the help of God
had overcome my enemies, I believed that nothing more was now
necessary than to give thanks to God in common joy with those whom I
had liberated. But when I heard of your division, I was convinced that
this matter should by no means be neglected, and in the desire to assist by
my service, I have summoned you without delay. I shall, however, feel
my desire fulfilled only when I see the minds of all united in that peaceful
harmony which you, as the anointed of God, must preach to others. Delay
not therefore, my friends, delay not, servants of God; put away all causes
of strife, and loose all knots of discord by the laws of peace. Thus shall
you accomplish the work most pleasing to God, and confer upon me,
your fellow servant, an exceeding great joy.”

 

[RedFan]

To think pope John Paul protected Cardinal Law from extradition to the US to stand trial for 400 counts of child sexual abuse?

Where are you getting this from? My understanding is that he was never indicted -- not because of anticipated difficulty in having him extradited from Rome, but because at the time it was not illegal to do what he did.