From the earliest writings of the Church Fathers, I've seen varied perceptions on ultimate pacifism. What there has been a universal understanding in the undivided Church, however, is on the concept of all killing is murder, and all murder is sin that requires repenting. I read another Canon recently that discusses wartime activity, and participation therein…here's a blurb on it:

“Nonetheless, whatever the case, the canonical situation in the Church remains clear, and there are numerous canons, documents and divine writings that deal with the matter. A typical example is Canon 14 of Hippolytus, which dates to the fourth century:
“A Christian is not to become a soldier. A Christian must not become a soldier, unless he is compelled by a chief bearing the sword. He is not to burden himself with the sin of blood. But if he has shed blood, he is not to partake of the mysteries, unless he is purified by a punishment, tears, and wailing. He is not to come forward deceitfully but in the fear of God.”
This is a good example of a basic paradigm: (a) Christians should not become soldiers, as a general principle, just as Christ was not a soldier; yet (b) where necessity demands (i.e. when one is 'compelled by a chief bearing the sword'), it is permissable for him to do so in order to protect that which is under unrighteous attack (in order to, as we petition in the Divine Liturgy, have 'peace for the world, and stability for the holy Churches of God'); but (c) in this service as a soldier a Christian is to avoid the act of killing ('of becoming burdened with the sin of blood') – a position which makes clear that the evil of taking another life is always the ramification of human sin; and that (d) if by necessity a Christian soldier does take another life, he is not to receive the Mysteries (the sacraments) until a suitable period of repentance has been gone through ('unless he is purified by a punishment, tears and wailing'). The final line of the canon makes clear that it is not permissable for such a Christian soldier to 'come forward deceitfully', i.e. to presume to continue to receive the sacraments without confessing the sin of having killed and seeking out the necessary period of repentance.”

You cleared your thoughts/views on Constantine well, thanks! I've read other 'scholars' discuss 'history' that is so far from reality, and they use similar terminology, so I was hoping to dispel that in case there might be confusion. A long with many other modern Western Religious terms, most didn't apply to the East or early Christianity.

Regarding my view of Constantine: you may have read into the post a little more than intended. That's going to be my fault because I did not make clear what I actually see as the relationship of Constantine with the Church historically. While that would not fit properly into a comment, in summary Constantine did not have a leadership position in the Church. He did not dictate doctrine or practice. He was not the first Pope (as I've heard before). He did not decide the Council of Nicea (as I've heard before). He had nothing to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls (thank you Glenn Beck). When I said things like “Constantine took the helm and began to use and control the Church” and “the Church is still under the control of Constantine,” it's more of a phraseology/terminology issue. Constantine was a politician, and was doing manipulation on his part to keep his empire under control; I do not mean that he was directly dictating matters. Today, the phrase “the Constantinian Church” refers to the structure of the church that conforms to the practices and structure of the church from the Constantinian era. Again, this is not something that I can really dictate clearly enough within a comment. But hopefully I've done away with the idea that I believe Constantine had direct power and an authority position within the Church.