I'm saying the ACTUAL canonical writings (which we don't have) were CONSIDERED heretical! That is why we don't have them.
You're saying that the actual canonical writings were considered heretical by Constantine and destroyed? Why? The bishops at Nicea derived their understanding of the deity of Christ from the canonical writings. The canonical writings were in harmony with the outcome of Nicea. And do you really believe that the autographs of the NT survived until the time of Constantine only to be destroyed by him as heretical, when in fact he agreed with them? And that he somehow expected those writings to vanish because he destroyed the autographs, even though by that time there were thousands of copies from one end of the Empire to the other?
Or are you trying to assert that there were some other, unknown "canonical" writings that have disappeared completely? If so, why should we believe that they ever existed?
Either way, your scenario implies that at some point there was some authority who was capable of reaching from one end of the Roman Empire to the other and controlling what manuscripts were in existence. That was never the case. Someone could always squirrel away a few manuscripts that could show up later on; it's nearly impossible to eradicate widely circulated writings from history. The Nag Hammadi manuscripts would certainly have been regarded as heretical, but they have nonetheless come down to us.
By the way, if we had no NT manuscripts whatsoever, it would still be possible to reassemble all but 11 verses of the NT from the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers. Did Constantine destroy all of their writings, too?
It isn't a matter of it going over my head; it's that you are making progressively less sense in an effort not to admit that your original premise does not stand up to examination.
And, by the way...do you believe in the Supernatural? If so, why?
Given your attitude and level of argumentation regarding your original premise, I think I'll avoid that particular rabbit trail.