I did read your post. Have you ever read a history book that didn't have some censor's nihil obstat?
Nowhere in my post, you may note, did I claim that "Christendom" must be a utopia in order to NOT be considered a dicey proposition.
There were always political intrigues all throughout that time. When I wrote The Catholic hierarchy, particularly (that modifier means that it was not limited to the Avingon Popes) the Avignon popes, were admittedly pretty corrupt, it was an attempt to acknowledge that fact without having to go through the entire history of Church-State relations prior to the Protestant Reformation.
The Photian Schism and the Investiture Controversy, to cite just two earlier examples, were a lot more than just "political intrigues." To note their significance is not improper. To ignore their significance for discussing Church/State relations, and pretend that direct challenges to a strong version of Christendom were NOT being made long before Wittenberg become famous, is.
If Christendom is defined as "most rulers deferring to the Popes," then to say that "Christendom" was doing well until those pesky Protestants showed up seems to fly in the face of a lot of Mediterranean basin and European history.
But perhaps, in the interests of clarity, you could give us a definition of "Christendom," or perhaps delineate what you mean when you speak of "deferring to the popes," so that we could better undertstand and judge what you're trying to argue.
Good point and one that I should have included in my original post.
Christendom is a social-political construct representing the influence of the Christian Church over not just society but over society's polity, as well. (The Pope crowning kings is a significant token of that relationship)
I did read your post. Have you ever read a history book that didn't have some censor's nihil obstat?
Every now and again I do [ ;-) ]. You have to remember though that I am not a progressive. I don't see the Reformation as being a good thing. I also don't see the modernism of the enlightenment as being a good thing either. There were good things that came out of them (The Council of Trent as an example of a good thing that came out of the Reformation...the United States as being a sole exception in the anti-clerical revolutions that sprung out of the enlightenment is another example), but the movements, in of themselves, I see as being precursors to the modern-day pit of depravity we see ourselves in today.
But, unlike most, at least I acknowledge my biases.