Replies

In the very simplest terms; the "pre" Church was poor, weak, and victimized. The "post" Church group which accomodated itself to the "perks" of wealth and power became the RCC. Now, of course, you are aware this is my opinion. I am not stating it as a fact, although I know I am right. :)

Wow, deja vu. This is the exact same issue that got me tangled up the tar baby of FR religious threads in the first place about 6 weeks ago. I understand your position on the changes in the Church, and respect your opinion. But, what I'm wondering, is if you believe that the Pre-Constantinian Church and the Post-Constantinian Church were the same Church, although changed, or a different Church.

A second question would be whether you believe the legalization of Christianity and its rise to prominence in the Empire (accomodation with wealth and power) had to lead to corruption of the Church itself. In other words, is it possible for the Church to exist in a favored position in society, or is it necessary for it to be weak and victimized to truly be the Church?

The "post" Church group which accomodated itself to the "perks" of wealth and power became the RCC.

Well, to be more complete it became the Orthodox Church and the Romans split off a while later. I know you know the difference, I just like to make the clarification. I am very ready to defend the Church of Constantine's era, but I don't like people to think that means I'm defending today's RCC in any way, shape, or form. God Bless.

I don't believe the Church is any one institution. The Church is not a building, it doesn't consist of any particular organization. There are RC's, Orthodox, and NC's who are members of this Church.

I will agree with you that the Orthodox Church has probably adhered more closely to the "early" Church principles than your "big brother". You will not; however, get me to agree it is the "one" Church.