[The_Reader_David]

I discussed the schism for two purposes: first to make clear the view of the Orthodox that the "Roman Church" (or Latin Church, as I prefer to call it, following the example of our Fathers who had dealings with the Roman Papacy after the schism) did not begin with Constantine as you seemed to be arguing, but with the schism of the Patriarchate of Rome from the Church.

You will also note that I have criticized some behavior of the Patriarchate of Rome prior to the schism (with regard to services in the vernacular).

I honestly believe that you overestimate the changes brought on by the temporally and secularly more favorable circumstances for the Church after the Peace of Constantine. I already enumerated features commonly ascribed to the Church's good relations with the Empire (and condemned) by protestants who regard a hypothesized "pure" early Church as their model for reform, features which in fact predated the Peace of Constantine.

The only two changes of any ecclesiological or soteriological import resulting from the Peace of Constantine were first the fact that the Emperors, desiring peace in the Church, from time to time called councils to settle disputes. The councils in which imperial meddling carried the day (e.g. the "Robber Council" in which the heresiarch Dioscorus had detachments of troops a his disposal, and the iconoclastic synods) were invariable rejected by the Church.

And second, the rise of monasticism, by which Christians sought another means of radically rejecting the world to follow Christ, martyrdom no longer being generally available. I should observe that in Orthodox practice, monasticism does not generally involve erecting a wall against the world, but seeking to remove oneself from its distractions for the purpose of prayer. We thus have the fact, curious to Westerners, that large portions of Siberia and Alaska were converted by monks (in Alaska the Aleuts attribute their conversion to St. Herman, who lived as a hermit on an island).

[OLD REGGIE]

I discussed the schism for two purposes: first to make clear the view of the Orthodox that the "Roman Church" (or Latin Church, as I prefer to call it, following the example of our Fathers who had dealings with the Roman Papacy after the schism) did not begin with Constantine as you seemed to be arguing, but with the schism of the Patriarchate of Rome from the Church.

How can I make it any clearer? I believe the RCC began on the road to corruption with the power and wealth inherited (even invented) from the time of Constantine. That is not to say the RCC began with Constantine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I honestly believe that you overestimate the changes brought on by the temporally and secularly more favorable circumstances for the Church after the Peace of Constantine. I already enumerated features commonly ascribed to the Church's good relations with the Empire (and condemned) by protestants who regard a hypothesized "pure" early Church as their model for reform, features which in fact predated the Peace of Constantine.

You are, I believe, making an overstatement. There is no Protestant position. Maybe you could use the word "some" when speaking of Protestant positions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only two changes of any ecclesiological or soteriological import resulting from the Peace of Constantine were first the fact that the Emperors, desiring peace in the Church, from time to time called councils to settle disputes. The councils in which imperial meddling carried the day (e.g. the "Robber Council" in which the heresiarch Dioscorus had detachments of troops a his disposal, and the iconoclastic synods) were invariable rejected by the Church.

Not necessarily so. When do you suppose the various Emporers lost there position as the de facto ruler of the "Church"?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------