“First, my forebears were not Protestant, they were Baptists, which were never part of the RCC.”
J.M. Carroll’s 19th century “Trail of Blood” theory?
“Second, Rome did as you state, hold the primary role among the areas established by Constantine after he ‘legalized’ it.”
No, Rome’s primacy long preexisted Constantine. The legalization of The Church by the emperor neither added to nor detracted from the Church of Rome’s position. However, Constantine’s establishment of the seat of the empire at Constantinople did indeed detract from Rome’s position and benefited that of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
“Thus, the State and Church united together began with Constantine in the 4th century and its ‘Roman wing’ with it.”
This has already been dealt with. If you are speaking of the institution of a state church, like we see today or have seen since about 1400, that didn’t exist in the 4th century. In fact, there were a number of schismatic groups around throughout antiquity which worshipped quite freely and openly, with their own churches and hierarchies. In the east what we now call the Orthodox Church did indeed become a state church before the Mohammedan conquest, but, outside of Russia in the high middle ages and later, it hardly had an exclusive, enforced franchise on religious expression, unlike what happened in the West.
” Actually, the ‘Byzantine’ wing (Eastern) began breaking with Rome.(Western) almost immediately.
Why?
Because you did not like the idea of the Roman Pope telling you what to do”
You are speaking of two different things here. The quote from the GOA website explains it pretty well from an Orthodox pov. At base, when the Great Schism finally happened, it was pretty much for the reason you stated. Orthodoxy would have none of what it then perceived to be Roman imposed heresies and distorted ecclesiology. As far as the East was concerned, The Church of Rome left The Church. Rome of course disagrees and disagreed.
“As for your opinions on Christian disagreements with Romanism, I could care less, since your ‘Church’ is as ‘spiritually dead’ as they are.”
I have thought long and hard about whether to respond to this expression of hatred. I really have nothing to say expect to observe that your remark seems pretty representative of Western non-Roman attitudes (with some glaring exceptions) towards Orthodoxy I have experienced here on FR, especially on this thread.
I think your construction on historical reality is pretty close to my understanding. Don’t know where it might differ at present.
No theory, anabaptists were being persecuted by every State/Church setup, including 'Protestant' ones.
There have always been Christians outside of the control of the power of the State-Church system, relying on what the Bible taught, not man's traditions backed by State power.
“Second, Rome did as you state, hold the primary role among the areas established by Constantine after he ‘legalized’ it.”
No, Rome’s primacy long preexisted Constantine. The legalization of The Church by the emperor neither added to nor detracted from the Church of Rome’s position. However, Constantine’s establishment of the seat of the empire at Constantinople did indeed detract from Rome’s position and benefited that of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Rome was not highly esteemed by Christians.
Antioch had the much higher claim for leading Christianity than did Rome.
Rome only grew in its power when it was backed by the State.
“Thus, the State and Church united together began with Constantine in the 4th century and its ‘Roman wing’ with it.”
This has already been dealt with. If you are speaking of the institution of a state church, like we see today or have seen since about 1400, that didn’t exist in the 4th century. In fact, there were a number of schismatic groups around throughout antiquity which worshipped quite freely and openly, with their own churches and hierarchies. In the east what we now call the Orthodox Church did indeed become a state church before the Mohammedan conquest, but, outside of Russia in the high middle ages and later, it hardly had an exclusive, enforced franchise on religious expression, unlike what happened in the West.
That's why Christians say that Romanism began in the 4th century.
We don't say that it existed as it did in the later centuries when it conciliated its power and attempted to eliminate those 'schismatic' groups.
” Actually, the ‘Byzantine’ wing (Eastern) began breaking with Rome.(Western) almost immediately. Why? Because you did not like the idea of the Roman Pope telling you what to do”
You are speaking of two different things here. The quote from the GOA website explains it pretty well from an Orthodox pov. At base, when the Great Schism finally happened, it was pretty much for the reason you stated. Orthodoxy would have none of what it then perceived to be Roman imposed heresies and distorted ecclesiology. As far as the East was concerned, The Church of Rome left The Church. Rome of course disagrees and disagreed.
Well, that sounds like the same reason that the Protestant Reformation broke out!
The point that the article from your Orthodox website was making is that the 'break' began almost immediately in the 4th century.
So 'Romanism' was already attempting to exert it primacy over the whole of the Roman Empire.
Thus, your denial of the fact that I expressed, that Romanism began with the Church/State combination in the 4th century is refuted by your own Orthodox history.
“As for your opinions on Christian disagreements with Romanism, I could care less, since your ‘Church’ is as ‘spiritually dead’ as they are.”
I have thought long and hard about whether to respond to this expression of hatred. I really have nothing to say expect to observe that your remark seems pretty representative of Western non-Roman attitudes (with some glaring exceptions) towards Orthodoxy I have experienced here on FR, especially on this thread.
You should have thought long and hard before you posted your initial post.
So far, I haven't seen one Orthodox adherent show anything but contempt for any of us you consider to be 'Protestants'.
It is clear that your theology is far closer to the Romanists than it is to that of Biblical Christianity.
You entered into a discussion I was having with a RC, with a haughty and smug attitude.
I would like to remind you that no Protestants killed Orthodox followers, but Rome did.
Christians may speak bluntly, but we have never waged war on your faith.
Rome has waged war on us both, yet your hatred is so great for Justification by faith alone that you would side with those who killed Orthodox followers, ( who believe in a works system of salvation, as you do), in attacking Christians.
In fact, your attitude is no different than the Pharisee's and Sadducee's of the Lord's day, who though bitter enemies, united together against the one who is the Truth.(Jn.14:6)
As an aside, this is why I think the unity of the East and West will be restored sooner than it appears. The two worlds has interpenetrated again, for the first time since 5c. It is for the first time that Orthodoxy comes in direct contact with the dark forces of Reformation; it is bound to change the long-held assumptions about the Latin Church, that had to put up with them for centurues now.