Replies

“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?

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)

“No theory, anabaptists were being persecuted by every State/Church setup, including ‘Protestant’ ones.”

Orthodoxy did this? Other than perhaps in Russia, which frankly was pretty tolerant of heterodox religious opinion until after the Revolution, where, when?

” 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.””

You’ve really got to get beyond this Roman bogeyman of yours. Rome’s position in the One Church, as I said, predated Constantine. Orthodoxy always maintained that that primacy was because it was the see of the capitol of the Empire. Rome claimed and claims that it was because of the fact that Rome was the See of +Peter, but so was Antioch, as you seem to understand. At base however the fact remains that Rome has had primacy in The Church since very nearly the beginning. And that had absolutely nothing to do with an emperor who left Rome and established his seat at Constantinople. As between Orthodoxy and the Latin Church, the issue isn’t primacy, its what primacy means, how it is properly exercised. That had nothing to do with Roman emperors in the 4th century, the 11th century or now.

” Well, that sounds like the same reason that the Protestant Reformation broke out!”

Sort of. Some of the Reformers, and in increasing numbers as the generations went on, were determined to deny virtually the entire Eucharistic, Sacramental nature of The Church as it had existed for 1500 years. The Schism between the Roman Church and the rest of The Church was premised on what the East and the Latins perceived as violations of the canons and dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils by the other. That’s not the beef Western Christians had against Rome in the 16th century.

“The point that the article from your Orthodox website was making is that the ‘break’ began almost immediately in the 4th century.”

That’s true, but it had nothing to do with the “legalization” of The Church by Constantine. It did have something to do with the move to Constantinople but on a broader level, geographically, psychologically and linguistically, it was the descent of the West into barbarism and the loss of fluency in the Greek language which really started the separation. The greatest Western theologian of the era, Blessed Augustine, couldn’t read Greek, at least not well, so when he started his “theologizing”, he, unlike his predecessors, had no recourse to the scriptures in Greek or three centuries of patristic writing save for some Western works translated into Latin. That deficiency is apparent in Blessed Augustine’s works which are in great measure quite radically different from Greek patristic thought. The East, in the meantime, either couldn’t or wouldn’t read Latin. You know the influence +Augustine’s works had almost immediately in the West. In the meantime, the filioque clause was added to the Creed and that little bit of possible heresy lead in part to the Great Schism in the 11th century. The Church in the West and The Church in the East didn’t speak the same language and lived very different lives, the West a sinking into barbarism and the East a glittering, educated, metropolitan society. That’s what caused the division, not the emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan.

“So ‘Romanism’ was already attempting to exert it primacy over the whole of the Roman Empire.”

The Church of Rome has always been jealous of what it perceives to be its prerogatives. The other 4 ancient Patriarchates refused to allow Rome to exercise its primacy in a way which they believed and believe to be in violation of the canons. Its really pretty much that simple as regards primacy. And that has nothing to do with Constantine either, except perhaps to the extent that the establishment of Constantinople and a Patriarchate there diminished Rome.

“You should have thought long and hard before you posted your initial post.”

I always think long and hard about any theological matter. Its something we Orthodox have been doing for 2000 years.

“So far, I haven’t seen one Orthodox adherent show anything but contempt for any of us you consider to be ‘Protestants’.”

Then you haven’t read enough. On the other hand, much of what is written here, from the perspective of The Church, is pretty contemptible. As you know, we have a “caucus” system here on FR to prevent the sort of bile we see on threads like this one. It works well. The Catholic/Orthodox caucus list includes a large number of Protestants, even some non-Latin Western Christians, Baptists for example. We have wonderful discussions, but then again, nobody in that caucus thinks someone else’s Church is “spiritually dead” or that Orthodox and Latins worship stumps or such like.

“It is clear that your theology is far closer to the Romanists than it is to that of Biblical Christianity.”

I have always found that sort of comment really silly. The badly translated canon of the NT Bible you thump is something a group of Greek speaking bishops of The Church gave you. The OT you use is a similarly badly translated rework of the Greek Septuagint and the so called Hebrew Canon of the late 1st century. You got those from Greeks too. Now you can argue that the HS inspired those bishops just that one time and then went off to play bocci for 1200 years if you want, but the vast majority of Christians will disagree. Or perhaps you’d rather argue that those shadowy unaffiliated Christians you claim religious descent from preserved the scriptures?

” 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.”

Tell that one to the Orthodox Christians of the Balkans.