Yes, redefine.
There was only one universally accepted definition of the Christian faith until 1500 or so.
Wrong again. The Greeks reject Roman Catholicism as apostate based on several points, one being papal primacy and another being the filioque.
Who did the re-defining again?Rome has and continues to do so.
Do you have any examples of "re-defining"
I've already named one, of the redefining of "tradition" by which Trent declared and empoyed the Vincentian Principle of "unanimous consent of the fathers" for the establishment of dogma and interpreting Scripture, which Rome has violated in it's eisegetical interpretation of Matthew 16:18 in a pro-Roman papal sense while the early church fathers did the opposite.
Another would be the dogmatic declaration of the Unam Sanctum which requires submission to the pope of Rome in order to "attain salvation", which also has been redefined by Rome in the "Dominus Iesus" and Vatican II.
Those are just a couple for starters.
The Greeks still enjoy Apostolic succession, thus, they are still irrevocably tied to Rome whether they define it that way or not. Your father may disown you, but your still his daughter.
I've already named one, of the redefining of "tradition" by which Trent declared and empoyed the Vincentian Principle of "unanimous consent of the fathers" for the establishment of dogma and interpreting Scripture, which Rome has violated in it's eisegetical interpretation of Matthew 16:18 in a pro-Roman papal sense while the early church fathers did the opposite.
By the way, how was tradition defined prior to Trent? Still you refuse to demonstrate how, in your grossly improper generality, "the Church Fathers" did the opposite. Further, what's really amusing, is that your own standard defeats the possibility that the Father unanimously thought otherwise than Peter was the foundation. If it takes unanimous consent (by your understanding of it), then at worst, Peter is neither positively nor negatively considered the primate of the Church. Given the overabundance of contrary evidence to your POV, the Church rightly believes that the rock is first and foremost Peter, but may be interpreted as his confession, as well, without contradicting the other.
Another would be the dogmatic declaration of the Unam Sanctum which requires submission to the pope of Rome in order to "attain salvation", which also has been redefined by Rome in the "Dominus Iesus" and Vatican II.
What is this re-defining exactly? Since "He who hears you, hears Me", this declaration is correct.
A point I made earlier, though (I must admit) in an oblique way.