Whoa! Now your changing your words. First you claimed there was a "marriage" of the Church and state. Now you say the Church "was driven by politics once it became part of the state". Which is it? Also, the Church was never a part of the state. When the state interferred in Church affairs the Church didn't appreciate it.
If the state ONCE controlled the state then that control would have never ended, but clearly the state doesn't control the Catholic Church today now does it? Only Sweden has relinquished control over its state church in modern times and that took more than 450 years to come about.
The Church is sensitive to the various developments in political movements, parties, governments, etc. That in no way means the Church was EVER a part of the state or that the state dictated doctrine.
Anti-Catholics strike me as funny with whole idea. On one occasion they'll lash out and say the Church was a creature of the state (always without a shred of evidence of course) and on another the same loon will claim the Church imperiously dominated the state and crushed freedom that way. Which is it?
So much of this would be cleared up if Protestants just studied history. Is that too much to ask?
"So much of this would be cleared up if Protestants just studied history. Is that too much to ask?"
____________________________
Whose? Yours?
After your church became a part of the state did the head of the state ever direct any councils to convene to resolve any doctrinal issues?
After Constantine was the power of the State ever used to punish heretics?
After Constantine did worship services change? Did the places of worship change, after all prior to Constantine Roman Catholicism was largely a faith of the poor.
After Constantine what happened to the pagans?