Where in heaven’s name did you get this idea? Your knowledge of the One Church of the first millenium is limited at best. Frankly, it appears to me that many Protestants view the early Church through a lens distorted by the upheavals of the Protestant Reformation, the Counter Reformation and medieval Western Christianity. Remember that in the Christian East there never was a Reformation, arguably because there was no need for one. In the 4th century, the great sees of Christendom, at least insofar as size and civilization were concerned, were located East of the Adriatic. The only Patriarchial See in the West was Rome and while it held a primacy of honor at least and had produced and would produce some few great Fathers of The Church, it was really pretty small potatoes compared to the Eastern Patriarchates. When Constantine the Great legalized The Church and called the Council of Nicea, the overwhelming number of attendees were eastern hierarchs, not Romans. The result of that Council was neither what Constantine, a man with Arian sympathies, intended or expected.The Church which was legalized by Constantine and held the Council of Nicea was NOT the Roman Catholic Church your spiritual forebears rebelled against in the 1500s.
First, my forebears were not Protestant, they were Baptists, which were never part of the RCC.
Second, Rome did as you state, hold the primary role among the areas established by Constantine after he 'legalized' it.
Thus, the State and Church united together began with Constantine in the 4th century and its 'Roman wing' with it.
You Western Christians are free to argue with Rome all you want, call it all the names you want. For us in the East it looks like a fight between a parent and wayward children. It is no fight of our making. But it is offensive when you use your 16th century or later ecclesiastical mythology to bash Rome with what is in fact a distortion of our Eastern Christian history.
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
To begin with, this tragic division was not an event, but a prolonged process stretching over centuries. The cracks and fissures in Christian unity are arguably visible as early as the fourth century. (emphasis added) By the fifth century, to repeat, Christendom was divided into five sees with Rome holding the primacy. This was determined by canonical decision and did not entail hegemony of any one local church or patriarchate over the others. For all that, during the progressive alienation noted above, Rome began to interpret her primacy in terms of sovereignty, as a God-given right involving universal jurisdiction in the Church. The collegial and conciliar nature of the Church, in effect, was gradually abandoned in favor of a supremacy of unlimited papal power over the entire Church. http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7053.asp
As for your opinions on Christian disagreements with Romanism, I could care less, since your 'Church' is as 'spiritually dead' as they are.
Oh brother. I see how spiritually "alive" you are when you make such comments. Disagree if you want, but don't presume to know an ENTIRE COMMUNITY'S spirituality. That is just plain stupid.
Regards
“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.