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.
Orthodoxy did this? Other than perhaps in Russia, which frankly was pretty tolerant of heterodox religious opinion until after the Revolution, where, when?
Didn't say that Orthodox did kill Protestants, the point was that there non-Protestant Christians, such as Anabaptists.
It would seem you have a hard time with context.
” 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.
And you need to get your facts straight.
Rome was just one church among many and had no primacy.
Until the State could back up with force the Roman Church's claims, they were irrelevant.
” 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.
Well, sort of.
The Reformers believed that the Roman Church had become corrupt and had left them.
Thus, the Reformation was an attempt to return to the primitive Church before Rome had corrupted it.
Thus, the Reformation shared many of the same Orthodox complaints against Rome.
“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.
That doesn't explain the reason the split began between Rome and Byzantine.
What the Byzantine wing resented was Rome's constant assertion of superiority and attempts to enforce it.
It was the growing strength of the Papacy that caused the Orthodox faith to draw back from Rome.
The doctrinal issues only compounded the problems, especially when Rome demanded that its views be considered the final answer.
“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.
Yes it is that simple, Rome grew with its combination of state power and that is what it used to enforce its edicts.
That did not begin until the 4th century, when Christianity became the state religion.
“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.
You didn't bring up theological matters.
You brought up political ones, attempting to dismiss the Protestant resistance to Rome's abuses as irrelevant.
“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.
Any 'faith' that rejects the true Gospel of Christ is spiritually dead-period.
Now, if you have some Baptists who disagree with that, please ping them and I would be happy to hear them disagree with that.
“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?
Yes, the Hebrew Scriptures were preserved by the Jews and the New Testament scriptures were preserved largely in Byzantine and made their way West after the fall of Constantinople, sparking both the Reformation and Renaissance.
So, yes we have the perfectly preserved Received Hebrew and Greek texts.
As for the LXX, it is a 3rd century AD translation, whose books are unevenly translated.
Your view of the Canon and scripture is as distorted as your view of Church history and Bible doctrine.
” 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.
It wasn't Protestants killing the Orthodox followers in the 1940's, it was Roman Catholics,with the full support of the Pope.
The Croatians were Roman Catholics and were supported by Hilter.
The Serbs were fighting on the side of the Allies.
Your understanding of modern history is as bad as your understanding of everything else.
World War II: The Nazis over-ran Yugoslavia. The country was partitioned. The fascist Ustashe (Croatians; primarily Roman Catholics) established a puppet Nazi state, which included Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Large numbers of Serbian Orthodox believers, Jews and Roma (Gypsies) were exterminated. 1992: Bosnia declared independence. A civil war among the Croats, Serbs and Muslims erupted. The world was horrified by new images of starving prisoners in concentration camps. The civilian population was heavily targeted by armies on all sides. Hans Küng and Karl-Josef Kuschel commented: "Similarly, there is no doubt that the Catholic and Orthodox churches in particular have identified themselves all too much with their own political leadership in the most recent controversies and not made a commitment for peace openly, opportunely and energetically." 1 http://www.religioustolerance.org/yugo_his.htm