"I would submit that at that time the "Church" at Rome had ceased being the church at all and the only holiness one found was in pockets and in spite of Roman emphasis of the day."
I would say not the Latin church per se, but the men who had arrogated all authority in that church to themselves to the exclusion of the lower clergy and the laity.
"NOTHING in the Roman system led Luther to believe otherwise. It was only through his study of Scripture that he was freed."
This is close to spot on. The key words are "Roman system". Look at what had become of a church which had been the bulwark of Orthodoxy through many, many centuries during which time the predecessors of my bishops were wandering off into heresy only, and luckily, to be pulled back by the influence of the lower clergy, the people...and Rome. But I will tell you, B, even from an Orthodox pov, there was great holiness in the Latin church of those times in its faithfulness to the sacraments.
"Would you give up your beliefs in order to be unified with the Protestants? Would you drop your objections to Rome completely in order to be united with it and ignore the areas of difference?"
No, of course not. But I cannot stress enough that our differences with Rome are primarily ecclesiological. The theological differences today are limited. Our differences with protestantism are primarily and extensively theological. I still maintain that it was a fundamental ecclesiological problem which lead to the Protestant Reformation; the theology came later (though not much later).
"Surely, Kolo, in comparison to what was, the Protestants should be seen as a vast improvement in terms of holiness and truth."
In terms of what, B? Certainly not the sacramental life of the Western church. In terms of the personal piety of the average Western European Christian? I shouldn't think so. That was strong before and after the Reformation on both sides. The lower clergy? I don't know. One reads all sorts of horror stories about evil priests and ministers from that erea. Of the respective hierarchies? Hard to say. There was a lot of blood spilled on both sides, urged on by the leaders.
"This happened earlier than feudalism. It began happening in the 300s with Constantine. Whenever the church becomes synonymous with the state, there are going to be issues. It wasn't so much feudalism then, though organizationally it was to play a significant role, but rather power. Christendom, led by its Popes, kings, and princes conquered new territories and MADE THEM "Christian". My ancestor, Charlemagne was a big proponent of "Evangelism by the sword". Not one of Christianity's finer moments, but it is what it is."
Western Christendom, B, Western Christendom! The Church in the East, though until the Ottoman conquest a state church, never indulged in what went on in the West nor was it ever lead around by the Pope. I know that many Protestants look to Constantine as the founder of the Roman style church you guys have lived with, but that simply isn't true. What he influenced, to an extent, was the pre-schism Church and what is now the Orthodox Church. Indeed his influence wasn't that great at all. He was in fact theologically sympathetic to Arianism, yet we all know what the Council he called did with that heresy. What you see in the West is magnitudes more a product of Charlemagne than Constantine.
"They couldn't have stopped it earlier. God had engineered it. He took what was a mess and salvaged it."
Interesting, then, that in the far more educated and cosmopolitan East, no Reformation ever took place. And when I say educated, I mean in all areas including theology. There's a marvelous story told by one of the Fathers, +John Chrysostomos perhaps, wherein he complains that he had spent the day accomplishing only two of his errands because the shoe maker insisted on debating the procession of the Holy Spirit and the baker the two natures of Christ!
"Oh well, you asked for my input. There it is."
And I very much appreciate your comments and insight. That's why I asked for it, B! :)