Replies

"And the Fathers who called it that were right but also a little idealistic."

Oh, I don't know; we Orthodox still call it that.

"There were several clues early on that the small "c" was destined to become the big "C" with "Roman" in front it. One was when the Bishop of Rome circa 380 AD began to refer to himself as the "Pontiff" and the other was Augustine's anointing of Rome as the City of God. The handwriting was on the wall ---"

Well, the Church of Rome was considered the first See of Christendom from very, very early on. When the Fathers declared the Bishop of Rome to be the first among equals of the patriarchs, they weren't proclaiming anything new or innovative. The Latin Church asserts that this is because of +Peter. Orthodoxy asserts this is because Rome was the capitol of the Empire. I'm Orthodox, so I ascribe to the latter. That seems to make sense in light of the fact that +Peter was bishop of +Antioch before he ever went to Rome. One would think that that fact would, in Latin Church reasoning, make the Patriarch of Antioch the first among equals of The Church, but of course he isn't.

At any rate, the deference shown to Rome for 800-900 years after Pentecost seems to have stemmed from two things; first its recognition as the first See by the Council at Nicea and second, and far more importantly, its comparatively consistent theological orthodoxy during that period. Things began coming apart for the West under the influence of the Franks, a prime excample of which was their insistence on the filioque innovation, an insistence to which Rome eventually subcumbed. While Roman Popes had certainly been jealous of their real or imagined perogatives as the first among equals and zealous in their exercise, it really wasn't until the Popes began trying to impose innovative Frankish theology on the East that the Great Schism became inevitable. In all honesty, UC, its Charlemagne the Protestants should look to rather than Constantine for an imperial source of "Roman Catholicism". What is fascinating, though, is that today it seems the Latin Church is ready to move "back" to the role it played in the pre Schism Church. If that happens, a new, true Ecumenical Council can be held to deal with the dogmas which have arisen in the West since the 7th Ecumenical Council.

While Roman Popes had certainly been jealous of their real or imagined perogatives as the first among equals and zealous in their exercise, it really wasn't until the Popes began trying to impose innovative Frankish theology on the East that the Great Schism became inevitable. In all honesty, UC, its Charlemagne the Protestants should look to rather than Constantine for an imperial source of "Roman Catholicism".

You're right, things changed radically into an imperial Papacy at the time of Charlemagne, but it could not have happened without the Donation of Constantine. This document was pulled out and waved in front of Pepin and Charlemagne as evidence of the Pope's imperial rights of long-standing dating back to Constantine. It persuaded Pepin and Charlemagne to act of the Pope's behalf, even though the document was a blatant fraud.