“According to Millers ( and other) Church History(s) the Roman Catholic Church didn’t even gain ascendancy(primacy) until the early third century A.D. (313a.d.).”
That’s a fairy tale, hosepipe; spin to cover for the excesses of the Reformation by fabricating bogus history. I must say I have never really understood that sort of thing as there were plenty of reasons to reform the Medieval Latin Church without resorting to that stuff.
“Until then various “church” centers of influence existed.. even after that.”
They still do, hosepipe. They are called Patriarchates and there are a number of them east of the Adriatic. There was never more than one west of the Adriatic, Rome.
“The EO’s still Don’t recognize primacy.. I believe..”
In accordance with the rulings of the Councils, Orthodoxy recognizes that Rome is the first see of Christendom; that it holds a primacy of honor. Orthodoxy further holds that Rome separated itself from the rest of The Church by teaching novel doctrines unknown to the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils or to The Church of the first millenium. Most of the most important of those Roman theological innovations which caused the schism were adopted by Protestantism. There is, therefore, a schism between Rome and the other Patriarchates and so for now Constantinople holds the primacy of honor among the Patriarchs of The Church.
I see.. So Fox’s Book of Martyrs is also a fabrication since it was written primarily so that WHEN the “See” re-writes history for roman catholics John Fox wrote this so that the sacrifices of many would not be lost.. Millers Church History was written more or less for the same purpose.. Excesses of the reformation indeed(Sic).. The RCC has no lack of excesses.. itself..
http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html