Josiah,
At times I think we are making some progress, but then at other times it is still obvious we continue to talk past each other. Much of the confusion, imo, seems to happen when you impose your definitions on my words and then argue against that. I will point out examples of this as I move through this response. Perhaps I do the same to your words too, I don't know. It's like we took three steps forward, and 2.9 steps back.
When Christianity was an illegal, underground movement - the Roman Empire could care less about any institutions or decisions or doctrines embraced by Christian.
This is largely true except that it cared about the Christian refusal to swear oaths to the supposed divinity of Caesar.
When Christianity became legal, the Caesar's own religion, and essentially the Roman religion - then the Empire's concerns came into play - exactly as you seem to agree and just as you illustrate.
When Christianity was first legalized in 312 AD, it was merely one of many religions in the state. It wasn't until much later it became, by imperial edict, the only legal religion. But yes, after 312 AD the Empire's "concerns came into play" so to speak EVEN THOUGH a clear distinction and line between Church and State has always existed (from the Church's perspective). The Church/State Cult desired by many Emperors (as also by many Bishops in Constantinople) never took hold in spite of several attempts through the centuries. The distinction we need to keep clear in this discussion is that even though MANY states (such as Imperial Rome at the time) in history have declared "state religions" where the citizens are legally obligated to be whatever the state religion happens to be (such as Christian), that doesn't mean that the Christian Church was ever just another organ of the State - with Caesar running the show even to the point of dicatating doctrinal beliefs. Sure, the Church was under certain LEGAL obligations (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's), but its own authoritative hierarchy was outside of the State and independent of it...JUST as it was BEFORE it was legalized...and when it was an ILLEGAL underground hierarchical institutional organization (going all the way back to Pentecost).
This is the first time we have any indication of a denomination, and it does seem directly related to the legalization of Christianity.
And this is, of course, where we ***sharply*** disagree - in part because we sharply disagree on what makes a given religious body a "denomination". For we deny that its *legal status* within ANY country or culture is the thing that defines its *nature*. The Church has ALWAYS been "the Church" (and not just a mere movement) with an authoritative hierarchical pan-congregational structure - going back all the way to Pentecost - and it continued to be the SAME organic entity BY NATURE up to, including, and going past, its eventual legalization by the Imperial Roman State and all other States it was legally recognized in after the fall of the Roman Empire. And this is true whether the Church referred to itself as "the way" or if it eventually began to refer to it by a proper name (The Catholic Church) as a means to distinguish it from various heretical and schismatic groups claiming the Christian name.
In other words, while the legalization of the universal Christian Church as an institution and the Christian faith as a religion affected its
style of governance (and its size, of course), it DID NOT affect its
nature. In other words, was "the Church" THE CHURCH before Constantine legalized it? Yes. Was "the Bishop of Rome" the Bishop of Rome before legalization? Yes. Was "the Bishop of Antioch" the Bishop of Antioch before 312 AD? Yes. Were all the "Bishops of the Church" Bishops of the Church before legalization? Yes. Were there jurisdications between the Bishops before legalization? Yes. Was there an authoritative pan-congregational hierarchy before legalization? Yes. Were there disputes between jurisdictions before legalization? Yes. Did the Church appeal to the Bishop of Rome to settle disputes before legalization? Yes.
I could go on and on and on. Now, before you object too strongly (assuming you do), please know that I will provide plenty of evidence to support this claim. But for now - just for the sake of argument - let's assume I prove my case and that the Christian Church (whether it called itself "The Catholic Church"
as a proper name at this time or not is ENTIRELY irrelevant...just as a rose by any other name smells as sweet...so too the Christian Church by any other name is just as divinely instituted and Holy) was organized, hierarchical, pan-congregational, and institutional.
My point? I submit you are putting far too much emphasis on the Church's legalization as if that, of and by itself, changed THE NATURE of "the Church"...as if the legalized Christian Church was a different ORGANISM than the pre-legalized Christian Church (or "movement" or whatever other term you want to use). I believe that the legalization did not make it a different and distinct entity...as if any given Bishop at the time was a Bishop of two different entities back-to-back.
As I said, I am only too happy to provide evidence to back my claims.
And what is created is VERY MUCH in the image of Rome.
Of Imperial Rome? ONLY in terms of its style of governance and its outward appearances - the "imperial trappings" so to speak - but NOT in terms of its organic nature.
Now, as I've repeated for you a few times - I'm making no judgements about that. I'm not saying that's wrong or bad - just what happened. Now, if you are telling me that it was not 100% complete - not EXACTLY a state religion - then I'll accept that, but I see you overwhelming affirming my impression of how things were.
Well sure Christianity became the imperial state religion of the Roman Empire (just as it was the state religion of various European nations before the Reformation...and just as "The Church of England" became the state religion of England later, and Calvinism became the state religion in Geneva etc...the DIFFERENCE was that in England, for example, the King or Queen was BOTH the Head of State AND the State Religion...and so had FAR MORE authority in the religious sphere than a Christian emperor in the Roman Empire had).
And if there was a "POWER struggle" between the Roman bishop and the Roman Emperor early on - that rather confirms my impression, too.
Yes - but as I have said - that does not make the Christian Church a "denomination" or a different organic entity than the NT Church.
As far as I understand, bishops were regarded as equals before the Empire got involved, with some TOGETHER held in a somewhat more respected but not powerful position.
So if you are willing to grant that before legalization the Church had Bishops and, therefore, a hierarchical structure...what was it about legalization that made it a "denomination"? In other words, you have claimed that before legalization the Church was not a denomination...but afterward it was. This means you are claiming the Church became a DIFFERENT entity by its very nature, for if it was not a denomination before, and if it remained the SAME CHURCH organically, then it cannot be a denomination after its legalization.
Rome was key because it was the historic center of the Empire and this was a denomination of and for the Empire.
2 Points:
1. It was the HISTORIC center but it was no longer the center of imperial power - that shifted to Constantinople.
2. If it wasn't a denomination before, it cannot be a denomination after UNLESS it is a DIFFERENT entity.
True, political power was already shifting to the East and within a century of the creation of a Roman denomination, Rome was largely in ruins. All the more reason for that bishop to TRY to insist on his position and power - to find some reason WHY he should be supreme since the political reason was increasingly not appliciable.
But what you fail to appreciate is that the Bishop of Rome was "supreme" among the Bishops BEFORE legalization and BEFORE the various emperors attempted to take over the Church. Yes - in terms of the Pope's
style of governance it was forced to become more "imperial-like" to counter the state's coveteousness, but even before then, when the Church was illegal and the Pope's style of governance was more humble, the Bishop of Rome was always the Bishop charged with uniting the Church and keeping it orthodox. Appeals to the Bishop of Rome from various other Bishops (each with their own jurisdictions) in disputes was not unheard of nor undocumented from the Apostolic era onward. Legalization did not change that. Again, I will offer evidence to support these claims.
As money, power, etc. moved East, the diocese of Rome found itself increasingly without all that to uphold it - and thus a need to develop some theological reason for its supremacy.
No - the theological reasons were already there (and instituted by Christ) and already recognized by the other Bishops since Apostolic times. The legalization of the Church and the need for the Papacy to develop its
style did not impact whether or not the Bishop of Rome already had this authority beforehand.
And the West/East struggle was on.
If this is true then you need to explain away the MANY MANY MANY times the various Eastern Bishops appealed to the Bishop of Rome both BEFORE and AFTER the Christian faith was legalized.
Such wasn't ONLY political - each "side" was trying to support its own spirituality/theology (increasingly developing separately).
They were separate only in the sense that my right lung is separate from my left lung. This is what makes The Catholic Church
catholic. Each individual culture brought with it its own distinct expressions of the One and Same Christian faith. The hand is not the foot, and the East brought a different understanding and expression of the Christian faith than the West, but each were EQUALLY orthodox and Apostolic when understood from their own perspectives. Eventually, various Byzantine Bishops, in trying to advance their Church/State Cult agenda (with their long propensity for Caesero-papism) often tried to force other Churches throughout Christendom to adopt their own theological expressions, liturgies, devotions, etc...as if their way of practicing the faith is the ONLY VALID way of practicing it, but that doesn't mean the West or the other Eastern Churches were trying to impose their own theological views as the exclusive one on the rest of the Church.
As far as I can tell, the East was simply less influenced by Rome. Again, no "evaluations" on my part: what is, is.
The East was not theologically influenced because the West did not seek to impose its own theological expressions on them in the first place (in deep contrast to what the Byzantines were often trying to do - even to this day) - with the possible exception of the Easter controversy (but that is a more complex topic and there was a certain amount of misunderstanding going on there...but as an aside I would point to that incident as one of many examples of a pan-congregational authoritative structure in place before legalization).
I have to run right now, but will return later today to finish my thoughts and offer the evidence I have been promising. And if I have any more time, I will even go back to the Archbishop's comments in the OP because I have been doing a little more ruminating on what he had to say, and where I feel he is in serious error.
God's Peace,
NewMan
]/kaisara <2541>
