CJ,
First of all I want to thank you for the kind words. In spite of our differences, we have tried to behave like good Christians are supposed to (although if you don't behave I will call on my sooper-seekrit nuns to swoop in and rap you on your knuckles with their well-worn rulers - LOL).
I don't think that legalization had anything to do it with,...
That's an interesting comment considering that this seems to be where the line of your demarkation (between movement and denomination) begins. I suppose you mean that it isn't the legalization itself, per se, that had anything to do with it, but rather what happened within the Church itself due to the legalization that "had anything to do with it"...by which we mean "Christianity changed from a movement to a denomination".
Do I understand that correctly? (BTW - that is a real question - not a rhetorical one - I really do want to know if I have that part right so far).
I think ROME did (just a theory - again, my degree is not in the early history of Christainity).
That is a very generalized presumption. The problem with your pressupposition is that the "Roman Empire" at that time (of legalization) was very soon no longer based in Rome (where the Bishop of Rome was), but rather had shifted to Constantinople (where the Bishop of Constaninople was). Granted, this shift was not immediate, but it did occur well before the Emperor Constantine's reign was over. And that is not to say that there wasn't a Western Emperor operating within Rome (not always but rather from time to time) while the Eastern Emperor was ruling in Constantinople...but my point is that things were not nearly as simplistically centralized in Rome as you seem to assume they were. Not by a long-shot.
We know precious little about Christianity before the 4th century - amazingly little.
I guess this is somewhat subjective, but I am AMAZED at just how much we DO know. Perhaps you are not reading what I am reading, or aren't using the same resources I do, or maybe we have a different threshold for what "precious little" means in this context, but we know a great deal more than we have any right to expect considering the challenges of that era.
As even a lay person as I knows, Rome was OBSESSED with centrality, power, authority, lordship.
Define your terms, Josiah. What do you mean by Rome? The Church? The empire? Both? Well...if that is the case, then you seemingly fail to appreciate an important dynamic here: the Emperor was nearly ALWAYS at odds with the Bishop of Rome for the simple reason that the Emperors typically embraced a concept that was CONSISTENTLY rejected by the Pope: that of "Church/State Cult." It was the Emperors ruling out of Constantinople that was often trying to FORCE the Church under its thumb even when they (the Emperors) often embraced horrific and dangerous heresies.
Think of it this way, Josiah, HAD the Church (which you claim had become a "denomination" - which is a term I utterly reject and find offensive) really been so much "in league" with the Roman State...WHY then wasn't the Church ARIAN or MONOPHYSITE or ICONOCLASTIC during various points in history???
History is replete with examples of Eastern Emperors in Constantinople, harkening back to the pre-Christian pagan days when the empire was, indeed a Church/State Cult (the emperors having been the head of both the state AND ALL the religions of the empire...the office being called Pontifex Maximus in pagan days...remember that the Roman Empire did not object to other religions per se...but when Christians refused to swear oaths to Caesar as a god and head of their religion...THAT is when things went cross-wise)...when the Emperors tried to recapture the idea that THEY were the head of state AND all religions in the Empire...that is when various good orthodox and saintly men (like Athanasius) were DEPOSED and thrown in prison by the Emperor...meanwhile Arain/Monophysite heretical puppet Bishops were put in those roles by the Emperor UNTIL TIME AND AGAIN the Bishop of Rome was appealed to OVER AND AGAINST the Eastern Emperors...who would TIME AND AGAIN restore the RIGHTFUL orthodox Bishops back in their offices while deposing the heretical Bishops who were merely "yes men" to the Emperor and his concept of a Church/State cult.
So IF the Bishop of Rome had to elevate his profile and start acting more "imperial" and more like a powerful person throwing his weight around it was ONLY because he was forced to. And, literally, THANK GOD that he did!!! For if he hadn't, Christianity would have become Arian or Monophysite or whatever else tickled the ears of various Eastern Emperors LONG AGO. It's a historical fact, Josiah. I cannot urge you enough to step back and re-think what you presume to know about this era of history.
Things were very TOP DOWN with a LOT of stress on absolute authority and docilic obedience.
I know you believe this - but it is VERY VERY VERY off-base. For the Bishop of Rome is NOT - I repeat NOT - the boss of all the other Churches in Communion with the Pope. Rather, it is VERY egalitarian and horizontal UNLESS and UNTIL the *unity* or the *orthodoxy* of the Church is under threat. It is ONLY then that the Bishop of Rome presumed to get involved with what happened in Constaninople, or Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Alexandria, or insert whatever place you want here. Why do you think disputes arose in the first place??? Because they were already on their own to conduct their own affairs and thus fell prey to whatever heretics or whatever heretical Emperor pressured them to do.
You, my friend, have fallen prey to stereotypical exaggerations common when people think of the Bishop of Rome and how it is supposedly power-hungry and being busy telling everyone else what to do.
Rome didn't like loose ends, "loosy-goosey," mysteries, tensions, balances.
Nonsense (with respect). When you went to Mass...were you not struck by the number of times the word "mystery" is used? Do you not recall how often in Catholic theology we claim the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union and the Real Presence and tension between Predestination (which is a Catholic dogma) and Free Will (which is also a Catholic dogma) are all mysteries of the faith that exist paradoxically? When I learned Catholicism I was totally SHOCKED at just how much theological freedom there is, and how much mystery and tension between paradoxical elements are embraced. And there simply is no Christian faith more balanced than Catholicism - rarely do we put things in either/or contexts like Protestantism (read: Bible OR Tradition, Predistination OR Free Will, Mystical OR Institutional, Faith OR Works, etc...).
Roman Empirors wanted to know - whose in control?
The Roman Emperors COVETED being in control of the Christian Church. It wasn't so much them questioning who was in control...they knew the answer to that question...rather it was a question of them wanting to take over the Church for their own purposes. You MUST appreciate this fact. And if the Bishop of Rome did not act strongly, the Emperors would have bulldozed over the Church from the very beginning and the Church would have become Arian (or whatever heresy was in currency at the moment).
Who is the CO, the CEO, the Boss?
That's easy. The Bishops were the CO, CEO, and Boss of their own jurisdictions UNLESS and UNTIL the Bishop of Rome was called upon to settle disputes to keep the Church in unity and orthodoxy. The Emperors (at least the heretical ones) KNEW this which is why they tried to overwhelm the Bishops in the East and depose them and imprison them - so they (the Emperors) could realize their agenda of a Church/State cult (like in pagan days). The orthodox Emperors had no such agenda and left the Church leadership (the Bishops) to conduct their own affairs and they were well aware of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in certain contexts.
What is THE dogmatic answer to this question? What is the chain of command? And so I think the "pull" was for the creation of AN institutional denomination - creating quite in its own image.
It's a good question, but the answer is somewhat complex and nuanced. And while I will still utterly reject the notion that the ONE Church was ever a "denomination", I will say the "chain of command" was this: each Patriarchate had its own jurisdiction with its own Bishop over it and was fairly autonomous (except when the Roman Bishop acted as an arbitor in disputes, for example). Now from time to time, heretical movements would rear their ugly heads. Sometimes riots would erupt in those places and the civil powers (the Emperor) would force the Church to convene a synod or Council to settle the dispute and keep the peace. Sometimes, heretical emperors would sieze upon these moments and view this as a way to grab control of the Church away from the orthodox Bishops by replacing them with heretical puppets who would then, of course, push the Church/State Cult agenda.
But, I suspect (that's all) that if Christ had Returned in 297 - no denomination would have existed. He would have found hundreds of thousands of Christians, thousands of congregations (all but literally a handful "house churches") a pretty loose system of governance and nearly all of that limited to the congregation. Pretty loose!
Of course we disagree on our definition of denomination - so I can agree with you that He would have found no "denominations" - but my reason for saying so is very different than your reason.
No denomination; weak institutions - and none of those beyond the local congregation.
Really??? Do you really think that? Not only can I show you plenty of examples from the Early Church of real structure and real authority being extended beyond the local level, but I can also show you this same principle in the Bible. Easy.
But I also think PART of it was because Christians then understood Christians as PEOPLE, not a single denominational institution in Rome's image.
The Church has NEVER understood Christianity or its Church as being made in "Rome's image." What you are saying is like a cartoonish caricature. Rather, properly understood, the Catholic Church has always understood itself as just that: CATHOLIC/UNIVERSAL in that each part of its body (the arm is not the foot is not the eye etc...) has its own unique role and jurisdiction even though they have different liturgies, customs, devotions, hierarchies, and theological language. Just ask one of the 23 Eastern Rite Catholic Churches if they are made in Rome's image. I assure you, they will recoil and deny your entire premise.
There was a struggle for Truth in those days (when diversity of thought was greater than it commonly is today)...
Yes - there were "diverse beliefs" then as there are now...but I submit that the diversity is FAR greater now because there are far more Christians *out of communion with the Apostolic Churches* now than there were then.
...but not the struggle for lordship, power that developed from the 4th century on.
Context, CJ, context. The struggle for power initially lay between the CIVIL powers (in the person of the Emperors) and the Church who was forced to keep the teachings orthodox over and against those who would press for the Church/State Cult agenda.
God's Peace,
NewMan
>
