3 ms·

> Worth noting, that unlike the western empire, that had the rule of the pope, the Byzantium had separate church and state. This is an utterly bizarre misinter

> Worth noting, that unlike the western empire, that had the rule of the pope, the Byzantium had separate church and state. This is an utterly bizarre misinterpretation of Orthodox Christianity. The position of head of the Orthodox Church was in the gift of first the Eastern Roman Emperor and then the Ottoman Emperor until the end of the Ottoman Empire. The Emperor didn’t have total control, the Church was an autonomous power centre of some note but the balance of power between the Church and the temporal power was more similar between Islam and Orthodox lands than the Eastern and Western Churches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesaropapism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesaropapism Caesaropapism's chief example is the authority that the Byzantine (East Roman) Emperors had over the Church of Constantinople and Eastern Christianity from the 330 consecration of Constantinople through the tenth century.[4][5] The Byzantine Emperor would typically protect the Eastern Church and manage its administration by presiding over Ecumenical Councils and appointing Patriarchs and setting territorial boundaries for their jurisdiction.[6] The Emperor exercised a strong control over the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and the Patriarch of Constantinople could not hold office if he did not have the Emperor's approval

coldtea 8y ago
Caesaropapism is an old understanding of the state of affairs in the Byzantine empire, which has been abandoned by modern scholars. In fact the link you posted admits so: "However, Caesaropapism "never became an accepted principle in Byzantium."[10] Several Eastern churchmen such as John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople[6] and Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, strongly opposed imperial control over the Church, as did Western theologians like Hilary of Poitiers and Hosius, Bishop of Córdoba.[11] Saints, such as such as Maximus the Confessor, resisted the imperial power as a consequence of their witness to orthodoxy, . In addition, at several occasions imperial decrees had to be withdrawn as the people of the Church, both lay people, monks and priests, refused to accept inventions at variance with the Church's customs and beliefs. These events show that power over the Church really was in the hands of the Church itself – not solely with the emperor."
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  You’ve gone from saying that the Orthodox world had separation of Church and State to pointing out that there were periods when the fusion between the two was less than perfect. If anyone reading wants to understand how weird Western Christendom was compared to comparable civilisations Fukuyama’s Origins of Political Order is a good place to start. If you’re interested in the relationship between Ummah and state in Islam which is very similar to Church State relationships in the Eastern Roman Empire look at Timur Kuran’s work. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67518/timur-kuran/the-long-divergence-how-islamic-law-held-back-the-middle-east http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67518/timur-kuran/the...
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >You’ve gone from saying that the Orthodox world had separation of Church and State to pointing out that there were periods when the fusion between the two was less than perfect. The separation was having two different sources of power -- as opposed to one, and those sources having relative autonomy. Whether the two occasionally collaborated, or one occasionally imposed its will on the other and vice versa, is something different than having both religious and state power concentrated into one entity (caesaropapism). Nothing in historical affairs is "perfect". Separation of church and state in the modern West has not been "perfect" either, even where e.g. the constitution guarantees it. Modern scholars on Byzantium disagree with that it was an example of caesaropapism -- and your own source tells as much.
    - barry-cotter 8y ago
      You think I’m saying Caesaropapism is true. I never said that, while you did say > Worth noting, that unlike the western empire, that had the rule of the pope, the Byzantium had separate church and state. The Wikipedia article on Caesaropapism is enough to disprove that, which is why I used it. The fact that there were disputes between the Emperor and Church does not change the facts that (a) It was usually the Enperor (b) By any modern standard there was no separation of Church and State. The Saud family do not provide all the imams in their kingdom, nor do they unilaterally decide on doctrine in case of disputes. The ummah have substantial autonomy and can and do argue take part in political discussion. If you’re willing to call that separation between Church and State we disagree only on labels. Otherwise you’re wrong. I wasn’t arguing for Caesaropapism, just against separation of Church and State in the Eastern Roman Empire.

coldtea 8y ago

Caesaropapism is an old understanding of the state of affairs in the Byzantine empire, which has been abandoned by modern scholars. In fact the link you posted admits so: "However, Caesaropapism "never became an accepted principle in Byzantium."[10] Several Eastern churchmen such as John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople[6] and Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, strongly opposed imperial control over the Church, as did Western theologians like Hilary of Poitiers and Hosius, Bishop of Córdoba.[11] Saints, such as such as Maximus the Confessor, resisted the imperial power as a consequence of their witness to orthodoxy, . In addition, at several occasions imperial decrees had to be withdrawn as the people of the Church, both lay people, monks and priests, refused to accept inventions at variance with the Church's customs and beliefs. These events show that power over the Church really was in the hands of the Church itself – not solely with the emperor."

barry-cotter 8y ago
You’ve gone from saying that the Orthodox world had separation of Church and State to pointing out that there were periods when the fusion between the two was less than perfect. If anyone reading wants to understand how weird Western Christendom was compared to comparable civilisations Fukuyama’s Origins of Political Order is a good place to start. If you’re interested in the relationship between Ummah and state in Islam which is very similar to Church State relationships in the Eastern Roman Empire look at Timur Kuran’s work. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67518/timur-kuran/the-long-divergence-how-islamic-law-held-back-the-middle-east http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67518/timur-kuran/the...
- coldtea 8y ago
  >You’ve gone from saying that the Orthodox world had separation of Church and State to pointing out that there were periods when the fusion between the two was less than perfect. The separation was having two different sources of power -- as opposed to one, and those sources having relative autonomy. Whether the two occasionally collaborated, or one occasionally imposed its will on the other and vice versa, is something different than having both religious and state power concentrated into one entity (caesaropapism). Nothing in historical affairs is "perfect". Separation of church and state in the modern West has not been "perfect" either, even where e.g. the constitution guarantees it. Modern scholars on Byzantium disagree with that it was an example of caesaropapism -- and your own source tells as much.
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    You think I’m saying Caesaropapism is true. I never said that, while you did say > Worth noting, that unlike the western empire, that had the rule of the pope, the Byzantium had separate church and state. The Wikipedia article on Caesaropapism is enough to disprove that, which is why I used it. The fact that there were disputes between the Emperor and Church does not change the facts that (a) It was usually the Enperor (b) By any modern standard there was no separation of Church and State. The Saud family do not provide all the imams in their kingdom, nor do they unilaterally decide on doctrine in case of disputes. The ummah have substantial autonomy and can and do argue take part in political discussion. If you’re willing to call that separation between Church and State we disagree only on labels. Otherwise you’re wrong. I wasn’t arguing for Caesaropapism, just against separation of Church and State in the Eastern Roman Empire.