tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17908317.post5880089053884755731..comments2024-03-28T03:15:14.875-07:00Comments on Unenumerated: Petrus Sabbatius comes to powerNick Szabohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16820399856274245684noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17908317.post-67828859258474376512010-10-12T23:23:30.625-07:002010-10-12T23:23:30.625-07:00P.S. by "purely secular" I refer to the ...P.S. by "purely secular" I refer to the secular rulers having no say over religious doctrine or who holds religious offices (and even in the late Middle Ages little say over family and related moral law), not to the view of many on the modern left that the decisions of secular rulers should not be informed or motivated by their religious beliefs.<br /><br />Berman, _Law and Revolution_, which TGGP mentioned in another thread had a good account of the Western Catholic reification of the doctrine of the separate spiritual and secular jurisdictions in the 11th and 12th centuries. The idea of not subordinating religion to the secular ruler dates back to early Christianity (which before being made the official religion of the Empire was persecuted for refusing to participate in the official civic religion), and to Augustine who made the distinction between the City of Man and the City of God. This early Christian tradition of refusing to bow to secular authority, dealt blows by the Roman imperial apparatus from Constantine on forward, revived in the West when the Western Empire crumbled but was largely destroyed in the Eastern Empire by the time of Justinian.nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17908317.post-85512994677338721332010-10-12T22:30:41.731-07:002010-10-12T22:30:41.731-07:00I've seen a ton of evidence for Byzantine caes...I've seen a ton of evidence for Byzantine caesaropapism but I'd love to hear Larison's evidence to the contrary. The Byzantine emperor could and did preside over doctrinal councils, require the patriarchs to prostrate themselves to him, issue ecclesiastical edicts, call himself "Pontifex Maximus" (a title used by both the head of the old pagan state religion and the Pope), appoint and depose patriarchs, and so on. Byzantine icons depict the emperor standing in a front of his subordinate patriarchs, indicating his superior position, whereas Western Catholic icons generally depict pope and emperor in equal positions. The Byzantine emperor was considered a "vicar of Christ" (another term used by the Western Pope) and even more loftily a "mimesis of Christ" (an imitation of Christ on earth). <br /><br />Larison is accurate to call the Protestant state churches caesaropapist, but IMHO no moreso than Byzantium's, and soon done under by the plethora of Protestant sects, which in Byzantium were generally persecuted out of existence (the main exception being the Monophysites who were too large to persecute). The Byzantine empire started out with its own plethora of Christianities (Manichaen, Nestorian, Coptic, Arian, etc. etc.) and ended up after a few centuries of persecutions with just two (Orthodox and Monophysite). In contrast Puritans, Quakers, Methodists, Unitarians, and many other nonconformists grew and thrived around the relaxed spiritual rule of the King-headed Church of England. I understand of course why Catholics have a big beef against the Church of England, but that doesn't make it more caesaropapist than Byzantium.<br /><br />I agree with Larison's point that his interlocutor is abusing the term "caesaropapist", but it's hardly due to the uselessness of the term. Caesaropapism is a word utterly essential as the name for a historically very real phenomenon (the strong influence of many important secular rulers over religion) and proposing we stop using it is tantamount to proposing that we forget about important parts of history.<br /><br />The term also applies, BTW, to most rulers of major civilizations before Byzantium -- the pagan Roman emperors, and before them the Egyptian pharaohs, ancient kings of Sumer and Assyria, and many others. Again, these were usually heads of religion as well as heads of state, a very different thing from the Western Catholic model of religion not controlled by the secular ruler (indeed the very idea of a purely secular ruler), and I'd think that Catholics of all people would want to preserve that distinction.nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17908317.post-68558806604452913362010-10-12T17:15:19.707-07:002010-10-12T17:15:19.707-07:00Daniel Larison thinks the term "caesaropapism...<a href="http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/26/caesarism-will-do-just-fine/" rel="nofollow">Daniel Larison</a> thinks the term "caesaropapism" is inappropriate.TGGPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11017651009634767649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17908317.post-6084670874080122662010-10-12T03:19:46.116-07:002010-10-12T03:19:46.116-07:00I see, thanks.
Christian Roman artwork often [.....I see, thanks. <br /><br /><i>Christian Roman artwork often [...] look like the depictions of the emperor and his tax collector and military hierarchies except that the angels have wings.</i><br /><br />Ha! More proof that propaganda has advanced as much as most other fields. We'd find that childishly transparent today.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17908317.post-332540544199606552010-10-11T20:07:00.453-07:002010-10-11T20:07:00.453-07:00I read that Christianity did away with using high ...<i>I read that Christianity did away with using high standing as proof of virtue</i><br /><br />That's definitely true of early Christians, and to some extent remained true for Western Orthodox Christians, but Eastern Orthodox Christians were if anything accentuating leadership as a sign of virtue by the time of Justin. Christian Roman emperors were considered (or at least considered themselves) "elected" by God as well as secondarily by the army, palace guards, senate and "the people" (acclaim of the Hippodrome crowd). In contrast to Western leaders (esp. between 1100 and 1500) they were caesaropapist: heads Church as well as heads of State. <br /><br />Christian Roman artwork often depicted a celestial hierarchy of angels, prophets, apostles, etc. which basically look like the depictions of the emperor and his tax collector and military hierarchies except that the angels have wings.<br /><br />Comparing between the pagan emperor (often loosely to seriously spoken of as the son of a god, because they were usually sons, even if adopted, of emperors deified when deceased), and the Eastern Orthodox caesaropapist model, it's hard to say which one had more divine authority or virtue imputed by same.<br /><br /><i>I've also read that Romans valued cruelty in their leaders. Is this true?</i><br /><br />The pagan Romans valued cruelty rather generally unless directed at their own family. After Christians came there was still quite a bit of cruelty, in particular judicial and tax collection torture were retained, but they were usually ashamed of it and tried to deny or hide it, and did away with public spectacles featuring cruelty such as the gladiatorial games.nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17908317.post-39218468206760968102010-10-11T16:34:50.164-07:002010-10-11T16:34:50.164-07:00but the ideal of authority that other political pl...<i>but the ideal of authority that other political players would most accept</i><br /><br />I read that Christianity did away with using high standing as proof of virtue, but even if true such transitions take time. <br /><br />Wouldn't have the Romans found Justin's win to be itself proof of divine favour? <br /><br />I've also read that Romans valued cruelty in their leaders. Is this true?Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com