WI: The Roman Emperor as head of the church?
- Thread starter Parmenion
- Start date
I could see them getting a bit miffed that the office that had been feeding them to lions for 300 years is now dictating scripture
Can you please elaborate on what you mean here? Neither Christianity nor medieval history are my forte sadly
That's basically OTL.
Caesaropapism - Wikipedia
Now, with that said, the control was never total. There was always some push-back against that kind of rule. Cementing it would require some harsh imperial-clerical feud--probably the Byzantine Iconoclasm?
It's a long, long story but basically the Popes gave themselves a much more central role in Western Christianity than they originally had (which by the time of the patriarchate was not insignificant either but nowhere near what they would become), via a supposed imperial decree from Constantine that gave them vast rights over Rome and the Western Empire.
Iirc in mid 15th Century some cardinal would figure this out and prove it so.
That wasn't the way it worked - first, Pontifex Maximus was a title specifically tied to the pagan rites and would have no bearing on the relations of the emperors with the Christian churches. And also, remember that the Bishop of Rome didn't have the status that the Popes have - at this point, they were just the first among equals, with the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch being almost as important.
And besides, even without making themselves the head of the church, the emperors still could wield massive influence on church affairs when they set their minds to it, as exemplified by Constantius II's attempts at establishing a Semi-Arian orthodoxy.
Last edited:
You'd need the popes to never be the OTL powerhouses they were in the Middle Ages for this to become a major thing in the Christian realms. The Byzantines had a tendency towards it but were usually content to have the religious leaders in separate positions.
Math
Kicked
Papal primacy being something created renaissance is ridiculous, several popes from the 8th, 9th, 10th centuries affirmed papal primacy, and that the church of Rome Are the head of all the others
"“Since, according to the canons, where there is a greater authority, the judgment of the inferiors must be brought to it to be annulled or to be substantiated, certainly it is evident that the judgment of the Apostolic See, of whose authority there is none greater, is to be refused by no one….”
[Pope Saint Nicholas I, Letter Proposueramus quidem to Emperor Michael, Denzinger n. 638-641.]
“Neither by the emperor nor by all the clergy nor by kings minor by the people will the judge be judged [These words are cited as those of Pope Sylvester I] . . . “The first See will not be judged by anyone . . .” (Pope Nicholas I: Letter Proposueramus quidem to Emperor Michael [A.D. September 28, 865]).
“Certainly it is evident that the judgment of the Apostolic See, of whose authority there is none greater, is to be refused by no one . . . the judgment of the Roman bishop being no longer open for reconsideration . . . (Pope Nicholas I: Letter Proposueramus quidem to Emperor Michael).
"“Since, according to the canons, where there is a greater authority, the judgment of the inferiors must be brought to it to be annulled or to be substantiated, certainly it is evident that the judgment of the Apostolic See, of whose authority there is none greater, is to be refused by no one….”
[Pope Saint Nicholas I, Letter Proposueramus quidem to Emperor Michael, Denzinger n. 638-641.]
“Neither by the emperor nor by all the clergy nor by kings minor by the people will the judge be judged [These words are cited as those of Pope Sylvester I] . . . “The first See will not be judged by anyone . . .” (Pope Nicholas I: Letter Proposueramus quidem to Emperor Michael [A.D. September 28, 865]).
“Certainly it is evident that the judgment of the Apostolic See, of whose authority there is none greater, is to be refused by no one . . . the judgment of the Roman bishop being no longer open for reconsideration . . . (Pope Nicholas I: Letter Proposueramus quidem to Emperor Michael).
Math
Kicked
"When the Latins say that the bishop of Rome is first, there is no need to contradict them, since this can do no harm to the Church. They must only show that he has the same faith as Peter and his successors … and that he possesses all that came from Peter, then he will be the first, the chief and head of all, the supreme high priest. … All these qualities have been attributed to the patriarchs of Rome in the past. We will say that his see is apostolic, and he who occupies it is said to be the successor of Peter, as long as he professes the true faith. No one who thinks and speaks truth would dare deny this. That the Bishop of Rome profess only the faith of Sulvester, Agatho, Leo, Liberius, Martin, and Gregory, we would proclaim him first among all other high priests, and we will submit to him not simply as to Peter but as to the Savior himself. But if he is not successor in the faith of these saints, nor is he successor of the throne. Not only is he not apostolic, neither is he first, nor Father, but he is an adversary and devastator and enemy of the apostles."
This is from Simeon the new theologian, An 11th century Greek monk and mystic, The question of the pope's supremacy is much older than the Renaissance.
Math
Kicked
In the text he simply says that in the past (this is before the questions of the filioque And the controversial dogmatics that were forming between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope in The period), The pope had the qualities of chief, head and supreme High priest of church. And in the time that Simeon Write the Latins affirmed this (which means that the idea of primacy predates the Renaissance).
Papal primacy and even supremacy claims go way even back to pope Leo and only kept growing as we see by the time of Gregory the great how ever many churches especially the east never universally recognized this
If you allow me, I think I can help you clarify, then the history of the Papacy is an extremely complex and messy topic, but for this time, I will try to simplify it into a few essential points:
1) the Pope owes his prestige and power, mainly from two fundamental things, being the heir of Saint Peter and Paul ( who, as the tradition of all the Nicene - Chaldodonian churches dictates, they martyred on the place where the Vatican is based today ) point two to be unquestionably the first Christian community in the Latin part of the Empire ( both in terms of number of faithful but also in terms of antiquity, given that already a few decades after the crucifixion of Christ, there are various communities in the city of his faithful, as various sources attest historical )
2) not having rivals in the area, capable of really competing with it ( unlike the other eastern Patriarchs who, in addition to having to fight among themselves, have to deal with a stronger presence of imperial authority ) certainly someone can argue that there were Milan and Carthage, that they had their own important, but which remained in second position compared to Rome
3) already under Valentinian I ( but also before him, there are even Italian historians who, from recent studies, affirm that the Popes of the first century had tried to initiate a dialogue with the imperial court, to gain recognition for some sort of legitimate ( in addition to being able to build a church through official channels ), so as to protect the Christian community of the city from possible persecution ) a synergy can be seen forming between the Western Emperor and the pontiff, in matters of religious policy, similar to that which we will see it develop ( with ups and downs ) in the Middle Ages
4) the undeniable political ability of some pontiffs which facilitated the consolidation of the Papal position in Latin Europe, both through policies independent of Constantinople ( made in favor of the Italian and Roman population above all, which gave immense consensus to the pontiffs, also facilitated by the growing feeling of cultural extraneousness between the Latin provinces and the " Greek " heart of the Empire in the 7th century, which saw the Bishop of Rome ( usually chosen by the elite of the Urbe, among their members ) in opposition a the imperial court, perceived as distant, different ( both linguistically and on certain occasions theologically ), and totally indifferent to the dramatic Italian situation ) and through diplomacy with the Roman-Germanic powers, which led to seeing the bishop of Rome as a superpartes figure ( complete with territorial donations in his favor, such as that of Sutri and those of Liutprand and Pepin, which served as a basis and example, for the creation of the false document of Constantine in the 10th century )
I could go on but this is the primary basis of papal power in a nutshell
Last edited:
As has been stated, to a good degree this happened in our history; the Emperor retained absolute primacy, at times (such as with the "energies debate" between miaphysites and hypostatics) even imposing doctrinal decisions that were 100% about pursuing strategic Imperial goals (in the energy debate, the formulation of "monothelitism" to try and find an acceptable solution that made both the Pope and the restive Eastern provinces happy enough). Even after the Arab conquests and on to the slow loss of Imperial authority in Italy, virtually no Pope questioned that the Roman Emperor had the right to confirm his election, be it directly or through the Exarch in Ravenna.
Going beyond that is hard; Christianity is simply not made for such a development, and already plenty resisted the above arrangement of Caesaropapism.
Last edited:
Basically you'd need the emperor to be ordained as a Bishop of Rome.
While not physically impossible, there are many aspects of that arrangement that would be undesirable of all sides.
And it would almost certainly lead to at least one of the jobs being left to advisors.
While not physically impossible, there are many aspects of that arrangement that would be undesirable of all sides.
And it would almost certainly lead to at least one of the jobs being left to advisors.
I would argue that you can find it being argued for in the 2nd century(Ireneus of Lyons), and arguably in the 1st(Clement), not to the degree of, say Innocent III, but recognizably in primacy and orthodoxy.
Interesting idea. If the Constantinians tried to make the Emperor the head of the church because of their role as Pontifex Maximus, it probably would've caused a lot of tension. The Christian leadership back then was really keen on keeping church and state separate, so they might not have been cool with the Emperor having that much control over church matters. There could have been a lot of pushback and maybe even some serious conflicts within the church.