Talk:Caesaropapism

Overstated
I think this article overstates its case. The opening definition of Caesaropapism is that the head of state is the head of the church. The article also says that Constantine did not even accept baptism until close to his death (which is accurate). How could Constantine function as head of the church if he was not even a member of it? Much less made any kind of bishop or pope.

What happened as I understand it is that in Christianity's first millennium, the pope in the West assumed more political power because the empire there was collapsing, and the pagan Vandals were coming. In the East, the empire remained intact much longer, so the patriarchs there did not have a power vacuum to fill, as the Roman pope did. In one of the most striking attempts by Byzantine emperors to reverse Christian faith and practice, iconoclasm, they were ultimately overcome and the icons remained. Wesley 04:52, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would like to second this. The whole controversy with Caesaropapism was that it made the state the head of the church not that the two worked together in a theocratic manner. All the churches which have rejected this as heresy have done so out of that concern, and most which have rejected it as heresy have been theocratic governments or ones in which religion and the state worked in tandem. kharaku 09:58, 7 Dec 2007

clear distinctions and East/West
I think this article shouldn't overstate its case and shouldn't understate its case.

My understanding of Caesaropapism is uni-directional: Where the state (Caesar) takes over the power of the hierarch (papa). I would not consider the opposite trajectory to be the same: that is, it would not seem to be Caesaropapism when the papa-hierarch assumes the power of political governance, but "papal caesarism" (or something like that). And isn't it fair to describe the second process as a "counterweight" to the first?

As for your difficulties with Constantine being an "episkopos" in some sense, they speak more to propriety than historicity. Please remember that the term precedes Christian usage, and that the secular meaning of the word did not cease with the Battle of the Milvian bridge. The term means, literally, "overseer" or, if you like, supervisor! One might understand why a non-baptized emporer, being, as you correctly noted, "external" to the church, might claim for himself an oversight of "external" relations! But Ambrose upbraided the Eastern emporers for claiming a seat in the holy of holies, the altar area!

Your comment about Western views of the problem is understandable. I think the term did originate in Western views of the East. I think, though, it is a valid distinction to speak of secular "interference" in church governance as being a separate, but related phenomenon, only an element of Caesaropapism.

Did the scholar Gibbons (who is thought to have turned the term "byzantine" into a synonym for "plotting and scheming") have something to do with the early study of this matter?

All the best,

Genyo 17:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

PS. what about the term, "Symphonia" as an orthodox alternative to Caesaropapism and its opposite?


 * Not workable. Caesaropapism = Political power holders imposes power over the Church.  Symphonia = Political power holders and Church work in voluntary concert, neither dominating the other and neither meddling in the other's exclusive domains.

question: Is the only assertion that Constantine gave land to the Church based on the forged "Donation of Constantine?" Isn't it true that he didgive some land to the Church? Genyo 15:47, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Russia did not experience Caesaropapism
If you read here: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonrome.aspx and here: http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/third_rome_m_johnson.htm#_Toc49080106

It is clear that Peter the Greats attempts to control the church do not at all meet the definition laid out of Caesaropapism. A recent edit suggested Ivan IV exhibited Caesaropapism. This is odd in as much as he was forbidden to enter a church following his 4th marriage.

This is true, he was technically excommunicated from the Orthodox Church because it is impossible to be married more than three times in Orthodoxy, this means not only divorce but also after being widowed or even annuled. An Orthodox Christian can only ever have the marriage blessing pronounced for themselves three times in their life time. This is something westerners, especially Roman Catholics, don't seem to get. The three marriage limit isn't just a limit on the number of divorces, it is a limit on the number of marriages any single person is allowed to contract with the blessing of the Orthodox Church. Lots of Catholics, like Zsa-Zsa Gabor for instance, would be considered living in sin if they were Orthodox since they have been married more than three times. So surprisingly, while Catholicism doesn't allow for divorce and Orthodoxy does, the Orthodox Church is far more strict by placing a limit on the number of marriages allowed in one person's life time (including after the death of a spouse or even after an unconsumated marriage is dissolved) and also by banning marriages between blood relatives (first cousins for instance) than does Roman Catholicism, which, unlike Orthodoxy, permits first cousin marriages with dispansation, something which is condemned in Orthodoxy (marriages are not even permitted between second cousins in Orthodoxy). One can't even marry one's Godparent of the opposite gender nor any of their children in Orthodoxy. Many Catholics (especially in years past but even today) would be in incesteous "marriages" if they were Orthodox Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.161.7 (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish the folks who keep adding Russia to the list of Caesaropapists would discuss their rationale... Kharaku (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A three-marriage limit? That's a bit arbitrary, don't you think? Or is it one marriage for each of the Persons in the Trinity?


 * Nuttyskin (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Enc. Britannica most certainly does. Good RS, so no problem. Arminden (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

C of E
Wasn't the Church of England essentially caesaropapist? Deusveritasest (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkey and Cyprus
The article said
 * Caesaropapism existed in the Orthodox Church in Turkey until 1923 and in Cyprus until 1977, when Archbishop Makrios III reposed.

I assume this refers to Archbishop Makarios and I've corrected it accordingly. I've also replaced "reposed" with "died", as I assume it doesn't refer to him just going to sleep.

It would also be nice if someone clarified what happened in Turkey in 1923. Did the Muslim Sultan really run the Christian church until that date? Rojomoke (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel this is a reference to the position of the ecumenical patriarch as the effective head of the christian millet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.76.122 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Intollerance
The pictures in article from Cranach do not correspond to the thema: in this connection they show intollerance (of who?) against Catholicism and offend all Catholics. That pictures are propaganda and what so has not place in Wikipedia. Caesaropapism is very strong in Anglican Church, where Queen or King (laic!) is chief of Church! --Stebunik (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is non-WP:TOPIC. Topic is state over religion, most Reformation churches were caesaropapism. The popes have long tried to tell states what to do. Some success in Earlier period and Middle Ages. But the word describing it would be different. Student7 (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Church of England and Tudor monarchs
What is the evidence of asserting that Queen Elizabeth I expanded the control of the monarch over the Church of England? She walked back Henry VIII's claim to be its "head" to the much weaker "supreme governor". In either case, the monarch appointed the bishops. Elizabeth played a very active role in the first years of her reign in defining the contours of the "Elizabethan settlement", but was she exceptionally active after that? 83.60.244.249 (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

An article horribly gone wrong
This article is, to put it mildly, a load of ******. Apart from the fact that it reads like an anti-byzantine or anti-orthodox pamphlet, with lots of sweeping generalisations and incoherent phrases jumbled together, it goes against any modern consensus of Byzantine historians (and legal historians, for that matter) around the subject (not to mention 1000 years of documented struggles and insubordination between the Church and politicians). I would rather say that the article portrays the (negative and outdated) perception of older western historians on what constitutes caesaropapism and not the historical and legal reality of Church-State relations in the Byzantine Empire and beyond. For a far more balanced, accurate and concise, though very short article, I suggest this.

Ironically, the German Wikipedia entry has a far more balanced view, mentioning all Churches and explaining that the term cannot be applied to the Byzantine period. ["(...) Aus diesem Grund hat die neuere Forschung ganz überwiegend davon Abstand genommen, für Byzanz von Cäsaropapismus zu sprechen (...). Der oströmisch-byzantinische Kaiser stand nicht an der Spitze der Kirche und hatte diese auch nie vollständig unter Kontrolle.]

Fourthermore, the article contradicts itself: it states that caesaropapism is when:"...the head of state, notably the Emperor ('Caesar', by extension an 'equal' King), is also the supreme head of the church (...)", that "...inverts theocracy (...) in which institutions of the Church control the state". It excludes examples where the Head of the Church automatically becomes the Head of State (e.g. the Pope in the Vatican and the Papal States, or German Prince-Bishops), a member of the clergy decides to run for office and wins (rare, but can happen), or the Church or clergy takes over administrative functions usually assigned to the State (true for every religion in the Ottoman Empire, including Catholics and Jews). Then it makes the claim that "Caesaropapism existed in the Eastern Orthodox Church in Turkey until 1923 and in Cyprus until 1977, when Archbishop Makarios III died". Since Caesaropapism isn't a theocracy, I have to presume that a) the Ottoman Sultan (deposed in 1922) was the Head of the Orthodox and Armenian Churches until 1922 (somebody please tell that to the Patriarchs before they have a stroke) and b) up to 1977, every President of Cyprus (even if he happened to be a Moslem Turk) automatically became the Head of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus. Of course I am deleting these phrases. athenianepirote 15:17, 7 December 2013


 * Use English, please! Quote, if you wish, from a foreign tongue; but always provide a translation for the benefit of the rest of us.


 * Nuttyskin (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I would agree 100% if it were in the article. Here, at this limited level and in a language of wide academic circulation like German or French, it's not such a big issue. More user-friendly, yes, most certainly; but it doesn't justify your imperative tone, definitely not in times of Google. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caesaropapism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184027/http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/PenningtonCaesaropapism.htm to http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/PenningtonCaesaropapism.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

To the point, please?
See the Enc. Britannica article: a succint presentation, with an elaboration further down. The Wiki entry, on the other hand, seems to be written for Trappist monks & their endless hours of study in perfect immovable silence. Let's get real - and to the point, please. Arminden (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)