Talk:Christianity as the Roman state religion

Article obsolete and biased, needs rewriting
A lot of this article relies on research that by today's standards is heavily dated and/or plainly incorrect. In particular, I am referring to references of Ayer (1913). A lot of this material contains information that is simply incorrect by any standard, such as on the supposed Caesaropapism of Justinian ("regulating by his laws the minutest details of worship and discipline, and also of dictating the theological opinions to be held in the Church"), a system that never existed and was mostly a myth prevalent in the West which had formed around the Emperor's limited control over church hierarchy and appointments and perpetuated by Gibbon-era scholarship (the above reference I edited out). The rest of the article is riddled with stuff that is at best heavily biased or misinformed due to the research being dated. For example, in 565, "in the west Christianity was mostly subject to the laws and customs of nations that owed no allegiance to the emperor". Any more recent (last 20 years, probably earlier) Byzantine-field research understands that the recognition of the Eastern Roman Emperor as head of the "family of kings" of Christendom lasted at least until Charlemagne's coronation in AD 800. Some statements rely on a biased Catholic perspective ("By then, the Empire's state church as originally conceived had ceased to exist"). I don't think this article should be merged with anything, but it does need some cleaning up. In case any of my references aren't traceable, please look for them in the page history section. Netczar (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netczar (talk • contribs) 06:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A general condemnation of the article by a new account is unhelpful. You should address any issues one by one, and have the references that support your argument. μηδείς (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A general rejection of all criticism based solely on ad hominem grounds is even more unhelpful. Str1977 (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, many of us have been trying to do something about this article for years. If you think it is bad now, you should have seen it originally! The POV, originally at least, was certainly Calvinist/Protestant. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this article should be rewriten as "Christianity as the Roman state religion". The current title is not salvageable as no "state church" existed in the Roman Empire. The article is constantly in the need to issue absurd definitions and ever-new titles for this supposed "state church" which of course (in the mind of the article) must at all cost be distinguished from the Church prior to Constantine and from the Catholic and the Orthodox churches. Str1977 (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Church of the East is not Nestorian
the Church of the East is a dyophysite Church and it is not following Nestorianism. Please check Church of the East for further information. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is correct, none of the Churches of the east are actually Nestorian. They have not actually been Nestorian for 1500 years.  Unfortunately, this term is used as a short-hand method of referring to the Churches of the East.  DeusImperator (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Rejection of restored misnomer
Recently, a great dispute has occurred pertaining to this article, and the Edict of Thessalonica article. The dispute began with what appeared to be the blatant restoration of a contribution which may be alleged as WP:AGENDA pushing; assisting with the blocking of agenda-pushers throughout this short tenure on Wikipedia, I was greatly alarmed. I was greatly alarmed as they revoked the long-standing text stating "which recognized Nicene Christianity as the Roman Empire's state religion", for "which recognized Catholicism..."; those contributions were aggressively reverted, the same for Edict of Thessalonica, as upon investigation of the contributor, they appeared to be a Roman Catholic. Per explanation from another contributor to initiate this and restore the term Nicene Christianity in place of Catholicism (which redirects to the Roman Catholic Church), I have done so in efforts to thwart any administrative repercussion.

With that written, I staunchly support the restoration of the term Nicene Christianity, as the Catholicism this contributor and others haphazardly refer to, was not the Roman Catholicism as it has been known post 1054. I write that in defense of the unity of the early Church united as the Great Church, which transitioned into this state church of the Roman Empire via the Edict of Thessalonica; while a rebuttal may be given that this edict mentions the term, "Catholic", it does not take a rocket scientist, respectfully writing, to understand the term "Catholic" was utilized by those who accepted the Nicene Creed at the time, and referred to a single unified church under the administration of the Pentarchy, and not that of the Pope of Rome until the East and West distinguished themselves through the West's adoption of the adjective "Catholic" and the East's adoption of the adjective "Orthodox". The acceptance of those who subscribed to the Nicene Creed as Nicene Christians (or Catholic, not in the contemporary sense gleaming toward the Holy See, again), should serve as blatant WP:COMMONSENSE toward those who have an understanding of Christian history without adding the biased jargon from the East or West.

Supporting this, please refer to these short commentaries: The Edict of Thessalonica, The Edict of Thessalonica: Theodosius I and the birth of the Christian state. Finally, referencing the article does no justice to the fact that the official name of the Eastern Orthodox still infuses the term, as the Orthodox Catholic Church. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If our article is correct, the term Great Church specifically refers to the pre-Nicene period, so can't be used for Nicene Christianity, which is itself rather too obscure a term to use here without explanation [his original comment now re- factored to remove this term]. You will have trouble pursuading people that the RCC "did not exist in its contemporary state until the East-West Schism of 1054", which made very little difference to it. The start of these articles could be adjusted, but not by just removing a long RS quote, accompanied by ranting edit summaries, apparently expressing a pov not in line with most scholarship. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course, it refers to the pre-Nicene period and can't be used for Nicene Christianity. I was attempting to state its evolution into the state church of the Roman Empire; forgive me for not writing more clearly. As for the persuasion of others, it is a hotly-debated topic in religious and secular circles, but it quite clearly does not make reference to the Roman Catholic Church solely, due to it and the Eastern Orthodox being united as one before 1054. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Pushing an Agenda??? Is bringing an article in conformity with the cited source, pushing an agenda?  The reverter's immediate reaction was to assign a motive to the contributor's action.  Unstated was the fact that the initiator of this discussion and not another contributor, "aggressively" reverted this contributor's edits.  Perhaps it is the initiator of this discussion, not the contributor,  who seeks to push an WP:AGENDA by their actions.  I would suggest that reverter of the original contributor's edut take the time and read the already cited sources to ascertain if the claims made a congruent with the text of the cited source.

It was so obvious in the very source cited that it is the religion of Catholicism that made the official religion. The cited source makes no mention of any such thing as Nicene Christianity. The very document mentions explicitly the Bishop of Rome, as the pontiff (Damasus), and the official religion as Catholic. Perhaps, it is the initiator of this discussion's agenda-driven bias or unfamiliarity with the subject matter, that has prevented that has prevented them from recognizing the obvious fact that the cited source is not in agreement with the claims made in the article(s). Furthermore, the term "Roman" Catholicism was unknown prior to Cranmer's address to the Reforming Parliament in 1535, so much for "Roman Catholicism as it has been known post 1054". It continued to be known as Catholicism and the Catholic Church after 1054. The term Roman Catholicism is used in the Anglosphere due to English legislative and legal history and the requirement to identify one's religious affiliation in one's papers. As far a the pentarchy is concerned, it DID NOT EXIST until 451 when Jerusalem and Constantinople were raised to the patriarchates, so any claims that may have referred to pentarchy should be considered a historical anachronism. The term Catholic has already been in common usage long before Nicaea, and the evidence from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (107), Muratorian Fragment (155), Martyrdom of Polycarp (165), and the Stromata (198).

Furthermore, the preamble of the Edict is as follows: Imppp. Gratianus, Valentinianus et Theodosius aaa. edictum ad populum urbis Constantinopolitanae. Cunctos populos, quos clementiae nostrae regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Alexandriae episcopum virum apostolicae sanctitatis, hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam patris et filii et spiritus sancti unam deitatem sub parili maiestate et sub pia trinitate credamus. Hanc legem sequentes christianorum catholicorum nomen iubemus amplecti, reliquos vero dementes vesanosque iudicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere nec conciliabula eorum ecclesiarum nomen accipere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex caelesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos. Dat. III kal. mar. Thessalonicae Gratiano a. V et Theodosio a. I conss.

The very text of the document, very specifically mentions that they (the Emperors - Imppp) seek to make the religion taught by Peter to the Romans ((divinum petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio) the official religion of the Empire. How do those two links suppose to support the initiator of this discussion'ss claim?  The articles mention the Nicene Creed.  That is all they mention.  None of those mentions that new religion known as Nicene Christianity emerged.  In fact, at Nicea, these words were written "Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εγένετο, ἢ Ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστόν, ἢ τρεπτόν, ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία".  Obviously, this entity that is known as the ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία pre-existed the council, the council makes a judgment speaking on the behalf of this already existant entity. In fact, the Nicene Creed professes in the fourth clause, "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.", the very same entity as ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

The initiator of this discussion appears to suggest, that if someone was a "Roman Catholic" they would be pushing an "agenda" by your statement that "those contributions were aggressively reverted, the same for Edict of Thessalonica, as upon investigation of the contributor, they appeared to be a Roman Catholic" and the record demonstrates that they were the aggressive reverter. Perhaps given their obvious bias against those who are "Roman Catholic", they should refrain from editing such articles which cause their bias to be manifest. DeusImperator (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we all happy with the current opening, after my edit here? TheLionHasSeen thanked me for it, so perhaps he is. I can see there was, or could be thought to have been, a genuine issue here, which I have tried to resolve. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , that'll work! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * that is fine but the word "can" should be dropped. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Churches of the East claim to have representation (through succession) at the council.  So, while they all can make that claim, it appears the editor's POV is that they can make that claim, as in justifying the claim.  To maintain neutrality, the word "can" should be dropped.  The editors make no adjudication of whether they can or cannot. DeusImperator (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Responding to the lengthy rebuttal, perhaps there has been a motive assigned due to your contribution history, and apparent block log? I do not mean to write that in a manner to demean you, rather state an observation. Anyways, have you ever considered in modern scholarship new terms are generated to assemble the faith or group of whatever subject is present? That is why the term Nicene Christianity was employed in the lead. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's also why there's an article titled, Proto-orthodox Christianity. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed your own contribution history to articles concerning Orthodoxy? That can be construed as a bias and pushing an agenda...  Just saying.  On the other hand I have followed the evidence.  In fact, the editor who came up with the compromise, looked at the evidence as support my position.  I would suggest that you put your subjective feelings aside an read the text itself. DeusImperator (talk)

Eastern Orthodox Churches
The use of the plural. Address the issue here. There is no single Eastern Orthodox Church. There are several autocephalous and autonomous churches which are collectively known as the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Each of these claims seperate succession. Hence the plural form. This hold true for the Orienal Orthodox and the Churches of the East as well DeusImperator (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

However, there appears a general acceptance of the singular, and will makes this change to the text. DeusImperator (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a single Eastern Orthodox Church. Your apparent bias is being made ever-more known, respectively writing. It is called the Eastern Orthodox Church, and its official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, however is correct with the plural form, as they are a group of churches not collectively calling themselves the "Oriental Orthodox Church". - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * What bias??? There is no entity officially known as the Orthodox Catholic Church.  There is an autonomous church known as the Orthodox Catholic Church of America.  The ROC does not use the word "Catholic" and neither do the Serbian Orthodox Church.  The Greek Church based in Athens does.  Furthermore, there is no one official church in Eastern Orthodoxy.  Each is officially a separate autocephalous or autonomous entity.  I have requested admins to look into your disruptive behavior. DeusImperator (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There's countless references where those churches constituting the single Eastern Orthodox Church refer to themselves as "Orthodox Catholic", and even employ the term "Catholic" in their documents. It is all over Wikipedia and Google, JSTOR, Britannica, etc. Are you not grasping the middle-way of examining terminology or history, instead of primarily seeing from the eyes of the faith you appear to be affiliated with? At this rate, you can request, but I will fight back. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you read what I wrote? The Russian and Serbian Orthodox Churches do not use the name "Catholic".  Some autocephalous churches do some do not.  What has faith got to do with any of this?  What can be proven?  Where is the evidence?  Where is the official evidence of such an entity.  Have any of the Eastern Orthodox churches published any document in the name of this entity? This would be evidence of such an entity.  DeusImperator (talk)


 * Where is your evidence of Eastern Orthodox Churches claiming to be one church? And where is there evidence of this entity you claim that exists called the Orthodox Catholic Church to which all the Eastern Orthodox Churches belong to in any official publication? DeusImperator (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * According to the ANI noticeboard please do the following: leave me alone and leave me alone. If you can't do something as simple as search the means provided... - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is the statement from the Orthodox Church in America.

What is the proper name for the Orthodox Church?Question

What is the proper name for the Orthodox Church? One sees so many, and of such different variety!

Answer

It must be understood first of all that names like Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, etc. are all names for one and the same Church with one and the same faith and practice. Of course within these churches there are cultural differences which do not touch the essence of the faith as such.

Sometimes the Orthodox Church is also called the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Oriental Church, or the Christian Church of the East, or the Orthodox Catholic Church, or the Graeco-Russian Church. But once more, these are all different names for the same Church.

Care must be exercised not to confuse the Orthodox Church with the Eastern Christian Churches in union with the See of Rome: the so-called Uniates, or Byzantine or Greek Catholics. And also there is the distinction to be made between the Orthodox and the so-called Oriental Orthodox or Lesser Eastern Churches such as the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian, Syrian, Armenian, Indian, and other churches which are very close to the Orthodox Church but not part of it.

In America it must be noticed that the new autocephalous (self-governing) Church which used to be the Russian Orthodox Church of America is now simply called the Orthodox Church in America.

https://www.oca.org/questions/teaching/what-is-the-proper-name-for-the-orthodox-church