Catholic Church History Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) V. Theological Definition (313-95) 26. The City of God and Caesaro-Papism V Theological Definition 26. THE CITY OF GOD AND CAESARO-PAPISM A. Nature of Caesaro-Papism Caesaro-papism, etymologically, is the regime in which Caesar would be pope. It particularly designates the Church-state relationship of the later and Christian Roman Empire, especially after it had been based upon Constantinople and largely restricted to the Byzantine or Greek world. Secondarily and less perfectly the Teutonic revival of the Roman Empire in the West would advance similar pretensions, though the unique position of the bishop of Rome would prove a bar to the faithful reproduction in the West of the system of Justinian the Great. In varying degrees, then, Caesaro-papism will be the alternative faced by the Church during the Feudal period to the anarchical tendencies of the age. Imperial protection afforded the Church many advantages in the temporal order: immunities for the clergy from secular tasks, subsidies for the liturgical and charitable works of the Church, protection for missionaries, facilities for communication-to mention but a few of the more obvious. In turn the Church made her contribution by inculcating respect for authority, patriotic loyalty, observance of morality, and promoting imperial unity and cultural homogeneity. But the price paid for this was a high one, since the imperial rulers always tended to make of the Church a department of the state and to make use of ecclesiastical institutions for political purposes. B. Evolution of Caesaro-papism (1) PRE-CIMISTIAN SOURCES "Before Christ's coming there were some who were justly and rightly both kings and priests, such as Melchizedech, and Satan imitated this among unbelievers; therefore pagan emperors were called pontifex maximum." Thus Pope St. Gelasius I indicated antecedents of Caesaropapism in the Roman Empire once become Christian. On the one hand, Christians had never questioned even pagan imperial jurisdiction, citng t. Paul's dictum that "all power is of God." They were prone to point out Old Testament customs of deference to kings, the anointed of God. On the other hand, the emperors were successors of rulers, such as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, who claimed divine origins and united religious headship to secular. Even Christian rulers proved loathe to relinquish supreme arbitrament in the religious sphere, and as a matter of fact, the title of pontifex maximum was retained for seventy years after the Edict of Milan. (2) POTENTIAL SOURCE OF CONFUSION Although Christ had laid down the principle of the distinction between the things of God and those of Caesar (Matt. 22:21), its application required both justice and charity. Actually two jurisdictions existed over the same group of subjects within a common area; here was potential fuel for conflict. The Christian concept would interrelate those powers as the soul to the body, spiritual functions to temporal, thus posing for the first time the problem of relation of Church and state. Separation of powers seemed unthinkable in a Christian empire, for the prince was regarded as the Church's liberator and protector, and all Christians claimed to be loyal subjects and patriotic citizens. Distinction without separation would prove a problem that would tax the resources of Christian harmony. (3) CONSTANTINIAN INAUGURAL Despite his postponement of baptism to the end of his life, Constantine the Great seems to have been intellectually sincere in his adhesion to Christianity. He provided for the education of his heirs in that religion, and lavished upon the clergy marks of Ms confidence. But it is significant that be did not lay down the title of pontifex nwximus, and assumed the enigmatic style of "bishop of those outside the Church" --which, according to some, might have meant "bishop in regard to the Church's external relations." Indeed, the toleration accorded by the Milanese policy was a departure from all Roman and Oriental precedents, and Constantine may have deemed it a temporary expedient to tide over transition from an official paganism to an official Christianity. In practice, he showed himself far from neutral in religion: antipagan and antilieretical decrees began during his reign. Always his objective seems to have been religious unity, whatever temporary concessions might be necessary, Religious harmony as a means to public tranquility became a fixed notion that he banded down to his Christian successors. This inversion of values would lead inevitably to a "peace at any price" policy-even if the price to be paid was dogmatic truth. (4) BYZANTINE DEVELOPMENT Constantinople, founded as a Christian city in 330, soon became the cultural and political center of the Empire; eventually it would also challenge the religious primacy of Old Rome. There can be little doubt that it was imperial pressure that induced the Byzantine bishop to advance claims to metropolitan status, to patriarchal dignity, and then to wholly independent jurisdiction. But the court prelate would pay for his exaltation in ecclesiastical rank by personal subjugation to imperial dictation, and this inferior position would affect all of his suffragan bishops. The full force of Caesaro-papism, then, was spent against the see of Constantinople, while the bishop of Rome, although by no means free from annoyance, would find his distance from the imperial capital a blessing. Imperial inquisition. Parallel to Constantine's designation of himself as bishop in externals was Theodosius II's claim to be protector of religion and cult. A corollary of this drawn by the imperial pontiffs would be the use of the police power in suppressing religious dissent. Though apparently largely hortatory in nature, the Edict of Thessalonica (381) began a series of imperial decrees commanding Catholic Christian orthodoxy. From the reign of Theodosius the Great (379-95) edicts against heretics multiply: there were 68 within 57 years. By the fifth century the death penalty will be threatened and sometimes invoked. Justinian's codification. Caesaro-papism reached its zenith at the close of this period during the reign of Justinian the Great (527-65). Shortly after his reign Byzantine control of Italy was shattered, while in 590 Pope St. Gregory the Great began to adumbrate the dyarchy of medieval Christendom. Yet subsequent papal theocracy was often challenged by citations from this mine for secularists, the Justinian Code. The compilation, it is true, did acknowledge that the pope was 'first of all priests," but this repetition of a Christian truism somehow hinted at imperial patronage: later dissidents would assert that the bishop of Rome had gained his primacy by imperial delegation. But whatever the theory of the Code, in practice it allotted a large share to imperial interference. Papal elections were to be confirmed by the court, and episcopal nominations, at least in the Orient, were largely ad nutum Caesaris. Episcopal residence was subjected to regulation, and clerical discipline and monastic observance supervised almost as a matter of course. If Justinian was not quite "Brother Sacristan," he was certainly "Father Canonist." His services to religion and morality were undoubtedly great; indeed, the spiritual benefits accruing to many souls from the whole Caesaro-papist system cannot be dismissed lightly. Nonetheless it will remain a legitimate question at the end of the Caesaropapist vogue whether such advantages were obtained too dearly. In any event, Caesaro-papism, no more than secularist separation, can ever beget the ideal Respublica Christiana. C. Critique of Caesaro-papism (1) PATRISTic DECLARATiONS OF INDEPENDENCE Hosius, bishop of Cordova, and Constantine's trusted advisor, lived long enough to have occasion to rebuke the emperor's son, Constantius II, for his meddling in ecclesiastical discipline: "Intrude not yourself into the Church's business and give us no command regarding it, but learn from us instead. God has placed the empire in your hands; in ours the administration of His Church. As he who would rob you of your government would go against God's law, so fear lest you sin gravely by taking upon yourself the rule of God's Church. 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.' Therefore you may not burn incense, nor may we be secular rulers" (St. Athanasius, History of the Arians, 44). St. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, about 365 criticized another imperial administration for trying to propagate Christianity-semi-Arian heresy at that-by force: "Today men claim that Christ is powerless even though the state's power is used to enforce faith in God. The Church threatens exile and prison: she in whom exiles and prisoners formerly believed, now tries to win believers by force . ." (Against Auxentius, 4). St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, however, is the classic doctor for Church-state relations. This governor become bishop asserted that the Church possessed jurisdiction over all Christians, the emperor included, in spiritual matters. His blending of tact and firmness in applying his principle is seen in his rebuke to Theodosius the Great: "Tribute belongs to Caesar beyond doubt, but the Church belongs to God and ought not be given to Caesar; God's temple cannot be Caesar's right. .I say this with due respect to the emperor-none can deny this. What greater dignity than to call him a son of the Church? . The emperor, then, is in the Church, not above it" (Against Auxentius, 36). For the hierarchy, moreover, St. Ambrose, Claimed a jurisdictional immunity from secular control: "When have you heard it said that in a matter of faith laymen have pronounced on a bishop? Must we abase ourselves by flattery and forget the rights attached to the priesthood and abandon to others our prerogatives? . If we ask the Holy Scriptures and historical precedent, who will dare deny that in matter of faith-I repeat in a matter of faith-bisbops were accustomed to judge emperors rather than Christian emperors judge bishops?" (Letter 21.) Not only the persons but even the sacred edifices of the Church were exempt from imperial control.