As the centuries passed from the
founding of the Roman Empire, the empire fell on hard times. Given the history of
the Empire, this was inevitable. The endless series of ineffective tyrant
rulers, enemy invasions, squandering of human and financial capital, among
other factors contributed to the collapse. Near the end of the Roman Empire
Constantine reunited the Empire, placing the seat of power in the city taken
from his name, Constantinople.
It was around the fourth century that
the so-called “Byzantine” rule came into existence, which was a term used to
collectively describe the Greek influenced east, and Roman influenced west of
the empire. The term, “Byzantine Empire” was not coined by historians until
centuries later, because they felt a need to clarify explaining events and
differences in the region after the administrative center was moved from the
west (Rome) to the east (Constantinople.)
The Byzantine Empire of the east was
characterized by Greek culture, rather than the Latin culture of Rome. A very
important historical difference was the integration of the Catholic Church into
the day-to-day administration and governing of the Byzantine Empire, which as
we know was unheard of during the Roman Empire, when countless Christians were
martyred in the defense or practice of their faith. The image of _______ Caesar
asking a Christian for their input on ruling the Roman Empire is impossible to
form.
It was the Byzantine emperor Justinian
who reinstated the primacy of Westernized Roman law in the empire with his
conquests over the Arab’s, Carthaginians, Persians, and Vandal’s. He reclaimed
great chunks of territory, including Italy, Sicily, parts of Spain, and the
Balkans. He codified Roman law and his model is the basis for Western thought
and Church canon law today. [1] In religious matters,
Justinian defended the Catholic faith. However, he also made compromises that
created future problems.
Justinian treated the Pope and Bishops
as advisers to the royal throne, creating an untenable master-servant model.
Specifically, who was the master, and who is the servant in the relationship?
This was an acceptable, workable, model for the Eastern Church, because she
accepted the principle that the Byzantine Empire, and associated emperor, was
set above the Church. But this model was not acceptable to the Western Church.
The modern era division and separation
of authority between Church and state was not clear in the fourth and fifth
centuries. This interconnectedness of government administration and the
Catholic Church created a problem: Which agency was subservient to the other?
Did the Pope give orders to the emperor? Did the emperor give orders to the
Pope? In a shared authority model, who prevailed over Church and state affairs
when the inevitable differences of opinion arise?
It was Pope Gelasius who answered these
questions by writing there were two powers governing the world, the Church and
the emperor, but the Church was superior.
Imperial authority must be subservient to papal authority in all matters
concerning the Church and faith. However, the Church in the East accepted the
rule of the emperor over them. [2] This clear difference
allows for a major loophole we see exploited against the Eastern Orthodox
Churches today, who remain subservient to the rule of law as imposed by their
host countries. A stark realization of this policy in action is to look at the
domino fall of communism in the former Soviet Union. Who gave the push that
began the fall? Pope John Paul II. Even though Poland is an eastern bloc
nation, it is no coincidence it was a Roman from the western Catholic Church
that bucked the host communist puppet government, joining in solidarity with
Polish union workers to eventually topple the communist stranglehold in the
east.
Over the centuries the blended
relationship, or the attempts to end the blended relationship between Church
and state carried on. Throughout the discussion on who has authority over what
topical area, much confusion and turmoil reigned in Church history. In some
circles, rather than appreciate the efforts of the Catholic Church for
eventually clarifying these sticky “Who has authority over what?” issues,
sometimes the inevitable turmoil is turned against the Church by our Protestant
brothers and sisters, offered as some sort of “evidence” our Church is invalid.
In reality, we owe a debt to those who did the heavy lifting in the early
centuries. The clarity, not to mention general freedom, we enjoy today due to
the separation of Church and state would not be possible without the
regrettable but necessary hard slog which occurred in the early Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment