The Real Inqueistion! Raz read, Hans approved.

[crazy canuck]

Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

So when the Emperor and the Church stood on the different sides of the doctrinal conflict it was a Church-State conflict wasn't it?

The Emperor got what he wanted.  Constantine instituted the Nicean Creed.  Constantius II abolished it and replaced it with a new creed.  So when the Emperor and the Church stood on different sides, the Emperor took steps to fix that problem.

The notion of the Church-State conflict does become a significant issue until Pope Gregory in the 12th century.

[Sheilbh]

2) The Pope didn't have the power or influence they had later into the middle and especially high middle ages.  Arguably the Bishops of Alexandria and Milan were more powerful and influential.

Sure but both of whom were on the Pope's side at this period and it's from this moment that Roman prestige begins to grow. But it is from this period that other Churches begin to refer to Rome for mediation or settlement because Rome didn't move even when the Empire did and didn't embrace the Arianism or semi-Arianism of the fifteen council or whatever they had.

[crazy canuck]

What most people don't realize is that under Constantius II new Council's were held which, under the Emperor's influence (including banishing some proponents of the Nicean Creed), rejected the Nicean creed and adopted a new Creed which was closer to that of Arianism.  Shortly after many of all the proponents of the Nicean creed were preplaced.  If not for the disruption caused by Julian the Apostate coming to power the new creed would have become the orthodox creed.

This is part of Rome's claim to precedence: that they never embraced heresy even when it was, falsely, orthodoxy (which isn't strictly true). The Roman Church was far less affected by the move to Arianism. A large part of that is that they were less theologically sophisticated and the Western Empire was collapsing, and you're right had it continued they may well have ended up as the heretics in this case.

But I think at this point the Roman church begins to break from the church-state complex.

But that is only an argument that can only be made in hindsight.  The Pope didn't have much influence beyond Rome.  And the population of Rome was still significantly Pagan. In short is was a backwater that people didn't pay much attention to.  The theological battles were raging elsewhere.

[crazy canuck]

2) The Pope didn't have the power or influence they had later into the middle and especially high middle ages.  Arguably the Bishops of Alexandria and Milan were more powerful and influential.

Sure but both of whom were on the Pope's side at this period and it's from this moment that Roman prestige begins to grow. But it is from this period that other Churches begin to refer to Rome for mediation or settlement because Rome didn't move even when the Empire did and didn't embrace the Arianism or semi-Arianism of the fifteen council or whatever they had.

I would argue that Rome's influence begins to grow for reasons unrelated to the Arian controversy and has more to do with the Roman view toward the Church accumulating wealth which then lead to its ability to accumulate power. 

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. But it's like saying that from the Nestorians and Miaphysites we can see an emerging concept of Christianity as something beyond the state church. The difference is that Rome was right and vindicated by the rest of the Church rejecting Arianism. Within Roman Christianity I think, as well as the weakening sinews of the state, that did create a separate identity of Christianity distinct from the State Church - bolstered by Augustine's City of God.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah. But it's like saying that from the Nestorians and Miaphysites we can see an emerging concept of Christianity as something beyond the state church. The difference is that Rome was right and vindicated by the rest of the Church rejecting Arianism. Within Roman Christianity I think, as well as the weakening sinews of the state, that did create a separate identity of Christianity distinct from the State Church - bolstered by Augustine's City of God.

Rome was "right" only because of events that had nothing to do with Rome. 

[alfred russel]

The notion of the Church-State conflict does become a significant issue until Pope Gregory in the 12th century.

I don't know how to respond to this--there are so many examples that refute it.

A few things worth pointing out:
-the investiture controversy with Pope Gregory and the walk to canossa was in the 11th century.
-I'd refer you to a few periods of Italian history: the struggle between the Pope and Eastern Empire after the fall of the Western Empire for secular control of the Italian peninsula.
-The relationship between the Lombards and Church, culminating in the invitation of Charlemagne to Italy.

[Valmy]

You put the Investiture crisis twice.

[alfred russel]

You put the Investiture crisis twice.

That is how important it was.

Actually, that is the result of me starting a message, going to a meeting, and coming back to finish. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

So when the Emperor and the Church stood on the different sides of the doctrinal conflict it was a Church-State conflict wasn't it?

No they were theological differences between people.  There was no State and Church with separate spheres of actual authority to have a conflict.  In fact during this period it was common for one of the emperors to be Arian and one not.   So is that a state-state-church conflict?  Of course not.  In fact it is anachronistic to refer to "Church" in this sense at all in this time period, Ecclesia still has its original meaning as the collectivity of believers (or the "assembly" of believers of a particular era).

One can meaningfully speak about Church-State relations only at the point when the offices of the prelates become institutionalized and independently assume certain of the functions of the old Roman State.  And that doesn't happen until deep into the 5the century.

[crazy canuck]

You put the Investiture crisis twice.

That is how important it was.

Actually, that is the result of me starting a message, going to a meeting, and coming back to finish. 

And if you go back and read what I said about it you will see that I refer, at least three times, to the revolution Pope Gregory started as part of the process that was the conflict between the Church and local rulers. 

[alfred russel]

Arianism wasn't a Church-State conflict; it was a doctrinal conflict over which direction the Church-State complex should go.

So when the Emperor and the Church stood on the different sides of the doctrinal conflict it was a Church-State conflict wasn't it?

No they were theological differences between people.  There was no State and Church with separate spheres of actual authority to have a conflict.  In fact during this period it was common for one of the emperors to be Arian and one not.   So is that a state-state-church conflict?  Of course not.  In fact it is anachronistic to refer to "Church" in this sense at all in this time period, Ecclesia still has its original meaning as the collectivity of believers (or the "assembly" of believers of a particular era).

One can meaningfully speak about Church-State relations only at the point when the offices of the prelates become institutionalized and independently assume certain of the functions of the old Roman State.  And that doesn't happen until deep into the 5the century.

A roman emperor was excommunicated in the late 4th century.

[The Minsky Moment]

A roman emperor was excommunicated in the late 4th century.

So says the myth.
But this is one of those examples where the contemporary sources are at odds with the spin put on events much later.  The text of Ambrose's contemporary letter is available.  Read it and tell me if it looks like a Church-State conflict to you.  Because it doesn't look like it to me:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ambrose_letters_06_letters51_60.htm#Letter51

[mongers]

Thanks for ruining the Monty Python joke, guys.