Caesaropapism

The term Caesaropapism (from Latin caesar , "emperor", and papa , " pope ") describes a form of society in which the secular ruler is also the head of the church or the chief judge in theological and dogmatic questions or in which the head of state is not the worldly and spiritual power is directly united in itself, but the church is subordinate to the state authorities. The term was most frequently used for the time of the Byzantine Empire (although almost exclusively in older research). Its use is more justifiable, for example, for England under Henry VIII or for the Russian tsarist empire in the period from Peter the Great up to the February Revolution of 1917 . In fact, there was also a kind of Caesaropapism among the Ottonians in the Holy Roman Empire , as the Pope was arbitrarily installed by the emperors.

Caesaropapism is a form of the state church , but it also exists in many other forms. As the caesaropapism opposite order principles, the subordination state power on the one hand to the Church ( Papocäsarismus , z. B. in Kirchenstaat ) and on the other hand, the idea of separation of religion and state ( two swords theory in the Middle Ages, laicism in modern times) to conceive .

history

The identity of secular and religious rule has historically existed in different cultures and religions. However, it is not always undisputed among scholars how far this confusion went and whether the term Caesaropapism is really applicable: Total or partial control of the priesthood by the secular authorities was less common than the older research assumed.

Egypt

The pharaohs in ancient Egypt were not only kings, but also the earthly manifestation of a deity. The extent to which the pharaohs could control the priests, however, varied greatly over the course of Egypt's long history. And whether the very existence of a divine veneration of the ruler, as it also existed in Hellenism and under the Roman emperors ( ruler cult ), can be equated with Caesaropapism is very questionable.

Iran

The Persian great kings claimed divine ancestors for themselves, but were considered human and were not formally at the head of the priesthood. This was true of the Achaemenids as well as the Parthians and Sassanids ; At least among the latter, there were repeated conflicts between the ruler and the Zoroastrian priests. Kingship and priesthood were considered twins who could not exist without each other. Above all, older research therefore assumed the existence of a Zoroastrian "state church", at least under the Sassanids; In the meantime, however, the mutual influence and dependency are mostly considered to be lower: Normally, the great kings, who tolerated many religions in the empire, had little consideration for the Zoroastrian priests, while conversely the mobadan mobad , the Zoroastrian high priest, was largely able to make sovereign decisions on religious issues . Thus, despite the close ties between royalty and religion, there was no Caesaropapism in ancient Iran.

Aztecs

The Aztec High Kings led as the Egyptian pharaohs their ancestry back to the gods. It is unclear whether this religious legitimation of their rule also led to de facto control of the priests.

Roman Empire

Since Augustus , the Roman emperor, as pontifex maximus, was also the chief priest. He was thus responsible for the supervision of the state cult, and he was allowed to communicate with the gods in the name of the res publica . The Roman Empire rose in other relative liberality in matters of religion, increasingly a claim to the god-like worship of the emperor (keeping in mind needs that this "God" not as omniscient, omnipotent and transcendent was understood, but rather as "Superman"). Refusal of this imperial cult (e.g. by Christians) was severely punished (see Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire ) .

Through the Edict of Tolerance of Milan in 313, Christianity changed from being a persecuted to a tolerated - and in the course of time finally to a privileged - religion. Emperor Constantine the Great favored Christians among his court officials, which led to numerous conversions among the other officials. Although the emperors no longer held the title of pontifex maximus since Gratian , as Christians they often claimed power of disposal over the church, as the church owed its privileges to them.

In 392, Theodosius I forbade all pagan cults under penalty of death and thus made Orthodox Christianity in fact the state religion. However, this did not make the emperor head of the church, his influence on the church was limited for the time being: As early as 390 the bishop Ambrose of Milan forced Theodosius I to publicly repent and atone for the massacre of Thessaloniki under threat of excommunication : “The emperor is in the church, not above the church. ”However, other positions were also taken - the Donatists assumed that the emperor had nothing to do with the church, while Optatus von Mileve stated that the church was the empire and therefore the emperor subordinate. This conflict remained unsolved in the West for centuries.

The arrangement with power led to an increase in prosperity and worldly influence for numerous church superiors, they moved away from the early Christian love and poverty laws. Many believers and also some theologians (e.g. Gregor von Nazianz in his sermons in Constantinople) saw this as corruptibility and moral decline. In protest against it, ascetic movements such as hermitism and monasticism grew . These movements made it more difficult for the emperors, who now more and more legitimized their rule by reference to Christianity, to control the church in their favor.

Byzantine Empire

Since the emperors of the West mostly no longer resided in Rome since the 4th century , the local bishops were able to emancipate themselves further and further. In the western Roman Empire , which was becoming increasingly politically weaker , the last emperor was deposed by the Germanic military leader Odoacer in 476 , and the papacy developed in the period that followed: at least since Gregory the Great, the Roman bishop had achieved a position that was so elevated above the other bishops that he was can be called Pope. In the meantime, the Eastern Roman-Byzantine emperor in Constantinople increasingly became an ecclesiastical authority; initially less in theological than in organizational. For example, the first ecumenical councils and a number of local synods were each convened by the emperor.

Emperor Theodosius II presided over the Council of Constantinople (448) as archiereus basileus ("high priestly king"), Emperor Markian (451) as sacerdos imperator ("priestly emperor "). The office of patriarch , however, always remained and was never held by the emperors themselves. Since the rulers had resided in Constantinople since Theodosius I, the patriarch there could not emancipate himself as much as the Roman bishop.

The late antique emperors increasingly claimed a kind of " divine right ". Under the theologically interested Justinian I (527-565), who is said to have composed some of the liturgical chants that are still in use today , the emperor's rule over the church no longer only included organizational questions but also dogmas. One spoke of the symphonia of state and church. In the Middle Byzantine period the ties between the emperor and the church became even closer. Since 602 the ruler has been crowned in a church, no longer in the hippodrome or palace.

Nevertheless, it is problematic to speak of Caesaropapism in favor of Eastern Rome / Byzantium: As the Byzantine iconoclasm or the unpopular submission of the emperor to the pope at the Council of Basel show, imperial dogma decisions in the church could also provoke such massive resistance that they could not be enforced were and were eventually repealed. Time and again, powerful patriarchs - or Christian masses - have acted in church matters independently of the emperor and sometimes also against him. For this reason, more recent research has largely refrained from speaking in favor of Byzantium of Caesaropapism (even if this view was very widespread in earlier works): The Eastern Roman-Byzantine emperor was not at the head of the church and did not have it never completely under control.

Russia

In the 16th century a kind of Caesaropapism was in fact introduced by Tsar Ivan IV in Russia, where it remained in force as a principle until the revolution. Peter I increased the dependency far beyond the Byzantine measure (see above) by abolishing the Patriarchate of Moscow and instead instituting a holy synod that was completely subordinate to him and which worked on the model of the Protestant state churches of Western Europe in the manner of a state ministry. The patriarchy was not restored until 1917. As a result of Russian Caesaropapism, there is still a close relationship between church and state in many Orthodox churches (see also clericalism ).

Roman Catholic Church

Caesaropapism could not come about in the Catholic Church , since the pope faced the secular ruler. There have been disputes with various countries over the right of investiture and tax sovereignty and whether or not the spiritual ruler is above the secular ruler - but there never was a situation in which a secular ruler was above the Pope on theological issues . The opposite situation, that the Pope was above the secular ruler, did not actually occur either - although de jure this was precisely what many Popes claimed. In the Papal State, however, the spiritual and secular rulers were identical, and the prince-bishops exercised both secular and spiritual power in their domain; as electors, some of them also had a direct influence on the election of emperors.

Lutheran Church

After Martin Luther met with violent rejection of his teaching in the higher ecclesiastical hierarchy, he turned instead to the secular hierarchy in the form of the German sovereigns and other nobility; many of them were more open to his ideas. The result was the so-called sovereign church regiment , in which a Protestant sovereign prince was also the bishop of his church. This state of affairs lasted essentially until 1918 in Germany (see State Church Law ).

Anglican Church

Another form of Caesaropapism arose in England when Henry VIII appointed himself head of the Church in place of the Pope and also intervened decisively. However, this came to an end with his daughter Elisabeth I , who strictly refused to have a say in theological questions. The English king is still officially the head of the Church of England .

See also: Imperial Church , Caesarism

literature

• Gilbert Dagron: Emperor and Priest. The Imperial Office in Byzantium. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge et al. 2003, ISBN 0-521-80123-0 ( Past and Present Publications ).