Does the State have the right to correct the Church in theological matters?

score:0

Accepted answer

No, according to Pope Gelasius I in his 494 A.D. letter to Emperor Anastasius on the superiority of the spiritual over temporal power, Duo sunt (Latin, English):

There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment.

You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these [religious] matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will.

Duo sunt quippe, imperator auguste, quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur, auctoritas sacrata pontificium et regalis potestas, in quibus tanto gravius pondus est sacerdotum, quanto etiam pro ipsis regibus hominum in divino reddituri sunt examine rationem.

Nosti etenim, fili clementissime, quoniam licet præsideas humano generi dignitate, rerum tamen præsulibus divinarum devotus colla submittis atque ab eis causas tuæ salutis expetis, inque sumendis cælestibus sacramentis eisque, ut competit, disponendis subdi te debere cognoscis religionis ordine potius quam præesse. Nosti itaque inter hæc ex illorum te pendere iudicio, non illos ad tuam velle redigi voluntatem.

Upvote:1

Using the OP definition of Church to mean the "One Catholic Church", then we might look at history to see if the State was ever used to enforce a certain belief of the "One Catholic Church" over and against other parts of the One Church.

One of the earliest issues that shows this authority as a right of the State was about how to observe the death, burial, resurrection of Christ. We know this as the Easter Controversy. It has led to questions over the centuries like was Christ crucified on the 14th or 15th of Nisan?

This controversy had continued from about the time of "Pope" Sixtus I circa 120 AD to the first Council at Nicea in 325 AD. The Church at Rome (or per the OP, the "One Catholic Church" basically enlisted Constantine (the State) to enforce its timing against what the Church at Asia Minor taught. Constantine was the guarantee of acquiescence.

and as, on the other, the custom now followed by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it has appeared good to all; and I [Constantine] have been guarantee for your consent [Asia Minor], that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa, in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. Eusebius, Church History

Was Constantine a theologian? No, but as emperor he did want peace throughout his kingdom. His subjects were subject to him.

So, to answer the OP question did the State have the right to correct the Church in theological matters, yes it did have the right given to it by the "One Catholic Church" and it did at that time.

To add, there is not a sense in modern times that the State in free countries has the same right. The exercise of religion is a guarantee of Law in America, which I suppose, is a bit ironic. It is the State guaranteeing freedom.

More post

Search Posts

Related post