Edward Gibbon argued: "There is nothing wrong with the Edict of Unity. ”
Looking back at European societies in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, the church and the state seemed to have formed an inseparable relationship, and it happened that Byzantium and Rome parted ways because of a church policy. This decree was the "Edict of Unity", because Christianity, which insisted on its orthodox status, did not allow other religions to threaten its own popular beliefs, so there was a fierce struggle between the Holy See and the Byzantine court over religious beliefs, and the introduction of the "Unity Edict" unexpectedly exacerbated the division between the two.
I. Early Christianity hoped to secure its primacy in the Church of Rome and thus control the religious beliefs of the Byzantine and Roman peoples, but unexpectedly became opposed to the "theory of divine sovereignty", resulting in a white-hot relationship between the monarch and the church
After learning about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, there must be such a realization that the relationship between the Church and the Roman Empire seems to run throughout Rome. Indeed, the relationship between the Church and the Roman court was more gentle in the early days of the Empire, with the church and state performing their respective duties, the church responsible for the faith of the people in Christianity, and the king exercising his imperial power according to doctrine.
However, this situation seems to have produced different views due to the importance of "clerical power and imperial power". The Pope of Rome considered himself to have the right of chief authority over the Church of Rome, and in this respect there was no doubt about the leadership of the ecclesiastical power. The Roman imperial power, as the representative of secular power, did not have any doctrine or law to support it.
Therefore, from the purely theoretical point of view, the Roman people may be biased towards the clerical side. So, what exactly is the reason for the transformation of the relationship between the two?
This may refer to the "theory of divine sovereignty" proposed by the ecclesiast Eusebius in the fourth century AD, which gave the Eastern Roman Empire a sacred status of monarchy. Some may question why the ecclesiasticals speak for the monarchy, but instead intensify the contradiction between the church and the monarchy. Indeed, the presentation of a legitimate theoretical basis for monarchy superficially balances the relationship between the two. But most fatally, the theory does not specify the specific functions of the church and the monarchy.
So the king seems to have a status similar to that of a missionary, and when the king abandons the orthodox church beliefs, it leads to the appearance of contradictions. The most obvious is the Byzantine Istanbul Empire, which, during the reign of Theus II, decided to change the country's religion and turn to orthodoxy. Hosius, the chief of the Church of Rome at the time, told Theus II:
"Don't interfere in church affairs, don't tell us what to do, but accept our guidance. Because of God's gift, you have the throne and we have the church. ...... As the Scripture says, 'Caesar's Angelica Caesar, God's Angelica To God.' So we have no right to rule the world, and the emperor has no right to give orders to the church. ”
It is clear between the last sentences of the above remarks that the king only enjoys the executive power of the state and has no right to interfere with the implementation of ecclesiastical power and to change the faith of the faithful of the church. If you want to intervene forcibly, you will inevitably incur instability in your own monarchical position.
The contradiction between the Church of Rome and the monarchy was increasingly prominent because of the encroachment of the Ecclesiastical power by the Byzantine court. The traditionally balanced relationship between church and state has become white-hot at this moment, but the ecclesiastical power is not concerned with who the monarch of the country is, they only care about whether the primacy of their own church will change hands. This is why the division of the Roman Empire only prompted the division of the church, not the abolition of the church.
Second, in Byzantium of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Istanbul Church took the initiative to seek the help of the Western Roman Church in order to jointly rebel against the Church of Alexandria, and the "Edict of Unity" came from this, but the peaceful church relations were again disputed because of the election of bishops
Because there was no clear division of the specific functional scope of the monarchy and the clerical power, in order to expand the people's worship and belief in the monarch and consolidate the dominance of the monarchy, the rulers of the Eastern Roman Empire, that is, Byzantium, began to intervene in the affairs of the church. Bashi Riku, who had seized the throne by usurpation at the time, seemed to have focused on the selection of bishops of the church, and emperor Zeno also stepped in to the election of bishops of Istanbul.
Acasius, with the support of Emperor Zeno, became the new bishop of the Church of Istanbul and decided to sever his ties with the then illegal Antioch Church once and for all. However, this proposal was ruthlessly rejected by the Church of Rome, so Acatheus decided that church matters in the Eastern Roman Empire would no longer be reported to the Pope.
It can be seen that the Roman church at that time also began to have the same bed and different dreams. After the Council of Charleston in 451, the Church of the Eastern Roman Empire was under strong pressure from the Church of Alexandria and was forced to contact the Church of Rome on its own initiative in order to maintain the faith of the Church in Istanbul. This has led to the promulgation of the "Unity Decree" of the two major churches.
In 482 AD, the Church of Istanbul and the Episcopal Church of Rome jointly issued the "Edict of Unity". But what neither Church could have imagined was that there would be problems in the election of bishops.
In fact, this is necessarily related to the new bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, John Talaya, because Bishop John refused to sign the "Unity Decree", believing that this was a conspiracy of the Istanbul and Roman Churches, just to use the name of Church unity to dissolve his religious beliefs and believer base. Judging from the final result, John's approach does not seem to have the support of the monarch.
Emperor Zeno then replaced John with Peter Mongels, who supported the Edict of Unity, and John was forced to turn to the Pope for help, as Emperor Zeno went beyond the functions of the monarchy.
Perhaps by coincidence of history, The Pope of Rome at the time, Simplicius died suddenly upon learning the news, and Felix became the new Pope. Felix agreed with John and sent papal envoys to represent himself to the Church of Istanbul and the Church of Alexandria to check whether there were suspicious people within the Church dividing the Church.
This investigation became the trigger for the later division of the church, because the Bishop of the Church of Istanbul, Acacius, believed that there was nothing wrong with Emperor Zeno's approach, but only that the Eastern and Western Churches could form a unified opinion on the "Edict of Unity", with no intention of challenging the papal power. In addition, Acatheus's previous attitude towards the Church of Rome was not very good, so he tried to bribe the Pope's envoy to lie about the church.
Pope Felix, upon learning of Acaciaus' actions, believed that the Istanbul Church had completely disregarded the status of the Church of Rome and its own papal power. Therefore, it was decided to remove the name of Acatheus from the bificlic plaque of the church and expel him from the church, and the church that originally had a unified faith became intolerable, and the "Unity Edict" lost its meaning of unity at this time.
Third, the "Edict of Unity" does play a role in balancing the relationship between the East and the West Church, but the long-simmering church conflicts and contradictions with the monarchy cannot be saved, and facing up to the relationship between the East and the West church is the core of the attention of the Church in Rome
In fact, in the process of the development of the Church of Rome, many decrees and canons were promulgated, and after the division of the East and West Rome, the East and West Churches formed in Rome gradually drifted apart due to their different interpretations of the monarchy and the ecclesiastical power. It can be said that the "Edict of Unity" is also one of the many orders of the Church of Rome to maintain the relations between the East and the West Church, but it is such a simple document that directly causes dissatisfaction on both sides and thus deviates from the intention of unity.
The orthodox Church of Rome believed that although the Eastern and Western Churches were forced to divide because of the division of the Roman Empire, as a church community with a common Christian faith, both the Istanbul Church in Byzantium and the Alexandria Church in Western Rome should remain united. However, the reality is that the two major churches in the East and the West, under the accumulated church contradictions, are facing the frequent provocations of many pagan believers, and even basic peace cannot be guaranteed.
The Church of Rome, as the orthodoxy of the Church, seems to have a mentality in the Eastern and Western Churches that fears the wolf before the tiger. It can be seen in the content of the "Unity Decree":
"The Churches everywhere hold only the Divine Creeds established by the 318 Holy Fathers mentioned earlier and endorsed by the aforementioned 150 Holy Fathers, and do not believe in any of the remaining creeds, daily lessons, beliefs or definitions of the creeds... Eager to hear your voice of love, which has been silent for a long time. ”
It is not difficult to see from the content of this edict that the relationship between the East and the West Church seems to have always been the focus of the Pope's attention. As mentioned earlier, this edict actually had a coercive oppression of ecclesiastical power by the monarchy, because the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire required all ecclesiastical bishops to sign in agreement. This kind of disobedience to the will of the people has undoubtedly intensified the contradiction and conflict between the clerical power and the monarchy.
Later, due to the change of dynasties, the Byzantine Empire was unable to curb the previous "Acatheus Division", which led to the opening of the Eastern and Western Churches to each other, and it can be said that the two major churches and the Roman Church also tore off the mask of previously disguised peace on the surface.
Whether the relationship between Byzantium and the Church of Rome is peaceful or antagonistic, it is inevitable in the process of historical development and evolution. Although the division of the church has led to the decline of the status of the ecclesiastical power, from another point of view, the expansion of the monarchy is not a bad thing to improve the state's rule and the sense of collective honor, but can exercise the power of the state alone and avoid causing confusion among the people.
All in all, both institutions and decrees have their historical basis and epochal value, although the "Unity Edict" did not play a role in uniting the east-west church relations at that time, but also retained a certain reference significance, providing a reference for the balance of monarchy and ecclesiastical power and ecclesiastical relations in other parts of Europe.
bibliography:
History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
History of the Christian Church