Talk:Christianity as the Roman state religion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Content fork

I'm a medieval historian and just stumbled across this article. I would comment that the title itself is terribly misleading; "state church" implies that there was a single, organized, coherent entity that could be described (and considered itself to be) a "state church." That kind of essentialist interpretation does not reflect the existence of many regional churches of early Christianity. So when the article speaks of one church "claiming authority" over other churches it is about as meaningless as it would be to say that the United Nations claims authority over the European Union.

Secondly, the chronological extension of the Roman Empire through the Franks and Charlemagne is also historically misleading. The Empire in the West is generally held to have ended as a coherent political entity around the fifth century. Church institutions (monasteries, dioceses) outlived the empire, but were sufficiently independent that they could not in anyway be meaningfully called part of a "state church." There was no state.

Off hand, I think this article is a recent content fork that might better be deleted or merged into one of the other articles on the history of early Christianity. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for offering your feedback. As it is not relevant to the question asked I moved this to a new section. There has already been a debate about the appropriateness of the topic so I'm not going to address that again.

BTW, the article in no way suggests that the Franks or Charlemagne were part of the imperial church. I suspect that you are reading it that way for reasons other than what the article actually says. In any event it is well established by the references that the imperial church was seen and is seen as distinct entity although, like the Empire itself, it was not always a coherent entity. One of the essential points of the article is that there were "many regional churches" distinct from this entity.

You are welcome to disagree with the scholars but that is a separate matter.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the time to wade into this debate; I will just quote for the record from the findings of the Afd:

"The result was no consensus. Consensus here to proceed in any one direction seems unclear to me, but further discussion of merging and such is highly encouraged on the article's talk page."

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed there was no consensus for deletion. I was one of those that supported deletion, in fact. However, the productive discussion has now moved on from that direction toward shaping an accurate, more strictly constrained article than the one that now exists. I would emphasize that what you are seeing in the article currently does not necessarily reflect the ongoing good-faith discussion, and I would encourage any interested party to join that discussion above, rather than re-hashing the tabled AfD nomination. Revcasy (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I had done some searching in Google Scholar and J-STOR and got the general impression that the title of the article reflected historiography that fell out of fashion around the middle of the 20th century. One article I found was discussing the "Pagan state church of the Roman Empire" and when I first looked at the title I thought it might refer to the Cult of Augustus. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Unfortunately there is no single name for this entity that is predominantly used. Different authors use different terms (and unfortunately often use the same terms at times to describe this entity and at others the orthodox communion as a whole). It is true that the pre-Christian imperial cults could be (and probably are) referred to using similar names. I am open to discussing the article's name again although we all have to recognize that there will never be a perfectly correct answer. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to comment that I completely agree with User:SteveMcCluskey and also have great difficulty with the term: "State Church." Besides not accurately reflecting historical reality, this ambiguous and misleading term which is not properly qualified can very easily be taken to impose a modern day value judgement on a historical subject, which any professional historian will admit is a no-no; never impose 20th (or 21st) century value judgements upon the study of serious history. It can also be taken quite easily to imply modern day Protestant criticism of the historic church (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and later Anglican). It may be, that the period in question needs to be defined more clearly; if the entire period is to be the focus, say 325-1054 AD, then a macrocosmic approarch needs to be taken, and a possible title such as "Christianity in the First Millenium" -- because the first millenium was the period of the "Pre-Schism" Church, or the "Single Church". These other terms can just as easily have a claim to authority as "State Church", which is in fact a very arbitrary and subjective application to the title, and not at all encyclopedic in this sense. I also dispute the neutrality and recommend deletion. Regards.--ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ might perhaps modify this criticism slightly in view of the fact that the article is not about "the State Church of the Roman Empire", a name similar to "the Church of England", but only about "the state church of the Roman Empire", which is more easily defensible as a description of a phenomenological situation, not of a theological belief. In any case, editorial activity on this article is frozen due to the reluctance of the other contributors to edit-war with an isolated contributor who insists on his version of a paragraph in the lead. Esoglou (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As a complete digression, I wonder how they handle distinctions like the one you mention between "State Church" and "state church" in a language like German, where all nouns are capitalized? I am not entirely satisfied with the distinction even in English, as it is easy to misinterpret and overly subtle. Perhaps we will one day be able to proceed with improving the article, and discuss a name change. Revcasy (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in German, the adjective staatlich is not capitalized except in an official title, so the distinction holds even in that language. By the way, there is a very well-known and very nationalistic Greek Orthodox writer (much quoted in Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences), who seems to see statehood as an essential element of the Church, at least for ecumenical councils: he holds that the convening and approval by the Roman/Byzantine emperor was essential for an ecumenical council, so that the last ever ecumenical council was held in 1341, after which there no longer was a Roman/Byzantine emperor to convene and countersign. He also holds that the people of Rome originally spoke Greek, not Latin. See his website. I don't suppose his ideas on either point are uncontested, to say the least. Esoglou (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

=Caesaropapism?

After some consideration, it seems that this article discusses a subject that is usually considered as the relationship between church and empire known as Caesaropapism. The difference, however, is that this article transforms the relationship of imperial control, described by "Caesaropapism", into a supposed institutional structure, the so-called "'State church' of the Roman Empire." To the extent that this concept has any legitimacy, it might be wise to merge this article into Caesaropapism. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and the views of Romanides could be seen as support. But I think some editors have already expressed decided opposition to the proposal. Are they still so decided? Esoglou (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to merging, but I don't think I am one of the editors in question. =) Revcasy (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this article is about an institution and the other about an ideology. Merging them would be like merging Communism and Soviet Union.μηδείς (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If the ideology and an institution coincide only once there is a lot to be said for merging! Here the ideology exists only in the context of the institution. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Like Manifest Destiny and United States of America? I question your reading comprehension skills. Am I to believe that the Roman Empire existed until 1977 in Cyprus? μηδείς (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly, according to this article! Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. As I see it, to the extent that an institution some call the "state church" of the Roman Empire actually existed, it would be an example of the ideology of Caesaropapism. Caesaropapism is a much more widely accepted historical concept and should be the lead article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Steve seems to indicate that what is called the state church of the Roman Empire should be treated within the Caesaropapism article, not that the two notions, Caesaropapism and church, should be treated as synonymous. The central role in ecclesiastical affairs played by the Roman/Byzantine emperor can be seen as the basic original meaning of Caesaropapism. That arrangement was a concrete existent reality, whether you prefer to call it "an institution" or "an ideology". Other similar situations are called Caesaropapism by analogy with that basic original instance. Esoglou (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

retouches

It is rather contradictory to claim that a source is not verified, and then to argue that it is verified as saying the emperor did indeed call councils and preside over them--please take out the unverified tag and change the text in a way you like to establishing the precedent of calling councils and presiding over them. The text you have added at the bottom of the paragraph is a horrible run on. If caeseropapism in the east has to be contrasted with independence in the west it would go better in a later paragraph of the lead. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It is the statement, not the source, that lacks verification. The long sentence is the result of wishing to make, for the moment, as little change as possible to the existing text (apart from adding further information) and to give time for the provision of valid sources in support of the questioned statements before removing or rephrasing those that will remain without such support, something I intend to do in due course. Esoglou (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That last edit is much better wording. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for kindly saying so. Before I even begin to consider moving forward, do you think I could remove citations 3, 4 and 5? I cannot find what exactly McGrath said: the book is not on Questia, and Google Books, where searching for "state church" does not help, gives no pagination and may not display p. 414). Questia also does not give the cited book by Goodenough, and Google Books only gives it in snippet view (a well-chosen phrase might have been helpful in getting an appropriate snippet) and, besides, a whole chapter, rather than a page number, is a daunting reference for a single sentence in the article. Google Books gives no preview whatever of the Ruether book, which is not given by Questia, and so I don't know what she says on page 14 of that book. I presume that you know what exactly is in each of these sources and can judge whether citing them is helpful or is unnecessary. Esoglou (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a fact that's likely to be contested or hard to verify, so five refs in the first sentence of the lead is definitely overkill. McGrath can probably be done away with entirely. The other two notes can be omitted safely, but I would leave them listed in the reference section at the bottom of the article, since a good bibliography is one of the values of an article like this. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting lead

I have integrated your newest text with the existing lead. Please do not use tendentious section headers in editting--that would look very bad if a dispute were to go to ANI. Of the new text I retained everything except fo moving the mention of melkites to the body of the article as a bit to much of a detail, moved the animated gif to the decline oif the east section, and made it bigger, and retained your version when text was redundant, except for your "changed allegia nce to Charlemagne", as I thought mentioning he crowned him as emperor was more concretely factual. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

1. I am sorry for unintentionally giving the impression that the added heading was meant to be either permanent or tendentious. I only meant it as a temporary indication, a more polite one than commenting the text out, that I thought that the lead was better without those paragraphs. Any hint from you would have been enough for me to remove the heading.
2. The animated gif concerns the western part of the Roman Empire much more than the eastern, showing how in less than a century after the setting up of the state church of the Roman Empire it no longer existed in the empire's western half and how, in spite of Justinian I's reconquest of a considerable portion, though much less than half, the state church of the Roman Empire was soon present in only some small pockets of the West and did not last even there.
3. Your additions are, I fear, in part off topic, especially for the lead. Early Christianity and the persecutions it underwent ended almost a century before the state church of the Roman Empire was set up. The setting up of the state church of the Roman Empire put an end to Arianism within the empire, making irrelevant any discussion of earlier councils dealing with Arianism. The Nestorian schism mainly concerned Persia, not so much the church in the Roman Empire. Is it right to put on the same level as these, with regard to the state church of the Roman Empire, the Miaphysite schism, which entailed separation from that state church of most of Egyptian and a considerable part of Syrian Christianity?
4. Was it because of the Donatist schism that Constantine held councils such as that of Nicaea? What is meant by the curious phrase, "the church hierarchy in the empire continued to evolve throughout its history"?
5. In spite of your expansion of the lead, you have transferred elsewhere material from the formerly succinct lead, and there are questions too about what is outside the lead, such as the section on councils held after 300 (why not after 380, when the state church was set up?) and that ignores the Councils of Lyon and Florence in which bishops of the state church of the Roman Empire and the emperors themselves were involved. However, it is better to concentrate on the lead. Esoglou (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I am largely okay with your last changes, and really like where you put the animation much better. The "subjection to the emperor" statement is a little controversial and might be better worded--I will think on it. The "within decades" sentence is too wordy, I think we can keep your point but make the statement a little tighter. The only real problem is the second paragraph. It's complicated, so you'll have to give me some time to look it over. I don't have any real objections, but I am sure we can clarify things rather than leave the clarify tags with a little work. Give me some time before you make any major changes. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have retouched the phrase about subjection to the emperor and what I think you meant by your reference to a "within decades" sentence. The latter modification led to further retouches in the paragraph to which you transferred that information, but I do not intend to make any major changes anywhere until you have attended to the problems already indicated. As you say, the second paragraph of the lead and, I would add, the vaguely worded first sentence of the third paragraph constitute a real problem. That is why I thought the lead would be much better without them. Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have now commented out the problematic paragraph. It is still there, if you want to revive it or parts of it. I think the second-last paragraph in the lead ("While the Western Empire disappeared ...") could profitably be moved to the body of the article. Esoglou (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert of 12 October 2012

I am sorry that Medeis has today 12 October 2012 reverted the edits by 75.14.208.221, Editor2020 and me since 25 September 2012, some of which were discussed on the Talk page with a more or less explicit invitation to Medeis to make any observations he wished on them. I hope Medeis will at least explain to us what precisely are his objections to our work and why he thinks his particular consent is required for making changes to this article. Esoglou (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have two major concerns. First is the removal of a factual outline of the history as presented in the article. For example, this paragraph

While the Western Empire decayed as a polity, with Rome being sacked in 410, 455, and 546, and Romulus Augustus being forced by Odoacer to abdicate in 476, the church as an institution persisted in communion, if not without tension, between the east and west. In the 6th century Justinian I recovered Italy and other sections of the western Mediterranean shore. The empire soon lost most of these gains, but held Rome, as part of the Exarchate of Ravenna, until 751. While popes who were easterners appointed or at least confirmed by the emperor loyally looked on him as their political lord, they refused to accept his authority in religious matters[6] or that of such a council as the imperially convoked Council of Hieria. Pope Gregory III (731-741) was the last to ask the Byzantine ruler to ratify his election,[7][8] With the 25 December 800 AD crowning of Charlemagne as Imperator Romanorum by his ally, Pope Leo III, the de facto political split between east and west became irrevocable and the church in the west was clearly no longer part of the state church of the Eastern Roman Empire. Spiritually, the Chalcedonian Church, as a communion broader than the imperial state church, continued to persist as a unified entity, at least in theory, until the Great Schism and its formal division with the mutual excommunication in 1054 of Rome and Constantinople. Where the emperor's power remained, the state church developed into a form of caesaropapism.[9] It was finally extinguished with the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

was removed in its entirety. Those historical developments are relevant and since they are in the body of the article they need summarizing. That can be fixed by restoring that paragraph. The other concern is the entire change of the lead (not the article) to present what seems like one rather narrow viewpoint of the issues involved. The article should cover the topic, not one viewpoint on the topic. The old consensus was worked out with many authors. The most recent version represented one non-anonymous editor's viewpoint on the issues involved. The lead has to summarize the article, not represent one viewpoint. I think comparing the old and the proposed versions on talk, and retaining the historical fact over presenting abstract links is the way to proceed. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Medeis, there was no "old consensus". There was only a text that you, on your own, had repeatedly reverted to, and that all the other editors objected to: see the section "Lead, again" above. Your unsupported insistence wore down the patience of the others, who left the article as it was with the opening "multiple issues" tag. Your action in removing that tag has stirred up the issue again.

Instead of undoing your revert, I will only restore the first paragraph, so as to see if you have any reasonable objections to the work done on that paragraph by more than one editor. Please comment while work is in progress, instead of reappearing after some weeks and undoing all that has been done in your absence, not from Wikipedia but just from this article. Perhaps we can thus advance step by step.

I will also restore some tags of last month that questioned statements in the second paragraph of the text that you are insisting on. The reasons for all but one of the tags are indicated above. I removed the explanation of that one, when another editor (a "non-anonymous" one) attended to the problem, but you have now undone that editor's work. The explanation given for that tag is "Can the appointment/confirmation of a limited number of bishops of Rome from the time of Justinian down to the election of Pope Gregory III really be considered notable in comparison to the many thousands of other bishops for whom the emperor's approval was required from 380 until 1453?" You yourself stated that the paragraph in question was a real problem. Yet now you have restored it to its former problematic form.

As for the other paragraph that you now mention in particular, I suggested to you on 28 September - two weeks ago - that it be moved to the body of the article, a move carried out, in the absence of any objection by you, only on 6 October. But we can leave that until we come to it. Esoglou (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks. I have no major issue with the first paragraph as you have restored it. I think the last sentence is a bit too detailed for the lead, but it can stay if you think it is important. Let's move on to the next paragraph as you see fit. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The sentence of which you speak is there because of work by another editor. I agree with your opinion of it, but let us not at this point stir up difficulties with that editor. I have now added to the article, as option y, the second paragraph that was in it when you reverted. Perhaps you would indicate what you find wrong with it. You have stated that your own second paragraph, option x, is problematic, and so for now I postpone going into what I see as faults in it. Esoglou (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A whole week has gone by and you have not defended option x for the second paragraph. I have therefore commented it out. If it remains undefended, it will at some stage be eliminated. But that is enough for now. Esoglou (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Since another week has passed without objection by you or others to the commenting out of that paragraph, I have now removed it. I will wait another while before advancing further. Esoglou (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have been busy with translating Geology of Russia and missed this when I looked for it earlier. I am in the direct path of the eye of Hurricane Sandy, we have 40 mile an hour winds now about 10 hours before it's on top of us, so may be off the internet for a bit, will comment in a while, today if I can before we lose power. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a few problems. Equating the Roman empire with the Byzantine Empire and mentioning the fall in 1453 are out of place. Were still talking about events that happened before the final sack of Rome which are covered later. Mention of the eastern churches have been omitted, with a vague reference to them being "accused" of monophysitism, which is not accurate--they are monophysite. The mention of caesaropapism is good. I will post a compromise, let me know if you have problems with it. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The churches of Oriental Orthodoxy (it is the Byzantine church that is conventionally called Eastern) strongly deny that they are monophysite. They say instead that they are miaphysite. Yes, they were accused of monophysitism, but, as I said, they deny the accusation and in NPOV Wikipedia we can't say they were or are monophysite. What do you mean by the final sack of Rome? Surely not that of 1527, the final one so far. The one that was significant for our purposes, the one that shocked the population of the Roman empire, and that is taken to mark the end of classical history and the rise in western Europe of small feudal regions rather than one unitary empire, was that of 410. From that point, what remained of the Roman Empire was in fact ruled from Constantinople and so could be called the "Byzantine" Empire; within a few decades even the pretence of a separate western empire ended.

The Schadé book did not say that by the 6th century the state church had come to merge psychologically with the empire to the extent that its bishops had difficulty in thinking of Christianity without an emperor. It made that statement about the situation on the eve of the fall of Constantinople, which is the context that you have taken it out of and that for some reason you wished not to mention at all.

I have kept all your latest contribution, but have arranged things chronologically, obviously putting the fall of the western empire before its partial reconquest by Justinian. I have also restored the mention of the final end of the empire, whether you want to call it Roman or Byzantine. As long as the state existed, it had its state church; but without the state there was obviously no state church. Esoglou (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll concede on the monophysite. I have no objections to your last change. I did move one paragraph higher up and then combined the 10 or so back into four given according to whether they had the same general topic. I don't expect you'll object. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Two paragraphs that should surely go together are the two, of which the first speaks of the idea in the west about a universal church unrelated to a particular state and the second (beginning indeed with the words "on the contrary") about the idea in the east identifying church and empire. Both concern the situation after Justinian. I am taking the liberty of recombining them and putting them in their chronological order. Both of them signal the end of the state church and are better at the end of the lead, I think. My changes result in a hefty third paragraph, which could perhaps be divided into two. Would that make the number of paragraphs (six, instead of the five that you arranged) too many in your opinion? I myself have doubts about the need for the short second paragraph, which is largely not about the state church but about the situation existing before it was set up, but I recognize that you like it. I'll look at the article again tomorrow. Esoglou (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I retained your order, but attached the beginning of your long third to the bottom of the short second paragraph. The new second paragraph deals then with the growth and schism of the church over from 4-7th centuries while the third paragraph deals with church sdtate relations. I have one more suggested edit retaining all the current text, just a matter of order, but want to know if you accept the last edit before I address it. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. For the sake of precision, I have indicated that "meanwhile" meant the 5th century, not "the 4th and 5th centuries" mentioned immediately before, and that the church that "persisted in communion" did not include the Nestorian and "Monophysite" break-aways. Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Since there seems to be agreement on the lead, I have made bold to make corrections in one paragraph of the body of the article. Esoglou (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Church" (capital C)?

Just a small question about style. As far as I know, when referring to a religious institution or organization, the word "Church" is capitalized. When referring to a building in which worship services are conducted, the word "church" is left uncapitalized. Wikipedia confirms this. So perhaps this article should be called State Church of the Roman Empire. Ohff (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your idea is the one I grew up with, but that is by no means universally accepted today. Today the prevailing tendency seems to be to treat "church" (not building) like, for instance, "university", written "the University" only in particular contexts that make it unique. To capitalize "State Church of the Roman Empire" would make that phrase the official name; "state church of the Roman Empire" is just a description. Esoglou (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Also this was never used (in any language) by the church or anyone else as a name for it so is a descriptive phrase rather than a proper name. It should be "state church" in running prose. Johnbod (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Councils

I think the section on councils should be eliminated. Church councils were held practically every year both within the empire and outside it. The only ones whose inclusion in this article as a specific group can be justified are those that were held to be authoritative not just locally but throughout the empire, i.e., seven ecumenical councils. These could be referred to in a single sentence somewhere else in the article. There is no need for a table about them. I have removed from the table the pre-380 councils that were selectively included in it: dating from before the establishment of the state church, they belong to the article no more than, say, the 2nd-century councils. I don't see why the 382 Rome council (out of the very many that were held in Rome over the centuries) has been included in the table. I have added the Second Council of Lyon and the Council of Florence, which have far more relevance to the state church of the Roman Empire. But, as I said, I think the whole section should be deleted. Other opinions? Esoglou (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The larger councils of course included representatives from far outside the boundaries of the empire, so they are are off-topic here (like so much else). Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Since nothing but agreement has been expressed, I am removing the section.

I agree with Johnbod that more should be removed, but I take it that the opening tag about lack of citations and neutrality and about synthesis can now be removed and I am making bold to do so. Esoglou (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is redundant; it should be merged with the "Roman Catholic Church" article.

No, it isn't, and no, it shouldn't. The present-day Roman Catholic Church and the church which this article defines are two differnt entities with different histories. This article describes the Church before it gradually divided into the Roman Catholic Western church and the Eastern Orthodox Church c. 800-1054. Since the church led by the Pope in Rome seperated from the state church of the Roman ("Byzantine") Empire, if anything this article should be merged with the Orthodox Church article, but again, there are sufficient differences to justify this article being kept as it is and not merged. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but it should be merged with other articles on church history, which cover the same ground. See the achives. Fortunately no on much looks at this one, so the discussion has died down. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If this should be merged anywhere - I am not arguing that it should be so merged - the merging should be with Eastern Orthodox Church. The Empire continued to have the Eastern Orthodox Church as its state church as long as the Empire existed, but the church in the West had ceased to be part of the Empire's state church long before 1054 (East-West Schism), not to speak of 1453 (Fall of Constantinople to the Islamic Turks). Esoglou (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the icon of the Council of Nicaea

I removed an icon of the Council of Nicaea from the article, pointing out that it was modern and not Roman. Another editor then asked me to explain my reasoning, so I wish to do so.

This is an article about the state church of the Roman Empire, not about modern entities descended from that church (e.g. the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church). As such, we should not present artworks or religious items of the modern churches as if they are representative of the ancient church. Modern icons should not be displayed here for the same reason we would not display, for example, modern church architecture. In particular, I object to the fact that a modern icon is being used as if it illustrated the thinking of ancient Christians. The caption of the image states that "the Emperor is given more prominence than the bishops" as if this image is an example of the importance given to the Emperor within the ancient church. But, in fact, this image is an example of the importance given to Emperor Constantine in the modern Orthodox Church.

Also, as a minor point, the current location of that image in the article impacts the formatting of the quote from the Edict of Thessalonica, making it look like a regular paragraph instead of a quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.163.198 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The icon, whenever actually painted, seems to be within the Byzantine tradition and to be in accord with what is stated in the second-last and fourth-last paragraphs of the article. Esoglou (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

And we often use later paintings of ancient events: this is part of the classical tradition. My point was it's OK to use these as long as the caption explains the context: for a non-controversial example, see the top image of Charon's obol. The caption needs to make clear that this is the conception of the artist/period that produced it. Even so, the topic of the article is state church of the Roman Empire. The IP may not be distinguishing between "state church" and "early Christians" in general. Before the transition to Christianity, the Roman emperor was Pontifex Maximus, and one of the political difficulties in the transition was how to translate traditional affirmations of loyalty to the emperor which were religious in nature (such as the vota pro salute imperatoris) in the Christian regime. The role of Constantine in the transformation of the Roman Empire to a Christian entity is not an invention of any modern church. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There are of course earlier icons & images of the subject, and generally I think the earlier they are the more prominent the emperor is, though none are contemporary, and all I think firmly Byzantine rather than Latin. But we don't seem to have any really early ones on Commons. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is redundant, it should be merged into History of Christianity and its sub-articles

Please note that I agree with the former opinion that it should not be merged with Roman Catholic Church and (if with any church) the Eastern Orthodox Church would be more appropriate. But more importantly, the content of this article overlaps so much with the History of Christianity series that it does not require a separate article on State Church of the Roman Empire at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)