>You’ve gone from saying that the Orthodox world had separation of Church and State to pointing out that there were periods when the fusion between the two was less than perfect.
The separation was having two different sources of power -- as opposed to one, and those sources having relative autonomy.
Whether the two occasionally collaborated, or one occasionally imposed its will on the other and vice versa, is something different than having both religious and state power concentrated into one entity (caesaropapism).
Nothing in historical affairs is "perfect". Separation of church and state in the modern West has not been "perfect" either, even where e.g. the constitution guarantees it.
Modern scholars on Byzantium disagree with that it was an example of caesaropapism -- and your own source tells as much.
You think I’m saying Caesaropapism is true. I never said that, while you did say
> Worth noting, that unlike the western empire, that had the rule of the pope, the Byzantium had separate church and state.
The Wikipedia article on Caesaropapism is enough to disprove that, which is why I used it. The fact that there were disputes between the Emperor and Church does not change the facts that (a) It was usually the Enperor (b) By any modern standard there was no separation of Church and State.
The Saud family do not provide all the imams in their kingdom, nor do they unilaterally decide on doctrine in case of disputes. The ummah have substantial autonomy and can and do argue take part in political discussion.
If you’re willing to call that separation between Church and State we disagree only on labels. Otherwise you’re wrong.
I wasn’t arguing for Caesaropapism, just against separation of Church and State in the Eastern Roman Empire.
The separation was having two different sources of power -- as opposed to one, and those sources having relative autonomy.
Whether the two occasionally collaborated, or one occasionally imposed its will on the other and vice versa, is something different than having both religious and state power concentrated into one entity (caesaropapism).
Nothing in historical affairs is "perfect". Separation of church and state in the modern West has not been "perfect" either, even where e.g. the constitution guarantees it.
Modern scholars on Byzantium disagree with that it was an example of caesaropapism -- and your own source tells as much.