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.
> 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.