why not? the emperor would be the ultimate legitimacyWhat if rather than delegating church authority to the bishop of Rome, the Constantinians attempted to tie the position as head of the church to the Emperor (Based on them being Pontifex Maximus) Would this have been tolerated by the Christian leadership of the time?
I could see them getting a bit miffed that the office that had been feeding them to lions for 300 years is now dictating scripturewhy not? the emperor would be the ultimate legitimacy
Can you please elaborate on what you mean here? Neither Christianity nor medieval history are my forte sadlyThat's exactly how it was.
The forging of the Donation of Constantine is literally 15th Century gossip.
That's basically OTL.What if rather than delegating church authority to the bishop of Rome, the Constantinians attempted to tie the position as head of the church to the Emperor (Based on them being Pontifex Maximus) Would this have been tolerated by the Christian leadership of the time?
It's a long, long story but basically the Popes gave themselves a much more central role in Western Christianity than they originally had (which by the time of the patriarchate was not insignificant either but nowhere near what they would become), via a supposed imperial decree from Constantine that gave them vast rights over Rome and the Western Empire.Can you please elaborate on what you mean here? Neither Christianity nor medieval history are my forte sadly
What if rather than delegating church authority to the bishop of Rome, the Constantinians attempted to tie the position as head of the church to the Emperor (Based on them being Pontifex Maximus) Would this have been tolerated by the Christian leadership of the time?
You'd need the popes to never be the OTL powerhouses they were in the Middle Ages for this to become a major thing in the Christian realms. The Byzantines had a tendency towards it but were usually content to have the religious leaders in separate positions.What if rather than delegating church authority to the bishop of Rome, the Constantinians attempted to tie the position as head of the church to the Emperor (Based on them being Pontifex Maximus) Would this have been tolerated by the Christian leadership of the time?
4th century, ideally right after Christianity is legalizedWhich era? This is a very different question in 4th century than it is in the 7th or 10th. The Frankish Emperors were probably too dependent on the Pope for legitimacy for this to work.
"When the Latins say that the bishop of Rome is first, there is no need to contradict them, since this can do no harm to the Church. They must only show that he has the same faith as Peter and his successors … and that he possesses all that came from Peter, then he will be the first, the chief and head of all, the supreme high priest. … All these qualities have been attributed to the patriarchs of Rome in the past. We will say that his see is apostolic, and he who occupies it is said to be the successor of Peter, as long as he professes the true faith. No one who thinks and speaks truth would dare deny this. That the Bishop of Rome profess only the faith of Sulvester, Agatho, Leo, Liberius, Martin, and Gregory, we would proclaim him first among all other high priests, and we will submit to him not simply as to Peter but as to the Savior himself. But if he is not successor in the faith of these saints, nor is he successor of the throne. Not only is he not apostolic, neither is he first, nor Father, but he is an adversary and devastator and enemy of the apostles."Papal primacy being something created renaissance is ridiculous, several popes from the 8th, 9th, 10th centuries affirmed papal primacy, and that the church of Rome Are the head of all the others
"“Since, according to the canons, where there is a greater authority, the judgment of the inferiors must be brought to it to be annulled or to be substantiated, certainly it is evident that the judgment of the Apostolic See, of whose authority there is none greater, is to be refused by no one….”
[Pope Saint Nicholas I, Letter Proposueramus quidem to Emperor Michael, Denzinger n. 638-641.]
“Neither by the emperor nor by all the clergy nor by kings minor by the people will the judge be judged [These words are cited as those of Pope Sylvester I] . . . “The first See will not be judged by anyone . . .” (Pope Nicholas I: Letter Proposueramus quidem to Emperor Michael [A.D. September 28, 865]).
“Certainly it is evident that the judgment of the Apostolic See, of whose authority there is none greater, is to be refused by no one . . . the judgment of the Roman bishop being no longer open for reconsideration . . . (Pope Nicholas I: Letter Proposueramus quidem to Emperor Michael).
In the text he simply says that in the past (this is before the questions of the filioque And the controversial dogmatics that were forming between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope in The period), The pope had the qualities of chief, head and supreme High priest of church. And in the time that Simeon Write the Latins affirmed this (which means that the idea of primacy predates the Renaissance).then he will be the first, the chief and head of all, the supreme high priest. … All these qualities have been attributed to the patriarchs of Rome in the past.
Papal primacy and even supremacy claims go way even back to pope Leo and only kept growing as we see by the time of Gregory the great how ever many churches especially the east never universally recognized thisthe 8th, 9th, 10th
Can you please elaborate on what you mean here? Neither Christianity nor medieval history are my forte sadly
As has been stated, to a good degree this happened in our history; the Emperor retained absolute primacy, at times (such as with the "energies debate" between miaphysites and hypostatics) even imposing doctrinal decisions that were 100% about pursuing strategic Imperial goals (in the energy debate, the formulation of "monothelitism" to try and find an acceptable solution that made both the Pope and the restive Eastern provinces happy enough). Even after the Arab conquests and on to the slow loss of Imperial authority in Italy, virtually no Pope questioned that the Roman Emperor had the right to confirm his election, be it directly or through the Exarch in Ravenna.What if rather than delegating church authority to the bishop of Rome, the Constantinians attempted to tie the position as head of the church to the Emperor (Based on them being Pontifex Maximus) Would this have been tolerated by the Christian leadership of the time?
I would argue that you can find it being argued for in the 2nd century(Ireneus of Lyons), and arguably in the 1st(Clement), not to the degree of, say Innocent III, but recognizably in primacy and orthodoxy.Papal primacy and even supremacy claims go way even back
Interesting idea. If the Constantinians tried to make the Emperor the head of the church because of their role as Pontifex Maximus, it probably would've caused a lot of tension. The Christian leadership back then was really keen on keeping church and state separate, so they might not have been cool with the Emperor having that much control over church matters. There could have been a lot of pushback and maybe even some serious conflicts within the church.What if rather than delegating church authority to the bishop of Rome, the Constantinians attempted to tie the position as head of the church to the Emperor (Based on them being Pontifex Maximus) Would this have been tolerated by the Christian leadership of the time?