Don't mix church and state

[c***@gmail.com]

In 325, the Abraham-like old man, Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, drew the
conference of Nicea, held at his instigation, to a successful
conclusion. The Church had decided the nature of God. The emperor
banished and burned what she now deemed unacceptable. She had wed the
state.

Then over thirty years later, that emperor=92s son harried the now a
hundred years old Hosius to go back on Nicea=92s decision. Holding out,
the old bishop wrote =85

"God has put into your hands the kingdom; to us He has
entrusted the affairs of His Church; and as he who would steal the
empire from you would resist the ordinance of God, so likewise fear on
your part lest by taking upon yourself the government of the Church,
you become guilty of a great offence. It is written, Render unto C=E6sar
the things that are C=E6sar=92s, and unto God the things that are God=92s =
=85
Neither therefore is it permitted unto us to exercise an earthly rule,
nor have you, Sire, any authority to burn incense"

But fallen into dotage, he broke and went over to the unfaithful
party. From its start, it was dangerous to mix church and state.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <It0Yk.1659$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...

Post by c***@gmail.com
In 325, the Abraham-like old man, Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, drew the
conference of Nicea, held at his instigation, to a successful
conclusion. The Church had decided the nature of God. The emperor
banished and burned what she now deemed unacceptable. She had wed the
state.

This is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of church-state
relations in that period. By NO MEANS had the Church wed the state, as the
resistance first to Arianism, then to Monophysitism showed SO clearly.

Post by c***@gmail.com
Then over thirty years later, that emperor=92s son harried the now a
hundred years old Hosius to go back on Nicea=92s decision. Holding out,
the old bishop wrote =85
"God has put into your hands the kingdom; to us He has
entrusted the affairs of His Church; and as he who would steal the
empire from you would resist the ordinance of God, so likewise fear on
your part lest by taking upon yourself the government of the Church,
you become guilty of a great offence. It is written, Render unto C=E6sar
the things that are C=E6sar=92s, and unto God the things that are God=92s =
=85
Neither therefore is it permitted unto us to exercise an earthly rule,
nor have you, Sire, any authority to burn incense"
But fallen into dotage, he broke and went over to the unfaithful
party. From its start, it was dangerous to mix church and state.

What on earth are you referring to? The 3rd Sirmian Formula? You cannot accuse
him of "going over to the unfaithful party" just because of that. They were NOT
Arians.

The 3rd Sirmian Formula was vaguer than Nicea, but until the Cappadocians
developed greater language for talking about the Trinity, it was simply wrong to
accuse people of holding the wrong faith just for adherence to the 3rd Sirmian
Formula. It really was signed by both Orthodox and semi-Arian.

For that matter, 'semi=Arian' is already too imprecise a name for that group.
They were really AGAINST Arianism.


Or perhaps you are referring to the 2nd Formula: but even then, it is wrong to
accuse him of "going over to the unfaithful party" because of this mistake. He
never supported their Arianism.