Christian Persecution of Heretics Aborted

The first thread had an interesting premise that got derailed (the fault is partially mine) in a political fight.

So here is the original premise and an additional proposal from me.

1. Suppose in the aftermath of the initial Arab explosion, the Byzantine Emperor realizes that the Arabs were able to take advantage of religious divides among the Christians. He decides that in the long-run, this sort of thing could be rather dangerous and decides to strong-arm the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope to forbid persecution of heterodox Christians.

(deciding the degrees of "heresy" permitted will be interesting--perhaps the Nicene Creed, not the Chalcedonian one, is the standard?)

If the more docile Patriarch goes along with this but the Pope rebels, we might have an earlier version of the Iconoclastic schism.

2. Julian the Apostate returns alive from the Persian campaign. Due to his popularity among the soldiery, he reigns for awhile. Although Christianity at this point is the majority faith, by killing the Christians who are prone to violence against pagans and each other, he might be able to "beat the persecutory tendencies" out.

Of course, his successor might be able to undo this, so if you want to stick, perhaps he appoints a man of similar temperment (either a pagan or a Christian who does NOT believe in persecuting "heretics" or pagans).
 
As to 1) I think that would be possible, but only on a limited basis. The Byzantines at a later date, probably under the influence of the kind of acommodations made in neighbouring states, came to tolerate religious minorities on an ethnic basis. The idea was that 'these guys' were heretics, but that was OK because they were different anyway, so it stood to reason.

It would also be possible, though much more difficult, to develop a form of consensus basis for orthodoxy in which a church counted as orthodox as long as it subscribed to the ecumenical councils. That would require no more such councils be held, of course, but from a pragmatic point of view that would be the ideal state of affairs, sort of like the Lutherans do it: "We're not quite sure who's got the right reading of that passage, and we can't well ask the author any more, so meh." The problem is I don't think the makeup of the imperial church supports this in the long run. There is too much money and power invested in the system to make doctrinal disputes academic.

The popes are not yet likely to opt out at this early date, especially if they are allowed to do their own thing. The theology of Roman primacy already existed, but it was not yet implemented at any meaningful level.

2) is not very likely, especially because killing will only increase Christian intransigence. Julian's initial policy would probably be the best approach, a system in which all Christian groups are recognised as collegia and can proselytise within the law. The problem is that the example of Constantine persists, so Julian would need to live long and have determined successors.
 
Organizing all the religions as collegia sounds interesting, although I do recall mention of expelled members laying claim to group property, so something might have to be worked out.

"Proselytize within the law" means that those who act illegally get punished.

Given the existence of Christian hotheads like Cyril of Alexandria (who incited the mob that murdered the pagan philosopher Hypatia), some heads might need to be cracked.
 
Top