Talk:Famuli vestrae pietatis

Wrong document incipit

According to the Enchiridion symbolorum, the incipit of the letter from 494 is Famuli vestrae pietatis.

Off topic

Duo sunt does not mention Melchisedech nor Elyon, nor does it invoke them for its arguments. The section Biblical foundation is therefore off topic and should be removed. The fact that Strawn cites these two does not make them relevant to this article. Rwflammang (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rwflammang: Duo sunt does not need to include what scholars say is the foundation of it. The source in question is the section "Gelasius's doctrine" in the article cited includes:

All theories of the division of powers were versions of the Gelasian doctrine, [...] Gelasius posits two powers, respectively royal and priestly. [...] neither authority should intrude upon the domain of the other. Kings should not interfere in the work of those who dispense the “mysteries of religion,” but nor should priests interfere in secular matters. The model implies that the priestly authority is inferior to the secular authority in the secular domain.

The other section, "The division of powers," in the same article includes:

Medieval scholars used scripture to develop theories of ecclesiastical power and, in particular, the division of power into secular and ecclesiastical, [...] Such theories had canonical implications, but they were based in theology. Although medieval theories of the two realms are in a tradition leading to modern theories of church and state, medieval scholars divided the church, the res publica christiana, into two hierarchies: spiritual and secular.
Three resources from scripture were fundamental to the theology of power: Matthew 22:21, where Jesus uses a coin to teach that one should render to God what is God’s and to the emperor what is the emperor’s; Romans 13:1–7, where Paul teaches that all authority comes from God and should be obeyed; and the texts on Melchizedek, the high priest and king (Gen 14:18–20; Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1, 10–11, 15, 17, 21). [...] Paul teaches in Hebrews that Jesus Christ was the successor of Melchizedek. Whereas the first resource (Matt 22:21) suggests that there are two independent authorities, the others suggest that a single divine power diverges into the secular and ecclesiastical powers.

The biblical references are not off topic but foundational to the division of powers which Duo sunt is the expression of. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for these extensive quotes from your source. My question is then this. If the medieval scholars are the ones who mentioned Melchisedech, how can he be foundational to an earlier, ancient document, duo sunt, which is itself called by the source foundational to the later medieval versions of the two powers?

My other question is, what does any of this have to do with Elyon? Isn't that a trendy name, popular in the seventies, for whom the medievals surely called Altissimus?

Thanks again. Rwflammang (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rwflammang: you can search through snippet view to find more:

"Gelasius I, added a theory, appropriately known as the Gelasian Doctrine, to the theoretical props which supported the papacy. In defining the relationship between secular and spiritual authority, he said that there could be found in the Bible figures such as Melchizedek and Christ who were both kings and priests, but since the time of Christ authority had been divided"...p. 8

You can find more in Google book search for: "Gelasian doctrine" melchizedek. If you begin to search through Latin texts you will find more. You can read Duo sunt: The historical and intellectual foundations of the medieval 'two powers' principle of government, a masters thesis.

Elyon is not in this article or, as far as I can see, in Strawn, or in the Gelasius I document. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)