We need money to stay online, if you like the forum, donate! x

rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one. x


The Orthodox Church
#14

The Orthodox Church

Quote: (02-26-2016 07:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (02-26-2016 04:58 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

Quote: (02-26-2016 01:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (02-25-2016 08:48 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

Quote: (02-25-2016 11:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The reason for this is that Orthodox churches are pacifist. They leave issues of defense to the state. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God's what is God's.

Conversely, the Catholics have always had an army (they still do), and are basically a state unto themselves.

Thus, Orthodox churches have always been regulated to their nationality out of necessity of self-defense, whereas Catholics would often times defer to their Church over their state as the Catholic church was usually more powerful than most states.

I agree this dynamic can create a feeling of exclusion to outsiders, but there still exist plural Orthodox communities such as the one in Cambridge, MA.

The Catholic Church hasn't had an army since the demise of the Papal States.

False.
hav
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Guard

Quote:Quote:

And Eastern Orthodoxy has always been closely tied to State power and not out of any belief in pacifism, but rather out of historical circumstances.

False. Orthodox have had the same beliefs as presented below since 1st century, AD.

http://oca.org/questions/society/war-and-non-violence

If you'd bothered to read the wikipedia article on the Swiss Guards then you'd know that they serve in the role of bodyguards, and that prior to the assassination attempt on the Pope in 1981 their role was almost entirely ceremonial. Given that their armament consists of pistols, assault rifles and submachine guns, I think it would be fair to say that they don't meet the definition of an army.

500 men with highly trained pistols, assault rifles, and submachine guns don't count as an army... right.

[Image: malehamster.gif]

Quote:Quote:

Your link to what the Orthodox believe about war and non-violence doesn't in any way contradict what I wrote about the close relationship between the Church and State in majority Orthodox nations. Both the Catholic Church and the main Protestant denominations teach the same thing regards to war and the desirability of non-violence.

I find it pretty ironic that the non-violent Orthodox Church assisted the Tsarist government in persecuting the radically-pacifist Doukhobors, and if not directly aiding the government in persecuting the pacifist Mennonites and Hutterites, didn't speak out against their mistreatment.

Again, the supposed "link" to the state Orthodox churches have with national governments comes from "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God's what is God's." They're pacifist and obey their governments. This is why they obeyed the Tsar even if the Tsar was doing evil things. Quite often the Church leaders did not know what the leaders were planning or doing either.

Conversely, the Catholics are not pacifist nor have they always obeyed national governments. They have an army (and almost always have had one) and have frequently bossed nation states around, which blew up in their faces with King Henry and the Protestant Reformation.

The Swiss Guard consists of 110 men and their pistols, rifles, and submachine guns don't appear to be any more highly trained than my Dad's hunting rifles. [Image: wink.gif] Conspicuous by their absence are any armoured vehicles, mortars, machine guns, or artillery of any sort.

You can read about their equipment here and while they've got some pretty cool and unique weapons they're less well equipped than police forces such as the Italian Carabinieri, or even the San Diego Unified School District Police Department

[Image: malehamster.gif] [Image: malehamster.gif]


As for your explanation of State-Church relations in the Orthodox world all I can say is Wow!... Just Wow! Perhaps it's just poor wording on your part buy you make it sound as if Caesar decides and the Church follows meekly. I'm not sure that is even the case in Russia where the Church has traditionally been very subserviant to the wishes of the government. I said there tend to be ties between the State and the Orthodox Church and that in the Byzantine Empire the Emperors had influence in the Church. Google is your friend.

"The life of Byzantium formed a unified whole, and there was no rigid line of separation between the religious and the secular, between Church and State: the two were seen as parts of a single organism. Hence it was inevitable that the Emperor played an active part in the affairs of the Church. Yet at the same time it is not just to accuse Byzantium of Caesaro-Papism, of subordinating the Church to the State. Although Church and State formed a single organism, yet within this one organism there vvere two distinct elements, the priesthood (sacerdotium) and the imperial power (imperium); and while working in close co-opcration, each of these elements had its own proper sphere in which it was autonomous. Between the two there was a 'symphony' or 'harmony', but neither element exercised absolute control over the other.

This is the doctrine expounded in the great code of Byzantine law drawn up under Justinian (see the sixth Novel) and repeated in many of the; Byzantine texts. Take for example the words of Emperor John Tzimisces: 'I recognize two authorities, priesthood and empire; the Creator of the world entrusted to the first the care of souls and to the second the control of men's bodies. Let neither authority be attacked, that the world may enjoy prosperity." Thus it was the Emperor's task to summon councils and to carry their decrees into effect, but it lay beyond his powers to dictate the content of those decrees: it was for the bishops gathered in council to decide what the true faith was. Bishops were appointed by God to teach the faith, whereas the Emperor was the protector of Orthodoxy, but not its exponent. Such was the theory, and such in great part was the practice also. Admittedly there were many occasions on which the Emperor interfered unwarrantably in ecclesiastical matters; but when a serious question of principle arose, the authorities of the Church quickly showed that they had a will of their own. Iconoclasm, for example, was vigorously championed by a whole series of Emperors, yet for all that it was successfully rejected by the Church. In Byzantine history Church and State were closely interdependent, but neither was subordinate to the other."


You need to quit defining your faith in opposition to Catholicism. It reeks of insecurity.
Reply


Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)