[Panteleimon]

In the past few months, I have felt this call to look into the Orthodox Church. I was raised Protestant, but feel like many denominations are being blown around too easily by the winds of societal change. I recently read the Way of the Pilgrim and the Mountain of Silence which really ignited my interest into the Orthodox church. While there is no Orthodox church in my current location, there are some a short drive away. I am starting this thread to get some forum input on what an Orthodox service is like, and what constitutes being an Orthodox believer. I want to show up to my first service knowing what is expected of me. Any website or book recommendations would be much appreciated. Thanks!

[Paracelsus]

Try @Samseau - he's not quite ROK's resident Orthodox priest, but he looks a lot like one

[Apollo21]

That's interesting. I recently met a girl who is Orthodox(Ukraine).

I was surprised to learn that it's actually the Original Church of Jesus
and the Apostles. Even Christmas is celebrated on a different day(in Jan)

There probably isn't much difference except for the format of certain ceremonies.
I'm not an expert though. Just google it and call up an Orthodox Church.

[Samseau]

Quote:

Orthodox churches represent the middle road between Cathlocism and Protestantism.

Catholics follow authority too blindly, while Protestants refuse to organize around any authority at all.

In the Orthodox communities, the Patriarch and Church authorities make up 50% of how things are done and they mainly use their authority for truly essential things such as communion, prayers said in church, certain moral teachings, etc.

The other 50% is left to the Priest's discretion, which they usually tailor to the needs of their audience, both material and physical. For example, in Boston, the priest there has an heavy emphasis on pluralism due to the diversity within the city, and they really stress lines like "there is neither jew nor greek nor male or female for you are all one in Christ," because the city is quite mixed. Conversely in lily White Pennsylvania they won't even talk about those lines. Sometimes the diversity talk can be quite faggy, however, and I do not think every Orthodox priest teaches the Bible as it should. I also do not really feel much of God's presence at the "diversity" Church I mentioned.

That said, Orthodox churches are run in this way which do prevent major conflicts we've seen develop in other denominations. The big reason Orthodox churches have declined at all is because of persecution. No other Church has suffered from persecution as the Orthodox. From Muslims to Talmudic Communists, so many of our members have been murdered. Tens of millions.

From: thread-53245...pid1223376

Quote:

I hate to be that asshole that does the whole "Ortho vs. Catholic" thing, but the Orthodox Churches have more men than women. Only denomination in the world with this quality. Fraternity is very common in our churches. We barely pay attention to the women. Most of the time they are silent like they are supposed to be. I still see women with headscarves in service. We talk about things openly, for example talking about sex isn't going to get you thrown out of the group.

From: thread-53245...pid1223301

[Samseau]

As for attending services, you should attend a few without taking communion to see if the Church is a fit for you. See if you enjoy the Priest's sermons. Stay afterwards at the coffee hour and try talking to some of the men. See if anyone comes up to you. Most importantly, talk with the Priest. Ask him where is is from, how he became an Orthodox, and some of his favorite passages of the Bible.

If you decide to become a member, then you'll need to confess your sins to the Priest in private. He may require you to be baptized again, but perhaps not. Afterwards when you attend service, you're supposed to fast in the morning so you can take Communion as purely as possible. Fasting also means abstaining from sex. So ideally you take Communion after the regular morning prayers, followed up with a coffee.

Orthodox services tend be a bit longer than most other Churches. Mine last for two hours, but I've been to Orthodox churches that are only 1 hour.

Since there is only one Orthodox church in your area, I hope it works out for you. I know my Church has helped me more than words can describe. I would not know God without it.

[Orion]

One important thing to note (Im Orthodox):

No church will suit your worldview or religious views entirely. Unlike in protestant churches, Orthodox church leaves inspection of your mind to God. In practice, Orthodoxy is primarily concerned with the actual ritual - fasting, Communion, confession, prayers and other religious ceremonies, pilgrimages, etc etc.

In majority ethnic communities, national and ethnic questions are also raised.

That being said, while Orthodox liturgy is the most pristine and traditional, Orthodox Church won't be able to identify with your modern problems that much, because clergy usually does not engage in it, and does not understand how REALLY inhospitable is environment to a modern male. You average priest will typically advise men to get married and have kids.

But that's OK, since that is not the highest concern of The Church, as much as it is to preserve traditions of ancient Apostolic Church (as they say it, the original).

(02-19-2016 10:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

As for attending services, you should attend a few without taking communion to see if the Church is a fit for you. See if you enjoy the Priest's sermons. Stay afterwards at the coffee hour and try talking to some of the men. See if anyone comes up to you. Most importantly, talk with the Priest. Ask him where is is from, how he became an Orthodox, and some of his favorite passages of the Bible.

If you decide to become a member, then you'll need to confess your sins to the Priest in private. He may require you to be baptized again, but perhaps not. Afterwards when you attend service, you're supposed to fast in the morning so you can take Communion as purely as possible. Fasting also means abstaining from sex. So ideally you take Communion after the regular morning prayers, followed up with a coffee.

Orthodox services tend be a bit longer than most other Churches. Mine last for two hours, but I've been to Orthodox churches that are only 1 hour.

Since there is only one Orthodox church in your area, I hope it works out for you. I know my Church has helped me more than words can describe. I would not know God without it.

Here we fast entire week before Communion, and it is usually advised not to eat instantly after Communion.

[da_zeb]

(02-18-2016 09:30 PM)Apollo21 Wrote:  

That's interesting. I recently met a girl who is Orthodox(Ukraine).

I was surprised to learn that it's actually the Original Church of Jesus
and the Apostles. Even Christmas is celebrated on a different day(in Jan)

There probably isn't much difference except for the format of certain ceremonies.
I'm not an expert though. Just google it and call up an Orthodox Church.

The Ukrainian or Russian Orthodox Church to which the girl was referring is just one of many churches that can directly trace their lineage to Jesus and the twelve apostles. They consist of the Eastern Orthodoox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Catholic Churches (yes there are more than one). The groups of churches have schismed, that is, become separated from one another over issues of church doctrine. What really sets these churches apart from Protestant churches in addition to issue of doctrine is the issue of apostolic succession which means that every bishop within these churches can trace his authority back through a line of bishops to the Twelve Apostles.

Here's a potted history of these four groups of churches.


1. The Nestorian Heresy - creation of the Church of the East.

The first schism concerned the Nestorian heresy which concerned the divine and human natures of Christ and was condemned in the First Council of Ephesus 431 and the Council of Chalcedon twenty years later. Nestorians held that the divine and human natures of Christ were completely separate. Most of the Churches who supported the teachings of Nestorius (who at the time was the Patriarch of Constantinople) were found in what is now Syria, Iraq and Iran. This was largely due to the policy of the Persian Sassanid Empire which pressured local bishops to break ties with Christians in the Roman Empire. As a consequence these churches were anathematized from the universal Church and suppressed in areas under control of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire. The Schism was theoretically ended by a council of the Church of the East in 544 which repudiated the Nestorian doctrine but the churches never formally reunited.

In 1552 there was a schism within the Church of the East over the issue of hereditary succession of the church Patriarchs. A rival Patriarch was elected and bolstered his claim by reuniting his followers with the Catholic Church forming the Chaldean Catholic Church. The Assyrian Church of the East split again in 1964 over the issue of adopting the Gregorian Calendar in place of the Julian Calendar. The dissenters formed the Ancient Church of the East. The Assyrian Church of the East and the Catholic Church have resolved their doctrinal differences so while they are not yet in full communion with each other, there is no reason why they cannot reunite into a single Church and there are proposals out there that they do. If reunification took place this would not make Eastern Christians "Roman Catholics" just part of the Catholic Church of which Roman Catholicism is a single rite. They would continue to have their own liturgy, religious discipline (For example married men may serve as priests in Eastern Christianity including in the Chaldean Catholic Church), feast days etc.


2. The Monophysite Heresy - Creation of the Oriental Orthodox Churches

The second great schism occurred at the previously-mentioned Council of Chalcedon (451). Again the doctrinal controversy concerned the divine and human natures of Christ, but this time the dissenters who were subsequently called Monophysites (it was meant as an insult) held that Christ has a single nature, both human and divine or in other words the polar opposite of the Nestorians. The followers Miaphysite (as they call themselves) doctrine were centred around the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch and in Armenia while their opponents were found in Rome and Constantiople. Truth be told, while the Council of Chalcedon created a great deal of friction between the different factions, they still managed to rub along together for nearly a century before the Emperor Justinian sought to suppress the Miaphysites. They probably would have disappeared from history but for the rise of Islam and the loss of Syria and Egypt by the Eastern Empire.

Today they are known as the Oriental Orthodox and there are at present six Oriental Orthodox Churches. These are the three Coptic Churches of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Eritrea, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church which is found in Syria and surrounding countries, and the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church in India. These churches are all in communion with one another meaning they recognize the validity of each others' sacraments.

Their relations with other branches of Chritianity vary. The Syriac Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church have a long and complicated, but not particularly antagonistic history and probably would have reunited at some point but for the fact that the Ottoman government opposed it. Nevertheless many Syriac Orthodox did enter communion with the Catholic Church as the Syriac Catholic Church. On a formal level the churches have settled most of their doctrinal difference in the past half century and have reached an agreement permitting their laity to access the sacraments of the other church when necessary. The Syriac Orthodox Church is similar in its liturgy and other practices to the Eastern Orthodox Churches but there has been less dialogue though one has been started with the Russian Orthodox Church. Apparently there is still a hostility from some Greek Orthodox who see the Syriac Church as heretics.

The Armenian Apostolic Church also has very good relations with the Roman Catholic Church, in part because in many of its exterior symbols (such as Bishops mitres for example) the Armenian Church is closer to Western Christian practices than those of other Eastern Christian. There have been attempts to reunite the two churches since the time of the Crusades and there is an Armenian Catholic Church. Interestingly, on a parish level the laity and clergy of the two churches treat them as one even if they are hierarchically separate.

The Coptic Church which is the mother church of the Ethiopian and Eritrian Churches (they were formally part of the Coptic Church) has resolved its doctrinal differences with the Catholic Church and with the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria.


3. The Great Schism of 1054 - Division of the Church into Catholic and Eastern Orthodox

The last great schism was between what is now the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. It occurred in 1054 and had been preceded by a long build up of friction about various issues, mostly cultural in nature but that quickly became a matter of doctrine. The controversy which continues to this day surrounds the legitimacy of the "filioque" a short phrase added to the Nicean Creed on the authority of Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 but rejected by the Orthodox Church. This decision by Benedict also called into question the extent of the Pope's authority. Two councils were later called to try and resolve the differences between the Churches. The 2nd Council of Lyon in 1274 saw both the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople accept the filioque but popular opposition in the Eastern Church prevented the schism from being healed. At the Council of Florence in 1439 shortly before the fall of Constantinople, another agreement was reached between the Emperor, the Patriarch and other Eastern Bishops and the Western Church. As part of the agreement military aid was supposed to be sent to help the Byzantine Empire but none was forthcoming and after the fall of Constantinople the Ottomans needless to say, opposed any further attempts to promote Christian unity.

In 1595-96 at the Union of Brest, a large part of the Church of Rus - the Orthodox Church centred on Kiev formally united with the Roman Catholic church but retained its own liturgy and structure. However this was not popular with all its members and as Russia expanded at the expense of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth most people gradually reconverted to Orthodoxy. However the Ukrainian Catholic Church continued to thrive in the western parts of Ukraine that were ceded to Austria Hungary when Poland was partitioned in 1795. The Ukrainian Catholic Church was suppressed by the Soviet Union by forcibly merging it with the Orthodox Church. However after the fall of Communism it re-emerged much stronger than anyone anticipated which has strained relations between the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches.

Relations between the Eastern Orthodox Churches the main ones of which are the Russian, Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian, Serbian, and Georgian Orthodox Churches, and the Roman Catholic Church remain frosty to this day. The exception is the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople where Patriarchs since the 1940s have been in regular dialogue with the Roman Catholic Popes.

The schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches seems the least likely to be healed any time soon.

Practically speaking, in western countries many Orthodox Christians end up attending Catholic Churches because Orthodox Churches are relatively few in number and also because they tend to tied to a particular ethnic group. The Catholic Church allows this. On the other hand, Eastern Orthodox Churches generally would not permit a Catholic to partake in the sacraments.

[Wutang]

A lot of Orthodox churches seem to be based around a particular ethnic group. How common is it to find one that isn't so? I'd feel a bit strange attending one that was all Ukrainian or Russian and being the odd man out.

[Samseau]

(02-23-2016 06:09 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

A lot of Orthodox churches seem to be based around a particular ethnic group. How common is it to find one that isn't so? I'd feel a bit strange attending one that was all Ukrainian or Russian and being the odd man out.

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.

[da_zeb]

(02-25-2016 11:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 06:09 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

A lot of Orthodox churches seem to be based around a particular ethnic group. How common is it to find one that isn't so? I'd feel a bit strange attending one that was all Ukrainian or Russian and being the odd man out.

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. 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. Constantine, in addition to making the Roman Empire officially Christian, moved the imperial capital to Byzantium. In the Eastern Empire the Emperors exercised a lot of influence over the Church. How else do you think Constantinople became the preeminent Patriarchate when the early church had recognized only the Bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria of having extra-territorial jurisdiction (on the basis of the first two sees having been founded by Peter, and Alexandria by his protege)? Emperors regularly inserted themselves into Ecclesiastical affairs. For example, the Council of Chalcedon was instigated by the Emperor. It's also worth noting that the first two attempts to heal the Great Schism of 1054 were initiated by the the emperors in hopes of obtaining military aid against the Ottomans and that they did reach agreement over the objections of most Orthodox clergy. So when state power butts up againt Orthodoxy, state power tends to win.

The situation in the Western Europe was of course completely different after the collapse of the Western Empire left the Church as the only universal institution. Even before the fall of Rome the Bishops of Rome had asserted their rights against the Byzantine Emperors. After the Rise of the Holy Roman Empire at the end of the 7th Century and the emergence of nation-states, various Kings and Emperors attempted to impose their control over the Church within their territories and despite some temporary successes (in being allowed to appoint Bishops, or most notoriously kidnapping the Pope and moving the Papacy to Avignon) they met with failure.

Back to the present though and Wutang's observation. The Orthodox Communion consists of national Churches which are in Communion with one another. It's one church but without a central administration such as the Catholic Church has. Thus when immigrants from Orthodox nations came to North America they parishes they formed remained part of their original Church. Thus there is a Greek Orthodox Diocese of America, a Serbian Orthodox Diocese etc. There was a Russian Orthodox Diocese of America but in 1971 the Russian Orthodox Church granted it Autocephaly or status as a self-governing Church and it is now known as the Orthodox Church in America although this status is not universally recognized as traditionally it is the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople that has jurisdiction over such matter. And to make matters even more confusing there are still parishes that belong to the Russian Orthodox Church operating in North America.

Because many if not most Orthodox Churches in North America are part of the national churches from which the founding immigrants emigrated they retain a very ethnic character. If you're Serbian Orthodox you can attend a Greek Orthodox Parish without any restrictions, but you'll probably feel a bit of an outsider. I'm sure it's even worse if you're a convert. Perhaps at some point there will be an Ecumenical Council that creates an Autocephalous Orthodox Church of North America and transfers all the existing North American parishes under its umbrella.

[Samseau]

(02-25-2016 08:48 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 11:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 06:09 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

A lot of Orthodox churches seem to be based around a particular ethnic group. How common is it to find one that isn't so? I'd feel a bit strange attending one that was all Ukrainian or Russian and being the odd man out.

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.

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

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

[da_zeb]

(02-26-2016 01:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 08:48 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 11:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 06:09 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

A lot of Orthodox churches seem to be based around a particular ethnic group. How common is it to find one that isn't so? I'd feel a bit strange attending one that was all Ukrainian or Russian and being the odd man out.

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:

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.

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.

[Samseau]

(02-26-2016 04:58 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 01:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 08:48 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 11:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 06:09 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

A lot of Orthodox churches seem to be based around a particular ethnic group. How common is it to find one that isn't so? I'd feel a bit strange attending one that was all Ukrainian or Russian and being the odd man out.

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:

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.

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.

[da_zeb]

(02-26-2016 07:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 04:58 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 01:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 08:48 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

(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:

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.

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. 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




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.

[Samseau]

My bad on the 500 members claim. Dunno where I got that number from. You are correct in the 130~ number. Perhaps not an army, but still a militia.

As for the text you quoted...

Quote:

Iconoclasm, for example, was vigorously championed by a whole series of Emperors, yet for all that it was successfully rejected by the Church.

Sure it was rejected by the Church, after countless clergy were thrown in jail or persecuted. But they remained pacifist. They did not fight back against the state directly and merely protested with faith. It was a classic example of giving unto Caesar which is Caesar's and giving unto God which is God's.

And why wouldn't anyone be opposed to Catholicism? An infallible Pope is just plain ridiculous. No insecurity needed to understand that.

[Orion]

(02-27-2016 12:19 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 07:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 04:58 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 01:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 08:48 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

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:

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.

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. 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




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.

This is unfortunately the part where i have to say the unpopular "read some history" phrase, but you really need to get into it.

The best way to figure out the proportion of state/temporal vs church/spiritual power struggle is to read about conflict between Ghibelline Holy Roman Empire and it's House of Hohenstaufen , and Guelph faction and Popes.

Popes always had ambition to be rulers, and it finally came to an end during rise of nationalism in Europe. Just because recently, Vatican is a small state, does not simply abolish them from their roots. Even Mussolini, a dictator, gave in to their requests for a status of a recognized state, and fascists more than anyone, had ambitions to subjugate spiritual power to that of a state, so spirituality too would be governed by ruler.

However Mussolini was not as sharp as his predecessors.

But prior to reduction of Papal power, they ran serious armies and serious finances, which engaged in wars even with major powers from time to time, and certainly used other European and Italian rulers for their causes, causing much bitterness in their opponents, who could not renounce Catholicism thanks to it's huge influence, but had to endure humiliations, excommunications etc. from it's leaders.

[da_zeb]

(02-28-2016 07:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

My bad on the 500 members claim. Dunno where I got that number from. You are correct in the 130~ number. Perhaps not an army, but still a militia.

As for the text you quoted...

Quote:

Iconoclasm, for example, was vigorously championed by a whole series of Emperors, yet for all that it was successfully rejected by the Church.

Sure it was rejected by the Church, after countless clergy were thrown in jail or persecuted. But they remained pacifist. They did not fight back against the state directly and merely protested with faith. It was a classic example of giving unto Caesar which is Caesar's and giving unto God which is God's.

And why wouldn't anyone be opposed to Catholicism? An infallible Pope is just plain ridiculous. No insecurity needed to understand that.

This thread is about Orthodox Christianity - if you want to debate Papal infalliability, then maybe we should start a new thread.

[Truth Teller]

I'm Catholic, but have great respect for my Orthodox brothers. My issues are not really with the Orthodox church in general (in some places, it seems closer to the Apostles than the Catholic Church). However, I have some issues with the theology (believe it or not, I think the leavened/unleavened nature of the Eucharist important).

[da_zeb]

(02-29-2016 06:05 PM)Orion Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:19 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 07:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 04:58 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 01:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

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


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.

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. 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




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.

This is unfortunately the part where i have to say the unpopular "read some history" phrase, but you really need to get into it.

The best way to figure out the proportion of state/temporal vs church/spiritual power struggle is to read about conflict between Ghibelline Holy Roman Empire and it's House of Hohenstaufen , and Guelph faction and Popes.

Popes always had ambition to be rulers, and it finally came to an end during rise of nationalism in Europe. Just because recently, Vatican is a small state, does not simply abolish them from their roots. Even Mussolini, a dictator, gave in to their requests for a status of a recognized state, and fascists more than anyone, had ambitions to subjugate spiritual power to that of a state, so spirituality too would be governed by ruler.

However Mussolini was not as sharp as his predecessors.

But prior to reduction of Papal power, they ran serious armies and serious finances, which engaged in wars even with major powers from time to time, and certainly used other European and Italian rulers for their causes, causing much bitterness in their opponents, who could not renounce Catholicism thanks to it's huge influence, but had to endure humiliations, excommunications etc. from it's leaders.

You'd do well to follow your advice and read some history. The Papal States at their maximum extend comprised perhaps a fifth of the area of modern Italy, so they were never a major military power. The Papacy's main concern wasn't ruling Europe but maintaining it's independence and defending its prerogatives from various kings and emperors who were continually trying to usurp it. In temporal terms, the power differential was always in favour of the secular rulers - think of the Babylon Captivity when the Papacy was moved to Avignon and dominated by the French Kings for seventy years.

The Papacy's power has alway been spiritual and moral. It could never win a war, but it could induce Henry II to walk to Canterbury in sack cloth, inspire the Crusaders, build alliances of Christian states against the Turks and Napoleon, and stare down the Polish Communist regime.

Now, can we get back to discussing Orthodox Christianity.

[da_zeb]

(02-29-2016 06:47 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I'm Catholic, but have great respect for my Orthodox brothers. My issues are not really with the Orthodox church in general (in some places, it seems closer to the Apostles than the Catholic Church). However, I have some issues with the theology (believe it or not, I think the leavened/unleavened nature of the Eucharist important).

I'm Catholic but some of my ancestors were Orthodox.

[Orion]

(02-29-2016 07:54 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

You'd do well to follow your advice and read some history. The Papal States at their maximum extend comprised perhaps a fifth of the area of modern Italy, so they were never a major military power.

Venice was even less and they ran succesful military campaigns against vast empires. Remember, Italy was far from an impoverished agricultural feud.

Quote:

The Papacy's main concern wasn't ruling Europe but maintaining it's independence and defending its prerogatives from various kings and emperors who were continually trying to usurp it.

No Emperor ever tried to usurp Papal spiritual power. It was always other way round, Pope tried to usurp temporal power. No King ever wanted himself to control religious affairs. They only sought Pope's political subjugation.

Popes invested themselves deeply into political affairs of even the remote parts of Europe, such as was England back then.

Pope Innocent III directly interfered into English affairs, putting an anathema onto Magna Carta and those who signed it.

He said:

Quote:

This [Magna Carta] has been forced from the King. It constitutes an insult to the Holy See, a serious weakening of the royal power, a disgrace to the English nation, a danger to all Christendom, since this civil war obstructs the crusade. Therefore?we condemn the charter and forbid the King to keep it, or the barons and their supporters to make him do so, on pain of excommunication.

Quote:

In temporal terms, the power differential was always in favour of the secular rulers - think of the Babylon Captivity when the Papacy was moved to Avignon and dominated by the French Kings for seventy years.

Yes indeed, by that time, Papal power was greatly diminishing, but not completely.

Quote:

The Papacy's power has alway been spiritual and moral.

Considering Papal State was an actual state, no, it's power was temporal too.

Quote:

It could never win a war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelphs_and_Ghibellines

Wars between Popes and Emperors, were numerous, direct, long lasting, bitter and no less brutal. Pope invested himself in these wars both directly, with Papal armies, and with his favorite method - using other people to do it for him, such as the cities nominally under Imperial control but de facto independent and rebellious, known as Guelph Cities. These cities were merchant cities - prosperous and advanced and posed constant obstacle to Imperial rule in Italy.

Quote:

Inspire the Crusaders

While Pope indeed inspired initial crusades, particularly first one, the latter crusades pretty much relied upon enthusiasm, wealth and good organization of skilled and rich temporal rulers, such as German Emperors, English and French kings etc, who often underwent such campaigns out of pure enthusiasm, with little prospect of any gain. Pope provided no more than blessings.

Quote:

build alliances of Christian states against the Turks

Pope built 0 (zero) alliances against Turks. Pope was endlessly concerned with faith of Eastern Christians after Ottomans were defeated and never initiated anything before prior written pledge of Byzantines that they will unite with Pope afterwards. Ultimately, Pope's calculation was that it was better for Eastern Christians to be wiped out altogether than to remain separated.

Guess who did organize real pan-Christian fight against Ottomans tho ? Holy Roman Emperor !

Yes, he formed a league of Christian nations (both Catholic and Orthodox). The knights of these orders were also Orthodox Christian and they actively, fiercely and ruthlessly fought Ottomans.

[da_zeb]

(03-03-2016 01:09 PM)Orion Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 07:54 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

You'd do well to follow your advice and read some history. The Papal States at their maximum extend comprised perhaps a fifth of the area of modern Italy, so they were never a major military power.

Venice was even less and they ran succesful military campaigns against vast empires. Remember, Italy was far from an impoverished agricultural feud.

Quote:

The Papacy's main concern wasn't ruling Europe but maintaining it's independence and defending its prerogatives from various kings and emperors who were continually trying to usurp it.

No Emperor ever tried to usurp Papal spiritual power. It was always other way round, Pope tried to usurp temporal power. No King ever wanted himself to control religious affairs. They only sought Pope's political subjugation.

Popes invested themselves deeply into political affairs of even the remote parts of Europe, such as was England back then.

Pope Innocent III directly interfered into English affairs, putting an anathema onto Magna Carta and those who signed it.

He said:

Quote:

This [Magna Carta] has been forced from the King. It constitutes an insult to the Holy See, a serious weakening of the royal power, a disgrace to the English nation, a danger to all Christendom, since this civil war obstructs the crusade. Therefore?we condemn the charter and forbid the King to keep it, or the barons and their supporters to make him do so, on pain of excommunication.

Quote:

In temporal terms, the power differential was always in favour of the secular rulers - think of the Babylon Captivity when the Papacy was moved to Avignon and dominated by the French Kings for seventy years.

Yes indeed, by that time, Papal power was greatly diminishing, but not completely.

Quote:

The Papacy's power has alway been spiritual and moral.

Considering Papal State was an actual state, no, it's power was temporal too.

Quote:

It could never win a war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelphs_and_Ghibellines

Wars between Popes and Emperors, were numerous, direct, long lasting, bitter and no less brutal. Pope invested himself in these wars both directly, with Papal armies, and with his favorite method - using other people to do it for him, such as the cities nominally under Imperial control but de facto independent and rebellious, known as Guelph Cities. These cities were merchant cities - prosperous and advanced and posed constant obstacle to Imperial rule in Italy.

Quote:

Inspire the Crusaders

While Pope indeed inspired initial crusades, particularly first one, the latter crusades pretty much relied upon enthusiasm, wealth and good organization of skilled and rich temporal rulers, such as German Emperors, English and French kings etc, who often underwent such campaigns out of pure enthusiasm, with little prospect of any gain. Pope provided no more than blessings.

Quote:

build alliances of Christian states against the Turks

Pope built 0 (zero) alliances against Turks. Pope was endlessly concerned with faith of Eastern Christians after Ottomans were defeated and never initiated anything before prior written pledge of Byzantines that they will unite with Pope afterwards. Ultimately, Pope's calculation was that it was better for Eastern Christians to be wiped out altogether than to remain separated.

Guess who did organize real pan-Christian fight against Ottomans tho ? Holy Roman Emperor !

Yes, he formed a league of Christian nations (both Catholic and Orthodox). The knights of these orders were also Orthodox Christian and they actively, fiercely and ruthlessly fought Ottomans.

The Popes' control over the Papal States was always sketchy and they were often de facto ruled by local noble families. The example of Venice is irrelevant.

You're wrong about the Emperors both Eastern and Western not trying to control the Papacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_sele...0.93236.29
And as previously mentioned, the French Kings also had a go at controlling the Papacy for their own ends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy

You're also wrong about the Popes not building alliances against the Turks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_League_(1571)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Leagu...ement_VIII

Trump is right, I'm getting bored of winning.

[da_zeb]

So rather than fighting about the Catholic Church, why aren't we talking about all the interesting things going on in the Orthodox Church

The Holy Council later this year.

Possible Merger of two of Ukraines Orthodox Churches.

[Orion]

(03-03-2016 07:37 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

The Popes' control over the Papal States was always sketchy and they were often de facto ruled by local noble families.

Yes, it was local noble families who got the work done for Pope, not only inside Papal territories, but outside of them too.

Quote:

The example of Venice is irrelevant.

The example of Venice proves that Italian city states were politically very important.

Quote:

You're wrong about the Emperors both Eastern and Western not trying to control the Papacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_sele...0.93236.29
And as previously mentioned, the French Kings also had a go at controlling the Papacy for their own ends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy

Emperors were utterly unconcerned with religious affairs. Only thing Emperors were concerned with, not only during Christianity, but also before, is that religious leaders credit them as legitimate rulers by divine right, and credit them as protectors of The Church.

Every conflict between Emperors and Papacy was for one of the following reasons:

1. Papacy defied unity of the Church
2. Papacy insisted on decentralized Church
3. Papacy denied Imperial suzerainty over the Church and insisted on separate "spiritual" authority.
4. Papacy arbitrated in political conflicts, choosing sides.
5. Papacy defied Eastern Roman emperor as legitimate "Roman".
6. Ultimately, Papacy even excommunicated the supposed western Emperor too !

Papal politics were hence totally inconsistent both in theory and practice, and temporal rulers saw it for what it is. While they had an obligation to respect Pope as spiritual leaders, they had no reason to tolerate him as a political entity and legitimately chose to try to suppress him. The fact that they failed only proves how tenacious Popes were.

In other words. Emperors like Frederick II were not fools. They saw who Pope is and what his goals are.

Quote:

You're also wrong about the Popes not building alliances against the Turks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_League_(1571)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Leagu...ement_VIII

Yes, that was precisely 200 years after all of the Orthodox Christian lands in the Balkans fell under Ottoman rule and Catholic possessions came under attack, including central Europe. Timely.

[da_zeb]

(03-05-2016 06:15 AM)Orion Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 07:37 PM)da_zeb Wrote:  

The Popes' control over the Papal States was always sketchy and they were often de facto ruled by local noble families.

Yes, it was local noble families who got the work done for Pope, not only inside Papal territories, but outside of them too.

Quote:

The example of Venice is irrelevant.

The example of Venice proves that Italian city states were politically very important.

Quote:

You're wrong about the Emperors both Eastern and Western not trying to control the Papacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_sele...0.93236.29
And as previously mentioned, the French Kings also had a go at controlling the Papacy for their own ends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy

Emperors were utterly unconcerned with religious affairs. Only thing Emperors were concerned with, not only during Christianity, but also before, is that religious leaders credit them as legitimate rulers by divine right, and credit them as protectors of The Church.

Every conflict between Emperors and Papacy was for one of the following reasons:

1. Papacy defied unity of the Church
2. Papacy insisted on decentralized Church
3. Papacy denied Imperial suzerainty over the Church and insisted on separate "spiritual" authority.
4. Papacy arbitrated in political conflicts, choosing sides.
5. Papacy defied Eastern Roman emperor as legitimate "Roman".
6. Ultimately, Papacy even excommunicated the supposed western Emperor too !

Papal politics were hence totally inconsistent both in theory and practice, and temporal rulers saw it for what it is. While they had an obligation to respect Pope as spiritual leaders, they had no reason to tolerate him as a political entity and legitimately chose to try to suppress him. The fact that they failed only proves how tenacious Popes were.

In other words. Emperors like Frederick II were not fools. They saw who Pope is and what his goals are.

Quote:

You're also wrong about the Popes not building alliances against the Turks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_League_(1571)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Leagu...ement_VIII

Yes, that was precisely 200 years after all of the Orthodox Christian lands in the Balkans fell under Ottoman rule and Catholic possessions came under attack, including central Europe. Timely.

The example of Venice only proves that Venice was important. I says nothing of other Italian states, although Genoa too was very powerful.

Your contention that Emperors took no interest in Church affair is untenable. Constantine made the Empire Christian. The Council of Chalcedon was called by Emperor Marcian with the reluctant acqiescence of the Pope. Justinian created the second major schism by forcing the Miaphysites out of the Church. Emperors regularly elevated and deposed bishops. The Iconoclasm heresy was largely driven by several Emperors.

Can you give some examples of how Popes have opposed the unity of the Church and have advocated for a decentralized church. Asserting it does not make it so.

If you knew anything other than regurgitated Orthodox talking points you would be aware that it wasn't only Roman Popes who opposed CaesaroPapism but also Eastern Church leaders including amongst others St. John Chrysostom who happened to be the Patriarch of Constantinople, and St Anthanasius, Patriarch of Constantinople.

The reason why the Papacy arbitrated in conflicts is because Western Europe consisted of many different Christian states and the Popes were seen as figures of authority who didn't have any great territorial ambitions.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Papacy defying the Byzantine emperor as a legitimate Roman. Please explain.

The Popes weren't the only senior prelates to excommunicate emperors. The Patriarchs of Constantinople did too from time to time. For example Patriarch John II Cappadox removed the names of the Emperos Zeno and Anastasius I from the Diptychs for heresy, Patriarch Kallinikos I helped depose the Emperor Justinian II, and Polyeuctus excommunicated the Emperor Nikephoros II, and refused to crown his successor John I Tzimiskes.