Does (Chalcedonian) Orthodoxy suffer from imperial consciousness?

archer75 said:

That is, is there too much focus on secular power as a "prop" for the Church?

Click to expand...

archer75 said:

I just mean: do we have a habit of thinkimg of ourselves as necessarily connected to this or that empire (Byzantine, Russian, Bulgarian)? Of imagining ourselves as ideally part of some giant swath of the world where the rulers are at least nominally Orthodox?

Click to expand...

archer75 said:

I don't either (also OCA), but online, I get the feeling that my parish is not representative.

But even apart from the recent squabbles and ethnic loyalties and so on, I mean more generally: do we have an unconscious habit of thinking "well, Russian and Byzantine Empires aside, it WOULD be better if we were attached to a secular government, because...um...then we would be well-funded.". Or something like that.

Obviously, some EO would conceive of the modern Papacy as a kind of heretical adoption of imperial thought into the official ecclesiology.

I wonder if we have some similar habits.

Click to expand...

TheLostCoin said:

This is my opinion, but yes - I get the impression often from some of the more conservative Orthodox Christians (including some monks and even Saints) that the Eastern Orthodox Church cannot be disconnected from the reality that it was a wing of the Byzantine Empire or the Russian Empire - and the Church today is an extension of these dead governments as such - with such a view being with massive positive connotation. The reality is simply because the Eastern Orthodox Church was used like that. The Ecumenical Councils, when they happened, became a part of Byzantine Imperial Law and those who dissented were punished severely - the most infamous case is the Oriental Orthodox Saint Samuel the Confessor, who was interrogated by Byzantine Imperial Soldiers about Chalcedon - he anathematized it - and they proceeded to pin him up against a wall, beat him up, and he was struck so hard that he lost his eye.

Even in Russia, St. Yevgenny of Novgorod had the legal authority to burn Judaizing heretics at the stake - and he did indeed do so.

On the other hand, I don’t think you can really say that up until the Chalcedonian schism, the Oriental Orthodox - assuming the claim for this argument that there is a continuity with them and the Pre-Chalcedonian Church - really weren’t used in the same way. Again, really the reason why Ephesus won out over the subsequent Antiochian Council that anathematized Saint Cyril (ignoring our belief in Theism and the fact that Saint Cyril does seem more consistent with Athanasius and previous Fathers) was the Byzantine Emperor declared it so. And again, even the Oriental Orthodox commemorate Saint Constantine as a Saint.

Even post Chalcedon this was true in the periods of time where the Miaphysites seized power - as in during the Acacian schism - but during the periods where Chalcedonianism reigned supreme and then Islam for centuries, the Oriental Orthodox - even the very very conservative ones - clearly have lost any proclaimed continuity with the Ancient Christian governments and view themselves as separate from it.

From the moderate and liberals? Not really, although even from them the connection of the government and the Church is still very interesting when it manifests itself - for instance, it’s just astounding how the Byzantine and Ottoman Empire in terms of imperial uniform really influenced the liturgical vestments of the Eastern Orthodox Church - the Kamilavka, for instance, having clear origins from that.

Whether you disagree with it or not, it’s just a reality that the Orthodox Church - really since the time Christianity became the official religion of Rome up until 1917 - served as an authority used by government, especially to give that government legitimacy (“We’re allowed to annex more territory and declare war on the pagans to bring Christianity to them! And that’s why we are allowed to own all this money.”)
I mean, before Chalcedon, the Armenian Christians became occupied under a pagan government (The Neo-Persian Empire, they were Zoroastrians and a massive rival of the Byzantine Empire) and were heavily, heavily persecuted because some emperors were paranoid that the Christians served as spies for the Byzantine Empire - especially the Greek speaking ones. I mean, that should demonstrate how blurry the line could be at points.

Click to expand...

All4Christ said:

If you say moderates and liberals are the ones that don’t have imperial connections in the church or consider it to be the best way to handle the church, then what do you mean by conservative? I don’t consider myself to be moderate or liberal; I want to follow the teachings of the church, the fathers, etc. So what makes us moderate or liberal? What are the standards you are using to determine that? Political standings? Morality? Integrity to the faith? Changes to things like ordination of women or other major changes to the church? Being a “traditionalist” according to the common understanding of the word?

Click to expand...

TheLostCoin said:

Disciples of people like Fr. Seraphim Rose, Fr. Theodore Zisis, people who follow the Orthodox Information Center, people obsessed with Prophecy, people who are incredibly hostile towards the Oriental Orthodox - that’s generally whom I’m thinking about when I mean conservative.

I’m thinking of disciples of Fr. Schmemann, Kallistos Ware (besides homosexuality), the ideology of the Moscow Patriarch, etc. when I think of moderates.

I’m thinking of disciples of Father Lazar Puhalo, Public Orthodoxy, and pretty much the “scientific” social science departments of secular universities when I say Liberals.

Click to expand...

dzheremi said:

Fr. Josiah Trenham of the Antiochian Orthodox Church once said in a talk on Shari'a law in America that he'd like to have a pious, believing king, but I'm pretty sure he was joking/realizes that this wouldn't happen in the West. I thought the "Bring back Byzantium" types were mostly LARPers on the internet.

Click to expand...

TheLostCoin said:

Disciples of people like Fr. Seraphim Rose, Fr. Theodore Zisis, people who follow the Orthodox Information Center, people obsessed with Prophecy, people who are incredibly hostile towards the Oriental Orthodox - that’s generally whom I’m thinking about when I mean conservative.

I’m thinking of disciples of Fr. Schmemann, Kallistos Ware (besides homosexuality), the ideology of the Moscow Patriarch, etc. when I think of moderates.

I’m thinking of disciples of Father Lazar Puhalo, Public Orthodoxy, and pretty much the “scientific” social science departments of secular universities when I say Liberals.

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

aside from those who are nasty to the Orientals, the conservative would find the good in all of these. the liberal would make a guru out of one camp at the expense of the others.

Click to expand...

TheLostCoin said:

Well, that depends on your definition.

I’m only using the names of “Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative” to designate certain theological currents in Eastern Orthodoxy. The groups don’t have to be mutually exclusive - I tend to be mostly in between Moderate and Conservative, although I have Liberal tendencies sometimes - but there are these clear groups of people within the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The very term “Orthodox” implies religious conservatism and traditionalism - so if you are using “conservative” and “Orthodox” as synonymous, then sure.

But if you are referring to my specific designation of currents - I don’t know if that’s true.
I’ve seen people defend the Toll Houses to the death and believe that those who deny them are in a sort of ignorant heresy. I’ve seen people who believe that kneeling and the use of a pipe organ implies some level of gracelessness of the whole community. I’ve seen people believe that the Moscow Patriarch is a heretic, etc.

Click to expand...

TheLostCoin said:

Again, having gone to a Fatima Center convention and getting a free ”book” which explains what could possibly happen to Russia after the Fatima Consecration - that the Pope would annoint a Byzantine Catholic Tsar - some people definitely don’t exist in irony or even imaginatory musings on the internet alone, but seriously believe that a return to Monarchy is eminent.

And while this is Catholic, the fact that there are people expecting unprecedented things means there ought to be people who expect precedented things of the same nature.

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

sure, I am just saying how the conservative vs liberal Orthodox view things.

Click to expand...

dzheremi said:

Forgive me, I didn't mean to challenge what you have experienced, as I don't doubt that it is a true phenomenon. I just meant that such things appear to be more popular on the internet than off of it, or so it seems to an outsider like me. But certainly every kook on the internet is also probably a kook in real life.

Click to expand...