-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Caesaropapism
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
- Status
Annabel Lee
Beware the Thought Police
DreamTheater said:
What in the world is Caesaropapism? I could take a wild guess, but chances are I'd be wrong.
Upvote
0
Alexis OCA
Secrecy and Accountability Cannot Co-Exist
Annabel Lee said:
Caesaropapism is the phenomenon of combining the power of worldy (secular) government with the spiritual authority of the Christian Church; most especially, the subordination of the spiritual power of the Christian Church to governmental authority; in its extreme form, it is a political theory in which the head of state also exercises dictatorial governmental power over and within the church.
I don't really think about it too much.
Upvote
0
R
Rilian
Guest
There's a good section about this in this article.
Caesaropapism
There have, of course, been times when the Church was more or less forced into a more efficient mode of operation by secular powers, and the Church suffered dearly for such intrusions. That is what makes Hahns comments about caesaropapism so utterly galling. To suggest that the Orthodox Church accepted a state of affairs whereby the emperor decided Church policy and that this is in contrast to the way things worked in the West, where Rome claimed supremacy over the temporal powers, displays an appalling ignorance of history.
To begin with, Orthodox canon law specifically forbids state interference in the internal workings of the Church. That does not mean that emperors did not try to interfere in the Churchs business - most tried, and some were more successful than others. It does mean, however, that the Church never accepted this as a normal state of affairs. Indeed, the Church calendar is filled with saints who suffered mightily for their refusal to go along with imperial policy.11
There is a great irony here. By far the greatest impetus for reunion with Rome prior to the fall of Constantinople came from imperial political motives. It was in the interest of the emperor to have communion restored between the Orthodox and the Church of Rome because of the political advantages it would bring.12 The so-called union councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) were both promoted by the emperor, and both rejected by the body of the Orthodox faithful. Were Hahns views of caesaropapism correct, then the Church would have dutifully obeyed imperial policy, and Rome and Orthodoxy would be in communion now! 13
The fact is, the only place in the Orthodox world where caesaropapism was ever close to being an accepted reality was in Russia, subsequent to the reforms of Peter the Great. Peter abolished the office of patriarch, installed his own government oberprocurator for religious affairs to oversee the Holy Synod, and effectively made the Church a department of state. There is no doubt that this severely weakened the Church and contributed to Her inability to successfully counter the communist Revolution.14 What non-Orthodox historians invariably omit, however, is the fact that the Petrine reforms were based on church-state relations Peter had observed in the German and Scandinavian principalities. Thus, Petrine Russias caesaropapism was the direct result of western, non-Orthodox influences.15 Hahns comment that the sufferings of the Russian Church under the Soviet regime were the fruit of an Orthodox outlook is as misguided as it is insulting.
Before we leave the subject of church-state relations, let us consider the following:
It would be impossible for him to be corrupted by anyone, for he is a catholic in faith, a king in power, a pontiff in preaching, a judge in equity, a philosopher in liberal studies, a model in morals.16
A panegyric to a Roman emperor written by a sycophantic Orthodox bishop? Not hardly. This particular tribute was written by Alcuin in honor of Charlemagne, the Frankish usurper crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III in 800.
The crowning of Charlemagne is often cited as an example of papal supremacy over temporal powers. In reality, however, the Church in Western Europe became part of the Germanic feudal system, with clergy appointed and invested by secular rulers. Simony became a matter of course. This situation did not change until the Gregorian Reforms of the eleventh century. Even then, however, claims of papal supremacy over matters temporal did not always match reality. Pelikan observes:
What the history books describe as the investiture controversy was not merely the churchs defense of its own right to select and install its bishops. It was also the states defense against the claims of the church. The pope claimed the right to depose the emperor, and in the investiture controversy he tried to do just that. Repeatedly pope and emperor clashed over the limits of their respective jurisdictions. The zenith of papal power under Pope Innocent III (d. 1216) was followed less than a century later by the exile of the pope in Avignon and by the humiliating history of the papacy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Through it all the pope claimed authority over the state as well as the church, but conditions within the church seemed to many to prove that he could not rule even the church.17
Clearly, Hahns reading of church history is both selective and inaccurate. Ever since the time Jesus was presented with a Roman coin and asked about taxation, Christians have been trying to come to terms with the proper relationship between Church and state. No one in the East or in the West was able to come up with a perfect solution. Indeed, a perfect solution is not possible in this world, for the Reign of God is not of this world (Jn. 18:36).18
Caesaropapism
There have, of course, been times when the Church was more or less forced into a more efficient mode of operation by secular powers, and the Church suffered dearly for such intrusions. That is what makes Hahns comments about caesaropapism so utterly galling. To suggest that the Orthodox Church accepted a state of affairs whereby the emperor decided Church policy and that this is in contrast to the way things worked in the West, where Rome claimed supremacy over the temporal powers, displays an appalling ignorance of history.
To begin with, Orthodox canon law specifically forbids state interference in the internal workings of the Church. That does not mean that emperors did not try to interfere in the Churchs business - most tried, and some were more successful than others. It does mean, however, that the Church never accepted this as a normal state of affairs. Indeed, the Church calendar is filled with saints who suffered mightily for their refusal to go along with imperial policy.11
There is a great irony here. By far the greatest impetus for reunion with Rome prior to the fall of Constantinople came from imperial political motives. It was in the interest of the emperor to have communion restored between the Orthodox and the Church of Rome because of the political advantages it would bring.12 The so-called union councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) were both promoted by the emperor, and both rejected by the body of the Orthodox faithful. Were Hahns views of caesaropapism correct, then the Church would have dutifully obeyed imperial policy, and Rome and Orthodoxy would be in communion now! 13
The fact is, the only place in the Orthodox world where caesaropapism was ever close to being an accepted reality was in Russia, subsequent to the reforms of Peter the Great. Peter abolished the office of patriarch, installed his own government oberprocurator for religious affairs to oversee the Holy Synod, and effectively made the Church a department of state. There is no doubt that this severely weakened the Church and contributed to Her inability to successfully counter the communist Revolution.14 What non-Orthodox historians invariably omit, however, is the fact that the Petrine reforms were based on church-state relations Peter had observed in the German and Scandinavian principalities. Thus, Petrine Russias caesaropapism was the direct result of western, non-Orthodox influences.15 Hahns comment that the sufferings of the Russian Church under the Soviet regime were the fruit of an Orthodox outlook is as misguided as it is insulting.
Before we leave the subject of church-state relations, let us consider the following:
It would be impossible for him to be corrupted by anyone, for he is a catholic in faith, a king in power, a pontiff in preaching, a judge in equity, a philosopher in liberal studies, a model in morals.16
A panegyric to a Roman emperor written by a sycophantic Orthodox bishop? Not hardly. This particular tribute was written by Alcuin in honor of Charlemagne, the Frankish usurper crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III in 800.
The crowning of Charlemagne is often cited as an example of papal supremacy over temporal powers. In reality, however, the Church in Western Europe became part of the Germanic feudal system, with clergy appointed and invested by secular rulers. Simony became a matter of course. This situation did not change until the Gregorian Reforms of the eleventh century. Even then, however, claims of papal supremacy over matters temporal did not always match reality. Pelikan observes:
What the history books describe as the investiture controversy was not merely the churchs defense of its own right to select and install its bishops. It was also the states defense against the claims of the church. The pope claimed the right to depose the emperor, and in the investiture controversy he tried to do just that. Repeatedly pope and emperor clashed over the limits of their respective jurisdictions. The zenith of papal power under Pope Innocent III (d. 1216) was followed less than a century later by the exile of the pope in Avignon and by the humiliating history of the papacy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Through it all the pope claimed authority over the state as well as the church, but conditions within the church seemed to many to prove that he could not rule even the church.17
Clearly, Hahns reading of church history is both selective and inaccurate. Ever since the time Jesus was presented with a Roman coin and asked about taxation, Christians have been trying to come to terms with the proper relationship between Church and state. No one in the East or in the West was able to come up with a perfect solution. Indeed, a perfect solution is not possible in this world, for the Reign of God is not of this world (Jn. 18:36).18
Upvote
0
DreamTheater said:
Papal-caesarism is the opposite side of the Caesaropapism coin.
It is the assumption of temporal, secular authority by the Pope of Rome. It characterized much of the Medieval and Renaissance papacy.
Upvote
0
Michael G
Abe Frohmann
- Feb 22, 2004
- 33,441
- 11,984
- 52
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Rilian said:
This is true. The influences of the west on Peter the Great can't be emphasized enough. Not only did they have their effect on his abolishing the Patriarchate, but they also had a westernizing trend in Russian life and in iconography. These were all rather regrettable.
Upvote
0
DreamTheater said:
I thought you knew the Orthodox position on the Pope of Rome exercising temporal, secular power like an earthly potentate. That's why I thought my first answer was enough.
Sorry that it wasn't.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
