Catholic - Orthodoxes: History

Status
Not open for further replies.

a_ntv

Ens Liturgicum
Apr 21, 2006
6,317
252
✟34,318.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
I have read a nice book on the idea of Church (and of papacy) in the past (by a greek, J. Spiteris, not available in English).

So I checked the real motivations that leaded the EO to reject the papal autorities.
A part from lots of addivtive motivations (like the filioque or the theory of 5 patriarchs) there were two real motivations:
- the first is the role of any bishop: reading the letters of Ioannes X Camateros to Innocent III, we can almost say that the Costantinople patriarch was more right than the pope. Anyway this is NO more a actual cause of un-agreement because the CC in the councils of Trent and CVII had really changed direction, and now there is no proplem to understand the strict link between bishop and his church.
- the other motivation is extremly interesting and probably it the actual cause of the rejecting of the papacy: it is the role of the Bizantium Emperator: I believe that present EO shall check their history to realize that.

When Costantine splitted in two the Empire, re-founded Costantinople, he also desired to unit the Church, and so it was.
Please consider the structure of the Bizantine Empire (320-1453): by first it covered ALL the civil world and it had to have ONE Church (no mind if arian, nestorian or iconoclast: the important was to be one).
And the Emperator was the Head of the Church:
- he named and installed the Patriarch (or rejected the patriarch)
- he convoced the councils and approved the acts
- any people had to prostrate in front of him
- his icons (of the living emerator) were take in procession
- he was considered not a lay-people (even if not ordained): ad instance he could go back te iconostasis, he could preach and give blessings
- his power and his legittimy came by God (and of course he had illimitate powers)
- he used the title of "VICAR of CHRIST"
In fact there was: "One Civil World, One Empire, One Emperator, One Church".

What about the West? on history books we read that the western Roman Empire felt down on 476, but that was not the feeling of the people in such a time. In fact Bisanzium Empire went on considering the West as a part of the empire, even if they had no more power (wel, Bari in Italy was bizantine till 1181).

It was extremly clear that the Bizantine gave the first place to Rome NOT because Rome was the see of Peter, but ONLY because Rome was the first capital of the Roman Empire (you shall always remember that the Bizantine Empire WAS at 100% the Roman Empire)

And the pope? in the V-VIII the pope was the bishop of a very poor city, in a desolated country: he had the title of first between the bishops because his town (poor and desolated) was Rome: but in fact any decision were taken in Bisantium, and so this situation was not a issue for the unity of the Empire (and of the Church)

Bizantines got very upset when the pope crowen Charles Magnus on 800: the saw the bishop of Rome to have betrayed the Empire and the Emperator to a barbarian King who had the haeteur to call himself Roman Emperator (each time you read in EO texts the pejorative word 'francs' to indicate the western people, that is the cause)

Historically from 800 to about 1050 the pope was submitted by Western Emperators, but later the pope start a haevy fight for indipendence: that was something of incredible for such a time: to separe the Church from the Empire (well, actually to put the Church over the Empire): and so the pope highlighted that his power came from Peter, not from the (Western) Emperator.

When the papacy explained the this understandind to the East, the Bizantines could NOT accepted it: they had already a "Vicar of Christ": the Emperator !
The pope, as Head of the Church, as Vicar of Christ was if direct competition with the Eperator: more: the papacy was broking the base idea of the East: One Civil World, One Empire, One Emperator, One Church.

What happened later? we know the story: the Bizantium Empire crashed, not mainly by the Turks, but for intenal problems. The West did not helped. A new spirituality growed in the East: the esicasm, that had as effect a 'quietism': not to mind the Church as part of the Empire, but reced in monastries.
And the "One Civil World, One Empire, One Emperator, One Church"? This undestanding went on in Russia, that so was called "the Third Rome". This explain the incredibol nationalism of the Church of Russia (and so the problem with the unitates).
 

Xpycoctomos

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2004
10,133
679
45
Midwest
✟13,419.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
AN_TV

I found what you had to say intriguing and interesting. I have actually learned a lot of that and think it does explain a lot of why 1) the East is so reticent to give anything beyond mere talk in regards to what "first among equals" means or meant, 2) the Western Papacy developped into something strong than it was intended to be.

No doubt, there was a lot of wierd corrupt (IMO) stuff going on in the Byzantine Empire that was certainly not ideal in the least and, I think, had unfortunate effects on the traditions that have been lost in the Church. Constantinople is a prime Example of why I am so staunchly for seperation of Church and State. The State can only infect the Church in the long run (even if it helps in the short). In the East the Emperor became a virtual Pope and in the West the Pope became a virtual Emperor. Both are unfortunate I would even venture to say shameful. But, I'm not from those times, so what do I know.

What I do know (and we can all agree on this) is that eespite all of this craziness and embarrassment, God was always there looking over His Church on Earth.
 
Upvote 0

a_ntv

Ens Liturgicum
Apr 21, 2006
6,317
252
✟34,318.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
No doubt, there was a lot of wierd corrupt (IMO) stuff going on in the Byzantine Empire that was certainly not ideal in the least and, I think, had unfortunate effects on the traditions that have been lost in the Church. Constantinople is a prime Example of why I am so staunchly for seperation of Church and State. The State can only infect the Church in the long run (even if it helps in the short). In the East the Emperor became a virtual Pope and in the West the Pope became a virtual Emperor. Both are unfortunate I would even venture to say shameful. But, I'm not from those times, so what do I know.
I'm not saying that there were lot of wierd corrupt stuff in the Byzantine Empire. We cannot judge it with the eyes of XIX century US people with the US constitution under the eyes. That would be extremly anti-historical. The Byzantyne Empire have been a wonderfull Empire, that leasted about 1200 years, and without it the Christianity probable now would no exist. For its time, it was incredibly modern and well governed.
The separation between State and Church, or the liberty of religion of citizens into the State is something VERY modern: remember that in the civil Irland the catholics were allowed to go to university or to own estates only in 1917 (after the indipendency from England).

My post is to understand which were the effective reasons of the separation: we can easily say that the separation has its roots in the very 320 at Costantine time, when the Roman Empire started a second (and more important) capital: Costantinople.

I try to translate in English some excerpts from historycal documents by Bizantine polemists of the XI-XIII centuries:
letter of patriarch Michael d'Anchialos to pope Alexander III: The Emperator is the only natural authority, after God, both for us and for you.
Georges Tonikes: the thrones of now and any dignity into the Church are distribuited from the dignity of the Emperator
Andronicos Camateros (XII century) to latins: It is not for the motivation you believe [Peter see], but it ws for the honour that Rome had for the Empire even before the time of the Apostoles, that Rome has the primacy on the other Churches
Nilo Doxapatres: Because Rome lost his imperial dignity, for which it was the favoured, and because of still now it is subject to Barbarians, Rome looses for that also its privileges. These prerogatives are passed to Costantinoples because Costantinoples is the Emperial town...



One of the reasons why the Armenians rejected Chalcedon is the exanding of the authority of the Pope vs. the Metro. of Constantinople. I also am aware that the RC never accepted the Metro. of Constantinople from Chalcedon as well.

The problem of Armenian rejecting Chalcedon was that Armenia was a kingdom OUT from the Bizantine Empire, and so it looked at Chalcedon, a council convoced in the Empire by the Emperator for the unity of the Church in the empire, as the more 'political' council, that in fact stated the role of Costantinople as second Rome (that was mainly a political and only later a religious matter).
What here on CF we call EO are actually the Churches sons of the Bizantine Empires.
The OO Churches are the Chrurch of the East free from the Bisantine Empire: so when the most of the people in Syria and Egypt (countries under the Bizantium Empire) wanted to be free from the Empire, they became 'monophisites' (I use this word with a historical meaning, not a theological one) and started indipendent Churches attended by the most of the peope: the Empire answered appointing an official Patriarch faithful to the Emperator, who followed in everything the Empire (and also persecuting heavily the monophisite Church): so now we have in Antioch (and also in Egypt) two main patriarchs (a part from the 3 EC ones): the EO Greek one and the OO one.
We can see the difference in the liturgy: the OO liturgy is still the very old one rich of the V century, while the liturgy of the EO Patriarchs changed, and copied exactly the liturgy of Bisanzium. (do you know that the link of EO Patriarchs with Bisantium is still so heavy that the EO Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem shall be borne in Greece, even if they govern Egyptians and Palestinian people?)
 
Upvote 0

Xpycoctomos

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2004
10,133
679
45
Midwest
✟13,419.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I like your points. However, I still think there was a lot of wierd stuff and I don't think that the Emperor, ideally, should have been confused with the roles of the Church. Sure, that was perhaps God's plan because in this imperfect world that was the best way to save the Church. But that doesn't make it NOT corrupt. I for one would not have ever wanted to live in the Byzantine Empire (except as a fly on the wall) and I do not say this because of the lack of indoor plumbing lol ;) Then again, as you imply, I am a child of this age... so of course I wouldn't want to! I really do like your point of not judging something through XXI century eyes... even if I choose not follow this to the 't' as we say in English.
 
Upvote 0
Y

Yeznik

Guest
I'm not saying that there were lot of wierd corrupt stuff in the Byzantine Empire. We cannot judge it with the eyes of XIX century US people with the US constitution under the eyes. That would be extremly anti-historical. The Byzantyne Empire have been a wonderfull Empire, that leasted about 1200 years, and without it the Christianity probable now would no exist. For its time, it was incredibly modern and well governed.
The separation between State and Church, or the liberty of religion of citizens into the State is something VERY modern: remember that in the civil Irland the catholics were allowed to go to university or to own estates only in 1917 (after the indipendency from England).

My post is to understand which were the effective reasons of the separation: we can easily say that the separation has its roots in the very 320 at Costantine time, when the Roman Empire started a second (and more important) capital: Costantinople.

I try to translate in English some excerpts from historycal documents by Bizantine polemists of the XI-XIII centuries:
letter of patriarch Michael d'Anchialos to pope Alexander III: The Emperator is the only natural authority, after God, both for us and for you.
Georges Tonikes: the thrones of now and any dignity into the Church are distribuited from the dignity of the Emperator
Andronicos Camateros (XII century) to latins: It is not for the motivation you believe [Peter see], but it ws for the honour that Rome had for the Empire even before the time of the Apostoles, that Rome has the primacy on the other Churches
Nilo Doxapatres: Because Rome lost his imperial dignity, for which it was the favoured, and because of still now it is subject to Barbarians, Rome looses for that also its privileges. These prerogatives are passed to Costantinoples because Costantinoples is the Emperial town...





The problem of Armenian rejecting Chalcedon was that Armenia was a kingdom OUT from the Bizantine Empire, and so it looked at Chalcedon, a council convoced in the Empire by the Emperator for the unity of the Church in the empire, as the more 'political' council, that in fact stated the role of Costantinople as second Rome (that was mainly a political and only later a religious matter).
What here on CF we call EO are actually the Churches sons of the Bizantine Empires.
The OO Churches are the Chrurch of the East free from the Bisantine Empire: so when the most of the people in Syria and Egypt (countries under the Bizantium Empire) wanted to be free from the Empire, they became 'monophisites' (I use this word with a historical meaning, not a theological one) and started indipendent Churches attended by the most of the peope: the Empire answered appointing an official Patriarch faithful to the Emperator, who followed in everything the Empire (and also persecuting heavily the monophisite Church): so now we have in Antioch (and also in Egypt) two main patriarchs (a part from the 3 EC ones): the EO Greek one and the OO one.
We can see the difference in the liturgy: the OO liturgy is still the very old one rich of the V century, while the liturgy of the EO Patriarchs changed, and copied exactly the liturgy of Bisanzium. (do you know that the link of EO Patriarchs with Bisantium is still so heavy that the EO Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem shall be borne in Greece, even if they govern Egyptians and Palestinian people?)

The second most devastating empire to Armenia would be the Byzantine Empire. When Armenia was split between Byzantium and Persia, the Armenian in Byzantium were treated more harshly then the Armenians in Persia. After the battle of Averayr, the Persian backed down from the Armenians and let continue with Christianity. What is even more discouraging from the Byzantines is that the heroic Saint Vartan the Brave was a general in the Byzantine army. The cause of the battle was that the Persian King Yezagerd wanted everyone in the Persian Empire to convert to Zoroastrianism. Saint Vartan and his army stood and defended Christianity from the Persian pagans, and in this battle sacrificed his life for his faith. Even though the Armenians lost the battle, they won the war and were able to continue being Christian by the grace of God. What is very discouraging from the Byzantine Empire is that they don’t recognize Saint Vartan as a Saint even though he was a general in the Byzantine Army and this was before the split between churches.

This was not the case in Byzantine Armenia. An additional note, the second largest population in the Byzantine Empire was the Armenians, and also the second most spoken language in the Byzantine Empire was Armenian. The Armenians were force to become Byzantine orthodox, even after the “conversion” they were still not trusted. This was decreed and imperial orthodoxy. Imperial orthodoxy meant, that all churches must accept Greek customs, the liturgy must be done in Greek, the vestments that will be worn in church must be Greek and that the Greek culture was the “national” culture of Byzantium. The Armenians contributed 80 generals to the Byzantine Army, that is why there army was very strong.

http://www.arminco.com/hayknet/ellib/know.htm

...that among Byzantian military leaders more than eighty were armenians and among them: Sittas (528), Buz (538), Balisarios (545), Nerses (555) Vardan Mamikonian (571), Smbat Bagratouny (582), Atat Khorkhrouny (601), Vardan Pilick (711), Vasack Patrik (741), Musheg Alex (792), Arshavir Patrik (807., Manuel Mamikonian ("Byzantian Ahiless" 830.), Hobgan Kurkuas (941., conquered 1000 cities and was called "the Greatest"), Mlag (Melios), the "Great" (went down in byzantian epos "Diogonis - Akritas" (934), Vard Skleros (976), Vard Pokas (987), Magistros Bagratouny (990), Grigor Taronatsy (996), Nikapor Tsrviz (1022), Levon - Tornick Bagratouny (1047), and others.

Secondly the Armenians contributed the greatest number of Emperors to the Byzantine Empire.
  • Morick Oshakanatsi (Mavrikiy) 582-602.
    2. Vardan Pikick 711-713.
    3. Artavazd - 742-743.
    4. Levon (Lion the V) Artsruni - 813-830.
    5. Barseg Arsha - kuni (Vasil the I - the founder of armenian Makedonian dinasty) - 867-886.
    6. Levon Arshakuni (Lion the VI, philosopher) 886-912.
    7. Alexander 912-913.
    8. Kons tandin the VII Bagrianorodny 913-959.
    9. Romanos Vashtakian (Roman the I) 919-949. Ruled with Konstandin the VII Bagrianororodny).
    10. Romanos the II - 959-963.
    11. Nikiphor the II Phoka (the Great) - 963-969.
    12. Hovanes Chimishk (Ioan Tsimiskhy) 969-976.
    13. Vasily the II Bulgaroboyts 976-1025.
    14. Konstandin the VIII - 1025-1028.
    15. Roman the III 1028-1034.
    16. Mikhael Paflagon (Mikhael the IV) - 1034 1041.
    17. Mikhael Kalapat (Mikhael the V) - 1041-1042.
    18. Konstandin the IX Monomakh - 1042-1054.
    19. Teodora the II (Phedora the II) empress - 1054-1056.
    20. Mikhael Stratiotik (Mikhael the II) - 1056-1057.
When the Byzantines saw that the Armenians were not assimilating into Byzantine orthodoxy, they began to slowly create conflicts in Eastern Armenia, by displacing kings against each other, and displacing strong kings into the insides of the Byzantine Empire. It was at the time of King Gagik when the Byzantines laid the final blow and murdered the last king of the Eastern Empire. By doing so, the Byzantines took down there own defenses and created the gateway for the Mongol and Turkic invasion in which later destroyed their Empire. Technicially, it was the Armenian armies in the eastern parts of the empire that help out the foreign armies. A few centuries later, during the crusades, again it was the Armenians that protected Europe from the invading Muslims. If you would like the details of the Armenian Kingdom they are referred as the Cilician Kingdom of Armenia.

Now onto the religious state of Armenia during the early centuries, the Armenians are recognized both historically and religiously as the first Christian nation. Contrary to revisionist Georgian opinion it was the Armenians that converted the neighboring Georgians to Christianity, and the Armenians were the ones the consecrated their first Catholicos, that is why they continue to hold the title till this day. When the Armenians converted non-Armenians to Christianity the non-Armenians were allowed to keep their language and customs, but assimilated to the Armenian customs in Christianity. The assimilation was not a forced assimilation as in the Byzantine Empire. In regards to the “monophysite” accusation, the Armenian Church as well as all the OO have condemned Eutychius and the different version of his doctrine and have professed the orthodox doctrine of Saint Cyril in regards to the Nature of Christ and the council at Ephasus. As we all know Saint Cyril is accepted by all historical churches. The Armenians were more interested in all Christians coming together in council and agreeing in doctrines then politics. When the “Four Great Sees” were established at Chalcedon and all churches that were of Apostolic lineage were put secondary to these Sees, it was very evident that the drives of these councils were more of a political nature then an ecumenical one. Just a note, the Armenian Church has till this day referred to the EO as the church of the Greeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: a_ntv
Upvote 0

a_ntv

Ens Liturgicum
Apr 21, 2006
6,317
252
✟34,318.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
I like your points. However, I still think there was a lot of wierd stuff and I don't think that the Emperor, ideally, should have been confused with the roles of the Church. Sure, that was perhaps God's plan because in this imperfect world that was the best way to save the Church. But that doesn't make it NOT corrupt.

I never say that the Bizantibe Empire was corrupted: on the contrary, in a period it was the more modern and advanced state in the world.

And for sure the EOs when rejected the papacy have been extremly coherent with their history (that anyway was the history of the 89% of the christianity): perhaps un-modern or short-sighted, but anyway coherent (well, also the XII century papacy was not a model of separation between state and church, but a model where the papacy was over the state)

The idea of separation between state and religion is EXTREMLY modern, and in many states even now it is not applicated: think to the Greece (in the CEE) where the Orthodox Church wants that the religion of anyone to be indicated on the ID cards.

The union between state and religion is a base of the Hebrew religion. All modern protestantism developed on the rule: "cuius regio, eius religio" (the religion of the king or other ruler would be the religion of the people, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio,_eius_religio), Catholicism has been the official religion of Italian State till 1989, the Patriach of Costantinople was always been appointed by the Emperor, and later by the Sultan, and actually now (2006) by the Turkish Government.

Here you understand the pratical title of "Catholic" Church: the same Church over the borders of the states (united by the papacy), when on the other side we have the EO Church of Greece, the EO Church of Romania ,the EO Church of Russia, the EO Church of Serbia, the EO Church of Bulgaria...(and when the state doesn't unit, like the US, you can see a multitude of churches)

I for one would not have ever wanted to live in the Byzantine Empire (except as a fly on the wall) and I do not say this because of the lack of indoor plumbing lol ;) Then again, as you imply, I am a child of this age... so of course I wouldn't want to! I really do like your point of not judging something through XXI century eyes... even if I choose not follow this to the 't' as we say in English.

You are a child of your age, (as I'm), but I advice you to read a good historical book on the Bizantine Empire: not a religious book, simply a good book of history.

And...what means: follow this to the 't' ? (too difficoult for my poor English)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Xpycoctomos

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2004
10,133
679
45
Midwest
✟13,419.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
And for sure the EOs when rejected the papacy have been extremly coherent with their history (that anyway was the history of the 89% of the christianity): perhaps un-modern or short-sighted, but anyway coherent (well, also the XII century papacy was not a model of separation between state and church, but a model where the papacy was over the state)

The idea of separation between state and religion is EXTREMLY modern, and in many states even now it is not applicated: think to the Greece (in the CEE) where the Orthodox Church wants that the religion of anyone to be indicated on the ID cards.

Of course it is modern. What does that have to do with it? I see nothing good come out of close ties between the State and the Church. In Spain there had always been a close tie between the RCC and the State, especially during the Franco years. Now, I know this is often blown out of proportion, but there is a lot of distrust of the Church because of it's close ties with, what was once, a very corrupt State. many people there dismiss the Church becuase they have been taught that it is nothing but an institution that panders to the comforts of life (ie, being in good with the state). And this isn't a criticism of the RCC at all. It happened equally with the OC with devastating consequences. Are these ties sometimes necessary? I don't know, but I won't say they aren't. All I will say is that at best, they are the lesser of two evils. Our Churches (whether we like it or not, whether it's fair or not- fairness has absolutely nothing to do with it) are being expected to answer for the errors of ours and those of the governments we were attached to. And I don't think we want to get into the horrors that all governments have and will cause around the world. We are to be blameless in the sight of others and to do so is IMPOSSIBLE as long as we are uniquely tied to governments.

I am not sure why the OC wants religion on the ID cards. My first instinct is, that's dumb. But, I don't know the details to this. I never want to see my Church be a part of any small persecution of another religion even if it helps us in the short run.

The union between state and religion is a base of the Hebrew religion. All modern protestantism developed on the rule: "cuius regio, eius religio" (the religion of the king or other ruler would be the religion of the people, see
Is this supposed to be good?


Catholicism has been the official religion of Italian State till 1989,
And although this move 17 years ago may have marginalized the Church somewhat in the politics... let the Church be marginalized... She make up (and I say this for the Orthdox Church too)

the Patriach of Costantinople was always been appointed by the Emperor, and later by the Sultan, and actually now (2006) by the Turkish Government.
Through my modern eyes I see the former as unfortunate but I recognize that there are things about that time that I do not understand. However, I am sure the OC would LOVE to not have to answer to an infidel Government (that persecutes them) to find out how they should best lead their flock. This, however, is very different from the rest of the examples because it is not a Church BENEFITTING (however short-sighted the benefit may be) from the government, but being cruelly subjected to the governing forces.

Here you understand the pratical title of "Catholic" Church: the same Church over the borders of the states (united by the papacy), when on the other side we have the EO Church of Greece, the EO Church of Romania ,the EO Church of Russia, the EO Church of Serbia, the EO Church of Bulgaria...(and when the state doesn't unit, like the US, you can see a multitude of churches)
I am intrigued by what you have written here. But I am not quite sure what you are getting at. Can expand and re-explain (do you know Spanish??). If you are not sure you said something right in English, put it ALSO in Italian and I might be able to figure it out and see if I am understanding correctly. Whatever it takes.

You are a child of your age, (as I'm), but I advice you to read a good historical book on the Bizantine Empire: not a religious book, simply a good book of history.
And this is a good idea. But I am concentrating more on what I want for the CHURCH and not whether Church and State issues are POLITICALLY nad HISTORICALLY legitimate. I feel that you are rather focusing on the latter, which is fine. I still wouldn't have wanted to live in Constantinople where my religion quickly became something of status than faith. Sure, it is very much that way now... but at least someone now can freely say "I don't care about your God" or "I believe in a different God" and then enter honest open dialogue from there without his or her worrying about persecution. That, to me, hurts the Church.

And...what means: follow this to the 't' ? (too difficoult for my poor English)
Follow to the t means to Follow exactly, not missing a thing. Your English is certainly not poor. Apart from writing a doctoral thesis, the depth of the converstaions in which you try to engage in these forums is amazing and it's very rarely that I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say. Question, do you feel forums liek these have helped your English (writing) substatially, a little, or not too much? Just curious (from a Foreign Language Teacher :))

John
 
Upvote 0

a_ntv

Ens Liturgicum
Apr 21, 2006
6,317
252
✟34,318.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Of course it is modern. What does that have to do with it? I see nothing good come out of close ties between the State and the Church. In Spain there had always been a close tie between the RCC and the State, especially during the Franco years. Now, I know this is often blown out of proportion, but there is a lot of distrust of the Church because of it's close ties with, what was once, a very corrupt State. many people there dismiss the Church becuase they have been taught that it is nothing but an institution that panders to the comforts of life (ie, being in good with the state). And this isn't a criticism of the RCC at all. It happened equally with the OC with devastating consequences. Are these ties sometimes necessary? I don't know, but I won't say they aren't. All I will say is that at best, they are the lesser of two evils. Our Churches (whether we like it or not, whether it's fair or not- fairness has absolutely nothing to do with it) are being expected to answer for the errors of ours and those of the governments we were attached to. And I don't think we want to get into the horrors that all governments have and will cause around the world. We are to be blameless in the sight of others and to do so is IMPOSSIBLE as long as we are uniquely tied to governments.

I am not sure why the OC wants religion on the ID cards. My first instinct is, that's dumb. But, I don't know the details to this. I never want to see my Church be a part of any small persecution of another religion even if it helps us in the short run.

Is this supposed to be good?

To have a historical prospective means to think as the people many centuries ago. It means to forget anything that was not known by such a ancient people, and try to think as they did. It is very difficoult, and present US schools do NOT have any idea of it.

Consider to be a Bizantium Roman Empire citizen on about the 600 ac: you are in the ONLY civil empire of the known world, out of your borders there are barbarian people that cannot write and are still on the tribal age of bronze (in the west) or of iron (in the east). You, citizen of the EO Empir, see the sophisticated christian religion as the only modern religion, and your Empire, that has already a history of more than 1000 years as the story of Rome, is the only civil goverment in the world, with witten laws, courts, univerisities...The empire was the civilization, and the religion was a part of the civilaization.

In such a time the unity between Church and State, not only was necessary, but was also extremly good.
Well...the union between state and church was so natural that anyone held it...like now in US anyone considers democracy a good thing (very differently from such a age when actually the best goverment was the illimate power to the Basileus)

Now it is different. It is bad (at least in the civil west).

And Christianity (differently from Islam) has in itself the strengh to survive and expand also being in a situation of division / fight against the State (the early 2 centuries of christianism and the experiences under the comunism teach so)

---------------------------
About the present shameful status of the EO Ecumenical Patriarcate of Costantinople in Turkey, please read http://www.archons.org/pdf/yalelawstudy.pdf#search="ecumenical patriarchate turkey treaty"
From point 1.a: the Turkish government maintains power to decide who may or may not become the Ecumenical Patriarch. During each election of a new Ecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarchate must submit a list of candidates to the governor of Istanbul for approval. The governor may strike out any names and reject the ultimate choice of the electors, and he has done so throughout the 20th century.
Turkey has now this right beacuse the Ottoman Empire had always had such a right, that was considerated extremply natural by the EO Patriachas, who always acted as powerful 'segretaries for the Christians' of the Ottoman Muslim Empire (that anyway was by far more tollerant than present lay and democratic state...)

About the crisis for Religion on ID Cards in Greece, that saw the Eurepean Comunity against the EO Church, you can read: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_orthi.htm
An Except: The deletion of the individual's religion was necessary in order to conform with the European Union's standards on privacy protection and civil rights. However, the proposed reform has been vigorously opposed by the (Orthodox) Church of Greece and by many politicians..
I dont say that EO Church of Greece was wong, but it is extremly indicative of the idea of relationship between state and church that is still present in the EO 550 years after the fall of the the bizantine empire (and I dont want to speak of the the EO church of Russia that is a very interesting argument)

<Yes, writing on this forum is a little usefull for my English, mainly because the large use of http://www.wordreference.com/ I need>
------------------
For a possible union with CC, this idea of state by the EO Churches shall change...but it is quickly already changing
 
Upvote 0
Y

Yeznik

Guest
Historically, there were imperial "Orthodox" decrees started by Justinian. To start the depopulation of the Armenians from their histoical lands. Here is a quote from a letter by the Byzantine Emperor Maurice to the Presian king quoted by Pseudo -Sebeos.


They [the Armenians} are disloyal and disobedient nation, they stan between us and create dissensions. Let us make an agreement, I will gather up mine and send them to Thrace, let you gather up yours and order them to the East. If they should perish, then enemies will have perished and if they should kill other, it is our enemies that they would kill, and we shall live in peace, for, as long as they shall remain in their country we shall have no rest.

This is an excerpt from The Armenian People, edited by Richard Hovanessian.

Therefore there was no seperation of Church and State during the Byzantine Empire and I completely agree with you Xpycoctomos in regards to the Hellenic Byzantine Empire, that nothing good came out of a union of Church and State.

But on the contrary, the proclamiation of Christian in Armenia completely changed the nation forever. The union of Church and State brought about the creation of the Armenian Alphabet, the translation of the bible and many advances, in the Armenian region. This unifying factor was key to the Byzantine Empire in regards to holding off enemies as much as it was a problem for the Byzantines. This unifying factor of Church and State played another important key during the crusades. There was a very strong relation with the RC church and the Armenians during the crusades since the Armenians were the only Christian nation in the region.

Also it was at the corination of King Levon the Magnificent that both the Roman Catholic and Armenian clergy celebrated together.

Just a side note, the Great German King Fredrich Barbarossa was the King that was bringing the crown to Levon when he drowned to death.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.