Who's who among PM monarchists

[Krostandt]

I'm not disputing the fact of Charlemagne's coronation. I don't even have a problem with the pope coronating him. The problem I find, is that much of this was based on the Donation and that there is little prior historical evidence for prescidence. That's the important issue.

[Aloysius]

I guess I just don't see the relevence. I put it up as an example that the papacy can exist in harmony with monarchies

even if the pope did it under the impression that the donation of constantine gave him that authority, it's still a good example.

[Krostandt]

Well, I definitly agree with that they can (and should) live peacefully with the Holy See.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

are you an orthodox christian?

[Krostandt]

Yes

[Krostandt]

An Orthodox Christian that supports monarchy.

[Old_Joe]

I am the amateur of making understatements.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i was almost orthodox once. i have heard that in the orthodox church there is no seperation between church and state, like there is in the Catholic church. i aslo heard Bishop Ware talk about the special relationship between the emperor and the patriarch. he said (talking about Charleghmene) That there is only One God in heaven and so there can be only one emperor on Earth. Interesting stuff.


Sam

[Socrates]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jan 18 2006, 07:09 PM']i was almost orthodox once. i have heard that in the orthodox church there is no seperation between church and state, like there is in the Catholic church. i aslo heard Bishop Ware talk about the special relationship between the emperor and the patriarch. he said (talking about Charleghmene) That there is only One God in heaven and so there can be only one emperor on Earth. Interesting stuff.
Sam
[right][snapback]860479[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So who would be the "one emperor on Earth"?

[Guest Rick777]

I'm not sure about his whole monarchy thing.....

[Krostandt]

Well, here's what Bishop Ware had to say,
"The life of Byzantium formed a unified whole, and there were no rigid line of seperation between the Church and state: the two were seen as a part 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 Casesaro-Papism, of subordinating the Church to the State. Although Church and State formed a single organism, yet within this one organism there were two distinct elements: the priesthood (sacerdotium) and the imperial power (imperium); and while working in close co-operation, each of these elements had its own proper spere in which it was autonomous. Between the two there were symphony or harmony, but neither element exercised aboslute control over the other."
Although, the one emperor has be promoted, New Rome and then Third Rome in Moscow, this has never been a teaching or even docternal, but a political stance. That said, I see no problem with the state promoting Christianity. Of course, one shouldn't persecute others.

[qfnol31]

I have a feeling I'm a monarchist. :

Come to find out, most people who hang out with me don't know this!!

[Krostandt]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 18 2006, 09:15 PM']So who would be the "one emperor on Earth"?
[right][snapback]860486[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think he was refering to the Roman Empire, who regarded him as the valid succesor of Augustus and Constantine, thus even the rulers in the east still retaining the title Caesar Augustus until 1453.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Krostandt' date='Jan 18 2006, 07:22 PM']I think he was refering to the Roman Empire, who regarded him as the valid succesor of Augustus and Constantine, thus even the rulers in the east still retaining the title Caesar Augustus until 1453.
[right][snapback]860498[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Interesting - So those Eastern Orthodox would not be spiritually subject to the Pope in Rome, yet would demand that the whole world be subject to the Byzantine Emperor??

[Krostandt]

You're misreading what I said and running away with it.
The Byzantine Empire believied that it should have supremecy, politically. Why should this be such a shocker? Byzantium/Rome had ruled the world for over a thousand years. You can see this same idea today in many other places. They never taught that the whole world should be spiritually obedient to the Emperor of Rome. There exists no idea of primacy in the East. Rather, each bishop is the head of his own Church. Thus, yes, the East naturally balks at being subservient to the Roman Pope. No they do not have a problem, being subserviant to their bishop and ruler, but these are subserviant. I am obedient to my Metropolitan, His Holiness Laurus. However, I also am obedient to the United States of America and her constitution.
Sorry, but that analogy is non sequitor.