Tags
At the centre of my life as a Christian, its very foundation and cause, is my relationship with God. As I tried to explain last week, that involves being part of a Christian community, as we are offered no examples in Scripture, of the individualist Christian doing it all by himself. This is the school in which one grows in the faith, and in which one works with fellow ‘saints’ to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Until the fourth century this was how it worked for all, and a perilous existence it was. The Roman Empire distrusted this religion, which refused to play the game of the State religion; it owed allegiance to King Jesus, not Emperor Caligula. Then, in the fourth century, Emperor Constantine seems to have decided that if you could not beat them, you could co-opt them. After his victory at Milvian Bridge, he allowed Christianity to flourish unchallenged. This did more damage than any amount of persecution.
When a faith is persecuted, no one joins it for any reason other than the obvious one – like Paul on the Damascus Road, they can do no other. They are called out, together, to give witness to Christ. It is a hard road, made all the more so by the distrust of the State. Once a faith is approved of, and even more, once it becomes the State faith, then every grovelling little lick spittle who wants preferment will join it. In the case of Constantine, it was clear that a symbiotic relationship with the Church developed. He wanted a faith which would provide some glue to hold together his sprawling empire, and the bishops wanted a way of putting an end to the Arian heresy. It was a marriage made on the banks of the Bosphorus. As it happened, although the Council of 325 thought it had solved the problem, it took another century for the Orthodox position to win out. After that there was no looking back. Did Nestorius say things which seemed suspect? Set the Emperor on him. Did Disocorus of Alexandria reject Leo’s Tome, set the Emperor on him. Did the Patriarch at Constantinople reject Rome’s claims, excommunicate him and rely on the power of the Holy Roman Emperor to protect you. Did Luther’s calls for reform get your goat, excommunicate him and use the power of the Emperor to try to put an end to him. Did Elizabeth I not come back as you wanted, bless Phillip’s II’s Armada. It was so easy to resort to force, so much easier than having arguments.
Its effect was to create every schism there has ever been. Not once has the use of force actually done anything but split the Christian community. A man will not cease to believe what he has been taught because some fool with a sword tells him to: sincere men will die; insincere ones will pretend they believe. In the end you end up with more of the latter because the former have gone. That’s how you end up with a Laodicean church community.
What happens when being a Christian is no longer the route to a privileged position in society? The time servers go elsewhere, although, as long as there is preferment to be had, some of them will stay where they are; but it will get hard to recruit talented people. What happens when you can no longer use force, or when the idea of excommunicating someone ceases to frighten them? You don’t know what to do. You have lost the art of apologetics and of discussion, and you have to relearn it.
I take, entirely, the point made here by Jess and others that the example of the Church of the East suggests that not having a State to protect you can be damaging, but having one can be so in another sense. My own tradition goes back to those who have always rejected State patronage. We’ve been persecuted by Catholics and Anglicans, and I daresay had there been Orthodox control, they’d have done the same. But we hold to the spirit of the original. We are a called out people owning allegiance to King Jesus and no other. My ancestors suffered persecution, imprisonment and even death for this, and not one of them benefitted materially from their stubborn persistence in this narrow way.
It’s no accident, I suspect, that the faith remains strongest in the West in America, and there are welcome signs that the Catholic Church is gaining the courage to reject the patronage of princes. In the end we stand together. The State has used the faith as best it could and wants to discard it. Good, I say, no one will come to it now because it offers power and a career and wealth. They come, as they should, as we all come, because we are unworthy sinners throwing ourselves on the mercy of Christ. Where that comes to you, into which gathered community it leads you, I no longer much care, for in the face of the hostility of the princes of this world, the Christian identifies him or herself as such because of their belief; that’s enough for me.
All Along the Watchtower 
You may be right Geoffrey, and we hear this all the time . . . and especially the history concerning Constantine (which is inseparable to all of our Christian backgrounds . . . not just Catholics as most people propose it). However, not having an historical crystal ball of deck of historical tarot cards, it does not have me lamenting the fact anymore than I think of any other injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity in our history in how the development of Christian cultural is unfolding. For history is full of such: all nation states and all religions are steeped in such as cultures are developed. How it would have turned out if we did this or that differently is unknown . . . for we cannot be historical foretune tellers. All I know is that God is also the God of human history and that He has the uncanny ability to bring Good from evil. i simply trust in that . . . for all the jaw-jaw in the world might have been as effective then as it is today; witness the success of an Obama which appears a defeat to my eyes. Innocence is always presumed for the losers of such encounters and we simply forget that had the shoe been on the other foot that they would have responded differently. But we have no proof of that. I don’t know what difficulties would have presented themselves if it had gone in a different direction. But it is water under the bridge and there is no doubt that the spread of the Gospel message, whether misused or ascented to under false principles is that which became inculturated and spread. Many developed a vibrant faith and others used the faith to their temporal ends. But that is human nature and I doubt that God did not foresee this and have a plan to use it in a way that would work within His Divine Plan. Who could have imagined that the disobedience of Adam and Eve would produce such a marvelous Savior?
LikeLiked by 1 person
ah I see it has escaped from its prison 🙂
I think it has been unfortunate, but if I am right, then we should not be too upset that era has passed. In the end we shall be better for it 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed . . . we all have to pass through trials, receive scars, and grow as a result. It is a part of life and of history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is indeed – and we have faith that He will come again 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
We do indeed, my friend. 🙂
LikeLike
Geoffrey, I just want you to know that I did not disregard this post. I did reply but it seems to have ended up in the spam filter . . . maybe deservedly so. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not at all – well worth it getting out of chokey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had a college professor who was Russian Orthodox openly mock the Catholic Church’ change in stance on Religious freedom. I rebuked her citing that it was rooted in the Church Father’s views on free will. She then misrepresented the Great Latin Doctor of The Church, St. Augustine on free will. I advised her to read his “Retractions” and get back to me. She never has…
Furthermore,Geoff, let’s not ignore what the Russian Orthodoxs have done and are doing to Ukrainian Catholics. Hopefully the meeting between the Pope and Patriarch will be fruitful, but the Patriarch’s stance that they have claim over territory is appalling. Grace must be freely accepted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not holding my breath, PA, the Orthodox seem to be a quarrelsome bunch, and from what I know of its ecclesiology, the MP will be talking for just his communion – and the EP won’t like it, and as for the Monks of Athos – they will, no doubt, be oiling up their famous sledgehammers.
LikeLike
This is misguided for a few reasons.
Every state has a religion. This is a fact. Secular states are myths, for every secular state is only a cover for an underlying religious doctrine which informs the customs and legal prescriptions of the greater society. If you are not in favor of Christianity being this state religion, then you are in favor of another state religion taking its place. A third option is illusory.
What we have in the West is a Cult of Progress, with as much hostility to the true faith as radical Islam, even if not the same methods at the current time. So what of this non-Christian state? What can be ascribed to secularism? The massacre of Catholics in the Vendee, and in Spain. The savage execution of Orthodox all across Eastern Europe. The list goes on, and do not think the same types of people who committed these despicable evils are not exactly the same as the kind who rule Western ‘secular states’ today. They are fanatics to a god, just not Christ.
You lament the schisms and posit that there has not been argument, but this is completely false. There has been a wealth of argumentative scholarship between sects, it is just that neither side finds the other convincing. Just because reconciliation is absent does not mean that the issue hasn’t been tackled using intellect. I do not agree with the Catholic defense of the current primacy structure, but I’d never claim that they had no defense of it. They do.
State power is a fact of civilized life, and someone is going to have it. From looking at history, I can say categorically I prefer when Christianity, rather than Islam or ‘secular humanism’ has state power over Christian populations. It isn’t perfect, but this is because men are evil, not because the institution of the priesthood itself is evil.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Merely semantics.
If what your saying is true, if the United States is not truly a secular state than it is merely returning to its roots of Deism engrained with its Classical Liberalism founding. I’d say it’s shedding its great awakening skin for “yes” a more secular one, which you only wish to call “the Cult of Progress.” I call their religion the same thing, “Liberalism.” It’s a Promethean state of mind nonetheless. Man is God. This isn’t illusionary, it’s the truth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think the problem with this is that, as with words like fascist or feudalism, it takes the word religion and stretches it to a point at which it is so baggy it means whatever it is you want it to mean. A reasonable debating tactic, but not a useful analytical tool.
I think what you are referring to is what I would call a ‘public doctrine’ – yes, every State has one of those – even the Roman Empire. I am not sure that is the same as a religion. So, in not wanting Christianity to be yoked too clearly with the State, I am not only going with what Jesus said about Caesar and God, I am not advocating Islam, Buddhism or any other religious system. I am happy to let the State have its public doctrine, and happy to defy it if it gets in the way of my Christian conscience. My forbears did so, suffering under Catholics and Anglicans, and I should be prepared to follow suit.
Yes, the cult of progress has caused massacres of many Christians, and the atheists will throw back at you that the cult of Christianity caused the massacres of many Christians – we could play number games about those who died in the Cathar persecution and see if it was more than died in the Vendee, and compare and contrast numbers killed by Tamur the Lame with those killed by Mao, and then look at the 30 Years war, but all I think we should conclude is that fallen mankind can use any system of belief to kill and justify killing.
As a Christian whose forbears were persecuted by other Christians, I can’t say it much matters to me which set of placeholders persecutes the saints – they all do it.
I prefer it when men and women come to Christ because they have no alternative through faith, rather than because they have an eye to the main chance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Most Christians throughout history have not been converts, they have been people who were born, baptized, and raised to believe Christianity was true. I think this is a good thing. It would be a small number of those saved indeed if the only Christians in history had been converts. So we should want a culture which provides an environment for this to occur, for Christian parents to raise Christian children. One in which the state is not explicitly Christian makes this much more unlikely, whether it is the threat of physical harm in places like Pakistan, or simply losing your children to a debauched culture as in most Western nations.
Have Christians suffered under other Christians because of doctrinal differences? yes. However this only points to the need for either separate states or reconciliation. Consider the Amish. While they live technically under US law, their self-imposed geographic isolation essentially renders them a law unto themselves in most instances. They are a parallel society, a state within a state. If there is a dispute among them, they solve it within the community. These are obviously protestants who were not at ease living alongside people who did not believe as they did, so they made their own state as best they could.
“happy to defy it if it gets in the way of my Christian conscience.”
Which could result in your death, the death of your family, etc. and indeed the martyrs death is honorable, but why not rather have a state that does not get in the way of your conscience because it is a state of the same conscience? Is not society superior when the rulers rule under the same priestly advisement that we do? This would appear to be the way to a more high-trust society, with the only problems brought about when people begin to want to do things a new way (justified or unjustified). It seems people want to be around others who not only look like them, but believe as they do, especially those who might try us for crimes. When we are judged by “a jury of our peers” can non-Christians be counted as our peers, to consider our religious commitment in their judgments?
I know that Christianity stands whether persecuted or not, in power or out. However, I just have a preference for Christians having power, and thus not being persecuted. That doesn’t mean all different varieties of Christianity have to live together. To each their own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
History is not on your side. England is one of the most non-religious countries in Europe – it still has, as it has since the 1530s and Established Church with Church Schools, Bishops in the legislature – and that has produced this result. Doesn’t really sit with your theory. The same was more or less true for Ireland, where, if anything, the church is now even more unpopular.
The English State is always getting in the way of my conscience, and yet it has an Established Church. The English Church punished my forbears, who were persecuted for being the wrong sort of Christian.
I think your theory sounds fine – it does not work in reality.
LikeLike
Perhaps we should not make the mistake of considering Anglicanism ‘Christian’ in the real sense, since its basis was the will for divorce of a king who wished to defy the Papacy. This is nothing like the claims of Catholicity.
Your argument here is akin to saying:
“Monarchy doesn’t work because look at the British monarchy, which doesn’t safeguard Tradition or its people at all”
The point being the British monarchy isn’t a real monarchy, nor is the current British ‘established’ priesthood a real priesthood. Compare the role of the Anglican Church in its official capacity today to the role of religious authorities in European history. You’ll find they bear no resemblance. The Church does virtually nothing, just like the monarchy, it is an ornament, a bauble. Modern examples of such things give us no insight.
Also, on Ireland, see the Fifth Amendment in the Irish constitution.
LikeLike
This seems a little like ‘the real Scotsman fallacy’ to me – parallel with those old defenders of Communism I came across in my younger days who used to say ‘well, there has never been a real Communist state, so you can’t judge it by the USSR or China’!
The Pope and the Orthodox all recognise the Anglican Church as Christian, so, whilst you are welcome to play the game of personally deciding who is and isn’t as will suit your argument, you risk creating a procrustean bed of your own devising.
What is this ‘real’ monarchy and ‘real’ church which proves your point?
LikeLiked by 1 person
A real monarchy wields power. Its etymological origin is the Greek ‘Monarkhia’ meaning rule of one. It thus follows that if the primary wielder of political power is not in fact the monarch but the prime minister, then the monarchy is faux. It is also not a question of a real church, but one of a real established priesthood. Would you honestly compare the largely ceremonial role of the Church of England today with the functional role of state priesthoods in ages prior, even non-Christian and pre-Christian state priesthoods? Like the monarchy, it has been reduced to a state arm in name only. Of particular note is the church’s complete lack of judicial authority. It is as comparing the Church of England to the Iranian mullahs. On paper, both have state authority, but one is completely illusory, the other is real.
Also, on the communist state, such people are correct in their assertion that no ‘communist state’ has ever practiced true communism as Marx envisioned it. This isn’t the problem however, the problem is those experiments show that under no condition was Marx’ vision attainable, because of human nature. Whereas, we can look to almost all of human history and find both monarchs and priesthoods with incredible duty and authority. It isn’t imaginary like the ideal communist utopia, indeed it seems to be the default position of human society, from which we have deviated since the originally anti-Catholic revolution known as the ‘Enlightenment’.
LikeLike
By this exalted standard there has never been a Christian monarch, surely, because, as during the Investiture crises, the Church has insisted that the Monarch cannot and does not rule everything?
I am not sure what you mean by a ‘real established priesthood?’ If you mean the sort of thing that ruled the old Papal States, you might recall that great Christian statesman, Gladstone, called them ‘the negation of God erected into a system of government’ – irredeemably corrupt. Rather like old Southern Ireland, which I knew well and was the creepiest place I have ever spent some time – no one who lived there would be surprised that the the hierarchy covered up anything which reflected badly on the Church.
It isn’t just Marx’s vision which turned out to be unattainable.
LikeLike
In practice, the monarch has limits on his power, but these have never been of the kind that exist today which make the monarchy completely inconsequential. In the Catholic West, the monarch could not violate Catholic teaching (until Henry VIII that is) since it was by the Catholic Church that he had his authority. Little different in the East, where the priesthood was more in deference to the monarchy. The monarch was also limited by custom, since it was uncustomary for monarch to be involved in certain affairs, particularly very local ones involving lords and their estates.
The Papal States may indeed be a historical example of a degenerate priesthood (I would look to the Medici Popes as a particularly low point in Catholic ecclesiastic history), however all across Europe the rulers functioned side by side with an established priesthood, who had among other things a certain degree of judicial authority. This was not contained to the Papal States. You can find throughout all civilizations of antiquity and beyond, mediators of the supernatural having an exalted and powerful position within a society, whether it is the prophets with their anointing oils in Israel, the attendants of the Egyptian polytheism, the Pagan oracles and advisers of Rome, and certainly the Christian priesthood, both Catholic and Orthodox who permeated day to day life in Europe prior to the French Revolution.
The vitality of any given priesthood notwithstanding, their exclusion and in many cases willful abandonment of public life is the resultant West today. When in our governance, the primary concerns are devoid of any spiritual significance, reduced to the purely temporal and physical, we have a degenerate system. This is why the ‘politician’ is the worst kind of man to rule over anything, and subsequently is a profession which carries some of the highest disapproval and dissatisfaction.
LikeLike
The problem with the considering the Amish is that the Amish pay taxes to the state–they adhere to those who rule. So long as they do this the state allows them to have their ‘society’.
LikeLike
Also considering the Amish, it requires obedience to a lifestyle that many secularists cannot abide in comparison to Catholics.
Let’s consider Catholics in the United States, they’ve tried to create a place for their own culture, it’s been rejected by the State because it’s seen as a threat to the principles of the prevailing doctrine–the Amish are not.
For example, Catholic Charities do not operate an adoption agency anymore in the States because they’re not allowed to omit homosexuals from adopting due to their culture’s preference. The parochial schools of Catholicism in the United States are superior to Public schools. The other day I taught a classroom of 32 kids in the public schools. When I went to Catholic school I was in a class of 13.
Many non-catholics want to work for these institutions all the way up to the Catholic Universities and Hospitals, but the state doesn’t allow these Institutions to have their own rules for employment because they do not operate in isolation or in secret.
LikeLike
One more thing.
“Have Christians suffered under other Christians because of doctrinal differences? yes. However this only points to the need for either separate states or reconciliation.”
The claim for separate Christian states goes against the free will and rejects the dignity of humanity. The Grace of God must be determined by one’s own will. The dignity of humankind is tied to Religious freedom, which humanity demands as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God.
The Ukranian Catholic Church has been a victim to this mindset for too long and they MUST have their full freedom to practice their faith as Catholics.
I would only imagine Geoff is declaring the same as a Baptist living in an Anglican state.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From my point of view, the butchery in the Balkans during the 20th Century should have served as a final lesson that when you put cats and dogs in the same cage, they don’t get along. Yugoslavia was a grand experiment in what you describe. Do you not think the Middle East would be a better place if there were not states like Syria and Iraq, with two halves of the population that want to kill each other over Mohamed’s succession?
I certainly would support the constitution of small Christian states in the Middle East (which is what Lebanon used to be), so that Arab Christians in particular could practice their faith without fear and without being forced to leave their ethnic homeland. They should not have to flee to Europe and the United States, but because they lack a state of their own, and because human nature isn’t how you wish it to be (people being tribal, violent, passionate, and opportunistic), what choice are they left with?
LikeLike
Point of View?
My Russian Orthodox friend speaks of such things as well. It’s inherent in these Ethnic perceptions of Christianity. He must skip over the Gospel of Luke every time he reads the Bible.
No, I am interested in the truth of Christ.
Also comparing Christianity and Islam is a logical fallacy. It’s a false equivalence. Do you consider Christ’s message to be comparable to Mohammad’s? Of course, Christ message is one to choice, Mohammand’s is submission. So maybe it is comparable from your point of view.
Furthermore, on your Balkans comment, this is what Geoff is talking about, we can count up these tragedies until the cows come home. I mean why not bring up the Massacre of the Latins for my point of view?
Furthermore, If you think following the words of Christ promotes any sort of violence upon anyone little alone other Christians than I have no words and only pray that the Holy Spirit guides you away from such rhetoric.
Also the Jews have a state in the middle east and they’re still at war and you think Lebanon being a Christian state would somehow prevent fear and promote the faith?
What choice do we have? The choice is to allow every soul of God to choose with his or her own will the Grace of God and live for the City of God despite the city of man. I am reminded of the Incarnation of Christ. We are to look to make our treasures in heaven in the world, but a stringent connection to borders and ethnicity seems too concerned with temporal and profane.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Also comparing Christianity and Islam is a logical fallacy.”
I was not comparing the two on a theological level, but providing you with a concrete example of how this actually works in practice, when two groups have a disagreement on a fundamental level there is bound to be conflict. It has happened to EVERY religious group on the planet, and you didn’t answer the question. Would the Middle East be even a marginally better place without the states of Syria and Iraq as they stand today in their demographics? Yes, Israel has conflicts, but they do not suffer as Christians suffer, and most of their troubles stem from quasi-states that are sometimes in, sometimes out of their borders.
“Furthermore, on your Balkans comment, this is what Geoff is talking about, we can count up these tragedies until the cows come home. I mean why not bring up the Massacre of the Latins for my point of view?”
Again, you don’t realize what I’m saying. This is not a snide dig at Catholics for the crimes of the Ustashe. It is simply an observation of what went on when people tried desperately to piece together this ‘nation’ called Yugoslavia and it ended in more hostility and bloodshed than could be quantified. Croats were also killed by Serbs.
“but a stringent connection to borders and ethnicity seems too concerned with temporal and profane.”
You cannot dismiss this however, it is how we are designed. We are tribal. We have homes. We have soil which contains the bones of our ancestors and loved ones. We have children who we worry about. We have cultures we don’t want to see disappear. I see nothing wrong with valuing that and see it as part of the beauty of this life we are so graciously given.
So, I am sorry that I am rather attached to borders. I think borders prevent Cologne, Rotherham, the Batclan theater, Kate Steinle being shot in the head, etc. There is a religion in the world that is resolutely against borders, but I don’t think Christianity is it.
LikeLike
What? …. Okay, I was letting you take the escape with Islam, but your instance on it as example actually proves my point. The problem with Islam’s violence is that often times it’s BECAUSE of their sectarian politics that leads to conflict. What you desire politically for Christianity with Christian states is the reason for violence in Islam. In the United States of America, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox Evangelicals etc. DO function in society together without violence, (rare) as hitherto freedom of religion is for the most part is respected.
Most of what you say and I completely disagree, which as a Catholic, is no surprise. I suppose we’ll have to leave it at that.
I pray there is an agreement coming down the road that allows Ukrainians protections.
LikeLike
“In the United States of America, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox Evangelicals etc. DO function in society together without violence, (rare) as hitherto freedom of religion is for the most part is respected.”
Give it time. It is clear to anyone observing the West that the era of religious freedom is ebbing away court decision by court decision. It is not a question of if the government begins using overt violence and terror against dissenters (Christians), but when. Already you can witness mob violence against Catholics in supposedly Catholic Argentina, as well as the burning of churches in Nordic countries. American Christians will not avoid the same fate and worse.
LikeLike
I was unaware of your gifts of prophecy, although in regards to boundaries having different culture’s it would be a red herring to involve other culture’s fates, wouldn’t it… … … ?
What I do know is written in historical documentation. Also, a clarification. I am not against borders or tearing them down. What I am for is the state, whether it be secular or sectarian, to protect the dignity of every member of humanity to accept the Grace of God by their own free will and worship as they have chosen. If Catholics (even Geoff and his Baptist faith) in Russia, Greece, Ukraine, etc. want to practice, teach, and evangelize their faith they should have the freedom to do so. Otherwise, using Russia as an example, religion in that country would be sham in regards to freedom of faith and conscience and very comparable to the 1977 Soviet Constitution in that regard.
LikeLike
We can agree to disagree on this. I am confident that my position is in line not only with the history of Eastern Christianity as practiced by countless monarchs, some sainted, but also the history of the Vatican and its policies in Catholic nations beyond its borders such as Spain and the Holy Roman Empire just to name two. Perhaps I am not in line with current Vatican policy, but then I believe such alterations in approach were wisely warned against by Father Felix Sarda y Salvany in his long-form essay ‘Liberalism is a Sin’.
LikeLike
Huh? Free will to choose Grace is liberalism is sin? Although my Russian Orthodox friend always did like to misrepresent St. Augustine… … …
How did the Eastern Monarchs protect against the Islamic caliphate or The Holy Roman Empire and it’s baron lord’s in Germany precipitated Lutheranism by protecting Lutherans? It’s important not to cherry pick history as well.
Regardless, again, let’s just make it simple: Do you think that UGCC should be coerced into the Russian Orthodox Church against their will?
LikeLike
The Eastern monarchs fought them. Lost, as it turns out, because the Muslims had a superior military and once the dam of Constantinople was broken (we all know why that was) they flooded into the Balkans, only to be turned back at Vienna by the Catholic Jan Sobieski. The princes who protected Luther had political motivations for what they did, (it was a small minority initially, only two elector princes, John of Saxony and Louis V), the rest joined Luther when the politics became favorable.
It is the Russian view that Ukraine is part of Russia, in the same way that Kosovo is part of Serbia. I believe in allowing minority religions to exist (Russia does this with Islam in the Caucuses) so long as they do not threaten the integrity and stability of the society, nor challenge the position of the Orthodox. As far as my history goes, the UGCC was first persecuted by Catholic Poles after WWI for their suspected lack of patriotism, and an effort was made to convert them. Following WWII, the Soviet state transfered ownership of UGCC assets to the Orthodox Church (Stalin ran a puppet Orthodox operation which had been required to inspire Russian soldiers against Nazi Germany). Obviously with a complex history, compounded further by the current NATO action in Ukraine and the overthrow of its president, it is hard to make out anything decisive through the fog of war. This said, I do think assets seized by Stalin should be returned to the UGCC as a matter of principle. As for coercion, this would depend on what methods we’re talking about here. This is really a very peculiar and particular topic so may not fit any genuine statements one could make about the original article.
LikeLike
Yes, yes you explained how the Eastern Monarchs failed and the Western one’s politically were slow to unite and move (The system failed). The Holy Roman Empire Lords protected Lutherans for political gain and more joined for more political gain (showing the failure of the system). It all failed.
Also Interesting on how absolute some of your assertions are on the topics on borders, culture, tribalism, history, and Orthodoxy. However, in regard to UGCC it somehow becomes complex as I suppose one must be subject to intellectual gymnastics in attempt to avoid hypocrisy in regards to whether the Ukrainian borders, culture, and ethnicity should be also be protected.
Strange how that works… …
LikeLike
The system didn’t really ‘fail’, it was simply the case that after Constantinople fell, the Muslims were in a far stronger military position and were able to launch a conquest of (relatively weak) Balkan kingdoms, to be stopped from a total conquest of Europe at the Gates of Vienna.
The pettiness of German princes within the system of the Holy Roman Empire really doesn’t show anything other than that particular system had a weakness which turned disastrous when catalyzed by a religious upheaval.
Things can be absolute and yet complex. Nothing I have asserted is a contradiction. I believe in borders, that doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with every border in existence. Much like the Nenets, the Udmurts, etc. Ukrainians have been intrinsic to the Russian Imperial ideal since the founding of the Kievan Rus. Indeed at one time, they refered to themselves as Malorossy, which means ‘Little Russians’. Divisions today are largely due to Communist atrocities, and subsequent Western meddling. Most Ukrainians are Orthodox, rendering the situation a little different to that which exists in Syria between Sunnis and Alawites, or in the Balkans between Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats. Ukrainians have a distinct culture, but not every distinct culture is necessarily requiring a state for its continued existence and integrity. Just as the Udmurts, who despite being a tiny tiny ethnic minority in Imperial Russia, retain their unique culture and society to this very day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The history and people are complex, true. My academic career was or rather is history and our perception of it is nothing more than the projection of our bias.
For instance, we’ve discussed the Eastern Monarchs and German Lords. My metaphysical interpretation is that the system failed. You do not agree.
I will respect your loyalty to what I’ve come to known as very Orthodox viewpoint on the subject. However, I will always fight for the freedom to choose Grace as exemplified in Dignitatis humanae. So I will always side for the freedom of Catholics in every nation to choose and practice their faith.
One note, you may be interested in the book I shared on my blog. It indicates through proper historical research that Catholics double down on their 19th century thoughts were counter to the reform set into motion at Trent. It was the effect of the French Revolution and that Vatican II set the Church back on its original course.
LikeLike
Let’s make it simple shall we? : Do you think that UGCC should be coerced into the Russian Orthodox Church against their will?
LikeLike
Yes – a very good post, with which I agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Jock.
LikeLike
Pingback: Catholic culture? | All Along the Watchtower
Roman State run religion
LikeLike
Meaning what, Bosco? On the one hand we have you and your strangle ramblings a few people in California. On the other a global church with over a million members. One of these two models is the right one – and I don’t think a few saddos in California is it.
LikeLike
Meaning what it says…..a religion owned and operated by a nation state. Islamic countries and the church of England are close seconds to the Roman state run religion. The bible calls governments Beasts. And it refers to religions as females, or woman. When a woman rides a Beast, it is the coupling of a religion with a government.
LikeLike
Bosco, can you please tell me what nation state owns the Catholic Church? Clearly women must be terrible things, I am amazed you consort with them Bosco 🙂
LikeLike
Vatican State. The Holy Father is the president, cardinals are its senators. It has its own post office, a bank, a jail, a court and diplomatic immunity for its clergy.
Correct me if im wrong.
By the way, the Vatican just issued a statement to its bishops, that they are under no obligation to report abusive priests to local authorities. Keep it an internal matter. You are probably already aware of this so no link is needed.
LikeLike
No he is not the president, and no they are not the senators. I can’t believe even you think a tiny city statelet is the same as a nation state. Yes, it has diplomatic immunity – precisely to stop any nation state controlling it.I have seen the reports you mention and they don’t quite say what you say they say – no surprise there then.
LikeLike
Im not sure you know what diplomatic immunity is. It doesn protect the state…it allows its traveling ambassadors(priests and other clergy) to pass across boarders without having their luggage searched.
LikeLike
Of course I know what diplomatic immunity is – I used to teach diplomatic history!
LikeLike
The Vatican is a state, a country, even though its small. While downplaying that fact, it is also known that it has a seat in the UN. The Vatican is a nation state by every standard, and it is proud to say so. It has been so since its deadly wound was healed in 1929.
LikeLike
Again, untrue. The Vatican has observer status at the UN, and is not a voting member, A nation state has a largish and settled population – neither is true of the Vatican. If you can find me a statement where the Vatican says it is, fair does – can you?
LikeLike
I believe you. But why would the Vatican not vote? Bottom line is, its a state.
LikeLike
Bottom line is that it is not a nation state – what nationality is ‘Vatican’?
LikeLike
Vatican City State
Institutional Portal
Vatican City State was founded following the signing of the Lateran Pacts between the Holy See and Italy on February 11th 1929.
These were ratified on June 7th 1929. Its nature as a sovereign State distinct from the Holy See is universally recognized under international law…
http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en.html
LikeLike