Author Topic: Who was the restraining power before St. Constantine?  (Read 477 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David Carroll

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Holy Ephraim, pray for us!
Who was the restraining power before St. Constantine?
« on: June 24, 2011, 03:45:46 PM »
I know that it is a tradition among the more zealous branches of the Divine Vine that the restraining power which Holy Apostle Paul spoke of, which restrains the power of Anti-christ, was, in fact, the Byzantine Emperor until 1453, then the Holy Tsar until 1917 (and therefore, we now live in the age of anti-christ).  And I can dig this (in fact, I want to dig this, there being something romantic about the whole idea, imho).

But if that's the case, then was the era during the pagan Emperors (not to mention Julian the Apostate) itself a reign of anti-Christ?  And if not, then who was the restraining power before Holy Constantine, Equal-to-the-Apostles?
Pray that God would deliver me from hatred and pride.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,689
Re: Who was the restraining power before St. Constantine?
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2011, 04:47:20 PM »
I know that it is a tradition among the more zealous branches of the Divine Vine that the restraining power which Holy Apostle Paul spoke of, which restrains the power of Anti-christ, was, in fact, the Byzantine Emperor until 1453, then the Holy Tsar until 1917 (and therefore, we now live in the age of anti-christ).  And I can dig this (in fact, I want to dig this, there being something romantic about the whole idea, imho).

But if that's the case, then was the era during the pagan Emperors (not to mention Julian the Apostate) itself a reign of anti-Christ?  And if not, then who was the restraining power before Holy Constantine, Equal-to-the-Apostles?
the fact that no one fills the bill since 1917 (unless you are Ethiopia, but that stops in 1970), it should be clear it is a misinterpretation, in which case, no need for some one before St. Constantine.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Kasatkin fan

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
Re: Who was the restraining power before St. Constantine?
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2011, 05:13:51 PM »
I know that it is a tradition among the more zealous branches of the Divine Vine that the restraining power which Holy Apostle Paul spoke of, which restrains the power of Anti-christ, was, in fact, the Byzantine Emperor until 1453, then the Holy Tsar until 1917 (and therefore, we now live in the age of anti-christ).  And I can dig this (in fact, I want to dig this, there being something romantic about the whole idea, imho).

But if that's the case, then was the era during the pagan Emperors (not to mention Julian the Apostate) itself a reign of anti-Christ?  And if not, then who was the restraining power before Holy Constantine, Equal-to-the-Apostles?
the fact that no one fills the bill since 1917 (unless you are Ethiopia, but that stops in 1970), it should be clear it is a misinterpretation, in which case, no need for some one before St. Constantine.

Not to mention all the tsar's from Peter I to Catherine II were not very Orthodox.

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,978
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Who was the restraining power before St. Constantine?
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2011, 05:20:07 PM »
I know that it is a tradition among the more zealous branches of the Divine Vine that the restraining power which Holy Apostle Paul spoke of, which restrains the power of Anti-christ, was, in fact, the Byzantine Emperor until 1453, then the Holy Tsar until 1917 (and therefore, we now live in the age of anti-christ).  And I can dig this (in fact, I want to dig this, there being something romantic about the whole idea, imho).

But if that's the case, then was the era during the pagan Emperors (not to mention Julian the Apostate) itself a reign of anti-Christ?  And if not, then who was the restraining power before Holy Constantine, Equal-to-the-Apostles?
the fact that no one fills the bill since 1917 (unless you are Ethiopia, but that stops in 1970), it should be clear it is a misinterpretation, in which case, no need for some one before St. Constantine.

Not to mention all the tsar's from Peter I to Catherine II were not very Orthodox.

Peter I and Catherine II were certainly Orthodox. They were communicants of the Church. Their policies are usually looked down on, but they're worthy of further investigation. The Russian Church moved from the medieval to modern eras much more intact than the Roman Catholic Church did in parts of Western Europe. It's not like the arrangement of Alexis I and Patriarch Nikon really worked out very well.
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Offline Dart

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 655
Re: Who was the restraining power before St. Constantine?
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2011, 06:15:21 PM »
I know that it is a tradition among the more zealous branches of the Divine Vine that the restraining power which Holy Apostle Paul spoke of, which restrains the power of Anti-christ, was, in fact, the Byzantine Emperor until 1453, then the Holy Tsar until 1917 (and therefore, we now live in the age of anti-christ).  And I can dig this (in fact, I want to dig this, there being something romantic about the whole idea, imho).

But if that's the case, then was the era during the pagan Emperors (not to mention Julian the Apostate) itself a reign of anti-Christ?  And if not, then who was the restraining power before Holy Constantine, Equal-to-the-Apostles?
Good question. I do not think it is known what the restraining power mentioned in 2 Thessalonians is. What do you mean by "more zealous branches of the Divine Vine"?

Offline Kasatkin fan

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
Re: Who was the restraining power before St. Constantine?
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2011, 08:10:49 PM »
I know that it is a tradition among the more zealous branches of the Divine Vine that the restraining power which Holy Apostle Paul spoke of, which restrains the power of Anti-christ, was, in fact, the Byzantine Emperor until 1453, then the Holy Tsar until 1917 (and therefore, we now live in the age of anti-christ).  And I can dig this (in fact, I want to dig this, there being something romantic about the whole idea, imho).

But if that's the case, then was the era during the pagan Emperors (not to mention Julian the Apostate) itself a reign of anti-Christ?  And if not, then who was the restraining power before Holy Constantine, Equal-to-the-Apostles?
the fact that no one fills the bill since 1917 (unless you are Ethiopia, but that stops in 1970), it should be clear it is a misinterpretation, in which case, no need for some one before St. Constantine.

Not to mention all the tsar's from Peter I to Catherine II were not very Orthodox.

Peter I and Catherine II were certainly Orthodox. They were communicants of the Church. Their policies are usually looked down on, but they're worthy of further investigation. The Russian Church moved from the medieval to modern eras much more intact than the Roman Catholic Church did in parts of Western Europe. It's not like the arrangement of Alexis I and Patriarch Nikon really worked out very well.
Peter was a Germanophile who used the Lutheran Church as his model for how the relationship between Church and State should be, and he set about to destroy the Church as an independent entity.

Catherine II was a public sinner, who among other things assassinated her husband and usurped his throne. She was a woman driven by vanity (having coined "the Great" herself), and seems to have paid little heed to the Church. If she received as a communicant it was only because she held the Church under her thumb. I guarantee you that no one else who regularly did what she did would be receiving communion.