Who was the restraining power before St. Constantine?

[David Carroll]

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?

[ialmisry]

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.

[Kasatkin fan]

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.

[Shanghaiski]

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.

[Dart]

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"?

[Kasatkin fan]

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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: Michał Kalina) > Topic: Who was the restraining power before St. Constantine?