OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 05:45:25 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is there an Orthodox view of government?  (Read 1867 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,255


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #45 on: October 26, 2012, 09:39:43 AM »

Are there any Orthodox saints who have discussed the function of government?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JorgenThorbjørnsen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Posts: 55



« Reply #46 on: October 26, 2012, 10:03:47 AM »

Render unto Caesar.

That's a duty of the citizen to the government, but it doesn't tell us what the government itself should do.

It shouldn't DO anything. Unless someone commits murder, rapes, or steals.

Er...OK. I'll take that to mean you have a more or less libertarian view of government.

Ja. Less government is a better government.
Logged

jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #47 on: October 26, 2012, 04:18:29 PM »

this article has a lot of good information, whether or not we agree with his conclusion wholly or even partially http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/273/must-an-orthodox-christian-be-a-monarchist/
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,576


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 27, 2012, 09:37:24 AM »

this article has a lot of good information, whether or not we agree with his conclusion wholly or even partially http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/273/must-an-orthodox-christian-be-a-monarchist/

Moss is, of course, an unapologetic apologist for Tsarist style monarchism and is outside of the canonical Church. I'm not one to 'burn a book' because of its author, but I didn't post as I think that Moss requires a degree of non-theological based discernment to properly digest. In other words as my Mom would remind me, consider the source in drawing your conclusions.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #49 on: October 27, 2012, 09:42:10 AM »

true, i think its mainly useful for its Patristic quotes and references to the rite of Coronation.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #50 on: October 27, 2012, 06:28:22 PM »

Oops. I see jckstraw72 beat me to it.  Wink
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 06:29:06 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #51 on: October 27, 2012, 06:37:29 PM »

A more nuanced view is one I found in a short book published by HOCNA called "Dance, O Isaiah" by Constantine Platis. He explains that Orthodox Christians at any rate can't be fundamentally opposed to autocratic monarchism, for the simple reason that the Church did bless such forms of government in the past, and instituted a Coronation rite. This is found in the section that addresses the symbolism of crown-wearing, whether in the consecration of bishops, marriage or royal coronation.

There's still room, however, for the argument that, depending on circumstances, autocratic monarchy is not necessarily the best form of government. One can perfectly well argue for the legitimacy of, e.g. the American Revolution, without compromising Orthodoxy, provided one doesn't fall into the trap of arguing that monarchy can never be legitimate.
Logged
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 615


« Reply #52 on: October 28, 2012, 11:00:03 PM »

Its not like one has to be conservative or liberal or something else to be orthodox, thats something secular which is not absolute to the faith. Though I have questions for the orthodox supporting liberals who want all forms of abortion legal.
Logged

Thank you.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,599



« Reply #53 on: October 28, 2012, 11:06:00 PM »

There's still room, however, for the argument that, depending on circumstances, autocratic monarchy is not necessarily the best form of government. One can perfectly well argue for the legitimacy of, e.g. the American Revolution, without compromising Orthodoxy, provided one doesn't fall into the trap of arguing that monarchy can never be legitimate.

I think that describes how I feel. Too much good has come out of liberal democracy to say that monarcy is the only legitimate option for Orthodox.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #54 on: October 28, 2012, 11:29:16 PM »

There's still room, however, for the argument that, depending on circumstances, autocratic monarchy is not necessarily the best form of government. One can perfectly well argue for the legitimacy of, e.g. the American Revolution, without compromising Orthodoxy, provided one doesn't fall into the trap of arguing that monarchy can never be legitimate.

I think that describes how I feel. Too much good has come out of liberal democracy to say that monarcy is the only legitimate option for Orthodox.

Of course, 'good' needs definition. Spiritual or material good? Material good I'll grant; spiritual good is questionable.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,576


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 29, 2012, 08:04:33 AM »

There's still room, however, for the argument that, depending on circumstances, autocratic monarchy is not necessarily the best form of government. One can perfectly well argue for the legitimacy of, e.g. the American Revolution, without compromising Orthodoxy, provided one doesn't fall into the trap of arguing that monarchy can never be legitimate.

I think that describes how I feel. Too much good has come out of liberal democracy to say that monarcy is the only legitimate option for Orthodox.

Of course, 'good' needs definition. Spiritual or material good? Material good I'll grant; spiritual good is questionable.

But it begs the question. We don't know how 20th/21st autocratic monarchy as in the Byzantine Empire or the Russian Empire would have interacted with modern spiritual development. Material progress would not have been halted, we have to assume the development of modern technologies, medical progress and mass information distribution methods in an alternative history. To assume 'things would have stayed the same spiritually' under a modern Tsar or Emperor is to romanticize and gloss over excesses of the past and the reality of human material and intellectual progress. The Church has had to adapt with a multitude of change since the Apostolic eras in  terms of human cultures and human intellectual development. Why do some assume She will not continue to do so? (BTW, I am not implying that Jonathan is doing so, following his posts over the years, while he is a traditionalist, he surely is not a pessimist!)
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #56 on: October 29, 2012, 01:06:28 PM »

There's still room, however, for the argument that, depending on circumstances, autocratic monarchy is not necessarily the best form of government. One can perfectly well argue for the legitimacy of, e.g. the American Revolution, without compromising Orthodoxy, provided one doesn't fall into the trap of arguing that monarchy can never be legitimate.

I think that describes how I feel. Too much good has come out of liberal democracy to say that monarcy is the only legitimate option for Orthodox.

Of course, 'good' needs definition. Spiritual or material good? Material good I'll grant; spiritual good is questionable.

But it begs the question. We don't know how 20th/21st autocratic monarchy as in the Byzantine Empire or the Russian Empire would have interacted with modern spiritual development. Material progress would not have been halted, we have to assume the development of modern technologies, medical progress and mass information distribution methods in an alternative history. To assume 'things would have stayed the same spiritually' under a modern Tsar or Emperor is to romanticize and gloss over excesses of the past and the reality of human material and intellectual progress. The Church has had to adapt with a multitude of change since the Apostolic eras in  terms of human cultures and human intellectual development. Why do some assume She will not continue to do so? (BTW, I am not implying that Jonathan is doing so, following his posts over the years, while he is a traditionalist, he surely is not a pessimist!)

Pessimism, no; realism, yes. We're very used to thinking of ourselves as morally superior to our ancestors, according to modern progressive education, but the usual attitude in Orthodoxy is pretty much that we are always morally inferior to the earlier generation. Exceptions I can think of include right after Pentecost, when the new members of the Church were noted for their zeal, or other, exceptional periods of moral and spiritual renewal. But the general trend things do get worse, rather than better, at least when you look at human history. The Church's saints have invariably prophesied a tendency to greater spiritual degradation, until we reach the nadir in the Antichrist. So there's an element of pessimism, of course. But there's also optimism, because the opportunity to repent is always available to us, as far as the Second Coming, and we know that Christ is already the victor in the end.

We've become very good at making life comfortable and materially easy for ourselves, but unfortunately this is precisely the condition that the Fathers warn us to avoid. We're all like the rich young man who wouldn't be saved because he loved his possessions too much.

Was the Byzantine or Tsarist past perfect? No, and neither are the Fathers individually infallible. But saying they are theoretically fallible does not mean we can feel superior to them in any significant way. Likewise, I think we should recognize that in general the earlier eras of Orthodox society were superior to us in their way of life and zeal for the faith.

I know this sounds pessimistic, but the Zeitgeist is so thoroughly imbued with false, anti-Chistian progressivism that a strong counter-statement is needed.

If you're still not convinced, you can try a simple empirical test. If we are really spiritually superior to our fathers, as the progressives believe, then we would surpass them in fasting, prayer and almsgiving. Fasting I use in the broad sense of self-denial. And by almsgiving I don't mean voting in governments that redistribute wealth by bureaucratic force, but personally giving up one's excess wealth for others.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.065 seconds with 39 queries.