Eastern Orthodoxy requires an Empire?

[DL82]

It seems from early Church history around the ecumenical councils that a Christian Emperor was needed to call a council. In the early days after Constantine, Popes and Patriarchs required the Emperor’s approval as head over the religious as well as the secular world. As ecumenical councils are still the method for the creation of canons in Orthodox ecclesiology, does that mean that there is now no way of defining universal doctrine within Orthodoxy in the absence of an Orthodox Christian Emperor? (Would Putin count ?)

Looked at from a certain angle, couldn’t it be said that the question of authority in the Church at the time of the great schism in the 11th century was not about the primacy of the Pope over the Patriarchs but about the superiority of the Emperor over the Church?

I am not saying this to get a rise out of anyone. I’m just offering a different point of view. Please excuse my ignorance if anything I’ve stated is off the mark.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

There are not a few Orthodox who do posit this as the reason there hasn’t been an Ecumenical Council since 787 (sic).

 

[Arthur22124]

It seems from early Church history around the ecumenical councils that a Christian Emperor was needed to call a council. In the early days after Constantine, Popes and Patriarchs required the Emperor’s approval as head over the religious as well as the secular world. As ecumenical councils are still the method for the creation of canons in Orthodox ecclesiology, does that mean that there is now no way of defining universal doctrine within Orthodoxy in the absence of an Orthodox Christian Emperor? (Would Putin count ?)

Looked at from a certain angle, couldn’t it be said that the question of authority in the Church at the time of the great schism in the 11th century was not about the primacy of the Pope over the Patriarchs but about the superiority of the Emperor over the Church?

I am not saying this to get a rise out of anyone. I’m just offering a different point of view. Please excuse my ignorance if anything I’ve stated is off the mark.

This thread belongs under “non-Catholic religions” not Eastern Catholicism.

The Orthodox requirement for an Emperor is a serious flaw. The emporer’s role is non scriptural and non theological.

 

[Hesychios]

The church does not need an empire.

The empire needed a church…ideally ONE church.

Long before Constantine, local synods were calling councils, it was something local churches everywhere were doing. A matter of historical record.

The Ecumenical Councils were different, because under a Christian king with deep pockets, bishops could gather from all points of the compass. Once they did what they had come to do, there was still a matter of the local synods adopting these decrees. Ecumenical Councils were generally considered valid and binding after the fact, when the whole church had a chance to sign on and implement them.

Ideally, synods outside of the reach of the Christian Roman empire would accept them as well, that at least was the hope. As a practical matter the councils had the authority of the bishops who participated in them, not the authority of the king.

As far as the empire was concerned, a unified church was good policy. The findings of councils of this nature had the force of law up to the borders, dissenting bishops notwithstanding.

Michael

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Just to add a little to Hesychios’ excellent analysis (btw Happy New Year).

Many of the Ecumenical Councils incorporated the local councils into their canons and decrees (the Nicean Creed btw was a local baptismal Creed).

We have had pan-Orthodox councils since the fall of Constantinople, e.g. the Synod of Jerusalem, called by her patriarch Dositheos in 1672, the subject of another thread.

The increased authority of the Ecumenical Councils only came from the increased possibility of the simultaneously gathering of the various Churches of the Church.

 

[marlo]

the Church does not need an Empire but the Eastern Orthodox church needs it. their structure, their clothing, reflects all about the byzantine empire. even canon imposition, and peace in the church, it shows the need for an empire for its fullness.

The church does not need an empire.

The empire needed a church…ideally ONE church.

Long before Constantine, local synods were calling councils, it was something local churches everywhere were doing. A matter of historical record.

The Ecumenical Councils were different, because under a Christian king with deep pockets, bishops could gather from all points of the compass. Once they did what they had come to do, there was still a matter of the local synods adopting these decrees. Ecumenical Councils were generally considered valid and binding after the fact, when the whole church had a chance to sign on and implement them.

Ideally, synods outside of the reach of the Christian Roman empire would accept them as well, that at least was the hope. As a practical matter the councils had the authority of the bishops who participated in them, not the authority of the king.

As far as the empire was concerned, a unified church was good policy. The findings of councils of this nature had the force of law up to the borders, dissenting bishops notwithstanding.

Michael

 

[Alexius]

It seems from early Church history around the ecumenical councils that a Christian Emperor was needed to call a council. In the early days after Constantine, Popes and Patriarchs required the Emperor’s approval as head over the religious as well as the secular world. As ecumenical councils are still the method for the creation of canons in Orthodox ecclesiology, does that mean that there is now no way of defining universal doctrine within Orthodoxy in the absence of an Orthodox Christian Emperor? (Would Putin count ?)

Looked at from a certain angle, couldn’t it be said that the question of authority in the Church at the time of the great schism in the 11th century was not about the primacy of the Pope over the Patriarchs but about the superiority of the Emperor over the Church?

I am not saying this to get a rise out of anyone. I’m just offering a different point of view. Please excuse my ignorance if anything I’ve stated is off the mark.

You laugh about President Putin, but I imagine if anyone can assemble a council for the Orthodox, he can.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

the Church does not need an Empire

Papal States? Why all the fuss that led to the establishment of the Vatican State?

but the Eastern Orthodox church needs it.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church.

We survived 636, 1204, 1453 and 1917. We should have withered away long ago, if you were correct.

their structure,

like the primacy of Rome?

their clothing,

and where do the Latins get their vestments?

reflects all about the byzantine empire.

The Roman Empire.

even canon imposition,

I haven’t a clue what you are alluding to here.

and peace in the church,

Funny how those who call us Caesaropapists emphasize how little peace we had in the empire (think for instance Henoticon, Iconoclasm, etc.).

it shows the need for an empire for its fullness.

I won’t say what this statement is full of.

When the PoM was elevated to a patriarchate, he was the primate of an Orthodox empire, and the czar asked that the PoM be placed after Constantinople and Alexandria. The EP sent the Patriarch of Jerusalem to consecrate the PoM, to show that even though he had an empire, the PoM was still beholding to the ancient Church.

 

[Hesychios]

the Church does not need an Empire but the Eastern Orthodox church needs it. their structure, their clothing, reflects all about the byzantine empire. even canon imposition, and peace in the church, it shows the need for an empire for its fullness.

Holy Orthodoxy is THE church, my friend.

Ironically, everything you criticize can be said of the Roman Catholic church, which has a common origin with Holy Orthodoxy in the Roman empire and inherited the structure and vestments (not to mention stability) in just the same way.

The RCC also depended upon empire, first the Roman, then the “Holy” Roman (anything but, actually) and later the empires of Spain, France and Portugal. The irony of what you write is astounding, you sound like a Protestant criticizing your own church

What motivates you to write in such a way, throwing boomerangs at the Orthodox? You seem to be grasping at anything to knock the holy church.

Prayers,
Michael