The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Taylor, Randy Danielson, TAFrazer, PNCC Random Guy, Coldstream
5,769 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (theophan), 69 guests, and 31 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,056
Posts414,078
Members5,769
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
I am a Monarchist. I have stated this in the past, and this is one of the few forums to which I can state this without being thought of as an advocate for dictatorship.

That said, I have elected to post here some thoughts ruminating in my mind, though unrefined into a coherent single argument, about Republicanism, Christianity, and modern culture.

It seems to me that Christianity is innately Monarichal, with Christ our King at its centre, ruling his Kingdom the Church.

Yet this fact is lost on much of modern Protestantism, which sets up Churches in a Republican form, and that form tends to descend into Chaos, and confusion reigns and the Church divides.

The normal pattern is that theologically and morally they hold to conservative views, but over time divergences start base don things not defined, or not clearly so. Their local congregational leaders begin to preach their own view, and the landscape becomes uneven, with each congregation differing one form another.

The diversity grows too great and the Church as a whole is confused as to what it teaches, as even the basics of the faith are called into question by a few.

But rather than going to the Scripture in payer and asking God for guidance, and holding a serious study of the Bible, those who advocate one philosophy or ideology or theology tend to pit themselves against the other side, and elect local synod members to reflect their view, which they hope will beat the other view.

Finally, this sort of struggle comes to a head, with political parties in essence forming within the Church, and representing the ideas of an ideology, and following it, and being more concerned with it and its goals and its constituency, and not in Christ.

Finally, some unelcted, usually liberal synod members are appointed ot “Mediate” the dispute and the sort of theological despotism takes over the Church that we see so often in Mainline Protestantism.

This leads to division, and people leave to form new, conservative versions of their old Churches, or to join other Churches.

And this leads me to my reflection, that their problems where mainly caused by looking inward to themselves, and their own desires, and not to Scripture and God. The Scriptures say in the Book of Proverbs to lean not on our own understanding, and not to always listen to our own desires, and that a way may seem right to us, but it is not always so. Yet, these Churches are run bed upon peoples own desires, and their leaning on their own understanding, and following the way that seems right, even without reflection.


And it leads to ruin and chaos.


I realise this is also a Catholic argument against Protestantism as a whole, but this is not my argument here so let us reserve such comments for a later opportunity.

I then turned my view to society, and asked how this is different?

We elect leaders now based on party affiliation and on ideologies. We no longer elect people, but things, and our goal is often not to let the best man ( or woman) rule s, but to get our guy in so what we want can get done, or so the other guy won’t get in.

Our culture seems divided, now, and often hostile to those of opposing camps, and no one sits and reasons what is the best course, they simply try to argue in favour of their ideology and seek to have it implemented. And, we have seen mediators step in in government roles to assist us already.

Of course I have another problem with Republicanism, in its principles, but will address those with kind indulgence in another thread, for now, I want to talk of this sort of division.


It seems inherent to Republicanism, and that it usually leads to this sort of route. The United States are largely unaffected because of a Constitution binding hem, but this seems only to have slowed the pattern, not to have halted it.

In Europe most of the modern Republics where made in the last 100 years, since WW1 and WW2. And most of the monarchies are now run as republics with the monarchs having little real power.


The fruit of Republicanism, though, is moral and civil decay and loss of freedom, in the very age when freedom is most proclaimed, and in the very systems in which we are told preserve it.

So I wonder if Republicanism is nothing but a mean to division, and later oppression by greedy politicians and ideologues eager to impose their will onto the masses.


A King, bound by tradition, and eager to create a legacy for his son, will be more keen on keeping his Kingdom stable. An Ideologue is more concerned with his vision being made true even if it has proven to be but fantasy.

The whims of the people are short lived and change often, and the ways of man show him in a crowd to be short sighted, seeking pleasure and gratification now, rather than later.

I think, perhaps, Church and State should learn well these lessons, and avoid the corruption of what we see.

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by ZAROVE
I am a Monarchist. I have stated this in the past, and this is one of the few forums to which I can state this without being thought of as an advocate for dictatorship.

That said, I have elected to post here some thoughts ruminating in my mind, though unrefined into a coherent single argument, about Republicanism, Christianity, and modern culture.

It seems to me that Christianity is innately Monarichal, with Christ our King at its centre, ruling his Kingdom the Church.

Yet this fact is lost on much of modern Protestantism, which sets up Churches in a Republican form, and that form tends to descend into Chaos, and confusion reigns and the Church divides.

The normal pattern is that theologically and morally they hold to conservative views, but over time divergences start base don things not defined, or not clearly so. Their local congregational leaders begin to preach their own view, and the landscape becomes uneven, with each congregation differing one form another.

The diversity grows too great and the Church as a whole is confused as to what it teaches, as even the basics of the faith are called into question by a few.

But rather than going to the Scripture in payer and asking God for guidance, and holding a serious study of the Bible, those who advocate one philosophy or ideology or theology tend to pit themselves against the other side, and elect local synod members to reflect their view, which they hope will beat the other view.

Finally, this sort of struggle comes to a head, with political parties in essence forming within the Church, and representing the ideas of an ideology, and following it, and being more concerned with it and its goals and its constituency, and not in Christ.

Finally, some unelcted, usually liberal synod members are appointed ot “Mediate” the dispute and the sort of theological despotism takes over the Church that we see so often in Mainline Protestantism.

This leads to division, and people leave to form new, conservative versions of their old Churches, or to join other Churches.

And this leads me to my reflection, that their problems where mainly caused by looking inward to themselves, and their own desires, and not to Scripture and God. The Scriptures say in the Book of Proverbs to lean not on our own understanding, and not to always listen to our own desires, and that a way may seem right to us, but it is not always so. Yet, these Churches are run bed upon peoples own desires, and their leaning on their own understanding, and following the way that seems right, even without reflection.


And it leads to ruin and chaos.


I realise this is also a Catholic argument against Protestantism as a whole, but this is not my argument here so let us reserve such comments for a later opportunity.

I then turned my view to society, and asked how this is different?

We elect leaders now based on party affiliation and on ideologies. We no longer elect people, but things, and our goal is often not to let the best man ( or woman) rule s, but to get our guy in so what we want can get done, or so the other guy won’t get in.

Our culture seems divided, now, and often hostile to those of opposing camps, and no one sits and reasons what is the best course, they simply try to argue in favour of their ideology and seek to have it implemented. And, we have seen mediators step in in government roles to assist us already.

Of course I have another problem with Republicanism, in its principles, but will address those with kind indulgence in another thread, for now, I want to talk of this sort of division.


It seems inherent to Republicanism, and that it usually leads to this sort of route. The United States are largely unaffected because of a Constitution binding hem, but this seems only to have slowed the pattern, not to have halted it.

In Europe most of the modern Republics where made in the last 100 years, since WW1 and WW2. And most of the monarchies are now run as republics with the monarchs having little real power.


The fruit of Republicanism, though, is moral and civil decay and loss of freedom, in the very age when freedom is most proclaimed, and in the very systems in which we are told preserve it.

So I wonder if Republicanism is nothing but a mean to division, and later oppression by greedy politicians and ideologues eager to impose their will onto the masses.


A King, bound by tradition, and eager to create a legacy for his son, will be more keen on keeping his Kingdom stable. An Ideologue is more concerned with his vision being made true even if it has proven to be but fantasy.

The whims of the people are short lived and change often, and the ways of man show him in a crowd to be short sighted, seeking pleasure and gratification now, rather than later.

I think, perhaps, Church and State should learn well these lessons, and avoid the corruption of what we see.


Shlomo Zarove,

I understand your points, since I grew up part of my life under a monarchy (UK), but I look at the separation of Church and State and see that it does us all much better. As an American I can tell you that if we had a State Church those of us who are Easterners would not exist in this nation, and some of our Churches would be totally wiped out without the United States.

Further, I see modern society as a way to shake out the real Christians. Those who believe, truly believe. They are not under social pressure to "believe".

It also calls on the Church to evangelize both externally and internally. To use a Protestant theological point, we have to Witness for the Lord.

Let us rejoice that we have the opprotunities to be Christians in this time.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
You miss my point. I think you need to reread this article.

This is about REPUBLIANSISM, and REPUBLICANSIM IN THE CHURCH and how that leads to division and disunity.


And how in the civil world the samethign seems ot occure.

Its not abotu Church and State uniting.Its abou t the value of Monarchy.

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by ZAROVE
You miss my point. I think you need to reread this article.

This is about REPUBLIANSISM, and REPUBLICANSIM IN THE CHURCH and how that leads to division and disunity.


And how in the civil world the samethign seems ot occure.

Its not abotu Church and State uniting.Its abou t the value of Monarchy.


Shlomo Zarove,

I did understand what you wrote. But having a monarchy is inherently mixing Church and State. For no monarch (I would hope) would have no faith. Would you be willing to live under a Muslim monarch, or a Protestant one or even a Roman Catholic one?

The value that you see, is only under a monarchy that would share your values.

I would agree about "republicanism" (I call it Protestantism) creeping into the Church, but that is why I wrote what I did in the Obama piece. But we also have to look at the fact that the laity is the Church also. Within my Church we held our First Holy Synod for the first time in 300 years. It included not only our Patriarch, Eparchs, heads of religious orders, as well as lay representitives (as is traditional in Antiochene-Edessan Churches). The final changes that will come down will be by our Holy Synod, but those changes would mean nothing if our Holy Hierachs did not know what the people in the pews understand.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
I did understand what you wrote. But having a monarchy is inherently mixing Church and State.

I'd disagree. I'd also disagree that mixing Church and State is nessesarily a bad thing, but don't want to discuss this in this thread.


For no monarch (I would hope) would have no faith.


But, if the Monarch had a Faith, how does htis differ fro a President who does? A Personal Faith izs not the same as a State Endorement, or the establishent of a State Religion, an dmuch less an imposition of any value.



Would you be willing to live under a Muslim monarch, or a Protestant one or even a Roman Catholic one?


Well, as to a Protestant one, I am English.

And, I want Her Majesty To be given mor epolitical power, as I distrust Parlament.

A Muslim Monarchy woudl dbend. I'd not wan tot live iN Saudi Arabia, no. But i the Muslim Monarhcy wa slike some int he Middle AGes which permited Christians to exist peacefully and openly, then there woudl be no harm.

A just Monarchy is just to all its subjects, and I woudl prefer it to an ubjust Republic.





The value that you see, is only under a monarchy that would share your values.

No, its not. Thats an asusmption on your part. I'm actulaly a Monarchist who supports Monarchy in principle, not because I hope for a King to impose my vaues onto others.





I would agree about "republicanism" (I call it Protestantism) creeping into the Church, but that is why I wrote what I did in the Obama piece. But we also have to look at the fact that the laity is the Church also. Within my Church we held our First Holy Synod for the first time in 300 years. It included not only our Patriarch, Eparchs, heads of religious orders, as well as lay representitives (as is traditional in Antiochene-Edessan Churches). The final changes that will come down will be by our Holy Synod, but those changes would mean nothing if our Holy Hierachs did not know what the people in the pews understand.


And, the Republic of England under Elizaeth the Firts granted people a vpice as well. A Monarchy can grant people a voice, and listen to their concerns, but shoudl not differ fully to simply the will of he people as if the majority shoudl rule.


Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 384
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 384
One of the greatest crosses the Catholic Church has had to bear
was the "Catholic" monarchs. We are rid of the vermin, thanks
be to God. Think of Louis XIV and Joseph II.

Republicanism in the State is one thing; republicanism in the
Church is another.

For such of us as are Orthodox or Catholic, republicanism in the Church is an aberration. In the Catholic Church we have suffered
from an outbreak of pseudo-republicanism for the last forty-odd
years. This problem seems slowly to be resolving itself.

In the state, some little knowledge of history teaches me that
a "good king" is very nearly a contradiction in terms(with the
exception, of course, of my own patron saint, Edwin of Northumbria). Monarchies are no more free from party politics than are republics, only the parties are smaller and generally
only consist of aristocrats.

In England, Henry VIII led the Church in schism; his daughter Mary felt free to burn heretics; the governments of his helpless
son Edward VI and his daughter Elizabeth imposed heresy.

The Scandinavian monarchs forced heresy upon their people, as
did a great many of the German princes.

The French, Spanish and Holy Roman/Austrian monarchs sought to
aggregate papal authority to themselves.

The Romanovs persecuted Catholics and Jews.

Zarove is an English subject. He therefore knows that the British
monarch has and never will have any power of any kind whatever,
including power over the church of which he/she theoretically is the head. Power resides in Parliament alone, and it might well
at any given time consist entirely of atheists. The UK is not
a monarchy; it is a republic disguised as one. [To get on my own
hobby-horse, this all comes of their kicking out James VII & II,
the last person with a possible claim to be legitimate King of
England. In fact, while James was certainly legitimate King of
Scots, I do not consider there to have been a legitimate King
of England since Richard II.]

Edmac







Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217

And it's a pity Wat Tyler didn't eliminate Richard II.

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342
Shlomo Zarove,

Originally Posted by ZAROVE
I did understand what you wrote. But having a monarchy is inherently mixing Church and State.

I'd disagree. I'd also disagree that mixing Church and State is nessesarily a bad thing, but don't want to discuss this in this thread.

For no monarch (I would hope) would have no faith.

But, if the Monarch had a Faith, how does htis differ fro a President who does? A Personal Faith izs not the same as a State Endorement, or the establishent of a State Religion, an dmuch less an imposition of any value.


That is very easy, one we can change Presidents. Under law in Great Britain the Monarch has to be Anglican in England and Wales, and Presbyterian in Scotland. If the Monarch marries a Catholic, or any one in line to the throne marries a Catholic then they must give up the throne (in the case of the Monarch) or give up the right to succession. Or what happens is the Catholic party will renounce their faith, as what happened a few months ago right their in the UK.

First, just looking at the situation in the UK, it is ovious that the Monarch does not have a real faith, or she could not be both an Anglican and a Presbyterian.

Quote
Would you be willing to live under a Muslim monarch, or a Protestant one or even a Roman Catholic one?

Well, as to a Protestant one, I am English.

And, I want Her Majesty To be given more political power, as I distrust Parlament.

A Muslim Monarchy woudld bend. I'd not want to live in Saudi Arabia, no. But i the Muslim Monarhcy was like some in the Middle AGes which permited Christians to exist peacefully and openly, then there would be no harm.

A just Monarchy is just to all its subjects, and I woudl prefer it to an ubjust Republic.


Well, I do have to do a couple of disclosures here. I happen to hold a title. In Lebanon am a sheik (in this case it means that I head a major clan), in the UK I can show that I am related to the Dukes of Buccleuch and Queensberry and of couse to the Monarch herself. I was a subject of the Queen. I do not believe that Monarchy would help.

Quote
The value that you see, is only under a monarchy that would share your values.

No, its not. Thats an asusmption on your part. I'm actulaly a Monarchist who supports Monarchy in principle, not because I hope for a King to impose my vaues onto others.


Well maybe if you could outline those principles it would help the discussion.

Quote
I would agree about "republicanism" (I call it Protestantism) creeping into the Church, but that is why I wrote what I did in the Obama piece. But we also have to look at the fact that the laity is the Church also. Within my Church we held our First Holy Synod for the first time in 300 years. It included not only our Patriarch, Eparchs, heads of religious orders, as well as lay representitives (as is traditional in Antiochene-Edessan Churches). The final changes that will come down will be by our Holy Synod, but those changes would mean nothing if our Holy Hierachs did not know what the people in the pews understand.


And, the Republic of England under Elizaeth the Firts granted people a vpice as well. A Monarchy can grant people a voice, and listen to their concerns, but shoudl not differ fully to simply the will of he people as if the majority shoudl rule.


Well for one, a Republic limits Democracy. I do not believe in a free for all Democracy. I believe in a Constitutional Republic as what the United States has.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
E
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
Offline
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
E
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Originally Posted by Edmac
For such of us as are Orthodox or Catholic, republicanism in the Church is an aberration.
Edmac,

To the extent that republicanism is based--at least in theory--on the notion of those in authority being the servants of those who are governed, I would suggest that it is appropriate for both Church and state.

One of the greatest ills within the Catholic Church in recent years can be seen as a case of the bishops not seeing themselves as answerable to those they govern.

Originally Posted by Edmac
In the state, some little knowledge of history teaches me that a "good king" is very nearly a contradiction in terms(with the exception, of course, of my own patron saint, Edwin of Northumbria). Monarchies are no more free from party politics than are republics, only the parties are smaller and generally only consist of aristocrats.

While we could certainly find a few more exceptions, they are undobutedly just that--exceptions. In principle, I agree completely. grin


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
The United Kingdom may be a Stealth Republic, pretending to be a Monarchy, but that simply proves my case against Republicanism.

The more Democratic Britain becomes, the less free. We have abolished the House of Lords to create an elected Senate, and made sure the State is run by the elected Commons, and we have seen the introduction of the SORS, which forbid anyone from “Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation”, so that even Catholic adoption agencies must adopt to gay couples, and no one can deny the use of a facility for a civil partnership, we have seen the erosion of free speech on the basis of political ideologies ( especially in the gay rights sector) and have seen abortion-on-demand.

We have seen the state schools teach for all practical purposes Atheism to Children, and have seen them take great pains to silence Christian bodies throughout he UK, and to abolish anything remotely traditional, British, or Moral.

All in the name of the people.

British moral life is also a good deal lower because of the incessant demand for individual human rights, which apparently means someone can get by being rude, base, and even violent.

I’m sorry, but the notion in our modern world is inherently selfish and leads to selfish conduct in the citizenry. I hardly think that the selfishness breeds virtue, or that by placing personal desires at the centre of my life and demand them as “my right” is a good thing.

I simply do not see the intrinsic value in the way the modern world thinks in regards to Republican trends, and democracy is not a word that causes me to think of freedom.

I think we need a cap on things, a just monarch bound by the Law of God and a constitution, and who prevents us from simply acting on personal desires as if those are paramount.


Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5