Alex,
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Yes, the historical problem with the Catholic Church, which was never so with the Orthodox Church, is how Catholicism defined itself as a temporal entity vis a vis the secular state.
While for the past thousand years, in general the Orthodox have let the Church be over-ruled by the state, this situation of the spiritual-political scheme in the East has been recognized by key Orthodox theologians to be utterly warped and contradictory to the mission of the Church.
While the East has generally suffered from this domination from the State, there have been times one can see in the East has exercised its authority and followed what you think is an only Western scheme.
One need only look to the 20th century. We can see how the Tsar of Russia was also the spiritual head of the Russian Orthodox Church. One of the reasons he had to be killed was not just because he was a political rival, but because he represented the head of Orthodoxy in Russia -- and by his murder, the Communists felt like they had a double victory over the old Monarchy and the old Religion.
However, if you are trying to state that the Patriarch of Constantinople never had as much political power as the Pope of Rome, in one way that is correct, but on the other hand, the Patriarch had always been involved within the politics of Byzantium. Just look at the full story of the conversion of St Vladimir to Orthodoxy, and you will see the political side of the Patriarch.
While the Patriarch I think wrongly let the State step on his authority, as I stated earlier -- this was not always the case, nor was it considered the ideal. The Patriarch, by being the head of the Church in the East, had authority over even the Emperor - albeit rarely exercised.
The reason why some Easterners now try to make a difference between the political side of the West, and that of the East, is primarly not because the West was wrong in using its authority, but that the East was crippled from fully following its rightful duty. And this became seen, in a sense, as the traditional role of the Church, although in fact it was only a practical reality the Church faced, and not her rightful legacy.
Catholicism clearly saw an important temporal role for the Church and this role, over time, turned into a competing secular, political allegiance for its members.
From the very beginning of the Church, the Church had been considered a competing political allegiance for its members over that of the state. This is why the Romans persecuted the Christians -- the Christians were considered traitors to Rome by following a new allegiance.
While the Orthodox Church in some respects kept within itself a wrongful apocalyptic approach which limited the East's actions, the very action of the Eastern Patriarchs and Bishops trumping the power of different Emperors demonstrates the true political power found even in the Eastern Church. Out of cowardnice, perhaps, and probably out of the support the Emperor gave in the developing schism East/West to the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarchate grew comfortable to a subordinate position to the Emperor. Yet who was it that crowned the Emperor, who gave him the authority (a question one can also give for the Tsar of Russia?) The very action here demonstrates the real authority of the Church, albeit neglected.
Can you really say that the West was wrong to fully enact its approach? I do not think so.
"The Church is both created and uncreated, has its temporal and its eternal sides." (Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, Orthodoxy and Modern Society). "The Church recives social, historical and even cosmic signifance." (ibid.) "The task of the Church includes not only ways of personal salvation but of the transfiguration of the world, it includes the whole history of mankind, which is the history of the Church." (ibid)
The Church has its social, temporal role. It is not just a role which is advisorary -- it is only such when the Church fails to look at her own innate nature, and lets the State bend its will. St John Chrysostom, St Athanasius -- they did not let the State bend the Church, but told the State that the Church has greater authority than even the Emperor.
The West, by taking the task which Christ HAS given to the Church, has entered into the mire of the world more than the East. This allows more mud to be shown in the history of the West (but not absent from the East), but it is the kind of mud one gets one when actively engages the world for its transfiguration. It is part of the temporal side of the Church, and the temporal side includes an authority -- a temporal authority, the kind which is under debate.
In exercising that secular role, the Church was not always spiritual. It participated in wars and in the material concerns of the this-worldly.
Granted, but the Church has also sponsored the transformation of the world, and its ideals. Through the seeds the Church has given into the world, we can now argue about the abolition of the death penalty -- that is the kind of transfiguration which has occured, because the Church HAS taken an active role.
"Jesus Christ founded His visible Church not merely to meditate on heaven, but also to labour upon earth and to withstand the gates of hell. He did not send His apostles into the solitude of the desert, but into the world to conquer it and subject it to the Kingdom which is not of this world, and He enjoined upon them not only the innocence of doves but the wisdom of serpents. If it is merely a question of preserving the purity of the Christian soul, what is the purpose of the Church's social organization and of all those sovereign and absolute powers with which Christ has armed her in giving her final authority to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven?" Vladimir Solovyov, Russia and the Universal Church.
We are not called to just sit in humble contemplation, however nice it makes us feel. We are also called to go out into the world -- and bring it unto Christ That DOES require a legitimate authority to perform this mission, an authority greater than the state -- in order to overcome the state when necessary. Dare we say the state has come unto Christ, and thus has no need for any superior? In our age, it looks by far the opposite of such a position -- even while various Christian influences have found themselves into the secular world, sometimes devoid of needful Christian support.
I believe the Church's role is not to tell its members "how to vote."
Fine, I agree. The Church does not necessarily control who becomes the head of the secular State- though it has been known to do so, and so it is within her authority. When she does not, the Church nonetheless has the authority to transcend the chosen political leaders when they fail, and to her members that the secular leaders are no longer fit to be followed. That is not telling them how to vote, but telling them the State is not the final authority. And that is what is at question -- not who should be the temporal leader of a given State, but where does his authority come from, and what is its limits? Whose authority has a higher value, when the two conflict on a moral situation -- the Church, or the State? That is the question at hand, and not being addressed.
So while I will agree the history in the East has allowed the East to become almost silent hermits in their contemplation, not as active in the act of transfiguring the world, this position is not one I think one can find is justified. Orthodox Social Doctrine has been developing within the last two centuries because of this great, ignored, aspect of the Church's role in society. The West has had a history of actively pursuing this role, to differing levels of success -- but in having engaged the world, the West now is more capable than she ever has been for her task, while the East is still in her newfound infancy when it comes to social doctrine. So, to state, because the West has taken its role, that it is only a Western concept, I think ignores the true value and position of the Church in the sphere of the world, and tries to remove its influence to something which exists only in heaven. It becomes a spiritual dualism which has semi-gnostic tendencies. Is that what we really want?
[This message has been edited by Henry Karlson (edited 05-17-2001).]
![[Linked Image]](https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/tongue.gif)
