www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Orthodox Emperor may be a reality soon!

Originally posted by carson daniel lauffer:
Amado,

I'd love to drive one. Are you offering to let me?

CDL

On an unrelated note, I can't believe the Eastern Orthodox cannonized Nicholas II. If that guy is a saint then standards must be pretty low in Moscow; nothing like gunning down peaceful protestors I always say. Incidently, Nicholas II is a good example of why monarchies are inadaquate. The guy was completely unqualified for, and uninterested in, ruling Russia.

"Father asks us to remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love..."

In defense of Nicholas II, and I hinted at this earlier, he was to some extent the victim of a broken system. He had no interest in governing Russia and his father did little to nothing to prepare him for it.

The reason that democracy is better is not because monarchy is incompatable with Christianity (I don't think I said it is). It simply doesn't work as well -- and in that sense it is inferior --

Originally posted by Zenovia:
Dear Dn. Robert,

I have a few books on Catholic prophecies. Some are amazing, and some seem to contradict one another. Especially the one's about the 'great monarch' and who he is descendant from, etc. Now I recall once reading that our presidency is in reality a monarchy, while Britain in reality, isn't a monarchy. Of course whoever wrote it went into detail as to why.

Well, taking that into account, I began wondering if the USA is the great monarch mentioned in the prophecies?

Just a thought!

Zenovia

Originally posted by Matt:
Brian,

I'm glad we agree about democracy. Tradition itself is, as Chesterton said, very much the "democracy of the dead". I brushed off Nicholas II quickly because in my mind there is a great deal to be said against both him and his wife; so much so that it's almost not worth the time to re-hash it all. You are, of course, technically correct that Nicholas II did not directly order his troops to attack his own people. Nevertheless, one can certainly say that was his attitude toward dissent in general (kill and/or imprison them all); ask anyone carted off to Siberia by his secret police. Moreover, when he heard of the shootings he issued a statement in which he "forgave his people for rising up against him." What a magnanimus gesture -- truly the mark of a great saint. :rolleyes:

In defense of Nicholas II, and I hinted at this earlier, he was to some extent the victim of a broken system. He had no interest in governing Russia and his father did little to nothing to prepare him for it. He was a man of strong personal faith, but so were many who defended the institution of slavery in this country. That doesn't make them right, or worthy of cannonization. He harmed Russia greatly when a better man probably would have been able to save it.

I am actually not a big fan of Russian history; much of it is terribly depressing. Even great achievements such as St. Petersburg often have negative stories surrounding them which tarnish the success. As far as Eastern Orthodox countries go I will take Byzantium over Russia.

Andrew,

The reason that democracy is better is not because monarchy is incompatable with Christianity (I don't think I said it is). It simply doesn't work as well -- and in that sense it is inferior -- just as a Lexus is generally a better car than a Nissan Sentra. There is nothing immoral about my Sentra, but I'm not gonna put it toe-to-toe with the Lexus

Thus, as Jesus Christ was both God and man, so Orthodox monarchical society likewise possessed two dimensions, one earthly and one heavenly, united as the two Natures in Christ. The Basileus or Tsar', the imperium, Emperor, represented the humanity of Christ and the priesthood or sacerdotium was the analogy of His Divinity.

Republics reducing state religion impact
An important reason why people could choose their society to be organized as a republic is the prospect of staying free of state religion: in this approach living under a monarch is seen as more easily inducing a uniform religion. All great monarchies had their state religion, in the case of pharaohs and some emperors this could even lead to a religion where the monarchs (or their dynasty) were endowed with a god-like status (see for example imperial cult). On a different scale, kingdoms can be entangled in a specific flavour of religion: Catholicism in Belgium, Church of England in the United Kingdom, Orthodoxy in Tsaristic Russia and many more examples.

In absence of a monarchy, there can be no monarch pushing towards a single religion. As this had been the general perception by the time of the Enlightenment, it is not so surprising that republics were seen by some Enlightenment thinkers as the preferable form of state organisation, if one wanted to avoid the downsides of living under a too influential state religion. Rousseau, an exception, envisioned a republic with a demanding state "civil religion":

United States: the Founding Fathers, seeing that no single religion would do for all Americans, adopted the principle that the federal government would not support any established religion, as Massachusetts and Connecticut did.[10]
Besides being anti-monarchial, the French Revolution, leading to the first French Republic, was at least as much anti-religious, and led to the confiscation, pillage and/or destruction of many abbeys, beguinages, churches and other religious buildings and/or communities[11]. Although the French revolutionaries tried to institute civil religions to replace "uncivic" Catholicism, nevertheless, up to the Fifth Republic, la�cit� can be seen to have a much more profound meaning in republican France than in neighbouring countries ruled as monarchies[12].
Several states that called themselves republics have been fiercely anti-religious. This is particularly true for communist republics like the (former) Soviet Republics, North Vietnam, North Korea, and China.

[edit]
Republics highlighting state religion impact
Some countries or states prefer or preferred to organise themselves as a republic, precisely because it allows them to inscribe a more or less obligatory state religion in their constitution: Islamic republics generally take this approach, but the same is also true (in varying degrees) for example in the Jewish state of Israel, in the Protestant republic that originated in the Netherlands during the Renaissance[13], and in the Catholic Irish Republic, among others. In this case the advantage that is sought is that no broad-thinking monarch could push his citizens towards a less strict application of religious prescriptions (like for instance the Millet system had done in the Ottoman Empire[14]) or change to another religion altogether (like the swapping of religions under the Henry VIII/Edward VI/Mary I/Elizabeth I succession of monarchs in England). Such approach of an ideal republic based on a consolidated religious foundation played an important role for example in the overthrow of the regime of the Shah in Iran, to be replaced by a republic with influential ayatollahs (which is the term for religious leaders in that country), the most influential of which is called "supreme leader".