Monarchy vs Democracy

Enea

Pigeon
To the Orthodox that advocate a monarch for the civil sphere, what then is the rationale for opposing a monarch-like office such as that of the papacy in the ecclesial sphere?

If monarchy is right because Christ is king, and the earthly king is his representative, then why is the ‘Vicar of Christ’ figure erroneous, seeing as he too is an earthly representation of Christ in the ecclesial sphere?
 
Last edited:

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
To the Orthodox that advocate a monarch for the civil sphere, what then is the rationale for opposing a monarch-like office such as that of the papacy in the ecclesial sphere?

If monarchy is right because Christ is king, and the earthly king is his representative, then why is the ‘Vicar of Christ’ figure erroneous, seeing as he too is an earthly representation of Christ in the ecclesial sphere?
Every nation should have patriarchs ruling in a joint union of Church and State, such as was the case in the Byzantine Empire. Giving nations their own top bishop, if you will, allows there to be that holy union for every state. A Bulgarian hierarch with a Bulgarian king, Serbian Patriarch with a Serbian king, a Russian Patriarch with a Russian emperor, etc. There is your monarch-like representative in the ecclesial sphere, so I'm not sure what the supposed contradiction is. The only person we recognize with Universal jurisdiction is Christ, our God.

I have no problem with the nations of the West subjecting themselves to a Patriarch of the West (a title of the Pope until 2006). Early Church canons allowed leeway for how the different patriarchates could run themselves. Some were more centralized and gave more power to the Patriarch (Rome and Constantinople) others were more conciliar.
 

Enea

Pigeon
Every nation should have patriarchs ruling in a joint union of Church and State, such as was the case in the Byzantine Empire. Giving nations their own top bishop, if you will, allows there to be that holy union for every state. A Bulgarian hierarch with a Bulgarian king, Serbian Patriarch with a Serbian king, a Russian Patriarch with a Russian emperor, etc. There is your monarch-like representative in the ecclesial sphere, so I'm not sure what the supposed contradiction is. The only person we recognize with Universal jurisdiction is Christ, our God.

I have no problem with the nations of the West subjecting themselves to a Patriarch of the West (a title of the Pope until 2006). Early Church canons allowed leeway for how the different patriarchates could run themselves. Some were more centralized and gave more power to the Patriarch (Rome and Constantinople) others were more conciliar.
The Church is one and trans-national therefore any single national patriarchate is but a sub-divison of the whole. The national bishopric is just one office among a congress or synod of bishoprics in an organization that has no single earthly head. That’s decentralization and diffusion of power not Monarchia.

Why shouldn’t such principles carry over into the civil realm?
After all, The Protestant anti-monarchical cry was “No king but Christ!” It seems the Orthodox say the same thing for the Church.
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
The Church is one and trans-national therefore any single national patriarchate is but a sub-divison of the whole. The national bishopric is just one office among a congress or synod of bishoprics in an organization that has no single earthly head. That’s decentralization and diffusion of power not Monarchia.
You're reaching for a way to attack Orthodoxy. For a Serb, there's no Patriarch above the Serbian Patriarch. For Orthodox councils to be ecumenical in general each Patriarch must approve, and the majority of bishops within the each synod, though there are patriarchs with more power than others based on local custom (i.e. Rome and Constantinople of the early Church). So if the Serbian patriarch was within Orthodoxy, and "vetoed" a council, that's that. This is how the early Church was run, as seen in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem. By your logic the Council in Acts 15 in essence declared "No king but Christ!" by having a council instead of just referring the matter of the Judaizing heresy to Peter for his executive decision.

You're arguing for a Church "emperor," like the Pope, not a Church "king," like a patriarch.
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
though there are patriarchs with more power than others based on local custom
To clarify this means within those patriarchates. The Patriarch of Rome always had more power over other bishops within his patriarchate than, say the Patriarch of Alexandria over his patriarchate.
 
Ideally, a smart king would pick a competent heir. I still think monarchy is better. Historically, even when they are terrible, they last for thousands of years. Republics last only a couple hundred at most. True "direct" democracies are even shorter, lasting until the inevitable war. Just ask Athens.

The Republic of Venice lasted 1100 years:


And the True "Direct" democracy still standing today is Switzerland. Not really that short.
 
The Republic of Venice lasted 1100 years:


And the True "Direct" democracy still standing today is Switzerland. Not really that short.

It is well known that the Republic of Venice wasn't a republic at all, it was an oligarchy. John Julius Norwich even refers to the republic as the oligarchy in his mainstream history book A History Of Venice.

Politics can really be boiled down into a dialectic to be honest.

Monarchy/Kingship/Dictatorship

or

Money Power/Oligarchy
 
It is well known that the Republic of Venice wasn't a republic at all, it was an oligarchy. John Julius Norwich even refers to the republic as the oligarchy in his mainstream history book A History Of Venice.

Politics can really be boiled down into a dialectic to be honest.

Monarchy/Kingship/Dictatorship

or

Money Power/Oligarchy

Aristocratic Republic which turned into an Oligarchy seemed good at keeping the Plebs out of the Voting Franchise.

I guess Switzerland is the only successful True Democracy to date.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
You're arguing for a Church "emperor," like the Pope, not a Church "king," like a patriarch.

Leaving aside that the Pope is not an "emperor", you still haven't answered the elephant in the room which is your (I mean Orthodxy's) double standard wrt civil/religious matters.

As you say, you're OK with an Emperor in the civil sphere but not in the religious sphere. How so ? Aren't you giving more to Caesar than to God ?
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
The only person we recognize with Universal jurisdiction is Christ, our God.

For a Serb, there's no Patriarch above the Serbian Patriarch.

The second quote shows that the alleged "universal juridiction" in the first quote is merely theoretical and limited to extraordinary, miraculous interventions, at least in this world, and so is really no "juridiction" in the true sense of the word.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
For a Serb, there's no Patriarch above the Serbian Patriarch. (...) So if the Serbian patriarch was within Orthodoxy, and "vetoed" a council, that's that.

And who decides if the Serbian patriarch is "within Orthodoxy" ? That part of your argument looks very circular to me.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Where do you think the whole wef circus ideology comes from ?
"you will own nothing" .. from the land where you can't even possess the roof over your head.

Well , globalism may have headquarters in Switzerland, but I don't think that historically the globalist ideology has more roots in Switzerland than in other places. The few Swissmen I know are very happy not to be part of the EU and its endless totalitarian legislation. I also have a Swiss friend who has always described himself to me as the owner of his house, so I'm not sure what you mean by "the land where you can't even possess the roof over your head".

Anyway, as @aynrus has well explained, the disappearance of ownership (where tenancy to a landlord has been replaced by tenancy to the State : the State takes your property from you if you can't pay your taxes or do things to your property that the State doesn't like) is more or less general in the West, nothing special to Switzerland here, whatever its case may be (though I always heard Switzerland was special in the other direction).
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
And that's exactly the trick : to disown people, with them still thinking they have stuff.

In switzerland you never pay back your mortgage in full, for tax reasons.

So sure, on paper you "own" it.
However if you actually read the fine print in your loan contract, the bank has actual ownership for as long as your mortgage is not resolved.
Which is forever.

Well, not really, most people sell their house when they retire, and rationalize it away as we didn't need something so big anyway, the kids have left, etc.
The real reason though is that they can't afford the monthly payments anymore, and their retirement plan is not that great either, so they count on their house's market value having increased in the meantime to compensate that.

So yeah, you will own nothing - yet most people consider private property to be one of the fundamentals of any civilization they would want to live in, so how do you get there without worldwide gilets jaunes ?
Well the swiss managed to pull it off, so there is a way.

The only question left is how to duplicate this success in other parts of the west.
But basically it seems that if the cage is golden enough, people just won't mind.
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
And who decides if the Serbian patriarch is "within Orthodoxy" ? That part of your argument looks very circular to me.
I'm not going to debate you again for 3 pages during Lent (which is where this is heading given you just quoted me 4 times in 3 posts), you're clearly smart enough to guess how I would answer your questions, especially this one.
 

Easy_C

Peacock
Here’s some food for thought:

Is the underlying sentiment if a caste system necessarily terrible? Not in the sense of higher vs lower but in terms of roles.

Why should we NOT allow people to clearly identify a clear vocation for people? It also allows a point of pride for different aspects of society in the same way guilds did.

The key is to have mobility between these roles. As Plato identified, it would be necessary to create a society where the best at each role can be identified, sorted into those roles, and be rewarded for demonstrating their exceptional competence.

My point of disagreement is with the concept of wanting “philosopher Kings” which Plato predictably suggests as being a philosopher. Coming from my own military background I have my own ideas about which “caste” should be in charge.
 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Crow
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
V34KKiak.jpeg
 
Top