Jonathan Pageau is having a conversation with Dr. Mario
image; it still has its faults , has its problems, however nonetheless is a little glimpse of the giant cosmic one that we see in Discovery. Provided who rules over New Jerusalem, Pageau appears to be saying that this is the design for the emperor to follow. It follows what I have pertained to
Life of the blessed
emperor Constantine … Now, you will remember Eusebius from the earlier posts on Strickland’s work. He wrote of the governance idea of Symphony. This in contrast to Augustine’s idea of 2 cities, among God and among male. … he [Eusebius]
explains a Christogram, with a lance pointing down listed below it and a changeover the lance; the point of the lance is driven down on the serpent.
You can analyze this spiritually, that the emperor is eliminating evil. But there is likewise a historicist method, as the emperor beating his terrestrial enemies, and they are the real evil ones– and not the evil one behind
them, the devil.
This particular image … what is it? What do you make with it? Pageau replies: The interesting thing about it, at least the image– if you take the significance of the image itself, and we do not try to traditionally, like what the dragon is; let’s simply say it’s a dragon– there is a sense that this might be the image of a proper
emperor. I can concur that it is the role of the
appropriate emperor. But through history, such proper emperors can be relied on one, maybe two, hands. You have the image of Christ at the top, then listed below you have the king and his descendants, and below them, they– as a tool of Christ — are the ones who will drive out wicked from the world. Then you have the other way, the cynical
way, to see the emperor as using Christ to validate whatever they wish to do politically. Those are the two images of civilization, and you always hear the one version, especially in modern times, we hear the cynical version, that kings or the Church use the excuse of Christ or God to then do whatever it is they want to do and beat their opponents. This explains the overwhelming reality of history. Is this cynical, or merely reasonable
? Does it recommend something about which model– that of Eusebius or that of Augustine– provides the lessor possibility of abuse? However I believe we always require to understand the two analyses, since it is likewise real that God uses our civil authorities to hold turmoil at bay. I know, because I have actually lived in places where civilization is breaking down. It does not appear like a good place where happy people hold hands. Sadly, when it is the civil authorities leading the abuse and when authority is monopolized, we discover civilization breaking down. Baghos then points to the concept of Caesaropapism in the East: Typically Christendom, specifically Byzantium, is accused of caesaropapism– the truth that the emperor was both priest and king in a way that type of made him semi-or quasi-divine. Regardless of the reality that such divine language was utilized to explain the emperor, and not standing up to the fact that the emperor would frequently represent himself with a halo, however, caesaropapism did not necessarily apply due to the fact that the preferable design in an environment that is conditioned by Christ and His saints through the Church and its shepherds and teachers and bishops is the Old Testimony design; it’s not the pagan design. That might be the model, but does it explain the reality? Not actually, at least not from what I have checked out from Strickland and not from how I comprehended Pageau. Every
time you have this imposition of the state– since the state lapses into this hubris several times in Byzantium– offering the impression that they supervise of the Church, God raises up shepherds of the Church(bishops, monks, nuns, laypeople )who tell the emperor to take care of the world beyond the Church and leave the Church to its shepherds and teachers. In fact, the Church is never ever under the emperor in Byzantium, which is an error lots of scholars make when assessing this empire. Even in examples where the Church is working with the state, such as at the Council of Nicaea called by Constantine, it was the bishop of
the Church presiding at the council. So, we require to make this really clear: the Church is something and the state is another. When the state would try to impose a heretical doctrine, the Church would typically accuse it of such and castigated it. This took place typically throughout the history of the empire. Conclusion I am not certified to settle this debate. However, I can say: while in the Latin Church there are examples of the pope excommunicating kings and emperors (for this reason, a way of inspecting abuses of authority), I have yet to read an example of this(or more particularly in the Eastern Church, anathematizing )in Strickland’s
book regarding the East. Perhaps examples exist, however I don’t remember reading any in his book or somewhere else.