Orthodox Not Interested in Reunion with Rome

[Ragnarok]

Napoleon took Pius VI prisoner and when he died, proclaimed that the Papacy had ended. The Cardinals gathered in secret conclave and elected Pius VII.
The Emperors never had the Power to appoint Popes or depose them; though they did interfere with elections; but the Popes proved to be too independent of any secular ruler.
What is wrong with the Church and state working together to punish blasphemers? I am not speaking of a worker who hits his thumb with a hammer while working; how about a movie that is produced portraying our Lord and our Lady in a very blasphemous and indecent manner (as has happened on several occasions)  Should the movie company be free to publicize the movie? Should it be allowed to be shown in movie theaters and released in videos?

The Traditional Catholic answer would be no, because public displays of sacrilege not only offend God to provoke His wrath, but would scandalize the faithful...am I not right?

[Michael Wilson]

Correct. What Pius XII stated in his address to the association of Italian Jurists: "Ci Riesce":

Now to give the right answer to the second question. Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorization to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good.....First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

The state has the duty to repress that which contravenes the truth or the objective norm of morality; however this duty may sometime be omitted for a grave reason, as for example a greater evil may be provoked by such repression. For example, in a Catholic state where there is a large minority of Protestants, or Moslems, the state may tolerate the practice of their false cults, because the repression of such cults would cause grave civil disturbance; invite intervention from foreign powers, etc. etc. 

[Ragnarok]

Correct. What Pius XII stated in his address to the association of Italian Jurists: "Ci Riesce":

Now to give the right answer to the second question. Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorization to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good.....First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

The state has the duty to repress that which contravenes the truth or the objective norm of morality; however this duty may sometime be omitted for a grave reason, as for example a greater evil may be provoked by such repression. For example, in a Catholic state where there is a large minority of Protestants, or Moslems, the state may tolerate the practice of their false cults, because the repression of such cults would cause grave civil disturbance; invite intervention from foreign powers, etc. etc.

Yeah I don't see the disagreement at all.

I'm just saying that I often hear sentiment from Catholics decrying how miserably awful it is that the Russian Orthodox Church collaborates with the Russian government, along with the Greek Orthodox Church collaborating with the Byzantine Empire...and I don't get why.

I do see your point that Justin Martyr's point can be construed to refer to political interference with the Church by the government, but I don't think it's that simple given the Holy Roman Empire's and Byzantine Empire's influence in controlling the Papacy directly which historically did happen at different points.

[Prayerful]

In the Orthodox system, ultimately the Church became subservient to the state, because there was no counter-balance to the power of the state; the Emperor of Constantinople appointed the Patriarch of Constantinople and could depose him; the same for the Czar of Russia for the Holy Synod. The Emperor/Czar was the ultimate authority in the Church.

Practically, yes, theologically, no - the Emperor / Czar / King received his divine authority from the Orthodox Church and was supposed to be indirectly subservient to it, which is why the Tsar was anointed with oil mimicking King David's appointment, and which is why in the Russian Liturgy (even today) the Tsar is called "God's Anointed One"

A painting of the Coronation of Tsar Nicholas II:



Although practically speaking, you are absolutely correct - Tsar Peter the Great abolished the Patriarchate of Moscow and reduced the Russian Church to a synod, and this was the case for centuries until the future Tsars re-allowed the Patriarchate's existence.


The power and organization of the Papacy (along with it having its own territory at points, the Papal States) definitely made it more historically independent than the state-run Churches of Russia or Byzantium, but don't imagine that the Emperor approving Papacies never happened - it happened under the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankish_Papacy

And let's not forget how Napoleon took control of the Roman Catholic Church in France, declaring himself head of the Church in France

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallicanism



Still, none of this negates the point that a Traditional Catholic should be happy to see the government and Church working together to punish blasphemers.

The classical age of Gallicanism was well before Napoleon. It is arose around the time of Philippe le Bel (1285-1314) and had the core that Princes, General Councils and Bishops limited the authority of the Pope. Existing Uses of the Roman Missal like Rouen, Paris and Lyon had additions such as stripping Feasts of sainted Popes of Octaves, degrading the rank of Papal Feasts, or even introducing mocking texts. However, the French Revolution saw astonishing losses of personnel and wealth, plus destruction of vestments, liturgical books. After Vatican I where Pope Pius IX strongly encourage the use of the Roman Missal, places, the much poorer French bishops gradually abandoned their Uses even where they sufficient old according to Trent. Neo-Gallican Uses like that of Toulouse (Roman lectionary, every proper text rewritten) certainly vanished, if they outlasted the French Revolution. There just was not the resources or attitude to keep them alive. The Use of Paris was suppressed in 1863. Any exercise of independence by French bishops after the French Revolution was an exercise in running on fumes. The Use of Lyon is confined to maybe a single parish.