You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
Erase99 on scored.co
1 month ago0 points(+0/-0)1 child
In some sense bishops must be beyond secular government. When it appoints clergy, as happened in Russia and other states (Napoleon tried and failed to enact this in France), the result is disaster.
No no, i don't mean that bishops are appointed by the king. I mean that the bishops, whose appointment is a matter for (of?) the church, ought to be considered regular subjects of the crown.
That is the difference between Gallicism, or the unity of church and state during the time of king Clovis (Chlodwig), and later times under Papism etc.
These are not my original thoughts, i got this position from here but it needs translation. I do concur with it: https://www.deutsch-orthodox.de/kleine-geschichte-des-orthodoxen-frankreichs/
I'd say this falls firmly under "God's to God, Caesar's to Caesar". The church shouldn't solely and authoratively play king-maker and the state or crown shouldn't groom and install clergy.
That is the difference between Gallicism, or the unity of church and state during the time of king Clovis (Chlodwig), and later times under Papism etc.
These are not my original thoughts, i got this position from here but it needs translation. I do concur with it: https://www.deutsch-orthodox.de/kleine-geschichte-des-orthodoxen-frankreichs/
I'd say this falls firmly under "God's to God, Caesar's to Caesar". The church shouldn't solely and authoratively play king-maker and the state or crown shouldn't groom and install clergy.
> Arianus mentioned
So anyways i started punching.