The Effect of the Russian Orthodox Religion on the Cult
Orthodox Christianity has had an immense effect on the culture of Russia.
The adoption of the Orthodox faith from Constantinople by Prince Vladimir in 988 introduced cultural influences that profoundly affected the Russian consciousness. As the people embraced Orthodoxy it developed a uniquely Russian flavor and rooted deep in the fertile Russian soul. Orthodoxy had a major impact on politics, art, and nearly every other aspect of Russia's culture.
Orthodoxy helped forge Russia's world view and defined her place in the world.
The church affected the thought patterns and motivations of a whole culture and changed the way Russians thought about themselves and the ways that they lived their lives.
The church acted as a unifying factor for the Russian nation. Church holidays and fasts enriched and brought meaning to the cycle of seasons and sowing in the subsistence society. Russians possessed a deep religious faith and from it they derived a sense of purpose in the universe and the promise of salvation. The church nourished and preserved the culture of Russia during centuries of internal strife and foreign intervention. Orthodox people feel a strong sense of community and brotherhood towards one another through a shared bond of faith. As a result of this emphasis on community, the rights of the group tend to take precedence over the rights of the individual in Russian culture. The Orthodox and Catholic faiths had an adversarial relationship for years. As this rift deepened and grew increasingly antagonistic, the rift between the East and the West also grew. The difference in religion between
Russia and Europe can largely explain the vast differences that developed in their cultures.
The Tsar of All Russia derived his power and right to rule from his status as God's chosen representative on earth. As it is God alone who bestowed power on the tsar, it was in the best interest of the monarchy to protect and promote the church. This conception of the tsar possessing a divine right to rule contributed to the political passivity of the Russian people. In the
Byzantium tradition the concept of symphonia defined the relationship between the church and the state and acted as a balance on the unlimited power of the tsar. As the head of the church and the...
... middle of paper ...
.... Those who refused to change their rhythms of worship were called Old Believers and they were executed and silenced by the authorities. The Old Believers insisted on following the old forms because they feared committing heresy. The way they saw the situation was that Rome had fallen because of heresy. Moscow was the last seat of
Orthodoxy and if Russia fell from the grace of God, it would mean the end of the world. The basic issue in the schism was the relationship between the Russian and Orthodox churches. Some felt that since Russia had adopted Orthodoxy from
Byzantium she should remain a ‘junior partner'. Others felt that it was
Russia's destiny to be a leader and to free her Eastern brethren.
The Orthodox relegion has been essential to the people to bring them a sense of hope and destiny and a glimpse of heaven on earth. The choice of
Orthodoxy was as influential as the Mongul Yoke on the formation of the Russian character. Orthodoxy brought the people a lot of joy, created a sense of community, intensified the countries isolation, created beautiful art, started wars, complicated politics, and best of all, reminded the people to love each
other.
Christ/God, the love and kindness, or the good, that the Christian religion conveys, or the inner happiness and the peace of mind, or the reward, that the person would inevetably achieve by following the word of Christ.
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Both monarchs had a royal background and were put in power with high expectations to continue the stability that the country possessed. Citizens aspire for all government officials to keep the peoples best interest in mind. But sadly, due to Ivan’s brutal childhood, he grew up observing and learning from the mannerisms of the corrupt elite. Ivan predominately gained power through fear and with this tactic was the first to exercise a despotism in Russia. One example of this is the story of the peasants who disturbed Ivan during one of his retreats. They came to him to complain of their governor who they believed was unjust but Ivan was so upset that they had troubled him with such a petty matter that he punished them. The men had their hands tied behind their backs, boiling hot alcohol poured on their heads and then their beards lit on fire with a candle. Apprehension and terror were Ivan’s main tools for keeping his people under control. Despite his totalitarian state of mind, Ivan believed that his decisions were still best for the country and the only way to keep it safe was by leaving it in constant fear. Although not always the most rational, the czar still made the suitable choices to keep the kingdom together. Similar to Ivan, Charles was not always under the influence of his mental disability. During his 42
The general court was set on a path to separating the beliefs of the church and the government. Luckily, years later a law would be passed in the Constitution that separates church and state.
It isn't as simple as saying that the church and state were connected or they weren't. For example, Henry VIII and Calvinism both utilized a strong church state connection, but Henry VIII used the church to empower the state, while Calvinism did the opposite. Some used the church and state relationship for gain of power and control, while for others it was truly what they believed was right. Church and state relationships are complex and deep. Each one was unique and added to the individual religion in its own
The Protestants who emigrated to America knew from experience of the negative effect the government had on religion when the two were operating together. With the mindset of creating a new perfect holy land, they decided to make sure both church and state worked separately. While Puritans still did everything they could to enforce their beliefs in New England, including exiling those who did not attend church regularly, the core idea of separation of church and state was in the minds of the people. In order to have a country that values the freedom of religion, the church has to be out of any government policy. Any laws that are created around a single church’s faith, even if the majority of the population believes in them, threaten the freedoms of all other denominations. Ame...
The modern state seeks its self-preservation above all else, and history reveals that governments are more than willing to exercise their monopoly on force and coercion in order to cement and defend their authority (5-6). Normally, unified social bodies such as the Church seek to counteract the dominance of the state through their public and political influence. However, when the Church simultaneously abdicates its political connections and powers and interiorizes itself within individual Catholics, it frees the state to exercise its will with little backlash: “Once the church has been individualized and eliminated as Christ’s body in the world, only the state is left to impersonate God”
Proponents of a highly limited separation of church and state often argue that America’s founding fathers would be appalled at the extent to which the Judeo...
If that is the realm that the government controls, then what authority should the church practice over people? The answer is none over unbelievers (for that is God’s position to judge), but we are to hold those within the church accountable to God’s Word (1 Cor. 5:9-12). After all, will we not one day experience the perfect unity of religion and government in Christ’s perfect Kingdom? Stead aptly sums up what can bring about a true change in a society and a nation as he says “Believers need to be reminded that there can be no healthy or lasting change of social structures without a redemptive change in people, which is why Christ came two thousand years ago.” (52)
For many years, cult leaders always had a psychological hold on their followers' minds. Whether it was to kill other people or to kill themselves, they did it without question. Some cult leaders used fear, violence and guilt as a means of a weapon to control the minds of their followers. Other cult leaders used persuasive and spiritual speeches that made their followers believe they were doing good and fulfilling God's plan. Because cult leaders are powerful through psychological offenses, the people that belong to their cults are brainwashed into doing things they wouldn't normally do in their right state of mind.
happiness, and can lead to the choice of death over life. Hopefully, we will fully
Church and State were one of the same. They considered the gods to be the everyday rulers of their daily lives and depended on their priests and rulers to ensure that the gods were appeased and didn 't destroy the earth or extinguish the essential life sustaining Sun.
Cult activity has been on the rise over the past few decades. With it there has been an increase in the fear surrounding it. From this fear, society has learned much about cults, how they get members and what to look out for as far as cult recruiters go. Society as a whole has also learned what can be done to deal with cults.
Behind the elaborate fresco paintings and splendid architecture, Eastern Orthodox Church has played a significant role in the preservation of Christian tradition throughout history. Since the transfer of the imperial capitol of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople, the Eastern Orthodox Christianity has evolved into a distinct branch of Christianity (Steeves). As Timothy Ware, the author of The Orthodox Church, suggests, major intellectual, cultural, and social developments that were taking place in a different region of the Roman Empire were not entirely consistent with the evolution of Western Christianity (Ware 8). These traditions and practices of the church of Constantinople were adopted by many and still provide the basic patterns and ethos of contemporary Orthodoxy. The Eastern Orthodox Church has adopted unique organizational features, beliefs, and traditions constituting itself as a unique branch of Christianity.
The Russian’s were wrong in having hope for a reformed government. Following the careless Czar came Lenin and Stalin, both continuing the reign of terror that the Czar had left behind. Instead of a Czarist gover...