Father Seraphim Rose, on The Fall of man

Just watched, it's great
Thanks for the video OP

Thanks, Glad you liked it. I'm still coming to terms with things, like the Toll houses. Which, i ended up disagreeing With, Mr. Rose. It'd probably be something like this. But he may be right. But on the toll houses, yes i've read his book but for a beginner like me. That was probably way over my head.

Not against him, but against some fanboys.

Found out recently that he supports an Orthodox Monarchy.

Attached: Dq0ZtFIXgAAFBas.jpeg (1124x837, 192.63K)

based

serious orthodox theologians do that. Their model is the oriental roman empire as Amphiloque radovic say.

…Except that Eastern Roman Empire wasnt a Monarchy.

It lacked a formalized law of succession, sure, but how exactly is a ruler titled Autokrator/Self-Ruler and Basileus/King/Emperor not a monarch?

By just what you said. Succession wasnt hereditary. Byzantium was de-jure a republic, continuing Roman legacy and de-facto an elective stratocratic dictatorship, also continuing Roman legacy. Thats why "dynastic" changes were so regular. Only way the Emperor could practically influence future election of an emperor is the appointment, but this was never guaranteed and in reality, Emperor was elected by the army, as it happened practically during the entire history of the Roman empire since Augustus. De-Jure Establishment of hereditary monarchy was practically unthinkable in Roman Empire was practically unthinkable due to hatred towards monarchy in the Roman Society. Even Caesar who was beloved by the majority of the population couldnt succeed at this, though he tried.
I absolutely abhor when someone actually compares Roman System to retarded Tsarism, not to mention that someone calls it a "monarchy".

Seems clear the "Orthodox Christian Empire" stands for the byzantine empire.
The fact he is elected by the aristocracy doesn't make the emperor less of a monarch.

from google a monarchy is "a form of government with a monarch at the head."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch

It doesnt. Mere mention of Monarchy is contradictory against this. Sure modern day retarded classification distinguishes between "elective monarchy" and "hereditary monarchy", which is absolutely idiotic terms and contrary to classical classification that Aristotle had, from which ultimately modern classification arose. Classifying regime as a dictatorship is far more accurate, while government form of Byzantium would be republic. And again, Emperor wasnt elected by mere aristocracy, he was elected by the army, this is actually from which term "Emperor" (Imperator-commander, a honorary title for great generals with fine military achievements of Rome) arose. Though mere fact of election actually destroys main criticism that Rose has with "le power comes from people is wrong", though this point is generally retarded as it is. 1)Emperor gained his power due to army and election by it and then was legitimized after coronation. 2) As it is said in Romans 13:1, all powers come from God, not merely monarchies, not merely republics, but all powers. In other words, it doesnt matter, if someone inherited office as a monarch, or was elected as a president by the people, ultimately everyone rules because God wills it. Not to mention that all that succession autism that basically ruined my country and concept that someone should be superior to other due to surname and that his ancestor was better at murdering his brother for throne and not his merits.
Though at the end, main point here is that all this "muh monarchy" autism ignores actual problem, that is secularization that happens under any government form. Problem isnt in state form, but rather the fact that nation became deviated from faith. My ideal for example, is a Meritocratic Republic Influenced by several government forms including Byzantium, with three chamber Parliament-First Chamber elected Proportionally, Second Chamber elected according Majority system-representing municipality and regions, and Third chamber being Church Council. Presidental candidates would be elected according to state exams on various subjects from law to articles of faith and approved by Parliament with consent of all three chambers after careful examination of his private life that would mean, that unfaithful could not become candidates as third chamber would disagree, who would reign for long mandate. Weights of voters would also be determined after complex set of exams and other factors, with more educated in statecraft and history having higher weight in vote. One point with what I agree with Rose though, is that people would start moan about "muh equality" so my concept of Republic would stay as, well, a concept.
…I'm actually sad now…

I actually love Venetian regime the most. The sheer amount of autism and complexity with numerous councils and institutions has worth of its own.

now I mentioned a typo
*mere mention of an election

Venice was a mixed form of government in a Republic.
Most monarchies of the middle age were also mixed governments but of a monarchical specie.
Cities with autonomy, vassals, vassals of vassals, Diets/parlaments/estates general, Church hierarchy, consuetudinary laws. Every European monarchy was far from being the rule of one.

This is oversimplifying the mixed structure of all ancient political entities. It is however more true in the case of Byzantium compared to the western monarchies.
I also think one of the biggest flaws of the world view of Fr.Rose is the apology of Tsarism, following this same line of thought of the monarchy quote.

why?

I mean, why is that a flaw

I think that he meant general misconception of comparing Tsarism to Byzantine Regime, that wasnt even remotely close to it.
Though you should remember that Tsarism was the regime that mutilated Russian Orthodoxy and Church was governed by the state and appointed Ober-Procuror since Peter I.
Though I jump the gun on this one, lets wait that user for the answer.

I don't know much about it all, but from what I understand this is mostly a vocabulary problem.
Monarchy in the occidental sense isn't the byzantine model indeed, since the monarch here represent an army and an administration that are stables. It match with the republic of Plato and with a more organic organization since the head isn't even in charge of the spiritual but monks. But I think Rose just have a different definition of monarchy. Meaning the power in a strong head for the state and an aristocracy. In this sense he don't seems wrong.
Now the emperor is not elected, but the one who can destitute a dynasty are aristocrats, even in the army, the elite. So yes, "le power comes from people is wrong" because even popular riots were provoked by monks (spiritual elite).
God puts powers in place through his providence, even the power of Satan over earth, so it's not a good point. The emperor is confirmed by the religion (crowned by the patriarch of Constantinople). His all point is against egalitarianism, that can't be christian, and monarchy as I explained is the traditional model of Christianity.

Maybe it is certain vocabulary problems, though we must be accurate with terms, especially when discussing law and administration. What definition Rose has in this case is kind of irrelevant since every term has its own specific definition, though what I've gathered from his works, he is most likely talking about Russians. Strong Head of State isnt a Monarch, as monarchy can be weak as well, proper term is Autocrat, though this term isnt accurate as well, because, while Emperor was virtually a dictator with unlimited power, he shared his rule with senate and magistrates, not to mention spiritual leaders.
And yes, Emperor was quite definitely elected by the senate, as it was prescribed by the roman tradition, though support of the army mattered the most. Division of powers werent a thing back then and army could very well influence the election. As for the Aristocracy, sadly it is modern days linked with hereditarity and is also inaccurate for byzantine traditions. Byzantium, at least in concept, was a meritocratic state where hereditarity didint matter for being an aristocrat. In fact, Byzantium was one of the most egalitarian society of these days. One precise fact confirming this is existence of Justinian, Emperor, who was of peasant origin, though he wasnt the only one. Leo III was a mere military men before ascension on throne and list goes on. Army wasnt also exclusive to "nobility" of the empire, rather it was mandatory for entire population. As for your answer to "people and power" no, even in modern days, there are censes by which certain people are excluded from elections so technically speaking even in modern days not every single individual is represented on the election, and in older days the army represented the people at least in Roman society. In any case, people were represented and they had a say. To set aside the political stuff, strong side of the people is one of the characteristics of traditional Orthodox society, laymen had their say. This is one of the chief reasons that Ferrera-Florence agreement wasnt ratified at the end: because laymen opposed it. As for this
your example is quite frankly awful, forgive me to say this. Satan doesnt have power over earth, technically. I have talked with priests on this subject. Humans are the rulers of creation, as it is said in psalms for example "The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men." notorious epithet the devil has represents influence over mankind because of our sinful nature. to go back to old societies and stories about it, its basically like an old story of how evil councilors run affairs of the kingdom from shadows due to inept and retarded Emperor. Pic related is I think the best representation of the meaning of this. Sorry for this offtopic and perhaps me being a bit autistic about it, but I think it deserved some comment. As for the confirmation by church, it is still possible. Basically what is needed is the enlongment of the mandate of the President for substantial time (at least up to 15 years for example), after which confirmation shall take place. Unfortunately, modern day general populace may not take it kindly due to "muh secularism" meme, but I hope that it shall die and at the end church will be part of the legislative body, maybe even its own chamber in the parliament (I am bit optimistic and idealistic, everything is possible at the end). As for the egalitarianism, it actually exists because of Christianity. All human beings are made in image and likeness of God and have fundamental rights and dignity because of this. It is expressed in Genesis itself, that says "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man." Furthermore it is said "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.". One should be judged and have opportunities according to his person and merits and not because of his origins. Though you might have a bit different concept of egalitarianism on mind, so I dont know. And no, traditional model for Christianity is general sovereignty of God, no matter the society. Just because certain model was spread back in the days doesnt mean that it is ideal and best one, thought actual traditional biblical model would be, well, tribalism with Judges elected by God in urgent situations. Quite honestly it would be exciting to know more about this type of system, but there isnt much known about it sadly. Also, technically you didnt explain anything, unless ID has changed. That happens with me all the time.

Attached: 250px-Signorelli-Antichrist_and_the_devil.jpg (250x346, 43.47K)

Don't really know anything about this, could you elaborate?

Long story short, Peter I wanted to exercise his authority over church, contrary to the tradition of Symphonic according to which Secular and Religious authorities are Like Moses and Aaron: Separate but Cooperating for Good of the people. It must be noted that Peter was extreme westaboo and was inspired by Western countries, including England, where Secular Authority ruled over Anglican Church. It ended up with the fact, that after death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700, Peter abolished Patriarchate and instead created "Most Holy Synod" as a governing body of the church, preceded by Ober-Procuror, representing Emperor and church remained as mere administrative part of an Empire until 1917, when during revolution, Archbishops elected Patriarch Tikhon and declared independence of the Church from the state.
The most obvious result of Reform was devastation of numerous monasteries and nationalization of their lands and church becoming part of the state that fueled anti-clericalism in population of the empire, anti-clericalism that was practically an anomaly in Orthodox societies before this, as church was always independent from the state and mischiefs of the government wasnt tied to the church.
Far more devastating was its spiritual side, as Peter and his successors wanted to "westernize" every part of the society, including the church, hence they forced upon a western concepts and curiculums in seminaries, results of which are seen even today sometimes, this includes but are not limited to general mickey mouse tier imagery of heaven and hell (when in Orthodoxy they are thought to be states of soul depending on ones attitude towards love of God), "natural superiority of angels over humans" (a scholastic concept, though sometimes seen in works of several Russian theologians works), very judiciary attitude in faith and so on and so forth and general materialization of faith to say the least. Results are slowly eradicated and older concepts (like one about states of soul) are seen in certain Russian classics too, like talk of Elder Zosimas in "Brothers Karamazov". So church was leashed by the state and it enforced his own agendas on it, while denouncing Russian and older Orthodox traditions. If you read Dostoyevsky, or any classical Russian writer on themes mentioning Russian nobility at the time, you may notice that characters there have certain disdain towards Russian traditions, and are generally Francophillic and westernized. This is a result of reforms of Peter during which west was basically idolized and seen as something to be looked at in every sphere.

First of all because ever since Tsar Peter the great Russia manipulated the Orthodox hierarchy, replaced the Patriarch with a Synod and made it a sort of government branch completely submitted to its politics.
Second because the Russian empire invaded and mistreated many Christian people, oppressed them, and wanted to assimilate them into russians against their will. This is especially true for non Orthodox nations like Poland, but also for Georgia and other Orthodox people.
Poland even lost his name, it was called "Vistula Land" and subject to forced russification.

You don't quote Tsarism as an example opposed to the imperialistic exploiting west if it did the same things and even more brutally.

I haven't find a strict depiction of modalities of the election of the emperor. Do you have a site were a can find it ?
From what I have read for ferrare florence, it was because of the people and mostly of the opposition of the clergy, monks who took a strong role in it. So it's not "popular" in the modern term since it's thanks to the monks.
That's quite interesting, I need to learn a lot about it all.
I still think some powers are legitimately satanistic. So we can say providentially they are from God, but still, some take their power from the devil. Because providentially God let the devil have power over us (like in Job or the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh). John 12, 31 : Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. Satan isn't incarnated, he rule through sinner, still he rule and some type of powers are ruled by him more than others. So all powers are not legitimate. This doesn't mean we should rebel as moderns do. Maybe, indeed, if the president was more of a "monarch" or a "head" it would be better for the common good, I think it's the point of Rose, I don't think he is defending absolute monarchy or things like that.
I believe in spiritual egalitarianism but not in accidental egalitarianism. Though I don't think this word is proper in the first case, I only use it negatively. For example the women is the same before God as the men, yet now she must summit and be in-equal (and through this she will find equality in spiritual realization). The same for people of different classes, the stratifications holds most of the time.
Of course there is no precise political model reveled in christianity. Christ just says his "kingdom is not of this world". Yet, by monarchy I just designed a power with a strong head, as described in the OT. Of course the presidential system could go this way, whithout all these perverted lobbies eand media and false propaganda for "le power comes from people". So monarchy as "strong head" could be republican.

In fact, in France for example, some use the word semi-monarchical system for the presidential institution since the president have more power than in the united state. But I think that election by the people is a bad thing, let alone in our time, were people are lesser and lesser christian, and are manipulated by medias that are more and more anti-christian.

100%

Anyway modern democracies and voting are empty rituals. Power is entirely controlled by deep state bureucrats, bankers and oligarchs.
The power coming from below, from the people is just the rethoric to fool them into thinking they are in charge and accept the system.
While I disagree with Rose on monarchy, he's 100% correct about the criticism of the power from below.