The Struggle for Church Autonomy: Patriarchal Restoration and Monarchical Ideals in 1917–1918 > 자유게시판

• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

As the Russian Orthodox Church convened its historic council in 1917–1918 the question of patriarchate and monarchical principles stirred profound spiritual and ideological conflicts within the Russian Orthodox Church. With the collapse of the imperial regime in early 1917 the church found itself at a critical juncture. For centuries it had been subordinated to the autocratic regime with the emperor exercising control over church governance through the Holy Synod. The proposal to reinstate the patriarch which had been eliminated over two centuries earlier was no longer a abstract doctrinal ideal but a manifestation of ecclesiastical freedom. Numerous church leaders saw the patriarchate as indispensable for regaining spiritual legitimacy and freedom from secular domination. These discussions transcended administrative concerns but carried profound implications for the church’s identity in a unstable new era. Those resisting the move to reinstate the patriarch feared that such a move might make it a pawn in volatile power struggles or create a single figurehead who could become a target in the unpredictable revolutionary context. A contrasting perspective held that without a patriarch the church would lack unified leadership and public credibility. The notion of divine monarchy faced sharp critique. While some held fast to the belief that the church and state were bound by sacred covenant under the tsar others insisted that the church must now respond solely to divine authority and the faithful. The theological and political exchanges revealed a church struggling to balance orthodoxy with revolutionary change. The eventual decision to restore the patriarchate in November 1917 reflected not only a longing for historical continuity but also a bold assertion of spiritual sovereignty in a nation no longer governed by imperial rule. The election of Tikhon as the first patriarch in centuries was met with both hope and https://asbest.name/forum/46-13289-1 unease. The council continued to grapple with the legacy of monarchical ideology even as it moved toward a reconfigured spiritual governance. This was not merely a return to the past but a transformative reimagining of ecclesiastical autonomy in a post-monarchical world that would define its trajectory through the Soviet era.