Freedom of religion in Russia: Washington Post article
Alexander Arnakis
See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42763-2002Feb7.html
It's always a mistake to persecute cults like the Mormons or the
Jehovah's Witnesses. By doing so, you give them the martyrdom they are
seeking.
Let them compete in the "marketplace of ideas" and fall of their own
weight. The proper response is to mock them, not persecute them.
Angantyr
"Alexander Arnakis" <alexande...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:33986u8jh848c1uuj...@4ax.com...
Excellent post about the Church in Russia, Alexander.
Undeniably, there is great tension between the Orthodox faith and the
convert hungry Christian faiths of the west.
It is not just religious intolerance, but there is an honest desire to
protect the cultural (and religious) heritage of Russia.
Furthermore, there is a need to legislate against cults, for the protection
of the citizenry.
Paul.
++
Angantyr wrote:
We've had various discussions of the question on this netgroup before. One
point I have made myself is that transitional countries that have been denied
cultural heritage protection and expression under communism should be given a
bit of time to recover the use of their heritage before pitting it in the
marketplace, especially since there are sometimes economic advantages attached
to some of the Protestant denominations in said marketplace. I think the 15
year rule is appropriate. It is akin to allowing an abused woman to heal
before she dates.
Galina
Alexander Arnakis
>
>We've had various discussions of the question on this netgroup before. One
>point I have made myself is that transitional countries that have been denied
>cultural heritage protection and expression under communism should be given a
>bit of time to recover the use of their heritage before pitting it in the
>marketplace, especially since there are sometimes economic advantages attached
>to some of the Protestant denominations in said marketplace. I think the 15
>year rule is appropriate. It is akin to allowing an abused woman to heal
>before she dates.
>
religious freedom (as provided for formally in the Russian
constitution), or you don't.
Restricting the activities of "cults" is also bad policy, from a
utilitarian viewpoint. Something that might otherwise wither on the
vine will gain adherents if it can portray itself as suffering
martyrdom.
The answer for the Russian Church is to do a better job of proactively
stating its case. Blindly relying on tradition won't work.
Angantyr
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 19:40:29 -0500, ++ <arch...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >We've had various discussions of the question on this netgroup before.
One
> >point I have made myself is that transitional countries that have been
denied
> >cultural heritage protection and expression under communism should be
given a
> >bit of time to recover the use of their heritage before pitting it in the
> >marketplace, especially since there are sometimes economic advantages
attached
> >to some of the Protestant denominations in said marketplace. I think the
15
> >year rule is appropriate. It is akin to allowing an abused woman to heal
> >before she dates.
> >
> That's appalling, from a human rights perspective. Either you have
> religious freedom (as provided for formally in the Russian
> constitution), or you don't.
To heck with human rights. :-)
>
> Restricting the activities of "cults" is also bad policy, from a
> utilitarian viewpoint. Something that might otherwise wither on the
> vine will gain adherents if it can portray itself as suffering
> martyrdom.
Some cults will thrive no matter how insane or ludicrous they are, such as
the cults of Jim Jones and David Koresh. A failure to intervene can be as
dangerous as legislating against cults. On the whole, I prefer
intervention.
>
> The answer for the Russian Church is to do a better job of proactively
> stating its case. Blindly relying on tradition won't work.
The Russian Orthodox Church is at a HUGE disadvantage. Eighty years of
oppression has had its effects. It does not have the organizational
know-how to do a better job of stating its case. Furthermore, it is
impoverished. Even if it did have the know-how, it could not implement it.
In contrast, the western Churches are rich, well organized machines. It is
not a fair and level playing field.
Sadly, there is no simple answer.
++
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
Give it some time to open its churches first,
++
Angantyr wrote:
> The Russian Orthodox Church is at a HUGE disadvantage.
I absolutely agree. The Protestant religions, except the in place Baptists ,
have not had the double sword of persecution and martyrdom together with the
huge anti-sects campaign that was waged specifically against in place religions
in Russia. So, while the communist mindset dissolves, there are still people
educated against their heritage church. The CHurch should have a little time to
overcome the most of a century onslaught against it.
> Eighty years of
> oppression has had its effects. It does not have the organizational
> know-how to do a better job of stating its case. Furthermore, it is
> impoverished.
As in other communist transition countries, lands and properties which used to
sustain the Church were taken away and have not yet been systematically
returned. THe Russian Orthodox and other Orthodox were once in a position to
give charity and serve as an important social net . Today, only Protestant and
other religions abroad are in a position to do that. I've spoken to at least
two young people who were "missionaries" to Russia who told me that one of the
first things that "their" villagers did was to invite them to their local church
and tended to want to stay with their own religion unless there were jobs, i.e.
jobs with the Protestants.
JOH...@webtv.net
It would seem that Russia is slding back to its Soviet Days . Much of
this has been at the instigation of the Russian Orthodox church.Which
hungers for the power it had, even under STALIN as the only legal
religion in Russia.
Though it may come to rue this hunger.
T254
have you read nay books on Orthodoxy yet Johnny boy/ Your local library may
have a few.
Bob
robert G Tallick
Marina
What has been at the instigation of the Russian Orthodox Church? Where is
the source of your information?
Power it had under Stalin? Do you actually know how many practising Orthodox
Christians suffered, were tortured and killed under Stalin?
<JOH...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4447-3C6...@storefull-112.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
JOH...@webtv.net
Everyone knows that the Russian faithful and lower clergy
suffered under Stalin. At the same time the Hierarchy did'nt have it as
bad.The Russian Orthodox church was the Official church,it was the only
legal church. Bishops of the church left Russia, they worked at the
WCC,hell they visited the Pope.
Evan
<JOH...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20469-3C6...@storefull-118.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
And one wonders why they have no problem with Kuntsevitch and Stepanic.
Being executed is not having it too bad for Johnyj2.
Under Stalin the Russian Orthodox Church was down to what, 3 bishops? Maybe
a few more in prison camps who would never see freedom again.
No, the hierarchy did not have it as bad at all.
Evan
T254
>> Everyone knows that the Russian faithful and >>lower clergy
>> suffered under Stalin. At the same time the >>Hierarchy did'nt have it
>as
>> bad.
And now for the REAL WORLD Johhny boy:
From KGB Archives new evidence reveals Soviets tortured, killed 200,000 clergy
-
MOSCOW [RNS] - Some 200,000 Orthodox clergy of all ranks, many crucified,
scalped and other wise tortured, were killed during the communist era in the
former Soviet Union, a Russian commission reported here November 27, 1995.
Another 500,000 believers were persecuted and 40,000 churches were destroyed
between 1922 and 1980 the report said.
"Clergymen were crucified on churches 'Holy Gates', shot scalped and
strangled," said Alexander Yakovlev, head of the Commission for the
Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Repression which prepared the report
of Russian President Boris Yeltsin. "I was especially shocked by accounts of
priest AND BISHOPS turned into columns of ice in winter, "Yakovlev continued,
adding that the commission unearthed documents showing that as early as 1918
Vladimir Lenin had ordered a campaign of "merciless terror against priests,
BISHOPS, and Nuns."
Bob
robert G Tallick
Babai
Obviously, Johny was talking about the present hierarchy. You know,
"paragons of virtue" like Alexi who worked for/with the people who
sent the decent ones to prison.
But, oh yes, Evan the Seer is a better judge of internal,
internationally accepted KGB files documenting Alexi's activities than
are the good people at the Keston Institute out of oxford, the
Guardian, the Irish Times, etc. etc. etc.
Isn't that so : ))))
(is it pleasant for you, Evan, with your head buried in the sand? So
dark and comforting for you away from the harsh glare of truth)
Babai
> Evan
thomas lanzerstorfer
T254 wrote:
It would be nice if You could detail the numbers for years but at least for
decades.
When was the last Bishop executed/murdered?
Best Regards
Thomas
T254
>for
>decades.
>
>When was the last Bishop executed/murdered?
I have no idea. What I am quoting from is a 'Religious News Service' article
from the paper.
Seems like they were committed to aslyums for drug therapy towards the end
instead of being executed.
Bob
Bob
robert G Tallick
thomas lanzerstorfer
T254 wrote:
Can You give more details about this?
Do You know names of priests and bishops, persecuted between lets say 1960 and
1990?
Thomas Lanzerstorfer
T254
>
>Do You know names of priests and bishops, persecuted between lets say 1960
>and
>1990?
>
>Thomas Lanzerstorfer
There is a book out called 'Russia's catacomb Saints' published by ROCOR that
gives the stories of many martyred for the Orthodox faith. Included are many
Bishops of the Church.
Bob
robert G Tallick
++
T254 wrote:
THen there was the taking of peoples' minds and souls with the unrelenting campaign
for atheism, branding of religions as cults, necessity to renounce religion to be a
young pioneer, get a job, get into university, etc.
Evan
"T254" <t2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020214170155...@mb-mf.aol.com...
> There is a book out called 'Russia's catacomb Saints' published by ROCOR
that
> gives the stories of many martyred for the Orthodox faith. Included are
many
> Bishops of the Church.
In addition, let's not forget Gleb Yakunin and Fr. Dutko. They were from
the time period of the 70's to 1990.
And of course there were others.
Evan
Evan
"Babai" <bab...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:86dd2bf2.02021...@posting.google.com...
>
> Obviously, Johny was talking about the present hierarchy.
What he wrote was:
"Everyone knows that the Russian faithful and lower clergy
suffered under Stalin. At the same time the Hierarchy did'nt have it as
bad."
So, obviously, he wasn't.
Evan
thomas lanzerstorfer
T254 wrote:
It would be nice if You can give at least a ISBN number, I'm from Europe as my
email address indicates, so I can't go round the next corner to get this book.
Thomas
JOH...@webtv.net
under Stalin in the 1940's. The original persection after the
Revoloution of 1917 was of course more widespread and vicious.Although
one of the reasons behind it was the Orthodox churchs position as a
govt. dept. that supported the Monarchy.
T254
We have posters like Johnny Boy in here whining about the lack of freedom for
Roman Catholics in predominately Orthodox countries. But at the same time we
have the restoration of the RC Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception going on
in Moscow the capital of Russia, we have the building of a large Ukrainian
Uniate cathedral in Kiev the capital of Ukraine and a predominately Orthodox
city, we have the building for two or three large Roman Catholic Cathedrals in
Siberia.
Now, lets look at the other side of the coin in the west and specifically Rome,
Italy. Here is an English translation of that website someone posted regarding
the building of a Russian Orthodox Church on Russian embassy grounds in Rome.
Wanna bet who is really behind this?
Another example of Roman Catholic double standards.
Bob
=========================================
Feb. 02, 2002
Italia Nostra organization demands to block the project of erecting an
Orthodox Church on the territory of the Russian Embassy in Italy
Rome
Italia Nostra organization, that "cares about the preservation of the
architectural and natural landscapes in Italy in their 'original' form",
demanded to block the project of erecting an Orthodox Church on the
territory of the Russian Embassy "Abamelek" in Rome. A declaration of this
society published on February 1, 2002 states that "if this project is
developed it will violate the principle of inviolability of historical parks
and villas". In these regards Italia Nostra has sent a protest to Juliano
Urbani, the Minister of Preservation of the Cultural Monuments. In
accordance with the design of the proposed temple prepared by Andrew
Obolenskii the main Cross of the temple built on the territory of Villa
Abamelek, which is positioned on a hill adjacent to Vatican, will reach a
point only eight meters below the top of the main Cross of the Cathedral of
St. Peter, which is the main cathedral in Vatican. The distance between the
Catholic basilica and the Orthodox temple will be less than a kilometer. The
first stone of the Church of the Holy Martyr Catherine was laid in the
ground in January 2001 by Igor Ivanov, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Russia. If the construction goes in accordance with the plan this temple
will be visible practically from every point of the Eternal City. This
situation is greatly disliked by the aficionado of Roman vintage.
robert G Tallick
Dushevno
>Revoloution of 1917 was of course more widespread and vicious.Although
>one of the reasons behind it was the Orthodox churchs position as a
>govt. dept. that supported the Monarchy.
And the Roman Catholic Church did not support the monarchies of France
Austria-Hungary, Spain, et al., etc?
Gerard Serafin
>We have posters like Johnny Boy in here whining
about the lack of freedom for
> Roman Catholics in predominately Orthodox
countries. But at the same time we
> have the restoration of the RC Cathedral of the
Immaculate Conception going on
> in Moscow the capital of Russia, we have the
building of a large Ukrainian
> Uniate cathedral in Kiev the capital of Ukraine
and a predominately Orthodox
> city, we have the building for two or three
large Roman Catholic Cathedrals in
> Siberia.
>
> Now, lets look at the other side of the coin in
the west and specifically Rome,
> Italy. Here is an English translation of that
website someone posted regarding
> the building of a Russian Orthodox Church on
Russian embassy grounds in Rome.
> Wanna bet who is really behind this?
> Another example of Roman Catholic double
standards.
It is truly incredible to equate the way the
Catholic west has "permitted" Orthodox churches,
cathedrals, seminaries, monasteries, etc. etc.
with the whining and complaining of the
Patriarchate of Moscow regarding Catholic
institutions. Yes, there is a Catholic cathedral
in Moscow (however, it can't been seen from every
point of Moscow contrary to the new RO church in
Rome which is being built on a gorgeous park and
can be seen from every part of Rome).
Who is behind the protest? You seem to say the
Catholic Church. Yet don't forget the Pope offered
the Moscow Patriarchate the use of the church in
Rome just as he did for the Ecumenical
Patriarchate (which took up the offer unlike
Moscow).
Haven't heard yet of Alexei offering any Orthodox
facilities to the Catholics in Moscow or anywhere
in Russia. Despite the fact that the Catholic
charity, Aid to the Church in Need, has given
$17,000,000 to the RO Church (haven't heard too
many thanks about that, have you?).
There is indeed a double standard at work here. I
think it's pretty clear who is practicing it.
T254
>in Moscow (however, it can't been seen from every
>point of Moscow contrary to the new RO church in
>Rome which is being built on a gorgeous park and
>can be seen from every part of Rome).
So what does that have to do with religion in general? That really bugs you,
doesn't it?
> Yet don't forget the Pope offered
>the Moscow Patriarchate the use of the church in
>Rome just as he did for the Ecumenical
>Patriarchate (which took up the offer unlike
>Moscow).
As a bribe perhaps? Freedom of religion includes the right to build a church
wherever and whenever one wants providing the land it's built on is owned by
the builder. In this case it is being built on Russian soil since its on the
Russian embassy grounds. Italy, Rome, or even the Pope should have no say over
the matter.
>Haven't heard yet of Alexei offering any Orthodox
>facilities to the Catholics in Moscow or anywhere
>in Russia.
Kind of a dumb statement coming from you Gerard. You are comparing apples and
oranges. perhaps it's because His Holiness is too busy rebuilding and/or
repairing churches to try and keep up with the rapid rebirth of Orthodoxy in
Russia.
As you are well aware Rome didn't have it's churches blown up or converted into
barns, bars. latrines, etc. like Moscow and any other city, town, or village in
Moscow did.
It's amazing how you Roman Catholics apply the same standards towards those who
suffered directly under communist governments and control and those who didn't.
>Despite the fact that the Catholic
>charity, Aid to the Church in Need, has given
>$17,000,000 to the RO Church (haven't heard too
>many thanks about that, have you?).
Maybe we are waiting to see what the price tag will be. And there will be a
price tag. There always has been. There always will be. Over a thousand years
of RC aggression has taught us that.
Bob
robert G Tallick
Marina
The Roman Catholic Church in Athens - St. Dionysios (Denys) is right in the
very centre of town opposite the central Bank and was actually given to the
Roman Catholics by the Greek Royal Family and is a tourist attraction
included in most tours of the city. It is a large, imposing neo-classical
building - you cannot miss it!
Whereas in Rome, Greeks had to share with the Russians then aquired a small
premises, then a couple of years ago the Patriarch of Constantinople was
given permission to use the tiny little church san Teodoro - which doesn't
belong to the Greek Community, and apparently is inaccessible much of the
time.
The parishoners are mainly Greek students studying medicine in Italy, and
members of the diplomatic community.
Gerard Serafin
news:pZtb8.775$yY1.6...@news-text.cableinet.net
...
> There are loads of comparisons that could be
made...
> The Roman Catholic Church in Athens - St.
Dionysios (Denys) is right in the
> very centre of town opposite the central Bank
and was actually given to the
> Roman Catholics by the Greek Royal Family and is
a tourist attraction
> included in most tours of the city. It is a
large, imposing neo-classical
> building - you cannot miss it!
If this is the case, fine. It was, if true, a gift
of the Royal Family, not of the Orthodox Church.
But the fact is that Catholics still do not have
full rights in Greece. To this day. There was
another protest by the Catholic community
recently.
> Whereas in Rome, Greeks had to share with the
Russians then aquired a small
> premises, then a couple of years ago the
Patriarch of Constantinople was
> given permission to use the tiny little church
san Teodoro - which doesn't
> belong to the Greek Community, and apparently is
inaccessible much of the
> time.
> The parishoners are mainly Greek students
studying medicine in Italy, and
> members of the diplomatic community.
But yet in Bari the Catholics built an Orthodox
chapel at the Shrine of St Nicholas. And Orthodox
have full rights in Italy.
--
Gerard Serafin
Celebrating the romance of orthodoxy:
A Catholic Page for Lovers:
http://praiseofglory.com
"Do not read good books; read *great* books!":
http://praiseofglory.com/books.htm
"God does not want golden vessels
but golden hearts" (St John Chrysostom)
T254
>chapel at the Shrine of St Nicholas. And Orthodox
>have full rights in Italy.
That's the least they could do considering how they obtained his body in the
first place.
Bob
robert G Tallick
Marina
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2002/02/14/002.html
Thursday, Feb. 14, 2002. Page 1
Catholic, Orthodox Ties Reach New Low
By Andrei Zolotov Jr.
Staff Writer Pope John Paul II's decision this week to upgrade the Roman
Catholic Church's status in Russia will do little to change the rights of
Catholic believers here. But by setting up a full-fledged Catholic Church in
Russia, the pope has shed all but a few of the ecumenical niceties in the
Vatican's approach to the Russian Orthodox Church and has raised new
questions about a papal visit.
The Russian Orthodox Church's Moscow Patriarchate, stopping short of
cutting off all relations with the Vatican, indefinitely postponed Wednesday
a visit by the Vatican's chief ecumenical official, Cardinal Walter Kasper,
who was scheduled to arrive Feb. 21 to meet with Russian Orthodox head
Patriarch Alexy II.
Patriarch Alexy's consent is needed for the pope's long-desired visit
to Russia. President Vladimir Putin said last month that he was prepared to
invite the pope at "any minute," but for that to happen, relations between
the two churches would have to improve.
Igor Vyzhanov, the Moscow Patriarchate official in charge of relations
with the Vatican, said the pope's decision to set up Catholic dioceses
dashed hopes that he would come any time soon. "It moves us away, in fact
very far away, from the prospect of a visit," he said.
Putin's remarks about the possibility of a papal visit -- combined
with the pressure that governments of predominantly Orthodox Georgia and
Greece have exerted on their Orthodox churches to agree to papal visits --
have fueled speculation in Moscow that Putin and the Vatican may have agreed
behind Alexy's back to go ahead with a visit.
Vyzhanov denied the talk. "We have a complete mutual understanding
with the government on this matter," he said.
In a letter to Kasper on Wednesday, his Russian Orthodox counterpart,
Metropolitan Kirill, said the Vatican's decision meant the planned talks
"would not be able to achieve their main goal -- a real solution to problems
existing between the two churches and a radical improvement of relations
between them," Interfax reported.
The Moscow Patriarchate on Tuesday declared the decision a "challenge"
to Orthodoxy, accusing the Vatican of trying to poach Orthodox believers.
The Vatican announced Monday that it had upgraded its four "apostolic
administrations" into full-fledged dioceses united in an "ecclesiastical
province" under the guidance of a Moscow-based metropolitan, Archbishop
Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz.
Under Russian civil law, apostolic administrations are already
registered as centralized religious organizations, and a switch to dioceses
will mean little more than the registration of a new name.
But under Catholic Church law, the change is significant.
"Today we can say that at last Russia has received normal Catholic
structures similar to those that exist in other countries," Kondrusiewicz
said in a statement.
At a news conference Tuesday, Kondrusiewicz said the Vatican was
simply restoring structures that existed in Russia before the 1917
Revolution and giving "confidence" to Russian Catholics, who hope to welcome
the pope one day on Russian soil.
However, the two dioceses that existed before 1917 in what is today
Russia did not form a province and served the needs of Catholics who moved
or were exiled to the Russian heartland from Poland, Lithuania, Germany and
other traditionally Catholic areas.
The Foreign Ministry has also criticized the Vatican's decision. After
being notified Feb. 4, the Russian government tried to convince the Vatican
to hold off for talks with the Russian Orthodox Church, "taking into account
that this issue chiefly concerns interchurch relations and might become a
reason for their serious exacerbation."
So what exactly is at issue?
While titles and forms of church government mean little to outsiders,
they are of utmost importance for the two ancient and theologically closest
churches, which split in 1054. Orthodox sensitivity to the status of
Catholics is based on the fact that Orthodox view Catholics as a separated
but real church and Catholic bishops as real bishops who, like their
Orthodox counterparts, have retained the line of succession dating back to
the apostles.
At the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, the Catholic Church
recognized the Orthodox as "sister churches," with the right means for
salvation. Since then, two opposing logics -- and apparently two parties --
have emerged in the Vatican: one seeking a closer relationship with the
Orthodox in hopes of finding unity through theological dialogue and
cooperation, and the other seeking to expand the Catholic Church.
With this dual approach, Russian Catholics found themselves caught
between a rock and a hard place. A source in the Catholic Church in Russia
said that although Russian Catholics are pleased about their church's raised
status, the timing of the decision leaves them perplexed.
"We are sitting here trying to guess: Either there are some stupid
people making decisions in the Vatican or they have some very deep
motivation that we cannot yet understand," said the source, speaking on
condition of anonymity.
For the Orthodox, the Vatican's decision marks the creation of a rival
church.
"The founding of an 'ecclesiastical province' in essence means the
creation of a Catholic Church in Russia centered in Moscow that claims to
have as its flock the Russian people, who are culturally, spiritually and
historically the flock of the Russian Orthodox Church," Patriarch Alexy said
Tuesday in a joint statement with the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox
Church.
The statement said the Vatican's decision revealed its "missionary
aims" in Russia.
The Vatican, however, picked a rarely used practice to show respect
for the Orthodox Church and its bishops. Instead of naming the Catholic
dioceses after Russian cities, where there already are Orthodox bishops, it
named them after the saints to whom Catholic cathedrals in these cities are
dedicated. For example, Kondrusiewicz's new title is Archbishop of the
Archdiocese of Our Lady in Moscow and Metropolitan in Moscow -- not "of
Moscow," which is Patriarch Alexy's title.
The other three Catholic dioceses are based in Saratov, Novosibirsk
and Irkutsk.
Yet Orthodox officials are not satisfied.
"If they called them the Bishop of Novosibirsk, etc., that would have
meant clearly that the Orthodox bishop of Novosibirsk was inadequate," said
Archpriest Maxim Kozlov, who teaches comparative theology at the Moscow
Theological Seminary.
"But even the way it is, there is an evident reorientation of the
[church's] course and an attempt to revise the tradition of the Second
Vatican Council. The message is this: We no longer have a goal of a closer
relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church, but we will be chipping away
at it in bits and pieces."
Kondrusiewicz denied accusations of proselytizing. "I do not recognize
the term 'canonical territory,'" he said. "Christ did not divide the world
into territories. He said, 'Go and teach all nations.'"
Curiously, both Patriarch Alexy and Metropolitan Kirill were out of
Moscow when the Vatican's ambassador in Russia, Archbishop Giorgio Zur,
notified the patriarchate and the Foreign Ministry of the decision.
A Vatican diplomat in Moscow said the timing was simply a coincidence.
"It happened now because the [Catholic] church has matured," he said.
A Moscow Patriarchate diplomat said the decision was likely the result
of a lack of coordination between different departments and the two parties
in the Vatican. "The Vatican is not a homogenous organization," the official
said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "While one party wanted to improve
relations with us, the other wanted something else."
Kondrusiewicz said there are 600,000 Roman Catholics in Russia. He
said 212 registered Roman Catholic congregations celebrate Mass in about 150
churches and chapels.
About two-thirds of Russians describe themselves as Orthodox, but only
1 percent to 4 percent regularly attend services. Of the Moscow
Patriarchate's 22,000 parishes, about half are located in Russia.
Marina
"Gerard Serafin" <jer...@home.com> wrote in message
news:aivb8.66853$8d1.20...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> "Marina" <mmr...@mailbox.gr> wrote in message
> news:pZtb8.775$yY1.6...@news-text.cableinet.net
> ...
> > There are loads of comparisons that could be
> made...
>
> > The Roman Catholic Church in Athens - St.
> Dionysios (Denys) is right in the
> > very centre of town opposite the central Bank
> and was actually given to the
> > Roman Catholics by the Greek Royal Family and is
> a tourist attraction
> > included in most tours of the city. It is a
> large, imposing neo-classical
> > building - you cannot miss it!
>
> If this is the case, fine. It was, if true, a gift
> of the Royal Family, not of the Orthodox Church.
It is true - you can look it up if you like.
I clearly stated that it was a gift of the Royal Family. Why nitpick?
In fact, at the time it was given the Orthodox Churh was actually persecuted
by the state (Bavarian royalty) - in that monasteries were forcibly closed
and freedom of worship was limited, the Church being forced to become a
department of state - under Mauer's reforms.
> But the fact is that Catholics still do not have
> full rights in Greece.
They have complete freedom of worship - as laid out in the constitution.
>To this day. There was
> another protest by the Catholic community
> recently.
>
About what exactly? That they cannot be recognised with the title
Archbishop of Athens - since there already is one - Archbishop
Christodoulos. Nevertheless, legal recognition - more a legal oversight than
anything deliberate - was granted in July 2000.
The protests are not actually about anything of substance - but are part of
a concerted effort to blacken the name of the Orthodox. If you examine them
in the light of day, and move beyond the rhetoric, that is most obvious.
It is, in fact, not the Church, but the State, that makes the laws.
Many are outdated - much like British ones - where it is obligatory (by law
at least) for every taxi to carry a bundle of hay. In practice, of course,
no one is arrested. Some laws in Greece are like that - but in practice are
not carried out, or ignored. Many of these are obverted by Governmental
directives.
Regarding titles, the same situation holds in England - where the Roman
Catholics do not have a bishop of London, but have a Bishop of Westminster
instead.
Not only that, but the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic and there are
restrictions to other offices too.
Perhaps, your protests should be further west.
In fact, the Catholic community in Greece's protests would be much like
British Roman Catholics complaining about the restrictions placed on
Catholics there. The only difference being, the British ones would be more
valid!
> > Whereas in Rome, Greeks had to share with the
> Russians then aquired a small
> > premises, then a couple of years ago the
> Patriarch of Constantinople was
> > given permission to use the tiny little church
> san Teodoro - which doesn't
> > belong to the Greek Community, and apparently is
> inaccessible much of the
> > time.
>
> > The parishoners are mainly Greek students
> studying medicine in Italy, and
> > members of the diplomatic community.
>
> But yet in Bari the Catholics built an Orthodox
> chapel at the Shrine of St Nicholas.
It's actually a UNIATE chapel - not Orthodox. Get your 'facts' straight!
> And Orthodox
> have full rights in Italy.
So do Roman Catholics in Greece. In fact, the Orthodox Church never has had
the same exalted status that the Vatican Church has had in the Italian
constitution
Marina
>
> "Gerard Serafin" <jer...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:aivb8.66853$8d1.20...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> > "Marina" <mmr...@mailbox.gr> wrote in message
> > news:pZtb8.775$yY1.6...@news-text.cableinet.net
> > full rights in Greece.
They do - and certainly more rights than they do in say, Britain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_529000/529227.stm
Saturday, 20 November, 1999, 05:10 GMT
Catholic monarchy ban 'to continue'
Catholics have been barred from the throne for 300 years
Ministers are "mystified" by reports they are planning to change a
300-year-old law to allow Catholics to ascend the throne, Downing Street has
said.
The 1701 Act of Settlement prohibits any Catholic from becoming King or
Queen, or marrying the heir to the throne.
A spokesman denied a report that the government was ready to back a move in
the House of Lords to amend the Act.
Former Solicitor General and Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and
former Scottish Secretary Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, have said they will
present a bill in the new session of Parliament.
Lord Forsyth said: "Lord Fraser and I will be introducing a bill in the
House of Lords to amend the Act of Settlement so that it ends the anomaly
whereby it is perfectly legal for the monarch to marry a Buddhist, a Hindu
or even a Moonie, but not a Roman Catholic.
"In view of the briefings that have been given, we look to the government to
indicate they would support it."
'Complicated to alter'
But a Downing Street spokesman said: "As far as we are concerned, there is
no basis in fact for this. The position has not changed."
Tony Blair, in response to an inquiry, recently explained that changing the
law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces
of legislation.
The PM, whose wife Cherie is a Roman Catholic, added: "The central point of
the Act of Settlement is that the Established Church in England is the
Church of England, of which the Sovereign is Supreme Governor.
"Therefore the Act does not prevent members of the Royal Family from
becoming or marrying Roman Catholics, but does remove them from the line of
succession."
Since then, the government has set out a heavy legislative programme for 28
bills in the Queen's Speech, leaving far too little parliamentary time in
the current session to carry through such an ambitious measure.
Gerard Serafin
> > But yet in Bari the Catholics built an
Orthodox
> > chapel at the Shrine of St Nicholas.
> It's actually a UNIATE chapel - not Orthodox.
Get your 'facts' straight!
Sorry, Marina, but you're the one whose facts are
crooked. Mine are quite straight.
Visit:
http://itesnicola.op.org/basilica/ochapel.htm
In fact, not long ago there was a huge fight
between the ROC and the ROCOR over use of this
chapel. I believe the MP won.
Marina
> "Marina" <mmr...@mailbox.gr> wrote
>
> > > But yet in Bari the Catholics built an
> Orthodox
> > > chapel at the Shrine of St Nicholas.
> > It's actually a UNIATE chapel - not Orthodox.
> Get your 'facts' straight!
>
> Sorry, Marina, but you're the one whose facts are
> crooked. Mine are quite straight.
>
> Visit:
> http://itesnicola.op.org/basilica/ochapel.htm
>
> In fact, not long ago there was a huge fight
> between the ROC and the ROCOR over use of this
> chapel. I believe the MP won.
>
Really! Is that why the picture shows Rumanian priests?
Icons by a Croat and a page saying how the Church belongs to the
DOMINICANS!!!
"It is now fortysix years, since by divine providence the Church has
entrusted to the Order of Preachers the great basilica of Bari that guards
jealously the venerated relic of the Saint of Myra. The link between St.
Nicholas and the Order continues once more, and the friars preachers
indefatigably propagate the devotion to this saint from the east who is
reposed in the west. The Dominicans in Bari work above all for the unity of
the sister churches, Catholic and Orthodox, because St. Nicholas is a saint
of the undivided church"
http://itesnicola.op.org/basilica/Opnic-en.htm
In fact, this is what the page you submitted says:
The presence of the Orthodox Chapel expresses in a very real sense the
ecumenical vocation of the city of Bari and the Basilica of St. Nicholas.
Following the wave of reform brought about by the Second Vatican Council and
the reapproachment of the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox
Sister Churches, the Holy See saw it opportune to grant the request of the
Dominican Order and of the then archbishop of Bari, His Excellency Enrico
Nicodemo, to house in the Basilica an oriental chapel where the orthodox
pilgrims and faithful who come to the Basilica may celebrate their divine
liturgy. The chapel was built at the left wing of the crypt-tomb of St.
Nicholas of Myra-Bari,
In 1969, Paolo Cardinal Giobbe, and the then archimendrite Gennadios Zervos
blessed the chapel. The Cardinal said: "This is the first time that a chapel
was erected in a latin church specifically in order that the oriental
liturgy could be celebrated. This reality certainly is one of the many
fruits of the Ecumenical Council." Two years afterwards Archbishop Nicodemo
e the Dominicans founded also an institute for ecumenical and patristic
studies called the Istituto di Teologia Ecumenico-Patristica Greco-Bizantina
"S. Nicola" where professors, scholars and students, whether Catholic or
Orthodox, could teach, do research and study together in the spirit of
fraternal friendship.
[Basically, it is considered to be a UNIATE institute]
The iconastasis was made specifically for the occassion by the renowned
Croatian painter Zlatko Latkovic, who also made an iconastasis for the
orthodox chapel in Berlin. One thing that immediately attracts the attention
of the latins when they visit the chapel is the INBI inscription above the
icon crucifix. Whereas they are used to seeing the INRI (Jesus Nazarenus Rex
Iudeorum) they now see an INBI. The explanation is quite simple: Basileus is
the Greek word for the Latin Rex.
Adapted from the book
La Basilica di S. Nicola: Breve Guida Storico-Artistica
by Fr. Gerardo Cioffari, op
Centro Studi Nicolaiani
Bari, 1996
The Russian Church you refer to is another building altogether! Bought by
Russians!
"The Russian Orthodox Church of Saint Nicholas in Bari, Italy, was founded
in 1911 by the V. Rev. Father Ioann Vostorgov, a future New Martyr of
Russia. This is the only Orthodox church located in the city where the
Wonderworker's relics repose and it is therefore invaluable for the entire
Orthodox Church."
It appears that this is a Church OWNED by the Domenicans which has a corner
(chapel) where the Orthodox may worship. It appears that it is the
Ecumenical Patriarchate that the Domenicans allow to worship in their
Church!
http://web.tin.it/ortodossia/
However, the Basilica is not Orthodox, and the attendant institute certainly
isn't.
JOH...@webtv.net
The Ukraine is not Russia,lets get that straight.Second why are
they building a Church on the grounds of the Russian Embassy? it was
only in Russia that people had to go to foreign embassies to to
excercise their religion. we are talking about Italy.
Third its not the business of the Russian govt. to be building
churchs,at all.
Gerard Serafin
et...
> > > > But yet in Bari the Catholics built an
> > Orthodox
> > > > chapel at the Shrine of St Nicholas.
> > > It's actually a UNIATE chapel - not
Orthodox.
> > Get your 'facts' straight!
> >
> > Sorry, Marina, but you're the one whose facts
are
> > crooked. Mine are quite straight.
> >
> > Visit:
> > http://itesnicola.op.org/basilica/ochapel.htm
> >
> > In fact, not long ago there was a huge fight
> > between the ROC and the ROCOR over use of this
> > chapel. I believe the MP won.
> Really! Is that why the picture shows Rumanian
priests?
> Icons by a Croat and a page saying how the
Church belongs to the
> DOMINICANS!!!
You said the chapel was a Uniate chapel. You are
wrong. It is for the use of the Orthodox -- who do
use it. But I did conflate the ROC and ROCOR fight
with this chapel. It was indeed a separate
building as you mention. You're not always wrong!
:-)
> The Russian Church you refer to is another
building altogether! Bought by
> Russians!
> It appears that this is a Church OWNED by the
Domenicans which has a corner
> (chapel) where the Orthodox may worship. It
appears that it is the
> Ecumenical Patriarchate that the Domenicans
allow to worship in their
> Church!
> http://web.tin.it/ortodossia/
But there is a picture as you mention of a
Rumanian Orthodox priest celebrating in the
chapel. I suspect the Dominicans offer the chapel
for the use of all Orthodox groups who come to the
Basilica.
> However, the Basilica is not Orthodox, and the
attendant institute certainly
> isn't.
Never said it was. But it is a rather beautiful
gesture to have built a chapel for the use of the
Orthodox. I am not aware of any Orthodox church
building a chapel inside for use of the Catholics.
Marina
> "Marina" <mmr...@mailbox.gr> wrote in message
> news:gWAb8.1342$Xn3.10...@news-text.cableinet.n
> et...
>
They have GIVEN whole builings....
JOH...@webtv.net
does'nt mean you have to Be Catholic or that if your British you have to
be Anglican.
It is the Catholic church that has tried for years to improve relations
with the Russian church and its the Russian church that has
been,hostile.
JOH...@webtv.net
The Catholic church is not the state religion of the Italian
Republic,not for I believe the last 18 years.
The Greek orthodox church is the state religion of the Greek Socialist
Republic. As the Russian Church is soon to be the Russian state
religion.
I was not aware of any complaints by any Orthodox church to the Italian
govt. over permission to build any church any place in Italy.
Unlike Greece where the permission of the local Orthodox bishop is
necessary for the building of any non-orthodox church.
Also Grece has been cited by the Human Rights court of the EU for
violating Freedom of Religion.
Marina
Marina
<JOH...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25627-3C7...@storefull-111.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Marina ( Feb. 16th posting )
> The Catholic church is not the state religion of the Italian
> Republic,not for I believe the last 18 years.
Ah, but it was -
> The Greek orthodox church is the state religion of the Greek Socialist
> Republic.
Pardon? Where did you get that from? Two incorrect points in one statement -
wow Johnny you are surpassing yourself!!
1. The Greek Orthodox Church is not the state religion. The Greek
constituion is clear about the freedom of all religion. It is described as
the prevailing religion because over 95% of the population belong to it.
2. Greece is not a Socialist Republic. It is a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC - which
happens to have a democratically elected Socialist Govt., which, you will be
pleased to hear, does its best to undermine the Church. It is not
'socialist' in the Soviet sense, but is part of the centre left in Europe -
with policies similar to the socialist governmentt of Britain and other EU
countries.
> Unlike Greece where the permission of the local Orthodox bishop is
> necessary for the building of any non-orthodox church.
And London cab drivers are obliged to keep a bale of hay on their cabs!
What do I mean, it is an outdated law that is no longer practised. Last
year, all outstanding applications for places of worship were approved by
the Government without recourse to an Orthodox BIshop. Apparently, this has
always been the case in practise. A government directive actually states
that. The law was written at a time when it was assumed that any place of
worship would be Orthodox. It has not been enforced since democracy was
restored in Greece - and the current "Socialist Govt." is about to update
the laws - with the agreement of the Church.
thomas lanzerstorfer
To some degree yes, but the Catholic church was also in a position to
critizice/resist a monarchy if things went wrong. Look just at the tensions
between Joseph II and the Church. Joseph II wanted a (state)church (but didn't
get it) as the Orthodox churches always were in relation to the government.
Thomas
thomas lanzerstorfer
> > Yet don't forget the Pope offered
> >the Moscow Patriarchate the use of the church in
> >Rome just as he did for the Ecumenical
> >Patriarchate (which took up the offer unlike
> >Moscow).
> As a bribe perhaps? Freedom of religion includes the right to build a church
> wherever and whenever one wants providing the land it's built on is owned by
> the builder. In this case it is being built on Russian soil since its on the
> Russian embassy grounds. Italy, Rome, or even the Pope should have no say over
> the matter.
But for sure not unconditionally but according to local building standards,
architectural and city planing points of view.
Otherwise the Saudis could buy some land near the White House and build a mosque
with a 300 meters dome and 600 meter minarets, and Your Mr. President (whoever
he/she is called at that time) would have to live in their shadow and depending on
the position it would be impossible to start and land at Andrews? airport.
Thomas
thomas lanzerstorfer
You also forgot to mention father Alexander Men, who was murdered in the late
80ties.
Thats 3 out of a much higher number Bob claimed for a longer period. This just
indicates, that at least more than 90 % of the victims where murdered in the
very begining of the communist revolution. Later on, after the hierarchy and
the new government "got used to each other" in facing the big patriotic war (WW
II) things changed almost to the opposit, and only very conscientious Orthodox
priests catheched the eys of KGB and others.
Thomas
ps.: Bob, maybe I missed Your response, but I'm still waiting for an ISBN
number of this book
thomas lanzerstorfer
thomas lanzerstorfer
> It appears that this is a Church OWNED by the Domenicans.
How old is this church? If it's older than some 200 years I'm about sure its
OWNED by the republic of Italy, because the republic of Italy owns all
historical valuable buildings.
Besides a lot of dissadvantages this has the advantage, that the republic was in
charge to rebuild the Cathedral of Assisi which was destroied in an earthquacke
some years ago.
Thomas
T254
>number of this book
You did. I don't know the ISBN number of the book. I read it awhile back.
However, for you I have gone thru my stored books in the attic.
Russia's Catacomb Saints (Lives of the New Martyrs - 1918-1982by Ivan Andreyev)
published 1982 by Saint Herman of Alaska Press, Platina, California
Library of Congress Cataloging In Publication Data
Library Catalogue # 82-60241
>Could You clarify father Gleb Yakunins standing with the orthodox church
>now?
As far as I know he was defrocked for his political ambitions.
>Later on, after the hierarchy and
>the new government "got used to each other" in facing the big patriotic
>war (WW
>II) things changed almost to the opposit, and only very conscientious Orthodox
>priests catheched the eys of KGB and others.
Tactics may have changed but what you are saying is an insult to all those
Orthodox priests that were imprisioned, exiled, put in insane aslyums, and
forced to go under drug therapy. Look what they did to Fr Dutko.
Bob
robert G Tallick
T254
>architectural and city planing points of view.
The church will be built on what is legally Russian soil which are not subject
to the cities building codes. However, it's no big deal. There are plenty of
byzantine architectal designs that could be used to blend in with the decor of
the city which has many byzantine style structures. Either way the church will
be built and will be seen from all parts of the city because of its location.
Bob
robert G Tallick
Evan
"thomas lanzerstorfer" <thomas.lan...@siemens.at> wrote in message
news:3C743708...@siemens.at...
> Could You clarify father Gleb Yakunins standing with the orthodox church
now?
He was deposed and is no longer an Orthodox Catholic priest.
As for numbers, there were more, some better known that others. I simply
mentioned the few that came to mind right away who would be well known to
those here.
Evan
thomas lanzerstorfer
> >ps.: Bob, maybe I missed Your response, but I'm still waiting for an ISBN
> >number of this book
>
> You did. I don't know the ISBN number of the book. I read it awhile back.
> However, for you I have gone thru my stored books in the attic.
>
> Russia's Catacomb Saints (Lives of the New Martyrs - 1918-1982by Ivan Andreyev)
> published 1982 by Saint Herman of Alaska Press, Platina, California
>
> Library of Congress Cataloging In Publication Data
>
> Library Catalogue # 82-60241
Can You tell me an easy way how to get a book from the library of Congress (of the
USA) here in Europe, more specifically in Austria?
> >Could You clarify father Gleb Yakunins standing with the orthodox church
> >now?
> As far as I know he was defrocked for his political ambitions.
When, do You have moer details?
> >Later on, after the hierarchy and the new government "got used to each other" in
> >facing the big patriotic war (WW II) things changed almost to the opposit, and
> >only very conscientious Orthodox priests catheched the eys of KGB and others.
> Tactics may have changed but what you are saying is an insult to all those
> Orthodox priests that were imprisioned, exiled, put in insane aslyums, and
> forced to go under drug therapy. Look what they did to Fr Dutko.
For me its an insult to put "Orthodox priests that were imprisioned, exiled, put in
insane aslyums, and forced to go under drug therapy" in the same "kettle" as for
example figures (I don't even want to use the word priest or bishop here) serving
KGB duties when they were working for the WCC and promoting there each point and
comma of the Communist party line like arguing against installing Pershing II
rockets as answer to Russian I think it was SS-20 rockets.
Now as this task lost its importance, the relations between ROC and WCC are a bit
different, isnt it? :)))
For me its an insult to put "Orthodox priests that were imprisioned, exiled, put in
insane aslyums, and forced to go under drug therapy" in the same "kettle" as
"Orthodox priest" who sold their brothers and sisters in Christ to the KGB. Do You
know the books, Tatjana Goritchewa published first, when she could escape Communism
and reached Paris? Have You heared her speaking in this times?
By the way, from about the time I was 16 (1977) to the fall of Communism, I can
remember a lot of petitions from AI and even more from CSI which I signed, to
protest against Communist supression of Orthodox and Catholic priests/lays/....
From This time I know the names of Fr. Alexander Men, Gleb Jakunin, Tatjana
Goritchewa, even Fr. Dutkos name sounds a bit familiar; Fr Nicolae Calciu
representing the Romanian Orthodox victims.....
Thomas
JOH...@webtv.net
Your last line under mines your point. The Greek govt. is about to
update the laws " With the Approval of the church" .
Also Greece has been sued and lost in the EU court of human Rights" for
violating the Freedom of Religion of non-Orthodox churchs.
Dushevno
>Andreyev)
>> published 1982 by Saint Herman of Alaska Press, Platina, California
>>
>> Library of Congress Cataloging In Publication Data
>>
>> Library Catalogue # 82-60241
>
>Can You tell me an easy way how to get a book from the library of Congress
>(of the
>USA) here in Europe, more specifically in Austria?
>
ship it to you ... oops, it just occurred to me that there may be a monetary
problem. I don't know if Amazon has a European operation that accepts Euros ...
but then, you would face the same problem with the various Orthodox book houses
also based in the U.S. Sigh. I don't know how to advise you.
A.L.
T254
>(of the
>USA) here in Europe, more specifically in Austria?
I have no idea. There are websites that offer to find old or out of print
books. But there is usually an additional fee. Do a search on the internet.
Though the book may now be out of print.
>When, do You have moer details?
All I know is that he went against his Bishops orders and ran for a political
office and was defrocked for it. Perhaps someone else can provide more
details.
>For me its an insult to put "Orthodox priests that were imprisioned, exiled,
>put in
>insane aslyums, and forced to go under drug therapy" in the same "kettle"
>as for
>example figures (I don't even want to use the word priest or bishop here)
>serving
>KGB duties <snipe>
And you mean to tell me that there were no Roman Catholic priests and Bishops
who were doing the same thing? May I remind you that probably 90% or more of
the Ukrainian Catholic priests were trained in Russian Orthodox seminaries.
You mean to tell me they were all lily white and not under KGB scrutiny while
those that remained Orthodox were?
Bob
robert G Tallick
Marina
I am using 'approval' in the sense of 'agreement - pleasure' and not in the
sense of permission.
The Government is updatiung the law, the Church holds no objection, but is
in fact encouraging it.
Do you get it now?
Have you read anything about Orthodoxy yet, or are you continuing your own
bigotted little hate campaign based on IGNORANCE?
I feel sorry for you John, at least our other resident troll, Gerard, takes
pleasure in his chosen faith - even if he will ram his own subjective view
of its perceived "superiority" down our throats. Moreover, I don't think he
hates us - you, however, definitely do - if your words and actions here are
anything to go by!
You do nothing like that, but post mean little three line missives full of
factual errors, accusations, insinuations and biased negative comment.
Do you enjoy being a Catholic? Or do you get more pleasure out of hating
other Christians?
<JOH...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15549-3C...@storefull-116.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
So have most European countries - including Germany and the UK.
Especially when all three have objected to the "Church of Scientology" for
example. That doesn't say anything, really - without looking at the
individual cases and what it was actually about, and what the legal points
were, it doesn't say anything - apart from 'calumny' (look that up in your
Catholic Catechism).
thomas lanzerstorfer
> >> Russia's Catacomb Saints (Lives of the New Martyrs - 1918-1982by Ivan
> >> Andreyev) published 1982 by Saint Herman of Alaska Press, Platina,
> >>California Library of Congress Cataloging In Publication Data
> >>Library_Catalogue # 82-60241
> >Can You tell me an easy way how to get a book from the library of Congress (of
> >the USA) here in Europe, more specifically in Austria?
> Thomas, try www.amazon.com. It's possible that they can find the book and
> ship it to you ... oops, it just occurred to me that there may be a monetary
> problem. I don't know if Amazon has a European operation that accepts Euros ...
> but then, you would face the same problem with the various Orthodox book houses
> also based in the U.S. Sigh. I don't know how to advise you A.L.
Have a Credit card (AMEX) so this should be no problem.
Just copied the title and looked at amazon.de and amazon.com.
I didn't find above title there.
Just found an author with the same name and this title "Is the Grace of God Present
in the Soviet Church?" This is ISBN: 0968634818
Thomas
thomas lanzerstorfer
> >For me its an insult to put "Orthodox priests that were imprisioned, exiled,
> >put in insane aslyums, and forced to go under drug therapy" in the same
> "kettle"
> >as for example figures (I don't even want to use the word priest or bishop
> here)
> >serving KGB duties <snipe>
I will here add, what You snipped
.. when they were working for the WCC and promoting there each point and
comma of the Communist party line ....
> And you mean to tell me that there were no Roman Catholic priests and Bishops
> who were doing the same thing?
First, even nowadays the Catholic church is no member of the WCC.
Second, are You just shooting in the air?
I want You to give me examples. I want You to learn more, of how the Catholic
church resisted Communism at large. Otherwise You can't make any comparison.
I think, that I have demonstrated sufficiently, that I know, how different parts
of ROC "survived" the Communist regime in different ways.
The fact that I know some names of Catholics, who were said to be Security
Service Informers (Alexy II was not called informer but a bit more to be polite)
shall not dispense You to do Your part of our discusion "work".
> May I remind you that probably 90% or more of the Ukrainian Catholic priests
> were trained in Russian Orthodox seminaries.
So what, nobody said that every seminarian was a KGB agant :))
Is the same percentage also true for Ukrainian Catholic Bishops? :))
> You mean to tell me they were all lily white and not under KGB scrutiny while
> those that remained Orthodox were?
> Bob
> robert G Tallick
Did I tell You that black and white painting? NO! Didn't mention (first) names
like Father Alexander Men and others in this discussion?
Thats what I said
>> >Later on, after the hierarchy and the new government "got used to each other"
>> >in facing the big patriotic war (WW II) things changed almost to the opposit,
>> >and only very conscientious Orthodox priests catheched the eys of KGB and >>
>others.
>> Tactics may have changed but what you are saying is an insult to all those
>> Orthodox priests that were imprisioned, exiled, put in insane aslyums, and
>> forced to go under drug therapy. Look what they did to Fr Dutko.
>For me its an insult to put "Orthodox priests that were imprisioned, exiled,
>put in insane aslyums, and forced to go under drug therapy" in the same "kettle"
>as for example figures (I don't even want to use the word priest or bishop here)
>serving KGB duties ...
To sum above up:
I pointed out, that the ROC was harshly persecuted before something like 1937,
but that persecution of the ROC as whole church changed to a persecution of only
the "very conscientious Orthodox priests".
You said that this is an INSULT to the ones pesecuted and
I responded, that its an insult to put the really persecuted ROC priests in the
same "kettle" as the priests and bishops who did the Communist party work at the
WCC for example after things changed for the church as organization.
Conclusions from above:
- I knew and I demonstrated, that there were different parts of ROC, some
deeply invoved in suffering in prisons, others deeply involved in collaborating
with the KGB. So Your accusation of black/white painting is unjustified and even
not reconstructable.
- I didn't name any UCC or RCC sufferer, but You also didn't name one.
- I didn't name any UCC or RCC collaborateur, but You also didn't name one.
- This shows that we were speaking about the ROC, but noone else.
Gods blessings
Thomas
JOH...@webtv.net
You should not get excited. I am not hateful I do not engage
in personalities.I love my Catholic faith and Respect the Orthodox
Faith. among my prized possesions is an Autographed picture of his
Holiness The Patriarch Athenagoras ( Of Blessed Memory )
I admit I am not an academic and cannot list the books I have read on
Orthodoxy and if that bothers you and others that is, your problem.
Marina
The great majority of your posts to these news groups have been full of
misinformed attacks against the Orthodox Church. If you respect the Orthodox
Church, why is almost every single post you send filled with attacks against
her?
What bothers me is not that you are not an academic (that is all too
obvious), it is that you make ignorant attacks on the Orthodox Church, based
on misinformation and, it seems, prejudice.
Evan
> I pointed out, that the ROC was harshly persecuted before something like
1937,
> but that persecution of the ROC as whole church changed to a persecution
of only
> the "very conscientious Orthodox priests".
But then you are ignoring the persecution that took place under Nikita
Khrushchev which was not unlike what happened pre-1937 and not just "very
conscientious Orthodox Catholic priests".
Evan
thomas lanzerstorfer
Where exactly how many bishops, metropolitans and the Patriach got
imprissioned?
Where some xxx churches got destroied and yy seminars were closed.
Where some xxxxx lays, nuns, priests got in troubles, compared with xxxx who
didn't.
Please give numbers if available and You will see the difference to what
happened before 1937.
Thomas
Evan
> Evan wrote:
> > But then you are ignoring the persecution that took place under Nikita
> > Khrushchev which was not unlike what happened pre-1937 and not just
"very
> > conscientious Orthodox Catholic priests".
You replied:
> Where exactly how many bishops, metropolitans and the Patriach got
> imprissioned?
> Where some xxx churches got destroied and yy seminars were closed.
> Where some xxxxx lays, nuns, priests got in troubles, compared with xxxx
who
> didn't.
>
> Please give numbers if available and You will see the difference to what
> happened before 1937.
Numbers in this case really doesn't prove much.
If there were 1000 churches in a city before the revolution and 100 at the
time of Stalin's death (maybe up from 75 or so), the numbers seem large. If
Krushchev closed 30 or 40 or 50 parishes it doesn't sound anything like what
happened under Lenin and Stalin.
Starting around 1960 he closed about 15,000 churches or more, the
monestaries were reduced from around 90 to 15 to 20, new anti-religion
programs were enacted, bishops were sent off to jail, etc. If you want some
more data about the persecutions that happened find copies of "The Russian
Church under the Soviet Regime 1917-1982" by Dimity Pospielovsky (ISBN
0-88141-016-0 for Volume 2 which contains the years mentioned and has a host
of foot notes and references to other books that you may find).
That old Ukrainian Krushchev did his best to revive the anti-religion policy
of the Communist party and complete the job that Stalin stopped.
Yet oddly enough, when in Moscow for Pascha a few years back, I walked past
Khrushchev's grave and saw a Ukrainian Easter Egg there. Go figure.
Evan
JOH...@webtv.net
than the one they have now.
It would seem that Russia is moving backwards. That The Pope was right
to reinforce the restored Catholic Eclesiastical system in Russia.
The Russian Federation should remember she has treaties with the U.N and
the E.U. that she is expected to adhere to when it comes to Freedom of
Religion.
Babai
>
> That old Ukrainian Krushchev did his best to revive the anti-religion policy
Here Evan is flaunting his ignorance. If he can't get this right, can
we expect him to have gotten naything else right either?
"...The Secretary of the Ukrainian Party and Premier of the
>> Government was N.S. Khrushchev....It was they who met us and it was
with
>> them that we spent the entire three days....
........cut.............
>> We had heard somewhere that he was not a Ukrainian by birth,
but
>> a Russian. Though nothing was said about this, he himself avoided
>> mentioning it, for it would have been embarassing if not even the
Premier
>> of the Ukrainian Government was a Ukrainian!
...............cut...............
>>
>> Excerpted from "CONVERSATIONS WITH STALIN" by Milovan Djilas,
>> 1962; Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., NY; pg. 117-119.
>>
>> --
>> Larisa
Anu...@Starbase.NeoSoft.com
>
>
>I heard Krushchev's son, Sergei Krushchev, say that Nikita Krushchev
>was a RUSSIAN and not a Ukrainian as some think.
>
>Dan K.
the above guy, Dan Korolyshyn, met Sergei at one of his talks a few
years back.
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News
====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Well, to add to this, in the book by Khruschev, _KHRUSCHEV
REMEMBERS_, Khruschev mentions, proudly, that he is Russian, and that
when he was first assigned to Ukraine by Stalin and Molotov, it was
because, "..the
proletarian element was weak in Ukraine, and that Kyiv (corrected form
of "Kiev") was a hot bed of Ukrainian nationalists....".
He also mentions, amusingly enough, that when he came to a position of
authority in Ukraine, he, "...was considered a typically helpless
Russian by the Ukrainians," i.e., incompetent.
Babai
thomas lanzerstorfer
> "thomas lanzerstorfer" <thomas.lan...@siemens.at> wrote in message
> news:3C7BE51C...@siemens.at...
> >Evan wrote:
> >>But then you are ignoring the persecution that took place under Nikita
> >>Khrushchev which was not unlike what happened pre-1937 and not just
> >>"very conscientious Orthodox Catholic priests".
> You replied:
> >Where exactly how many bishops, metropolitans and the Patriach got
> >imprissioned?
> >Where some xxx churches got destroied and yy seminars were closed.
> >Where some xxxxx lays, nuns, priests got in troubles, compared with xxxx
> >who didn't.
> >Please give numbers if available and You will see the difference to what
> >happened before 1937.
> Numbers in this case really doesn't prove much.
> If there were 1000 churches in a city before the revolution and 100 at the
> time of Stalin's death (maybe up from 75 or so), the numbers seem large. If
> Krushchev closed 30 or 40 or 50 parishes it doesn't sound anything like what
> happened under Lenin and Stalin.
It wasn't even the same level percentwise.
Krushchev would have closed 33% to 50% of the churches, whereas in the time from
before revolution to Stalins death would have been closed more than 90% of the
churches, isn't it?
> Starting around 1960 he closed about 15,000 churches or more, the
> monestaries were reduced from around 90 to 15 to 20, new anti-religion
> programs were enacted, bishops were sent off to jail, etc.
Compare that, to what happened during the revolution, where the church
structures got a much deep wound.
And compare that to Alexy's II curiculum vitae:
- member of the WCC Central Committee (1961-1968)
- member of the Department for External Church Relations
Which bishops were sent to jail? For sure it was not Alexy II, as above part of
his official curiculum vitae indicates.
During this time of persecution Alexy II was allowed to become a memebr of the
WCC Central Committee and the Department for External Church Relations. does
this ring any bells?
> If you want some more data about the persecutions that happened find copies
> of "The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime 1917-1982" by Dimity
> Pospielovsky (ISBN 0-88141-016-0 for Volume 2 which contains the years
> mentioned and has a host of foot notes and references to other books that you
> may find).
One question: Is Dimity Pospielovsky ROCOR or MP?
Thomas L
T254
>
Why should it matter? His is more than qualified regardless of his
jurisdictional affiliation.
Bob Tallick
thomas lanzerstorfer
Than why hide it?
Thomas
T254
Who's hiding it? His jurisdictional affiliation has nothing to do with his
qualifications to write a book on Russian Church history. He is Professor
Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario and is one of the
foremeost authorities on Russian Church History. That more than qualifies him.
Bob
Bob Tallick
thomas lanzerstorfer
Where do You get from, that I was questioning his qualification?
I was asking about his jurisdictional affilation out of curiosity and as You don't
want to answer, You made me even more curious.
By
Thomas L.
T254
>You don't
>want to answer, You made me even more curious.
It's not that I don't want to answer, it's I don't know and don't care to know.
It's immaterial to the subject at hand.
Bob
Bob Tallick
Stradivari1688
>>
>
>Why should it matter? His is more than qualified regardless of his
>jurisdictional affiliation.
Can someone explain to me the reason why the ROCOR isn't in communion with the
other Orthodox churches (or so I've heard from an ROCOR priest who suggested I
be rebaptized)?
As far as I'm concerned, Orthodox is Orthodox.
Kyralessa
news:20020312235528...@mb-fe.aol.com...
My wife and I are part of a ROCOR church, but weren't always (I was baptized
Romanian Orthodox in Romania, actually), but our priest never suggested I
should be rebaptized. But I wouldn't be surprised if some clergy were quite
overzealous on this point.
So far as being in communion, I can't say. But I know that as merely a
practical point, it's difficult to coordinate events with other churches
when they operate on a different calendar. I'm not advocating for one
calendar or the other here; this is merely an observation. I haven't
observed that people of other Orthodox churches are refused the Eucharist at
ROCOR churches, or vice versa; but just because I haven't observed it
doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
My impression is that ROCOR gets a somewhat unfair reputation because of the
vehemence of some of the articles and material posted online by them, and
because it's the first jurisdiction a convert goes to when he thinks his
original parish is too lukewarm. And I must confess that this is what my
wife and I did. However, I don't condemn those who remain at the parish we
left. But as a new Orthodox, I needed more guidance and zeal (the good
kind, not the bad kind) than I was getting there.
The people at our ROCOR parish aren't all zealots, and they seem to sin just
like anybody else. I don't hear people talking about the evil occurring in
other parishes or jurisdictions; if anything, I hear people dismayed that
all of us tend to focus more on temporal problems than eternal ones, like
conquering our own sins.
All of this to say, if a ROCOR priest told you that even though you're
Orthodox, you have to be rebaptized...well, if I were you, I'd send an
e-mail or letter to Jordanville and ask them what the real policy is. My
feeling is that in general people take the strictest adherent and make him
represent the whole, but I don't think ROCOR is unreasonably strict, and I
doubt that the hierarchs at Jordanville will really tell you that you have
to be baptized again. (But if I'm wrong about that, I'd be interested to
know it.)
Evan
"Stradivari1688" <stradiv...@aol.comwpoeuf89> wrote in message
news:20020312235528...@mb-fe.aol.com...
the
> other Orthodox churches (or so I've heard from an ROCOR priest who
suggested I
> be rebaptized)?
If you are an Orthodox Catholic, you are an Orthodox Catholic. If a ROCOR
priest tells you or any Orthodox Catholic that he/she needs to be
"rebaptized" I would suggest that you say thank you and leave and don't go
back. I don't know of any reputable ROCOR priest who would demand such a
thing. I also would suggest sending a nice letter to their chief hierarch
telling him of such a request.
> As far as I'm concerned, Orthodox is Orthodox.
That is true. Hopefully the day will soon come when some of the divisions
cease to exist. Especially those whose reasons for division no longer
exist.
Evan
Stradivari1688
>thing. I also would suggest sending a nice letter to their chief hierarch
>telling him of such a request.
Incidentally (the priest wasn't aware of this), I was baptized in the OCA by
pouring (I was too old for the baby font they had, and there was no choir that
day so the priest also sang the responses to himself). Is this still a valid
baptism?
Lee Malatesta
> One question: Is Dimity Pospielovsky ROCOR or MP?
I don't know, but as a piece of meaningless trivia I was looking over
one of his books in our parish lending library when my priest, Father
Steven Kostoff noticed which book I was looking over and mentioned
that when he was pastor of a parish in Canada that Dmitri Pospielovsky
was one of his parishoners.
Anway, the book was fantastic. Pospielovsky does an incredible job of
portraying a balanced view. Not that he tries to always be impartial,
but that he gives references to the best arguments to views that
oppose his and he takes care to understand what all sides of the
matter are actually saying.
Not to mention the amount of research that goes into his books is
nothing short of phenomenal.
And most importantly of all, he prefers footnotes over endnotes. (At
least in the volume I read.)
Regards,
Lee Irenaeus Malatestas
Evan
"Stradivari1688" <stradiv...@aol.comwpoeuf89> wrote in message
Was it grace filled? Yes.
Evan
Serge
also would suggest sending a nice letter to their chief hierarch telling him of
such a request.
Agreed.
ROCOR would NOT rebaptize an Orthodox joining one of their churches.
Nor would a ROCOR priest 'rebaptize' a non-Orthodox baptized with water in the
name of the Trinity UNLESS the convert asks. In theory this is true of all
Orthodox, but ROCOR is known for actually doing it on occasion.
>Incidentally (the priest wasn't aware of this), I was baptized in the OCA by
pouring (I was too old for the baby font they had, and there was no choir that
day so the priest also sang the responses to himself). Is this still a valid
baptism?
Well, 'valid' isn't used in Byzantine theology (it's not wrong, just 'foreign'
terminology) - the Orthodox term is 'has grace'. The answer, though, is yes!
Oikonomeia. There are even forms for baptism with sand or thin air in dire
emergencies when there is no water. So of course you're baptized.
+++++++