Yet Another ROCOR Scandal
Rusnak2938
nationals in camps largely in the upper midwest.
Worse, the government interned *US citizens* of Japanese descent for purely
racist reasons, stirring racist feelings among white Americans to drum up
support for US involvement in the war (something that, like Pat Buchanan, I
question more each day).
So much for the Roosevelt administration's liberal idealism.
Rusnak2938
would not get along with the Russian mission in America. The OCA is the
original Russian mission in America. OCA is recognized as canonical by
Moscow and has intercommunion with the Greeks, Serbs, etc.
True, but the situation among the Russians abroad after 1917 was chaotic. At
times the Russian mission in the US (the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic
'Metropolia' made up mostly of former Eastern Catholics from Slovakia) accepted
the authority of the ROCOR bishops as the successor to the mother Church; at
other times not. The formal break wasn't until the council of Cleveland in
1946, when the Metropolia decided on de jure acceptance of Moscow's authority
but de facto independence, thus cutting ties to ROCOR.
XPNCTOC BOCKPECE!
Rusnak2938
choice of a Greek church where the service is mainly in Greek and a
Serbian Church which is all in Serbian.
In either case, there are books with English translations you can use.
XPNCTOC BOCKPECE!
George
> You haven't the faintest idea of what an Apostolic hierarchy
> means, do you?
I don't know about Burlebart, but I sure don't!! Would you mind giving
a little summary for me please??
Thanks, Bryan -
geo
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
caed...@mindspring.com
Daniel Kisliakov <dki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:390FCB08...@yahoo.com...
> The very ideal
> Christian thing to do would be for the Churches to unite. But then again,
who
> can speak of unity when the MP doesn't even respect, or answer to, ROCOR's
side
> of the argument.
<<sigh>> Your initial [snipped] comments have a lot of merit Daniel. But the
problem is that it was and is ROCOR that has consistently refused to open
discussions of reunion with the MP--the actions by the MP which members of
ROCOR now point to as reasons not to talk are post facto justications since
if ROCOR had been willing to talk *before* they happened there is no reason
to think they would have happened at all.
Bryan J. Maloney
<maqhthN...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> > You haven't the faintest idea of what an Apostolic hierarchy
> > means, do you?
>
> I don't know about Burlebart, but I sure don't!! Would you mind giving
> a little summary for me please??
In this case, it means that the laity can't just up and form a brand new
group and it still be the Church. This appears to be what he is
advocating. Of course, it is possible that the laity could correct
mistakes the hierarchy has made, but that's not happened very often. Just
up and forming a new "church" down the street is something that some
flavors of Protestant think is just fine, but it doesn't work well within
Orthodoxy (it's a "destroy the village to save it" sort of tactic).
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
Bryan J. Maloney
> In article <3910b...@news.pacifier.com>,
> "James \(wayne\)" <lsharp...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> You are exactly right -- my "criticism" is more in the tone of asking
> how all of these things work out. It seems as if the Orthodox could
> have one apostolic heirarchy with which to work in the United States
> rather than a number of them. Based on what I am learning in this
> group it seems as if the Orthodox Church in America was here first and
> may be the most sensible one to work through. Unfortately, I do not
> have an Orthodox Church in America Church locally to work with. I have a
> choice of a Greek church where the service is mainly in Greek and a
> Serbian Church which is all in Serbian. That is not very inviting for
> an English speaking person. So I am not being critical as much as just
> trying to figure out how all of these things fit together!
I speak not a word of Greek, and the local parish holds most of the
Liturgy in Greek. I don't like it, and matters are changing, but the old
folks really cling to the Greek.
David
itself with the Communists. The one that venerates the murdered Imperial
Family as saints and martyrs of God.
George
> George wrote:
> > >...what Apostolic hierarchy means?
> > I sure don't!! Would you mind giving
> > a little summary for me please??
> In this case, it means that the laity can't just up
> and form a brand new group and it still be the Church.
Thanks, Bryan...
So that the Church, being a product of Christ acting through the
apostles, is maintained as this hierarchy, and is thereby understead as
some kind of bequeathment by the Bishop in Apostolic Succession upon
the laity who of themselves could not make a 'real' Church, so they are
subordinate to the Apostolic hierarchy, which is the bishop?
Well, if I've got that right, then what is the canonical remedy for a
'bad' bishop? IS there even one??
> Just up and forming a new "church" down the street is
> something that some flavors of Protestant think is just fine,
> but it doesn't work well within Orthodoxy (it's a "destroy
> the village to save it" sort of tactic).
Understandable... And especially with the situation of competing
Orthodoxies is the US. I wonder how it works in countries where there
is no such competition. I am remembering how it ended up working out
in Russia, where the Church in large part ended up becoming the Church
of the Aristocracy and the Rich, and the corrective [destruction]
visited upon it by the Communist government. Perhaps we need better
cannon, or if corrective cannon is existent, then better awareness of
it so as to correct excesses. Did not the Greeks just get rid of a
'bad' bishop? And they are fighting for laity rights to control funds,
or at least be a part of the running of their Church, as I am
understanding it.
Sounds like a good issue.
David
Romans. They suffered torture and death rather than burn a pinch of
incence before an idol of the Emperor. Millions in Russia too like those
in the Roman Empire chose death rather bend the knee to the godless
state.
Regarding the churches in the Holy Land and elsewhere who were their
founders and benefactors? Not some accursed godless Bolshevik and their
lackeys but rather the God fearing Tsars of Holy Russia.
One can not serve both God and mammon. As the Bible says choose this day
whom you will serve.
T254
>itself with the Communists. The one that venerates the murdered Imperial
>Family as saints and martyrs of God.
Is that also the one whose Bishops and people abandoned their own flocks and
brothers and sisters in the faith to suffer to save their own hides?
robert G Tallick
Rusnak2938
>> Regarding the churches in the Holy Land and elsewhere who were their
> founders and benefactors? Not some accursed godless Bolshevik and their
> lackeys but rather the God fearing Tsars of Holy Russia.
>
>LOL... "God-fearing Tsar"??? You really are living in a dream world, son.
You may not be a monarchist - ironic from a Canadian, who has the Queen as head
of state - but David has a point. The USSR wasn't the founder and benefactor of
those places. ROCOR took care of them all these years.
Is there a large movement to make Canada a republic?
XPNCTOC BOCKPECE!
FTT
Rusnak2938 <rusna...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20000506092230...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
There is just a huge amount of apathy
toward "Her Royal Highness" and all that c=@#
except from the twits of the silly Monarchist League
who live in another world.Oh well ,chaq'un a son gout
FTT
David
Bolshevik Revolution if not for ROCOR? Not the Communists. What did
they do with the churches in Russia? Have them torn down or desecrated!
Now ROCOR is to be tossed out just because "freedom" (so called) has
come to Russia? There can be no true freedom in Russia until the Tsar,
a God fearing Orthodox Tsar again sits and reigns upon the throne.
Russia can not be purified until the Tsar returns. There can be no Holy
Russia without the Tsar! The Tsar is not like other kings and rulers.
He is the Lord's annointed. He is set apart; his is a priestly
annointing. He is the successor to St Constantine. Truly Tsarist Russia
was the new and final Rome and will be so again some day. The Tsar is
the defender, protector, benefactor and champion of Orthodoxy!
T254
>He is the Lord's annointed. He is set apart; his is a priestly
>annointing. He is the successor to St Constantine. Truly Tsarist Russia
>was the new and final Rome and will be so again some day. The Tsar is
>the defender, protector, benefactor and champion of Orthodoxy!
Oh! Gimme a break!!!!
robert G Tallick
FTT
T254 <t2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000506183212...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
Right on robert
Elizabeth 11 (for Scots, Eliz 1) was annointed,
is the successor of St. Edward the Confessor, is Defender of the Faith....
and all that ballyhoo....so what...!!!???? Who cares?
FTT
Steve Nichols
> The Tsar is not like other kings and rulers.
>He is the Lord's annointed. He is set apart; his is a priestly
>annointing. He is the successor to St Constantine. Truly Tsarist Russia
>was the new and final Rome and will be so again some day. The Tsar is
>the defender, protector, benefactor and champion of Orthodoxy!
Well, David, my father was born and raised in Ukraine from 1894-1914,
during the Tsar's reign. His opinion was quite different from yours.
Of course he was Jewish, and was quite familiar with Pogroms. He felt
the Tsar ignored them. Ah, well, differing opinions... I'm sure you
were there, too, and you're not simply romanticizing the past...
/Steve
LADAIntnet
God bless you for standing up for our St. Tsar-Martyr Nicholas. People who
answered you here simply do not know what they are talking about. The Tsar and
His Family have already been canonized in several Russian eparchies (is this
the right word in English?). Their icons in Moscow are streaming myrrh (one of
the icons was taken to Athos last year and venerated there by monks from
various monasteries).
People who are badmouthing the St. Tsar are badmouthing a Saint which may be a
sin against the Holy Spirit. God have mercy on their souls.
Sinner Ioann Z.
Alexander Arnakis
>People who are badmouthing the St. Tsar are badmouthing a Saint which may be a
>sin against the Holy Spirit. God have mercy on their souls.
>
The Tsar was a sad case but certainly not a saint. Actually, certain
Orthodox jurisdictions have been awfully free and easy in granting
(recognizing) sainthood recently. A "decent interval" (say a couple of
centuries) should pass before this is considered. Otherwise, we lose
historical perspective.
Evan
<Se...@Signature.below> wrote:
>Exactly. But I suspect this is yet another of the ROCOR
fantasies. The Tsar
>Martyr ... Defender of the Orthodox Faith... Ruler of HOLY
Russia. Yeah.
>Right! Bringer-on-of the Revolution and ultimately the blood
bath into which
>Russia was plunged. But then... I suppose David enjoys reading
these
>Jordanville fairy tales... believing if he were living in
so-called Holy
>Russia he would be among the aristocracy. NOT, David. You'd be
as downtrodden
>as the rest of the serfs. Face it. Time for a reality check.
I think that you have to be careful not to throw the baby out
with the bath water.
There is a problem with the way some, such as David, who want to
try to define what the Church is and what the Church isn't on
terms and conditions that they have set up.
If he wants to pretend that one can determine if one is Orthodox
based on if one venerates the Tsar as a saint in the Church, that
is nothing more than the same very dangerous road that he and
some others in ROCOR have gone down, and that road leads away
from and not towards Christ and His Church.
The Russian Orthodox Church may, in the future, glorify the Tsar
and his family. There are those within the Russian Orthodox
Church who already ask for his intercessions. It may culminate
in his glorification or it may not. God alone will decide if
that is proper. So be careful when you make your comments about
the Tsar and his family since one day you may find out that you
are or were wrong. And you may have boxed yourself into the same
corner that David has.
Holy Russia existed with good and bad Tsars. Another issue that
one has to keep clear in one's mind by recognizing that there is
a difference between the two.
The Tsar had many good points and he had many bad points. The
Synod is not the final judge of anyone's Orthodoxy, except for
those who find themselves in that jurisdiction. Don't use David
as a reason to think anything. I know too many Synodal priests
who have said to me that he doesn't express what the Synod does
teach (no different than Mr. Wright). Your rightful rejection of
what he says, however, can put you in the same boat as him, and
it is that issue that concerns me.
Evan
Matanna
Christ is risen!
Actually, the news item from Moscow about the icon of St. Nicholas (The Tsar
Martyr) streaming myrrh hit several different discussion lists and was covered
by the Moscow press.
As for a lavish lifestyle, well, the King is the symbol of the country. And so
the people want his lifestyle to be emblematic of the wealth of the nation.
That doesn't mean that the royal family's day to day life was one of luxory.
They kept the fasts at a time when it was not fashionable to do so. They had
their kids sleep on army cots and bathe in cold water until they hit
adolescence. One can live in opulance and still be "poor in Spirit " -- theirs
is the Kingdom of Heaven.
You might want to read "A Gathered Radiance," about Empress Alexandra, or, for
that matter, start with the Massies' book, "Nicholas and Alexandra," to see
what lay behind the velvet and brocade.
Your criticism reminds me, on some level, of the scorn heaped on rich women who
kept their maids during the Depression. The rich ladies knew that keeping the
maid was one way to be sure that the maid's family ate.
The royal family practically bankrupted themselves spending on charities. So
yes, they lived in fancy digs, but those were already paid for. They attended
royal functions and fancy dress balls, but that was for the status of the
nation. In their private life, they were pious and devout.
It is as bad a sin to judge a man for being rich as it is to judge someone for
being poor. Wealth, in the hands of an Orthodox Christian, is in many ways a
greater burden than poverty, because it brings with it the duty to do good
according to the extent to which one has been blessed.
We see this in the lives of the Saints. While Christ Himself was poor, his
grandfather, St. Joachim, was rich. Why? Because of all that he had, he gave
one third to the temple (rather than the bare minimum of one tenth) and one
third to the poor, living off the remaining third, and so God granted that his
flocks increase, and so the saint would give away more. (And all this wealth
did not bring St. Joachim happiness, but the birth of the Theotokos did. And
again, what did he do with this very great gift? He gave it back to God, taking
the Theotokos to live in the Temple when she was only three. This is an example
for us, to take what we have given and entrust it to God, to lay up our
treasure with Him.) Wealth is not a bad thing. Using wealth is not a bad thing.
Abusing wealth is what's evil.
In Christ,
Matushka Ann Lardas
(mat...@aol.com)
evagr...@my-deja.com
Amazing! My sentiments exactly about the Tsar, lousy politician and
good family man.
He probably would have been an ok minor exective for a tire company.
In article <3916E25B...@Signature.below>,
James <Se...@Signature.below> wrote:
> I've read the book you mentioned, Matushka, and found it well....
very one-sided
> and simplistic. I simply cannot accept the life-style in which they
lived in
> comparison to that of their subjects. Nor can I accept the manner in
which he
> dismissed Duma after Duma. I find the sort of history that surrounds
the last Tsar
> to be terribly biased and really... I doubt it has any basis in
reality... rather
> wishful thinking. The reality is, the Revolution. The rest... well...
?
>
> I think the examples you give really do not pertain to the reality of
what most
> historians know to be the truth regarding this man's autocratic rule
(or inability
> to rule) over Russia. I've taken into consideration what Evan posted.
Perhaps the
> man and his family will ultimately be declared martyrs for the faith
and as such we
> will view them as such. Until then, I see him as a good family man, a
lousy
> politician... really, someone totally unfit to govern... and
certainly not a Saint
> in the manner in which Seraphim of Sarov was a Saint.
>
> Have you seen the Tsarina's bedroom, Matushka? I have walked through
it. Have you
> seen the Peterhof, the Catherine palace where the poor children had
to sleep on
> cots? I have and it is OBSCENE. Saying that most of his subjects
"expected" him to
> live in such a life-style is naive in the extreme, Matushka. It is
just this sort
> of naivite that makes me begin to question "other" sorts of things. I
truly believe
> you need to reacquaint yourself with the last Tsar's life but this
time with
> materials with an unbiased viewpoint and ones that do not have a
hidden agenda.
>
> --
> **********************************
>
> Regards from James (wayne)
>
> mailto:pavil82"at"hotmail.com
> http://sites.netscape.net/waynedouglas46/homepage
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
George
> My sentiments ... the Tsar,.. probably would have been an ok minor
> exective for a tire company.
Ain't it great to assign other people to their places, Michel? Kind of
Olympian Largesse, wouldn't you say?? Especially when we can assign
them to those places where we find ourselves with moral superiority!!
I, like you, DO so love to look down upon my inferiors... Why, I had
him cooking Frog-legs in a lesser if overpriced French restaurant
actually... His French was much in need of more practice, wouldn't you
say?? Poor chap - Not much of a human being actually, what? Probably
just needed some sense of direction, wouldn't you say?? Some vision of
the future that was so OBVIOUSLY lacking, yes?? He really wasn't all
that bright, you know - Never could have made it into MENSA, after all,
not that he was even bright enough to WANT to try, of course...
Ah the JOY, Mr. Vasquez, the unspeakable JOY, mind you, than which
there is no finer than the JOY of superiority to ones lessers!!!
Sniff!!
geo
FTT
George <maqhthN...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:00091c0e...@usw-ex0106-044.remarq.com...
and is at heart why monarchs' heads have been lopped off and other segments
of
out modern & post-modern society come under fire for their elitism that
hides agendas
FTT
George
> You see George that is the whole problem of being "assigned" our
> places and is at heart why monarchs' heads have been lopped off
True enough, and Mr. Vasquez might easily fall under this category, for
he wants to be at the top looking down and making the assignments from
his lofty intellectual perspective, just as the monarchs used to do
from theirs, until the guillotine ended their arrogance. My real
concern, however, is not BEING assigned our place, but our ASSIGNING
others to THEIR places. It just ain't fittin'!!
> and other segments of out modern & post-modern society
> come under fire for their elitism that hides agendas
Yes, and Orthodoxy Herself is not immune in all cases to this charge,
yes? Nor am I... Nor, I suspect, are you...
FTT
George <maqhthN...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> "FTT" wrote:
>
> > You see George that is the whole problem of being "assigned" our
> > places and is at heart why monarchs' heads have been lopped off
>
> True enough, and Mr. Vasquez might easily fall under this category, for
> he wants to be at the top looking down and making the assignments from
> his lofty intellectual perspective, just as the monarchs used to do
> from theirs, until the guillotine ended their arrogance. My real
> concern, however, is not BEING assigned our place, but our ASSIGNING
> others to THEIR places. It just ain't fittin'!!
>
> > and other segments of out modern & post-modern society
> > come under fire for their elitism that hides agendas
>
> Yes, and Orthodoxy Herself is not immune in all cases to this charge,
> yes? Nor am I... Nor, I suspect, are you...
>
Good. And I never claimed I was.
Peace
FTT
> geo
Bryan J. Maloney
Ami...@webtv.net (David) wrote:
> Which is the "true" Russian Church? The one that did not compromise
> itself with the Communists. The one that venerates the murdered Imperial
> Family as saints and martyrs of God.
There is no true Russian Church. There is only a true Christian Church.
Bryan J. Maloney
rusna...@aol.comNOSPAM (Rusnak2938) wrote:
> James,
>
> >> Regarding the churches in the Holy Land and elsewhere who were their
> > founders and benefactors? Not some accursed godless Bolshevik and their
> > lackeys but rather the God fearing Tsars of Holy Russia.
> >
> >LOL... "God-fearing Tsar"??? You really are living in a dream world, son.
>
> You may not be a monarchist - ironic from a Canadian, who has the Queen
as head
> of state - but David has a point. The USSR wasn't the founder and benefactor
Why is that ironic. It's not like he necessarily CHOSE to be born in Canada.
> Is there a large movement to make Canada a republic?
Are you aware that Canada is a republic in all but name?
Bryan J. Maloney
<f...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> No, that's being un-Canadian-like Rusnak2938 !
> There is just a huge amount of apathy
> toward "Her Royal Highness" and all that c=@#
I thot it was "Her Rockin' Highness", Cool Britannia, Baby, and all that.
Bryan J. Maloney
<maqhthN...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> So that the Church, being a product of Christ acting through the
> apostles, is maintained as this hierarchy, and is thereby understead as
> some kind of bequeathment by the Bishop in Apostolic Succession upon
> the laity who of themselves could not make a 'real' Church, so they are
> subordinate to the Apostolic hierarchy, which is the bishop?
Laity without hierarchy cannot be the Church.
Hierarchy without laity cannot be the Church.
> Well, if I've got that right, then what is the canonical remedy for a
> 'bad' bishop? IS there even one??
Prayer and appeal to the Synod of Bishops. Ultimately, one can rely upon
the simple fact that all Bishops are still but mortal.
> is no such competition. I am remembering how it ended up working out
> in Russia, where the Church in large part ended up becoming the Church
> of the Aristocracy and the Rich, and the corrective [destruction]
You mean, like Lutheranism became in Prussia?
> visited upon it by the Communist government. Perhaps we need better
> cannon, or if corrective cannon is existent, then better awareness of
> it so as to correct excesses. Did not the Greeks just get rid of a
> 'bad' bishop? And they are fighting for laity rights to control funds,
Spyridon was replaced, and one of the telling decision points was when he
lost the support of the Synod over here.
elei...@juno.com
come back to claim it with police and guns even though new owners have
taken care of it and lived in it, does this seem right to you?
Or let's say that you left the house to your son in-law because you had
no apparent male heir. 100 years later, an ancestor of an illegitimate
son comes to claim the property and boots out the family of the
son-in-law. Is this right?
Just some food for thought...
In article <390f0...@news.pacifier.com>,
"James \(wayne\)" <lsharp...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> I opened my "late-as-usual" copy of Orthodox America this morning only
to be
> confronted, once again, by another whining headline: Moscow
Patriarchate
> Encroaches on Church of St Nicholas in Bari. What followed is yet
another
> instance of the "evil" Moscow Church attempting to wrest control of a
ROCOR
> held church in Italy (where St Nicholas' relics lie). Interestingly
the
> local authorities are described as "blatantly abusing" their power...
> "refusing to uphold the law"...blah blah blah. Naturally another LAW
SUIT
> has been launched by the ROCOR and another scandal put before the
local
> population. The truth of the matter is these churches/monasteries (as
in the
> case of Jericho) are NOT the property of the ROCOR... PERIOD. They
were all
> built prior to the revolution and were and ARE the property of the
authentic
> and canonical Russian Church. So.... another scandal, courtesy of the
ROCOR.
>
> As an aside, I once found this paper invaluable but increasingly I see
it
> being used as a tool for propaganda. If this continues my subscription
will
> certainly come to an abrupt end.
>
> --
> James (wayne)
LADAIntnet
>politician... really, someone totally unfit to govern... and certainly not a
>Saint
>in the manner in which Seraphim of Sarov was a Saint.
James, do you know that St. Seraphim probably wouldn't even be glorified if it
weren't for the Imperial Family and their efforts? At the beginning of the XX
century most of Russian hierarchs were against his glorification but had to
submit to the Tsar's wishes. This is a known fact even though kind of a taboo
subject today. The same is true for sevaral other Saints glorified in
1900-1916.
And by the way St. Emperor Konstantine lived in palaces too and wasn't even a
Christian until his very last moment.
Sinner Ioann Z.
Praxis
James <Se...@Signature.below> wrote in message
news:39183F9B...@Signature.below...
> It is crystal clear that you haven't the slightest idea what you are
talking
> about.
Crystal clear. Like that chip on your shoulder? 8^)
David
sacrifice their faith. The endured to the end. They paid the ulltimate
price. They are martyrs and saints of God. Think of all they suffered
and endured. See how the enemies of God brought them down but God raised
them up to Himself.
Bryan J. Maloney
Ami...@webtv.net (David) wrote:
They are not martyrs. They were killed as mere political liabilities.
LADAIntnet
>And imagine if I were convinced he's not a saint... and was wrong. How
>embarrassed and ashamed I would be when I finally met him! IF I got that
>far, of course. If he's a saint and I can't see it, that says more about
>my sight than about his sanctity. It's not like we *have* to venerate the
>ones we're not personally convinced about; by grace we got a whole heapin
>mess from which to choose, a great *cloud* of witnesses. :=) And we don't
>have to mess with other people venerating whomever they choose. Maybe
>they know something we don't. Maybe grace has touched them through that
>saint in a way we don't know and they can't express.
>
>Having already had to go through this with the most blessed Theotokos (cuz
>you know, when I was a Prot I bashed her up one side and down the other) I
>have no desire to ever go through this again... ever. I called it wrong
>once and was humbled; now I don't call it at all. May God's holy will be
>done in the remembrance of the Tsar and his family, and may I not be
>caught judging anyone (an all too frequent occurrence as it is) dead or
>alive, ESPECIALLY if there's any chance he's a saint!
>
>J. Asher, Charlotte, NC
Excellent post! God bless you!
All I'm suggesting is that people refrain from passing the judgement on the
Imperial Family. I think it's always better to overestimate somebody's
"sainthood" than to underestimate it.
Sinner Ioann Z.
MJFR108
<<< We suspect, with good
reason, that his assasination was the result of politics rather than martyrdom.
>>>
Without taking a stand on the canonization of the last Imperial Family:
The Tsar was not "assassinated." He and his family were butchered like
animals. They were murdered. If the Bolsheviks had cause to accuse the Tsar of
crimes, they could have charged him, brought him to trial, convicted him, and
executed him. As we all know, they did not do that.
Even if the Tsar were held to have committed crimes: his wife, son, and
daughters, and the family's loyal retainers? Where was their guilt? Why were
they murdered?
You mention, in passing, "We suspect, with good reason, that the bloodbath
of Communism was hastened by his inept leadership and autocratic ways." That is
in no way historical.
The failures of the Romanov dynasty may have hastened the February
revolution, which was popular and democratic. But the provisional government
ushered in by the February revolution was overthrown by about 300 armed
Bolsheviks in October, plus one armed battleship. The Bolsheviks had no popular
mandate. They seized power at the point of a gun and kept that gun pointed at
the heads of the Russian people for some 70 years.
There are simply no grounds for laying responsibility for the Bolshevik
coup at the feet of Nicholas II. His leadership may have been inept, but the
autocratic system was not his invention, and he accepted his status as autocrat
not with pride and arrogance, but as a cross to be borne. Lots of evidence
suggests that Nicholas never wanted to be tsar.
What the Bolsheviks did to the Tsar and his family was a prophecy of what
they would do to the Russian people.
Get yourself a solid biography of Nicholas. He was a good man -- in the
wrong job, at the wrong time, in the wrong place.
James
> James writes:
> <<< We suspect, with good
> reason, that his assasination was the result of politics rather than martyrdom.
> >>>
> Without taking a stand on the canonization of the last Imperial Family:
> The Tsar was not "assassinated." He and his family were butchered like
> animals. They were murdered. If the Bolsheviks had cause to accuse the Tsar of
> crimes, they could have charged him, brought him to trial, convicted him, and
> executed him.
What exactly do you think the word assasination means? I'm not suggesting his
assasination was not barbaric so please understand this. You are simply using an
argument of semantics at this point.
> As we all know, they did not do that.
> Even if the Tsar were held to have committed crimes: his wife, son, and
> daughters, and the family's loyal retainers? Where was their guilt? Why were
> they murdered?
They were all assasinate (if you even bothered to carefully read my post) for
POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY! What is so hard to understand here? Actually, you are among
the very small minority that can't seem to assimilate this fact.
>
> You mention, in passing, "We suspect, with good reason, that the bloodbath
> of Communism was hastened by his inept leadership and autocratic ways." That is
> in no way historical.
And THAT is YOUR opinion. I happen to share the opinion of most historians
regarding the reasons for the rise of Communism. If in fact the Tsarist regime did
not hasten the Communist regime, pray tell..what did?
>
> The failures of the Romanov dynasty may have hastened the February
> revolution, which was popular and democratic. But the provisional government
> ushered in by the February revolution was overthrown by about 300 armed
> Bolsheviks in October, plus one armed battleship. The Bolsheviks had no popular
> mandate. They seized power at the point of a gun and kept that gun pointed at
> the heads of the Russian people for some 70 years.
Ah...I see...a handful of revolutionaries were able to hold a nation of hundreds of
millions under their sway? Is that what you would have us believe? Any other
fantasies you'd care to share with us while you're at it?
>
> There are simply no grounds for laying responsibility for the Bolshevik
> coup at the feet of Nicholas II. His leadership may have been inept, but the
> autocratic system was not his invention,
Big deal. The fact is, the autocracy was carried on by him regardless of whether he
"started it" or not. This certainly is a very poor argument to disprove what
everyone else appears to accept.
> and he accepted his status as autocrat
> not with pride and arrogance, but as a cross to be borne.
BALONEY! You began by stating you had not taken a stand...haha... Yeah...sure you
haven't. Everything about you post demonstrates just the opposite. And I might
add...demonstrates it abundantly. As for Nicholas' arrogance... I never stated he
accepted the crown with pride or arrogance so do NOT put words in my mouth, erect a
strawman and then pull him down. Extremely poor argument...I must say.
> Lots of evidence
> suggests that Nicholas never wanted to be tsar.
This isn't news. Everyone knows this. The fact is, Nicholas should have followed
his gut instinct and passed on the crown. He was completely incapable of governing.
>
> What the Bolsheviks did to the Tsar and his family was a prophecy of what
> they would do to the Russian people.
Yes...and an indictment on HOLY RUSSIA. This is yet another proof that the idea of
a HOLY RUSSIA is more fantasy than anything else. In the closing days of that
autocracy, Russia was anything BUT holy, the result of which was the revolution,
prophesied for Russia's fall into spiritual apathy.
>
> Get yourself a solid biography of Nicholas. He was a good man -- in the
> wrong job, at the wrong time, in the wrong place.
And you get a reality check. The fact is, I've read dozens of books, have been to
the former Soviet Union (spent a month there) and spoken with those who know far
more about it (Jim Forest) than you have demonstrated with your trite post.
--
**********************************
evagrius
Too bad you've killfiled me. I second your response and
arguments.:)
In article <3919C5D2...@bottom.com>, James
Tamster
(Vietnam, South Africa, the Balkans, Taiwan, just to name a few over the
last several decades).
I suggest Americans focus on and clean up their own back yards, for a
change. This should keep them busy for the next century or two.
Please leave the issue of who and what the Tsar was for the Russian people
to decide for themselves. Other than providing years of lucrative business
to the U.S. defense industry after the fall of Russia, Americans were
largely unaffected by what transpired in Russia: EVER.
Tamster
keep you, now and forever, unto ages and ages!
> From: James <myad...@bottom.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:21:00 -0700
> Subject: Re: Nicholas II <WAS Re: Yet Another ROCOR Scandal
>
> Tamster wrote:
>
>> Americans seem to incessantly stick their noses into other people's business
>> (Vietnam, South Africa, the Balkans, Taiwan, just to name a few over the
>> last several decades).
>>
>
> Really? It seems to me that many of these countries have cried out to America
> for help and when it comes they are damned for bringing it. The States is
> damned
> if they do and damned if they don't.
>
>>
>> I suggest Americans focus on and clean up their own back yards, for a
>> change. This should keep them busy for the next century or two.
>>
>
> Well...I'd suggest you mind YOUR own business. That should keep you busy for
> at
> least a few more years, what! ;->
>
>>
>> Please leave the issue of who and what the Tsar was for the Russian people
>> to decide for themselves. Other than providing years of lucrative business
>> to the U.S. defense industry after the fall of Russia, Americans were
>> largely unaffected by what transpired in Russia: EVER.
>
> This last sentence reveals just how ignorant of history you are. Perhaps Ms
> Tamster your time would be better spent in:
> -losing your bigotry regarding the United States
> -taming your proud spirit
> -learning a bit about world history...particularly involving this past century
Tamster
a Russian's shoes psychoanalyzing the plight of Russians during such a
painful time in their history. Instead of showing your gratitude for your
own country's fortunes, you seem to revel in another's demise. Again, I
will continue to pray for you.
Tamster
From: James <myad...@bottom.com>
It's apparent that you are completely out to lunch. I was praising the Russians who had to go through unbelievable suffering during the years of communism.
Look, instead of praying for me, why not do yourself a favour and get some counselling? I think you need some help regarding your bigotry.
--
**********************************
James (wayne)
mailto:pavil82"at"hotmail.com <mailto:pavil82>
http://sites.netscape.net/waynedouglas46/homepage
William R. Work, M.D.
--
Bill Work
"Tamster" <tams...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B53F6118.4E57%tams...@hotmail.com...
> > --
> > **********************************
> >
> > James (wayne)
> >
> > mailto:pavil82"at"hotmail.com
> > http://sites.netscape.net/waynedouglas46/homepage
> >
> >
>
Bryan J. Maloney
<tams...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Please leave the issue of who and what the Tsar was for the Russian people
> to decide for themselves. Other than providing years of lucrative business
> to the U.S. defense industry after the fall of Russia, Americans were
> largely unaffected by what transpired in Russia: EVER.
Here's the problem: It is ROCOR who is pushing Sainthood for the last
Czar, and ROCOR isn't in Russia...
Bryan J. Maloney
M.D." <wwo...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> And you thought she didn't care about you, James! Left-handed again!
Que?
What does "Left-handed again!" mean? How can you tell from a newsgroup
posting whether or not the poster is left-handed?
Bryan J. Maloney
<tams...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Furthermore, I do admit to objecting to having those who have not walked in
> a Russian's shoes psychoanalyzing the plight of Russians during such a
> painful time in their history. Instead of showing your gratitude for your
> own country's fortunes, you seem to revel in another's demise. Again, I
> will continue to pray for you.
So, you will object to the folks in ROCOR, most of whom haven't been in
Russia their entire lives, considering themselves competent to judge who
is and is not truly the Church in Russia?
Tamster
> <tams...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Please leave the issue of who and what the Tsar was for the Russian people
>> to decide for themselves. Other than providing years of lucrative business
>> to the U.S. defense industry after the fall of Russia, Americans were
>> largely unaffected by what transpired in Russia: EVER.
>
> Here's the problem: It is ROCOR who is pushing Sainthood for the last
> Czar, and ROCOR isn't in Russia...
Nor are you, from what I gather. And I surmise you're not a member of
ROCOR, either -- so, pray tell, what is your great interest in what ROCOR
wants or doesn't want. Let them have their cake . . . If it's poisonous,
they will choke on it.
Tamster
> So, you will object to the folks in ROCOR, most of whom haven't been in
> Russia their entire lives, considering themselves competent to judge who
> is and is not truly the Church in Russia?
The state of being Russian lies within the soul (dusha) and not just merely
geographical location.
Tamster
Beach, NY, and you will see that being Russian has little or nothing to do
with being Orthodox.
> From: James <myad...@bottom.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:06:10 -0700
> Subject: Re: Nicholas II <WAS Re: Yet Another ROCOR Scandal
>
> Tamster wrote:
>
> Ahhhhhh.... but according to your other posts, the state of being Orthodox
> lies
> within having been BORN into the Faith. Don't you see how hypocritical your
> views are?
Tamster
> From: James <myad...@bottom.com>
> It really might be better if you discussed issues that are relevant to the
> Orthodox Faith and certainly schism IS relevant. But your ad hominem posts are
> neither relevant nor appreciated.
FTT
> > From: bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
>
> > So, you will object to the folks in ROCOR, most of whom haven't been in
> > Russia their entire lives, considering themselves competent to judge who
> > is and is not truly the Church in Russia?
>
> The state of being Russian lies within the soul (dusha) and not just
merely
> geographical location.
>
Oh I see religious ethnocentricim raises its ugly head.
That's why terrible convert Prots or even in this case NA RCs
are second class christian brothers/sisters for you Tamster.
They were born into the "wrong" ethnic group and lack
the right "soul" for being Orthodox. Says something : ie Orthodoxy
is subservient to being a certain "kind" of ethnic whatever?
Good Lord Tamster, talk about "baggage".
So much (little, actually) for the Wholeness and Catholicity
of Orthodoxy. it can't overcome and embrace the Western Mind
and culture. Is becoming Orthodox a synonymn for Ethnic superiority?
Wow, Hitler would have loved you (your philosophical view. oops
a good {right thinking} Orthodox doesn't think ? Excuse my
sacrcasm, but your type (and Anglicanism has had its fair share of
of ethnocentric Colonel Blimps, too. I know of what I speak) is a "blight"
on the true meaning of Christ's Gospel of Good News to _ALL PEOPLE_.
Anyway we all can and should hear His words on the Cross , "Father
forgive them for they don't know what they are doing". Let us attend
FTT
Bryan J. Maloney
> Tamster wrote:
>
> > > From: bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
> >
> > > So, you will object to the folks in ROCOR, most of whom haven't been in
> > > Russia their entire lives, considering themselves competent to judge who
> > > is and is not truly the Church in Russia?
> >
> > The state of being Russian lies within the soul (dusha) and not just merely
> > geographical location.
>
> Ahhhhhh.... but according to your other posts, the state of being
Orthodox lies
> within having been BORN into the Faith. Don't you see how hypocritical your
> views are?
Hrm, sounds like some kind of cultism she's espousing, not Orthodoxy...
Tamster
> From: James <myad...@bottom.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:37:02 -0700
> Subject: Re: Nicholas II <WAS Re: Yet Another ROCOR Scandal
>
> Tamster wrote:
>
> I have one but you are a danger to the Church and as such your bigotry will be
> challenged at every opporunity. Do not think for one minute that you will find
> any
> sympathy here for such unChristian beliefs.
Tamster
Russians are Orthodox, and not all Orthodox are Russians. WHAT IS IT THAT
I'M NOT MAKING CLEAR???
> From: bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
> Organization: Cornell University
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:43:55 -0400
> Subject: Re: Nicholas II <WAS Re: Yet Another ROCOR Scandal
>
William R. Work, M.D.
when taken in context is actually an insult.
--
Bill Work
"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-11050...@potato.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <EqrS4.1559$WS3....@typhoon.we.rr.com>, "William R. Work,
> M.D." <wwo...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > And you thought she didn't care about you, James! Left-handed again!
>
> Que?
>
> What does "Left-handed again!" mean? How can you tell from a newsgroup
> posting whether or not the poster is left-handed?
>
William R. Work, M.D.
Observations:
1. "She" isn't as verbally prolific as "eira/alchemyst" was so I don't think
that "she" is the latter (though he/she may have gotten better at covering
him/herself).
2. Upon arrival to this NG, wants to know where the REAL Orthodox hang
out...of course, she NEVER meant to insult anyone...READ: TROLL behavior
Any others?
BTW, a scary thought just crossed my mind...what if she is real?
--
Bill Work
"Tamster" <tams...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B540A247.511C%tams...@hotmail.com...
> Wow. This IS really scary. No wonder there are no true Orthodox here . .
.
>
> > From: James <myad...@bottom.com>
> > Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
> > Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:37:02 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Nicholas II <WAS Re: Yet Another ROCOR Scandal
> >
James (wayne)
That is not to say that she has a 'right' to perpetual ownership of what she
was simply a guardian.. IMHO.
<oh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:390F8F76...@my-deja.com...
>
>
> James (wayne) wrote:
>
> > "The Russian Orthodox Church of St Nicholas in Bari, Italy, was founded
in
> > 1911
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Following the tragedy of the 1917 revolution, the church was
administered by
> > the ROCOR. From 1921 to this day, priests appointed by the ROCOR
celebrated
> > the religious services without interruption.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >
> > Interesting how the writer of the above inserts very cleverly certain
> > phrases which give the reader the impression that this church is solely
the
> > property in perpetuity of the ROCOR. NOT!!!!
>
> Dear James,
>
> Whatever words might or might not have been inserted, IF ANY, the church
seems
> to have had perpetual ROCOR priests since 1917, ie. all but 6 years of its
> existence.
>
James (wayne)
keeping my doors wide open in the evening for every passing person who takes
a fancy to my property or family. In addition, the canonical church has a
responsibility to re-establish itself in these areas in which the Church was
once vibrant. Simply allowing the ROCOR free rein is both irresponsible and
spiritually unwise. We need to be gentle as doves...true...but wise a
serpents!
james
"Timothy Mulligan" <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote in message
news:390F0CE7...@central.uh.edu...
> Assuming this *were* an either/or situation (i.e., either the "MP" or
"ROCOR" is
> the "true" Russian Orthodox Church), then the "true" representative,
perhaps,
> would be the one that turned the other cheek, and let the property go
without
> countenancing, nay, facilitating, a sundering of brotherly love. But
neither
> seems Solomonic enough to avoid splitting the baby. St. John Maximovich,
pray
> for us.
>
> Tim Mulligan
> tmul...@central.uh.edu
>
> "James (wayne)" wrote:
>
> > I opened my "late-as-usual" copy of Orthodox America this morning only
to be
> > confronted, once again, by another whining headline: Moscow Patriarchate
> > Encroaches on Church of St Nicholas in Bari. What followed is yet
another
> > instance of the "evil" Moscow Church attempting to wrest control of a
ROCOR
> > held church in Italy (where St Nicholas' relics lie). Interestingly the
> > local authorities are described as "blatantly abusing" their power...
> > "refusing to uphold the law"...blah blah blah. Naturally another LAW
SUIT
> > has been launched by the ROCOR and another scandal put before the local
> > population. The truth of the matter is these churches/monasteries (as in
the
> > case of Jericho) are NOT the property of the ROCOR... PERIOD. They were
all
> > built prior to the revolution and were and ARE the property of the
authentic
> > and canonical Russian Church. So.... another scandal, courtesy of the
ROCOR.
> >
> > As an aside, I once found this paper invaluable but increasingly I see
it
> > being used as a tool for propaganda. If this continues my subscription
will
> > certainly come to an abrupt end.
> >
> > --
> > James (wayne)
> > http://sites.netscape.net/waynedouglas46/homepage
>
James (wayne)
Michelle
the relics of St. Nicholas is under the domain of the Catholic Church.
All literature I have read, which included the "tourist brochure" for the
church do not mention an Orthodox presence there - What is the real
story here?
Michelle
James (wayne) wrote in message:
> I opened my "late-as-usual" copy of Orthodox America this morning only to
be
> confronted, once again, by another whining headline: Moscow Patriarchate
> Encroaches on Church of St Nicholas in Bari. What followed is yet another
> instance of the "evil" Moscow Church attempting to wrest control of a
ROCOR
> held church in Italy (where St Nicholas' relics lie). Interestingly the
> local authorities are described as "blatantly abusing" their power...
> "refusing to uphold the law"...blah blah blah. <snip>
James (wayne)
the only Orthodox Church located in the city where the Wonderworker's relics
repose, and it is therefore invaluable for the entire Orthodox Church.
Following the tragedy of the 1917 revolution, the church was administered by
the ROCOR. From 1921 to this day, priests appointed by the ROCOR celebrated
the religious services without interruption.
However, in 1937 financial problems made it impossible for the owners (I
take exception to their use of the word "owners") to look after the church
and the adjacent buildings. An agreement was then reached between the city
of Bari and the ROCOR. According to this agreement, the city of Bari became
the owner of the property while the ROCOR was granted complete and permanent
(again... in my opinion this is NOT possible) use of the church and the
buildings while the city, was given the responsibility for the maintenance
and the care of all the buildings and the salary of the priest serving the
church."
Interesting how the writer of the above inserts very cleverly certain
phrases which give the reader the impression that this church is solely the
property in perpetuity of the ROCOR. NOT!!!!
"Michelle" <pilgr...@worldnet.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:bbGP4.44590$fV.27...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
oh...@my-deja.com
James (wayne) wrote:
> "The Russian Orthodox Church of St Nicholas in Bari, Italy, was founded in
> 1911
<snip>
>
> Following the tragedy of the 1917 revolution, the church was administered by
> the ROCOR. From 1921 to this day, priests appointed by the ROCOR celebrated
> the religious services without interruption.
>
<snip>
>
>
> Interesting how the writer of the above inserts very cleverly certain
> phrases which give the reader the impression that this church is solely the
> property in perpetuity of the ROCOR. NOT!!!!
Dear James,
Gerard Serafin
Michelle wrote:
> It is my understanding that the Church of St. Nicholas, which holds
> the relics of St. Nicholas is under the domain of the Catholic Church.
> All literature I have read, which included the "tourist brochure" for the
> church do not mention an Orthodox presence there - What is the real
> story here?
Michelle, try the link I give for some information about this situation
(no mention is made of the current difficulties between the various
jurisdictions):
http://www.op.org/san-nicola/basilica/ochapele.htm
--
Gerard Serafin
Celebrating the Romance of Orthodoxy:
A Catholic Page for Lovers:
http://praiseofglory.alabanza.com
"There is only one sadness: not to be a saint" (Leon Bloy)
Timothy Mulligan
You may be correct.
Timothy Mulligan
the "true" Russian Orthodox Church), then the "true" representative, perhaps,
would be the one that turned the other cheek, and let the property go without
countenancing, nay, facilitating, a sundering of brotherly love. But neither
seems Solomonic enough to avoid splitting the baby. St. John Maximovich, pray
for us.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
"James (wayne)" wrote:
> I opened my "late-as-usual" copy of Orthodox America this morning only to be
> confronted, once again, by another whining headline: Moscow Patriarchate
> Encroaches on Church of St Nicholas in Bari. What followed is yet another
> instance of the "evil" Moscow Church attempting to wrest control of a ROCOR
> held church in Italy (where St Nicholas' relics lie). Interestingly the
> local authorities are described as "blatantly abusing" their power...
James (wayne)
the ROCOR. Maybe I should put it this way. Many Orthodox Christians today
cannot find any 'good' reason why the ROCOR remains separated for the rest
of Orthodoxy. It's really time for her to 'come home' as it were. As long as
her hierarchs (and I think most believe "they" are the real problem)
continue to maintain this separation (using ecumenism, sergianism,
liberalism, calendar...and a host of other 'excuses') her actions are a true
scandal to the Body of Christ. The laity, are being led down the garden path
and this lack of communion among us is truly a scandal. The Russian Church
is now free and there really is no reason for the ROCOR to remain a law unto
itself. That's my opinion at least.
"Timothy Mulligan" <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote in message
news:390F123F...@central.uh.edu...
> James,
>
> You may be correct.
>
> Tim Mulligan
> tmul...@central.uh.edu
>
> "James (wayne)" wrote:
>
James (wayne)
> In article <8epv7b$nbn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, burl...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Do ROCOR and what is called on the web "The Orthodox Church in America"
> > have anything to do with each other? Are they different bodies? I can
>
> ROCOR was formed by Bishops who fled the soviets and who decided that they
> would not get along with the Russian mission in America. The OCA is the
> original Russian mission in America. OCA is recognized as canonical by
> Moscow and has intercommunion with the Greeks, Serbs, etc. All are ONE
> Church.
>
> > This all gets very confusing to an outsider. It seems sometimes that
> > Orthodox Churches fight among each other as much as Protestant Churches
> > do. It's wonderful to have the Nicene Creed, but it is hard to find
>
> Serbs, OCA, Greek Archdiocese, Antiochian, Crete, etc. All recognize each
> other within the Americas and all are recognized by Moscow, Jerusalem,
> etc. It is only some very vocal (and smaller) groups that make lots of
> noise.
>
> > seem to contradict that tradition. It is really sad. I think the
> > American Orthodox Church needs to assert itself a little more
> > forcefully, even if that means foregoing and losing property belonging
> > to Mother Churches. If you could all just decide on one Mother Church
> > and work within that one church (in English) you would be far ahead.
>
> You haven't the faintest idea of what an Apostolic hierarchy means, do
you?
This is exactly what I have been thinking, Bryan. While I can understand
(having been one) a Protestant being upset with his own tradition (or lack
thereof) and looking to Orthodoxy to fill that "need", it rankles me a bit
when I see them point accusing fingers at the Church before they have even
experienced Her.... before they have become a part of Her. It's as if they
are saying, "We'd like to be a part of this family BUT y'all are going to
have to get your act together according to our ideas of what the Church
should be like before we make the jump."
While they may NOT be saying this, that is the way I am perceiving their
criticisms. As I said before, "if" the Lord is calling someone to the
Church... that person should enter the Church humbly (not as a
self-appointed critic) and roll up his sleeves from WITHIN the Church to do
what he can to address some of the problems that have been pointed out.
James (wayne)
Surely you can't be posting this with a straight face. The MP has been
suffering unbelievably for much of the past 80 years, my friend. Let us bear
in mind, that she remained in that land of suffering to 'face the music' as
it were. Of course she was/is guilty of sin... but who among us is pure? No
Church has suffered such as the Russian Church during the past 80 years. And
you have the nerve to suggest she could/should have been concerned about her
parishes outside the country? Daniel, THINK!!
james
"Daniel Kisliakov" <dki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:390FCB08...@yahoo.com...
> Tell me... why had it taken more than 80 years for the MP to even claim
the
> property? It seems to me that if ROCOR has been able to have the Parish
for so
> many years, the issue would not be as simple as you wish to portray it.
The same
> is the case in Jericho. It seems to me that you can't simply dispute more
than
> 80 years of being in a property arbitrarily. The proper, and Christian
thing to
> do, is to challenge in a court of law at teh very least. The very ideal
> Christian thing to do would be for the Churches to unite. But then again,
who
> can speak of unity when the MP doesn't even respect, or answer to, ROCOR's
side
> of the argument.
>
> Daniel
>
> "James (wayne)" wrote:
>
> > True...but that is only due to historical reasons and you know that,
Galina.
> > That is not to say that she has a 'right' to perpetual ownership of what
she
> > was simply a guardian.. IMHO.
> >
> > <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:390F8F76...@my-deja.com...
> > >
> > >
Daniel Kisliakov
Bryan J. Maloney
> Do ROCOR and what is called on the web "The Orthodox Church in America"
> have anything to do with each other? Are they different bodies? I can
ROCOR was formed by Bishops who fled the soviets and who decided that they
would not get along with the Russian mission in America. The OCA is the
original Russian mission in America. OCA is recognized as canonical by
Moscow and has intercommunion with the Greeks, Serbs, etc. All are ONE
Church.
> This all gets very confusing to an outsider. It seems sometimes that
> Orthodox Churches fight among each other as much as Protestant Churches
> do. It's wonderful to have the Nicene Creed, but it is hard to find
Serbs, OCA, Greek Archdiocese, Antiochian, Crete, etc. All recognize each
other within the Americas and all are recognized by Moscow, Jerusalem,
etc. It is only some very vocal (and smaller) groups that make lots of
noise.
> seem to contradict that tradition. It is really sad. I think the
> American Orthodox Church needs to assert itself a little more
> forcefully, even if that means foregoing and losing property belonging
> to Mother Churches. If you could all just decide on one Mother Church
> and work within that one church (in English) you would be far ahead.
You haven't the faintest idea of what an Apostolic hierarchy means, do you?
--
burl...@my-deja.com
have anything to do with each other? Are they different bodies? I can
wondering if the Orthodox Church in America is simply a euphemism for
it since to me they have always somehow seemed related to the Russian
Orthodox Church.
This all gets very confusing to an outsider. It seems sometimes that
Orthodox Churches fight among each other as much as Protestant Churches
do. It's wonderful to have the Nicene Creed, but it is hard to find
one apostolic church here unless I go to Rome. And the modern papacy
makes that an unreasonable solution.
I would say this entire state of affairs is a scandal to the body of
Christ. I believe the Eastern Orthodox best represents Christ in their
traditional liturgy and doctrine, but their actions among each other
seem to contradict that tradition. It is really sad. I think the
American Orthodox Church needs to assert itself a little more
forcefully, even if that means foregoing and losing property belonging
to Mother Churches. If you could all just decide on one Mother Church
and work within that one church (in English) you would be far ahead.
In article <390f0...@news.pacifier.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Matanna
You missed that ROCOR had just sunk a lot of money into renovations, and the
priest was abused in front of his 12 year old daughter, whom the police had
forced to act as translator.
If these properties really do belong to the MP, why take the Janet Reno
"helping" Elian Gonzalez approach to "liberating" them? I don't believe that
the Apostles advocated such.
Couldn't there be such a thing as an orderly and peaceful transfer?
I don't blame you for your spin on this, because it's what you've been taught,
but I wish you'd examine it more carefully. I understand that the OCA has a
stake in making us look illegitimate to bolster their own claims. But it is
unlovely and unChristian behavior, and it hurts souls.
Matushka Ann Lardas
(mat...@aol.com)
Jesh
in 1942. After Pearl Harbor, the US government interned all Japanese
nationals in camps largely in the upper midwest. Many of them had
property, especially in California, homes, farms, etc. Many of their
white neighbors "took" the land, either just by moving in or by "rigged"
land sales for such reasons as non-payment of taxes.
When WWII ended, the Japanese were released from the American internment
camps, and they returned to their homes and lands, but precious few of
them were able to get their property back from the greedy and indeed
evil "Americans" (but with some notable exceptions.)
The ROCOR seems to be like those evil Americans: when the Japanese
Americans were indisposed, they moved in to "care for" the properties.
When the emergency was over, they still saw the Japanese Americans as
"evil" and they "self-justified" their keeping the properties.
In retrospect, our government has acknowledged that a grave injustice
was done to the Japanese; in 21st century America, media-manipulators
and publicity-hungry congresswomen (Carolyn Maloney?) are trying to
publicly justify the confiscation of properties in the Holy Land that
belong to an entity that had some grave injustices heaped upon it by
the Bolsheviks.
Will the US government, some 50 years hence, be apoligizing to the MP
for "backing" the wrong group in the Holy Land property disputes? Only
time will tell. Can today's American-based ROCOR'ites justify their
claim to the Holy Land properties, just as their fellow Americans
justified their claims to the Japanese-American properties some 55 years
ago? Is "possession" nine points of the law?
Jesh
In article <390FCB08...@yahoo.com>,
James (wayne)
from".
It's a difficult and frustrating situation, isn't it? Yes.... I hear you
loud and clear. My fiance and I are basically facing a somewhat similar
problem.... too much Greek or Romanian and too little English. Some English
speaking converts actually prefer this, but I am not one of them.
I suppose you might look into attending less frequently and doing some
long-distance driving. This is what we are doing right now. It means that we
only attend church once and sometimes twice a month. But that is the sad
reality of the situation. Until the ethnically closed mentality dies off,
the problems to which you've drawn our attention are going to continue to
discourage new converts. I can understand some of the "Lord have mercies"
being in Greek (Russian..etc) but there is NO NEED in America or Canada for
90% of the liturgy to be in a foreign tongue.
As a result of this, many newly married couples eventually leave the church.
More than 2/3 of Orthodox marriages are outside of the Church (an Orthodox
marrying a non-Orthodox) and frequently the non-Orthodox does not speak the
language (i.e. Greek). Result? "You go to church, Honey.... I don't
understand what they're saying and besides, I don't think they particularly
like me."
Eventually they either give up regular attendance, give up Orthodoxy and
settle for a Protestant denomination OR quit altogether. It's sad.
<burl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8eqhel$c5b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3910b...@news.pacifier.com>,
> "James \(wayne\)" <lsharp...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> You are exactly right -- my "criticism" is more in the tone of asking
> how all of these things work out. It seems as if the Orthodox could
> have one apostolic heirarchy with which to work in the United States
> rather than a number of them. Based on what I am learning in this
> group it seems as if the Orthodox Church in America was here first and
> may be the most sensible one to work through. Unfortately, I do not
> have an Orthodox Church in America Church locally to work with. I have a
> choice of a Greek church where the service is mainly in Greek and a
> Serbian Church which is all in Serbian. That is not very inviting for
> an English speaking person. So I am not being critical as much as just
> trying to figure out how all of these things fit together!
>
> > This is exactly what I have been thinking, Bryan. While I can
> understand
> > (having been one) a Protestant being upset with his own tradition (or
> lack
> > thereof) and looking to Orthodoxy to fill that "need", it rankles me a
> bit
> > when I see them point accusing fingers at the Church before they have
> even
> > experienced Her.... before they have become a part of Her. It's as if
> they
> > are saying, "We'd like to be a part of this family BUT y'all are going
> to
> > have to get your act together according to our ideas of what the
> Church
> > should be like before we make the jump."
> >
> > While they may NOT be saying this, that is the way I am perceiving
> their
> > criticisms. As I said before, "if" the Lord is calling someone to the
> > Church... that person should enter the Church humbly (not as a
> > self-appointed critic) and roll up his sleeves from WITHIN the Church
> to do
> > what he can to address some of the problems that have been pointed
> out.
> >
> >
>
>
James (wayne)
is a schismatic group which broke from the Russian Church following the
Revolution. It has more or less separated itself from the rest of Orthodoxy,
seeing evil everywhere in the forms of liberalism, ecumenism, and the "s"
word. Her priests do not celebrate with canonical Orthodox and generally
(but not always), other Orthodox are not communed in ROCOR churches or
monasteries. In spite of what some have claimed here, from personal
experience I can attest to this FACT. Such a broken communion with
world-wide Orthodoxy speaks for itself.
<burl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8epv7b$nbn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Do ROCOR and what is called on the web "The Orthodox Church in America"
> have anything to do with each other? Are they different bodies? I can
> understand what the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is and am
> wondering if the Orthodox Church in America is simply a euphemism for
> it since to me they have always somehow seemed related to the Russian
> Orthodox Church.
>
> This all gets very confusing to an outsider. It seems sometimes that
> Orthodox Churches fight among each other as much as Protestant Churches
> do. It's wonderful to have the Nicene Creed, but it is hard to find
> one apostolic church here unless I go to Rome. And the modern papacy
> makes that an unreasonable solution.
>
> I would say this entire state of affairs is a scandal to the body of
> Christ. I believe the Eastern Orthodox best represents Christ in their
> traditional liturgy and doctrine, but their actions among each other
> seem to contradict that tradition. It is really sad. I think the
> American Orthodox Church needs to assert itself a little more
> forcefully, even if that means foregoing and losing property belonging
> to Mother Churches. If you could all just decide on one Mother Church
> and work within that one church (in English) you would be far ahead.
>
> In article <390f0...@news.pacifier.com>,
> "James \(wayne\)" <lsharp...@pacifier.com> wrote:
burl...@my-deja.com
James
> Which is the "true" Russian Church? The one that did not compromise
> itself with the Communists. The one that venerates the murdered Imperial
> Family as saints and martyrs of God.
There is but ONE Russian Church. It is the one you say "compromised itself
with the Communists. It's very easy to say that from our safe armchairs,
isn't it. Yes... we sit and smugly talk about Sergianism etc.... but let us
have to suffer what the Russian Church suffered in the homeland... for even
a very short duration and I wonder if such smug descriptions would soon fall
from our lips forever. It amazes me how some continue to pour scorn upon
this long-suffering Church.
--
**********************************
James (wayne)
mailto:pav...@hotmail.com
http://sites.netscape.net/waynedouglas46/homepage
James
> The Christians of the first centuries never compromised with the pagan
> Romans. They suffered torture and death rather than burn a pinch of
> incence before an idol of the Emperor. Millions in Russia too like those
> in the Roman Empire chose death rather bend the knee to the godless
> state.
>
> Regarding the churches in the Holy Land and elsewhere who were their
> founders and benefactors? Not some accursed godless Bolshevik and their
> lackeys but rather the God fearing Tsars of Holy Russia.
>
> One can not serve both God and mammon. As the Bible says choose this day
> whom you will serve.
LOL... "God-fearing Tsar"??? You really are living in a dream world, Son.
James
> James,
>
> >> Regarding the churches in the Holy Land and elsewhere who were their
> > founders and benefactors? Not some accursed godless Bolshevik and their
> > lackeys but rather the God fearing Tsars of Holy Russia.
> >
> >LOL... "God-fearing Tsar"??? You really are living in a dream world, son.
>
> You may not be a monarchist - ironic from a Canadian, who has the Queen as head
> of state - but David has a point. The USSR wasn't the founder and benefactor of
> those places. ROCOR took care of them all these years.
>
> Is there a large movement to make Canada a republic?
>
> XPNCTOC BOCKPECE!
>
> http://oldworldrus.com
I disagree. These places were founded by the Russian Orthodox Church. The reasons
they were unable to maintain them are 70 some odd years of persecution and
suffering at the hands of a godless regime. That period is over and these places
rightfully belong to the Russian Orthodox Church which purchased them in the first
place.
The part that David posted regarding a God-fearing Tsar is somewhat laughable. When
one studies the lives these Tsars lived... it's very, very difficult to believe
they fear anyone or anything. As for being Canadian and a non-monarchist.... you'll
discover that many people living in England today see no reason for the maintenance
of this institution. It's outmoded... anachronistic and somewhat obscene given the
financial reality of the world in which we live. When I walked through the Winter
Palace, the Peterhof, the Catherine Palace... I lost a great deal of respect for
these so-called God-fearing Tsars. I've seen the film footage of their serfs at the
turn of the century. I've seen the still pics of their balls at the Winter Palace.
It ain't a pretty picture and I suspect our Lord would not have been comfortable
there as well. The sort of stories we hear about the Orthodox Tsars are the stories
of which fantasy is made. These are literally fantastic fairytales and little more.
James
> T254 <t2...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000506183212...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> > >The Tsar is not like other kings and rulers.
> > >He is the Lord's annointed. He is set apart; his is a priestly
> > >annointing. He is the successor to St Constantine. Truly Tsarist Russia
> > >was the new and final Rome and will be so again some day. The Tsar is
> > >the defender, protector, benefactor and champion of Orthodoxy!
> >
> > Oh! Gimme a break!!!!
> >
> >
> > robert G Tallick
>
> Right on robert
>
> Elizabeth 11 (for Scots, Eliz 1) was annointed,
> is the successor of St. Edward the Confessor, is Defender of the Faith....
> and all that ballyhoo....so what...!!!???? Who cares?
> FTT
Exactly. But I suspect this is yet another of the ROCOR fantasies. The Tsar
Martyr ... Defender of the Orthodox Faith... Ruler of HOLY Russia. Yeah.
Right! Bringer-on-of the Revolution and ultimately the blood bath into which
Russia was plunged. But then... I suppose David enjoys reading these
Jordanville fairy tales... believing if he were living in so-called Holy
Russia he would be among the aristocracy. NOT, David. You'd be as downtrodden
as the rest of the serfs. Face it. Time for a reality check.
--
**********************************
Regards from James (wayne)
James
> Who would have taken care of these churches outside of Russia after the
> Bolshevik Revolution if not for ROCOR? Not the Communists. What did
> they do with the churches in Russia? Have them torn down or desecrated!
> Now ROCOR is to be tossed out just because "freedom" (so called) has
> come to Russia? There can be no true freedom in Russia until the Tsar,
> a God fearing Orthodox Tsar again sits and reigns upon the throne.
> Russia can not be purified until the Tsar returns. There can be no Holy
> Russia without the Tsar! The Tsar is not like other kings and rulers.
> He is the Lord's annointed. He is set apart; his is a priestly
> annointing. He is the successor to St Constantine. Truly Tsarist Russia
> was the new and final Rome and will be so again some day. The Tsar is
> the defender, protector, benefactor and champion of Orthodoxy!
ROFLMAO.... You can't be serious! No Tsar will ever sit on any Russian
throne again. Face it... It's over. The more likely scenario is the
Communists regaining power. That is what we need to fear.
Secondly, there were precious few God-fearing Tsars. You're living in a
dream-world if you think there were. The Communist Revolution is THANKS to
your God-fearing Tsars! The twits were incapable of governing the country
and in addition were riddled with corruption. Their lives were an
obscenity.
I will grant you one thing: Nicholas was likely a good family man. His wife
was given to hysterics and far too meddlesome. Thanks to her lunacy
regarding Rasputin, the Communist take-over was hastened. Nicholas is most
certainly not a Saint however he was a martyr... albeit I believe he was a
political and not religious martyr.
As for the rest of your raving regarding the Tsar being this and that... it
isn't worthy of addressing since it has no basis in reality. David... it is
time for a serious reality check.
James
> In article <3914C86A...@Signature.below>, James
> <Se...@Signature.below> wrote:
>
> >Exactly. But I suspect this is yet another of the ROCOR
> fantasies. The Tsar
> >Martyr ... Defender of the Orthodox Faith... Ruler of HOLY
> Russia. Yeah.
> >Right! Bringer-on-of the Revolution and ultimately the blood
> bath into which
> >Russia was plunged. But then... I suppose David enjoys reading
> these
> >Jordanville fairy tales... believing if he were living in
> so-called Holy
> >Russia he would be among the aristocracy. NOT, David. You'd be
> as downtrodden
> >as the rest of the serfs. Face it. Time for a reality check.
>
> I think that you have to be careful not to throw the baby out
> with the bath water.
>
> There is a problem with the way some, such as David, who want to
> try to define what the Church is and what the Church isn't on
> terms and conditions that they have set up.
>
> If he wants to pretend that one can determine if one is Orthodox
> based on if one venerates the Tsar as a saint in the Church, that
> is nothing more than the same very dangerous road that he and
> some others in ROCOR have gone down, and that road leads away
> from and not towards Christ and His Church.
>
> The Russian Orthodox Church may, in the future, glorify the Tsar
> and his family. There are those within the Russian Orthodox
> Church who already ask for his intercessions. It may culminate
> in his glorification or it may not. God alone will decide if
> that is proper. So be careful when you make your comments about
> the Tsar and his family since one day you may find out that you
> are or were wrong. And you may have boxed yourself into the same
> corner that David has.
>
> Holy Russia existed with good and bad Tsars. Another issue that
> one has to keep clear in one's mind by recognizing that there is
> a difference between the two.
>
> The Tsar had many good points and he had many bad points. The
> Synod is not the final judge of anyone's Orthodoxy, except for
> those who find themselves in that jurisdiction. Don't use David
> as a reason to think anything. I know too many Synodal priests
> who have said to me that he doesn't express what the Synod does
> teach (no different than Mr. Wright). Your rightful rejection of
> what he says, however, can put you in the same boat as him, and
> it is that issue that concerns me.
>
> Evan
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
I stand corrected, Evan. What you have said makes a great deal of sense.
James
> David, Khristos Voskrese!
>
> God bless you for standing up for our St. Tsar-Martyr Nicholas. People who
> answered you here simply do not know what they are talking about. The Tsar and
> His Family have already been canonized in several Russian eparchies (is this
> the right word in English?). Their icons in Moscow are streaming myrrh (one of
> the icons was taken to Athos last year and venerated there by monks from
> various monasteries).
>
> People who are badmouthing the St. Tsar are badmouthing a Saint which may be a
> sin against the Holy Spirit. God have mercy on their souls.
>
> Sinner Ioann Z.
And you are living in a fantasy world, Sinner Ioann Z. Icons streaming... not just
oozing...or dripping... but STREAMING? Are you positive? Have you seen this? How do
they handle the streams of myrrh, Ioann? Please, get a grip on reality. I've seen
(with my own eyes) the obscene life-style in which these so-called God-fearing
Tsars lived. Have you? Or are you simply another naive believer of all you read
from certain publications?
James
In light of my having just read Evan's post, I'm going to partially
retract this post above. While I have great difficulty believing in the
Sainthood of the last Royals and in these icons streaming myrrh, perhaps
it is best if I take a "wait see" position rather than dismiss it outright.
I apologize for the harshness of my previous post.
James
> Dear James,
>
> Christ is risen!
>
> Actually, the news item from Moscow about the icon of St. Nicholas (The Tsar
> Martyr) streaming myrrh hit several different discussion lists and was covered
> by the Moscow press.
>
> As for a lavish lifestyle, well, the King is the symbol of the country. And so
> the people want his lifestyle to be emblematic of the wealth of the nation.
> That doesn't mean that the royal family's day to day life was one of luxory.
> They kept the fasts at a time when it was not fashionable to do so. They had
> their kids sleep on army cots and bathe in cold water until they hit
> adolescence. One can live in opulance and still be "poor in Spirit " -- theirs
> is the Kingdom of Heaven.
>
> You might want to read "A Gathered Radiance," about Empress Alexandra, or, for
> that matter, start with the Massies' book, "Nicholas and Alexandra," to see
> what lay behind the velvet and brocade.
>
> Your criticism reminds me, on some level, of the scorn heaped on rich women who
> kept their maids during the Depression. The rich ladies knew that keeping the
> maid was one way to be sure that the maid's family ate.
>
> The royal family practically bankrupted themselves spending on charities. So
> yes, they lived in fancy digs, but those were already paid for. They attended
> royal functions and fancy dress balls, but that was for the status of the
> nation. In their private life, they were pious and devout.
>
> It is as bad a sin to judge a man for being rich as it is to judge someone for
> being poor. Wealth, in the hands of an Orthodox Christian, is in many ways a
> greater burden than poverty, because it brings with it the duty to do good
> according to the extent to which one has been blessed.
>
> We see this in the lives of the Saints. While Christ Himself was poor, his
> grandfather, St. Joachim, was rich. Why? Because of all that he had, he gave
> one third to the temple (rather than the bare minimum of one tenth) and one
> third to the poor, living off the remaining third, and so God granted that his
> flocks increase, and so the saint would give away more. (And all this wealth
> did not bring St. Joachim happiness, but the birth of the Theotokos did. And
> again, what did he do with this very great gift? He gave it back to God, taking
> the Theotokos to live in the Temple when she was only three. This is an example
> for us, to take what we have given and entrust it to God, to lay up our
> treasure with Him.) Wealth is not a bad thing. Using wealth is not a bad thing.
> Abusing wealth is what's evil.
>
> In Christ,
>
> Matushka Ann Lardas
> (mat...@aol.com)
I've read the book you mentioned, Matushka, and found it well.... very one-sided
and simplistic. I simply cannot accept the life-style in which they lived in
comparison to that of their subjects. Nor can I accept the manner in which he
dismissed Duma after Duma. I find the sort of history that surrounds the last Tsar
to be terribly biased and really... I doubt it has any basis in reality... rather
wishful thinking. The reality is, the Revolution. The rest... well... ?
I think the examples you give really do not pertain to the reality of what most
historians know to be the truth regarding this man's autocratic rule (or inability
to rule) over Russia. I've taken into consideration what Evan posted. Perhaps the
man and his family will ultimately be declared martyrs for the faith and as such we
will view them as such. Until then, I see him as a good family man, a lousy
politician... really, someone totally unfit to govern... and certainly not a Saint
in the manner in which Seraphim of Sarov was a Saint.
Have you seen the Tsarina's bedroom, Matushka? I have walked through it. Have you
seen the Peterhof, the Catherine palace where the poor children had to sleep on
cots? I have and it is OBSCENE. Saying that most of his subjects "expected" him to
live in such a life-style is naive in the extreme, Matushka. It is just this sort
of naivite that makes me begin to question "other" sorts of things. I truly believe
you need to reacquaint yourself with the last Tsar's life but this time with
materials with an unbiased viewpoint and ones that do not have a hidden agenda.
James
Praxis wrote:> James <Se...@Signature.below> wrote in message
> news:39183F9B...@Signature.below...
> > It is crystal clear that you haven't the slightest idea what you are
> talking
> > about.
>
> Crystal clear. Like that chip on your shoulder? 8^)Chip on my shoulder? And what have you in your eye? It's easy to sit back,
wait for the opportune moment and then let loose with a one-line zinger,
isn't it! But it says nothing, really...other than a penchant for sarcasm.
--
**********************************Regards from James (wayne)
mailto:pavil82"at"hotmail.com
http://sites.netscape.net/waynedouglas46/homepage
BTW...what part of my response to Katina do you take issue with...and
why? Please give reasons supported by facts...if you wish to be taken seriously.
James
> The Tsar and his family did not flee the Bolsheviks. They did not
> sacrifice their faith. The endured to the end. They paid the ulltimate
> price. They are martyrs and saints of God. Think of all they suffered
> and endured. See how the enemies of God brought them down but God raised
> them up to Himself.
The Tsar and his family had no opportunity. They were awaiting a rescue
attempt by the English royals but George V backed out. Look... I certainly
have no question regarding Nicholas' bravery and his loyalty. They're both
admirable. But he was completely incompetent in terms of leading that
country and in fact was an autocrat firmly determined to pass on to his son
the autocracy undiminished. That unwillingness to let go of the reins of
power and to surround himself with incompetents (his wife being the chief
among them) resulted in the revolution.
We've been discussing those who did flee and those who remained. Funny how
the Russian Church which endured unbelievable suffering is now under the
sickening condemnation of some self-righteous Sergianist name-callers. I
find that the height of cowardice and hypocrisy. When their leaders find it
in their hearts to let go of old animosities and PRIDE, then perhaps true
healing will take place. Until then, this group will remain outside
mainstream Orthodoxy... an oddity of this past century and one that will
doubtless die out over time as so many other schismatic groups have. It's
sad, given the fact that many of its laity and priesthood are being lead
like sheep. One might almost compare this to the Ben Lomond debacle.
James
abandon its "house", so to speak. You have heard of the Russian Revolution,
I take it? You are aware that there were millions of faithful Russian
Orthodox Christians without the means to escape Communism as their
aristocratic "betters"... you know... the ones who took their money and ran
from persecution setting up the ROCOR and now sitting in judgment upon the
Russian Church! Oh, surely you are aware of this little insignificant fact
of history, yes? BTW... the Jewish people which had art etc. stripped from
it during the holocaust by the Nazis only later to turn up in the homes of
wealthy Swiss are now demanding "their" property back. Seems to me the
monasteries which the Russian Church did NOT willingly abandon but now is
quite capable and more than willing to take back SHOULD in fact have their
properties restored to them, your skewed view of history notwithstanding.
elei...@juno.com wrote:
> If you willingly abandon your house and 100 years later your ancestors
> come back to claim it with police and guns even though new owners have
> taken care of it and lived in it, does this seem right to you?
>
> Or let's say that you left the house to your son in-law because you had
> no apparent male heir. 100 years later, an ancestor of an illegitimate
> son comes to claim the property and boots out the family of the
> son-in-law. Is this right?
>
> Just some food for thought...
>
> In article <390f0...@news.pacifier.com>,
> "James \(wayne\)" <lsharp...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
James
> James <Se...@Signature.below> wrote in message
> news:39183F9B...@Signature.below...
> > It is crystal clear that you haven't the slightest idea what you are
> talking
> > about.
>
> Crystal clear. Like that chip on your shoulder? 8^)
Chip on my shoulder? And what have you in your eye? It's easy to sit back,
wait for the opportune moment and then let loose with a one-line zinger,
isn't it! But it says nothing, really...other than a penchant for sarcasm.
--
James
Jeepers! Again, I pray for you! What else can one say? I haven't provoked you in any sort of way! Why this?
From: James <myad...@bottom.com>
It's apparent that you are completely out to lunch. I was praising the Russians who had to go through unbelievable suffering during the years of communism.Look, instead of praying for me, why not do yourself a favour and get some counselling? I think you need some help regarding your bigotry.
--
**********************************James (wayne)
mailto:pavil82"at"hotmail.com <mailto:pavil82>
http://sites.netscape.net/waynedouglas46/homepage
Huh? ;->
--
**********************************
James
> In article <26516-39...@storefull-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> Ami...@webtv.net (David) wrote:
>
> > The Tsar and his family did not flee the Bolsheviks. They did not
> > sacrifice their faith. The endured to the end. They paid the ulltimate
> > price. They are martyrs and saints of God. Think of all they suffered
> > and endured. See how the enemies of God brought them down but God raised
> > them up to Himself.
>
> They are not martyrs. They were killed as mere political liabilities.
>
> --
> "Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
> should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
> dealing with our mental health crisis today."
It's easier to invent fantasies which then align with your private agendas,
Brian. It seems to me that their courage in the face of ridicule and death was
admirable. From the letters smuggled out, it seems they spent their final days
in a Christian manner worthy of our emulation. Their assasination, however,
had nothing to do with their witness for Christ and His Church, but as you say
was politically motivated. To state otherwise is to demonstrate a lack of
knowledge of the political context.
I'm slowly changing my mind in regard to their sainthood. My attitude is: "if"
the Lord wills that we commemorate them as Saints, He will bring this about in
His way and time. I do not believe, however, that we have any evidence
(streaming icons notwithstanding) that this has yet come about.
--
**********************************
Regards from James (wayne)
James
James (wayne), you have been added to my prayer list. May God bless you and
keep you, now and forever, unto ages and ages!> From: James <myad...@bottom.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:21:00 -0700
> Subject: Re: Nicholas II <WAS Re: Yet Another ROCOR Scandal
>
> Tamster wrote:
>
>> Americans seem to incessantly stick their noses into other people's business
>> (Vietnam, South Africa, the Balkans, Taiwan, just to name a few over the
>> last several decades).
>>
>
> Really? It seems to me that many of these countries have cried out to America
> for help and when it comes they are damned for bringing it. The States is
> damned
> if they do and damned if they don't.
>
>>
>> I suggest Americans focus on and clean up their own back yards, for a
>> change. This should keep them busy for the next century or two.
>>
>
> Well...I'd suggest you mind YOUR own business. That should keep you busy for
> at
> least a few more years, what! ;->
>
>>
>> Please leave the issue of who and what the Tsar was for the Russian people
>> to decide for themselves. Other than providing years of lucrative business
>> to the U.S. defense industry after the fall of Russia, Americans were
>> largely unaffected by what transpired in Russia: EVER.
>
> This last sentence reveals just how ignorant of history you are. Perhaps Ms
> Tamster your time would be better spent in:
> -losing your bigotry regarding the United States
> -taming your proud spirit
> -learning a bit about world history...particularly involving this past century
>
>
>
>
> --
> **********************************
>
> James (wayne)
>
> mailto:pavil82"at"hotmail.com
> http://sites.netscape.net/waynedouglas46/homepage
>
>
And may the Lord bless you, Tamster. Seriously, I shall pray for
you this evening. May His angels guard you in your walk.
--
**********************************
James
Furthermore, I do admit to objecting to having those who have not walked in
a Russian's shoes psychoanalyzing the plight of Russians during such a
painful time in their history. Instead of showing your gratitude for your
own country's fortunes, you seem to revel in another's demise. Again, I
will continue to pray for you.
It's apparent that you are completely out to lunch. I was praising the Russians who had to go through unbelievable suffering during the years of communism.
Look, instead of praying for me, why not do yourself a favour and get
some counselling? I think you need some help regarding your bigotry.
--
James
James
> >Well, if the Tsar is a saint, I would not want to be caught bashing him.
> >And imagine if I were convinced he's not a saint... and was wrong. How
> >embarrassed and ashamed I would be when I finally met him! IF I got that
> >far, of course. If he's a saint and I can't see it, that says more about
> >my sight than about his sanctity. It's not like we *have* to venerate the
> >ones we're not personally convinced about; by grace we got a whole heapin
> >mess from which to choose, a great *cloud* of witnesses. :=) And we don't
> >have to mess with other people venerating whomever they choose. Maybe
> >they know something we don't. Maybe grace has touched them through that
> >saint in a way we don't know and they can't express.
> >
> >Having already had to go through this with the most blessed Theotokos (cuz
> >you know, when I was a Prot I bashed her up one side and down the other) I
> >have no desire to ever go through this again... ever. I called it wrong
> >once and was humbled; now I don't call it at all. May God's holy will be
> >done in the remembrance of the Tsar and his family, and may I not be
> >caught judging anyone (an all too frequent occurrence as it is) dead or
> >alive, ESPECIALLY if there's any chance he's a saint!
> >
> >J. Asher, Charlotte, NC
>
> Excellent post! God bless you!
>
> All I'm suggesting is that people refrain from passing the judgement on the
> Imperial Family. I think it's always better to overestimate somebody's
> "sainthood" than to underestimate it.
>
> Sinner Ioann Z.
I suppose the judgment on the Romanovs is the result of posts similar to the
one David made, Ioann. If you go back in the thread you will discover that the
posts which "passed judgment" on them was in response to the rather starry-eyed
and somewhat biased post made by David.
I've already said that I'm willing to reserve judgment on their sainthood until
such time as the Lord reveals their saintliness in ways that are irrefutable.
So far, I haven't seen this nor have most others outside of the ROCOR. We know
for a certainty that his leadership was seriously flawed. We suspect, with good
reason, that his assasination was the result of politics rather than martyrdom.
We suspect, with good reason, that their is some political maneuvering involved
in declaring him a Saint at this particular juncture. We suspect, with good
reason, that the bloodbath of Communism was hastened by his inept leadership
and autocratic ways. These things do not commend him as a Saint. However.... if
the Lord shows otherwise, I will be more than willing to admit my error of
judgment. Until then... the Romanovs remain political oddities, political
martrys, and Orthodox Christians who died courageously at the hands of godless
men.
James
> Get a newsreader with a killfile.
>
> > From: James <myad...@bottom.com>
>
> > It really might be better if you discussed issues that are relevant to the
> > Orthodox Faith and certainly schism IS relevant. But your ad hominem posts are
> > neither relevant nor appreciated.
I have one but you are a danger to the Church and as such your bigotry will be
challenged at every opporunity. Do not think for one minute that you will find any
sympathy here for such unChristian beliefs.
James
I never tied being Russian together with being Orthodox. Go to Brighton
Beach, NY, and you will see that being Russian has little or nothing to do
with being Orthodox.
> From: James <myad...@bottom.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:06:10 -0700
> Subject: Re: Nicholas II <WAS Re: Yet Another ROCOR Scandal
>
> Tamster wrote:
>
>>> From: bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
>>
>>> So, you will object to the folks in ROCOR, most of whom haven't been in
>>> Russia their entire lives, considering themselves competent to judge who
>>> is and is not truly the Church in Russia?
>>
>> The state of being Russian lies within the soul (dusha) and not just merely
>> geographical location.
>
> Ahhhhhh.... but according to your other posts, the state of being Orthodox
> lies
> within having been BORN into the Faith. Don't you see how hypocritical your
> views are?
>
>
> --
> **********************************
>
> James (wayne)
>
> mailto:pavil82"at"hotmail.com
> http://sites.netscape.net/waynedouglas46/homepage
>
>
And claiming to be a "born Orthodox" has little to do with BEING
an Orthodox Christian, Tamster.
James
Wow. This IS really scary. No wonder there are no true Orthodox here . . .
> From: James <myad...@bottom.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:37:02 -0700
> Subject: Re: Nicholas II <WAS Re: Yet Another ROCOR Scandal
>
> Tamster wrote:
>
>> Get a newsreader with a killfile.
>>
>>> From: James <myad...@bottom.com>
>>
>>> It really might be better if you discussed issues that are relevant to the
>>> Orthodox Faith and certainly schism IS relevant. But your ad hominem posts
>>> are
>>> neither relevant nor appreciated.
>
> I have one but you are a danger to the Church and as such your bigotry will be
> challenged at every opporunity. Do not think for one minute that you will find
> any
> sympathy here for such unChristian beliefs.
>
>
> --
> **********************************
>
> James (wayne)
>
> mailto:pavil82"at"hotmail.com
> http://sites.netscape.net/waynedouglas46/homepage
>
>
Now you are a prophet as well.... endowed with the ability to determine
who is and who is not an Orthodox Christian on this newsgroup?
James
> > From: bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
>
> > <tams...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Please leave the issue of who and what the Tsar was for the Russian people
> >> to decide for themselves. Other than providing years of lucrative business
> >> to the U.S. defense industry after the fall of Russia, Americans were
> >> largely unaffected by what transpired in Russia: EVER.
> >
> > Here's the problem: It is ROCOR who is pushing Sainthood for the last
> > Czar, and ROCOR isn't in Russia...
>
> Nor are you, from what I gather. And I surmise you're not a member of
> ROCOR, either -- so, pray tell, what is your great interest in what ROCOR
> wants or doesn't want. Let them have their cake . . . If it's poisonous,
> they will choke on it.
> >
> > --
> > "Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
> > should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
> > dealing with our mental health crisis today."
You surmise this and you surmise that, Tamster. You know... it might be best if
you didn't surmise about other people... as to whether they are members of ROCOR
or are "born Orthodox" or are converts etc. etc.
It really might be better if you discussed issues that are relevant to the
Orthodox Faith and certainly schism IS relevant. But your ad hominem posts are
neither relevant nor appreciated.