PDA

View Full Version : Alexi II,Patriarch, has died,



Benedikt
05-12-2008, 18:13
R.I.P.
he was 81.funny it was on the ausrian news and so far i have seen or heard nothing on the local news.
maybe the next man and the next pope after benedikt will hфve to say more to each other and will find some common ground to hфve talks.
after all, we all believe in God, and because two old stubborn men just can't see eye to eye, nothing will change.
(I am a catholic and my wife russian orthodox, we could not get married in an orthodox church. the catholics were not against it, as long as i would 'promise' that any kids would be brought up in 'chrisian faith' whatever that was supposed to mean. we gave it a miss here and there)

Sidney Bliss
05-12-2008, 19:46
The BBC are also reporting the news.

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Russian Orthodox Church head dies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7766625.stm)

kebab
06-12-2008, 09:50
Another homophobe bites the dust!!

Benedikt
06-12-2008, 10:59
Another homophobe bites the dust!!

...about the dead..
if you cant say something good, say nothing.

kebab
06-12-2008, 11:09
I didn't say anything bad just stated a fact::)

rusmeister
07-12-2008, 06:54
Another homophobe bites the dust!!
This displays a lack of knowledge about the nature of the objections of traditional Christians to homosexuality. "Homophobia" is a false euphemism that implies hate and/or fear; these are not issues at all. IOW, you're a victim of mass propaganda that simply isn't true.

You would be better advised to ask what the position of the Orthodox Church (of which Alexii is a member, as am I) actually is, rather than accepting what the media tells you it is - which consists of people that want to create news, even where none exists, so throwing words like "homophobia" around is a newsmaker for them.

As soon as people learn what that position really is, they either stop talking about it, or attempt to cover that position up and shout "homophobia" even louder - because the lie, to them, is preferable to the truth.

rusmeister
07-12-2008, 07:04
R.I.P.
he was 81.funny it was on the ausrian news and so far i have seen or heard nothing on the local news.
maybe the next man and the next pope after benedikt will hфve to say more to each other and will find some common ground to hфve talks.
after all, we all believe in God, and because two old stubborn men just can't see eye to eye, nothing will change.
(I am a catholic and my wife russian orthodox, we could not get married in an orthodox church. the catholics were not against it, as long as i would 'promise' that any kids would be brought up in 'chrisian faith' whatever that was supposed to mean. we gave it a miss here and there)

Hi Benedikt,

You're comment on "two stubborn old men" seems to imply that their decisions and statements were based on personal preferences, rather than (as is actually the case) on serious and deep theological differences. I get that this touches you personally. It seems obvious that you ought to decide which of the two faiths actually contains all of the truth, rather than merely some of it, and accept that faith. If it's still Catholic and not Orthodox, then you'll have to go with what the Catholic Church teaches about being married to non-Catholics. If you did accept Orthodoxy, then you would have unity with your wife. The barriers for you would be based on seeing Orthodoxy as less true than Catholicism.

But your desire for unification is shared!!! It's just that the differences are so important that union at present is impossible. How can one Church that is based on having a Pontiff join with a Church that is based on not having one? (for starters) Which is it going to be? The Pope won't accept being (what to him would be) merely 'first among equals' - a status of honor and respect, but not of special authority over other presiding Bishops/Metropolitans (Cardinals) etc. The Orthodox Church won't accept one man having so much power and authority - and that's only one of the issues. Very fundamental changes need to occur, and only a miracle could honestly bring them about. (I'm assuming that you are aware of the causes of the great Schism of 1054 and that each side has an interpretation of those events and the historical context around them.)

Korotky Gennady
07-12-2008, 18:15
...about the dead..
if you cant say something good, say nothing.This Aleksey "Second" was a cheif of the evil and reactionary force that ever was in the history of human kind.


So I hope that he is now on the straight road to Hell.


The Burning of sadomites.

Korotky Gennady
07-12-2008, 18:32
The Execution of heretics.



The Sect of Skhariya the Jew, much more commonly known as the Heresy of the Judaizers or Zhidovstvuyushchiye, was a sect that appeared in Novgorod the Great and Moscow in the second half of the 15th century and marked the beginning of a new era of heresy in Russia. Some scholars, however, consider it to have developed from the earlier Strigolniki heresy that also had developed in Novgorod in the fourteenth century.

The term Zhidovstvuyushchiye (Жидовствующие in Russian), as it is known in the sources, is derived from the Russian word жид (zhid, an older Russian term for Jew which is now considered pejorative [1]). Zhidovstvuyuschiye may be loosely translated as “those who follow Jewish traditions”. Hegumen Joseph Volotsky, the main critic and persecutor of this sect, considered the founder of this heretical movement to be a certain Skhariya (a.k.a. Zakhariya, Skara; Russian: Схария, Захария, Скара). (This was Zacharia ben Ahron ha-Cohen, a scholar from Kiev who came to Novgorod from Lithuania in 1470 and translated a number of Hebrew texts on astronomy, logic and philosophy[2]) The sectarians themselves, Volotsky nicknamed zhidovomudrstvuyuschie (жидовомудрствующие, or “those who think like Jews”), thus, arbitrarily presupposing their adherence to "Judaism", even though most of Skhariya’s followers had been ordinary Russians of Russian Orthodox faith and low-ranking Orthodox clergy and had never confessed Judaism.

Almost all we know about the heresy is found in accounts left by their accusers (a not uncommon phenomenon in medieval heresies). This makes it difficult to determine the true beliefs of the sect, since the aim of the accusers was to blacken the name of the sect and crush it. According to most accounts though, the Sect of Skhariya renounced the Holy Trinity and the divine status of Jesus, monasticism, ecclesiastic hierarchy, ceremonies, and immortality of soul. Some sectarians even professed iconoclasm. The sect also promoted the idea of "self-authority," or the self-determination of each individual in matters of faith and salvation. Priests Denis and Aleksei were considered ideologists of this heretical movement.

In the late 15th and early 16th century, this heretical movement spread over Moscow. In 1480, even Grand Prince Ivan III himself invited a few prominent sectarians to visit the city. The Grand Prince’s seemingly strange behavior could be explained by the fact that he had greatly sympathized with heretics’ ideas of secularization and the struggle against feudal division. Thus, the Judaizers enjoyed the support of high-ranking officials, statesmen, merchants, Yelena Stefanovna (wife of Ivan the Young, heir to the throne) and Ivan’s favorite deacon and diplomat Feodor Kuritsyn. The latter even decided to establish his own club in the mid-1480s.

Despite the growing popularity of this heretical movement in Novgorod and Moscow, Ivan III was wary of the fact that it could irreversibly infiltrate broader masses of ordinary people and deprive him of ecclesiastic support in his foreign policy. Indeed, a denial of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ would destroy Christianity, while the sects opposition to the clergy and the secular authorities would have undermind the entire society. This made Ivan III renounce his ideas of secularization and ally with the clergy.[3]

The struggle against the heretics was led by hegumen Joseph Volotsky (and his followers – иосифляне (iosiflyane or Josephinians) and Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod.[4] Beginning at the time he uncovered the heresy in Novgorod around 1487,[5] Gennady wrote a series of letters to other churchmen over several years calling on them to convene sobors ("church councils") with the aim "not to debate them,but to burn them." These councils were held in 1488, 1490, 1494 and 1504, and outlawed heretical books and permitted their burning, sentenced a number of people to death, sent sectarians into exile, and excommunicated them. In 1491, Skhariya the Jew was executed in Novgorod by the order of Ivan III. With Gennady’s approval, some of the heretics were executed, such as archimandrite Kassian of the Iuriev Monastery (who had allowed a number of heretics to hide there), Nekras Rukavov (they first tore out his tongue and then burnt him at the stake), a Pskovian monk Zakhar and others.

By the end of the 15th century, some of the heretics remained under the protection of Yelena Stefanovna and her son tsarevich Dmitry (grandson of Ivan III). However, in 1502 Dmitry was stripped of his title (transferred to Vasili III – son of Ivan III and Sophia Paleologue). As soon as Ivan III died in 1505, Yelena and Dmitry were arrested and imprisoned, leaving the heretics vulnerable to attacks from the authorities. In 1504, deacon Ivan-Volk Kuritsyn, Dmitry Konoplev and Ivan Maksimov were burnt at the stake. Other sectarians were banished, imprisoned, or excommunicated. Feodor Kuritsyn’s heretical club ceased to exist.

Thus, repressions in the early 16th century in Russia led to the weakening of the heretical movement.

rusmeister
07-12-2008, 18:36
Anyone can express their own opinion. It doesn't take much intelligence to do that. Now reading other people's thoughts and responding intelligently to them - THAT takes brains.

Korotky Gennady
07-12-2008, 18:55
Anyone can express their own opinion. It doesn't take much intelligence to do that. Now reading other people's thoughts and responding intelligently to them - THAT takes brains.
The facts are more important than opinions and thoughts of anybody. The facts answer you. And the historical facts blame the Church.

Korotky Gennady
07-12-2008, 19:01
I'm sorry but...

rusmeister
08-12-2008, 06:33
The facts are more important than opinions and thoughts of anybody. The facts answer you. And the historical facts blame the Church.
Gena, the truth is that the natural human tendency is to select the facts one wants to know, and ignore the others. Your average history book is an excellent example of this.
The Church, at all times, has taught the law of love. Have people in history ignored that when they wanted to? Of course! You can't prove Orthodoxy wrong just by pointing to the fact that people, even Church leaders, sinned. The Church itself teaches "for that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". If anything, it proves the Church to be right. The fact that evils, even great evils, were committed doesn't negate what the Gospels, Epistles, saints and Church fathers taught and passed down.
If you would look at Christianity fairly, you must weigh in the good along with the evil - include hagiography along with criticism. It seems that you are only aware of the criticism but know little of the saints.

I strongly encourage you to tackle "Вечный Человек" Честертона:
(http://www.chesterton.ru/everlasting-man/default.htm)

Антиклерикалы и агностики провозвестили всеобщий мир; их, а не нас поразила (во всяком случае, должна была поразить) всеобщая война. Если церковь опозорена войной, ковчег опозорен потопом. Когда мир сбивается с пути, это лишь доказывает, что Церковь с пути не сбилась. Она оправдана не тем, что мы безгрешны, а тем, что мы грешны. Но так уж относятся теперь к церковному преданию отрицают его, и все.

Хорошо, когда мальчик живет на земле своего отца; хорошо, если он отошел подальше и увидел свой дом. Но нынешние критики ни там, ни сям. Они застряли в овраге, откуда не увидишь вершин. Они не могут стать христианами, не могут и забыть о христианстве. Вся суть их, все дело в противлении, потому они так мрачны, несправедливы, придирчивы. Они томятся в тени веры, но утеряли ее свет.

Конечно, лучше всего быть так близко от нашего духовного дома, чтобы его любить; но если вы не можете этого, отойдите от него подальше, иначе вы его возненавидите. Лучший судья христианству христианин, но следующий за ним, скажем, последователь Конфуция. А вот хуже всего именно тот, кто особенно рад судить, непросвещенный христианин, превращающийся в агностика.

In English:
The Everlasting Man (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html)

It was the anti-clerical and agnostic world that was always prophesying the advent of universal peace; it is that world that was, or should have been, abashed and confounded by the advent of universal war. As for the general view that the Church was discredited by the War--they might as well say that the Ark was discredited by the Flood. When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do. But that marks their mood about the whole religious tradition they are in a state of reaction against it. It is well with the boy when he lives on his father's land; and well with him again when he is far enough from it to look back on it and see it as a whole. But these people have got into an intermediate state, have fallen into an intervening valley from which they can see neither the heights beyond them nor the heights behind. They cannot get out of the penumbra of Christian controversy. They cannot be Christians and they can not leave off being Anti-Christians. Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith.

Now the best relation to our spiritual home is to be near enough to love it. But the next best is to be far enough away not to hate it. It is the contention of these pages that while the best judge of Christianity is a Christian, the next best judge would be something more like a Confucian. The worst judge of all is the man now most ready with his judgements; the ill-educated Christian turning gradually into the ill-tempered agnostic, entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard.

By the way, it is interesting to compare the translation with the original and see how much is lost in translation - why it is better - but really difficult for most Russians - to read Chesterton in English.

Again, you have a better chance of proving your rightness if you can defeat the best arguments of your opponents, who may be your friends in disguise. :)

Korotky Gennady
11-12-2008, 04:48
Hmm... it's difficult to answer it at once.


And the translation is not correct in one important place of the text.

Korotky Gennady
11-12-2008, 16:53
rusmeister : " It was the anti-clerical and agnostic world that was always prophesying the advent of universal peace; it is that world that was, or should have been, abashed and confounded by the advent of universal war. As for the general view that the Church was discredited by the War--they might as well say that the Ark was discredited by the Flood. When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do. But that marks their mood about the whole religious tradition they are in a state of reaction against it. It is well with the boy when he lives on his father's land; and well with him again when he is far enough from it to look back on it and see it as a whole. But these people have got into an intermediate state, have fallen into an intervening valley from which they can see neither the heights beyond them nor the heights behind. They cannot get out of the penumbra of Christian controversy. They cannot be Christians and they can not leave off being Anti-Christians. Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith.

Now the best relation to our spiritual home is to be near enough to love it. But the next best is to be far enough away not to hate it. It is the contention of these pages that while the best judge of Christianity is a Christian, the next best judge would be something more like a Confucian. The worst judge of all is the man now most ready with his judgements; the ill-educated Christian turning gradually into the ill-tempered agnostic, entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard. "


rusmeister, even if Chesterton is right at some points of his essay, it doesn't mean that he is right in general. For example I and you can have different understanding of what a christian is. Why does the christian need the Church at all ? What... does he (or she) have not Bible ? So why should he (or she) defend the Church but not Bible itself ?

And why does he (or she) not ask himself these obvious questions which the other people demand him to answer ?

Chesterton didn't give the answer to it...

In fact some russian priests themselves say that majority of russian people who call themselves "orthodox christian" never open Bible at all. And they look at the Church simply like at the Ritul Service Bureau.