English Nanny        British Lyceum in Moscow
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: What does православные mean?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    7,805
    Thanked: 743
    Quote Originally Posted by americaninmoscow View Post
    rus,

    I was sadly hoping and expecting something a little bit more intellectual regarding the etymology of Russian words and how they would apply to today's use of said words and what they do or don't mean. At least more about the history of the word.

    As to what you wrote- blah blah blah. It's not true. It's the same as GWBush - you are either a terrorist or you aren't.

    I am not a Baptist, nor Methodist, and we can disagree as to what a baptism should entail, but that doesn't mean I don't see both Baptists and Methodists as Protestants and in the generally correct direction ( as opposed to say, Buddhism or Hindu).

    Also, every Russian Orthodox views others as heretic (what about the Old believers?), and 99% can't defend their faith at all, simply saying- the "priest" said it, so it is so. The perfect case is - everyone is heretic if they don't recognise Kirril as the "ultimate leader". Of course, that is a bit exaggerated, but it isn't far off. Just ask simple questions. It is simply mind blowing to hear the response. And once you do- you realize Russian Orthodox is just another vehicle for an ethnoreligious group headed towards nationalism. The really simple test is this- those that are closest and recognize Kirril as the ultimate leader are friends. Those that don't - aren't. Witness Egyptian Copts. Or the recent split with Ukraine. BFF until not.

    Anyways, I have more esoteric questions and would love to discuss them.

    Such as-

    In the English version of Christianity, the book of Revelation mentions two figures - the dragon and the bear, both near the end times and possibly related to the Gog/Magog war.

    What does the Russian Orthodox Church have to say about this?
    Hi, AIM!
    I’m sorry you see anything I say as “blah blah blah”; I am sincere, I grant your sincerity, and I think the issue of thinking oneself right and even in possession of ultimate Truth about the nature of man and his purpose and life is relevant, as I said earlier. If you are patient, and honestly curious, and would really like to understand how anyone could accept a particular position as true, especially one you doubt the truth of, I’ll be happy to defend my understanding of it all.

    I’m not interested in quarreling, or trying to defend it to people who have no curiosity, and no intention of seriously considering anything I might say. But yeah, I do think Orthodoxy actually The Truth, and I think it despite schisms, despite corrupt hierarchs and laity, and I don’t hold faith in myself as wiser than such ancient institutions. If I am (or any one of us is) the wisest resource around, then humanity is in a ton of trouble.

    And yes, I also think Protestants have an awful lot more or less right, at least, speaking about their teachings, when they are consistent and held over time, and not speaking of fallible people who are liable to disappoint us.

    We’d have to unpack the words “heretic” and “heresy” and establish the most intelligent understanding of the concept; I think most people give the word very little thought, and misuse the word.

    Your admitted exaggeration of Pat. Kirill’s role actually is a little further off than you think; it would help if you understood that he can’t tell me to do anything at all that is not consistent with Orthodox Tradition, and that my obedience is voluntary, and that he hardly ever tells anyone to do anything except what the Gospel tells us to do, and it’s even conceivable that disobedience might be necessary if any fallible human leadership actually contradicts that Tradition.

    It is certainly true that people with no scruples can use any religion as a vehicle for something else (such as nationalism). But that doesn’t free you of the question of whether the teachings of the religion are true or not. People who do such things are putting the cart before the horse, and actually making themselves their own gods.

    Based on your words, I don’t think you have a good grasp of the divisions within Orthodoxy. You have to have a good grasp of what canonicity is, and the reasons why it matters.

    Regarding your question on the book of Revelation, the one thing I can say for certain is that we admit a lot of agnosticism about it. Yes, there have been comments by saints and Church fathers, but it is telling that it is the one book of the New Testament that is not read in the Divine Liturgy. We don’t pretend to understand absolutely everything in Scripture, and that is by far the most mystical book. (But I think such questions far less important than the issues of whether A) Christianity is true or not, and B) whether the Orthodox Church is the most authentic and faithful expression of Christian tradition or not.)

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to rusmeister For This Useful Post:

    americaninmoscow (02-11-2018)

  3. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    There and back again
    Posts
    21,043
    Thanked: 2810
    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post
    It is certainly true that people with no scruples can use any religion as a vehicle for something else (such as nationalism).
    Well, they did, do and will do. The instrument is rather handy and convenient.
    In the application to the Russian history - Duke Vladimir for tribes unification and strengthening his power, Peter The First to get materials and money for armament and again strengthening state power, after-revolution bolsheviks to get funds and human resources for industrialisation and collectivisation, Uncle Joe to get moral support for Red Army fighting against Nazis, Gorby-Yeltsin-Putin to substitute going communistic state ideology with religiosity and building chirches otherwise mosques...
    All the world's Kremlin,
    And all the men and women merely agents

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FatAndy For This Useful Post:

    americaninmoscow (02-11-2018), Armoured (01-11-2018)

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    moscow
    Posts
    732
    Thanked: 375
    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post
    Hi, AIM!
    I’m sorry you see anything I say as “blah blah blah”;
    Rus,

    I am glad you responded.

    I really like to read your comments and although I don't agree with some of them, others do open up new areas to ponder and a possible direction to think in. Furthermore, you are not a god-hater, so I can see that the path your life has taken has given you a very unique perspective that only serves to enrich others when shared.




    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post

    Your admitted exaggeration of Pat. Kirill’s role actually is a little further off than you think; it would help if you understood that he can’t tell me to do anything at all that is not consistent with Orthodox Tradition, and that my obedience is voluntary....
    Sorry mate. I disagree.

    In Russia, and regarding the Church- you are either nash or not. You can't sit on the fence. If you are not nash, then you are heretic (and get figuratively buried in the forest). It is that simple. And by being part of the group, you do whatever the group is doing (and with a smile).

    The order comes from the top down, and that is the very definition of a patriarchal society, which by the way, is the very official name of Patriarch Kirril.

    On a slightly different note, Pat. Kirill's role is two-fold: inward and outward facing. The role that he plays as leader to his flock and that which he plays as an ambassador of Christ on the world's religious/political stage. I am not really sure where I mentioned that he could force you to do something you don't want to do, but the projection of power that the Russian Orthodox Church, and by default, Russia, has on the world stage, is reflected in various ways.

    Here is an article from Vox with some interesting points (I really, really dislike this website but....).

    https://www.vox.com/2018/10/17/17983...sm-autocephaly

    A schism is brewing among Orthodox Christians.

    Leaders within the Constantinople Patriarchate, historically the most influential center of the global Orthodox Church, recently took several administrative steps toward granting ecclesiastical independence — also known as autocephaly — to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is currently under the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church. The move comes after years of increasing tension in Ukraine over the status of its church in the wake of Russia’s occupation of Crimea.

    In response, the Russian Orthodox Church announced on Monday following a synod, or gathering of bishops, in Minsk that it would sever all ties with Constantinople. That move would prevent the Russian Orthodox faithful from taking part in any sacraments, such as communion or baptism, at any churches under the aegis of the Constantinople Patriarchate worldwide.

    .........


    In recent years, the Russian Orthodox Church’s alliance with Vladimir Putin’s nationalist government has essentially rendered it a form of Russian ideological soft power , with the church and its head, Patriarch Kirill, often serving as a mouthpiece for Russian nationalist ideology.

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    moscow
    Posts
    732
    Thanked: 375
    Quote Originally Posted by Armoured View Post
    That Anglican priest sounds not representative
    He represented the Anglican Church here in Moscow for many many years.

    It gets even better- when that guy left, the Church presented him with a massive framed oil painting of himself as some saint. or maybe it was a hero. or a knight. I honestly can't quite remember the exact style it was painted in, I was just shocked that as a going away present, they gave him a big picture of himself. But he loved it. So, well-played?

  7. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    There and back again
    Posts
    21,043
    Thanked: 2810
    Quote Originally Posted by americaninmoscow View Post
    with Vladimir Putin’s nationalist government
    That's the joke of month, definitely...
    All the world's Kremlin,
    And all the men and women merely agents

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to FatAndy For This Useful Post:

    americaninmoscow (02-11-2018)

  9. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,546
    Thanked: 590
    Quote Originally Posted by americaninmoscow View Post
    He represented the Anglican Church here in Moscow for many many years.
    Since you are basing your claim on etymology in this thread, I believe I can allow myself to be a grammar nazi and note that I was clearly using the adjectival form of 'representative', not the noun form.

    Yes, he _represented_ (was chosen to act or speak for the church in this instance); he was _a representative_. That doesn't mean he was _representative_ (typical of the class of Anglican ministers or Anglicans).

    Don't know the guy or why he was chosen to lead the parish.

  10. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    moscow
    Posts
    732
    Thanked: 375
    Quote Originally Posted by Armoured View Post

    Yes, he _represented ; he was _a representative.
    No, he was all of the above.


    But thanks for taking the time to respond.

  11. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,546
    Thanked: 590
    Quote Originally Posted by americaninmoscow View Post
    No, he was all of the above.


    But thanks for taking the time to respond.
    It's a simple point: he sounds like a douchebag (although again, no personal experience with him); doesn't mean that's normal for Anglican ministers.

    Your sample size seems rather small.

  12. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    moscow
    Posts
    732
    Thanked: 375
    Quote Originally Posted by Armoured View Post
    he sounds like a douchebag (although again, no personal experience with him); doesn't mean that's normal for Anglican ministers.
    Who knows. I'll take your word for it. I'm not Anglican and have no desire to be. Nor do I wish to be British.

    Thanks for posting.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •