Posted on 03/03/2015 6:32:33 PM PST by NRx
The construction of a church in honour of Tsar Nicholas II and his family has been completed in Moscow.
The ground breaking and initial construction began three years ago, in March of 2012. On March 8, 2013 the Head of the Russian Imperial House, HIH Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna visited the site of the new church during an official visit to Moscow. The grand duchess lit a candle in memory of the Holy Royal Martyrs, and then took the time to speak and have tea with local parishers.
The first liturgy was held on July 17, 2014 in a temporary chapel situated immediately adjacent to the site of the main church. Since that time, regular worship and liturgies continued to be held in the temporary chapel.
A temporary iconostasis has now been installed in the church. The final phase of construction, which includes finishing touches on the church’s facades, and landscaping will be carried in the Spring. A church bell is currently being made in the Tutaev plant.
The church is part of an ambitious plan by the Russian Orthodox Church to construct 200 new churches in the nation’s capital.
The Church of the Holy Royal Martyrs is situated at 6th Novopodmoskovny lane. d.7., in the northwest suburbs of Moscow, it can accommodate up to 200 worshipers.
LOL ! Soon they will pray to Putin.
FR has become increasingly anti-Orthodox over the years. That’s why there are so few of us left here and why we so seldom post. As for the Latins being upset that the ROC canonized the Tsar and his family, who cares? That’s the ROC’s call, not Rome’s. For that matter, I can’t imagine the Latins lost even a minute of sleep over the Orthodox reaction to the canonization of Cardinal Stepinac, nor should they have.
“So spreading truth, if the intent is to defame, is propaganda. lol,,,,”
If you have a problem with the dictionary definition of propaganda maybe you should write Merriam Webster.
“In a very extreme sense, I see what you mean, but broadcasting objective truth is not normally termed propaganda.”
Again, if you have a problem with the dictionary definition of propaganda maybe you should write Merriam Webster. The problem is clearly what you apparently know or don’t know and not what the correct definition of the word is.
Why? Nicholas II was more benevolent toward Catholics than many of his predecessors.
OK so you are citing the opinions of a handful of fringe nut jobs that were condemned by the Patriarch in person as an argument against the canonization of the Imperial Family. Got it. By the way did you know that there are some “Catholics” who don’t think that John Paul II was even a legitimate Pope, much less a saint? These two groups enjoy roughly equivalent standing in relation to their respective confessions.
If we have reached the point where we are citing the lunatic fringe from one confession in an effort to score points in a discussion/debate, then it’s probably time to move on.
As a courtesy, in the past Catholics and Orthodox have included one another in threads dealing with subjects of common interest, and I wished to continue that practice. However, I was unaware of the level of hostility towards us, though K did drop me a warning a while back. If this is a fair indication of attitudes towards us among the Romans, I may take your implied advice and reconsider the practice.
I think you may have just gotten instruction in the phrase “Jesuitical legalism.”
Incorrect. You make a common mistake. "Lenin and the Bolsheviks" were not the ones that overthrew the royal family. What happened during the Russian revolution is that it occurred in two separate stages. First, the royal family was overthrown by a NON-communist populist people's movement that forced the royal family to abdicate. Georgy Lvov became intermin leader of Russia. The communists and socialists were NOT happy with the new government that replaced the Czar, and months later -- in the Red October revolution -- Lenin and his followers OVERTHREW the new government and removed Georgy Lvov from power.
I'm sure that's going to go over big, what with all the appartments surrounding it.
I'm sure we have saints that have the Russian Orthodox scratching their heads over as well.
I was not aware that merely disagreeing with one time that the Orthodox canonized a saint means I am displaying "a huge hostility towards us" and "rabidly anti-Orthodox" views. I certainly would not expect non-Catholics to welcome every single Catholic canonization, and accuse them of fomenting "anti-Catholic hatred" if they were invited to an open thread about a Catholic canonization but pointed that out that many people don't agree with this particular case of canonization (for example, non-Catholics who object to the canonization of Pope Pius XII)
For the record, I have no problem with 95% of Orthodox canonizations, and whether the Catholic Church recognizes them, the vast majority of those canonized by the Orthodox are probably very holy people who deserve the recognition. I do not agree that the Romanovs deserve that honor and I certainly disagree that they were "martyred" for being Christians. I'm sorry if you feel that this viewpoint makes me "rabidly anti-Orthodox". The hostility seems to come entirely from you. Most Christians groups would understand that they can share many common goals even if they disagree from time to time. I have a lot more common ground in Christian theology with Orthodox than I do with any of the protestant freepers.
>> threads dealing with subjects of common interest <<
Again, since the thread specifically is about venerating the Romanovs and naming churches after them, I disagree that Catholics would find common ground on the subject. I suspect (though I cannot confirm) that most Catholics would disagree with venerating the Romanovs as "saints". I'm sorry if that offends you and you believe Catholics who do so are ones that "hate" the Orthodox.
A reverse example would be a thread about the Pope reinforcing celibacy for priests. If it was labeled "Orthodox/Catholic caucus", I doubt many Orthodox would chime in and praise the Vatican for continuing to enforce an oath of celibacy for ordination. But I wouldn't accuse those who objected to Roman's viewpoint of "fomenting anti-Catholic hatred"
Of course are also numerous examples of threads that would have mutual interest and support from both. A thread about the historical use of infant baptism labeled "Orthodox/Catholic caucus" would be a topic that both sides have a common perspective.
That may be true. King Louis XVI was more benevolent towards Americans than any of his sucessors in France, and was instrumental in helping the American revolution succeed.
But neither man was "martyred" for his faith and deserves to be named a "saint"
Freepers as a whole either seem to ignore the Orthodox, or pretend you don't exist. We constantly see threads where they ask "why are Catholics the only Christian group that prays to Mary?", "why did Catholics add books to the bible?", and "only Catholics believe they're really drinking Jesus' blood"
“A reverse example would be a thread about the Pope reinforcing celibacy for priests. If it was labeled “Orthodox/Catholic caucus”, I doubt many Orthodox would chime in and praise the Vatican for continuing to enforce an oath of celibacy for ordination.”
The Latin Church’s celibacy discipline for the lower clergy is 100% its business. For or against is neither here nor there for us.
Thank You, it is always refreshing to see someone post who is Orthodox, and with all due respect to the RC’s, knows what he is talking about.
I don’t think the Orthodox really care what the RC’s think one way or another.
I think both sides should care, since Jesus wants His Church to be united. We should all be working and praying for unity.
But it is united. To believe otherwise is to disagree with the Creed... “I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” The only question is where the Church is. On that point we have a disagreement.
“I don’t think the Orthodox really care what the RC’s think one way or another.”
BINGO!
Again, then the thread shouldn't be labeled "Orthodox/Catholic caucus", it should be simply be labeled "Orthodox caucus". I would not create a thread labeled "Catholic/Baptist caucus" about a Catholic baptism, and then whine when some Baptist Christians show up in the thread to give their opinions about it.
By the way, are you Catholic or Orthodox? If not, then nobody invited you to comment on this thread, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.