Posted on 01/19/2006 7:49:37 AM PST by x5452
Crimean Tatars Call On Kyiv To Restore Their Rights 12 December 2005 -- Members of the Crimean Tatar Congress gathered in the main Crimean city Simferopol said yesterday that Ukraine's integration with the West should not go forward until Kyiv restores Tatar rights.
Congressional delegates, issuing a statement at the end of the three-day session, accused Ukrainian authorities of disregarding the rights of Crimean Tatars, who were deported en masse by Soviet leader Josef Stalin in 1944.
RFE/RL's Tatar-Bashkir Service reported that congress member Timur Dagci was among the voices calling for Kyiv to recognize the deportation as genocide:
"Our problem -- the problem of Stalin's genocide of the Crimean Tatar people -- is an undeniable fact, so I believe all countries, the United Nations, and the European Union will recognize it and will decide that it was indeed genocide," Dagci said.
Many Tatars have since returned to Crimea, but have been unable to reclaim valuable land and property that was theirs before the deportations.
The Tatar Congress delegates called on the Council of Europe and the European Union to make Ukraine's possible membership in the EU and World Trade Organization contingent on their recognition of Crimean Tatar rights.
(RFE/RL's Tatar-Bashkir Service/Interfax)
That's pretty dumb - you think I'd post something on here if it was not available publicly. Do a search of Russian and American press you might actually read about my interviews. Nice try.
"That's pretty dumb - you think I'd post something on here if it was not available publicly. Do a search of Russian and American press you might actually read about my interviews. "
You know very well that you have not written anything about your interviews that prove the guilt of Russian Viet Nam war veterans in the deaths of our troops and the wounding of your father.
Why do you choose to hide this information and instead all your posts are damage control for Putin.
That being the case, what kind of American military man are you?
It was Ukranians who moved it! Interestingly True Ukranians didn't like the notion of their brethren being beaten and killed by Poles for not confessing the filoque and when it was clear the Polish conquerers would not relent they moved the church.
Brest'-Litovsk 1596: The "Unia" makes us strong?
There is probably no other single issue in Church history that evokes sharper reaction and comment than the history of the Union of Brest'-Litovsk.
In the years following its signing in 1596, Church leaders and others produced many apologetical and even combative religious works to either praise or attack the "Unia."
Meletius Smotrytsky is probably one of the most interesting examples. Appointed Archbishop of Polotsk in Belarus in place of the Greek Catholic incumbent, Josaphat Kuntsevich, Meletius was well known for his defence of Orthodoxy.
As a result of a number of factors, Josaphat was killed in 1623. Some Orthodox commentators sympathetic to Meletius say that he took this event personally, as if his writings led to it. Over time, and as if to assuage his guilt, Meletius, they say, became an Eastern Catholic himself and began to write in support of the "Unia" he had earlier attacked.
After the death of Meletius, the Greek Catholics initiated canonization proceedings for him at Rome. An icon of him was painted, but his cause at the Vatican did not advance. The Orthodox, on the other hand, continued to honour his memory and his many services in defence of the Orthodox Church. His "going over" to the Unia was again something that was understood to have taken place for personal, and not doctrinal, reasons.
Another example of the terrible divisions that occurred as a result of the events of 1596 is the simultaneous veneration by Catholics and Orthodox of two persons, each of whom was killed by the other side in this affair.
Athanasius Filipovich, Ihumen of Brest, did not initially opposed the "Unia," according to Metropolitan Ilarion Ohienko.
But when he saw the Polish gendarmes go into the villages to enforce the recital of the "filioque" in the Creed, Athanasius reacted against what he understood as the clearly political motivation of the Roman Catholic colonial masters of his people.
Taking copies of the miraculous Icon of Kupyatitsk with him, he distributed these to the Members of the Polish Seym or Parliament. He then warned them of the Divine retribution they would be inviting on themselves if they didn't stop forcing the Union on the Orthodox people.
During one of the first victories of the Kozak armies of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnitsky over the Poles in 1648, Athanasius was taken prisoner by Roman Catholic prelates and tortured for his condemnation of the Union. He was then led by military personnel into the forest where he was forced to dig his own grave, was shot twice in the head and was buried alive . . .
Athanasius was glorified a Saint and Venerable Martyr of the Orthodox Church. His Shrine and pilgrimage became opportunities for Orthodox Christians to prepare themselves to maintain Orthodoxy and combat the Union.
Josaphat Kuntsevich became the Eastern Catholic Archbishop of Polotsk and, as such, promoted the Union among the Orthodox. Even Catholic historians have suggested that his perspectives were not always the most diplomatic.
Josaphat was murdered by a mob angered by his activities, including the arrest of one of their number. He was beatified by Rome soon afterwards, largely under the impetus, however, coming from the Polish Royal Court in the first instance.
To become a "Greco-Uniate" or an "Orthodox in union with Rome" in those times meant very little in terms of outward liturgical change.
The Creed was, initially, not tampered with. When it was, the early Eastern Catholics, many of whom still believed they were in the Orthodox Church, simply added that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father "Istynno" or "truly." This was a play on the Slavonic word for "Filioque" translated as "I Syna."
The Roman Pope was initially never commemorated by the local bishops and priests, but only by the Metropolitan of Kyiv in union with Rome. Today, of course, the Pope is commemorated not less than four times during the Ukrainian Catholic Liturgy . . .
The Greek Catholic clergy were married, the Julian calendar was maintained, and the Byzantine-Slavonic Rite was scrupulously kept.
The Polish kings later abandoned the Union as a way to Latinize their western Ukrainian and Belorussian subjects by steps: They decided to do it wholesale, at once.
Most of the Ostrozhky Princes, apart from Constantine, Alexander and their sainted ancestor, Theodore, became Roman Catholic and, therefore, Poles.
Religious identification was not separate from national identification. To be Orthodox, was to be "of Rus'" and to be Roman Catholic was to be Polish. Orthodox identity in Eastern Europe implied, at one and the same time, that one was of an East Slavic national identity. This is why the going over to Catholicism of the western Ukrainian Princes meant, in and of itself, "denationalization."
Both Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox Churches suffered Latinization, however. Ukrainian Orthodox, desiring to combat the "brain drain" of their aristocracy through the introduction of Catholicism, went to western European universities to learn about the philosophy behind the Church that, as it must have seemed to them, spread like a destructive cancer throughout the national body of their country.
In so doing, they brought back with them a number of Latinisms, in theology and religious practice that obtain to this day.
It was only in the latter part of the twentieth century, after the Greek Catholic faith had "settled in" with the people of Galicia, that the possibility appeared of establishing a Ukrainian identity that did not necessarily imply a colonial influence as far as culture was concerned.
Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky, as Metropolitan Ilarion states, was of the "Byzantine" camp in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. He initiated the movement to "Easternize" his heavily Latinized Church. He was opposed by a number of his fellow bishops, however, and by Roman Catholic bishops. The divisions and problems that resulted still plague the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to this day.
Roman Catholic historians themselves have said that the Union of Brest'-Litovsk was a mistake on their church's part. It divided a nation, even though there are now, of course, better relations between Ukrainians on the basis of their national identity, as opposed to their religious confessions.
One individual once wrote that the "good" to have arisen from the Union was that a "great literature" developed in its aftermath. That literature was the various books and pamphlets written for and against the Union. It served to weaken Ukraine as a whole. How anyone can say that that was "good" is really beyond all telling . . .
The sad episodes of the Union is also a reminder about the fact that true Church unity is a matter of the heart and inner conversion. It is about faithfulness to the Fathers of the early Church and to Apostolic Tradition. Finally, it is about humility and not triumphalism of any kind.
It is my view that by cancelling the Union as a model of unification, the Roman Catholic Church has also, in theory at least, cancelled the underlying principles on which the existing Greek Catholic Churches are based.
If the Roman Catholic Church takes seriously its own views on "Sister Churches," then the only way for the Greek Catholic churches to proceed is by reintegration with the Orthodox Churches they came from.
This will only be possible through prayer and repentance, along with mutual love and understanding. Metropolitan Basil Lypkivsky, in his sermons about Ukrainian Catholics, said that, in its time, the Union could be understood as having some justification for its having come about. That does not obtain, he said, today.
It is time, I believe, for all Ukrainian Catholics and Orthodox to make the necessary steps to achieve real unity with Kyiv as their true Patriarchal Centre. Full unity will, in the final analysis, be achieved as God would have it, and not as we would have it.
Dr. Alexander Roman alex@unicorne.org
"You know very well that you have not written anything about your interviews that prove the guilt of Russian Viet Nam war veterans in the deaths of our troops and the wounding of your father.
Why do you choose to hide this information and instead all your posts are damage control for Putin.
That being the case, what kind of American military man are you?"
Get a clue. First of all the Viet Cong shot my father down - not a Russian - by the way, they were Soviets and Warsaw Pact then, Uzbeks, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Latvians, Poles, Hungarians - you get the picture. Maybe that's where you did your military service?
Second - I haven't been doing damage control -don't even think I need to address that. What part about interviewing former Soviet officials who SHOT DOWN our planes did you not understand? Do I need to spell it out for you? (You obviously didn't read the link I posted).
Third - What kind of American military man am I? A typical one who loves my country, serves it, and is proud to do so. How have you served your adopted home, other than to come on here and run down American military men?
"You know very well that you have not written anything about your interviews that prove the guilt of Russian Viet Nam war veterans in the deaths of our troops and the wounding of your father."
An addendum, if you will. You miss the point - veterans are interviewed NOT to prove their "guilt" in the deaths of Americans, but to gain information so that we can return our fallen comrades to their homeland and loved ones.
These Soviet officers are men who were ordered there by their leadership. They had no choice. Since you're an "expert" at how the communists dealt with people, I'm sure you know what would have happened to them had they refused.
"Ukrainians fought the Mongol onslaught (Moscow didn't, they just bent over). Cossacks fought Turks in 15th through 17th centuries along with the rest of Europe while Russia sat quitely on the sidelines. Only when the Turks became weak, in the end of the 17th cent., did the Russians "find their Christian calling"."
What history book are you reading from? Are you suggesting Dmitri Donskoj was Ukrainian??? Furthermore, if the Urkainians were so great and brave how did they let themselves be conquered by the Moscali?
"Ideally i'd prefer neither. In Russia vs. Turks - Russia's worse"
Getman Mazepa speaks, eh? But you'd betray your alliance with the Swedes first, wouldn't you, Ivan Stepanovich? ;) How's Karl the III these days?
Greeks and Serbs don't know better.
Ask some of them what they think. Ask also Armenians. If you dare.
"Second - I haven't been doing damage control -don't even think I need to address that"
Yes you do. Here is a typical post of yours:
Posted by Romanov to jb6
On News/Activism 01/12/2006 8:01:20 PM EST · 36 of 36
"One interesting thing to come out of this despicable act is Rodina and its leader Rogozin were very quick to condemn in very harsh language the skinhead and those who think like him. (Remember - this was a party accused of being anti-semitic [with good reason])."
You are quick to implicate Rodina and Rogozin with the skinhead attack.
Well isn't that fascinating because that is exactly the instructions handed out to the media by Putie:
We know.
What do I have to say? This - you're easily fooled. I guess you don't know that ZAVTRA the source of this so-called directive is the biggest anti-semitic anti-Western, anti-Putin, anti-goverment paper in existence in Russia. It's also known for publishing "fake" official documents. They also accused the US of purposely ramming and sinking the Kursk. You sure you want to stick by this source??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thanks for the laugh.
BTW, If you actually understood ENGLISH you would also realize that this: "One interesting thing to come out of this despicable act is Rodina and its leader Rogozin were very quick to condemn in very harsh language the skinhead and those who think like him. (Remember - this was a party accused of being anti-semitic [with good reason]). means they weren't involved AND they condemned it. An amazing point since Rogozin and Rodina were calling for Judaism to lose its status as an officially recognized religion in Russia.
"I guess you don't know that ZAVTRA the source of this so-called directive is the biggest anti-semitic anti-Western, anti-Putin, anti-goverment paper in existence in Russia. It's also known for publishing "fake" official documents."
How do you explain that the "fake" document directing Puties lackeys to target Rodina occurs at the same time that "you and jb6" carry out the "fake" instructions?
Just keep grasping at those straws. How about you denouncing the anti-semitic, anti-American, anti-Western sources you use on here in your feeble attempts at making a point?
Mazepa -- your point about preferring to be conquered by the Islamics is really ignorant, I'm sorry to say. Look at any nation threatened byIslam, and that is when you will see the difference. You may dislike the russians (and I suppose they've been harsh ont he ukrainians), but I'll let peoples like Serbs, Greeks, Iranians, Indians, who have been under Islam's yoke, answer you
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.