Posted on 12/07/2008 11:15:23 AM PST by Ravnagora
A few days ago the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Alexy II, died. I was hoping to read an extended story about his life, as is customary when someone of note passes, in the papers I have been reading for many years. I was only able to find a brief seven line column announcing his death, and even in that brief announcement the paper made sure to insert an implied negative connotation such as “making the (Russian) church a force for nationalism”.
The European press has been more respectful and given Patriarch Alexy II his due. He was described in a major Serbian publication as a patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church for 18 difficult years in Russian life. He was the first freely elected Patriarch after the Bolshevik revolution and his first duty was to renew the Orthodox Christian religious and church life in Russia. When he became the Patriarch, the material status of the church in Russia was catastrophic. To be able to do something about improving that status and to renew and rebuild the Russian churches and monasteries he chose to cooperate fully with the existing government. In pursuing his goal, Patriarch Alexy II had the great support of President Vladimir Putin. He succeeded renewing, restoring and rebuilding thousands of churches and monasteries in Russia. His priority was to stress the necessity for the moral rebirth of Russia by fighting against the use of illicit drugs, extremism and terrorism. As a result of his efforts many religious schools were established and new, young priests are being educated. The Patriarch’s great joy was that he was able to reunite the two groups of the Church’s faithful, the one in the Homeland and the other in the foreign lands, thus rectifying a damaging split that had occurred soon after the Bolshevik Revolution. In this, once again, he had the great support of President Putin.
The above was summarized and translated into English from "POLITIKA" Serbia ________________________
Another European tribute to Alexy II was published in The Guardian, UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/05/russia-religion-patriarch-alexy
He was also close to the KGB and friends with Gorbachev.
Plus as a Catholic I was highly offended that this man put the kibosh on John Paul II’s intended visit to Russia.
It was mentioned as part of the “In Memoriam” segment of This Week.
The LA Times had an obit beneath Forrest J Ackerman’s SAT 6 DEC. They claim, “Some Russian reaseachers have alleged that Alexei...worked as a KGB agent. The patriarchy has denied these claims.”
Hmm....
I had no knowledge of the Patriarch Ravngora, and had not heard of his passing away until now.
Several Popes reached out to the Russian Orthodox Church and repeatedly tried to improve relations. The Patriarch rejected all efforts to do so.
He seemed to prefer working with the KGB.
Well I guess they still remember how Rome pretty much ignored the calls for help by the Byzantines. The west was shocked when Constantinople fell, though the west really didn’t do much to help them and when Byzantium fell they realized how it opened up Europe to the Saracen’s. The Fourth Crusade didn’t help much either heh
Sorry, but the American press has never even HEARD of this guy.
Orthodoxy is not big in the US like it is in Greece or Russia. I only even know ONE Orthodox family out of the hundreds of people I know.
The biggest Orthodox division in America is only about 1/20th the size of the Southern Baptists. You think it would make a big media splash if the head of the Southern Baptists died? Do you think that would be front page news? Well, think at least 20 times smaller than that.
In fact, there are close to TWENTY Christian denominations in the USA that are bigger than the largest Orthodox group.
Sorry to burst the Orthodox bubble, and I don’t mean to be at all disparaging or unkind, but the fact is, in the context of everything going on in America, it’s really not even significant.
Oh, and as far as RUSSIAN Orthodoxy goes in the USA, THAT’S even smaller.
Honestly, you were lucky to get 7 lines. I would consider that a compliment.
Sounds like he was Putin’s creation. never heard of this guy, but the Russian Orthodox church had to toe the commie line just to be allowed to exist. I doubt if much has changed.
Lots of bad things happened between the Cathlic Church and the Orthodox Churches over the millennia.
For instance, more recently, the Russian Orthodox Church cooperated with Stalin to exterminate Catholic priests and transfer Eastern Catholic churches to Orthodox churches throughout the Soviet Union. The Orthodox Church suffered too, under Communism, but not as badly.
That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be useful to try to improve relations now.
I have been to Russia on mission trips. The ROC is more of a nationalist organization, not opposed to violence. It is almost hard to call it a church. This group is against the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and against any other church. It opposes anything that is not russian. If any other church makes some headway, they will use the state to supress it.
May God have mercy on his soul. That’s about the best I can come up with.
I doubt many among the American press have ever even heard of this man or even know what The Russian Orthodox Church is. Graduates from even the best J schools today are woefully ignorant of material that had been common knowledge for generations.
Why should the US press be interested, its got nothing to do with Liberalism, Democrats, Obama or them.
I’m sorry, but you clearly don’t know anything at all about Orthodoxy. The Orthodox church is an apostolic church directly descended from the original apostles. All other Christian churches are essentially off-shoots of Orthodoxy, from the Roman Catholics on up to whatever evangelical or pentecostal denominations you care to think of. Orthodoxy has many different hierarchies, of which the Russian church is but one. Your claim that the ROC is against the spread of the gospel of Christ is a lie. It may be against your interpretation of the gospel, but it most certainly isn’t against the true gospel.
You wrote:
“Well I guess they still remember how Rome pretty much ignored the calls for help by the Byzantines.”
Ignored when? Rome organized the last real crusade in 1444 and Constantinople fell in 1453. Rome tried to organize crusades even after 1453 but found no support. There was a crusade of sorts in 1456 - after Constantinople fell - but it got no where really.
“The west was shocked when Constantinople fell, though the west really didn’t do much to help them and when Byzantium fell they realized how it opened up Europe to the Saracen’s.”
Wrong. The Ottomans were already on the western shores of the Bosporus BEFORE 1453. The fall of Constantinople just made it easier. Remember, that last crusade in 1453 was to attack Turks already in the Balkans!
“The Fourth Crusade didn’t help much either heh”
Byzantine weakness never helped. And the Fourth Crusade happened around 1200. Constantinople fell in 1453. The idea that a war in 1200 some how doomed a city in 1453 is simply wrongheaded. By the same token, Byzantium was clearly doomed since the 7th century when it lost massive amounts of territory and momentum to Muslim Arabs. If there was any one battle that doomed Byzantium it was Manzikert in 1071 when the Greeks chocked and lost to the Seljuk Turks losing all of Anatolia - the breadbasket of their empire.
It’s kind of funny listening to Eastern Orthodox whine about the supposed lack of help from the West. When did the East ever help the West really? Besides Justinian’s accidental “help” in his various wars around the Mediterranean - which had nothing to do with helping the West and everything to do with helping Justinian - when and where did the East really give aid to the West against the Barbarians? There’s a reason why so many historians have thought Count Julian was a Byzantine after all.
The simple fact is this: empires fall. Get over it.
I can’t answer to the history, but right now, the ROC is the one that has partnered with the soviets, has Putin as a member, and has the gold domed building with the giant hooded statue holding a sword, wrapped with a bandelero at the entrance. Inside, they march around the place holding icons.
I don’t see any gospel or any apostolic roots in that. I don’t know your definition of “orthodoxy”, but I define it as fidelity to scripture. That may be where we differ. No disrespect intended.
As the Catholic Church was dominated by Constantine and later emperors, and the Anglican Church is headed by the Queen of England, the Byzantine and Russian Orthodox Churches were historically subservient to their emperor or Czar. The term is Caesaropapism.
A close church/state relationship is the Russian tradition.
Actually, the Catholic Church has occasionally been dominated by secular authorities, but most of the history of the Church marks a struggle between two separate power centers, emperors and popes, or within nations between kings and popes.
The Anglican Church was specifically a national church, with the king as head of the church. But that was a result of the Reformation. Even in Catholic countries like France, French Kings had more power over the Church in the seventeenth century than they ever had earlier, with the rise of nationalism. But that didn’t hold, either.
As you say, the Russian Orthodox Church historicall had a much closer relationship with the Czars than the Catholic Church ever had with the Holy Roman Emperors.
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.