Why Independence for Ukraine’s Orthodox Church Is an Earthquake for Putin

Rogue Valley · Sep 11, 2018

Why Independence for Ukraine’s Orthodox Church Is an Earthquake for Putin

2018-07-28T131750Z_1_LYNXMPEE6R09F_RTROPTP_2_UKRAINE-RELIGION-BAPTISM.JPG.cf.jpg

Metropolitan Filaret, head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate.

Article explains why the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is granting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church autocephaly (independence -- a split from the Russian Orthodox Church) and why Moscow regards this separation as a "soft-power" disaster.

Litwin · Sep 12, 2018

Rogue Valley said:
Why Independence for Ukraine’s Orthodox Church Is an Earthquake for Putin

Metropolitan Filaret, head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate.

Article explains why the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is granting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church autocephaly (independence -- a split from the Russian Orthodox Church) and why Moscow regards this separation as a "soft-power" disaster.

well, if Mongols Juchi (who were at the begging Nestorians ) church brakes with Constantinople , their church´d become a sect (much like Mormons) . which means Independence for Belarus and Kazakhstan, etc. Orthodox Churches automatically

Litwin · Sep 12, 2018

Rogue Valley said:
Why Independence for Ukraine’s Orthodox Church Is an Earthquake for Putin

Metropolitan Filaret, head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate.

Article explains why the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is granting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church autocephaly (independence -- a split from the Russian Orthodox Church) and why Moscow regards this separation as a "soft-power" disaster.

well, one for sure, its the biggest Ukrainian victory for last 400 years

https://agensir.it/chiesa/2018/09/1...ugh-dialogue-faith-becomes-an-agent-of-peace/

Rogue Valley · Sep 14, 2018

Russian Orthodox Church downgrades ties with Constantinople

9/14/18
The Russian Orthodox Church Friday cut "diplomatic ties" with Bartholomew I, the Istanbul-based spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, accusing him of encroaching on its religious territory in Ukraine. As Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I is expected to rule in the coming months on a Ukrainian appeal to cut spiritual ties with Moscow amid a simmering military conflict in the east of the former Soviet country. Ahead of the decision, he sent two representatives to Ukraine this month, sparking fury in Russia. The ruling body of the Russian Orthodox Church decided to downgrade ties with its Istanbul-based rival at an emergency meeting Friday. "The full responsibility for the tragic consequences of this schism will rest with Patriarch Batholomew I and bishops who support him," the statement said. Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, who is seen as a strong ally of President Vladimir Putin, wants to prevent pro-Western Ukraine from getting an independent church. Such a move would be seen as a huge blow to Russia's spiritual authority in the Orthodox world.

As in everything, if the Russians can't get their way (holding the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a spiritual hostage), they threaten to take their ball and go home.

Go. Good riddance. You lost Ukraine four years ago. Everyone is tired of your threatening tactics and theactrics.

Chagos · Sep 14, 2018

The historical comedy here is how Russia still clings to the belief of having made herself the new Rome, once Byzantium fell to the Turks.

Well, they shoulda paid the Turks to obliterate Italy as well, while they were at it, since Rome continued to exist without any such move.

Byzantium wasn't Rome, no matter how much the Byzantines held themselves to be that and any Caesar derived from the real Rome would have required Roman endorsement.

As such any Germanic "Kaiser" that followed could be seen as having a valid claim to such title, any Muscovite upstart could however call himself "Csar" until he was blue in the face, a Caesar he would never be.

And now, to add insult to injury:mrgreen:, the Constantinople Patriarch simply won't die either.

Not that it matters any.

Apart, that is, from creating great merriment among the historically interested.:lol:

Tim the plumber · Sep 14, 2018

Chagos said:
The historical comedy here is how Russia still clings to the belief of having made herself the new Rome, once Byzantium fell to the Turks.

Well, they shoulda paid the Turks to obliterate Italy as well, while they were at it, since Rome continued to exist without any such move.

Byzantium wasn't Rome, no matter how much the Byzantines held themselves to be that and any Caesar derived from the real Rome would have required Roman endorsement.

As such any Germanic "Kaiser" that followed could be seen as having a valid claim to such title, any Muscovite upstart could however call himself "Csar" until he was blue in the face, a Caesar he would never be.

And now, to add insult to injury:mrgreen:, the Constantinople Patriarch simply won't die either.

Not that it matters any.

Apart, that is, from creating great merriment among the historically interested.:lol:

No but Constantinople was the greatest city and capital of the Roman Empire. It was one of 2 capitals for a while untill the Western half of the Empire fell but for much of that time the Western capital was where ever the Emperor of the West was.

Byzantiunm was the village that was demolished when Constantine decieded to build the great city to be the new capital.

Chagos · Sep 14, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
No but Constantinople was the greatest city and capital of the Roman Empire. It was one of 2 capitals for a while untill the Western half of the Empire fell but for much of that time the Western capital was where ever the Emperor of the West was.

Byzantiunm was the village that was demolished when Constantine decieded to build the great city to be the new capital.

Sure thing, and I know all that.

My point was simply (and perhaps I should have stressed it more) that non-Roman Caesars-to-be were not appointed (endorsed, blessed, crowned) in Byzantium but in Rome. By what was to be Popes.

With Russia having acquired that right neither from the Bosporus nor the Tiber.

But (as an aside) with what I care about churches, Putin can declare himself the only true and valid Almighty Spaghetti Monster, he's still the anti-pasti (as in Pastafarian for anti-Christ).:mrgreen:

Tim the plumber · Sep 14, 2018

Chagos said:
Sure thing, and I know all that.

My point was simply (and perhaps I should have stressed it more) that non-Roman Caesars-to-be were not appointed (endorsed, blessed, crowned) in Byzantium but in Rome. By what was to be Popes.

With Russia having acquired that right neither from the Bosporus nor the Tiber.

But (as an aside) with what I care about churches, Putin can declare himself the only true and valid Almighty Spaghetti Monster, he's still the anti-pasti (as in Pastafarian for anti-Christ).:mrgreen:

The Church of the Roman Empire is surely the Orthodox one rather than the one that was established way later after Rome, the city, had lost all serrious power and was simply a mostly derrilict town in Itally.

Chagos · Sep 14, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
The Church of the Roman Empire is surely the Orthodox one rather than the one that was established way later after Rome, the city, had lost all serrious power and was simply a mostly derrilict town in Itally.

still changes nothing in who endorsed Caesars.

Nor in who actually later on held the powers to induce Christendom to come to the aid of a wobbling Bosporus city/state.

Not that it was the kind of aid (as history then proceeded to show) that any sane person would ask for.

Tim the plumber · Sep 14, 2018

Chagos said:
still changes nothing in who endorsed Caesars.

Nor in who actually later on held the powers to induce Christendom to come to the aid of a wobbling Bosporus city/state.

Not that it was the kind of aid (as history then proceeded to show) that any sane person would ask for.

1, The Roman Empire was doing OK-ish when the 5th crusade sacked it before running away when the Roman army returned.

2, The Real Ceasars, well really there was just the one, died some centuries before the Roman Empire turned Christian and then went down the tubes in the west and half down in the East.

Chagos · Sep 14, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
1, The Roman Empire was doing OK-ish when the 5th crusade sacked it before running away when the Roman army returned.

Kinda my point, eh?

2, The Real Ceasars, well really there was just the one, died some centuries before the Roman Empire turned Christian and then went down the tubes in the west and half down in the East.

Not that I give a hoot about some religious-based claim to leadership (emperorship) but the Russian Csars had as much right to the term as I have.

I'll certainly concede that the Kaisers were in no better position.

Nevertheless both terms come from Caesar and Nobilissimus Caesar was used by Roman emperors after Julius, with Octavian (to my knowledge) having been the first.

It's a dynastic title.

Litwin · Sep 15, 2018

Chagos said:
The historical comedy here is how Russia still clings to the belief of having made herself the new Rome, once Byzantium fell to the Turks.

Well, they shoulda paid the Turks to obliterate Italy as well, while they were at it, since Rome continued to exist without any such move.

Byzantium wasn't Rome, no matter how much the Byzantines held themselves to be that and any Caesar derived from the real Rome would have required Roman endorsement.

As such any Germanic "Kaiser" that followed could be seen as having a valid claim to such title, any Muscovite upstart could however call himself "Csar" until he was blue in the face, a Caesar he would never be.

And now, to add insult to injury:mrgreen:, the Constantinople Patriarch simply won't die either.

Not that it matters any.

Apart, that is, from creating great merriment among the historically interested.:lol:

1) Byzantium (name) is a German product of 18s
2) The historical comedy here is that "Russia" is not "Russia" (Rus´in any meaning of this word) but Mongolian ulus of juchi (Muscovy is just nickname) . and this is what its all about , about who is successor of ancient rus´ (also known under name Kyiv Rus´) .

here is the main expert talks :

Chagos · Sep 15, 2018

Litwin said:
1) Byzantium (name) is a German product of 18s

wrong.

It's derived from the Greek village or town of Byzantion which existed from around 600 BCE at the same spot that Constantine later developed (enlarged) into the city of what was then called Nova Roma and not much later Constantinople.

Litwin · Sep 15, 2018

Chagos said:
wrong.

It's derived from the Greek village or town of Byzantion which existed from around 600 BCE at the same spot that Constantine later developed (enlarged) into the city of what was then called Nova Roma and not much later Constantinople.

Both "Byzantine Empire" ..... are historiographical terms created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire as the Roman Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

beerftw · Sep 15, 2018

Litwin said:
1) Byzantium (name) is a German product of 18s
2) The historical comedy here is that "Russia" is not "Russia" (Rus´in any meaning of this word) but Mongolian ulus of juchi (Muscovy is just nickname) . and this is what its all about , about who is successor of ancient rus´ (also known under name Kyiv Rus´) .

here is the main expert talks :

If you believe rus has nothing to do with russia, you are either ignorant of history or willingly choose your own alternate history despite facts.

Fyi muscovy has not existed in a very long time, it was a vassal state of the golden horde until 1480, than a independant for a short time after. The muscovy was created during mongol invasions of rus, in which muscovy became a vassal state. Themuscovy or grand duchy of moscow was replaced by the tsardom of russia, which lasted far longer than the very short lived muscovy you keep mentioning.

Litwin · Sep 16, 2018

beerftw said:
If you believe rus has nothing to do with russia, you are either ignorant of history or willingly choose your own alternate history despite facts.

Fyi muscovy has not existed in a very long time, it was a vassal state of the golden horde until 1480, than a independant for a short time after. The muscovy was created during mongol invasions of rus, in which muscovy became a vassal state. Themuscovy or grand duchy of moscow was replaced by the tsardom of russia, which lasted far longer than the very short lived muscovy you keep mentioning.

me or leading expert on this subject ? Timothy Snyder, author of Black Earth and Bloodlands, Housum Professor of History at Yale University? LOL try harder Olgino

Alfons · Sep 16, 2018

Rogue Valley said:
Why Independence for Ukraine’s Orthodox Church Is an Earthquake for Putin

Metropolitan Filaret, head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate.

Article explains why the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople .

The existence of so-called Patriarch is a nonsense, because Byzantine is dead.
Moscow is the True Third Rome, not NWO agents

Rogue Valley · Sep 16, 2018

Russian Orthodox Church warns of violence and schism over Ukraine

Violence? The Russian Orthodox Church is now on a religious par with the radical Islamist's who threaten religious violence on others.

beerftw · Sep 16, 2018

Litwin said:
me or leading expert on this subject ? Timothy Snyder, author of Black Earth and Bloodlands, Housum Professor of History at Yale University? LOL try harder Olgino

Your own video does not back up your claims in the slightest, so you might need more proof than throwing out a video that does nothing to support your claims.

beerftw · Sep 16, 2018

Rogue Valley said:
Russian Orthodox Church warns of violence and schism over Ukraine

Violence? The Russian Orthodox Church is now on a religious par with the radical Islamist's who threaten religious violence on others.

The religious violence they warn of is the fact ukraine has the russian orthodox church as it's largest church, with eastern orthodox being second pretty much like non denominational meaning they use both ukrainian and russian churches, with the smaller group being ukrainian orthodox.

Trying to pull a coup against the largest religious group could easily lead to violence whether anyone wanted it or not, and it is made worse by the ukraine president pushing for the move, he is one step away from pushing for state controlled religion, and given the loyalty of large amounts of ukrainians to the russian orthodox church it could easily spark violence between different sects in ukraine.

Litwin · Sep 17, 2018

beerftw said:
Your own video does not back up your claims in the slightest, so you might need more proof than throwing out a video that does nothing to support your claims.

"Kyiv Rus has nothing to do with Russia" really? Russia and the Golden Horde "Russia and the Golden Horde https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Golden-Horde-Medieval-Russian/dp/0253204453
The Mongol Impact on Medieval "Russian" History
Charles Halperin" entire book about your mongol empire

Litwin · Sep 17, 2018

more :
https://www.persee.fr/doc/cmr_0008-0160_1982_num_23_2_1950

Litwin · Sep 17, 2018

beerftw said:
Your own video does not back up your claims in the slightest, so you might need more proof than throwing out a video that does nothing to support your claims.

Helmet of "IVAN THE TERRIBLE" has Arabic writing on it )) LOL

"Alexander Nevsky"'s helmet, helmet has Arabic writing on it, saying something like "With Allah's help" and "Speedy victory".

beerftw · Sep 17, 2018

Litwin said:
"Kyiv Rus has nothing to do with Russia" really? Russia and the Golden Horde "Russia and the Golden Horde https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Golden-Horde-Medieval-Russian/dp/0253204453
The Mongol Impact on Medieval "Russian" History
Charles Halperin" entire book about your mongol empire

You need to read your own sources again because what you are claiming is not what they are saying. They called it a mongol invasion of rus, which includes southwest russia belarus and ukraine. Ukraine as well as rus itself was occupied by mongol invasions, ukraine and belarus oynly remained under their rule for a shorter time because of lithuanian invasion capturing most of rus.

Moscow was a remote trading post of rus prior to mongol invasions, but after the invasions grew because of it's security over other parts of the for rus empire. Either way it is absurd for you to claim russia has nothing to do with rus even though it's people in the west were from rus and part of the rus empire, because mongolia controlled russia, while ignoring that at one time mongolia controlled rus itself including kyiv.

beerftw · Sep 17, 2018

Litwin said:
Helmet of "IVAN THE TERRIBLE" has Arabic writing on it )) LOL

"Alexander Nevsky"'s helmet, helmet has Arabic writing on it, saying something like "With Allah's help" and "Speedy victory".

Hmm I get it now, you are really chinese and have to lash out at everything mongolian since you can not build your own great wall.

Why Independence for Ukraine’s Orthodox Church Is an Earthquake for Putin

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Litwin

Litwin

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Chagos

Tim the plumber

Chagos

Tim the plumber

Chagos

Tim the plumber

Chagos

Litwin

Chagos

Litwin

beerftw

proud ammosexual

Litwin

Alfons

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

beerftw

proud ammosexual

beerftw

proud ammosexual

Litwin

Litwin

Litwin

beerftw

proud ammosexual

beerftw

proud ammosexual