Macedonian Orthodox Church - News & Updates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Soldier of Macedon
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 13670

    I would have to agree with everything you've just said BBS.
    In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

    Comment

    • Big Bad Sven
      Senior Member
      • Jan 2009
      • 1528

      Originally posted by Komita View Post
      What is there to explain?
      He is the last great Tsar of Russia, a good and queit man in real life, a good and loving father he's the last real russian leader that stood up for slavs and a martyr of the orthodox faith.
      If it's against the rules to have him as a avatar feel free to delete my account.
      You seem to be out of touch in your views of this person.

      You cant say he was "defender of the slavs" as he ruled Poland and Ukraine with a Iron Fist. Im sure the Poles and the Catholic Ukrainians loved the intense russophocation.
      He even killed his own people in the Bloody Sunday protests, which were peacefull protests against the Tsar.

      You cant call him a "great russian" leader as he lost to Japan in the Russo-Japanese war - the results shocked the world and made russia loose its image of world power. He was incompatant and useless and people wanted him out after loosing to lowly Japan.

      Even doing a quick google/wikipedia search shows that its common belief that this bloke was useless and russians lost faith in him:



      Nicholas is generally considered to have been incompetent to the colossal task of ruling the enormous Russian Empire.[60] Historian Barbara Tuchman gives a damning evaluation of his reign:

      [The Russian Empire] was ruled from the top by a sovereign who had but one idea of government—to preserve intact the absolute monarchy bequeathed to him by his father—and who, lacking the intellect, energy or training for his job, fell back on personal favorites, whim, simple mulishness, and other devices of the empty-headed autocrat. His father, Alexander III, who deliberately intended to keep his son uneducated in statecraft until the age of thirty, unfortunately miscalculated his own life expectancy, and died when Nicholas was twenty-six. The new Czar had learned nothing in the interval, and the impression of imperturbability he conveyed was in reality apathy—the indifference of a mind so shallow as to be all surface. When a telegram was brought to him announcing the annihilation of the Russian fleet at Tsushima, he read it, stuffed it in his pocket, and went on playing tennis. (Tuchman, Barbara W. The Guns of August. New York: Presidio Press, 1962, pg. 71.)




      Even the decision to make him a saint caused divisions in Russia (from wikipesia):


      However, Nicholas' canonization was controversial. The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was split on the issue back in 1981. Some members suggesting that the emperor was a weak ruler and had failed to prevent the outbreak of Communism in Russia. It was pointed out by one priest that martyrdom in the Russian Orthodox Church has nothing to do with the martyr's personal actions but is instead related to why he or she was killed.[61] A further criticism was found in that the Orthodox Church outside of Russia seemed to be using Nicholas' murder as propaganda against the Jews.[62]

      The Russian Orthodox Church inside Russia rejected the family's classification as martyrs because they were not killed because of their religious faith. Religious leaders in both churches also had objections to canonizing the Tsar's family because they perceived him as a weak emperor whose incompetence led to the revolution, the suffering of his people and made him at least partially responsible for his own murder and those of his wife and children. For these opponents, the fact that the Tsar was, in private life, a kind man and a good husband and father did not override his poor governance of Russia.[61]







      And you cant even call him a "russian" because he was some Danish/germanic mut. Thats like calling a Albanian Tosk, vlach or grkoman a "greek" because they went to the greek church....

      Comment

      • Mastika
        Member
        • Feb 2010
        • 503

        Originally posted by Komita View Post
        Bla bla bla bla... This is a typical western history lesson that you gained and if you know better then his own people and the holy church then fine.
        Funny how 95 years ago virtually the whole country wanted to see his downfall.

        Komita, it was his own people that rose against him and all that he stood for; Russification, Aristocracy, the Monarchy, Discrimination, Classism, Conservatism. During his reign the Russian people got poorer and poorer whilst the country stagnated economically and politically. Nicholas was not interested in making any effective reforms and tried to stop them when they began to speak for the Russian people and not the Russian Tsar, eg. dissolving the Duma's.

        I am sure that he was a nice and loving man to his family, there is no doubt about that, but this doesn't excuse the wrongs which he comitted against the peoples of his Empire.

        btw. nobody has actually asked you to leave becuase of your avatar, and nobody will delete your account for that reason. I was merely intrigued by it, thats all.

        BBS, I strongly agree with you except for your last point about him not being Russian. He saw himself as a Russian and was partly of Russian descent. We have to respect those wishes and refer to him as he saw himself.

        Comment

        • Komita
          Member
          • May 2009
          • 243

          at your posts on this topic. Hillarious.
          No wonder everybody laugh at us, your all history experts and our church is the only true one, oldest, our languages is the oldest, everything we have is the only true and oldest and everybody is guilty for stealing our history... etc the usual pathetic.
          Last edited by Komita; 05-11-2010, 04:36 AM.
          Слава му на Бога за се

          Comment

          • Mastika
            Member
            • Feb 2010
            • 503

            Originally posted by Komita View Post
            at your posts on this topic. Hillarious.
            No wonder everybody laugh at us, your all history experts and our church is the only true one, oldest, our languages is the oldest, everything we have is the only true and oldest and everybody is guilty for stealing our history... etc the usual pathetic.
            I take it that you think Rasputin should also become a Saint? He too was a man of god <cough, choke>.

            Comment

            • Bratot
              Senior Member
              • Sep 2008
              • 2855

              Originally posted by Komita View Post
              No wonder nobody takes our church serious or wants to recognize it when this is the views of it's followers.

              Sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm not a church follower nor I take any church seriously when it comes to proclaimation of someone for a "Saint".

              The church was and will remain a tool of ruling the masses by persuasion.
              The purpose of the media is not to make you to think that the name must be changed, but to get you into debate - what name would suit us! - Bratot

              Comment

              • Komita
                Member
                • May 2009
                • 243

                Originally posted by Bratot View Post
                Sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm not a church follower nor I take any church seriously when it comes to proclaimation of someone for a "Saint".

                The church was and will remain a tool of ruling the masses by persuasion.
                Good, now I understand why you post like a typical pagan nationalist.
                Слава му на Бога за се

                Comment

                • julie
                  Senior Member
                  • May 2009
                  • 3869

                  Komita, where are you or your folks from?
                  "The moral revolution - the revolution of the mind, heart and soul of an enslaved people, is our greatest task."__________________Gotse Delchev

                  Comment

                  • Onur
                    Senior Member
                    • Apr 2010
                    • 2389

                    Guys, i got couple of questions to you about this;

                    • Whats the difference between the reign of Russian and Turkish Empire for you? I am asking this because in my point of view, i see none. In my opinion, both were foreigner to you and they were trying to expand their political influence in the world by controlling Balkans.

                    • What you expect from the recognition of Russian patriarchy? I mean, whats the difference if they recognize your church or not? I can clearly see that the religion of Christianity always involved into politics throughout history but it is 2010. Do you think that religion still have power on world of politics?



                    Please take no offense since I am just wondering. Sorry if i disturbed you, just give it to my ignorance of religious stuff.






                    Originally posted by Komita View Post
                    No wonder everybody laugh at us, your all history experts and our church is the only true one, oldest, our languages is the oldest, everything we have is the only true and oldest and everybody is guilty for stealing our history... etc the usual pathetic.

                    I don't know about the church but i know some parts of Russian history, since its related with the Turks. You know, both were living at the same place at Caucasus.

                    History of Macedonia and Macedonians definitely much older than the Russians. First Russian state only created at medieval times. Russian history just begins with their occupation of the city, "Kiev" which founded by Khazar Turks earlier. Even the word "Kiev" is also Turkish, means "double castle/house" which signifies the two big Khazar castle in the city. They just gained control of that area after majority of Turks migrated out from Caucasus to Anatolia and Balkans and thats when the history of Russians begins. If majority of people doesn't know this, its mostly because the Bolsheviks tried to erase pre-Russian history of Caucasus by claiming that they were the only one who can claim ownership of their territory.


                    So, if someone says that Macedonians has richer and older history than Russians, it wouldn't be wrong at all.
                    Last edited by Onur; 05-11-2010, 06:44 AM.

                    Comment

                    • Mastika
                      Member
                      • Feb 2010
                      • 503

                      Originally posted by Onur View Post
                      Guys, i got couple of questions to you about this;
                      1. Whats the difference between the reign of Russian and Turkish Empire for you? I am asking this because in my point of view, i see none. In my opinion, both were foreigner to you and they were trying to expand their political influence in the world by controlling Balkans.
                      I will happily answer your question Onur, however please clarify the following. Are you talking about the Tsarist influence in/on Macedonia or the way that the Russian empire goverened itself in comparison to the way that the Ottoman Empire was goverened?

                      Comment

                      • johnMKD
                        Member
                        • Apr 2010
                        • 364

                        Originally posted by Onur View Post
                        What you expect from the recognition of Russian patriarchy? I mean, whats the difference if they recognize your church or not? I can clearly see that the religion of Christianity always involved into politics throughout history but it is 2010. Do you think that religion still have power on world of politics?
                        It's very important for the church to be recognised by the Russian Patriarchy. But isn't it already recognised by the "Ecumenical" Patriarchy? I really don't have a clue about it. Or is the latter quietly supporting Greek views and refuses to recognise the church?
                        Macedonian and proud!

                        Comment

                        • Daskalot
                          Senior Member
                          • Sep 2008
                          • 4345

                          Originally posted by Bratot View Post
                          Sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm not a church follower nor I take any church seriously when it comes to proclaimation of someone for a "Saint".

                          The church was and will remain a tool of ruling the masses by persuasion.
                          You are correct Bratot, it is all about control and power.
                          Macedonian Truth Organisation

                          Comment

                          • Onur
                            Senior Member
                            • Apr 2010
                            • 2389

                            Originally posted by Mastika View Post
                            I will happily answer your question Onur, however please clarify the following. Are you talking about the Tsarist influence in/on Macedonia or the way that the Russian empire goverened itself in comparison to the way that the Ottoman Empire was goverened?
                            Not the way they govern themselves. I am wondering, how you guys perceive their reign in Macedonia and Balkans in general.

                            Do you see any difference on Russian and Turkish Empire reign in Balkans? If yes, why? Do you think Russian reign was more rightful than Turks in Balkans?? I am asking for the period after they beat the Turks in the war at 1878. Tsarist influence and the communism days after WW-2.

                            Like i said, i see no difference in my point of view. Both of them wanted to expand their political power by controlling the Balkans, thats all. Both were foreigners to you as well, right?
                            Last edited by Onur; 05-11-2010, 07:09 AM.

                            Comment

                            • julie
                              Senior Member
                              • May 2009
                              • 3869

                              all religions are politcs, brainwashing the masses and control, I have seen it with my first husbands Catholic faith- God bless the pope, the leader of Catholics, the only true believers of God and Christ, and the only true christians of the world, and with my husband's Anglican faith (which was once presbyterian and taken over) the only true believers, God bless the Queen and the followers in this church, as you are the only ones to be admitted into the Kingdom of heaven

                              It disgusted me, attending services to appease , and to sit and listen to that bullshit.

                              I go to Macedonian Orthodox mass here and have yet to hear the priest say, that we are the only ones to be able to enter "heaven's gates"

                              Both husbands had been controlled by their respective churches which instilled a tithe, even today where a percentage of salary had to be paid for their salvation to the church.

                              I married my first husband in the Catholic church to appease the in laws. My priest was present where he performed full traditional Orthodox rites.

                              My then husband was forced to sign a document whereby our future children would be baptised to the Catholic church.

                              I put my foot down, and we argued over that for a while and he relented, having been acceppted within the Macedonian community , and my 3 sons were christened in the Macedonian Orthodox church.

                              We see the divisions imposed by the archbishop of the MOC in Australia, and I think it is something that is sanctioned by RoM to dispel the "nationalism", I call it patriotism of the diaspora.

                              And all so called religions is about money and power, Daskalot, you put it very succinctly
                              "The moral revolution - the revolution of the mind, heart and soul of an enslaved people, is our greatest task."__________________Gotse Delchev

                              Comment

                              • Mastika
                                Member
                                • Feb 2010
                                • 503

                                Originally posted by Onur View Post
                                Like i said, i see no difference in my point of view. Both of them wanted to expand their political power by controlling the Balkans, thats all. Both were foreigners to you as well, right?
                                There is a big difference, the Ottomans controlled much of the Balkans for 400-500 years. They ruled and they made the decisions and decided what was going on. Although initially they were foreign, a large Muslim and Turkish population eventually developed across all of Macedonia, some of which remains today (however the majority of real Turks left in the 1920's population exchanges with Greece or the 1950s-era emigration to Turkey). The Ottomans made a real impact on Macedonia, our culture, our people, our langauge.

                                The point you raise about Russian rule, no Russia would not have had any legitimate claim to rule unless the she had conquered the Balkans with force. Even then, she would still have been treated as a foreign power, no different to Britain or France. Even though our countries have similar religious beliefs and churches, the Russians would have still been treated as conquerors rather then liberators. However the Russians never established any legitimate claims anywhere in the Balkans so it is impossible for anyone to comment on this non-existant "Russian reign in the Balkans" which you are asking about.

                                If you are going to liken the Russian Empire with someone then the closest alternative would be the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Here we have two vultures slowly picking off the bits of the Ottoman Empire and giving them to whoever they could use at the time.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X