Talk:Russian Orthodox Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Russian Orthodox Church is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||
|
|||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
| /archive1 |
Contents |
[edit] North America situation
The first parts of the ROCOR and OCA sections should be merged because it's a common history. Both churches descend from the Russian-Alaska mission. They separated because the Metropolia/OCA recognized the Communist-approved Moscow patriarchs, which the ROCOR regarded as illegitimate. The ROCOR was a much smaller church, so putting it first and also putting the Alaska section with it distorts the relationship between the two.
The OCA and ROCOR also differed on several other issues, with the OCA being distinctly more liberal/modern/Western and the ROCOR more conservative/traditional. The ROCOR was monarchist, considering Tsar Nicholas and his family to be martyrs and saints, and praying for an Orthodox tsar to be restored. The OCA said they were killed mainly for political reasons rather than because of their religion, so they weren't properly martyrs, although I think the unified OCA may now accept them as saints. The ROCOR followed the old calendar, not so much because they cared about the date but because only an Ecumenical Council -- an agreement of all Orthodox churches -- had the right to change the calendar. They had less English in their churches, and were suspicious of "decadant" American ways that were influencing the OCA; e.g., the OCA was less strict about fasting before communion. So it's not surprising that the most extreme parts of the ROCOR refused to unite with the OCA; this is a common event in Orthodoxy, conservative movements breaking away because they consider the mainstream not strict enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sluggoster (talk • contribs) 07:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is that common. It's happened about twice in history, once with Old Believers in the 1650s and with the Old Calendarists in the 1920s. ROCOR was more of an Old Calendarist jurisdiction, but they are now in full communion with the "mainstream" Orthodox Church including the "liberal Gregorian Calendar using" OCA and GOARCH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.136.19 (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Size
The Russian Church numbers over 135 million members world wide, thus making it the third largest local Church after the Rome and the Greek Orthodox Church.
Does anyone know why this was added? The entire population of Greece is only about 10 millions. There can't be more then 5 million or so Greeks that live abroad. Howe can the GOC possibly have a larger membership then the ROC? Sotnik (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess it might depend on what they meant by the Greek Church. The patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria are a lot of times called "Greek Patriarchs," although theoretically they're not. It's still highly unlikely that even these patriarchs amount to half the membership of the Russian Church. I doubt Rome considers itself a local church anymore, since Roman Catholics base their entire catholicity and doctrine on one bishop, besides the fact they're not even part of the same church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.136.19 (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Removed Statement
This statement,
In the words of those who were allowed to view the KGB archives in the early 1990s, the church was "practically a subsidiary, a sister company of the KGB".[1]
is obviously neither factually true or neutral, it also comes close to being bigotry. First, not everyone who had access to the archives shares this point of view. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is an example. As a matter of a fact very few historians would agree with that statement. Second, The Wall Street Journal is neither an authority nor even a neutral source on Russian Orthodoxy.Sotnik (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- All you have said above is your personal opinion with no basis in the WP policies -- read Wikipedia:Verifiability. WSJ is considered a reliable source, irrespective of what you think of it.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is not only my opinion that not everyone who had access to KGB archive support the view presented. If you'd like to provide a source that contradicts that please do, I'd love to see it. WSJ is a newspaper its not a reliable source on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. Hearsay, even if published in a respected newspaper is never taken as fact. Sotnik (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The Quote above is simply stating the American view. I think it's appropriate to included the view but maybe we could include some counter views.---- Nate Riley 18:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Rather then argue back an forth, I went ahead and reviewed historical literature on the subject. There are a number of books on ROC history that deal with this subject, the ones I found are,
-
-
-
-
-
- Religion, state, and politics in the Soviet Union and successor states by John Anderson,
- The Russian Orthodox Church: A Contemporary History by Jane Ellis and
- A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy by Nathaniel Davis.
-
-
-
-
-
- From The Russian Orthodox Church: A Contemporary History,
-
-
-
-
-
- "The people infiltrated by the state, so far as we can tell, are probably not KGB 'agents', i.e. paid professionals secret policemen, but rather people over whom KGB has some kind of hold, and who can be bullied, blackmailed or intimated into compliance with its plant"
-
-
-
-
-
- From Religion, state, and politics in the Soviet Union and successor states,
-
-
-
-
-
- "This question of what was actually meant by 'agents' remained problematic, particularly given that the relevant and surviving document were not available to more then a few individuals. After all, virtually everyone the KGB had dealings with was give a codename - form active collaborators to dissidents. This issue was taken up by the independent minded Archbishop Khryzostom of Vilnius and Lithuania, himself not always popular with the authorities during the 1970s. Despite his maverick stance and conflict with the state, Khryzostom said that he had maintained contact with the KGB over eighteen years and these had only cease two years earlier. Throughout these years he had filed reports on foreign trips and his contact with foreigners. This he did deliberately, in order to use his position to build up the church and thus, despite being the possessor of a KGB codename ('Restorer'), Khryzostom maintained that he was never an informer."
-
-
-
-
-
- Finally from, A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy,
-
-
-
-
-
- There is little doubt that almost all of the bishops were and are believers. they are anguished by their acts of past collaboration, and most are deeply conscious of their sin. Although their attitudes are the old order to some degree, they are not a "Soviet institution".
-
-
-
-
-
- Further, from the sources provided above, 17. The KGB exploited the Russian Orthodox Church and its officials, including clergy, in furtherance of the missions of the KGB.1.
-
-
-
-
-
- That's says something completely different from what has been added. Its a well known historical fact that the Soviet government controlled in one way or another every aspect of society. That includes infiltrating and subverting the ROC. The ROC itself has said, it was not free during the Soviet period. All of this has to be made clear in the article. As this section is currently written, its factually false and ridiculous. Another thing that has to be noted is that the ROC openly condemned and condemns the actions of any clergy that have collaborated with the communist government against the Church (for example informants) 1. I will make make these changes shortly. I believe everything I've presented above are facts and I have provided references to works by respected historians and scholars. If anyone disagrees, please provide sources by other scholars (not media, or blogs, etc). Sotnik (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] More needed about post-Soviet behaviour
More should be added and perhaps a dedicated page created. For instance, there's nothing about the church's crushing of alternative denominations (such as encouraging the closing of the Salvation Army in the 1990s) and its pampered position as the state's favoured church (ie. customs breaks for importing things). And what about the opposition to Pope John Paul going to Russia and the Ukraine. It should all be covered. Malick78 (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Lately the Western media has delighted in reporting\exaggerating the Russian government's oppression of other religions. First, look to the fact that the Orthodox church was severely persecuted under the Soviets, something that has been conveniently ignored (and sometimes blatantly denied) in recent news reports. Perhaps it ought to be covered, but most of the news reports I have seen on this issue are very biased, and borderline as propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.183.124 (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] why do you hate japan?
really why, they have a voice too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.153.177 (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The Difference between Roma and Moskva
In Roma you bewilder the Church. In Moskva, the Church bewilders YOU! 204.52.215.107 (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
