The article is interesting in general, and can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/30/russian-church-backs-putin-adoption-ban But the relevant portion for my thread is this passage: But further down in the article: Isn't it curious how the leader of the Russian Church, "Patriarch Kirill", believes that there are no Churches in the West (no salvation is possible through them), while getting caught airbrushing his $30,000 Breguet, his priests driving BMWs, and having one of his monasteries run a bordello?
The Orthodox would take your post and accuse you of Donatism, then say "well of course he'd fall into that heresy, being immersed in heretical Western mindsets". That's the end of that. It's hard to say much in this subject. Anyone who replies with an "amen" to your post can be labeled an anti-ecumenical, intolerant hater. Anyone who replies negatively to your post can be called indifferent, nominalist, and antinomian. This isn't exactly proof that the Orthodox are particularly non-Christian or bad, since Anglicans have done some pretty rotten stuff too. Of course, you won't find whorehouses run out of Lambeth Palace, nor will priests be paid enough to own anything more than a simple car. Interesting.
I may be in the minority here, but I think this is symptomatic of the worldliness that always seems to infect state churches. No man can serve to masters, and bishops tend to side with the more immediate of the two when a conflict of interest arises between God and king. Disestablishment of course, will not necessarilly remedy the situation, but a wall of seperation between church and state can be helpful when ministers are called upon to be the prophetic voice that speaks truth to power.
Text in Guardian is incorrect and full of insinuations and half-truths. Interesting, this information is published just in Western media and there is no such info in Ria-Novosti and Interfax to whom Guardian reffers. The news said that the problematic hotel is next to the monastery (neighbouring building). To understand the situation more clearly we must have in mind that Sretensky monastery in question is in Moscow downtown, around him there are lots of other buildings. Communists took the monastery property decades ago, and restitution process is undergoing, but Monastery is not the owner of the building. That is usual situation in Eastern countries. Also in Serbia, we have lots of monasteries to whom Communists after World War II took the buildings and now in these monasteries we have restaurants or hotels with inappropriate music, etc. but monasteries are not the owners, although the building itself is inside or nearby the monastery. So the truth is that this problematic hotel in question is in neighboring building of Sretensky monastery who used to be the Church propriety before Communism, but monastery now is not owner of the building. All news in Russian language sais that, why Guardian journalist misinterpreted it I have no idea. Second thing, regarding father Vsevold Chaplin, here is what he said to Interfax about adoption ban: http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=10168 So obviously Guardian again misinterpreted the priests words. Nonsense. Would the Guardian journalist be more happier if the Church is persecuted in Russia again? Maybe that was idyllic time for Guardian journalist? There is really no single sentence with full truth in this article. Just constructions. Priest crushed with his BMW. So what is big deal? Does Anglican priest can crush the car? Does Anglican priest can drive BMW? Would that be news for Guardian? I think that such texts creates gaps between us. Should not Guardian journalists be happy that after 70 years of brutal persecution Church is reviving again? Does Guardian laments for those times when Church was "put in the right place in society" like here: If you saw these 3 videos you will maybe understand why we are offended when atheists again trying to desecrate our churches. Thousands of our bishops and priest were killed. Imagine that thousands of Anglican bishops and priests are killed, God forbid, that the Westminster Abbey are leveled to the ground zero and desecrated for decades, and on a such a place who symbolized martyrdom of our Church some atheistic naked woman shouting against the Church. We are offended. Your church was not persecuted by your Government, thanks God, but please understand us who still healing our wounds. We want to protect our shrines. Ok, Guardians job is to print sensations and to sell the papers. But what it hurts me is that some of you who are Christians accepts such lies without critic. I think if I want to inform myself about Church of England I will go to the relevant Anglican webpages and I will not read some tabloids and gossips. Also, if someone is interested in Church of Russia affairs he can find relevant links about that. In contemporary Orthodoxy there is more interesting things for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, then does some Church in Moscow has real estate or is some Russian priest owner of BMW. Maybe motive of Guardian journalist is found here: And they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. So they took the money, and did as they were taught, and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day. I think we should trust more our brothers in Church (even maybe Orthodox) rather then soldiers and Guardian. My dear brother Anglican74, when and where is Patriarch said that? Never and nowhere. There is no such statement of Patriarch that salvation is not possible through Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism. On the contrary. I will post such news and links who proves this in another topic "Orthodox and Anglicans" I opened recently. Patriarch Cyrill is prominent supporter of Ecumenism in Orthodox Church.
My friend, here were Kirill's words: If Kirill doesn't hold the opinion that in the West children won't get "a truly Christian upgringing", then what were his real reasons to oppose the adoptions?
Dear Anglican74, That is the point of my previous post. There is NO such words. Guardian simply fabricate the false news. Complete Guardian article is mix of lies and half-truths. Imagine that some Russian newspaper says that Archbishop of Canterbury said something, and there is no one English web page to confirm that. That must be a lie. There is no source. The same here.
Patriarch did not commented the law at all. With no one single word. Vsevolod Chuplin says this: http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=10168 Nothing else.
Interesting... I couldn't find a proof or disproof for what you're saying, yet, so I will keep looking. I did find some interesting statements by the Dimitry Smirnov who's apparently a high-ranking cleric in the Church. I can't read Russian so I used Google translate: http://translate.google.com/transla.../www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=49346
Dima Yakovlev Law is Russian answer to the USA Magnitsky law. It is political question between two Governments. Like for example in Britain is political question should Britain bombard some country (Afganistan, Lybia, Iraq...). There can be people who are in favour of that and there are people who are against. There is too many cases of Russian adopted kids abuse in USA. What would British Government do if there is a numerous child abuse of British kids in Russia? In Russia, some support the Law, some don't. So? Where is connection between that and relationship with Anglicans? There is no. There is now media war, and Guardian is part of that with anti-Russian rhetoric. You can search internet as much as you can, you will find no word of any Orthodox patriarch against Anglicans. Priest Dimitry Smirnov is person in charge for the contacts with Russian Army. Although the translation is bad, yes, he supported the Dima Law, but where is the problem? There is a political dispute between USA and Russia, and it should have no impact, by my opinion, on relationship between Anglicans and Orthodox. Here is the Law: http://rt.com/politics/official-word/dima-yakovlev-law-full-995/ And I see no problem. More links about this topic: http://rt.com/politics/russia-ban-us-adoptions-183/ http://rt.com/politics/putin-magnitsky-law-rights-975/ http://rt.com/usa/news/adopted-russian-boy-murdereed/ http://rt.com/news/russia-demands-reconsideration-of-adoptive-father-s-reprieve/ http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/feedback/11-03-2010/112540-russian_child_killed-0/ http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_07_26/Another-Russian-child-beaten-by-US-foster-parents/ http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_12_28/US-adoptions-often-unhappy-Moscow/ http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_12_28/Finnish-right-activist-back-Dima-Yakovlev-law/ http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_12_28/Russia-looks-into-attempted-child-slaughter-in-US/ http://english.pravda.ru/society/family/13-03-2012/120760-russia_children-0/ http://english.pravda.ru/society/family/28-12-2012/123333-usa_child_killings-0/ http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/04-05-2006/79886-adoption-0/ http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/13-12-2001/25282-0/ http://english.pravda.ru/news/hotspots/26-07-2012/121757-child_abuse-0/ http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/03-11-2010/115648-russian_orphans-0/ http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/11-05-2007/91261-adopted_russian_child_death-0/ Like British Government who protect their citizens, the same thing do the Russian Government. This is political question and has nothing with churches relationships. It is said: render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Let the Caesars people on both side do their jobs. And we who are the Christ disciples let us do God job, and let us not be involved in dispute between us, for no reason.
My point in quoting archpriest Dmitry Smirnov was to show an existence of strong anti-Western prejudice in the Russian church. According to him, "We say that in Russia, children killed. But in America, the Americans kill more children, there is domestic violence - a permanent thing. And the children in the U.S. too kill for thirty rifles," - he added." Yet generally I do agree with you that there is more politics here than religion. Your post was well said Let us hold on this topic, until more information comes out about Patriarch Kirill's statements.
Follow the posts I present at this topic: http://forums.anglican.net/threads/orthodox-and-anglicans.555/ You must be surprised with Christmas Anglican Eucharist by Anglican priest in Serbian Patriarchate, so there is no chance that any relevant Orthodox hierarch said something like that against Anglicans, especially in such a manner. Russian patriarch Cyrill and his deputy Metropolitan Hilarion are also pro-ecumenicaly oriented.
3-year-old Russian boy killed by American adoptive mother in Texas 18 February, 2013 http://rt.com/news/russian-child-killed-texas-496/ http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130218/adopted-russian-boy-murdered-us-mother-moscow-1
Still trying to understand some of these posts/threads and how they relate to Anglicanism. :think: Jeff
Certainly, but the dozens of pictures, videos, and discussion links posted more resembles a PR campaign for the Orthodox church. Of course you're free to do as you see fit, but most of us are here because we have chosen the Anglican church over Rome and the Eastern Orthodox. Jeff
Again, you're free to post as you wish within the Administrator's parameters, but this wasn't the only thread loaded with pictures and videos of an Orthodox nature. Only speaking for myself, I'm here to learn more of Anglican tradition, practice, and history.I admit that there are some overlapping issues and practice between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, but the line is easily drawn in my opinion. Jeff
Jeff, I think the other thread you are speaking about is the one discussing the ecumenical and reconciliation efforts between the orthodox and Anglican communions. I for one am very grateful for all of Servos' research, pictures and links in that discussion as well as this one because it makes the whole affair more real and less academic. In the end the church is the community of god. It's less about agreements and documents (though they do have their place) and more about face to face interaction, hospitality, and good old fashioned relationships. Alliances and riendships mean nothing if they only exist on paper and the fall far short of the familial quality of ekklesia that Christ envisioned for us. Thanks Servos for showing me this truth.
These claims seem premature, Servos. I notice how quickly the Eastern European blogosphere has been made aware of this story. On the same day, tens if hot hundreds of articles all over the internet appeared like in an instant. Meanwhile nobody in the US has even heard of it, until they started to hear it from overseas news agencies. Notice also whom you cite: globalpost.com, an little known news site, and Russian Times which you'll agree with me is often known for propaganda. Today I've seen better-known press agencies picking up the story, but they all ultimately go back to these above russian sources. What gave a key to the explanation of this story is this article from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...g-adopted-Russian-son-in-new-row-with-US.html First, notice the title: "Kremlin accuses Texas mother of killing adopted child". It is not Texas court records they cite; there is no judicial proceeding (that I'm aware of). The first notice of any criminality is coming literally form the Kremlin itself. Second we dig deeper into the article: Astakhov is the one raising the uproar; he named the boy; he even named the mother. Where did he get these names before anybody in the West has even heard of this issue? The final problem is exposed in this quote: The source behind all this is not the sheriff's office, but Russia's state-run news agency!!