www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Those terrible 'Latins' - did this actually happen?

Some are beginning to doubt such legends. I believe there was a Nicholas at the Council (they kept good records), but not one from Myra. Did the bishops dream in unison?

Dear Cantor Joseph,

Historians doubt a lot about what went on in the past, and they don't stop at just St Nicholas.

Whose side are you on? That of the Church and Tradition? Or of secular historians that love debunking everything and relish kicking all sorts of sacred cows in their exposed behinds?

The vision the Fathers of that Council had of St Nicholas with Christ and the Theotokos - that become the foundation for our icon of St Nicholas.

Sorry if I sound harsh - but I know you are tough and can take it.

I, on the other hand, am somewhat delicate . . .

Alex

I have just finished with a dialogue with an Orthodox priest in another board regarding the Latin atrocities to Orthodoxy and the remebrance of wrongs especially during the visit of the pope at Croatia. I think the Orthodox believe that all Latin atrocities is part of the RCC's dogma especially in the Thomistic doctrine as the one espoused by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa that heretics be burned at the stake. Because of this, Religious intolerance is a "Catholic dogma" as seen by Orthodoxy.

ruel

Sorry, but I think that this supposition is utter nonsense.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

I tend to agree - but I suppose that the reputation of any monarch-as-saint is often the matter of controversy, really.

For my part, I hope that the last tsar and his family ARE in heaven among the saints. They certainly suffered horribly in the end - and at the hands of the proponents of a very evil regime. My old baba used to think that had to be the case - and that he and his "beautiful family" were "most holy martyrs" - seems she was not alone. I think she'd be happy that they are venerated openly.

One thing I honestly don't get, though, Alex: Why the heck don't they just stick Lenin in the ground and let the worms finish him off already??? Seems weird that he is all nice and preserved, while (as I recall) all they had left to bury of the martyred tsar and his family was a few bones. It's kinda creepy. Then again, maybe there is some benefit in preserving the face of evil?

Anne, I got a copy of the martyrdom of St Peter the Alut from the Pastor of the OCA church in Lake Worth. Let me say it delicatly, it is not for the squimish. The interrogation was led by a Franciscan friar. And he would ask if Peter would leave Orthodoxy for the Truths of Roman Catholicism. Each time he refused they would chop off an extremity. When he refused again they would repeat the process. When I read that It just makes me want to ask God the Fatherfor his forgivness, how we have not honored the last request of His Son," Father may they be one just as you and I are one"
It looks like that I am going to have to add that as one more stop on my pilgrimage

Just out of curiosity, is there anything in the historical record about the Orthodox ever persecuting people of other religions/races? I ask only for information.

When the "Latins" do something its always those "terrible" and "evil" Latins and when the others do something oh well.... it the holy orthodox church which can never do anything wrong, poor persecuted ones that they are... give me a break.
Stephnos I

Dear Annie,

Yes, the way the Bolsheviks enshrined Lenin's body was reminiscent of the Christian relic veneration, even though Lenin himself condemned such.

In Paris, there is a tacit veneration paid to "saints of the French Revolution" (and today is Bastilles Day).

The atheist revolutionaries used the Church of St Genevieve as a national monument to the Revolution and where the altar was there is a rather profane monument to the French soldiers.

There is even a long wire attached to a metal ball that moves on the floor of the cathedral - a tribute to science.

And in the basement are the tombs of the heroes of the French state, many of them atheist and agnostic - with a poster containing a discussion about the extent to which the French state wished to set up a "rival" veneration of its own heroes.

The Bolsheviks who killed the Royal Family of Russia used acid to try and completely obliterate their remains - for fear they would be honoured later as relics.

They even through the bodies of the family's servants on top of them to try and mix up the bones so that they could not be distinguished - but they were any way.

Those who deny saintly veneration to the Romanov Family should review the history of the veneration of monarch-saints.

There are many crowned heads in the calendar who are there for all sorts of reasons that, in the eyes of the Church, earned them the right to be there.

The Romanovs bore their sufferings and humiliations with great faith and courage.

The view that they were attacked for being 'despots' is simply not borne out by history.

They were martyred BECAUSE the Tsar was moving toward greater democratization of structures within Imperial Russia and the Reds had to move quickly before their movement became irrelevant.

They also had to be careful because the Russian masses, poor though they were, loved the Royal Family - something revisionist Western historians have always chosen to ignore.

The fact of their cult having survived the communist terror and its amazing growth in the post-soviet era - few Saints can lay claim to such a popular cultus - vox populi and all that!

Alex

Dear Friends,

Two examples of Orthodox and Catholic atrocities . . .

St Athanasius of Brest was taken in 1648, by RC's after interrogation by Jesuits into a clearing and was ordered to dig his own grave.

He was shot twice in the head and buried alive. He was venerated by Greek Catholics for the longest time until the Jesuits placed the feast of St Josaphat on September 16, or two days ahead of St Athanasius' to "tire them out" so they wouldn't go on pilgrimage to his shrine . . .

The Polish Jesuit Priest St Andrew Bobola was tortured by Orthodox Cossacks and had the scalp ripped from his skull etc.

May they intercede for us and may Catholics and Orthodox be forgiven for their sins . . .

Alex

See how these Christians love one another.

"and the angels weep"

Don

Dear Ruel,

And the Orthodox "Nomocanon" lays down quite explicit rules about the execution of those who, in Orthodox countries, commit acts of blasphemy et al.

I wonder if that Orthodox priest has ever heard of the Nomocanon, I'm sure he has.

Sometimes in the heat of discussion, selective memory sets in . . .

Alex

Well, Alex, this isn't really quite true. The Tsar was forced to accede to the Duma of 1905 and constantly was trying to undermine it ever since it was established. Nicholas did not believe in constitutional monarchy and looked askance at his English cousins and theirs.
If anything, the Bolsheviks had the Royal Family killed to stop them from being rescued by the Whites who took Ekaterinberg shortly after their deaths.

Tsar Nicholas II did not believe in "greater democratization" He, like his father before him, saw this as a betrayal of his role as Autocrat.

Dear Brian,

In fact, we shall agree to disagree here, as we have before.

It is true that elements governing Russian imperial rule kept a firm hand on things, the fact is that the Tsar himself was a very different sort than his predecessors - who would have known how to deal with the bolsheviks and others.

What the bolsheviks wished for Russia via their version of "democratization" and "land reform" was on a par with what Adolf Hitler wished for Germany.

Both evil parties got their way, as we know.

And today, the cult of the Romanovs is by far stronger in Russia than the memory of the bolsheviks and their "heroes."

Perhaps, also, the fact is that Russia and democracy American-style don't go together.

Perhaps a benevolent despot is what calms the Russian soul down.

What I find amazing is how you and people of your ilk want to defend the right of the Bolsheviks to a more democratic Duma freed of the "Tsarist Autocracy" - when "democracy" itself was the farthest thing from the Bolsheviks' mind-set . . .

That's certainly the sense I'm getting from meeting with all sorts of Russian democratic politicians at the legislature where I work - they just don't see a future for their type of politics and for the type of corrupt capitalist it tends to breed.

As Robert Massie said, Nicholas II was the lightest hand Russia ever knew. Ultimately, it was the bolsheviks' strong hand that won the day.

They would not have stood a chance against Alexander III.

Some of us Alexanders can be downright mean and tough, you know . . .

I know you are a great teacher. You remind me of the teachers I had in university . . .

I agreed with their historical analysis until I got the marks I wanted . . .

Alex

My God, Alex, where to begin??????

Yes, we must agree to disagree but you must get over this idea that the Bolsheviks were the only political players on this monolithic Left you seem to think there was.

As far as land reform, there were literally dozens of land reform proposals from ALL parties from the Kadets, to the SR's, to the Mensheviks to the Bolsheviks. Indeed, the peasants overall supported the Socialist Revolutionary Party and their proposals. It was not a matter of the Tsar's paternalism vs Bolshevik "war communism" and collectivization. There were MANY proosals in-between.

I really do take issue with the idea that democracy and Russia do not mix. These were the very same arguments that Stalinists in the West made in the 30's when people criticized Stalin "oh those Russians, they need that firm hand" That is frankly a horrible slander and an insult to the millions who were killed under dictatorship. Of course, Western-style democracy completely imported was not the answer but the many of the Russian political parties at the time proposed a mixture of democratic action with respect for Russian "difference"

Please, do not insult me (or my "ilk" whoever that may be) with wanting to give the Bolsheviks "fair play" in the Duma. Actually, the Bolsheviks worked to undermine the Duma almost as strongly as the Tsarists did. Both of these groups did not believe in democracy of any kind (E.G. Lenin's break-up of the Constituent Assembly in 1918)

As for your condescending remarks about my similarity to your professors. What can I say? Maybe they had some true things to say and on your side, you really can't depend on Mr Massie as your only source for Russian and Soviet history. There have been SO many excellent works (scholarly and otherwise) regarding this period , that you really should look into some of them.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that if one has well-founded criticisms of the Tsarist regime, then in your mind, they must be either pro-Bolshevik or have some dreamy liberal views about them. Well, you must know, I have neither. I don't like dreamy historical analysis either about Tsarism or the Soviet period.

I'm sorry if I have used strong words but I felt your post to be very condescending to someone who at worse, might have minor points of disagreement with you.

Peace,
Brian