Amos

[QUOTE]Originally posted by copernicus:
[QB]

But I am not ecumenical at all but see the similarities of the religion in which the one and only important factor is the mysterious aspect of the religion. Two or three fingers is not important but is just symbolic, such as is the entire sign of the cross. I see many similarities that may appear different but are unified and therefore justified by the reality that lies behind the symbol.

copernicus

Of course I'm correct! I'm a linguist, and I have an extensive background in Slavic languages. I have had several graduate courses in Old Church Slavonic (the oldest recorded Slavic language), and I am fairly well informed about the history of the Russian language. We know that the cyrillic alphabet was invented by Cyril and his brother Methodius. Although they were in the Greek Orthodox region, Cyril took special care to get permission from the Roman pope to undertake his endeavor to christianize the slavic tribes. Here is a very <a href="http://www.volgawriter.com/VW%20Cyrillic.htm" target="_blank">brief history</a> of cyrillic (which actually evolved from the earlier glagolitic script).

The point is that the cyrillic alphabet, a mixture of Greek, Latin, and invented letters, should not be confused with any of the Slavic languages. The Slavic branch of Indo-European was not made up of a melange of other languages, as you suggested. It is more closely related to Lithuanian and Latvian than other Indo-European languages, and that is why the language family is ordinarily classified as "Balto-slavic". The only reason that Russian uses Greek and Latin symbols is that Cyril and Methodius used those alphabets as models for constructing an alphabet for what is now known as Old Church Slavonic, a language that is not even a direct ancestor of Russian. The cyrillic alphabet spread from the southern slavic languages (serbo-croation, bulgarian, macedonian, etc.) to the eastern branch (Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Russian). The West Slavic branch (Polish, Czech, Slovak), adopted a pure Latin alphabet because they were christianized by Roman Catholic missionaries.

Amos

[QUOTE]Originally posted by copernicus:
[QB]

Interesting and I must at one time been told the same story. We had a very good Russian Lit teacher but it is just that I remember only that which intruiged me most (and does not have to all be true because I do not profess to "know").

Since you are a Slavic laguage expert I should tell you that I wrote an extensive character deleniation of "We" that baffled my prof and was recommended for publication in the Slavic Review. It was declined because it was too controversial and did not built on existing criticism. They held that because I did not write from the Russian language it may not represent what it was supposed to mean. This happened about 12 years ago and was I encouraged to present it in proper from (or something like that).

BTW, I agree that 'by definition' the Orthodox Church is not Catholic but in practice it is through their veneration of Mary who is the seat of wisdom in NT circles. Interesting to note here is that the alphabeth is designed by mythmakers for their own use and this adds to the argument that the Orthodox Church is not Roman Catholic and wants to be removed from it. I understand.

Amos

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

MortalWombat

The Eastern Orthodox Church takes a different view of Mary (they do not accept the Immaculate Conception), the Pope (they would only consider him first among equals, not the head of the church, if the Orthodox and Catholic churches got back together), the Nicene Creed (they don't have the filioque -"and the son"- phrase in the line about the Holy Spirit, which was added later), and allow married men to become priests. There are other differences, but these are the main ones. This is at least what I remember back when I used to belong to the Greek Orthodox Church.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: MortalWombat ]</p>

sullster

This topic has taken some very interesting turns especially with Copernicus's additions. The creation of the Russian alphabet and language is fascinating and underlines Russian exclusiveness.

Amos's affinity towards the Russian Orthodox Church is emerging as a personal attraction which contradicts his usual antipathy to all religions which are not Roman Catholic. It is something inherent in his perspective and flies in the face of massive historical and cultural evidence that not only is the Russian Church not Catholic, it is very hostile to Catholicism.

Copernicus's mention of the "old believers" brings up the tensions which Russia has always had between Westernisers and those who desire a pure Russia. The writer Solzhenitsyn, is a modern version of an old believer in that he has said that Russia should revert to its Orthodox past and culture. He is anti-Western and condemns the Western culture as overly individualistic and decadent.

Mortalwombat's mentioning of differences between ROC and RC versions of the Xtian myth is interesting and backs up my arguments. There is also a difference which concern icons and how the church buildings are set up. As for the Protestants, I am sure that the Russian Church looks at them as bastard child of the Catholic Church.

Thanks to all for this discussion.

Amos

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MortalWombat:
[QB]

The Orthodox Church does not accept our explantion of the Immaculate Conception in which we must present Mary as having a corporeal body that gave physical birth to Jesus and therefore must herself having been born without sin. By denying this explanation of the Immaculate Conception they deny the physical birth of Jesus and never have to explain the "bodily" Assumption
of Mary. Note here that Mary was assumed and Jesus was resurrected which means that Mary had no corporeal body to rise but a non corporeal identity to be assumed.

In my view Jesus was never born as a physical person but was the reborn Joseph from 'woman' who in our tradition is personified with Mary theotokos.

The Immaculate Conception makes reference to the undefiled rebirth that was incipient from God via the Annunciation (big event in Russia) instead of carnal desire (big event in America). The difference between these two is outlined in John 1:13, "born of God" instead of "carnal desires [of sort]."

The filioque antrhopomorphizes the son as God in heaven and from there dispenses graces which once again is wrong but very effective to create 'love affairs' with 'Jesus my savior' as is so popular in America today.

The Orthodox Church is correct in both but far more sluggish and less enterprising than the Roman Church because of this.

The Pope is the head of the Church an infallible to indicate that he is in charge of destiny and moves the Church through the ages (for better or worse) because he sets the boundries in which the melodrama of salvation takes place. It reeks with ethical relativism and in the end is where the Christian in the image of Christ ends up.

Amos

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sullster:
<strong>
Amos's affinity towards the Russian Orthodox Church is emerging as a personal attraction which contradicts his usual antipathy to all religions which are not Roman Catholic. It is something inherent in his perspective and flies in the face of massive historical and cultural evidence that not only is the Russian Church not Catholic, it is very hostile to Catholicism.[/QOUTE] </strong>

I've argued in favor of Voodoo and that it makes a good mix with Catholicism because it recognizes the supernatural (mysterious) which a cult does not. This makes the RCC an occult by definition and not a cult like protestantism and within protestantism the "sola scriptura" variety.

The ROC is not hostile to Catholism but wants to remain sovereign (as it should be) and is what I have argued every religion/culture should be.

I am also not attracted to any religion and am not relious by any means but can defend the philosophy of any religion because I understand the reality behind the myth.

Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia after the fall of the USSR and never realized what had happened to him in Siberia until many years later, which is also normal and is why he now speaks in favor of the Orthodox Church. Him in particular was send to Siberia for no reason other than what I see as an indulgence.

MortalWombat

Amos, please either include my quote if you are going to place the quote tags and "originally posted by MortalWombat" or remove the quote tags. It makes it appear that I am espousing the ideas in (at least) your first paragraph.

Thanks

Amos

Sorry, I am just taking a shortcut to identify it as a response to you. Thanks.