OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 06:22:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Abkhaz Diocese separates from Georgian Church  (Read 8124 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,196



WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 17, 2011, 04:09:00 PM »

There are national Churches, there are diaspora Churches, and there are Churches which exist in territories of other national Churches (Japan and Ukraine, for example). I fail to see how every small breakaway territory should get its own church just because it has political independence. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, all are under Antioch. No one is fomenting for separate Churches there.

Forgive my ignorance, but, I am curious.  Have these nations (Syria, Lebanon and Iraq) been enemies to each other?  Have they invaded each other's lands and tried to annihilate each other's peoples, languages and cultures?

I'm honestly curious, as I don't know my history concerning those lands, and don't have time to research them at the moment.

Might they be completely happy and complacent to be under "Antioch" because they trust each other?

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Jake
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern orthodox
Posts: 130


« Reply #46 on: February 17, 2011, 04:17:30 PM »

There are national Churches, there are diaspora Churches, and there are Churches which exist in territories of other national Churches (Japan and Ukraine, for example). I fail to see how every small breakaway territory should get its own church just because it has political independence. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, all are under Antioch. No one is fomenting for separate Churches there.

Forgive my ignorance, but, I am curious.  Have these nations (Syria, Lebanon and Iraq) been enemies to each other?  Have they invaded each other's lands and tried to annihilate each other's peoples, languages and cultures?

I'm honestly curious, as I don't know my history concerning those lands, and don't have time to research them at the moment.

Might they be completely happy and complacent to be under "Antioch" because they trust each other?


A very good answer Liz.  You are right on the ball.
The patriarch of Antioch is not allied with the government the way the MP is now and was under the tsars.  The Church was a tool of assimilation taking away the rights of say the Georgians to have their liturgies in their traditional language before they were taken over by Russia.  And the Finns had to have their services in Church Slavonic.
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #47 on: February 17, 2011, 07:37:32 PM »

In Moldova too, they had to switch back to Slavonic when the new eparchy became part of the Muscovite church. The Muscovite bishop Platon even ordered all Romanian church books to be gathered from churches and burned.
That's why some will always mistrust the Russians. Sorry.
Logged
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 839

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #48 on: February 17, 2011, 07:44:55 PM »

Speaking on Lebanon, one could say there are similar tensions there as the Lebanese widely mistrust the Syrian government and resent its intervention in Lebanese internal affairs. I wouldn't say the Patriarchate is close to the Syrian government in the way that the Moscow Patriarchate is to the Russian government, but it certainly closer to it than it does to the Lebanese government (when there is one anyways).

I wasn't aware that the Orthodox Church in Moldova still discouraged Romanian-language services - that would certainly be odd considering that their website is in Romanian (or Moldavian or whatever the PC term is in the former USSR right now).
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #49 on: February 17, 2011, 07:50:26 PM »

Not now, during the tsarist regime. Now they are more open to concessions.
The name of the said bishop is Pavel Lebedev (1871-1882). My mistake.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 08:10:49 PM by augustin717 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #50 on: February 17, 2011, 09:31:52 PM »

There are national Churches, there are diaspora Churches, and there are Churches which exist in territories of other national Churches (Japan and Ukraine, for example). I fail to see how every small breakaway territory should get its own church just because it has political independence. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, all are under Antioch. No one is fomenting for separate Churches there.

Forgive my ignorance, but, I am curious.  Have these nations (Syria, Lebanon and Iraq) been enemies to each other?  Have they invaded each other's lands and tried to annihilate each other's peoples, languages and cultures?

I'm honestly curious, as I don't know my history concerning those lands, and don't have time to research them at the moment.

Might they be completely happy and complacent to be under "Antioch" because they trust each other?


Iraq and Syria have been at each other's throats since at least 656. Relations between Syrian and Lebanon have been tense, but not as long.

Antioch, btw, is occupied at present by the Turkish Republic, which Iraq, Syria and Lebanon do not trust at all.  Nor should they.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #51 on: February 17, 2011, 09:36:01 PM »

There are national Churches, there are diaspora Churches, and there are Churches which exist in territories of other national Churches (Japan and Ukraine, for example). I fail to see how every small breakaway territory should get its own church just because it has political independence. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, all are under Antioch. No one is fomenting for separate Churches there.

Forgive my ignorance, but, I am curious.  Have these nations (Syria, Lebanon and Iraq) been enemies to each other?  Have they invaded each other's lands and tried to annihilate each other's peoples, languages and cultures?

I'm honestly curious, as I don't know my history concerning those lands, and don't have time to research them at the moment.

Might they be completely happy and complacent to be under "Antioch" because they trust each other?


A very good answer Liz.  You are right on the ball.
The patriarch of Antioch is not allied with the government the way the MP is now and was under the tsars.  The Church was a tool of assimilation taking away the rights of say the Georgians to have their liturgies in their traditional language before they were taken over by Russia.  And the Finns had to have their services in Church Slavonic.
The rights of the Abkhaz were taken away when they were taken over by the Russians too: their Church was autocephalous at the time, and not under Georgia.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jake
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern orthodox
Posts: 130


« Reply #52 on: February 18, 2011, 11:39:47 AM »

In Moldova too, they had to switch back to Slavonic when the new eparchy became part of the Muscovite church. The Muscovite bishop Platon even ordered all Romanian church books to be gathered from churches and burned.
That's why some will always mistrust the Russians. Sorry.
Thanks.  I never knew that.  This strange because when Bukovyna became part of the Soviet Union, the churches there were taken over by the MP.  The Ukrainian-speaking parishes were returned to the Old Calendar, but the Romanian-speaking parishes were allowed to continue on the New calendar and the services were clebrated in Romanian with Romanian sermons.
Different rules for different parts of the Soviet Union.
In Karelia, the Orthodox Church did not adopt Finnish, which was used in the inter-war period when karelia was part of Finland, but went back to Church Slavonic as in tsarist Russia.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,855



« Reply #53 on: February 18, 2011, 12:11:58 PM »

In Karelia, the Orthodox Church did not adopt Finnish, which was used in the inter-war period when karelia was part of Finland, but went back to Church Slavonic as in tsarist Russia.

That's probably what the faithful wanted. I recall reading that quite many of the Finnish-speaking faithful were against Finnish services when they began.
Logged

kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 839

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #54 on: February 18, 2011, 01:21:55 PM »

I don't want to defend the burning of Romanian-language service books in Russian Bessarabia (that's absolutely awful), but the services only began to be served in Romanian in the 1500s or 1600s and Romanian was established as the sole church language in the mid-1800s, so isn't it entirely possible that there was still some conservative animus against this in what today is Romania, particularly those territories further east and closer to Rus' like Bessarabia?
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
Jake
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern orthodox
Posts: 130


« Reply #55 on: February 18, 2011, 01:38:58 PM »

In Karelia, the Orthodox Church did not adopt Finnish, which was used in the inter-war period when karelia was part of Finland, but went back to Church Slavonic as in tsarist Russia.

That's probably what the faithful wanted. I recall reading that quite many of the Finnish-speaking faithful were against Finnish services when they began.
Quite the opposite.  There is a book in English on the Finnish Orthodox Church
As soon as Finland was free from Russia, they started using Finnish as a liturgical language and of course in Karelia too which was a part of Finland.
And the Finns did not try to "punish" the Russians who were already living in Finland or escaped to Finland after the Russian Revolution.  They were allowed to continue to celebrate in Church Slavonic and have sermons in Russian.
In fact i have a CD from the 1980's at home of the choir of Uspensky Cathedral and the music is in Church Slavonic.  I foget the name of director but I have heard Russians in Canada who say he is famous in the Russian speaking diaspora.  So the Finns were not interested in revenge.
Logged
Jake
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern orthodox
Posts: 130


« Reply #56 on: February 18, 2011, 01:41:13 PM »

I don't want to defend the burning of Romanian-language service books in Russian Bessarabia (that's absolutely awful), but the services only began to be served in Romanian in the 1500s or 1600s and Romanian was established as the sole church language in the mid-1800s, so isn't it entirely possible that there was still some conservative animus against this in what today is Romania, particularly those territories further east and closer to Rus' like Bessarabia?
I think you are loosing track of the time frame in which this happpened.  Bessarabia was part of Romania in between the 2 world wars.
Then when the Soviet Union took it over after WW2, the MP came in and burned the Romanian liturgical books and forced all the churches to be under the MP and not the Patriarch of Bucharest. 
Also the services to be celebrated in Church Slavonic.
This is not the 1600's.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #57 on: February 18, 2011, 01:53:12 PM »

In Karelia, the Orthodox Church did not adopt Finnish, which was used in the inter-war period when karelia was part of Finland, but went back to Church Slavonic as in tsarist Russia.

That's probably what the faithful wanted. I recall reading that quite many of the Finnish-speaking faithful were against Finnish services when they began.
Quite the opposite.  There is a book in English on the Finnish Orthodox Church

Alpo is Finnish. I suppose he knows more about history of the Finnish Orthodox Church that you, who read 'a book in English'.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 839

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #58 on: February 18, 2011, 01:58:33 PM »

And the person in question who had the service books burned in Bessarabia lived in the 1800s, not the 1900s :-). And since services have been celebrated in the Moldovan Orthodox Church in Romanian and Slavonic (in Russian and Ukrainian-speaking churches) since World War II I would think that also counts against your statement.
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,855



« Reply #59 on: February 18, 2011, 02:28:07 PM »

In Karelia, the Orthodox Church did not adopt Finnish, which was used in the inter-war period when karelia was part of Finland, but went back to Church Slavonic as in tsarist Russia.

That's probably what the faithful wanted. I recall reading that quite many of the Finnish-speaking faithful were against Finnish services when they began.
Quite the opposite.  There is a book in English on the Finnish Orthodox Church
As soon as Finland was free from Russia, they started using Finnish as a liturgical language and of course in Karelia too which was a part of Finland.

That could be true but the change wasn't as simple as you imply. Here's what Juha Riikonen is writing about the situation in the early 20th century. He's a Finnish Doctor of Theology and wrote his dissertation about Finnish Church's relations with the MP. The faulty translation into English is of course mine.

Quote from: Juha Riikonen
The attemps to make Orthodox Karelians Finnish came from outside so they were unsuccesful. Being a Finn didn't offer to Orthodox Karelians anywhere as big benefits as connections to Russian Karelia. Karelians had centuries old cultural, social and populational ties to Aunus' Karelians behind the border and to the capital [of Russia]: St. Petersburg. Furthermore, Karelians deemed Church Slavonic to be the only proper language for services and they demanded it's preservation even though they did understand it barely at all. The most important was to uphold the tradition.

Eventually of course Finnish services were accepted and nowadays services in Slavonic are celebrated only because of immigrants.
Logged

augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #60 on: February 18, 2011, 08:05:57 PM »

I don't want to defend the burning of Romanian-language service books in Russian Bessarabia (that's absolutely awful), but the services only began to be served in Romanian in the 1500s or 1600s and Romanian was established as the sole church language in the mid-1800s, so isn't it entirely possible that there was still some conservative animus against this in what today is Romania, particularly those territories further east and closer to Rus' like Bessarabia?
Man, you are one of those American Orthodox for whom the Russians can do no harm.
I can sniff that. And it's fine with me. But you should know history better than that: the inferior clergy was persecuted and coerced into complying with that mad bishop's Russification plans. Read how many teachers and priests of Basarabia were sent into exile by the "God-loving tsar" for using their native language in school and church.  Truth is that for us, the smaller Orthodox peoples on the edges of Russia not much good has come from there. And for some it's still the case.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #61 on: February 18, 2011, 08:14:51 PM »

I don't want to defend the burning of Romanian-language service books in Russian Bessarabia (that's absolutely awful), but the services only began to be served in Romanian in the 1500s or 1600s and Romanian was established as the sole church language in the mid-1800s, so isn't it entirely possible that there was still some conservative animus against this in what today is Romania, particularly those territories further east and closer to Rus' like Bessarabia?
Man, you are one of those American Orthodox for whom the Russians can do no harm.
I can sniff that. And it's fine with me. But you should know history better than that: the inferior clergy was persecuted and coerced into complying with that mad bishop's Russification plans. Read how many teachers and priests of Basarabia were sent into exile by the "God-loving tsar" for using their native language in school and church.  Truth is that for us, the smaller Orthodox peoples on the edges of Russia not much good has come from there. And for some it's still the case.

And, to tie back with the OP, the current Russian political involvement in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 839

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2011, 08:17:38 PM »

I'm not defending what they did and I personally feel that most of the Romanovs might as well have been the Ottoman padishah considering how little they did for Orthodoxy in their empire, but I am very much interested in how reforms have been received in the past (because of what they can teach us in the present). I've read a ton about the Old Belief, but I've long wondered how the introduction of Romanian into the services went and since the topic was indirectly brought up I was hoping someone better read than I would know. (Two other areas I'd loved to learn more about are how the change in typicon in Rus' was received and how the reform of the Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy enacted in the Middle East in the late 1800s was received.)

Thank you so much for your 'contribution'...
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2011, 09:52:55 PM »

I'm not defending what they did and I personally feel that most of the Romanovs might as well have been the Ottoman padishah considering how little they did for Orthodoxy in their empire, but I am very much interested in how reforms have been received in the past (because of what they can teach us in the present). I've read a ton about the Old Belief, but I've long wondered how the introduction of Romanian into the services went and since the topic was indirectly brought up I was hoping someone better read than I would know.

In 1675 the Serbian Metropolitan of Transylvania, Sava Branković, held a synod that banned Romanian from worship (saying it was "deficient"), but required that the sermons be in Romanian.  In 1688 Pat. Doroseos of Jerusalem wrote the preface to the translation of the Romanian Bible praising the idea of translating the Scriptures.  He insisted the reading must be in Romanian, but in 1698 he banned the DL in Romanian, only in Slavonic or Greek (why is speculation.  It can be just that the DL had not been authoratively translated then).  The last Slavonic liturgical texts published in Bucharest were published in 1745, Moldavia ceasing shortly before, and Transylvania in 1700. Greek had replaced Slavonic with the comming of the Phanariots.  Romanian became the sole language in 1863, but by then Romanian had been the overwhelming language for about a century.

Quote
(Two other areas I'd loved to learn more about are how the change in typicon in Rus' was received and how the reform of the Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy enacted in the Middle East in the late 1800s was received.)
LOL. It wasn't.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2011, 10:25:41 PM »

I'm not defending what they did and I personally feel that most of the Romanovs might as well have been the Ottoman padishah considering how little they did for Orthodoxy in their empire, but I am very much interested in how reforms have been received in the past (because of what they can teach us in the present). I've read a ton about the Old Belief, but I've long wondered how the introduction of Romanian into the services went and since the topic was indirectly brought up I was hoping someone better read than I would know.

In 1675 the Serbian Metropolitan of Transylvania, Sava Branković, held a synod that banned Romanian from worship (saying it was "deficient"), but required that the sermons be in Romanian.  In 1688 Pat. Doroseos of Jerusalem wrote the preface to the translation of the Romanian Bible praising the idea of translating the Scriptures.  He insisted the reading must be in Romanian, but in 1698 he banned the DL in Romanian, only in Slavonic or Greek (why is speculation.  It can be just that the DL had not been authoratively translated then).  The last Slavonic liturgical texts published in Bucharest were published in 1745, Moldavia ceasing shortly before, and Transylvania in 1700. Greek had replaced Slavonic with the comming of the Phanariots.  Romanian became the sole language in 1863, but by then Romanian had been the overwhelming language for about a century.

Quote
(Two other areas I'd loved to learn more about are how the change in typicon in Rus' was received and how the reform of the Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy enacted in the Middle East in the late 1800s was received.)
LOL. It wasn't.

It's funny that the introduction of the vernacular into the OC, in Transylvania happened mainly because of two things: the Reformation and the Unia. The Calvinist princes of Transylvania effectively mandated the use of the vernacular in the Orthodox churches and then one of the conditions of the Alba-Iulia union was that the services would be held in the vernacular language.
Of course, we only got Slavonic because of the Bulgarians, in the first place, although Latin continued to b used among the Vlachs in the Bulgarian empire up to the 12-13th century.
Logged
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 839

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #65 on: February 21, 2011, 02:00:26 PM »

Fascinating!
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #66 on: February 28, 2011, 11:44:11 PM »

Fascinating!
I just came across something you might find interesting:
Quote
To describe the wisdom and abilities of the Bey is beyond the power of man.  He has printed church-books, commentaries, &c., and prayer-books for his people, translated into their own language, from Servian which they do ot understand.
The travels of Macarius, 1652-1660 By Paul (of Aleppo, Archdeacon)
http://books.google.com/books?id=eYqEyMrnh_IC&pg=PA9&dq=%22from+Servian+which+they+do+not+understand.%22&hl=en&ei=aGVsTcnbFZTQgAe0opCLBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22from%20Servian%20which%20they%20do%20not%20understand.%22&f=false

The book records the travels of the Arab Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch to Moscow in 1652.  The Bey he is speaking of is Vasile Lupu, an Albanian who became the Romanian Prince of Moldavia through an election by the indigenous nobles against foreign rulers. Hence perhaps his sponsership of Romanian. Another sponsor was also foreign, St. Antim the Iberian, who sent up the Romanian Church press in Bucharest in 1690, printing the Romanian Gospels in 1693. In 1709 he set up on this model the first Georgian printing press in Tblisi.  The Bucharest Press also printed Greek and Arabic books, the Patrirch of Antioch receiving an Arabic press from it, which he set up in Aleppo, the first printing press in the Arab World.

On Lupu
Quote
Similarly, in 1643, Moldavian Prince Vasile Lupu has financed a religious book that was written by the Metropolitan of Moldavia, Varlaam Moţoc. The book contained 74 homilies translated from Slavonic and was titled: Carte Românească de Învăţătură (Romanian Book Teaching) and written in the Romanian language (pre limba Romeniască).[26] The foreword (Cuvânt) by Prince Lupu says that it is addressed to the Romanian nation everywhere (la toată semenția românească de pretutindeni). The book, also known as Cazania (sermon or homily) of Varlaam, was the very first printed in Moldavia and large numbers of copies spread in the neighboring provinces inhabited by Romanian speakers, like Wallachia and Transylvania.[27] During the 16th and 17th century the Hungarians of Transylvania became more and more inclined to Calvinism and in 1642 a book was translated from Hungarian in order to attract the Romanians to the belief. Upon hearing this the bishops of Wallachia and Moldavia gathered in Iași to discuss the matter and Varlaam, Metropolitan of Moldavia, wrote, in 1645, the book Răspuns la Catehismul calvinesc that was addressed to the Romanian brothers of Transylvania: "...to the Transylvanian Christians, Orthodox believers and true sons of our Holy Apostolic Church, beloved Christians and with us one Romanian nation, to all who is in Transylvania, that are with the same faith...."[28] Prince Lupu, in 1646, financed the appearance of the first code of laws in Moldavia entitled Romanian Book of Teaching (Carte românească de învăţătură de la pravilele împărăteşti şi de la alte giudeţe) or Pravila lui Vasile Lupu. The book was inspired by bizantine traditions and in 1652 a code of laws appeared in Wallachia, written by Prince Matei Basarab, virtually identical with the Moldavian one.[29]

Mitropolit Dosoftei, under Moldavian Prince Lupu, published another religious book – Dumnezaiasca Liturghie (Godly Liturgy) - that was printed in Romanian (tiparita româneste). In the introductory part, named „Word togheter to the Romanian nation” (Cuvânt depreuna catra semintia rumaneasca), Dosoftei dedicates the book to the Romanian language (acest dar limbii rumânesti) and says it was translated from Greek (de pre elineasca) into Romanian (pre limba rumâneasca).[30] Religious books written in Bessarabia however commonly used the term "Moldavian" to refer to the language. Thus a menologium printed in Chişinău in 1819 states it was translated from Slavonic to Moldavian (тълмъчиндуль де пре лимба Словенѣскъ пре чѣ Молдовенѣскъ), as does a typicon from 1821 (Сау тълмъчить Молдовенеще де пре чель Словенескь).[31][32]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_linguistic_and_ethnic_identity_in_Moldova#Selected_foreign_travelers_about_Moldavians

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 839

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #67 on: March 01, 2011, 12:59:49 AM »

The first Arabic printing press ever or the first amongst the Orthodox?
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #68 on: March 01, 2011, 02:31:24 AM »

ialmisry
Quote
The rights of the Abkhaz were taken away when they were taken over by the Russians too: their Church was autocephalous at the time, and not under Georgia.
You have to learn your history lessons. First of all, it was not Abkhaz people (or to be more exact Apsu or Abasg people who mostly are Muslims) who had autocephaly but Georgians. Abkhazia (when it was a kingdom) was Georgian kingdom. All of the kings of Abkhazia were Georgians. Secondly, all of the Catholicos of Abkhazia were Georgians. Thirdly it was always Georgian language and not Abkhazian language that was spoken in Abkhazia (until Russia's treacherous politics was started in the 19th century) and it was always Georgian language that was the language of Church and liturgy. Fourthly, Catholiocate of Abkhazia was the same as Catholicate of western Georgia and his official title was Catholicos Patriarch of Imereti, Odishi, Ponto-Abkhaz-Guria, Racha-Lechkhum-Svaneti, Ossetians, Dvals, and all of the North. Now, if you have any idea what Imereti, Odishi, Ponto-Abkhaz-Guria, Racha-Lechkhum-Svaneti is, probably you would not dare to make such remarks. Fifthly, the residence of Catholicos was moved to Gelati Monastery in the 16th century. I linked the info on this monastery for you so you can see what Abkhazian Catholicate was in reality. And here's the wiki link supplying minimal information but enough to determine that Catholicate of Abkhazia was purely Georgian Catholicate and mos part of it is under Georgia's territory except Abkhazia which was annexed by Russians.

Here's the list of Catholicoi of Abkhazia:

    * Nicholas (latter part of the 13th century)
    * Arsenius (c. 1390)
    * Daniel (late 14th century)
    * Joachim (1470s)
    * Stephan (1490-1516)
    * Malachia I Abashidze (1519-1540)
    * Eudemios I Chkhetidze (1557-1578)
    * Euthymius I Sakvarelidze (1578-1616)
    * Malachia II Gurieli (1616-1639)
    * Gregory I (1639)
    * Maxim I Machutasdze (1639-1657)
    * Zachary Kvariani (1657-1660)
    * Simeon I Chkhetidze (1660-1666)
    * Eudemios II Sakvarelidze (1666-1669)
    * Euthymius II Sakvarelidze (1669-1673)
    * David Nemsadze (1673-1696)
    * Gregory II Lordkipanidze (1696-1742)
    * German Tsulukidze (1742-1751)
    * Bessarion Eristavi (1751-1769)
    * Joseph Bagrationi (1769-1776)
    * Maxim II Abashidze (1776-1795)
    * Dositheus Tsereteli (1795-1814)

Now the question to you: if you really understand the differences among Georgian and Abkhazian last names could you tell me which one of these Catholicoi was Abkhazian (or Abasga/Apsu)?
Logged
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 839

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #69 on: March 01, 2011, 02:52:26 AM »

The Abkhaz, Ossetians, and several other Transcaucasian nations were Orthodox before Islam came. The cultural and ethnic suppression/absorption of the Orthodox Abkhaz by the Georgians for centuries doesn't make that right. If anything, it is a warning to us to move now to provide for the Abkhaz before Islam reclaims them completely! No wonder so many fell into Islam when they did not have their own bishops, could not pray in their own language in church, et cetera.

Ethnic Egyptians were consecrated Metropolitans of Axum for centuries and the Church of Ethiopia was kept in submission to the Patriarchate of Alexandria through this - does that make Ethiopians into Copts or the Ethiopians' calls for autocephaly in the last century somehow invalid or wrong? The situation in Abkhazia has changed and the past existence of a patriarchate in Imereti/Abkhazia is an easy way for the Church of Georgia to move on and help provide spiritual care for the Orthodox in Abkhazia without losing face. That's my 2 cents anyways...
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #70 on: March 01, 2011, 04:27:02 AM »

The Abkhaz, Ossetians, and several other Transcaucasian nations were Orthodox before Islam came. The cultural and ethnic suppression/absorption of the Orthodox Abkhaz by the Georgians for centuries doesn't make that right. If anything, it is a warning to us to move now to provide for the Abkhaz before Islam reclaims them completely! No wonder so many fell into Islam when they did not have their own bishops, could not pray in their own language in church, et cetera.
Abkhazs and Osetians could not pray in their language because they were citizens of Georgian kingdom. Besides their language is not even fit for this. When Russians started to rob and distroy Georgian Orthodox Church they tried to instill separatism in Abkhazians and Osetians (btw there was no Osetia before late comunist era but Samachablo region, totally Georgian entity) they tried to translate Divine Liturgy in Osetian language and they got a utterly blasphemous text which was ridiculed by a Russian historian. I gave you a link describing history of Georgian church during this time. Unfortunately it is in Russian. But if you know Russian it's in there and read it. Here's that link again. Also, Georgian bishops and priest tried always hard to re-convert Osetians into Christianity.

Quote
Ethnic Egyptians were consecrated Metropolitans of Axum for centuries and the Church of Ethiopia was kept in submission to the Patriarchate of Alexandria through this - does that make Ethiopians into Copts or the Ethiopians' calls for autocephaly in the last century somehow invalid or wrong? The situation in Abkhazia has changed and the past existence of a patriarchate in Imereti/Abkhazia is an easy way for the Church of Georgia to move on and help provide spiritual care for the Orthodox in Abkhazia without losing face. That's my 2 cents anyways...
Georgians are willing to do that but Abkhazians want no Georgians in that territory (with the instigation of Russians and another nation always treacherous to Georgians) which is our own territory from the time immemorial. This may sound nationalistic to you but the complete and unconditional love of Georgia by Georgians is inseparable part of being Christian. Georgian priesthood will be more than glad to provide spiritual care and need for Abkhaz people if such a wish existed on the Abkhaz side. But how can we do it when there's no desire in Abkhazians to live with us in piece?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #71 on: March 01, 2011, 04:31:09 AM »

Besides their language is not even fit for this.

Pilate's heresy once more?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #72 on: March 01, 2011, 05:16:12 AM »

Besides their language is not even fit for this.

Pilate's heresy once more?
I have no idea what heresy is that but I know this:
Quote
Осетины, живущие смежно с грузинами, в Горийском уезде, издавна привыкли к грузинскому богослужению и в большинстве свободно говорят по грузински. Чтобы разобщить их с Грузинами, экзархи стали вводить в богослужение в осетинские церкви (которых до 50-60) осетинский язык и на столько исказили его, что осетины возмутились и перестали было ходить в церковь. В Евангелии напр. слово «вочеловечение» было по осетински переведено кощунственно: «пирог с мясом»...
This is a quote from Russian historian on the history of Georgian Orthodox Church of 19th and early 20-th century. This Russian author (by the name Durnovo) of that time writes: Osetians who lived with Georgians have gotten used to divine services in Georgian and most of them spoke Georgian freely. In order to separate Georgians and Osetians Russian exarchs started to introduce Osetian language in their churches (50 to 60 of them) and distorted the liturgy so much that Osetians became angry and quit attending Church. In Gospels, for example, they translated the word "incarnation" so blasphemously that it sounded like "a cake with meat".

Nowadays evangelical-baptist church (who call themselves reformed orthodox, whatever that means) try to translate Gospels and Divine services in Osetian (very strange fact per se).

This way or that way there never was the Bible (except later attempts at translation) or Divine services in Osetian and Abkhazian languages. And these people always spoke good Georgian. There never was any need for translation of the Sacred Scriptures or Divine Liturgy or other services.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #73 on: March 01, 2011, 10:02:10 AM »

The first Arabic printing press ever or the first amongst the Orthodox?
The first in the Middle East ever. The monastery presses (the Maronites soon joined, and the their Melkite coreligionists) founded the Arabic press, like the Christian Grammarians formed Modern Arabic. (like the Patriarch Jarmanus/Germanus)
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #74 on: March 01, 2011, 10:09:41 AM »

The Abkhaz, Ossetians, and several other Transcaucasian nations were Orthodox before Islam came. The cultural and ethnic suppression/absorption of the Orthodox Abkhaz by the Georgians for centuries doesn't make that right. If anything, it is a warning to us to move now to provide for the Abkhaz before Islam reclaims them completely! No wonder so many fell into Islam when they did not have their own bishops, could not pray in their own language in church, et cetera.
Abkhazs and Osetians could not pray in their language because they were citizens of Georgian kingdom. Besides their language is not even fit for this.
If not for anything else, this alone would make me doubt everything you say, as it blasphemes the Spirit Who came down on Pentacost and called our men into the Church in their own language.

It's the patronizing excuse of every phyletist who seeks to tie everyone to his tongue.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #75 on: March 01, 2011, 12:11:31 PM »

Besides their language is not even fit for this.

Pilate's heresy once more?
I have no idea what heresy is that

It's a heretical beliefs that some languages are better to worship God than others.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 839

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #76 on: March 01, 2011, 12:39:10 PM »

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't ecclesiastical Georgian as old as ecclesiastical Armenian and therefore as difficult to understand for a modern Georgian? (Much less an Ossetian who speaks Georgian.) Agreed with the phyletism comment btw - sounds like how the Russians reacted at my parish when they introduced a hymn in English back in the day - tears, refusal to go to services, fights, and all that despite the almost total loss of the younger generations to Methodism and Presbyterianism.
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #77 on: March 01, 2011, 01:03:43 PM »

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't ecclesiastical Georgian as old as ecclesiastical Armenian and therefore as difficult to understand for a modern Georgian? (Much less an Ossetian who speaks Georgian.) Agreed with the phyletism comment btw - sounds like how the Russians reacted at my parish when they introduced a hymn in English back in the day - tears, refusal to go to services, fights, and all that despite the almost total loss of the younger generations to Methodism and Presbyterianism.
I don't know Georgian, but yes, I've been told that do that Classical Georgian is quite different.

Btw, these maybe useful for discussion:

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/fullMaps_Sa.nsf/0/D4D8128A14E2A02785256A23004B53ED/$File/ethnic_caucus.gif?OpenElement

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/ethnocaucasus.jpg

http://javakhk1915-23.com/files/Caucasus-Anatolia-Iran-ethnic.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fa/6/62/Ossetian.jpeg

http://javakhk1915-23.com/files/Caucasus-Anatolia-Iran-ethnic.jpg


http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan/caucasus/index.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #78 on: March 01, 2011, 01:35:13 PM »

ialmisry
Quote
The rights of the Abkhaz were taken away when they were taken over by the Russians too: their Church was autocephalous at the time, and not under Georgia.
You have to learn your history lessons. First of all, it was not Abkhaz people (or to be more exact Apsu or Abasg people who mostly are Muslims) who had autocephaly but Georgians. Abkhazia (when it was a kingdom) was Georgian kingdom. All of the kings of Abkhazia were Georgians. Secondly, all of the Catholicos of Abkhazia were Georgians. Thirdly it was always Georgian language and not Abkhazian language that was spoken in Abkhazia (until Russia's treacherous politics was started in the 19th century) and it was always Georgian language that was the language of Church and liturgy. Fourthly, Catholiocate of Abkhazia was the same as Catholicate of western Georgia and his official title was Catholicos Patriarch of Imereti, Odishi, Ponto-Abkhaz-Guria, Racha-Lechkhum-Svaneti, Ossetians, Dvals, and all of the North. Now, if you have any idea what Imereti, Odishi, Ponto-Abkhaz-Guria, Racha-Lechkhum-Svaneti is, probably you would not dare to make such remarks. Fifthly, the residence of Catholicos was moved to Gelati Monastery in the 16th century. I linked the info on this monastery for you so you can see what Abkhazian Catholicate was in reality. And here's the wiki link supplying minimal information but enough to determine that Catholicate of Abkhazia was purely Georgian Catholicate and mos part of it is under Georgia's territory except Abkhazia which was annexed by Russians.

Here's the list of Catholicoi of Abkhazia:

    * Nicholas (latter part of the 13th century)
    * Arsenius (c. 1390)
    * Daniel (late 14th century)
    * Joachim (1470s)
    * Stephan (1490-1516)
    * Malachia I Abashidze (1519-1540)
    * Eudemios I Chkhetidze (1557-1578)
    * Euthymius I Sakvarelidze (1578-1616)
    * Malachia II Gurieli (1616-1639)
    * Gregory I (1639)
    * Maxim I Machutasdze (1639-1657)
    * Zachary Kvariani (1657-1660)
    * Simeon I Chkhetidze (1660-1666)
    * Eudemios II Sakvarelidze (1666-1669)
    * Euthymius II Sakvarelidze (1669-1673)
    * David Nemsadze (1673-1696)
    * Gregory II Lordkipanidze (1696-1742)
    * German Tsulukidze (1742-1751)
    * Bessarion Eristavi (1751-1769)
    * Joseph Bagrationi (1769-1776)
    * Maxim II Abashidze (1776-1795)
    * Dositheus Tsereteli (1795-1814)

Now the question to you: if you really understand the differences among Georgian and Abkhazian last names could you tell me which one of these Catholicoi was Abkhazian (or Abasga/Apsu)?
Btw, all this talk reminds me of what the French called "Les Évolués"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89volu%C3%A9
who adopted French, English, Portuguese, German and Italian, but no one would confuse for a Frenchman, Englishman, Portuguese, German or Italian.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #79 on: March 02, 2011, 02:39:27 AM »

If not for anything else, this alone would make me doubt everything you say, as it blasphemes the Spirit Who came down on Pentacost and called our men into the Church in their own language.

It's the patronizing excuse of every phyletist who seeks to tie everyone to his tongue.
You mean we Georgians try to tie Russians, Greeks, All Europeans and so on to the Georgian language? Nah, I don't think so. We even did not ever tried to force either Abkhazians or Osetians into speaking Georgian language. In fact, Georgia is the only country in Caucasus (ad opposed to Armenia and Azerbaijan) who has tolerated many different nations in our Motherland. Georgia is the only country in Caucasus where from centuries ago Orthodox Christian Churches coexisted with Mosques and Synagogues. And you dare come out and say such a thing.

I think, you doubt what I say because you have been misinformed and you keep that prejudice about us on top of the fact that you have little (if any) knowledge about our history. You don't even know what Catholicate of Abkhazia meant, I said that already. Even most Anti-Georgian source wikipedia is clear on what I said and affirms it (forget for a moment my comment that those languages are not fit for Divine liturgy).

Quote
Btw, all this talk reminds me of what the French called "Les Évolués"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89volu%C3%A9
who adopted French, English, Portuguese, German and Italian, but no one would confuse for a Frenchman, Englishman, Portuguese, German or Italian.
Let's look at this. You link says:
Quote
Évolué is a French term (literally, evolved or developed) used in the colonial era to refer to native Africans and Asians who had "evolved", through education or assimilation, and accepted European values and patterns of behavior. Évolués spoke French, followed French laws, usually held white-collar jobs (although rarely higher than clerks), and lived primarily in urban areas. Such individuals were seen as the desired end product of France's assimilation policy. Évolués were treated as an elite and privileged group by the colonial administrators.
To make this wrong parallel of yours more clear explain to me, please, how are what I said and Évolué related to each other. Who is in Abkhazian/Georgian case colonist and who is native man that evolved to new culture? Are we Georgians colonist and not aboriginal population of Abkhazian land? Are Abkhazians native people who became adapted to colonist Georgia?

BTW, What do you maps have to do with all this? What are you trying to say?

kijabeboy03
Quote
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't ecclesiastical Georgian as old as ecclesiastical Armenian and therefore as difficult to understand for a modern Georgian? (Much less an Ossetian who speaks Georgian.)
Old Georgian and new Georgian are somewhat different and one needs some practice before one can get used to Old Georgian. But once you listen and read same prayers every day it becomes easy to understand one. For example, I've been reading psalms for no more than 8 months now and compared to the beginning (when I first started to read psalms and say prayers) I'm quite advanced and understand almost everything. Same should be true for Osetians (or was true until we lived in piece and every Osetian new Georgian as well as Georgians did). When one (Georgian or Osetian) attends Divine liturgy every week one gets used to Old Language easily.

Quote
Agreed with the phyletism comment btw - sounds like how the Russians reacted at my parish when they introduced a hymn in English back in the day - tears, refusal to go to services, fights, and all that despite the almost total loss of the younger generations to Methodism and Presbyterianism.
I don't see similarities. In the case I've mentioned it was Osetians themselves who protested not Georgians. And finally the attempt to conform Osetians language to Divine liturgy failed anyways.

Besides it was Georgian priesthood who always tried to bring Osetians back to Christianity whenever they returned to paganism. For example, in the 1840s Georgian priesthood working in Russia asked empress Elizabeth of Russia to send them in North Caucasus area for conversion of 200 000 Osetians. A commission ("Spiritual commission for Osetians") was created for this purpose most members of which were Georgians. Head of this commission was Georgian archimandrite Nocholoz also. After a while they changed the head of this commission and a Russian came in. Preaty soon this project was closed. During this time period Georgians converted about 8 000 Osetians on Russia's territory. Then this same commission with the same functions was rehabilitated in Georgian capital Tbilisi and another large wave of conversion of Osetians took place by Georgians again. Between 1817-1821 about 29 000 Osetian were converted to Orthodoxy and about 29 Churches were built and restored for them.

A Georgian by Name Gaioz had Russians printed some prayers in Osetian language utilizing Georgian alphabet. Same person working with an Osetian by name Gentsaurov created an alphabet for Osetians and printed first Orthodox catechism using this alphabet.

So before one starts bashing on Georgians one should read more history from reliable sources. Unfortunately it is hard to find real history in English and that is probably the source of most of the confusion. And most unfortunately we have Evil enemies who try to suppress all this type of information.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #80 on: March 02, 2011, 04:51:13 AM »

If not for anything else, this alone would make me doubt everything you say, as it blasphemes the Spirit Who came down on Pentacost and called our men into the Church in their own language.

It's the patronizing excuse of every phyletist who seeks to tie everyone to his tongue.
You mean we Georgians try to tie Russians, Greeks, All Europeans and so on to the Georgian language? Nah, I don't think so. We even did not ever tried to force either Abkhazians or Osetians into speaking Georgian language. In fact, Georgia is the only country in Caucasus (ad opposed to Armenia and Azerbaijan) who has tolerated many different nations in our Motherland. Georgia is the only country in Caucasus where from centuries ago Orthodox Christian Churches coexisted with Mosques and Synagogues. And you dare come out and say such a thing.

Thou dost protest too much.  The mountains account for much of the "toleration."

I think, you doubt what I say because you have been misinformed and you keep that prejudice about us on top of the fact that you have little (if any) knowledge about our history.


I have little (if any) bias about your history.

You don't even know what Catholicate of Abkhazia meant,

I know what the canonical texts, the histories etc. say it meant.  What your official history means by it is obvious.

I said that already. Even most Anti-Georgian source wikipedia is clear on what I said and affirms it (forget for a moment my comment that those languages are not fit for Divine liturgy).

Oh? What does it say?

Quote
Btw, all this talk reminds me of what the French called "Les Évolués"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89volu%C3%A9
who adopted French, English, Portuguese, German and Italian, but no one would confuse for a Frenchman, Englishman, Portuguese, German or Italian.
Let's look at this. You link says:
Quote
Évolué is a French term (literally, evolved or developed) used in the colonial era to refer to native Africans and Asians who had "evolved", through education or assimilation, and accepted European values and patterns of behavior. Évolués spoke French, followed French laws, usually held white-collar jobs (although rarely higher than clerks), and lived primarily in urban areas. Such individuals were seen as the desired end product of France's assimilation policy. Évolués were treated as an elite and privileged group by the colonial administrators.
To make this wrong parallel of yours more clear explain to me, please, how are what I said and Évolué related to each other.

Your try to make Kartli out of Colchis.

Who is in Abkhazian/Georgian case colonist and who is native man that evolved to new culture? Are we Georgians colonist and not aboriginal population of Abkhazian land? Are Abkhazians native people who became adapted to colonist Georgia?
The latter, having escaped Hellenization by their former masters, the Romans.

BTW, What do you maps have to do with all this? What are you trying to say?
Not everyone in Georgia is Georgian/Kartveli.

kijabeboy03
Quote
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't ecclesiastical Georgian as old as ecclesiastical Armenian and therefore as difficult to understand for a modern Georgian? (Much less an Ossetian who speaks Georgian.)
Old Georgian and new Georgian are somewhat different and one needs some practice before one can get used to Old Georgian. But once you listen and read same prayers every day it becomes easy to understand one. For example, I've been reading psalms for no more than 8 months now and compared to the beginning (when I first started to read psalms and say prayers) I'm quite advanced and understand almost everything. Same should be true for Osetians (or was true until we lived in piece and every Osetian new Georgian as well as Georgians did). When one (Georgian or Osetian) attends Divine liturgy every week one gets used to Old Language easily.
Ossets, speaking an Iranian language, the remnant of Scythian

through the Alans


kijabeboy03
Quote
Agreed with the phyletism comment btw - sounds like how the Russians reacted at my parish when they introduced a hymn in English back in the day - tears, refusal to go to services, fights, and all that despite the almost total loss of the younger generations to Methodism and Presbyterianism.
I don't see similarities. In the case I've mentioned it was Osetians themselves who protested not Georgians. And finally the attempt to conform Osetians language to Divine liturgy failed anyways.
1) Not like you all did not help that along 2) In English they say, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

kijabeboy03Besides it was Georgian priesthood who always tried to bring Osetians back to Christianity whenever they returned to paganism. For example, in the 1840s Georgian priesthood working in Russia asked empress Elizabeth of Russia to send them in North Caucasus area for conversion of 200 000 Osetians. A commission ("Spiritual commission for Osetians") was created for this purpose most members of which were Georgians. Head of this commission was Georgian archimandrite Nocholoz also. After a while they changed the head of this commission and a Russian came in. Preaty soon this project was closed. During this time period Georgians converted about 8 000 Osetians on Russia's territory. Then this same commission with the same functions was rehabilitated in Georgian capital Tbilisi and another large wave of conversion of Osetians took place by Georgians again. Between 1817-1821 about 29 000 Osetian were converted to Orthodoxy and about 29 Churches were built and restored for them.
Praise God!

kijabeboy03A Georgian by Name Gaioz had Russians printed some prayers in Osetian language utilizing Georgian alphabet. Same person working with an Osetian by name Gentsaurov created an alphabet for Osetians and printed first Orthodox catechism using this alphabet.

So before one starts bashing on Georgians one should read more history from reliable sources. Unfortunately it is hard to find real history in English and that is probably the source of most of the confusion. And most unfortunately we have Evil enemies who try to suppress all this type of information.
I won't argue that more information in English would be nice.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 04:52:19 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 839

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #81 on: March 02, 2011, 05:23:56 AM »

"In fact, Georgia is the only country in Caucasus (ad opposed to Armenia and Azerbaijan) who has tolerated many different nations in our Motherland. Georgia is the only country in Caucasus where from centuries ago Orthodox Christian Churches coexisted with Mosques and Synagogues. And you dare come out and say such a thing."

I find this incredibly ironic given the ongoing resistance in Georgia by the Church to a deal with Turkey that would restore old mosques and open a new one in Georgia.
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #82 on: March 02, 2011, 04:04:23 PM »

I find this incredibly ironic given the ongoing resistance in Georgia by the Church to a deal with Turkey that would restore old mosques and open a new one in Georgia.
You are talking about "ironic"?! Who wants Mosques today? Over 85 % of population is Orthodox. The rest are atheists, different protestant denominations, little bit of Catholics and Muslims. Orthodoxy is on the rise and more and more Georgians return to Mother Church. There's more than enough Mosques in Georgia to satisfy the needs of all Muslims there. All these issues you are talking about is political and no spiritual needs are involved here. They want to destroy Orthodoxy in Georgia, that ain't going to happen. To destroy Orthodoxy in Georgia, everybody tries to bring all types of sects and heresies (like Russians did in XIX century). We, people, more that 85 % of the population, don't want it. They (different sects) have more than enough there churches and Mosques. So, leave ours alone. It's strange that you, Orthodox person, all of a sudden are concerned about our resistance to Muslims opening or rebuilding their Mosques. This shows one more time that You have no clue about Georgia and its specifics, I'm serious about it. I doubt you desire good for the Orthodox country of Georgia.
Logged
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 839

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #83 on: March 02, 2011, 04:10:43 PM »

I actually really like Georgia :-) - I've read a decent amount of Georgian history, I've got a lot of Georgian sacred music, and I nearly moved to Georgia for work a year and a half ago. That doesn't change the fact that Muslims deserve equal rights with Orthodox in Georgia. Why should it take government permission for them to build a mosque? Does the Georgian Orthodox Church need similar permission to build a church or a monastery?
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 916



« Reply #84 on: March 02, 2011, 04:14:26 PM »

What? Is this a political move? This is uncanonical if it is a political move
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #85 on: March 02, 2011, 05:53:32 PM »

I find this incredibly ironic given the ongoing resistance in Georgia by the Church to a deal with Turkey that would restore old mosques and open a new one in Georgia.
You are talking about "ironic"?! Who wants Mosques today? Over 85 % of population is Orthodox. The rest are atheists, different protestant denominations, little bit of Catholics and Muslims. Orthodoxy is on the rise and more and more Georgians return to Mother Church. There's more than enough Mosques in Georgia to satisfy the needs of all Muslims there. All these issues you are talking about is political and no spiritual needs are involved here. They want to destroy Orthodoxy in Georgia, that ain't going to happen. To destroy Orthodoxy in Georgia, everybody tries to bring all types of sects and heresies (like Russians did in XIX century). .
Paranoia?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #86 on: March 03, 2011, 01:07:09 AM »

Praise God!
Glory to The Lord, Allmighty, Glory to Him.

Quote
Quote
To make this wrong parallel of yours more clear explain to me, please, how are what I said and Évolué related to each other.
Your try to make Kartli out of Colchis.
Now you are making another irrelevant point and I do not even want to go there. Further discussion will lead too far away from the point. I apologize if I'm being rude but that's not my intention at all even if it seems that way. But if you are ready to listen I can give you information regarding Abkhazian problem, real information. Meanwhile you could look at this article and it may give you certain ideas. "Apsu" denotes those people who we now call Abkhazs. It is very important to understand that Abkhaz people do not call themselves Abkhazs but Apsus. Once you get through this point, then based on historical data and the context in which the word Abkhazeti (or Abkhazia) is used it will be easier to see reality. On that census still the statistics say a lot.

I said
Quote
Old Georgian and new Georgian are somewhat different and one needs some practice before one can get used to Old Georgian. But once you listen and read same prayers every day it becomes easy to understand one. For example, I've been reading psalms for no more than 8 months now and compared to the beginning (when I first started to read psalms and say prayers) I'm quite advanced and understand almost everything. Same should be true for Osetians (or was true until we lived in piece and every Osetian new Georgian as well as Georgians did). When one (Georgian or Osetian) attends Divine liturgy every week one gets used to Old Language easily.

Your answer is
Quote
Ossets, speaking an Iranian language, the remnant of Scythian
Are you trying to say that since Osetian people speak Iranian language they can't get used to Old Georgian? What's you point?

Quote
Quote
BTW, What do you maps have to do with all this? What are you trying to say?
Not everyone in Georgia is Georgian/Kartveli.
Thanks for the information Smiley But somehow I knew that for a long time.

Quote
Quote
Who is in Abkhazian/Georgian case colonist and who is native man that evolved to new culture? Are we Georgians colonist and not aboriginal population of Abkhazian land? Are Abkhazians native people who became adapted to colonist Georgia?
The latter, having escaped Hellenization by their former masters, the Romans.
I don't get this point either. I asked the questions and your answers aren't at all relevant to the question. Try to answer my questions please.

Quote
Quote
I said that already. Even most Anti-Georgian source wikipedia is clear on what I said and affirms it (forget for a moment my comment that those languages are not fit for Divine liturgy).

Oh? What does it say?
Here's what is says which, when translated the only possible correct way, means Abkhazia has nothing in common with Apsu people (those that nowadays misleadingly are called Abkhazs) and it is entirely Georgian entity. That's what it says.

Quote
Quote
You are talking about "ironic"?! Who wants Mosques today? Over 85 % of population is Orthodox. The rest are atheists, different protestant denominations, little bit of Catholics and Muslims. Orthodoxy is on the rise and more and more Georgians return to Mother Church. There's more than enough Mosques in Georgia to satisfy the needs of all Muslims there. All these issues you are talking about is political and no spiritual needs are involved here. They want to destroy Orthodoxy in Georgia, that ain't going to happen. To destroy Orthodoxy in Georgia, everybody tries to bring all types of sects and heresies (like Russians did in XIX century). .
Paranoia
Thank for reminding me to take my morning pills. Do you think Sacred Scriptures lie when they say about Church going downhill and Satan trying to usurp it? Do you think Holy Fathers and Saints are not in their mind when they prophesy  that the Church will be infiltrated by evil and so on? Are these paranoic ideas? If not what's surprising in the fact that Evil one tries to spread Islam and other religions to eliminate Orthodoxy in a very Orthodox country? Or have you not heard what Atheist/Communist  regimen did to Orthodox church? I guess if I said that during communist era I would still be paranoic right? I can give you (and you can think of yourself too) multiple examples of this type of "paranoia".
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #87 on: March 03, 2011, 01:44:23 AM »

Praise God!
Glory to The Lord, Allmighty, Glory to Him.

Quote
Quote
To make this wrong parallel of yours more clear explain to me, please, how are what I said and Évolué related to each other.
Your try to make Kartli out of Colchis.
Now you are making another irrelevant point and I do not even want to go there.
Of course not: it's not irrelevant, and if one goes there, that can be seen.

Further discussion will lead too far away from the point. I apologize if I'm being rude but that's not my intention at all even if it seems that way. But if you are ready to listen I can give you information regarding Abkhazian problem, real information.
And I should take your "information" over the Abkhaz why?

Meanwhile you could look at this article and it may give you certain ideas. "Apsu" denotes those people who we now call Abkhazs. It is very important to understand that Abkhaz people do not call themselves Abkhazs but Apsus. Once you get through this point, then based on historical data and the context in which the word Abkhazeti (or Abkhazia) is used it will be easier to see reality. On that census still the statistics say a lot.

I said
Quote
Old Georgian and new Georgian are somewhat different and one needs some practice before one can get used to Old Georgian. But once you listen and read same prayers every day it becomes easy to understand one. For example, I've been reading psalms for no more than 8 months now and compared to the beginning (when I first started to read psalms and say prayers) I'm quite advanced and understand almost everything. Same should be true for Osetians (or was true until we lived in piece and every Osetian new Georgian as well as Georgians did). When one (Georgian or Osetian) attends Divine liturgy every week one gets used to Old Language easily.

Your answer is
Quote
Ossets, speaking an Iranian language, the remnant of Scythian
Are you trying to say that since Osetian people speak Iranian language they can't get used to Old Georgian? What's you point?
I'm saying that they are obviously not ethnic Georgian, so why should they need or want to get used to Old, or for that matter moder, Georgian?

Quote
Quote
BTW, What do you maps have to do with all this? What are you trying to say?
Not everyone in Georgia is Georgian/Kartveli.
Thanks for the information Smiley But somehow I knew that for a long time.
The question is are you trying to change that stubborn fact.

Quote
Quote
Who is in Abkhazian/Georgian case colonist and who is native man that evolved to new culture? Are we Georgians colonist and not aboriginal population of Abkhazian land? Are Abkhazians native people who became adapted to colonist Georgia?
The latter, having escaped Hellenization by their former masters, the Romans.
I don't get this point either. I asked the questions and your answers aren't at all relevant to the question. Try to answer my questions please.
I have answered. That you do not like the ansswer doesn't change that.

Quote
Quote
I said that already. Even most Anti-Georgian source wikipedia is clear on what I said and affirms it (forget for a moment my comment that those languages are not fit for Divine liturgy).

And since any source that says any language is unfit for Divine Liturgy is just hissing at the Descent of the Holy Spirit at the Birth of the Church, anything that source says on that score should be ignored.

Oh? What does it say?
Here's what is says which, when translated the only possible correct way, means Abkhazia has nothing in common with Apsu people (those that nowadays misleadingly are called Abkhazs) and it is entirely Georgian entity. That's what it says.
Your source says:
Quote
The problem of the Abkhazian Kingdom, particularly the questions of the nature of its ruling family and its ethnic composition, is a main point of controversy between modern Georgian and Abkhaz scholars. This can be largely explained by the scarcity of primary sources on these issues. Most Abkhaz historians claim the kingdom was formed as a result of the consolidation of the early Abkhaz tribes that enabled them to extend their dominance over the neighboring areas. This is objected on the side of the Georgian historians, some of them claiming that the kingdom was completely Georgian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Abkhazia
We definitely know that it was NOTcompletely Georgian/Kartlavi

Quote
Quote
You are talking about "ironic"?! Who wants Mosques today? Over 85 % of population is Orthodox. The rest are atheists, different protestant denominations, little bit of Catholics and Muslims. Orthodoxy is on the rise and more and more Georgians return to Mother Church. There's more than enough Mosques in Georgia to satisfy the needs of all Muslims there. All these issues you are talking about is political and no spiritual needs are involved here. They want to destroy Orthodoxy in Georgia, that ain't going to happen. To destroy Orthodoxy in Georgia, everybody tries to bring all types of sects and heresies (like Russians did in XIX century). .
Paranoia
Thank for reminding me to take my morning pills. Do you think Sacred Scriptures lie when they say about Church going downhill and Satan trying to usurp it? Do you think Holy Fathers and Saints are not in their mind when they prophesy  that the Church will be infiltrated by evil and so on? Are these paranoic ideas? If not what's surprising in the fact that Evil one tries to spread Islam and other religions to eliminate Orthodoxy in a very Orthodox country? Or have you not heard what Atheist/Communist  regimen did to Orthodox church? I guess if I said that during communist era I would still be paranoic right? I can give you (and you can think of yourself too) multiple examples of this type of "paranoia".
I know that Georgia =/= The Church.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #88 on: March 03, 2011, 02:13:00 PM »

I know that Georgia =/= The Church.
Another attempt to put you word into my mouth. I never said that Georgia=Church. I said the Evil is trying to destroy Orthodoxy in Georgia by spreading all type of sectarian and unorthodox religions to which your response was I was paranoic. Georgia has been orthodox country for centuries. Guess what? Orthodoxy has been state religion in Georgia for centuries. I know you have hard time to understand what state religion means but there exists such a term and it's reality for Georgia.

Quote
Quote
The problem of the Abkhazian Kingdom, particularly the questions of the nature of its ruling family and its ethnic composition, is a main point of controversy between modern Georgian and Abkhaz scholars. This can be largely explained by the scarcity of primary sources on these issues. Most Abkhaz historians claim the kingdom was formed as a result of the consolidation of the early Abkhaz tribes that enabled them to extend their dominance over the neighboring areas. This is objected on the side of the Georgian historians, some of them claiming that the kingdom was completely Georgian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Abkhazia
We definitely know that it was NOTcompletely Georgian/Kartlavi
No you don't know definitely. Show me historical writings (I asked you before not to rely on wiki as historical source) that definitely shows Abkhazia was not completely Georgian and I'll show you definitely by presenting historical sources from eastern and western writers that "Abkhazia" was actually the term used interchangeably with the term "Georgia". Your word "definitely" is false opinion and you can't use it and call it scientific as such. Show me the ethnographic data; Show me, please, I bag you, the Abkhazian eponym's analysis that at list remotely "proves" your point.

The term Abkhazia changed its meaning after the end of XIX century to denote Apsu people which did not even call themselves as Abkhazians. Apsus are tribes that most likely entered and dwelled  Georgian regions in XVI to XVII century.

Quote
I have answered. That you do not like the ansswer doesn't change that.
Your answer was not relevant to my questions. Georgians (different Qartvelian tribes like Kolchis, Svans, Megrels, Lazis, Chanis) have been aboriginal tribes in area currently called Abkhazia since the beginning. Apsus came there late. And then you bring you "Evolue" notion here which does not fit at all. We are aboriginal and Apsus are late-comers. So who is in this "Evolue" concept colonist and who is local people that adapted to to colonist's culture and language?

Quote
I'm saying that they are obviously not ethnic Georgian, so why should they need or want to get used to Old, or for that matter moder, Georgian?
Really? So, what language they hear now in the Churches? Old Slavnoic. Are Osetians/Abkhazians that good to understand old Slavnoic when Russians have the problems themselves? After all even if they heard new Russian in the Church it would be still not their mother language. Will you protest this fact as fervently as you protest them praying in old Georgian? I doubt. And you must now that it is never going to happen (even if they are under Russia's "protection")  - they will never hear in the Church their native language. In practice that "problem" (to hear the Liturgy in native language) is completely artificial and forced problem.
Logged
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 839

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #89 on: March 03, 2011, 03:32:57 PM »

I personally would protest Slavonic too, but I can't speak for ialmasry :-). I'm sure that as Abkhaz and Ossetian-language service books are published that will change. After all, in the Church of Rus' Aleut (Russian Far East), Chinese (Harbin parish), English (the UK, North America, Australia), French (France, Haiti), Greek (minorities in southern Russia and the eastern USA), Japanese (Japan), Romanian (Moldova and the Moldovan diaspora), Spanish (Latin America), Tatar (central Russia), and Yakut (Siberia)(and perhaps other languages?) are used in the services in addition to Slavonic.

How many languages are used in the Church of Georgia besides classical Georgian?
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
Tags: Georgian Church 
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.189 seconds with 71 queries.