In Russia, a multi-thousand Russian march in honor of Alexander Nevsky took place

a reply to: FlyersFan

Once again, answer my simple question and don't engage in chutzpah.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Forgive me people for getting drawn into this.....NATO is not trying to 'destroy' Russia.
It has neither the intent, nor the desire for such a thing.

NATO is supplying arms and other aid so that Ukraine can defend itself against a nation that invaded it.
Russia withdraws it troops we can all go back to being chummy and matey again.

Problem sorted.

My time on the sun lounger lasted not even 5 minutes before the clouds rolled in, the sun went in and it got significantly colder.
Mrs F & the grandson are pissing themselves laughing at me.

a reply to: Freeborn

Once again, with your empty talk you can only mislead illiterate Papuans. Any thinking modern person understands that NATO is fighting against Russia in Ukraine. This is a fact. And NATO cannot defeat Russia. NATO's last argument is a nuclear war through a nuclear provocation. This is clear to all people. But in this situation NATO will cease to exist. True, for globalists to retain their power, this is the only option. And all reasonable people in the world understand this too. Will you take the risk?

a reply to: RussianTroll

The Catholic Church was not taken over by Jews during Vatican II.
It was taken over by MODERNISTS.

Vulgata

The Nova Vulgata, also called the Neo-Vulgate, is the Catholic Church's official Classical Latin translation of the original-language texts of the Bible published by the Holy See. It was completed in 1979, and was promulgated the same year by John Paul II in Scripturarum thesaurus. A second, revised edition was published in 1986. It is the official Latin text of the Bible of the Catholic Church. The Nova Vulgata is also called the New Latin Vulgate[2] or the New Vulgate

All of these base texts were revised to accord with the modern critical editions in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.[7] A number of changes were also made where modern scholars felt that Jerome had failed to grasp the meaning of the original languages, or had rendered it obscurely

As for who infiltrated the Catholic church during Vatican II ... it was the modernists and the freemasons. It was NOT the Jews. You really need to get over your Jew obsession.

Read "Infiltration" by Taylor Marshall on who infiltrated the Catholic Church during Vatican II.

Infiltration by Taylor Marshall - Read Here

a reply to: FlyersFan
Unfortunately, you did not answer my simple question. This is sad. I note that you are trying to get out of this by verbal balancing act.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Will you take the risk?

Oh yes.
I think you've got a busted flush......

originally posted by: RussianTroll
Once again, answer my simple question and don't engage in chutzpah.

Once again, read what I have posted and don't engage in Russian propaganda.

I asked a simple question ... why was this guy I've never heard of called a saint.
OLDCARPY supplied the information I asked for.
The answer is ... this fella was just popular and didn't perform any miracles.
He didn't live a holy life and perform miracles .. that's the kind of saint Im interested in.
So I really have no interest in him.
He was just a guy the Russians have honored for something secular.
And as I said .. I wouldn't call his body a holy 'relic'.
In my opinion, that's reserved for actual saints who lived holy lives and have verified miracles.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: RussianTroll

Will you take the risk?

Oh yes.
I think you've got a busted flush......

Oh, you've started thinking. This gives some hope)))))

a reply to: FlyersFan

I asked a simple question. You couldn't give a simple answer to this simple question. From whose side is there propaganda?

originally posted by: RussianTroll

Unfortunately, you did not answer my simple question. This is sad. I note that you are trying to get out of this by verbal balancing act.

Yes I did answer it. Read what is posted.

All of these base texts were revised to accord with the modern critical editions in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.[7] A number of changes were also made where modern scholars felt that Jerome had failed to grasp the meaning of the original languages, or had rendered it obscurely

You just don't like the fact that THE TRUTH doesn't match up with the anti-Catholic PROPAGANDA you have been spoon fed by the Russian government and the Russian church. Your nationalism knows no limits. It's ridiculous.

The Catholic church was not taken over by the Jews.
Get over your obsession with Jews. It's awful.

Read INFILTRATION by Taylor Marshall.
I gave the link where you can order the book.
The Catholic church was taken over by modernists and Freemasons.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
I asked a simple question. You couldn't give a simple answer to this simple question. From whose side is there propaganda?

I answered it. You just don't like the answer because it doesn't match the Russian nationalist propaganda you have been spoonfed. I've answered. Go back and read it. I'm not responding to you again. I have my answer from OLDCARPY .. this guy was just a Russian that the Russians have elevated and honor ... he isn't a 'saint' in the usual sense that he lived a holy life and performed miracles during and after life. Therefore .. he is of no interest to me. Bu-bye.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Don't worry about it, Russian Orthodox Christians are just butthurt for having to comply with their Muslim overlords for a few hundred years.

We all know how Muslims saw none Muslims during this time. Thats why they're all butthurt!!!!

Under Jochi and later Batu Khan, the Mongols ruled over Russia for over 200 years, from around 1240 to 1481. However, that rule was less dominant over the later years.

a reply to: FlyersFan

That is, you admit that the Catholic Church has revised canonical dogmas in connection with "modern" requirements.

Thank you. This is exactly what I wrote in my comments.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
That is, you admit that the Catholic Church has revised canonical dogmas in connection with "modern" requirements.

Thank you. This is exactly what I wrote in my comments.

No .. you said that Catholicism was taken over by JUDAISM.
That is not true.
I said MODERNISM and FREEMASONRY.

Those are two totally different things.

And no 'DOGMAS' of the Catholic church were revised or changed.
DOGMA can not change in the Catholic church. They are set in stone.
What changed was the wording of the prayers and the missile that people
use on Sundays for Mass. The ORDER OF THE MASS changed. It was
modernized according to the translations. But the DOGMA did not change.

You don't understand what DOGMA means.
No DOGMA changed.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Don't be disingenuous. I didn't write that. I only wrote that the Vugant text, which had been used in worship for centuries and was based on a translation from the Greek Scriptuagint, was replaced by the Jewish Masoretic text during the Second Vatican Council (which you have not refuted). In fact, worship in Catholic churches is now conducted according to Jewish texts, not Christian texts.

This is what you said RT.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
a reply to: FlyersFan

The Catholic Church is a sect that broke away from the United Orthodox Church.

Nothing about the rest of your word salad was true, you've then add to the question after you were put straight and tried moving the goal posts.

education.nationalgeographic.org...

On July 16, 1054, Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius was excommunicated from the Christian church based in Rome, Italy. Cerularius’s excommunication was a breaking point in long-rising tensions between the Roman church based in Rome and the Byzantine church based in Constantinople (now called Istanbul). The resulting split divided the European Christian church into two major branches: the Western Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. This split is known as the Great Schism, or sometimes the “East-West Schism” or the “Schism of 1054.”

The Great Schism came about due to a complex mix of religious disagreements and political conflicts. One of the many religious disagreements between the western (Roman) and eastern (Byzantine) branches of the church had to do with whether or not it was acceptable to use unleavened bread for the sacrament of communion. (The west supported the practice, while the east did not.) Other objects of religious dispute include the exact wording of the Nicene Creed and the Western belief that clerics should remain celibate.

The Catholic Church is off topic.

So back to what I originally asked .... what did this guy do to be called a saint.

So I'm taking OLDCARPYs post .. and reading around .. I find that miracles are not a requirement to be called a saint in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Criteria for Sainthood According to Russian Orthodox Tradition

The first criterion of Sainthood is that the person has joined has joined himself to the Church through Holy Baptism....Another criterion is the Orthodox mindset.... The virtuous life is also an important feature....Another criterion is the presence of miracles. The question arises: are miracles in and of themselves a criterion for sainthood? The answer is "no. ... Another feature is exceptional services offered to the Orthodox Church.... Another criterion of Sainthood is incorrupt relics, which are fragrant and miraculous. Although such relics point towards Sainthood, they are not necessary a criterion for Sainthood ...

a) Holy Baptism

b) An Orthodox mindset

c) A virtuous life

d) Exceptional service and offering to the Church

e) Miracles

f) Holy Relics.

It looks like miracles are a sign of sainthood, but they are not required for sainthood in the Russian Church. Whereas in the Catholic church, the one billion Catholics require two miracles after death as proof that the person is in heaven and is a saint.

Okay ... got it ...

As far as we know, this guy performed no miracles.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
a reply to: Freeborn

You, with all the might of NATO, still have not been able to destroy Russia for more than 2.5 years. Once again, talk ends, guns start talking. And guns do not need references.

"All the might of NATO" has not and is not trying to destroy Russia.

Please provide one shred of evidence for this?

Has NATOs air force attacked Russia?

Has it's troops and armour attacked Russia?

Has it's navies launched wave after wave of cruise missiles at Russia, or attacked (what's left of) your navy?

Of course not.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Septuagint - 3rd century BC.
Masoretic Text - 10th century AD.
What more proof do you need?

a reply to: FlyersFan

No miracles. Not a proper Saint. End of.