www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Peter the Great

Peter the Great may have modernized the Russian navy, but he didn't have all his oars in the water. Haven't read a bio of him in many a year, but I still remember a couple incidents from his life that I wouldn't feel mentioning in mixed company.

Might we stick to matters of relevance to the Old-Ritual and banish Peter I to Town Hall, or trivial pursuits, or deceased murderers, or whatever? Spasi Khristos!

Christ is Risen!

Fr. Serge

X. B!
C, I, X!

Is Nikon alive and well in western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio where the �baba� inferiority complex rules? Our way may not be the way you pray, but it is the way we stay together for another day. Now again these developments from the bottom up are being swept aside and we are told to imitate the Greeks, especially for Pascha and the exit of our Lord's tomb and our prolonged melancholy veneration until Sunday Matins.

To comply with Fr. Serge's request:


I know that there is a real and lasting Russian vs Ukraine thing here on the Forum. I am just asking what he did directly to the Greek Catholics and the Old Believers. Fr. Serge already wrote that he personally killed 4 Greek Catholic priests in Lithuania.

I'm not looking to start a cat fight (unless it's between Julia Louis-Dreyfuss and Raquel Welch ) (Seinfeld reference) but trying to get some historical perspective. Maybe there are some here who think that he really was Great. I don't know, they don't really teach Eastern European History in World History Courses. "World History" is code for Western European History with a few days devoted to China, Japan, Russia, South America, and all of Africa.

There are icons of him, right?

The topic seems to be straying off course; this is the Old-Ritualists Forum and not the place to discuss the "Duranty Award" or other distractions. Therefore I am transferring and renaming this thread.

Thank you,
FDRLB

I'd recommend getting a copy of Robert K Massie's 900+ page bio of Peter the Great. Quite a few libraries have copies. Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra is also excellent.

If you mean icons of Peter 1 of Russia, absolutely not.

Why was he called Peter the Great? Because of his political exploits, winning land from Sweden and expansion and creation of the Russian Empire and establishing a naval foothold on the Baltic Sea. Also the westernizing changes he introduced in society, the army, the navy and commerce.

There are many very good pictures of him by famours artists in western European artistic style and statues including the famous one on a horse in St. Petersberg.

The equestrian statue of Peter I in St. Petersburg (named in honor of the Apostle, not the Emperor) was fittingly erected by Catherine II - to whom he was not related, but who, like him, was also not any semblance of a Christian! It is, indeed, a good statue, though one might perhaps compare the relative merits of horse and rider.

Paul I, who does seem to have been a Christian, also erected a statue of Peter I.

Fr. Serge

"If you mean icons of Peter 1 of Russia, absolutely not."

Oh good, I thought I saw one.

Terry

So, what else did he do to ruin the Christian culture of Russia which lead to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917?

Can you please expalin to me what it is you are trying to say or ask. I find the above statement illogical.
Peter 1st or great lived in the 18th century. The Russian Revolution took place in the 20th century.
To say that Peter "ruined" the Christian culture of Russia implies that after his reign there was no Christian culture in Russia.
His (Peter's) reforms were political, cultural and economical.
His changes in the church were not doctrinal but changes in the government of the church.
I believe most historians would state that the seminary educational reforms after the time of Petro Mohyla and in the tradition of Petro Mohyla, led to changes in the spirituality of the church. Florovsky is famous for his term the "scholastic captivity" of theology but even he did not state that Christian culture in Russia was ruined.

I'm just going on what was passed onto me from the Old Believers Subforum.

X. B!
C. I. X!

OK Lys Mykita the Tsar Peter I made the church the tool of the state not its moral barometer. He moved bishops (upper management) of different ethnic backgrounds into posts so they would have different outlooks than the local Abbots (middle management). Previously such moves as Bulgarian (St.) Petro Mohyla was a bright star in the Metropolitan episcopal crown of Kyiv. Now it were done to antagonize an already fermenting gentry. This subordinated the Church quibbling amongst themselves to stifling unity against the despot. As a fa�ade the First awarded the state church with public gifts and prestige while demeaning rival sects.

You don�t see the same play acted out with Russian President Putin and their State Church today? Once again Moscow is campaigning for the legacy of Kyiv Rus� in order to sabotage �foreign� (Ukrainian) influence.

I don't understand your comments about Petro Mohyla being Bulgarian. Mohyla's family were hospodars of Moldavia, now part of Romania. Not only that the royal family was of mixed Polish-Romanian and other ethnicities. Petro Mohyla himself as a young man was popular in Polish royal circles. In particular, the approval of the King of Poland was required for Mohyla to first be hegeuman of of Pecherska Lavra and later Metropolitan of Kyiv. The Tsar of Russia or the Emperor of Russia had nothing to do with Mohyla's appointment as Metropolitan of Kyiv.
I am really confused by what your point is.

Also, the point about the doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church not being changed is valid.