The Alexander Palace Time Machine Discussion Forum
 
 User Info & Key Stats   
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
October 31, 2014, 03:33:31 AM
462250 Posts in 8977 Topics by 14524 Members
Latest Member: venus48220
News: We think Pallasart is the best web design company in Austin and for good reason - they make this forum possible! Looking for a website? Call them at 512 469-7454.
+  The Alexander Palace Time Machine Discussion Forum
|-+  Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty
| |-+  The Final Chapter (Moderators: LisaDavidson, Sarushka, BobAtchison, Forum Admin)
| | |-+  Russian Orthodox Church and the Romanov Remains
  0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author
Topic: Russian Orthodox Church and the Romanov Remains  (Read 3967 times)
« on: February 02, 2010, 04:26:20 PM »
Pegschalet Offline
Newbie
*
Posts: 91

View Profile

Has the Russian Orthodox Chruch accepted or acknowledged the Romanov remains found at Ekaterburg as those of Tsar Nicholas II and his family?  IF not what is the reason and their justification?  This topic is not meant to be a discussion of survivors as I understand that topic is now prohibited on this forum but to understand the reasons why the Russian Orthodox Church has not recognized the Romanov remains.  If this topic has been discussed could someone kindly point me to the correct posting.  I have not posted or read the forum in quite sometime so I don't want to repeat a discussion if it has already taken place. 
Logged
Reply #1
« on: February 22, 2010, 05:01:05 AM »
tutsi
Guest

I seem to recall that no they did officially recognise the remains, however there was some sort of official function where they were recognised.

It might be time for the Russian Orthodox Church to come here on this site and assist in maintaining people's faith by answering questions in a way that explains things somewhat better in a spiritual way.

I don't suppose there is an Archbishop in the house? Smiley
Logged
Reply #2
« on: February 27, 2010, 07:58:05 PM »
Pegschalet Offline
Newbie
*
Posts: 91

View Profile

I read on another thread that there were ten questions that the Russian Orthodox chuch wanted answered before they would publically acknowledge the remains.
Logged
Reply #3
« on: February 27, 2010, 08:06:08 PM »
Belochka Offline
Velikye Knyaz
****
City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin Posts: 4356

View Profile

I read on another thread that there were ten questions that the Russian Orthodox chuch wanted answered before they would publically acknowledge the remains.

Those 10 questions received comprehensive answers over a decade ago.

Margarita
Logged



Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/
Reply #4
« on: February 27, 2010, 08:19:34 PM »
charley Offline
Boyar
**
Posts: 208

View Profile

Those 10 questions received comprehensive answers over a decade ago.
Margarita


Could you post the thread? большое спасибо
Logged
Reply #5
« on: February 28, 2010, 05:40:23 AM »
Pegschalet Offline
Newbie
*
Posts: 91

View Profile

I agree that many people have said the 10 questions were answered but the question is not whether we felt they were answered.  Did the Russian Orthodox Church accept those answers and publicly recognize the remains as the Romanovs?  If not why not?  What are there doubts based on? 
Logged
Reply #6
« on: March 01, 2010, 09:12:42 AM »
LisaDavidson Offline
Moderator
Velikye Knyaz
*****
Posts: 2612

View Profile

The previous Patriarch spent decades on the KGB payroll. When word got out that the burial site was known, the KGB went into panic mode. What is known for sure is that the Patriarch backed himself into a corner and so would not have accepted the remains as authentic no matter what the scientifc evidence was. The new Patriarch has no such affiliations, but has to figure out how to recognize the authentic remains plus the 2007 find without calling the prior Patriarch "flawed" as George Bush would say.
Logged
Reply #7
« on: March 05, 2010, 07:55:49 AM »
charley Offline
Boyar
**
Posts: 208

View Profile

Those 10 questions received comprehensive answers over a decade ago.
Margarita

Logged
Reply #8
« on: March 05, 2010, 08:17:21 AM »
charley Offline
Boyar
**
Posts: 208

View Profile

Sorry I accidently posted before I was done.
The new Patriarch has no such affiliations, but has to figure out how to recognize the authentic remains plus the 2007 find without calling the prior Patriarch "flawed" as George Bush would say.

How do you know he feels this way if he has not made a public statement? Or has he found a way to accept the remains without offending Patriarch Alexeii and made a public statement.  I have not seen any. Pegchalets question still has not been answered. From what is being said here, it remains, for whatever reason, the Russian Orthodox Church does not accept the remains. Patriarch Alexeii did not accept the remains because he was KGB, now Patriarch Kirill does not publically accept the remains because he does not want to offend Kirill. Is this correct?
Logged
Reply #9
« on: March 10, 2010, 12:19:39 AM »
LisaDavidson Offline
Moderator
Velikye Knyaz
*****
Posts: 2612

View Profile

Sorry I accidently posted before I was done.
The new Patriarch has no such affiliations, but has to figure out how to recognize the authentic remains plus the 2007 find without calling the prior Patriarch "flawed" as George Bush would say.

How do you know he feels this way if he has not made a public statement? Or has he found a way to accept the remains without offending Patriarch Alexeii and made a public statement.  I have not seen any. Pegchalets question still has not been answered. From what is being said here, it remains, for whatever reason, the Russian Orthodox Church does not accept the remains. Patriarch Alexeii did not accept the remains because he was KGB, now Patriarch Kirill does not publically accept the remains because he does not want to offend Kirill. Is this correct?

All of this is conjecture. What is certain is that Alexei refused to accept scientific reason and that the new patriarch has not made us aware of his opinion. But, yes, Charley, it is possible that Alexei remained Red and also possible that the new main does not want to challenge his predecessor.
Logged
Reply #10
« on: March 11, 2010, 03:56:21 AM »
tutsi
Guest

Quite possibly the Patriarch/s is/are aware of other information that is not available to the public, and for very good reasons too.
All good things take time...I'm sure in due course things will progress somewhat in this regard. Its like the making and baking of bread~all the ingredients have to be correct and handling of the bread and then the cooking of the bread in the correct temperature by the correct cook.  Yeast is vital. Smiley

Logged
Reply #11
« on: March 14, 2010, 03:56:55 AM »
tutsi
Guest

Out of interest, does anyone know what the 10 questions were, and if so would they kindly post them here for a look at. Margarita, maybe you know?
Many Thanks.
Logged
Reply #12
« on: March 14, 2010, 01:28:32 PM »
rgt9w Offline
Graf
***
I love YaBB 1G - SP1! Posts: 456

View Profile

Tutsi, These were posted by J_Kendrick in the "Georgy wants the Ekaterinburg remains re-examined" thread in the News section

The following is from the meeting of the Holy Synod, July 17, 1997:

"After a discussion, the following resolution was adopted:

...That the Holy Synod assure the church and the international public that it is committed to the search for the truth with regards to the remains found near Ekaterinburg and is willing to contribute to the completion of the investigation and that it prays God may help us in this understanding.

As a result of this position of the Church, the Commission at its meeting on 15 November 1995 set forth the following actions to be taken for further study:

1. A stomatological examination;
2. A full anthropological examination of the bones;
3. Removing differences between the results of the Russian expertise and the conclusion made by Prof. Maples concerning the identification of Remains No. 6 (Anastasia or Marie);
4. An analysis of the conclusion made by Kolchak's government after its own investigation that the Imperial family was fully eliminated and a comparison between other results of the investigation made in the period 1918-1924 and today;
5. A graphological and stylistic examination of the Yurovsky note;
6. An examination of the osseous callus on Skull No. 4;
7. An investigation in the fate of the remains of the heir Alexis and his sister;
8. A conclusion concerning the possibility for a full destruction of two bodies (the amount of firewood, kerosene, acid, time, and other conditions);
9. A confirmation or refutation of the ritual nature of the murder;
10. A confirmation or refutation of the evidence that Nicholas II was beheaded immediately after the murder."

These points were listed in a letter of the Chairman of the Commission Yuri Yarov to the General Prosecutor Yuri Skuratov, asking him to "find an opportunity for completing the investigation by experts and for solving the problems posed by the Commission under the criminal case". In his reply, the General Prosecutor Skuratov informed Yuri Yarov that "the decision made on 15 September 1995 to close the case was recognised as premature as the examination of some evidence, including Yurovsky's notes and the objects involved in the attempt at Nicholas II's  life in 1891 in Japan, as well as other investigative actions involved indirectly in the identification of the remains had not been made."
 
 
Logged
Reply #13
« on: March 22, 2010, 08:18:12 PM »
tutsi
Guest

Many Thanks,
some interesting questions noted.

To date, are there any reliable sources/information that prove conclusively that any/all  of these questions have been answered and agreed upon by the Patriarch and the Russian Orthodox Church?

And any of their comments in relation to these questions, would be very interesting indeed.






Logged
Reply #14
« on: March 22, 2010, 11:26:47 PM »
LisaDavidson Offline
Moderator
Velikye Knyaz
*****
Posts: 2612

View Profile

All questions have been answered responsively. However, the Church either is ignoring or disputing without stating why said answers.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Website by Pallasart - Austin Web Design