The New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia: Their Significance for People in the West [Cath-Orth]

Pravmir.com ^ | Feb 24th, 2012 | Sophia Moshura

[annalex]

I believe, the feast is celebrated differently in what now remains of ROCOR and in MP, and that might explain the different icon. MP did not recognize all the saints that ROCOR had canonized. Not being Orthodox I cannot say for sure.

[annalex]

The entire Royal Family was deeply faithful and understood the obligation the Crown gave them for the people. His Majesty was a true Christian king, an example for many. He always understood his royalty as a specifically Christian service.

The attachment to Rasputin was an evidence of the desire to touch upon the spirituality of the common people, an admirable trait. To have a spiritual advisor is recommended to every Christian. Remember that the person of Rasputin was knowingly discredited by the Masons to further slander the Tsarina.

[annalex]

Thank you for your post.

This part, however:

The Tzar had given up the [throne]

...is questionable. The abdication is written in pencil, the only document by the Tsar's hand not written in ink, and appeared in the papers before the cable containing it could physically arrive. There was at least an undue pressure put on His Majesty by "cowards and traitors" as he summarily called them at the time. In any event, that is not a legally valid abdication even if written by him.

[annalex]

Thank you for reading.

[annalex]

I wish the occasion was different but it is so nice hearing from you.

[annalex]

...in the same fashion our government congratulated the muslim brotherhood

To our American defense, the Congress at the time probably operated on the unsophisticated presumption that monarchies were all evil. Hopefully now we know better. I believe in progress.

I am not convinced congratulating the Muslim Brotherhood was unequivocally bad. It is perhaps improvident. Remember, that when a popular uprising overthrows a dictator, like Mubarak was, there is a reason to presume the emerging from the elections government as legitimate. Certainly, there is no symmetry between monarchy and a military dictator propped up by bayonets, no matter who paid for the said bayonets.

[stfassisi]

I guess we will have to disagree on this,dear friend. I don’t believe that there is and ever was innocence that can be defended in the US government system back during the time of communism and history, and I certainly know that political correctness is nothing more than cultural marxism on how the US government has evolved.

The whole US system was flawed from the start and we see the fruits of these grave flaws through the lens of its very short history

[married21]

Thanks for the bit of perspective. I saw “Nicholas and Alexandra” on tv many years ago, and that’s all I knew about it.

[annalex]

But that’s its very flaw: the notion that because King George deserved overthrowing in the colonies, all monarchies deserve overthrowing.

[Campion]

This thread needs appropriate music

[annalex]

If we were thrown down a well

The royal victims of the Ipatieff house were not given the human decency of a regular execution either. There were revolver bullets and bayonets. The 14 year old Tsarevich took eleven bullets. "That kid would not die" remarked one of the murderers.

Stalin troikas' five minute trials and a bullet in the nape of the head was humane in comparison.

[stfassisi]

“”all monarchies deserve overthrowing.””

Perhaps you might rethink this after seeing this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPbTSFIbdK8&feature=related

[annalex]

Thank you.

It is noteworthy that Denikin would not have it, and his entire army was, by his own admission to the right of him politically.

Trotsky feared one thing: that the Whites would adopt the slogan “for the Tsar of the kulaks”. But the Whites could not stomach it, being themselves every shade of pink.

[annalex]

you might rethink this

I did not think that to begin with; I am principally a monarchist. The American Revolution was exceptional as you can hardly view King George as a father figure to the colonies.

To be a monarchist does not mean to support every monarchy. The monarch has obligations, and great many of them. Some cannot hack it and lose their crowns. That typically, and again not always, a worse evil replaces them is another story.

[stfassisi]

“”To be a monarchist does not mean to support every monarchy.””

Agreed!

In the case of Russia, the US was completely following evil when it supported the overthrow of the Romanovs.There was nothing innocent about it.

To add to that the US supported Stalin who killed even more people than Hitler in joining a selfish alliance with with Stalin.

When people like Bishop Fulton Sheen and Cardinal Spellman spoke out against the evils of Stalin they were promptly investigated by the FBI and Spellman was labeled with all kinds of falsehood by the American press.

I have read the declassified FBI files of Sheen and Spellman

[OldCorps]

No, you posted in the original article the icon of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia; that feast day is a moveable feast day celebrated on a Sunday in January. Whatever your source of information, they got the icon wrong.

The feast of the Royal Martyrs of Russia in a non moveable feast (i.e. based on the menaion) celebrated always July 4th (Julian Calander). This was the day they were martyred by the communists. It is said that Lenin ordered their murder to be performed on this day as a overture to the U.S. (Some of the money that funded the bolsheviks came from the U.S.).

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (which you incorrectly refered to aa ROCOR) under Metropolitan Philaret glorified the Royal Martyrs in 1981. The MP later adopted the same service (troparion, kontakion, Odes for the canon read at matins and other verses). I believe this service for the Royal Martyrs was adopted for use by other Orthodox Churches.

You are correct that the ROCA and MP glorifed different saints; Metroplitan Joseph of Petrograd comes to mind.

[annalex]

I definitely think that the allowing of the financing of the bolshevik revolution and alliance with Stalin were both wrong policies. I merely point out the instincts that made these mistakes possible.

Have you read Sutton on the role of the US government in the bolshevik revolution? I forget the title, but I can check later.

[annalex]

OK, sorry for the confusion. The article is about New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, so the icon is right for the article.

Indeed the MP reluctantly glorified a different set of saints, and they did it differently, replacing “velikomuchenik” (great martyr) with “strastoterpetz” (sufferer of passion), underlying the MP’s skepticism regarding the pedagogical merit of the martyrdom. Is that correct?

[OldCorps]

Lol, I guess some of the confusion was on my end. You posted the article ON July 4th, the feast day of the Royal Martyrs of Russia...I erronously thought the post was only about them. Yes, they (the Royal Martyrs) are also part of the New Martyrs of Russia, and that is why they are centrally located on the icon.

...“velikomuchenik” (great martyr) with “strastoterpetz” (sufferer of passion), underlying the MP’s skepticism regarding the pedagogical merit of the martyrdom. Is that correct?

I'm trying to keep this brief, but its kind of hard because I have to refer to a lot of history or the Russian Orthodox Church after the Russian Revolution...and how the so called Soviet government used the MP as an extension of soviet power. Suffice it to say that the MP today is just the continuation of the soviet church, run by the GPU/NKVD/KGB and now the FSB. Actually, the MP ommitted only a few of the ROCA saints glorified by ROCA.

In the 1980's and early '90's the MP was an institution that was literally an extension of the soviet govenment, but they had no clout with the Russian people who knew the MP hierarchs were just KGB operatives. Thus the MP was an organization of the state, but without any spiritual legitimacy. ROCA had a great deal of spiritual authority WITHIN Russia because of its great suffering and ascetic hierarchs: Metropolitans Anthony, Annastassy and Philaret.

I wouldn't put too much in the distinction between the ROCA's and MP's use of martyr or passion bearer...I think it was just the MP trying to show just a little bit of independent thinking. But, they had to go along with the glorification of the New Martyrs of Russia (and the Royal Martyrs) because that is what the people in Russia wanted. In fact, I personally think the term pasion bearer is more appropriate given that Tsar Nicholas II was murdered for the sins of the people just as our Savior was crucified.

St. Nicolas the Tsar was born on the feast day of the much suffering Job of the old Testament. He knew he was going to suffer greatly...and he did so with great dignity and Christian love.

Here is the icon of the New Martyrs of Russia written (painted for you non Orthodox) by Archimandrite Kyprian of Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, NY for use at the glorification in 1981. On this icon, the Royal Martyrs are at the center of the lower third.

[stfassisi]

“”I definitely think that the allowing of the financing of the bolshevik revolution and alliance with Stalin were both wrong policies. I merely point out the instincts that made these mistakes possible.””

Dear Brother, these bad decisions the US made were well thought out IMHO.

Too many Americans have been brainwashed(not claiming you are) into thinking anyone who speaks out against the bad decisions of america is un patriotic, but it is the farthest thing from the truth.

From the words of Joe Sobran...

The patriot differs from the nationalist in this respect too: he can laugh at his country, the way members of a family can laugh at each other’s foibles. Affection takes for granted the imperfection of those it loves; the patriotic Irishman thinks Ireland is hilarious, whereas the Irish nationalist sees nothing to laugh about.

The nationalist has to prove his country is always right. He reduces his country to an idea, a perfect abstraction, rather than a mere home. He may even find the patriot’s irreverent humor annoying.

Patriotism is relaxed. Nationalism is rigid. The patriot may loyally defend his country even when he knows it’s wrong; the nationalist has to insist that he defends his country not because it’s his, but because it’s right. As if he would have defended it even if he hadn’t been born to it! The nationalist talks as if he just “happens,” by sheer accident, to have been a native of the greatest country on earth — in contrast to, say, the pitiful Belgian or Brazilian.

Because the patriot and the nationalist often use the same words, they may not realize that they use those words in very different senses. The American patriot assumes that the nationalist loves this country with an affection like his own, failing to perceive that what the nationalist really loves is an abstraction — “national greatness,” or something like that. The American nationalist, on the other hand, is apt to be suspicious of the patriot, accusing him of insufficient zeal, or even “anti-Americanism.”

When it comes to war, the patriot realizes that the rest of the world can’t be turned into America, because his America is something specific and particular — the memories and traditions that can no more be transplanted than the mountains and the prairies. He seeks only contentment at home, and he is quick to compromise with an enemy. He wants his country to be just strong enough to defend itself.

But the nationalist, who identifies America with abstractions like freedom and democracy, may think it’s precisely America’s mission to spread those abstractions around the world — to impose them by force, if necessary. In his mind, those abstractions are universal ideals, and they can never be truly “safe” until they exist, unchallenged, everywhere; the world must be made “safe for democracy” by “a war to end all wars.” We still hear versions of these Wilsonian themes. Any country that refuses to Americanize is “anti-American” — or a “rogue nation.” For the nationalist, war is a welcome opportunity to change the world. This is a recipe for endless war.

In a time of war hysteria, the outraged patriot, feeling his country under attack, may succumb to the seductions of nationalism. This is the danger we face now.