Tsar-Martyr Nicholas with the Royal Martyr Tsarina Alexandra and her sister the Grand Duchess Elizabeth
Posted on 07/17/2012 5:38:48 AM PDT by annalex
Why do Orthodox Americans, French, Swedes, and those outside Russia need to revere the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia? It is clear what they did for Russia, but why are the Russian New Martyrs so significant for people in the West? Why should we pray to them? “PravMir” asked several people to respond to these questions.
Father Andrew Phillips, Rector of St. John the Wonderworker Orthodox Church in Colchester, England:
First of all, the New Martyrs and Confessors are multinational, not merely Russian, or even only East Slav, Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian. Like the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire was multinational. At once there comes to mind the heroic examples of the Royal Martyr Tsarina Alexandra and her sister the Grand Duchess Elizabeth who were Anglo-German by blood and upbringing. They represented the best of the West, but they were brought to Paradise by their faithfulness to Russian Orthodoxy. Then there were Nicholas (Johnson) (+ 1918), who was Anglo-Russian, or St John of Riga, who was Latvian. And there were many, many others of many nationalities, united by only one thing, the Russian Orthodox Faith.
Tsar-Martyr Nicholas with the Royal Martyr Tsarina Alexandra and her sister the Grand Duchess Elizabeth
Their witness is not political. They all witness to the Church; they are above party or partial politics of left or right. Christ and His Church are paramount for them and they were ready to die for Him. Yesterday, for instance, in Munich the New Martyr Alexander (Schmorell), a victim of Nazism, was canonized by the Church Outside of Russia with representatives from Russia and his name was added to the list of New Martyrs and Confessors. Their sacrifice is not political, it is spiritual – a witness to the values that are not of this world, a witness to the fact that our human destiny is not here, but on the other side, which all human beings are called to and for which we must prepare in the here and now.
Then there are the numbers involved. This is greater than the numbers who were martyred for Christ in the first three centuries. So far over 30,000 have been officially glorified by the Church, but there are many more. It has been noted that this number appears to be linked with the number of churches open in the Russian Orthodox Church. The consciousness of the New Martyrs and Confessors is what has changed Russia over the last 20 years and will change it further, if people continue to repent and be Churched, taking on the spiritual and so moral values of the Church. I believe that the Russian Orthodox are at the beginning of this process, that there is still far to go.
We recall the words of Tertullian, repeated by St Cyprian of Carthage: ‘The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church’. I have baptized many people from Russia because of the witness of the New Martyrs and Confessors. ‘It cannot be that all was in vain’, said one of them. ‘I cannot live and ignore their spiritual feat’. In Russia of course tens of millions have been baptized over the last 20 years. Although the West still has little idea of the New Martyrs and Confessors, but word is spreading.
In them there is an alternative to the empty consumerism and indebtedness to materialism of the West and the Western system which has spread worldwide. This system is based on individualism, the convenience and comfort of the ego bubble of self-absorption. Opposed to this is the spirit of sacrifice, to sacrifice us for a great and noble cause. The only alternative to the spiritual deprivation and poverty of Western materialism is the love of Orthodoxy of the Martyrs and Confessors, the New Saints. This is not of the political left or right, which simply argues about the details of distribution of material benefits. The Church offers another system, which says that justice and just societies are good, but that the salvation of our soul is more important. In fact there will only be just societies when the human souls which make them up are convinced that Christ and His Church, against which the gates of hell will not prevail, is at the aim and at the heart of our lives. Where is the proof of all this? It is in the New Martyrs and Confessors. If they were willing to die for Christ’s Church, then we must also be willing to do so. In this sense the example of the New Martyrs and Confessors is a warning to the West: Repent before it is too late.
Father Sergei Sveshnikov, Rector of the world’s first parish named in honor of the New Martyrs, in Mulino, Oregon:
I think that this question can have several different answers, perhaps even on an individual level, but I would like to focus our attention on two.
First of all, for Christians, saints are the standards of life in Christ. In canonizing a saint, the Church gives us a canon, a rule to follow. In this sense, Russian saints are important to the French in just the same way that French saints are important to the Russians – as examples and standards for anyone who wants to lead a Christian life. In Christ, there is neither Greek nor Jew; so, when we think of Saint Stephen, we do not often think of the fact that he was a Jew or understand what he did for Israel, but rather see him as an example of the kind of faith and boldness in Christ to which we all should aspire. In much the same way, Americans or Europeans or Asians or Africans who learn about the New Russian Martyrs will undoubtedly find them to be examples of faith and love that were shaken by “neither tribulation, prison, nor death.”[1]
But there is another aspect of the glorification of the New Martyrs which may be important to both Christians and non-Christians alike. The New Russian Martyrs are a constant reminder to all who are working to build heaven on earth without God. Nowadays, we think of the communists as some evil people who set out to torture and murder, yet this is simply not true. The communists believed that they were building the infamous “bright future” for everyone in the world – a future of freedom, equality, brotherhood, [2] and happiness for all. People in the Soviet Union did not think that they lived in an oppressive and totalitarian society. In fact, they were convinced that their country was the most democratic and free in the whole world. They earnestly believed that they were building a life which was “better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.”[3]
This almost sounds Christian. Doesn’t Christ want all to be happy? Didn’t He come to free us? Aren’t we brothers and sisters? And weren’t all men created equal? All this is true, but not quite. To give people freedom, equality, and brotherhood in the kingdom of God, Christ sacrificed Himself. To give people the same in the kingdom of communism, communists sacrificed the people. According to Feodor Dostoevsky’s horrifyingly accurate analysis, one hundred million people would die for the success of the revolution in Russia. [4] Not all of them were Christians, not all of them died for Christ, but Christ died for each and every one.
For three decades the Russian Orthodox Church has been lifting up the holy lives and deaths of the New Martyrs as an example for the faithful and a reminder to the whole world. It is a reminder that when people reject the “one thing needful,” [5] when they reject Christ, they follow a path of destruction—millions of human lives ground up to feed the communist beast, and no “bright future.” “By their fruits you will know them” [6]; and the fruits of godlessness are blood, death, devastation, and collapse. There is only one ending to the story of the Tower of Babel. And it would be a horrible mistake to think that communist ideals can be substituted with those of capitalism—the result will inevitably be the same. The only path which leads to the true bright future for mankind is Christ.[7] For as long as we chase after “the bright future,” the “American Dream,” or the same “rose” by any other name—humanity is destined to failure. It is only when we start seeking first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness that all other things will take their rightful places in our lives.[8]
Cornel Dascalu, Sunday school teacher and parishioner of the Holy Virgin Mary Orthodox Cathedral, Los Angeles, California:
For Orthodox people in America or Europe, or in any place outside of Russia, the subject of the New Martyrs is of primary importance. Violence was done to members of the Body of Christ and it is this thinking that tells us that they are of us and we of them, even today. I do not speak Aramaic or Greek, or Latin for that matter, but we still honor and remember the martyrdom of those under tyrannous rulers. That is the key, to remember. The good thief cries, “Remember me!” To be remembered, kept alive in the mind, is part of the salvation process. Alive in Christ, whether here or on the other side, is to be thought of by God. Russia’s many martyrs are also an admonition to us that the seemingly friendly world around us of today can change into a ferocious and murderous abattoir tomorrow. Will we respond as they did? If we were thrown down a well, as were Grand Duchess St. Elizabeth and Nun Barbara, would we sing our hymns in the deep dark before grenades followed to silence us? No need to recall macabre deaths in the coliseums of the ancient world, we have had and have them still here in our century. The non-Christian world is silent about their lives, no movies, no documentaries, no journalistic investigations. But they live! And we witness to their witness before an idolatrous world that Christ lives.
_________________________
[1] From the kontakion to the new Russian martyrs.
[2] Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité is the motto of France since the Third Republic. This also became a prominent motto of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union: “Peace, labor, freedom, equality, brotherhood, happiness for all people.”
[3] This happens to be John Truslow Adams’ definition of the American Dream (Epic of America).
[4] The Possessed, 1872. Later, Solzhenitsyn noted the exact correspondence to the number of victims of the revolution.
[5] Luke 10:42
[6] Matt. 7:16
[7] John 14:6
[8] Matt. 6:33
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for reading.
I wish the occasion was different but it is so nice hearing from you.
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.
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
Thanks for the bit of perspective. I saw “Nicholas and Alexandra” on tv many years ago, and that’s all I knew about it.
But that’s its very flaw: the notion that because King George deserved overthrowing in the colonies, all monarchies deserve overthrowing.
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.
“”all monarchies deserve overthrowing.””
Perhaps you might rethink this after seeing this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPbTSFIbdK8&feature=related
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.
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.
“”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
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.
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.
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?
...“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.
“”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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.