Thread: NEW Russian saints... 2000 since 1991 !?

From Swedish Radios site:

Originally Posted by Sveriges radio P1

Rysslandstimmarna denna vecka: Vi fokuserar på den senaste moderna och nästan-moderna ryska populärmusiken. Det kommer även att handla om rysk vidskepelse, och det faktum att 2000 personer blivit helgonförklarade i Ryssland efter Sovjetunionens fall. Naturligtvis uppmärksammas också 300-års jubileumet av slaget i Poltava. Missa inte!

Translation: Russia-hours this week: Among the highlights, the latest from the Russian music scene, but also focus on superstition among Russians. Investigation of the fact that 2000 people have been declared saints in Russia since Soviet times. Of course, this week we also commemorate the 300 year anniversary of the battle of Poltava. Do not miss!

Well, I missed it since I'm in England, and it sure was not Poltava that I wanted to hear about...

2000 people declared saints since 1991! Well... that's quite a lot! The Vatican makes less than one new saint per year I think!
What's going on? Does anybody know anything about this? Who are the saints?

Originally Posted by Johanna

What's going on? Does anybody know anything about this? Who are the saints?

AFAIK the majority of them are priests, who were murdered after October Revolution and during Stalin's rule:

Советская власть рассматривала Церковь как своего злейшего врага. Характеризуя период первого года после революции патриарх Тихон писал: «Хватают сотнями беззащитных, гноят целыми месяцами в тюрьмах, казнят смертью, часто без всякого следствия и суда, даже без упрощенного… суда.

Казнят епископов, священников, монахов и монахинь, ни в чем невинных, а просто по огульному обвинению в какой-то расплывчатой и неопределенной «контрреволюции…». Не проходит дня, чтобы в органах… печати не помещались самые чудовищные клеветы на Церковь Христову и ее служителей, злобные богохульства и кощунства».

Чрезвычайно жестокой была кампания 1921-22гг., связанная с голодом в России и изъятием церковных ценностей. Чтобы охарактеризовать политику государства по отношению к Церкви в это время, приведем слова В.И. Ленина из его секретного письма членам Политбюро от 19 марта 1922г.: «Для нас именно данный момент представляет из себя не только исключительно благоприятный, но и вообще единственный момент, когда мы можем 99-ю из 100 шансов на полный успех разбить неприятеля наголову… Именно теперь и только теперь, когда в голодных местностях едят людей и на дорогах валяются сотни, если не тысячи трупов, мы можем (и поэтому должны) провести изъятие церковных ценностей с самой бешеной и беспощадной энергией и не останавливаясь перед подавлением какого угодно сопротивления…

Чем большее число представителей реакционного духовенства и реакционной буржуазии удастся нам по этому поводу расстрелять, тем лучше».

В конце 20–начале 30-х гг. одновременно с коллективизацией и раскулачиванием под лозунгом «Долой кулака и его пособника – попа!» проходило искоренение Веры в деревне, где влияние Церкви было особенно сильно.

Пик борьбы с религией падает на 1937г., когда по делам, связанным с исповеданием Православия, было арестовано 136900 человек, из них расстреляно 8530 человек.

В период 50-60-х гг. происходили массовые разрушения церквей и притеснения священников и верующих. Н.С. Хрущевым была поставлена задача полностью уничтожить Церковь в нашей стране к 1980г.

Таким образом, уничтожение Церкви и физическое уничтожение близких к ней людей всегда было одним из основных направлений деятельности советской власти. В сознании церковного народа невинно пострадавшие в годы гонений епископы, клирики и миряне совершили подвиги мученичества и исповедничества (исповедания веры). Работа по их канонизации (причислению к лику святых) началась в начале 90-х годов. Первый этап завершился 19 августа 2000г., когда на юбилейном Архиерейском Соборе Русской Православной Церкви к лику святых были причислены более 1000 новомучеников и исповедников российских, за Христа пострадавших от безбожной власти в период гонений.

There are also members of the last emperor's family among these saints.

Holy c$&¤p!

I didn't understand too much of that, but I had no idea the Bolsheviks did that to the priests! Ordinary religious people must have been near suicidal after seeing the priests treated in such terrible a way... That's really, really awful Why wasn't I taught about this in school? Frankly I can't remember reading about anyone dying in the Russian revolution, other than the Czar family and some kulaks.

It's seems like a very good thing to acknowledge the killing of these priests.

But still, if the priests were "just" killed for their faith, then they ought to be MARTYRS and not SAINTS, oughtn't they? A martyr is someone who dies for his faith. I think a Saint has to carry out a lot of self-less acts or have some extraordinary gift.... But of course, I am a Lutheran so I don't know much about saints...

And the emperor family? Perhaps they ought to be restored/rehabilitated in some way, but surely nobody thinks there was anything holy about them... ? Or do they?

Originally Posted by Johanna

But still, if the priests were "just" killed for their faith, then they ought to be MARTYRS and not SAINTS, oughtn't they? A martyr is someone who dies for his faith. I think a Saint has to carry out a lot of self-less acts or have some extraordinary gift.... But of course, I am a Lutheran so I don't know much about saints...

Yes, they are martyrs. In Orthodox Christianity SAINT is a general term for all people recognized by the Church including prophets, apostles, martyrs, reverends etc...

Originally Posted by Johanna

And the emperor family? Perhaps they ought to be restored/rehabilitated in some way, but surely nobody thinks there was anything holy about them... ? Or do they?

Considering the fact that Nicholas II has brought well-doing and prosperous Russia to such catastrophic events I'm thinking that he must be anathematised. The Russian Orthodox church says he's a saint. I blame him for ineptness and cowardice. It was he who created the revolution, not the bolsheviks and his death is simply a logical end to his actions. His children were innocents of course, but I hardly think that they were more saint than millions of other innocents who were killed during the revolution and the civil war.

Thanks for explaining.. I guess something was lost in translation to the Swedish site. They should have said martyrs, not saints. I thought the Russian Orthodox church had lost all proportions when I read "2000 new saints". But this completely explains it.

Re the tsar family..... Interesting, I did not know that about Tsar Nicholas II - but he seems a bit lame for having got involved with "Rasputin" -and his wife too! That's about all I know of them. But the revolution could have happened in most European countries, really - I guess it's like you say; all the pre-requisites were in place in Russia and that's why it happened there.

Actually - I was at a ball here in London with some Swedish friends (ca 2005 - long before I got interested in Russia) called the "Russian ball" - a somewhat glamorous social event. Some of the people there were descendants of aristocrats who left Russia after the revolution. An man was there who was introduced as "second in line to the throne of Russia". He spoke English with a British accent. Can't remember the name. He held a long and very cryptical speech -- actually, I thought he was very creepy. I'd be very surprised if he's allowed to get any influence in Russia, but some of the people at this ball seemed to think it was possible and treated him with reverence.

Originally Posted by Johanna

But the revolution could have happened in most European countries, really - I guess it's like you say; all the pre-requisites were in place in Russia and that's why it happened there.

Yes, but firstly he allowed these pre-requisites to form up and secondly - he did nothing to prevent their development. There were thousands of warnings starting from 1905 (well, starting from the death of his grandfather Alexander II) but he ignored all of them. There were many ways to avert the disaster but it appeared that he was deliberately choosing the worst possible course of action in any given situation. We all know what happenned next.

P.S. An interesting fact. Nicholas II was Russian only by 1/64, his son Alexey - by 1/128. Technically, our tsar was a German. A cousin to Wilhelm II (a German Kaiser).

Interesting to hear he was German. That's what the English say about the Windsor family (current queen) too... The Swedish royal family practically hasn't a drop of Swedish blood either (which is why they don't look Swedish). They are French/German. I am not a big monarchist...

Originally Posted by Johanna

Interesting to hear he was German.

Russian tzars traditionally married on German princesses. And if a father is Russian and a mother is German, then their son is half Russian half German. And when he marries in his turn on another German woman his son will be only one quarter Russian and three quarter German and so on...

Originally Posted by Johanna

And the emperor family? Perhaps they ought to be restored/rehabilitated in some way, but surely nobody thinks there was anything holy about them... ? Or do they?

Russian tsars were officially Protectors of the Christianity or something like that. And Bolsheviks were fighting against religion. So it is naturally to consider tsar a martyr. And a royal family was murdered in a very disgusting way, in some sense this action is a symbol of all those years of massacre.

Again rehabilitation is not needed for them because they have not been accused, judged and found guilty in anything.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yes, but firstly he allowed these pre-requisites to form up and secondly - he did nothing to prevent their development.

It's rather interesting to hear those thoughts from an anarchist... I remember you were advocating a no-government approach, so logically, a less intruding governance should have been your favourite, shouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yes, but firstly he allowed these pre-requisites to form up and secondly - he did nothing to prevent their development.

It's rather interesting to hear those thoughts from an anarchist... I remember you were advocating a no-government approach, so logically, a less intruding governance should have been your favourite, shouldn't it?

Well an anarchist would not support there being a tsar in the first place, right?

I think the point is that since the tsar was in that position of tremendous power, it was his moral duty to try to help improve the lives of the peasants, prevent unnecessary wars and build up the economy.

But according to Ramil he pretty much did the opposite.

Maybe the tsar thought he was completely safe. Marx said that a revolution could only happen in industrialised countries.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yes, but firstly he allowed these pre-requisites to form up and secondly - he did nothing to prevent their development.

It's rather interesting to hear those thoughts from an anarchist... I remember you were advocating a no-government approach, so logically, a less intruding governance should have been your favourite, shouldn't it?

I was never an advocate of chaos. Some people confuse anarchy and chaos, but these things are not the same. And the mass consciousness must be prepared for self-governing, you don't just throw the whole country into chaos and see what would happen. You wouldn't expect anything good out of it, would you?

Originally Posted by Johanna

I think the point is that since the tsar was in that position of tremendous power, it was his moral duty to try to help improve the lives of the peasants, prevent unnecessary wars and build up the economy.

Ok, so what does it mean "improve the lives of the peasants?" If the peasants want to govern the country, wouldn't it improve their lives? Quite the opposite: the harsh measures would have been just solidifying his own "tremendous power" and crush all peasant's will.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I was never an advocate of chaos. Some people confuse anarchy and chaos, but these things are not the same. And the mass consciousness must be prepared for self-governing, you don't just throw the whole country into chaos and see what would happen. You wouldn't expect anything good out of it, would you?

I definitely wouldn't. And since the recent economic crisis events took place, everyone out there shouting about how important is the role of the government as a regulator. I would have assumed mass consciousness is prepared to deal with the money issues on their own (most of the time). And yet the lack of the regulations took its toll. We have talked about it long time ago, and I'm still not convinced the anarchy would ever work. To say that the human nature en mass would change in the future IMHO would be really stretching it out, as it never happened in the past. Come to say of it, the communists also thought there would be new-nature men but they planned doing it actively:

Originally Posted by Николай Иванович Бухарин, «Экономика переходного периода», глава X

С точки зрения большого по своей величине исторического масштаба, пролетарское принуждение во всех своих формах, начиная от расстрелов и кончая трудовой повинностью, является, как парадоксально это ни звучит, методом выработки коммунистического человечества из человеческого материала капиталистической эпохи.

Is there anything in store for the present normal-nature people?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Is there anything in store for the present normal-nature people?

:"":

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ok, so what does it mean "improve the lives of the peasants?" If the peasants want to govern the country, wouldn't it improve their lives? Quite the opposite: the harsh measures would have been just solidifying his own "tremendous power" and crush all peasant's will.

Crocodile - You might be talking about your own great grandparents!!! Would you really have wanted them "crushed"? What about compassion! They had terrible lives. How can you have such cold-blooded views!

In both the UK, Sweden and Finland, the general opinion is that a revolution was avoided by quickly improving conditions for the poorest in society through legislation, charity and all other means available. For example that's when many of the millions of little workers cottages were built in the UK (now middle class people live in them, lol!!!)

My grandfather's family owned a farm in Sweden that had some peasants living on the lands. He said that his father decided to upgrade the houses of all the peasants after a communist meeting had been held in the village there... The peasants were inspired by the Russian revolution. However when they noticed that things became better and they could vote in general elections, then things cooled down.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Crocodile - You might be talking about your own great grandparents!!! Would you really have wanted them "crushed"? What about compassion! They had terrible lives. How can you have such cold-blooded views!

No, I haven't, but the tzar really had: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281905%29
Remember, at that time tzar was a real monarchy not like a constitutional monarchy of the UK.

Originally Posted by Johanna

The peasants were inspired by the Russian revolution. However when they noticed that things became better and they could vote in general elections, then things cooled down.

Exactly!! But Russia was lacking that experience, so they used a different means. It's partly by looking at the result of those means that the other countries had learned they should really start considering the peasants also being humans.

2000 new Orthodox saints... Who needs such much?