Matrona of Moscow: Distraction from the REAL Saints

[SavaBeljovic]

This thread has been difficult to read. I am wondering how the posters had expected new converts to be able to distinguish the validity of a canonization, when one has already been thrown into the deep-end of having to accept that miracles are true events or that otherwise "supernatural" events are not the result of delusion, hypnosis, or some other secular rationalization, but are the grace of God acting through His saints? If I had accepted the stories of other saints that the church recognizes, then how am I justify suspicion of saints such as Matrona, Paisios, Porphyrios etc.?
I had started to watch the Russian docu-drama series on St.Matrona but honestly I found it overly sensationalized (among other things) and couldn't get through more than a few episodes. I have icons of the 3 saints mentioned above and I used to pray to them everyday, although I have stopped.

There are some valid, from my ignorant perspective, concerns addressed here but also some rather wild claims without evidence. How is anyone supposed to verify any of the stories of 99% of the canonized saints? It was incredibly difficult for me to accept the descriptions in the Lives of Saints and not be skeptical of the miracles and the experiences.

I guess what I am asking is, what is the criteria used to determine if the church has canonized a saint purely for political/PR reasons?

I like what my Vladyka (Abp. Andrei of Pavlovskoye and Rockland) says about this: When the ROCOR and OCA glorified St. Herman of Alaska, they did so the same week in sort of a "race" to see who could do it first, the ROCOR in their life of St. Herman they published in 1970 mentioned his ascetical struggles, his evangelization work, the slanders against him, things you would typically see in hagiography.

When the OCA glorified him and put out their life, they talked about how much St. Herman fought for social justice and protected the poor Aleuts from the racist Russians, and how much he loved children etc.

Now there's nothing particularly wrong with that, but it shows what the focus was for each Church -- literally it represents the ROCOR caring more about the spiritual things whereas the OCA cared more about the worldly things. The Roman Catholics when they talk about Francis of Assisi or Anthony of Padua, they tend to focus on the good works they did and how much everyone loved them versus their spiritual struggles.

St. Gregory Palamas was hated by a majority of people when he was alive, St. Vasilije of Ostrog was almost completely unknown even in Serbia, many Saints were not easy people to get along with (like St. Germogen of Tobolsk), so I think it's suspicious if turn Sainthood into some sort of popularity contest or about how likable someone was. Besides who is doing the glorification (as the WO cannot perform valid glorifications) or whether or not these "Saints" were heretics or remained in communion with heretics, we'd have to examine why they're glorifying the Saint and what exactly they're choosing to focus on.

The OCA recently glorified this Matushka Olga Mikhail, where there's a combined total of three pages about her life and they've been loudly proclaiming about how she's the "first Native American woman Saint of America" etc. etc.

Today (July 20th) the EP/OCA/other WO recognize this Maria (Skobtsova) of Paris and those with her, who were supposedly killed in the gas chambers (Fr. Joseph noted that contemporary sources say she died of dysentery). Maria Skobtsova was a Communist, a spiritual daughter of Sergei Bulgakov, who was condemned by both the ROCOR and the Sergianist church as a heretic, and not particularly remarkable for anything else besides being killed by the Nazis.

It looks more like this was a glorification done for "political hay" so they could say they had a "Martyr killed by Nazis" than anything. Right now the MP is trying to glorify Aleksandr Suvorov -- who did live a very pious life -- but his glorification is being called for by Sergei Shoigu -- a Buddhist and advisor to Putin -- so the Russian Army can have a patron Saint. Maybe he is a Saint, especially as he lived long before Sergianism, but the MP would glorify him so they could promote Putin's military cult more than anything.

There's plenty of examples of questionable glorifications by the WO and they seem to be done for a variety of reasons. The OCA recently glorified Bishop Ioasaf (Bulotov) of Alaska, the first Bishop in America. We know almost nothing about him besides the fact he knew St. Herman of Alaska, he was a Bishop, he had an issue with alcohol, and his ordination may have been invalid due to Simony. Even if those latter claims were just slanders, the question still remains if that is enough for someone to be glorified.

I personally believe the OCA wants to glorify any halfway pious person (like Olga Mikhail) who lived in America, but the Orthodox Church does not just glorify pious people, we glorify Holy (Agios) people.

[Lemon Schist]

I personally believe the OCA wants to glorify any halfway pious person (like Olga Mikhail) who lived in America, but the Orthodox Church does not just glorify pious people, we glorify Holy (Agios) people.

What about confessors and martyrs? They weren't necessarily holy up to the point that they declared their belief in Christ and accepted death. We glorify them, which I don't have a problem with at all. Joint pointing it out and trying to understand. How are you defining "holy" in this context?

[SavaBeljovic]

I personally believe the OCA wants to glorify any halfway pious person (like Olga Mikhail) who lived in America, but the Orthodox Church does not just glorify pious people, we glorify Holy (Agios) people.

What about confessors and martyrs? They weren't necessarily holy up to the point that they declared their belief in Christ and accepted death. We glorify them, which I don't have a problem with at all. Joint pointing it out and trying to understand. How are you defining "holy" in this context?

Granted many Martyrs prior to their Martyrdom (Martyrios in Greek literally means "witness", like a witness bearing testimony in court) weren't Holy (Saintly) people. The Ancient Canons of the Church, specifically the Synod of Laodicea specifically references the veneration of Martyrs and implies Martyrs can be venerated the very same hour they are killed.

It is the opinion of several Saints (including St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite and St. Nikodim of Dalmatia-Istria) that Martyrs do not need to be glorified. However the Synod of Laodicea also mentions that the "Martyrdom" of heretics is not a Martyrdom, but specifically calls it a suicide. Same with their asceticism.

St. Seraphim of Sarov in his conversation with N.A. Motovilov says: "...the goal of the Christian life isn't simply to avoid sin, but to acquire the Holy Spirit..." The Saints were Holy through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that came through their asceticism, spiritual works, sufferings etc.

I saw your second post after I made my first (my apologies) where you specifically mentioned Saints who were not well liked in their lifetime. For us in True Orthodoxy this is a common reality even to this day, as there are still people who while they were alive did not like St. John Maximovitch, St. Philaret, St. Jose Munoz Cortes and others. But we cannot accept people like Paisios, Porphyrios, Iakovos or these other New Calendarist/Sergianist "Saints" because they remained in communion with heretics, which is an automatic disqualifier for Holiness.

St. John Chrysostom says blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the sin that cannot be forgiven, is heresy and schism. St. John Maximovitch writes that not even the baptism of blood (Martyrdom) can wash away heresy or schism. The Roman Catholics claim to have "Saints" (like Padre Pio) who worked miracles, or incorrupt relics. But we know the Salvific Grace and True Gifts of the Holy Spirit (the latter of which demons can replicate like clairvoyance) only abides in the Orthodox Church, which is held in the Confession of the True Faith as St. Maximos the Confessor states.

post scriptum: Patriarch Dositheus II in his Confession (Synod of Jerusalem 1672) also defines the difference between piety and Sainthood.

[Barbara]

Great comments

Quick question, yes I too had noticed the date on the calendar for Sister [do we recognize her as a valid nun ??] Maria Skobtsova. I normally would not even SEE it on the list. But this year her name jumped out, probably for this thread !

George Skobtsova is mentioned also, as having reposed in 1944
Is that her : father ? brother ?

2nd, I like very much what Fr Joseph said about the real cause of Maria Skobtsova's death.

I have researched World War II resistance movements quite a bit.
The truth is that MANY who were proclaimed killed in some horrific way
by the Germans were really NOT. They were more likely to have died of TYPHUS in the camps than anything else

I know a few examples where the deceased person was proclaimed a secular martyr to drum up sympathy amongst the war-torn Western masses.
"Carve Her Name with Pride" was a British movie made to glorify Violette Szabo, who served in SOE in France. Thus to justify the participation in World War II to a war-weary English public who might well have wondered, "Was it WORTH IT ? Why did we DO THAT ?"

Another was Noor Inayat Khan, also in the SOE [Special Operations Excecutive, a bland name to camouflage a sabotage group sent in by the British to many European countries, even I think as far away as Malaysia] in France.
There is NO evidence for them and many others having been put to death by the Germans. It was vastly more likely that they and many others died of disease, such as TB, which like typhus, was rampant in those camps. No one ever talks about THAT side of things, however.

So Fr Joseph is 100% right about Maria Skobtsova.

[Lemon Schist]

Patriarch Dositheus II in his Confession (Synod of Jerusalem 1672)

This was a fascinating read, thanks for referencing it. I've spent a lot of time reading spiritual books, but not much on the synodal declarations or the history of the church beyond the first few centuries. I've read so many of Paisios' books, that it is difficult for me to let go of the idea of him not being a saint, however as they say even the devil can quote scripture and there are plenty of Mega church pastors who are millionaires from book sales.

Off-topic but I was surprised by his decree regarding reading scripture.

[haralampopoulosjc]

The "church" did not accept these people as saints, because the World Orthodox are not a part of the Church. The Ecumenical Patriarch who glorified these people is not a valid authority for glorification.

The EP has ulterior motives for glorifying these people, as they're desperate for "saints" to prove their validity. Besides a few of the ones who are well known, they've canonized over a dozen or so obscure figures who maybe showed some piety during their lives, but didn't have any sort of cultus of veneration surrounding them.

[Lemon Schist]

The "church" did not accept these people as saints, because the World Orthodox are not a part of the Church. The Ecumenical Patriarch who glorified these people is not a valid authority for glorification.

The EP has ulterior motives for glorifying these people, as they're desperate for "saints" to prove their validity. Besides a few of the ones who are well known, they've canonized over a dozen or so obscure figures who maybe showed some piety during their lives, but didn't have any sort of cultus of veneration surrounding them.

Yes, but I had no clue up until less than a month ago that WO wasn't the church and neither do most people. My icon of Matrona was given to me by a Ukrainian Matushka(?) of an Ukrainian archpriest who was born in Canada and immigrated to US. An icon of Matrona is in our church. Even if people realize the heresy of ecumenism, they aren't necessarily going to find out or question the validity of these canonizations. I have the time to go down these rabbit holes but most people don't.