Why is the Tzar a saint?

[trevor72694]

I always see an icon of the Romanov passion-bearers when I see photographs of Russian monarchists marching and such.  I have an icon of them in my prayer corner that I've had for a long time, though recently I'm hesitant, as I've heard things about them, like that the Tzarina had other lovers, or that the Tzar was supportive of the Armenian genocide. 

Why, exactly, are these people considered saints?

 

[wgw]

Because they were brutally murdered for among other things their Orthodox faith; the Tsar supported the church heavily. Pas for the claim he supported the Armenian genocide I find this laughable as Russia was at war with Germany, who supported Turkey, when the genocide occurred.  I believe the legendary Assyrian military formation that fought well if I effectively had a Russian support.

But really, had the Tsar supported communism or atheism publically I am certain he could have saved his skin; Lenin was pragmatic and an act that would deflate the White Russian rebels and demoralize the Orthodox he would have supported.

But the fact is, the Tsar, though a terrible simmer, died a martyr.  But even if you don't care about him, consider poor Archduchess Anastasia, who was only 17, or poor Tsarevich Alexei, who had all his life suffered horribly from hemophilia, and when he was killed, was wheelchair bound.  And according to reports, the initial bullets didn't kill poor Alexei, so the communist executioner bayoneted him, a crippled 13 year old.  Such cruelty makes me weep, I am in fact crying now, literally, as I write this.

Along with Ss. Agnes, Mina and Abanoub, I include Alexei and Anastasia among the child saints I include in my devotions.  And by extension their relatives, out of respect to them, if nothing else, though I do believe the Tsar and his wife were good and pious Orthoodox.  His wife was deceived by the strange and evil Rasputin, who dressed as a monk but was not one, nor celibate, but an imposter most foul.  But the bishops tried unsuccessfully to warn the Tsar and his wife about Rasputin, but a prediction he made, either by chance or aided by demons, that Alexei would recover when at age 8 the prince known as Alyosha was most gravely ill, granted him access.  And Rasputin played a role in the rise of the communists.  But the poor Tsar and his wife were the victims of a poser; they were pious Prthodox who, having participated in the glorification services of St. Seraphim of Sarov and having lived in an age in which Russian spirituality was mainly driven by such elders, thought they had found a genuine starets in Rasputin, and can be forgiven for that error.

The other rumors are just hearsay, and are frankly irrelevant.  The priority with which the Russian church upon being freed from the Communist yoke glorified the Tsar and his family should be proof enough of their worthiness surely?

 

[Stavro]

But the fact is, the Tsar, though a terrible simmer, died a martyr.

I agree. He died for his faith and was devout to his church, nation and faith till the last breath. His murder was motivated by religious hatred foremost, although the political element is present as well.

He could have crushed the revolution though if he struck a deal with the Germans, which Lenin did anyways a few months later, and directed his army to against the rebels. Even though it proved to be a fatal political error, I think he was driven by his faith to recapture Constantinople and would rather sacrifice his throne than pull his army out of the war.

I understand why the Russians consider him a martyr, although they recognize his lack of leadership skills.

But the poor Tsar and his wife were the victims of a poser; they were pious Prthodox who, having participated in the glorification services of St. Seraphim of Sarov and having lived in an age in which Russian spirituality was mainly driven by such elders, thought they had found a genuine starets in Rasputin, and can be forgiven for that error.

What is the view of the Russian church on Rasputin? Are there any different sources other than Communist propaganda that discuss his life?

 

[Porter ODoran]

Short answer: If you're a martyr you're a saint.

Longer answer: Russians and the Russian Church discern him to be a saint, and that's their ancient and holy prerogative. These aren't matters for you and me, altho we may of course decide whom to put in our own prayer corners. Are you aware of any substantive opposition that was raised within the Church to his sainthood?

 

[wgw]

But the fact is, the Tsar, though a terrible simmer, died a martyr.

I agree. He died for his faith and was devout to his church, nation and faith till the last breath. His murder was motivated by religious hatred foremost, although the political element is present as well.

He could have crushed the revolution though if he struck a deal with the Germans, which Lenin did anyways a few months later, and directed his army to against the rebels. Even though it proved to be a fatal political error, I think he was driven by his faith to recapture Constantinople and would rather sacrifice his throne than pull his army out of the war.

I understand why the Russians consider him a martyr, although they recognize his lack of leadership skills.

But the poor Tsar and his wife were the victims of a poser; they were pious Prthodox who, having participated in the glorification services of St. Seraphim of Sarov and having lived in an age in which Russian spirituality was mainly driven by such elders, thought they had found a genuine starets in Rasputin, and can be forgiven for that error.

What is the view of the Russian church on Rasputin? Are there any different sources other than Communist propaganda that discuss his life?

I suggest Orthodoxwiki.  It's worth noting that Rasputin attempted to seize control of the Russian Orthodox Church through his relationship with the Empress.  He was murdered by nobleman a year before the Bolsheviks came to power, so he is not a New Martyr.  In the 1990s the late Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. Whose name escapes me, who I believe was a pious man, pushed for his glorification, and so there is a small minority group that is enthusiastic about his cult, but the majority as far as I can tell regard him most unfavorably. 

For my part I would cite the fact that one contemporary Orthodox clergyman with a trimmed beard complained of an expectation that he should look like Rasputin, as evidence of the damage he did; in hat there exists a priest who trims his beard or shaves because he does not want to look like that man, among other reasons.  Note on the subject of facial hair I encourage tolerance of a broad range of configurations but I love our beautiful bearded clergy, and so for clergy who wear a full beard, no obstacle should be put in their path, nor vice versa.  I was devastated a year ago when !etropolitan Philip Saliba and Patriarch Ignatius Zakka Iwas died around the same time, and they had opposite facial hair configurations, and though they were from two different communions, both had played an equally important role in my decision to become Orthodox (and indeed perhaps in my extreme love for both the Eastern and Oriental churches).

 

[Gunnarr]

But the fact is, the Tsar, though a terrible simmer, died a martyr.

I agree. He died for his faith and was devout to his church, nation and faith till the last breath. His murder was motivated by religious hatred foremost, although the political element is present as well.

He could have crushed the revolution though if he struck a deal with the Germans, which Lenin did anyways a few months later, and directed his army to against the rebels. Even though it proved to be a fatal political error, I think he was driven by his faith to recapture Constantinople and would rather sacrifice his throne than pull his army out of the war.

I understand why the Russians consider him a martyr, although they recognize his lack of leadership skills.

But the poor Tsar and his wife were the victims of a poser; they were pious Prthodox who, having participated in the glorification services of St. Seraphim of Sarov and having lived in an age in which Russian spirituality was mainly driven by such elders, thought they had found a genuine starets in Rasputin, and can be forgiven for that error.

What is the view of the Russian church on Rasputin? Are there any different sources other than Communist propaganda that discuss his life?

I suggest Orthodoxwiki.  It's worth noting that Rasputin attempted to seize control of the Russian Orthodox Church through his relationship with the Empress.  He was murdered by nobleman a year before the Bolsheviks came to power, so he is not a New Martyr.  In the 1990s the late Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. Whose name escapes me, who I believe was a pious man, pushed for his glorification, and so there is a small minority group that is enthusiastic about his cult, but the majority as far as I can tell regard him most unfavorably. 

For my part I would cite the fact that one contemporary Orthodox clergyman with a trimmed beard complained of an expectation that he should look like Rasputin, as evidence of the damage he did; in hat there exists a priest who trims his beard or shaves because he does not want to look like that man, among other reasons.  Note on the subject of facial hair I encourage tolerance of a broad range of configurations but I love our beautiful bearded clergy, and so for clergy who wear a full beard, no obstacle should be put in their path, nor vice versa.  I was devastated a year ago when !etropolitan Philip Saliba and Patriarch Ignatius Zakka Iwas died around the same time, and they had opposite facial hair configurations, and though they were from two different communions, both had played an equally important role in my decision to become Orthodox (and indeed perhaps in my extreme love for both the Eastern and Oriental churches).

Realistically, in what way did Rasputin actually "attempt to control the Church"? And what I have read is, Rasputin was painted by the Soviets very negatively in propaganda as well 

 

[Porter ODoran]

Realistically, in what way did Rasputin actually "attempt to control the Church"?

He would dictate to the family of the Tsar how the Church was to be run, even to the appointment of church officials.

 

[WPM]

Distribution of wealth & goods to the common people? ...

 

[Volnutt]

Realistically, in what way did Rasputin actually "attempt to control the Church"?

He would dictate to the family of the Tsar how the Church was to be run, even to the appointment of church officials.

And that was basically the Tsar's entire reign in a nutshell. He was a very hands off ruler.

Of course, he spent much of his tenure fighting in World War I.

 

[Volnutt]

Distribution of wealth & goods to the common people? ...

Little to none that I know of.

 

[Hopeful Faithful]

Greetings readers of this thread,

I like that people are honest enough to see hearsay, no doubt it is appropriate to bring that into any discussion on the Internet, hearsay seems to prevail, sometimes if not most of the time.

What further seems to me, as I often think along the lines of this subject, is just how humble a man Tsar Nicholas II truly was.

This last Tsar issued the 1905 edict of toleration towards the so-called Old Believers, I think of them as The Keepers of the Old Faith.

These things I point out now are something of far more value than hearsay.

Somehow my local reputation precedes me, some years ago I would make my way to and regularly meet with friendly acquaintances in Starbucks down towards town, actually inside town.

One day years ago, as I now avoid cities and towns, a person who thinks themselves wise spoke up across the coffee shop room and informed the kind neighbor next to me that he was sitting next to Rasputin.

This is something which, for a lot of general people in society today, may not be understood very well.

So, I decided to explain how it can be taken to be somewhat derogatory.

But I did not leave it at that, I took it upon myself to delve into and embark upon a more serious study, namely because the whole time period and happenings of Rasputin and the Royal Family is intriguing to me personally, and I always felt there was something more in my previous studies which I had left unstudied.

After a rather devoted period of study these are some of the more important details from various sources which I am willing to offer for consideration of anyone else who would be interested.

With an effort to stay apolitical here, I will say that the USA has always traded knowledge with Russia, one fascinating example would be the private correspondence between President Abraham Lincoln and Tsar Alexander II who both managed to abolish slavery, or serfdom, for their nation in their lifetime. In those handwritten letters is one quote which stands out from all the rest, that if President Lincoln had the choice, that he would choose to live under some benevolent despot like the Tsar of Russia. It would be so nice, for the people of Russia so loved the Tsar that all the Tsar needed was to make a pronouncement and all his subjects followed without so much as a whimper.

With that in mind, and that is important to this post, I will make the following comments.

If I recall correctly, and I could confirm this, it was just after the turn of centuries, to the 21st century, that Russia was looking to advance its forensic science.

Well, Russia, with worldly wisdom, turned to the USA.

So a noted expert was chosen, an expert with roots perhaps to The Keepers of the Old Russian Faith.

He went and was given somewhat of a red carpet treatment there in Russia.

As this expert had a good amount of free personal time he wanted to research connections that were made uniquely available to him.

His interest, the relationship of Rasputin to the Royal Family.

Right up his alley, as it were, was the fact that the Tsar, by Imperial command, ordered an autopsy to be done on Rasputin.

What the official files offered was a plethora of documents and references regarding all the various things which were going on.

Basically, Rasputin came from a distant village of the Keepers of the Old Faith in Siberia.

It was not Rasputin, but the Royal Family who would bid him to visit.

Further than that it seems that the Royal Family was being converted to the ideals of the Keepers of the Old Faith.

One of the more particularly interesting papers on file is the communiques that the Tsar became aware of regarding the murder of Rasputin.

Basically the Tsar learned that a high ranking member of the Romanov family, one of his closest relations in the leadership of Russia, I forget which one, immediately communicated after the murder of Rasputin that there was success, and that the responding person who is in England would have no further problem with the exploitation of the petroleum reserves in Russia.

Back then, like today, the world economy was largely oil based, and the wars are all about money, controlled by the bankster gangster jews who rule the world in an antichrist way.

Well, it is all about the Antichrist, if you ask me, I hope everyone can extrapolate appropriately and understand where this goes.

I think that I will leave this at that, I grow tired easily, but the bottom line for me personally is that I certainly do have more in common with Rasputin than I thought and I am glad that he was influencing the Royal Family to humbly take their hands off of the great evils of this world.

Of course the antichrist rule of this world would not have any kind new Nineveh happen, where the world would even have one nation which would repent, that is not allowed in their grand scheme of things.

May God bless the Royal Family, and forgive their sins.

The King of Glory knows their hearts and where they were going.

forgive

 

[Minnesotan]

Aren't there some Old Believers who consider Vladimir Lenin a holy starets, because of his role in overthrowing the Tsars?

 

[wgw]

Hopeful Faithful, with all due respect, I think the idea that Rasputin was a crypto Old Believer is laughable. And even if he was, he should have been excommunicated for his immoral behavior.  And the Soviet Union did a lousy job exploiting its oil resources and most of the corruotion since the fall of the USSR has revolved around this.  But the idea that the U.S. would want to empower the Soviet Union to overthrow the Czars to get a Russian oil is just not logical.  You do realize that on several occasions, Soviet belligerence nearly resulted in nuclear war that could have exterminated the human race?  The Soviet regime was an evil regime that persecuted Old Believers along with the new, mercilessly, and actually some Russian religious minorities such as the Russian Catholic Old Believers in communion with the Pope did die out as a result of Soviet policies.

And if any Old Believer thinks Lenin a saint, they should think of Prince Alexei sitting in terror, a 13 year old boy disabled and unable to walk, his entire family having been shot, with just him and the executioners, and think of the bullets going through poor Alyosha's head.  Then look at the artificially preserved "relic" that is the embalmed body of Lenin sitting intact, and requiring regular monthly baths and injections to avoid decomposing and to maintain it's "incorruptibility", while poor Alexei was cremated.  Actually Lenin wanted to be cremated whereas Alexei and his family should have been buried.  But whoever murders a 13 year old boy after killing his family in front of him, or issues orders allowing such a horror to occur, is no saint, no matter how evil the father of said boy was.  If Adolph Hitler had a son (not wishing to invoke Godwin's law, but it seems apt) by Eva Braun, I would not make him watch while I shot his parents, and then shoot him, even if under Hitlers orders similar atrocities were supported.

I have to confess I've always had a great love for, and a great sympathy towards, the Old Believers, on account of the unjust nature of their persecution.  But when I read something like this, which does not exactly radiate Christian love, it interferes with my sympathy for them, which I don't want to lose.  So I focus on the suffering of the original Old Believers, pray that the handful of extremist descendants will be forgiven for thinking such a thing (as Lenin being a saint), that are in their churches, and then use my Lestovka thinking of Ss. Seraphim of Sarov, Alexei and other a Russian saints who I love, who I feel love us from Heaven.

 

[Porter ODoran]

WGW, you may have a point, that sentimentality has entered into the "sainting" of the Tsar.

 

[hecma925]

He has one of the best moustaches in the world, so there's that.

 

[Hopeful Faithful]

Aren't there some Old Believers who consider Vladimir Lenin a holy starets, because of his role in overthrowing the Tsars?

Good health,

I have never met anyone who would say so, though it is not impossible, I would think that if there ever was such a person that it might actually be much different than that implies. There is a person across the way here who is Russian and claims to be a Keeper of the Old Faith, but they are certainly no longer practicing the Old Faith with their addiction to tobacco. There are wayward members in any group, even the King of Glory had a traitor among Him, some how things have a way of working out. It would be clear though to most people that an atheistic leader is not to be respected in that atheism. I would bring it back around more to the subject of this thread, that being that there no doubt are a few Keepers of the Old Faith in Russia at the time of Tzar Nicholas II who would have been unaware of the influences that Rasputin had, even today it seems that few people seem to remember just how supportive the Tsar was to the Old Faith, or how much he himself wished to follow it.

forgive

 

[homedad76]

If being granted the perfection of heaven required one to be perfect in life... the heavens would be a lonely place and our churches nearly bare.  This is not the first thread I've seen where people question the validity of a saint because of some sin they committed.  As if we are to weigh their lives out with the good on one side and the bad on the other.  This is a fool's errand. While some Saints are honored with feast days because of the totality of their Christian life... many are honored because of single moments which bore witness to an inner faith hidden under a life of less then good choices.

 

[hecma925]

If being granted the perfection of heaven required one to be perfect in life... the heavens would be a lonely place and our churches nearly bare.  This is not the first thread I've seen where people question the validity of a saint because of some sin they committed.  As if we are to weigh their lives out with the good on one side and the bad on the other.  This is a fool's errand. While some Saints are honored with feast days because of the totality of their Christian life... many are honored because of single moments which bore witness to an inner faith hidden under a life of less then good choices.

Amen.  We only need to think of the Good Thief.  What made him "good"?  Certainly nothing that got him on a cross in the first place.

 

[Georgii]

The way I look at it is, if God wants to make a person a saint, who are we to argue?

 

[Hopeful Faithful]

Hopeful Faithful, with all due respect, I think the idea that Rasputin was a crypto Old Believer is laughable. And even if he was, he should have been excommunicated for his immoral behavior.  And the Soviet Union did a lousy job exploiting its oil resources and most of the corruotion since the fall of the USSR has revolved around this.  But the idea that the U.S. would want to empower the Soviet Union to overthrow the Czars to get a Russian oil is just not logical.  You do realize that on several occasions, Soviet belligerence nearly resulted in nuclear war that could have exterminated the human race?  The Soviet regime was an evil regime that persecuted Old Believers along with the new, mercilessly, and actually some Russian religious minorities such as the Russian Catholic Old Believers in communion with the Pope did die out as a result of Soviet policies.

And if any Old Believer thinks Lenin a saint, they should think of Prince Alexei sitting in terror, a 13 year old boy disabled and unable to walk, his entire family having been shot, with just him and the executioners, and think of the bullets going through poor Alyosha's head.  Then look at the artificially preserved "relic" that is the embalmed body of Lenin sitting intact, and requiring regular monthly baths and injections to avoid decomposing and to maintain it's "incorruptibility", while poor Alexei was cremated.  Actually Lenin wanted to be cremated whereas Alexei and his family should have been buried.  But whoever murders a 13 year old boy after killing his family in front of him, or issues orders allowing such a horror to occur, is no saint, no matter how evil the father of said boy was.  If Adolph Hitler had a son (not wishing to invoke Godwin's law, but it seems apt) by Eva Braun, I would not make him watch while I shot his parents, and then shoot him, even if under Hitlers orders similar atrocities were supported.

I have to confess I've always had a great love for, and a great sympathy towards, the Old Believers, on account of the unjust nature of their persecution.  But when I read something like this, which does not exactly radiate Christian love, it interferes with my sympathy for them, which I don't want to lose.  So I focus on the suffering of the original Old Believers, pray that the handful of extremist descendants will be forgiven for thinking such a thing (as Lenin being a saint), that are in their churches, and then use my Lestovka thinking of Ss. Seraphim of Sarov, Alexei and other a Russian saints who I love, who I feel love us from Heaven.

Greetings,

I do not think it is respectful to suggest that Rasputin was crypto anything, I am not the only person who thinks Rasputin to be a Keeper of the Old Faith. Further, Keepers of the Old Faith have always had disparaging remarks hurled upon them for their being fornicators and worse, this is really nothing new, but just so there are no delusions here, that idea does go around full circle as it were, for the Keepers of the Old Faith find the official state church having performed invalid marriages leaving those false accusers accused themselves, it just goes round and round, you see? And where does this ever end, and who began such talk, Lord knows, but I certainly, speaking for myself, do not wish to immerse myself in it all, except to attempt to be more responsive to some extent. Goodness knows how effective I am at helping people see things that they themselves are hiding from, I do not think that the Royal Family or Rasputin had any ill will, far be that from reality.

I am not sure I would say very much about the Soviet Union, I am not sure how I inferred anything about them, if I were though to comment on the Soviets it is most clear by all their gulags and whatnot that their atrocities were rarely if ever matched. Their destruction, which is really what ever is consider to be evil, and they were certainly that, the embodiment of evil, the Soviets, I can only hope that some of them repented, and I am sure they did, on an individual basis. So I end it all with an encourage thought, I think.

You misread me there, shall I blame myself, forgive me, but I did not bring up the Soviets. Where you go with all that insinuating things further on me personally is way to much for me to fathom, but you certainly can rat-a-tat-tat on whatever kind of keyboard there that you have, voice to text, or whatever. Hopefully most people reading this will infer that what your suggestions are to me personally with regard to all that Soviet implications may not be all that accurate, though in some things we do agree, I know well that the Soviets murdered all people alike, even their own. If you were not aware, and I expect that maybe you cannot glean much from my couple hundred postings here, but I have studied all things Russian that I possibly could, and still do, and I have some ability to do so, maybe more than most people, because the masses simply slave away at whatever career, or whatever, and I have been able to pool many resources to study these topics to a place were most are unaware of much pertaining to this topic, at least generally an America. Here, that is different, most people here are at the least interested in Eastern Orthodoxy, I have been a serious convert for decades, and converts normally have to go through more effort than say those who might be cradle Orthodox, for they get to learn it all over the course of their lives, but for an adult convert, they have to grapple with these things more intently and therefore, to some extent anyway, it can almost be more important to somebody from outside to be inside, or at least it is more difficult for us, being born and raised much differently, without anything close to the ethos.

Guess what, most people in the world are much younger than I am, do not those older have a duty and responsibility to somehow offer what they have, which I try to do, but then it gets confused, for where you have gone with it is not only far away from what I meant, but also contradictory, and you are speaking of me personally. But what I speak of, I know is not necessarily consistent with what has already been said, but it is about the place which the Royal Family holds in my heart, and what I speak of is explained to be somewhat different, I am not saying anyone here said something which they did not, but I see that from you here.

Lord Have Mercy, I want to go rest, no wonder I end up letting go of all this. We can wonder how such a thing goes on. I am certain that the Lord was truthful when He spoke about only a few going to Heaven, I hope we all will go, but that is honestly not very likely.

With regard to whom you speak, your St. Seraphim Sarov (I too once proclaimed such), there were a couple witnesses of the circumstances surrounding his death about tobacco starting the fire in which he died alone. I did not create such a story, yet there are these witnesses to the fact. Maybe we should disbelieve, but not everyone accepts everything, no matter what we might say. So one persons enemy is another persons friend, and so on it goes. We all make our choices on how we each are believing is plausible. Matters of Faith are certainly interesting, amazing at times.

forgive

 

[Hopeful Faithful]

Amen.  We only need to think of the Good Thief.  What made him "good"?  Certainly nothing that got him on a cross in the first place.

Some thieves are not thieves, or it certainly is as if they never were a thief.

forgive

 

[Minnesotan]

With regard to whom you speak, your St. Seraphim Sarov (I too once proclaimed such), there were a couple witnesses of the circumstances surrounding his death about tobacco starting the fire in which he died alone. I did not create such a story, yet there are these witnesses to the fact. Maybe we should disbelieve, but not everyone accepts everything, no matter what we might say. So one persons enemy is another persons friend, and so on it goes. We all make our choices on how we each are believing is plausible. Matters of Faith are certainly interesting, amazing at times.

forgive

Keep in mind the time period in which he lived. Many people well into the 20th century viewed tobacco as a very healthy habit, and doctors encouraged their patients to smoke it; even as late as the 1990s there were prominent doctors* in the United States who publicly insisted that tobacco was in no way addictive.

Now that smoking is known to be harmful to health, of course it's going to be viewed as sinful because of that. But in an earlier time period, there would have been no reason to view it as such, given that at the time it was not known for sure to be harmful and many even viewed it as beneficial. So even if he did smoke, that wouldn't have been scandalous in and of itself.

*who were being paid by the tobacco companies, by the way.

 

[Hopeful Faithful]

Keep in mind the time period in which he lived. Many people well into the 20th century viewed tobacco as a very healthy habit, and doctors encouraged their patients to smoke it; even as late as the 1990s there were prominent doctors* in the United States who publicly insisted that tobacco was in no way addictive.

Now that smoking is known to be harmful to health, of course it's going to be viewed as sinful because of that. But in an earlier time period, there would have been no reason to view it as such, given that at the time it was not known for sure to be harmful and many even viewed it as beneficial. So even if he did smoke, that wouldn't have been scandalous in and of itself.

*who were being paid by the tobacco companies, by the way.

A nice thought, yes.

But, it might be more important and appropriate to keep in mind how Russia particularly, and Orthodoxy generally, viewed tobacco.

1613-89: RUSSIA: Tobacco prohibition under the early Romanoff’s.

1634: REGULATION: RUSSIA: Czar Alexis creates penalties for smoking: 1st offense is whipping, a slit nose, and transportation to Siberia. 2nd offense is execution.

1634: REGULATION: EUROPE: Greek Orthodox Church claims that it was tobacco smoke that intoxicated Noah and so bans tobacco use.

1641: Russia’s Michael Romanov forbids the sale and use of tobacco. Users and sellers are to be flogged. Later Russia makes tobacco a state monopoly.

1648: Czar Alexis Mikhailovich abolishes tobacco monopoly and reimposes the ban on smoking.

1674: RUSSIA: Smoking Can Carry the Death Penalty.

1676: RUSSIA: the smoking ban is lifted.

1698: RUSSIA: PETER THE GREAT establishes tobacco trade monopoly with the English, against Church wishes.

1936: Stalin gets Spain to send gold reserves to Russia during the Spanish Civil War, note that Spain was the first nation in Europe to smoke and now nearly all in Russia smoke. 

Tobacco’s detractors included Russia’s 17th-century Czar Michael Feodorovich, who had third-time violators of his smoking ban beheaded. It was said that smoking burns up all your good deeds, the holy angels will never sit next to you if you smoke.

With all the references to Orthodox nations like Russia forbidding tobacco I remember clearly seeing an old Antiochian WORD magazine, from the early 80’s, showing Metropolitan Philip on the cover proudly smoking a cigar in his western clerical collar outfit and clean shaven. Of course we know well enough how Metropolitan Anthony Bashir preceded in this kind of fashion as well.

Many more pages of notes on this topic to be made available.

forgive

 

[wgw]

There is no historical evidence froma credible source to say Rasputin was an Old Believer.  There is ample evidence to suggest he was a strange man who posed as a monastic or priest but was not in fact ordained (wearing a cassock yet having I believe at least two children; IIRC his daughter was a ballet dancer or some such who fled the USSR and wrote a biography of her father in an attempt to clear his name, and while I ha pie not read it, in the material I've read about it, I haven't read anything to suggest that Rasputin was an Old Believer. 

Since this fact if true could have scored major points for her deceased father from a PR standpoint, you would expect she would use it.  But I am willing to accept that Rasputin was an Old Believer if you can provide me with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and if you can show probable cause I will accept him to very possibly have been an Old Believer.  But right now I don't see even enough evidence for what American police require reasonable suspicion, which they have to have in order to stop you (for example if you are drifting out of your lane and driving slowly, that usually gives reasonable suspicion for them to pull you over to see if you are DUI, but then they need probable cause obtained by you failing sobriety tests in order to arrest you, and conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not all doubt, but a reasonable doubt.  So using the standards of evidence of American and British common law as a base (Id use St. Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis except I don't know Byzantine rules of evidence well enough), I am willing to listen to arguments to the effect that Rasputin was an Old Believer.  Because it would be nice to know.  I would also need to see evidence regarding his ethics, specifically, that he did not pass himself off as a monastic.

The evidence at present I've seen suggests that Rasputin was an evil man who was largely responsible for the downfall of the Czarist regime, with his false prophecy that the Czar could win if he led the Army from the front line, which St. Nicholas listened to, because he was credulous, had a sense of duty and was convinced he'd found the next St. Seraphim of Sarov.

But St. Seraphim never presumed to advise on matters of public policy.  And if he was a smoker that would not trouble me, maps many people in that era were, and it was not understood to be a sin.  Fr. Lazarus, the Australian Coptic anchorite hermit who lives next to the Cave of St. Anthony in Egypt, in one of two ancient caves he refurbished, using the Cave of St. Anthony to serve the Divine Liturgy, is completely addicted to coffee.  Most people are addicted to stimulants of some kind.  For Russians it's usually tea, hence the ubiquitous samovar.  For me, it's sodas, particularly Dr. Pepper.  So we all have our vices in this respect.  But our Lord turned water into wine, and wine is potentially far worse than coffee or soda in terms of the trouble you can cause if you drink too much or get addicted.  Smoking in the 19th century was just another stimulant, and most people did not realize it was dangerous.  Only a few puritanical sects like the Mormons avoided it, along with all stimulants and depressants; they illicitly celebrate the Eucharist with water and bread in violation of the ancient canons, and also fast on Sundays, but I'd be shocked if Joseph Smith ever even studied the canons or the ancient church before implementing that silliness.

So one thing I am very tired of are Old Believers who attack St. Seraphim of Sarov, whose holiness is so widely accepted that Coptic bookstores carry works about him.  He is likely to be the first ecumenical monastic to be glorified by all four apostolic churches since St. Isaac the Syrian, who was a Nestorian Bishop of Nineveh (against his will, but nonetheless).

But I think the credulous manner in which Czar Nicholas accepted the recommendations of Rasputin, who appears to have been evil, but I'm open to evidence that he was an Old Believer (although why don't we see him with a lestovka in any of the photos?), thinking him a saint, is further proof of the Tsar's personal holiness, which was great.  But for me, it's mainly his young children and their brutal execution with him that sanctifies him, coupled with his uncompromising Orthodoxy; Lenin was pragmatic in the extreme and I am convinced on personal belief the Tsar could have traded his faith and a propaganda piece praising the Bolsheviks, to demoralize the White Russian opposition, for exile from Russia.

 

[wgw]

Keep in mind the time period in which he lived. Many people well into the 20th century viewed tobacco as a very healthy habit, and doctors encouraged their patients to smoke it; even as late as the 1990s there were prominent doctors* in the United States who publicly insisted that tobacco was in no way addictive.

Now that smoking is known to be harmful to health, of course it's going to be viewed as sinful because of that. But in an earlier time period, there would have been no reason to view it as such, given that at the time it was not known for sure to be harmful and many even viewed it as beneficial. So even if he did smoke, that wouldn't have been scandalous in and of itself.

*who were being paid by the tobacco companies, by the way.

A nice thought, yes.

But, it might be more important and appropriate to keep in mind how Russia particularly, and Orthodoxy generally, viewed tobacco.

1613-89: RUSSIA: Tobacco prohibition under the early Romanoff’s.

1634: REGULATION: RUSSIA: Czar Alexis creates penalties for smoking: 1st offense is whipping, a slit nose, and transportation to Siberia. 2nd offense is execution.

1634: REGULATION: EUROPE: Greek Orthodox Church claims that it was tobacco smoke that intoxicated Noah and so bans tobacco use.

1641: Russia’s Michael Romanov forbids the sale and use of tobacco. Users and sellers are to be flogged. Later Russia makes tobacco a state monopoly.

1648: Czar Alexis Mikhailovich abolishes tobacco monopoly and reimposes the ban on smoking.

1674: RUSSIA: Smoking Can Carry the Death Penalty.

1676: RUSSIA: the smoking ban is lifted.

1698: RUSSIA: PETER THE GREAT establishes tobacco trade monopoly with the English, against Church wishes.

1936: Stalin gets Spain to send gold reserves to Russia during the Spanish Civil War, note that Spain was the first nation in Europe to smoke and now nearly all in Russia smoke. 

Tobacco’s detractors included Russia’s 17th-century Czar Michael Feodorovich, who had third-time violators of his smoking ban beheaded. It was said that smoking burns up all your good deeds, the holy angels will never sit next to you if you smoke.

With all the references to Orthodox nations like Russia forbidding tobacco I remember clearly seeing an old Antiochian WORD magazine, from the early 80’s, showing Metropolitan Philip on the cover proudly smoking a cigar in his western clerical collar outfit and clean shaven. Of course we know well enough how Metropolitan Anthony Bashir preceded in this kind of fashion as well.

Many more pages of notes on this topic to be made available.

forgive

You're really not scoring any points with me here.  I loved Metropolitan Philip Saliba of blessed memory, who played a major role in my conversion to Orthodoxy; his sermon on the reception of the Evangelical Orthodox people, when I saw it on YouTube, convinced me that the Orthodox Church would welcome me, a Protestant comvert; I had previously been fascinated but intimidated by it.  His death alomg with that of HH Ignatius Zakka Iwas made my Lent last year very sorrowful.  And I could care less if he smoked cigarettes; they're addictive but do not suppress holiness.  I don't smoke thankfully but I don't think smoking should disqualify someone from Holy Orders, provided they can serve the entire Divine Liturgy without a cigarette break and take care to not let their exorason, the nave or the parish hall smell of tobacco.

 

[hecma925]

I would have enjoyed smoking a pipe with St. Seraphim Sarovsky or a cigar with Met. Philip.

 

[Asteriktos]

These history lessons do put a damper on things. Not that I assume they're all accurate... but still...

 

[Hopeful Faithful]

There is no historical evidence froma credible source to say Rasputin was an Old Believer.  There is ample evidence to suggest he was a strange man who posed as a monastic or priest but was not in fact ordained (wearing a cassock yet having I believe at least two children; IIRC his daughter was a ballet dancer or some such who fled the USSR and wrote a biography of her father in an attempt to clear his name, and while I ha pie not read it, in the material I've read about it, I haven't read anything to suggest that Rasputin was an Old Believer. 

Since this fact if true could have scored major points for her deceased father from a PR standpoint, you would expect she would use it.  But I am willing to accept that Rasputin was an Old Believer if you can provide me with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and if you can show probable cause I will accept him to very possibly have been an Old Believer.  But right now I don't see even enough evidence for what American police require reasonable suspicion, which they have to have in order to stop you (for example if you are drifting out of your lane and driving slowly, that usually gives reasonable suspicion for them to pull you over to see if you are DUI, but then they need probable cause obtained by you failing sobriety tests in order to arrest you, and conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not all doubt, but a reasonable doubt.  So using the standards of evidence of American and British common law as a base (Id use St. Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis except I don't know Byzantine rules of evidence well enough), I am willing to listen to arguments to the effect that Rasputin was an Old Believer.  Because it would be nice to know.  I would also need to see evidence regarding his ethics, specifically, that he did not pass himself off as a monastic.

The evidence at present I've seen suggests that Rasputin was an evil man who was largely responsible for the downfall of the Czarist regime, with his false prophecy that the Czar could win if he led the Army from the front line, which St. Nicholas listened to, because he was credulous, had a sense of duty and was convinced he'd found the next St. Seraphim of Sarov.

But St. Seraphim never presumed to advise on matters of public policy.  And if he was a smoker that would not trouble me, maps many people in that era were, and it was not understood to be a sin.  Fr. Lazarus, the Australian Coptic anchorite hermit who lives next to the Cave of St. Anthony in Egypt, in one of two ancient caves he refurbished, using the Cave of St. Anthony to serve the Divine Liturgy, is completely addicted to coffee.  Most people are addicted to stimulants of some kind.  For Russians it's usually tea, hence the ubiquitous samovar.  For me, it's sodas, particularly Dr. Pepper.  So we all have our vices in this respect.  But our Lord turned water into wine, and wine is potentially far worse than coffee or soda in terms of the trouble you can cause if you drink too much or get addicted.  Smoking in the 19th century was just another stimulant, and most people did not realize it was dangerous.  Only a few puritanical sects like the Mormons avoided it, along with all stimulants and depressants; they illicitly celebrate the Eucharist with water and bread in violation of the ancient canons, and also fast on Sundays, but I'd be shocked if Joseph Smith ever even studied the canons or the ancient church before implementing that silliness.

So one thing I am very tired of are Old Believers who attack St. Seraphim of Sarov, whose holiness is so widely accepted that Coptic bookstores carry works about him.  He is likely to be the first ecumenical monastic to be glorified by all four apostolic churches since St. Isaac the Syrian, who was a Nestorian Bishop of Nineveh (against his will, but nonetheless).

But I think the credulous manner in which Czar Nicholas accepted the recommendations of Rasputin, who appears to have been evil, but I'm open to evidence that he was an Old Believer (although why don't we see him with a lestovka in any of the photos?), thinking him a saint, is further proof of the Tsar's personal holiness, which was great.  But for me, it's mainly his young children and their brutal execution with him that sanctifies him, coupled with his uncompromising Orthodoxy; Lenin was pragmatic in the extreme and I am convinced on personal belief the Tsar could have traded his faith and a propaganda piece praising the Bolsheviks, to demoralize the White Russian opposition, for exile from Russia.

Fair enough,

I expect that people are largely unaware of the facts pertaining to Rasputin and this is why I attempted to bring a response about his relation to the beloved Royal Family.

This might take me a while since I have not seen my notes on Rasputin for several years now.

But Lord willing they will be placed right here in this thread, so please look back later this week.

forgive

 

[Hopeful Faithful]

You're really not scoring any points with me here.  I loved Metropolitan Philip Saliba of blessed memory, who played a major role in my conversion to Orthodoxy; his sermon on the reception of the Evangelical Orthodox people, when I saw it on YouTube, convinced me that the Orthodox Church would welcome me, a Protestant comvert; I had previously been fascinated but intimidated by it.  His death alomg with that of HH Ignatius Zakka Iwas made my Lent last year very sorrowful.  And I could care less if he smoked cigarettes; they're addictive but do not suppress holiness.  I don't smoke thankfully but I don't think smoking should disqualify someone from Holy Orders, provided they can serve the entire Divine Liturgy without a cigarette break and take care to not let their exorason, the nave or the parish hall smell of tobacco.

Thankfully many an Orthodox authority disagree.

 

[wgw]

Like who, specifically?

I hate to find myself advocating for tobacco use; I believe the sale of cigarettes to teenagers should be stopped, so only the already addicted would be able to obtain the,; cigars and pipes would be another matter since they seem less addictive, in theory.

But I see no reason why a saint could not also be a smoker.  Many Christians struggle with much worse problems of drug and alcohol anuse.  Cigarettes are so powerful Id argue once someone is addicted they're not even a passion but an irresistible compulsion; they are evil but the evil is inflicted upon the smokers, who usually take it up due to peer pressure.

Which takes us to the New Martyrs of Russia including the Tsar St. Nicholas II.  I a, pretty sure he was a tobacco user.  As were a great many of the New Martyrs.  Are we to deny their sainthood because they, in accordance with prevailing social customs, used tobacco, which at the time was not known to be dangerous, but even thought by some doctors to be beneficial?

And again, if it weren't for Metropolitan Saliba I would not be Orthodox.  I think the Old Believers would acquit themselves better if they refrained from ad hominem attacks on post-Nikonian saints and Hierarchs.  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware is of the opinion that negative proselytism is profoundly unorthodox, and I am inclined to agree.  I can accept modern day Old Believers, even priestless Old Believers as Orthodox, if I see them witnessing the Gospel by proclaiming the divine love of God for His children, which is central to our faith. But any Old Believers who resort to polemical attacks designed to tear down the modern church rather than positive messages to show how their church has uniquely preserved the ancient liturgical traditions, and how embracing these as Holy Tradition contributes to ones relationship with God, such Old Believers I could never accept.  Whereas I could see myself joining Old Believers who proved their Orthodoxy with love and not polemics.

 

[Volnutt]

Amen.  We only need to think of the Good Thief.  What made him "good"?  Certainly nothing that got him on a cross in the first place.

Some thieves are not thieves, or it certainly is as if they never were a thief.

forgive

Are you saying you can only accept the thief as a Saint if he was falsely tied and sentenced?

 

[Georgii]

Tsar St. Nicholas II.  I a, pretty sure he was a tobacco user.

 

[hecma925]

Right on.  Have a vodka with him too.  Or seven.

 

[wgw]

Well no one is saying he's a saint for the same reasons as St. Anthony the Great.  He was a pious Orrhodox king who did actually try to make Russia a better place to live than it had been in the 19th century, but was killed by evil atheists.

 

[primuspilus]

You're really not scoring any points with me here.  I loved Metropolitan Philip Saliba of blessed memory, who played a major role in my conversion to Orthodoxy; his sermon on the reception of the Evangelical Orthodox people, when I saw it on YouTube, convinced me that the Orthodox Church would welcome me, a Protestant comvert; I had previously been fascinated but intimidated by it.  His death alomg with that of HH Ignatius Zakka Iwas made my Lent last year very sorrowful.  And I could care less if he smoked cigarettes; they're addictive but do not suppress holiness.  I don't smoke thankfully but I don't think smoking should disqualify someone from Holy Orders, provided they can serve the entire Divine Liturgy without a cigarette break and take care to not let their exorason, the nave or the parish hall smell of tobacco.

Thankfully many an Orthodox authority disagree.

If tobacco is your major sin, you're a saint already.

PP

 

[kelly]

Tsar St. Nicholas II.  I a, pretty sure he was a tobacco user.

He had a very elaborate dragon tattoo (done in Japan, before he became emperor ) which is kind of visible in this picture.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Thread locked pending review.