Matrona of Moscow: Distraction from the REAL Saints

[SavaBeljovic]

I don't know if it's a mistranslation or not, but with this Matrona of Moskva, I know one thing our dearest brother Nektarios (who is on this forum) pointed out was that Matrona of Moskva has a near identical vita to St. Matrona of Anemnyasevo, who was a Katakombnik and a New Martyr who died in prison in 1936, in fact, the MP will sometimes recognize this: 

https://catalog.obitel-minsk.com/blog/2 ... d-matronas

https://orthochristian.com/122743.html (the life of St. Matrona of Anemnyasevo) https://orthochristian.com/79033.html (life of Matrona of Moskva, for side by side comparison)

Besides this, there was an actual woman named Matrona who was born blind, but other than that, almost no details about her life can be corroborated, and most came decades after her repose. Fr. Joseph can tell us more about it but most of the stories of her life didn't get recorded until the 1980s and by people who sometimes didn't even meet her, just second hand accounts. I know Saints accidently being conflated and confused with each other is normal, like in the case of the two Saints named Peter from Damascus, or the two Martyrs Conon and Phocas who were both gardeners, but with Matrona of Moskva, especially as the MP tries to use her as their Paisios the Athonite of "well this Holy Woman wasn't against Sergianism therefore you shouldn't be either", I think the lack of details and confusion is more than likely deliberate. 

Once again as our dearest Father Joseph says, "I think she was canonized as this 'blank slate', so they could make the life around whatever is convenient for them", Need to justify Sergianism? New story from the life of St. Matrona! Need to justify blessing statues of Stalin, well here's a new story from her life where she gave advice to Stalin! Need to justify modernism? So on and so forth...
 
 
 p.s. Nektarios also pointed out there is *another* almost contemporary St. Matrona (though yet to be canonized), Blessed Matrona "the bare foot" of St. Petersburg (reposed circa 1910-11), who had also a very similar life to Matrona of Moskva, and this Blessed Matrona of St. Petersburg was apparently venerated by the Royal Martyrs. Which adds more confusion to this whole matter.
 
 

[Barbara]

Good for you, eish ! Thanks for confirming that's what was actually written. The term did sound strangely modern.

I hate to think but maybe in a few years, the MP will advertise Matronushka's feats : "This dazzling wonderworker will match you up with your significant other" < even worse term !

She will evolve into a new Orthodox alternative to a 'dating site'. Perhaps parish priests will be recommending that way to meet husbands or wives as a safer route than the dating site mill, full of liars and sociopaths.

[Barbara]

Sava, great summation ! [ You mean Nektarios Lopez, right ? He is too quiet, he should speak up more here ! ]

There may never have been a real Matrona of Moscow as a holy figure, it seems like -? Only a regular laywoman.
I remember seeing some of these other Matronas listed in calendars, so I know it is probably so vague that SOMEBODY decided to capitalize on the confusion by playing the game "Invent-a-Saint".
 

[Barbara]

Update on Alexander Belya :

"U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian has dismissed a lawsuit brought by defrocked archimandrite Alexander Belya against senior clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

The case, which dates back to 2019, centered on allegations that Church officials defamed Belya by suggesting he had forged documents related to his purported elevation to Bishop of Miami.

“Despite the dismissal of this case, there is some consolation to Belya,” wrote Judge Subramanian in his March 31 opinion-order. “Throughout their papers and at oral argument, defendants have disavowed that they ever said or intended to suggest that Belya forged the December 10 [2018] and January 11 [2019] letters,” which purportedly confirmed Belya’s election as Bishop of Miami and requested approval from His Holiness Patriarch Kirill.

The dispute began when the Moscow Patriarchate announced Belya’s election as Bishop of Miami, which came as “a surprise to ROCOR’s senior clergy” who claimed they “hadn’t elected Belya, a necessary step in the elevation of any American bishop.” Suspecting impropriety, they sent a letter to the ROCOR Synod stating that “Metropolitan Hilarion of Eastern America & New York knew nothing about the written appeals directed to Moscow containing a request for confirmation of the ‘episcopal election’“ of Belya.

This letter, which later became public when church member Olga Tsibin posted it on Facebook, was followed by religious news coverage accusing Belya of forgery. As Judge Subramanian explains, “News of the ROCOR letter got out and went viral in the religious press. The reports accused Belya of old-fashioned forgery.”

Belya’s lawsuit was eventually narrowed to hinge on a single statement from that letter—that Metropolitan Hilarion was unaware of communications to Moscow regarding Belya’s election. However, the court found Belya failed to prove that the defendants were responsible for the letter becoming public and therefore that they were responsible of any defamation.

“Without ratification of Tsibin’s post, Belya’s case fails against every defendant,” Judge Subramanian writes. “He’s got no other avenue to show they published the allegedly defamatory statement to a third party.”

The court also addressed Facebook posts by some defendants that linked to articles about the controversy, ruling that “reposting an article link doesn’t suffice as republication for a defamation claim.” Judge Subramanian explained that “a hyperlink simply references the publication, making it the twenty-first century equivalent of the footnote.”

The court found that Belya hadn’t shown evidence that these Facebook posts reached any new audience beyond those already exposed to the allegations through Tsibin’s original post, noting that “a reiterated statement generates new reputational harm only if the statement is repeated with an intent and ability to expand its dissemination beyond its previous limits.”

Perhaps most significantly, Judge Subramanian determined that the First Amendment’s church autonomy doctrine barred the lawsuit from proceeding. “Trying this case would be impossible without violating the church’s autonomy,” he wrote. The judge noted that key figure Metropolitan Hilarion died in 2022 before being deposed, and resolving the case would require examining internal Church matters. Notably, in June 2023, the Supreme Court declined to hear ROCOR’s objections, based on the church autonomy doctrine, to lower court rulings.

“To get at what Metropolitan Hilarion knew and when, defendants’ testimony would invariably cross over into core church functions: the proper election procedures of ROCOR bishops; what was said among senior church leaders about church disciplinary procedures; and communications among senior clergy about internal church governance,” the judge explained.

The ruling emphasizes that “asking a jury to weigh in on this would be exactly the sort of interference the First Amendment forbids.”

In his conclusion, Judge Subramanian noted that while Belya “isn’t entitled to further relief in the courts of law, defendants’ assurance [that they never accused him of forgery] may provide him solace in the court of public opinion.”

---

In terms of ecclesiastical court rulings, after the affair with his supposed episcopal election, and given a number of accusations against him, Belya was suspended from priestly functions by ROCOR on September 1/14, 2019, pending an investigation.

However, he instead fled to the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America without a canonical release from ROCOR. He was subsequently defrocked by ROCOR in February 2020, and thus is canonically only a lay monk.

GOARCH later created a “Slavic Vicariate” and placed Belya at its head. The Vicariate is largely made up of defrocked and suspended clerics.

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America was forced to postpone its plans to consecrate Belya to the episcopate in the summer of 2022 after the hierarchs of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of America threatened to quit the Assembly if he became a bishop. The hierarchs affirmed that they recognize his suspension and subsequent defrocking by ROCOR, and also pointed to issues with the former cleric’s moral fiber"

https://orthochristian.com/168609.html

[Lemon Schist]

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?

[Lemon Schist]

I agree those are all serious allegations, but it doesn't address my question. If the church claimed them saints but they aren't, then doesn't it call into question every other saint that has been canonized?

I didn't even know about Esphigmenou Monastery until recently, and it is utterly disgusting to me how they are being persecuted.

How does one discern between the claims of individuals who believe a person is a saint, the church who may have ulterior motives, and those who are persecuting the saint? From what I have read, many people hated the individuals while they were alive, who were canonized. I'm not trying to suggest that this is the case with your examples, I'm trying to point out that with all of the examples of saints who intentionally did things to avoid praise, how am I supposed to recognize the difference?

[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.