[AcecePesFeacy]

This is unbelievable.



THE MOSCOW TIMES - Wednesday, December 10, 2008
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/600/42/372766.htm



Soviet leader Josef Stalin might seem like an unlikely subject for an icon, but one priest disagrees -- and his stance has sparked an angry response from the church.

The St. Petersburg Metropolitanate of the Russian Orthodox Church said Friday that it had reprimanded a priest who displayed an icon depicting Stalin in a church in a nearby town.

"We took him to task, and he was so frightened that he became ill," a spokesman from the St. Petersburg Metropolitanate said Friday.

Father Yevstafy Zhakov, priest of St. Olga's Church in the Leningrad region town of Strelna, recently put up an icon showing Stalin standing before the Blessed Matrona of Moscow, a 20th-century saint.

Father Yevstafy said that, according to legend, Stalin would often talk to the woman and that she gave him advice on how to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II. Yevstafy said this is the scene depicted in the icon.

Father Yevstafy has been quoted in the media in the past calling Stalin one of the nation's fathers and saying he didn't think Stalin was an atheist.

"[Stalin] is in part my great father also," Yevstafy said, Noviye Izvestia reported. "He didn't abandon me during my whole life."

"I mention Josef Vissarionovich in all my services, when it is appropriate, especially on the date that he died, on his birthday and on those days when he celebrated the victory of our people," he said.

A spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate said Father Yevstafy had not displayed an icon of Stalin.

"It was not an icon of Stalin, but there were two images in the picture representing the subject of Stalin speaking with the Blessed Matrona," the spokesman said.

The Russian press reported that church visitors had asked Yevstafy to stop mentioning Stalin in his prayers and to take the icon down.

Yevstafy first placed it in a remote corner of the church. After further complaints, he took it home.

A spokesman for the St. Petersburg Metropolitanate, who did not give his name, said Friday that Yevstafy had simply slipped up.

"He is an old man, and he just made a mistake," the spokesman said. "He didn't expect the event to be covered by the media."

The controversy over the Stalin icon comes at a time when a slight rehabilitation of the leader's image is being pushed for from different quarters.

In July, the St. Petersburg branch of the Communist Party asked the Orthodox Church to canonize Stalin if he won a television poll to declare him the greatest Russian in history. The result of the poll will only be known at year's end, but Stalin seems to be already out of the running.

Millions of people were executed under Stalin, and many died from abuse or disease in the gulag system of prison camps. According to historians, he is responsible for between 20 million and 40 million unnecessary deaths -- with victims ranging from monarchists and priests to the upper ranks of the military and the Bolshevik old guard.

"Even to suggest that Stalin is a saint is blasphemy," a spokesman for the Orthodox Church said.




PS - This wasn't all that caused the uproar. According to http://byztex.blogspot.com/2008/12/s...n-removed.html, "the absurd situation attracted “Communists of St. Petersburg” who took the news of Father Evstafy as a sky-sign and printed about three thousand icons depicting the Kremlin tyrant alone and with a halo above his head, and distributed the icons in the city."



I can only imagine what sort of troparias are being written in honor of holy "St. Stalin" (the Premier? the Soviet?) God help us...

[Greapyjeory]

interesting to read its like the Serbs having icons of Slobodan Milosevic, as he was counted as a martyr. Some Romanians think Vlad the Impaler should be canonised and some Russians think Ivan the Terrible should be canonised.

The communists seem to forget Stalin was against the church and blowing up the cathedral in Moscow as well.

[mazabotman]

As to the first part of John Litster's post, it is the case that icons showing the life of St Matrona do include a scene showing Stalin visiting her. This is nothing unusual. There is one such icon in our parish church of St Nicholas in Moscow. This obviously in no way is to be read as a favourable comment on Stalin, and in our Moscow parish church we have several icons of Tsar-Martyr Nicholas. Victims of Stalin were shot in the very church yard at St Nicholas' church. It is an enigma that Stalin visited St Matrona, as it is that he followed completely the advice of Metropolitan Elias of Lebanon, and that he apparently made his confession four times in his final years. An icon of Stalin is, of course, an abomination. It should also be borne in mind that the English-language newspaper 'Moscow Times' is not sympathetic to Russia, her Church or her people and tends to echo American-style anti-Russian sentiments. It is typical that this newspaper takes something unremarkable and seeks to create some unfavourable sensation out of it. This can be seen also in the right-wing English press. Thus, some time ago, the 'Daily Telegraph' carried an article called, 'Killer icon', referring to the icon of Christ by St Andrei Rublev. The article claimed that some people were affected by viewing this icon and that some had died after viewing it. The article included a supposed interview with a curator in the Hermitage at St Petersburg where, the article said, the icon was displayed. In fact, this icon has always hung in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow. Western and western-leaning media are not to be trusted in their coverage of anything to do with Russia.

[JessiPollo]

The specific content aside, this raises an interesting matter. I would be grateful for the comments of iconographers and others on it:

Despite the fact that the priest's comments reveal some rather abhorrent notions on the role of Stalin, etc., and excluding entirely from the conversation smaller image of Stalin alone, the image at the top -- of Stalin beside St Matrona -- is interesting. Compare it with the fresco of the ecumenical council of Ephesus, found here (you can click on the image for a much larger version of it). There we see the fathers of Ephesus; but at the bottom is also found the image of Nestorius and the image of Apollinarius, both noted as 'Heretics' in the fresco. I bring into the discussion this fresco, because it raises the question of depicting those at war with the Church, yet still foundational in its writings / deliberations / etc. in the period addressed in the icon. According to common tradition, Stalin did indeed meet many times with Mother Matrona, and this is in fact an important part of her life and witness.

So I open the door to comments by others on the inclusion of those at war with the Church, in images of the saints.

I do just haste to point out that I find the images in the article abhorrent, so I am not trying to justify them; rather, to look at the interesting question they raise.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[mazabotman]

From icons showing Judas at the Last Supper (usually departing to betray his Master immediately after having partaken), to icons of the torturers of the early martyrs, to the Turks killing Greek Christians to the very recent icons showing the executioners at Butovo, there is no shortage of scenes which show the enemies of God and the faithful of His Church.

[12Cickprior]

There's nothing wrong with having Stalin in an icon with Blessed Matrona, but look at the way he's portrayed! He is closer up in the foreground in a heroic contra posta, and his face has more detail than St. Matrona's. He has the whole propagandistic Great Leader look going for him in this icon... he is the real center of the icon, not Blessed Matrona.

[limpoporanique]

Fr Dn Matthew wrote:

I bring into the discussion this fresco, because it raises the question of depicting those at war with the Church, yet still foundational in its writings / deliberations / etc. in the period addressed in the icon. According to common tradition, Stalin did indeed meet many times with Mother Matrona, and this is in fact an important part of her life and witness.

So I open the door to comments by others on the inclusion of those at war with the Church, in images of the saints. I am uneasy with the depiction of Stalin in the icon of St Matrona. The icon of the council after all clearly portrays Nestorius & Apollinarius as condemned by the Church.

Of course you can make an argument for historical accuracy- the incident apparently did occur. An icon however portrays the transfigured reality of the Kingdom. In this sense I do not think that it is correct to portray any incident (as in historical icons) in a straight forward historical fashion. Even the icon of the event of the Council is iconographic in the sense that it is highly representational- ie it is not an attempt at a historical depiction in the sense a photograph would be. If it were then Nestorius should have been portrayed in some more historically accurate fashion.

This last fact I think and the natural depiction of Stalin is where many would be offended by this image. In representing him historically it fails to portray him authentically from within the Church's understanding of reality.

Because of this and how this image is a bit too 'value free' it could not for example survive for any length of time on the walls of our parish which still has many from the Stalinist era who fled from Russia during this time. This would not be a political statement on the part of these people so much as a correct intuition that the 'historical' Stalin should not be portrayed in any image depicting the transfigured reality of the Church.

Of course in Russia though such images probably flow from the ongoing effort to heal the past through the present.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[farmarrl]

Two things I see
1) in the St. Matrona picture (it is not an icon) notice how he has his back to her and is walking away from her as he is walking away from the icons on the wall behind her bed. This is reflected in the Nativity icon where "the old man" always has his back to the Christ child.

2) in the smaller picture...is Stalin really wearing a Bishops Omophorion?

Paul

[mazabotman]

I share Fr Raphael's unease at the way Stalin is depicted. In the icon in St Nicholas' church in Moscow, Stalin is shown in a rather diminutive way, sideways on and standing respectfully before St Matrona. Seeing this icon was the first time I knew of Stalin and St Matrona and when I asked about it, nobody knew anything save that it happened. One would like a better justification for the scene than that what it depicts happened. But nothing is ever straightforward in Russia; it is, as Churchill remarked, 'a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma'.

[limpoporanique]

Paul Cowan wrote:


in the smaller picture...is Stalin really wearing a Bishops Omophorion? I'm no expert but it certainly looks that way to me. I would say that as such it is very far beyond the bounds of what is acceptable as an icon or even as a general image.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[clorkergo]

The late Patriarch Alexy's horrified comment on the thought of canonising Stalin and Rasputin:

"This is madness! What believer would want to stay in a church that equally venerates murderers and martyrs, lechers and saints?"

http://www.rickross.com/reference/rs/rs38.html

[mazabotman]

The article to which Fr Ambrose has provided a link is from 'Moscow Times', and its tone bears out what I said in my post #3 above.

[delnisfernan]

What's that book "Saint" Stalin is holding? Dialectical and Historical Materialism?

I realize these people aren't being taken very seriously, but I think this is but one illustration of the poisonous effects that occur when the Church cozies up with nationalism.

[mazabotman]

when the Church cozies up with nationalism This, I feel, is a rather emotive expression. It would be unfair to attribute to the patriotism and even proper national sentiment of the Church such aberrations as this. Orthodoxy is very bound up with the history and destinies of those nations regarded as Orthodox. True, it can be overdone, but this is keenly and deeply felt by Greeks, Cypriots, Serbs and Russians.

[9mm_fan]

What's that book "Saint" Stalin is holding? Dialectical and Historical Materialism?

I realize these people aren't being taken very seriously, but I think this is but one illustration of the poisonous effects that occur when the Church cozies up with nationalism.

Well, in that it was communists who printed and passed out this pseudo-icon, I think this is more about nationalism trying to cozy up to the Church and not doing a very good job of it... or perhaps they were merely being satirical?

Herman

[clorkergo]

What's that book "Saint" Stalin is holding? Dialectical and Historical Materialism?

I realize these people aren't being taken very seriously, but I think this is but one illustration of the poisonous effects that occur when the Church cozies up with nationalism.

Since the time of the Emperor Constantine the Church has cosied up with nationalism. It sees it as a close cooperation between the Church and the State and calls it "synergy." The Church has always been the bearer of the national culture. It worked very well - a combination of Patriarchs and Monarachs for 1600 years. Much weakened now since the early 20th century. The Russians appear to be re-establishning a form of it.

[delnisfernan]

Since the time of the Emperor Constantine the Church has cosied up with nationalism. It sees it as a close cooperation between the Church and the State and calls it "synergy." The Church has always been the bearer of the national culture. It worked very well - a combination of Patriarchs and Monarachs for 1600 years. Much weakened now since the early 20th century. The Russians appear to be re-establishning a form of it.

If the cooperation between the Putin-Medvedev government and the Church is some revival of "synergy", I think it had better remain well in the past.

Synergy is a nice ideal, but how well has it ever been achieved? A number of questions come to my mind...

After Constantine, how many Church leaders spoke out against the empire's continued wars of conquest? How many more Christians like Martin of Tours emerged?

What steps did the Russian Orthodox Church, on any large scale, ever take to protect Jews in Russia from vicious anti-Semitism?

Why would Patriarch Pavle protect people like Radovan Karadzic?

Did Patriarch Alexy II ever denounce the invasion of Georgia, or criticize any of Putin's policies? Likewise, did Patriarch Ilia II have anything critical to say about his government's role in the conflict? Can we say Orthodox nationalism is a good thing when it stands by while Orthodox Christians kill each other?

[mazabotman]

Westerners will never understand Russia - how could they when Russians themselves do not understand Russia?! The Moscow Patriarchate did, as I remember, express grief that two Orthodox nations - Russia and Georgia - were in conflict. But Georgia under Saakashvili made itself a tool of American policy. Which policies of the Russian government ought MP to have criticised?

[jeaccatty]

Please let us try and keep this discussion on track. There are a number of different rabbit trails developing here. The discussion should focus on the presence of Stalin in an icon of a saint and by extension the presence of other enemies of the Church depicted in icons of saints. The related topic which has arisen of the relationship between Church and state is more appropriately discussed by introducing a new topic here or here. The topic of the recent unpleasantness between Russia and Georgia and who is at fault is outside the scope of this forum and thus should be dropped altogether.

Fr David Moser