Royal Passion-Bearers. Why was Emperor Nicholas II and his family canonized? Orthodox against Nicholas II: why the tsar was recognized as a saint

GROUNDS FOR THE CANONIZATION OF THE ROYAL FAMILY
FROM THE REPORT OF METROPOLITAN KRUTITSKY AND KOLOMENSKOY YUVENALY,
CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNODAL COMMISSION FOR THE CANONIZATION OF SAINTS

By the decision of the Council of Bishops of March 31 - April 4, 1992, the Synodal Commission for the canonization of saints was instructed "when studying the exploits of the new martyrs of Russia, to begin researching materials related to the martyrdom of the Royal Family."

The Commission saw the main task in this matter in an objective examination of all the circumstances of the life of members of the Imperial Family in the context of historical events and their ecclesiastical comprehension outside the ideological stereotypes that have prevailed in our country over the past decades. The commission was guided by pastoral concerns so that the canonization of the Royal Family in the host of the New Martyrs of Russia would not give rise to and arguments in political struggle or worldly confrontations, but would contribute to the unification of the people of God in faith and piety. We also sought to take into account the fact of the canonization of the Royal Family by the Russian Church Abroad in 1981, which caused a far from unambiguous reaction both among the Russian emigration, some representatives of which did not see enough convincing grounds in it at that time, and in Russia itself, not to mention such, having no historical analogies in the Orthodox Church, the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as the inclusion in the number of canonized who, together with the Royal Family, accepted the martyrdom of the royal servant, the Roman Catholic Aloysius Egorovich Trupp and the Lutheran goflektriss Ekaterina Adolfovna Schneider.

Already at the first meeting of the Commission after the Council, we began to study the religious, moral and state aspects of the reign of the last Emperor of the Romanov dynasty. The following topics were carefully studied: “The Orthodox view of the state activity of Emperor Nicholas II”; “Emperor Nicholas II and the events of 1905 in St. Petersburg”; “On the church policy of Emperor Nicholas II”; “Reasons for the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne and the Orthodox attitude to this act”; “The Royal Family and G.E. Rasputin"; “The Last Days of the Royal Family” and “The Attitude of the Church towards Passion-Bearing”.

In 1994 and 1997, I acquainted the members of the Councils of Bishops with the results of the study of the above topics. Since that time, no new problems have appeared in the issue under study.

Let me remind you of the Commission's approaches to these key and complex topics, the understanding of which is necessary for the members of the Council of Bishops when deciding on the canonization of the Royal Family.

Quite different in religious and moral content and in terms of scientific competence, the arguments of opponents of the canonization of the Royal Family can be reduced to a list of specific theses that have already been analyzed in historical references compiled by the Commission and at your disposal.

One of the main arguments of opponents of the canonization of the Royal Family is the assertion that the death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his Family cannot be recognized as martyrdom for Christ. The Commission, on the basis of a careful consideration of the circumstances of the death of the Royal Family, proposes to carry out its canonization in the guise of holy martyrs. In the liturgical and hagiographic literature of the Russian Orthodox Church, the word “passion-bearer” began to be used in relation to those Russian saints who, imitating Christ, patiently endured physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents.

In the history of the Russian Church, such martyrs were the holy noble princes Boris and Gleb (+1015), Igor Chernigov (+1147), Andrei Bogolyubsky (+1174), Mikhail of Tverskoy (+1319), Tsarevich Dimitri (+1591). All of them, with their feat of passion-bearers, showed a high example of Christian morality and patience.

Opponents of this canonization are trying to find obstacles to the glorification of Nicholas II in the facts related to his state and church policy.

The Church policy of the Emperor did not go beyond the traditional synodal system of governing the Church. However, it was during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II that until then for two centuries the church hierarchy, which had been officially silent on the issue of convening a Council, had the opportunity not only to widely discuss, but also to practically prepare the convening of the Local Council.

The emperor paid great attention to the needs of the Orthodox Church, generously donated to the construction of new churches, including those outside Russia. During the years of his reign, the number of parish churches in Russia increased by more than 10 thousand, more than 250 new monasteries were opened. The emperor personally participated in the laying of new churches and other church celebrations.

Deep religiosity singled out the Imperial couple among the representatives of the then aristocracy. The upbringing of the children of the Imperial Family was imbued with a religious spirit. All its members lived in accordance with the traditions of Orthodox piety. Compulsory attendance at services on Sundays and holidays, fasting during fasts was an integral part of their life. The personal religiosity of the Sovereign and his wife was not simply following traditions. The royal couple visits temples and monasteries during their many trips, venerates miraculous icons and relics of saints, and makes pilgrimages, as was the case in 1903 during the glorification of St. Seraphim of Sarov. Brief services in the court temples did not satisfy the Emperor and the Empress. Especially for them, services are performed in the Tsarskoye Selo Feodorovsky Cathedral, built in the Old Russian style. Empress Alexandra prayed here in front of an lectern with open liturgical books, closely following the divine service.

The personal piety of the Sovereign was manifested in the fact that during the years of his reign more saints were canonized than in the previous two centuries, when only 5 saints were glorified. During the last reign, Saint Theodosius of Chernigov (1896), Saint Seraphim of Sarov (1903), Saint Princess Anna of Kashinskaya (the restoration of veneration in 1909), Saint Joasaph of Belgorod (1911), Saint Germogenes of Moscow (1913), St. Pitirim of Tambov (1914), St. John of Tobolsk (1916). At the same time, the Emperor was forced to show special perseverance, seeking the canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov, Sts. Joasaph of Belgorod and John of Tobolsk. Nicholas II highly honored the holy righteous father John of Kronstadt. After his blissful death, the tsar ordered a nationwide prayer commemoration of the deceased on the day of his repose.

As a politician and statesman, the Sovereign acted on the basis of his religious and moral principles. One of the most common arguments against the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II is the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. In the historical information of the Commission on this issue, we indicate: having become acquainted on the evening of January 8 with the content of the Gapon petition, which had the character of a revolutionary ultimatum, which did not allow to enter into constructive negotiations with representatives of the workers, the Sovereign ignored this document, illegal in form and undermining the prestige of the already fluctuating conditions government wars. Throughout January 9, 1905, the Sovereign did not take a single decision that determined the actions of the authorities in St. Petersburg to suppress mass demonstrations of workers. The order to the troops to open fire was given not by the Emperor, but by the Commander of the St. Petersburg Military District. Historical data do not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign in the January days of 1905 a conscious evil will directed against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions.

With the outbreak of the First World War, the Sovereign regularly travels to Headquarters, visits military units of the army in the field, dressing stations, military hospitals, rear factories, in a word, everything that played a role in the conduct of this war.

From the very beginning of the war, the Empress devoted herself to the wounded. Having completed the courses of sisters of mercy, together with her eldest daughters, the Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatiana, she nursed the wounded in the Tsarskoye Selo infirmary for several hours a day.

The emperor considered his tenure as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief as the fulfillment of a moral and state duty to God and the people, however, always presenting the leading military specialists with a broad initiative in resolving the entire set of military-strategic and operational-tactical issues.

Estimates of Nicholas II as a statesman are extremely contradictory. Speaking of this, we should never forget that, while comprehending state activity from a Christian point of view, we must evaluate not this or that form of state structure, but the place that a specific person occupies in the state mechanism. The extent to which this or that person has managed to embody Christian ideals in his activity is subject to assessment. It should be noted that Nicholas II treated the duties of the monarch as his sacred duty.

The desire, characteristic of some opponents of the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II, to present his abdication as an ecclesiastical canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the priesthood, cannot be recognized as having any serious grounds. The canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed for the Kingdom was not defined in church canons. Therefore, attempts to discover the composition of a certain ecclesiastical canonical crime in the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power seem to be untenable.

As external factors that brought the Act of Abdication to life, which took place in the political life of Russia, one should single out, first of all, a sharp aggravation of the socio-political situation in Petrograd in February 1917, the inability of the government to control the situation in the capital, which spread to wide sections of society conviction of the need for strict constitutional restrictions on monarchical power, the urgent demand of the Chairman of the State Duma M.V. Rodzianko of the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power in the name of preventing domestic political chaos in the context of Russia's large-scale war, almost unanimous support provided by the highest representatives of the Russian generals to the demand of the Chairman of the State Duma. It should also be noted that the Act of Abdication was adopted by Emperor Nicholas II under the pressure of sharply changing political circumstances in an extremely short time.

The Commission expresses the opinion that the very fact of the abdication of the Throne of Emperor Nicholas II, which is directly related to his personal qualities, is on the whole an expression of the then historical situation in Russia.

He made this decision only in the hope that those who wanted him removed would still be able to continue the war with honor and not ruin the cause of saving Russia. He was then afraid that his refusal to sign the renunciation would lead to civil war in the sight of the enemy. The tsar did not want even a drop of Russian blood to be shed because of him.

The spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of inner peace in Russia, gives his act a truly moral character. It is no coincidence that during the discussion in July 1918 at the Council of the Local Council of the issue of the funeral commemoration of the murdered Sovereign, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon decided on the widespread service of memorial services with the commemoration of Nicholas II as Emperor.

A very small circle of people could communicate directly with the Sovereign in an informal setting. All those who knew his family life firsthand noted the amazing simplicity, mutual love and consent of all members of this closely united Family. Aleksey Nikolayevich was its center; all attachments, all hopes were concentrated on him.

The circumstance that darkened the life of the Imperial Family was the incurable illness of the Heir. Attacks of hemophilia, during which the child experienced severe suffering, were repeated many times. In September 1912, as a result of a careless movement, internal bleeding occurred and the situation was so serious that they feared for the life of the Tsarevich. Prayers for his recovery were served in all Russian churches. The nature of the disease was a state secret, and parents often had to hide their feelings, participating in the usual routine of palace life. The Empress was well aware that medicine was powerless here. But nothing is impossible for God. Being deeply religious, she devoted herself wholeheartedly to fervent prayer in the expectation of a miraculous healing. Sometimes, when the child was healthy, it seemed to her that her prayer was answered, but the attacks were repeated again, and this filled the mother's soul with endless sorrow. She was ready to believe anyone who was able to help her grief, to somehow alleviate the suffering of her son.

The disease of the Tsarevich opened the doors to the palace to the peasant Grigory Rasputin, who was destined to play a role in the life of the Royal Family, and in the fate of the whole country. The most significant argument among opponents of the canonization of the Royal Family is the very fact of their communication with G.E. Rasputin.

The relationship between the Emperor and Rasputin was complicated; disposition towards him was combined with caution and doubt. “The Emperor several times tried to get rid of the “old man”, but each time he retreated under pressure from the Empress because of the need for Rasputin’s help to heal the Heir.”

In relation to Rasputin, there was an element of human weakness, associated in the Empress with a deep experience of the incurability of the deadly disease of her son, and in the Emperor due to the desire to preserve peace in the Family by compassionate compliance with the maternal torments of the Empress. However, there is no reason to see in the relations of the Royal Family with Rasputin signs of spiritual delusion, and even more so of insufficient churching.

Summing up the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian Emperor, the Commission did not find in this activity alone sufficient grounds for his canonization.

In the life of Emperor Nicholas II there were two periods of unequal duration and spiritual significance - the time of his reign and the time of his imprisonment. The Commission carefully studied the last days of the Royal Family associated with the suffering and martyrdom of its members.

Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often likened his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on whose church memorial day he was born. Having accepted his cross in the same way as the biblical righteous man, he endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of grumbling. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor's life. From the moment of renunciation, it is not so much external events as the inner spiritual state of the Sovereign that draws our attention to itself.

The sovereign, having taken, as it seemed to him, the only correct decision, nevertheless experienced severe mental anguish. “If I am an obstacle to the happiness of Russia and all the social forces now at the head of it ask me to leave the throne and pass it on to my son and brother, then I am ready to do this, I am ready not only to give the Kingdom, but also to give my life for the Motherland. I think that no one doubts this among those who know me, ”said the Sovereign to General D.N. Dubensky.

“The Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, who saw so much betrayal around him ... retained an indestructible faith in God, paternal love for the Russian people, a readiness to lay down his life for the honor and glory of the Motherland.” On March 8, 1917, the commissars of the Provisional Government, having arrived in Mogilev, announced through General M.V. Alekseev about the arrest of the Sovereign and the need to proceed to Tsarskoye Selo. For the last time, he addresses his troops, calling on them to be loyal to the Provisional Government, the very one that arrested him, to fulfill their duty to the Motherland until complete victory.

Consistently and methodically killing all members of the Imperial Family who fell into their hands, the Bolsheviks were primarily guided by ideology, and then by political calculation - after all, in the popular mind, the Emperor continued to be the Anointed of God, and the entire Royal Family symbolized Russia leaving and Russia being destroyed. On July 21, 1918, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, in his speech during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the Moscow Kazan Cathedral, as if answered those questions and doubts that the Russian Church will try to comprehend in eight decades: “We know that he (Emperor Nicholas II - M.Yu. .), abdicating the Throne, did it, bearing in mind the good of Russia and out of love for her.”

Most witnesses of the last period of the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk governor's and Yekaterinburg Ipatiev houses as people who suffered and, despite all the mockery and insults, led a pious life. In the Imperial Family, which found itself in prison, we see people who sincerely strived to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives.

The Imperial Family spent a lot of time in soul-beneficial reading, especially of the Holy Scriptures, and in regular - almost inexhaustible - attendance at divine services.

Kindness and peace of mind did not leave the Empress during this difficult time. The emperor, by nature closed, felt calm and complacent, especially in a narrow family circle. The Empress did not like secular communication, balls. Her strict upbringing was alien to the moral licentiousness that reigned in the court environment, the religiosity of the Empress was called strangeness, even hypocrisy. Alexandra Feodorovna's letters reveal the whole depth of her religious feelings - how much fortitude they contain, sorrow for the fate of Russia, faith and hope for God's help. And to whomever she wrote, she found words of support and consolation. These letters are true testimonies of the Christian faith.

Consolation and strength in enduring sorrows gave the prisoners spiritual reading, prayer, divine services, communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. Many times in the letters of the Empress it is said about the spiritual life of her and other members of the Family: “There is consolation in prayer: I pity those who find it unfashionable, not necessary to pray ...” In another letter she writes: “Lord, help those who cannot contain love God's in hardened hearts, who see only all the bad and do not try to understand that all this will pass; it cannot be otherwise, the Savior came, showed us an example. Whoever follows His path in the wake of love and suffering understands all the greatness of the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Together with their parents, the Tsar's children endured all humiliation and suffering with meekness and humility. Archpriest Afanasy Belyaev, who confessed the Tsar's children, wrote: “The impression [from the confession] turned out to be this: grant, Lord, that all children be morally as high as the children of the former Tsar. Such kindness, humility, obedience to the parental will, unconditional devotion to the will of God, purity in thoughts and complete ignorance of earthly dirt - passionate and sinful, - he writes, - led me to amazement and I was decidedly perplexed: is it necessary to remind me, as a confessor, of sins, perhaps unknown to them, and how to incline them to repentance for the sins known to them.”

In almost complete isolation from the outside world, surrounded by rude and cruel guards, the prisoners of the Ipatiev House show amazing nobility and clarity of spirit.

Their true greatness did not stem from their royal dignity, but from that amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.

Together with the Imperial Family, their servants, who followed their masters into exile, were also shot. In connection with the fact that they voluntarily remained with the Royal Family and were martyred, it would be legitimate to raise the question of their canonization; to them, in addition to those shot together with the Imperial Family by Dr. E.S. Botkin, Empress A.S. Demidova, court cook I.M. Kharitonov and footman A.E. The troupe belonged to those killed in various places and in different months of 1918, Adjutant General I.L. Tatishchev, Marshal Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, “uncle” of the Heir K.G. Nagorny, children's footman I.D. Sednev, maid of honor of the Empress A.V. Gendrikova and goflectress E.A. Schneider. It is not possible for the commission to make a final decision on the existence of grounds for the canonization of this group of laity, who, on duty as court service, accompanied the Royal Family during its imprisonment and suffered a violent death. The commission does not have information about a wide prayerful commemoration of these laity by name. In addition, there is little information about religious life and their personal piety. The commission came to the conclusion that the most appropriate form of veneration of the Christian feat of the faithful servants of the Royal Family, who shared its tragic fate, today can be the perpetuation of this feat in the lives of the Royal Martyrs.

The topic of the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II and members of the Royal Family was widely discussed in the 1990s in a number of publications in the ecclesiastical and secular press. The decisive majority of books and articles by religious authors support the idea of ​​glorifying the Royal Martyrs. A number of publications contain convincing criticism of the arguments of the opponents of canonization.

In the name of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II, the Holy Synod and the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints received many appeals approving the conclusions made in October 1996 by the Commission for the Canonization of Saints regarding the glorification of the Royal Martyrs.

The Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints also received appeals from the ruling bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, in which, on behalf of clergy and laity, they expressed their approval of the conclusions of the Commission.

In some dioceses, the issue of canonization was discussed at diocesan, deanery, and parish meetings. They expressed unanimous support for the idea of ​​glorifying the Royal Martyrs. The Commission also received appeals from individual clerics and laity, as well as groups of believers from different dioceses, with support for the canonization of the Royal Family. Some of them bear the signatures of several thousand people. Among the authors of such appeals are Russian emigrants, as well as clerics and laity of the fraternal Orthodox Churches. Many of those who applied to the Commission spoke in favor of the speedy, immediate canonization of the Royal Martyrs. The idea of ​​the need for the speedy glorification of the Sovereign and the Royal Martyrs was expressed by a number of church and public organizations.

Of particular value are publications and appeals to the Commission and other church authorities, containing testimonies of miracles and grace-filled help through prayers to the Royal Martyrs. They are about healings, uniting separated families, protecting church property from schismatics. Particularly abundant is evidence of the myrrh-streaming of icons with images of Emperor Nicholas II and the Royal Martyrs, of the fragrance and miraculous appearance of blood-colored spots on the icons of the Royal Martyrs.

I would like to touch on the issue of the remains of the Royal Family. The State Commission “for the study of issues related to the study and reburial of the remains of the Russian Emperor Nicholas II and members of his Family” completed, as you know, its work on January 30, 1998. The State Commission recognized as true the scientific and historical conclusions made during the investigation by the Republican Center for Forensic Medical Research and the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation about the belonging of the Imperial Family and its servants of the remains found near Yekaterinburg. However, doubts arose in connection with the well-known conclusions of investigator Sokolov, who back in 1918 testified that all the bodies of the Imperial Family and their servants were dismembered and destroyed. The Holy Synod, at its meeting on February 26, 1998, had a judgment on this issue and came to the following conclusion:

“2. Evaluation of the reliability of scientific and investigative conclusions, as well as evidence of their inviolability or irrefutability, is not within the competence of the Church. Scientific and historical responsibility for the conclusions made during the investigation and study regarding the “Ekaterinburg remains” lies entirely with the Republican Center for Forensic Medical Research and the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation.

3. The decision of the State Commission to identify the remains found near Yekaterinburg as belonging to the Family of Emperor Nicholas II caused serious doubts and even opposition in the Church and society.”

Since since then, as far as is known, there have been no new results of scientific research in this area, the “Ekaterinburg remains” buried on July 17, 1998 in St. Petersburg today cannot be recognized by us as belonging to the Royal Family.

The veneration of the Royal Family, already begun by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon in a prayer for the dead and a word at a memorial service in the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow for the murdered Emperor three days after the Yekaterinburg assassination, continued - despite the prevailing ideology - throughout several decades of the Soviet period of our history. The clergy and laity offered up prayers to God for the repose of the slain sufferers, members of the Royal Family. In the houses in the red corner one could see photographs of the Royal Family, and recently icons depicting the Royal Martyrs began to be widely distributed. Now such icons are found in some monasteries and churches of a number of dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church. Prayers addressed to them and various musical, cinematographic and literary works are compiled, reflecting the suffering and martyrdom of the Royal Family. Everywhere and more often funeral requiems are performed for her. All this testifies to the growing reverence for the murdered Royal Family throughout Russia.

The Commission, in its approach to this topic, sought to ensure that the glorification of the Royal Martyrs was free from any political or other conjuncture. In this regard, it seems necessary to emphasize that the canonization of the Monarch is in no way connected with the monarchist ideology and, moreover, does not mean the “canonization” of the monarchical form of government, which, of course, can be treated differently. The activities of the head of state cannot be removed from the political context, but this does not mean that the Church, when canonizing a Tsar or a prince, which she did in the past, is guided by political or ideological considerations. Just as the acts of canonization of monarchs that took place in the past were not of a political nature, no matter how the biased enemies of the Church interpret these events in their tendentious assessments, so the upcoming glorification of the Royal Martyrs will not and should not have a political character, for, glorifying the saint, the Church does not persecute political goals, which she actually does not have by the nature of things, but testifies before the people of God, who already honor the righteous, that the ascetic she canonizes really pleased God and intercedes for us before the Throne of God, regardless of what position he occupied in his earthly life: whether it was from these little ones, like the holy righteous John of Russia, or from the powerful of this world, like the holy Emperor Justinian.

Behind the many sufferings endured by the Royal Family over the last 17 months of their lives, which ended with execution in the basement of the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House on the night of July 17, 1918, we see people who sincerely sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom, the light of Christ's faith conquering evil was revealed, just as it shone in the life and death of millions of Orthodox Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the 20th century.

It is in understanding this feat of the Royal Family that the Commission, in complete unanimity and with the approval of the Holy Synod, finds it possible to glorify in the Cathedral of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the face of the Passion-Bearers Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatyana, Maria and Anastasia.

The stormy activity to protect the good name of Emperor Nicholas II from director Alexei Uchitel with his film "Matilda", which was developed by Orthodox activists, part of the clergy and even State Duma deputies led by Natalia Poklonskaya, created the public the illusion that being Orthodox and relating to the latter Russian emperor without trembling is impossible. However, in the Russian Orthodox Church there were and still are different opinions about his holiness.

Recall that Nicholas II, his wife, four daughters, a son and ten servants were canonized in 1981 by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia as martyrs, and then, in 2000, the royal family was recognized as holy martyrs and the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church made this decision only on the second attempt.

The first time this could have happened at a council in 1997, but then it turned out that several bishops, as well as some part of the clergy and laity, opposed the recognition of Nicholas II at once.

Last Judgment

After the fall of the USSR, church life in Russia was on the rise, and in addition to restoring churches and opening monasteries, the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate was faced with the task of “healing” the schism with white émigrés and their descendants by uniting with ROCOR.

The fact that the canonization of the royal family and other victims of the Bolsheviks in 2000 eliminated one of the contradictions between the two Churches was stated by the future Patriarch Kirill, who then headed the department for external church relations. Indeed, six years later the Churches were reunited.

“We glorified the royal family precisely as martyrs: the basis for this canonization was the innocent death accepted by Nicholas II with Christian humility, and not political activity, which was rather controversial. By the way, this cautious decision did not suit many, because someone did not want this canonization at all, and someone demanded the canonization of the sovereign as a great martyr, “ritually martyred by the Jews,” said many years later a member of the Synodal Commission for Canonization Holy Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov.

And he added: “It must be borne in mind that someone in our calendar, as it turns out at the Last Judgment, is not a saint.”

"State traitor"

The most senior opponents of the emperor's canonization in the church hierarchy in the 1990s were Metropolitans of St. Petersburg and Ladoga John (Snychev) and Nikolai (Kutepov) of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas.

For Vladyka John, the tsar's worst transgression was his abdication of the throne at a critical moment for the country.

“Let's say he felt that he had lost the trust of the people. Suppose there was a betrayal - a betrayal of the intelligentsia, a military betrayal. But you are the king! And if the commander cheats on you, remove him. We must show firmness in the struggle for the Russian state! Unacceptable weakness. If we suffer to the end, then on the throne. And he stepped away from power, handed it over, in fact, to the Provisional Government. And who composed it? Freemasons, enemies. This is how the door for the revolution opened, ”he was indignant in one of his interviews.

However, Metropolitan John died in 1995 and was unable to influence the decision of other bishops.

Metropolitan Nicholas of Nizhny Novgorod - a veteran of the Great Patriotic War who fought near Stalingrad - until the last refused Nicholas II in holiness, calling him a "traitor". Shortly after the 2000 council, he gave an interview in which he explicitly stated that he had voted against the canonization decision.

“You see, I didn’t take any steps, because if an icon has already been made, where, so to speak, the tsar-father is sitting, what is there to perform? So the issue is resolved. It is resolved without me, without you it is resolved. When all the bishops signed the act of canonization, I marked next to my mural that I signed everything except the third paragraph. In the third paragraph, the tsar-father was walking, and I did not sign under his canonization. He is a traitor. He, one might say, sanctioned the collapse of the country. And no one will convince me otherwise. He had to use force, up to the deprivation of life, because everything was handed over to him, but he considered it necessary to escape under the skirt of Alexandra Feodorovna, ”the hierarch was convinced.

As for the Orthodox "foreigners", Vladyka Nikolay spoke very harshly about them. “Escape and bark from there - no big mind is required,” he said.

Royal sins

Among the critics of the canonization of the emperor was Alexei Osipov, professor of theology at the Moscow Theological Academy, who, despite the lack of holy orders, has great authority among some Orthodox believers and bishops: dozens of the current bishops are simply his students. The professor wrote and published an entire article arguing against canonization.

Thus, Osipov directly pointed out that the tsar and his relatives were canonized by ROCOR “mainly for political reasons” and after the collapse of the USSR the same motives prevailed in Russia, and admirers of Nicholas II, without any reason, attribute to the emperor the greatest personal holiness and the role of a redeemer sins of the Russian people, which from the point of view of theology is heresy.

Professor Osipov also recalled how Rasputin dishonored the royal family and interfered in the work of the Holy Synod, and that the tsar did not abolish "the anti-canonical leadership and management of the Church by the laity, introduced according to the Protestant model."

Separately, he dwelled on the religiosity of Nicholas II, which, according to Osipov, "had a distinct character of inter-confessional mysticism."

It is known that Empress Alexandra Feodorovna despised the Russian clergy, calling the members of the Synod "animals", but at the court she welcomed all sorts of magicians who conducted seances for the imperial couple, and other charlatans.

“This mysticism left a heavy seal on the whole spiritual mood of the emperor, making him, in the words of Protopresbyter Georgy Shavelsky, “a fatalist and a slave to his wife.” Christianity and fatalism are incompatible,” notes the professor.

Like Metropolitans John and Nikolai, Osipov insisted that the emperor, by his abdication, "abolished the autocracy in Russia and thereby opened the direct road to the establishment of a revolutionary dictatorship."

“None of the now canonized holy new martyrs of Russia - Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitan Veniamin of St. Petersburg, Archbishop Thaddeus (Uspensky), Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov), the same Hilarion of Troitsky - none of them called the tsar a holy martyr. But they could. Moreover, in the decision of the Holy Synod regarding the abdication of the sovereign, not the slightest regret was expressed, ”concludes Alexei Osipov.

"A wise decision"

Opponents of canonization were not only in Russia, but also abroad. Among them is the former prince, Archbishop of San Francisco John (Shakhovskoy). The very first primate of ROCOR, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), a member of the Holy Synod, a witness to the revolution and one of the most respected hierarchs of his time, did not even think about the canonization of the tsar, considering his tragic death as retribution for the “sins of the dynasty”, whose representatives “madly proclaimed themselves the head of the Churches". However, the hatred of the Bolsheviks and the desire to emphasize their cruelty turned out to be more important for the followers of Metropolitan Anthony.

Bishop Maximilian of Vologda later told reporters how Metropolitan Nikolai and other opponents of the canonization of the tsar found themselves in the minority at the 2000 council.

“Let's recall the Council of Bishops in 1997, at which the question of the canonization of the royal martyrs was discussed. Then the materials were already collected and carefully studied. Some bishops said that it was necessary to glorify the sovereign-emperor, others called for the opposite, while most of the bishops took a neutral position. At that time, the solution of the issue of the canonization of the royal martyrs, probably, could have led to a division. And His Holiness [Patriarch Alexy II] made a very wise decision. He said that the glorification should be at the Jubilee Cathedral. Three years have passed, and while talking with those bishops who were against canonization, I saw that their opinion had changed. Those who hesitated stood for canonization,” the bishop testified.

One way or another, but the opponents of the canonization of the emperor remained in the minority, and their arguments were consigned to oblivion. Although conciliar decisions are binding on all believers and now they cannot afford to openly disagree with the holiness of Nicholas II, judging by the discussions in Runet around Matilda, complete unanimity on this issue in the ranks of the Orthodox has not been achieved.

Dissenters in the ROC

Those who are not ready to admire the last tsar, following the example of Natalia Poklonskaya, point to the special rank of holiness in which he was glorified - the “passion-bearer”. Among them is Protodeacon Andrey Kuraev, who told SNEG.TV about the mythologization of the figure of Nicholas II.

“The special rank of holiness in which Nicholas II was glorified, the “passion-bearer,” is not a martyr, not the second version of Christ, who allegedly took upon himself the sins of the entire Russian people, but a man who could not become embittered in a situation of arrest and in a Christian way accept all the sorrows that fell to his lot. I can accept this version, but, unfortunately, our Russian maximalism begins to work further: huge layers of mythology are already beginning to be added to this basis. In my opinion, we will soon have a dogma about the immaculate conception of Nicholas II,” he said.

“The scandals around Matilda show the popular demand that he was a saint not only at the moment of death, but always. However, at the council of 2000, it was emphasized that his glorification as a martyr does not mean either the canonization of the monarchical type of government as such, or specifically the form of government of Nicholas II as a tsar. That is, holiness is not in the king, but in a man named Nikolai Romanov. This is completely forgotten today,” the clergyman added.

Also, Protodeacon Andrey Kuraev answered the question in the affirmative
SNEG.TV, whether the canonization of the royal family was a condition for the reunification of the ROC and ROCOR. “Yes, it was, and in many ways, of course, this canonization was political,” Kuraev noted.

Holiness Commission

In order to more clearly understand who the Passion-bearers are called in the Church, one should refer to the official clarifications from the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints. From 1989 to 2011, it was headed by Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna, during which time 1866 ascetics of piety were canonized, including 1776 new martyrs and confessors who suffered during the years of Soviet power.

In his report at the Council of Bishops in 2000 - the very one where the issue of the royal family was decided - Bishop Yuvenaly stated the following: “One of the main arguments of opponents of the canonization of the royal family is the assertion that the death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family cannot be recognized as a martyr for Christ. The commission, on the basis of a careful consideration of the circumstances of the death of the royal family, proposes to carry out its canonization in the guise of holy martyrs. In the liturgical and hagiographic literature of the Russian Orthodox Church, the word “passion-bearer” began to be used in relation to those Russian saints who, imitating Christ, endured with patience physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents.

“In the history of the Russian Church, such martyrs were the holy noble princes Boris and Gleb (1015), Igor Chernigov (1147), Andrei Bogolyubsky (1174), Mikhail of Tverskoy (1319), Tsarevich Dimitri (1591). All of them, with their feat of passion-bearers, showed a high example of Christian morality and patience,” he noted.

The proposal was accepted, and the council decided to recognize the emperor, his wife and children as holy martyrs, despite the fact that the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad in 1981 had already recognized the entire royal family and even its servants as “full-fledged” martyrs, among whom was the Catholic valet Aloysius Troupe and Lutheran Goflektress Ekaterina Schneider. The latter died not with the royal family in Yekaterinburg, but two months later in Perm. History knows no other examples of the canonization of Catholics and Protestants by the Orthodox Church.

unholy saints

Meanwhile, the canonization of a Christian in the rank of martyr or passion-bearer in no way whitewashes his entire biography as a whole. Thus, in 1169, the Holy Passion-Bearer Grand Duke Andrei Bogolyubsky ordered Kiev, the “mother of Russian cities,” to be taken by storm, after which houses, churches and monasteries were mercilessly looted and destroyed, which made a terrible impression on contemporaries.

In the list of holy martyrs, one can also find such people as Barbarian Lukansky, who for the first part of his life was engaged in robberies, robberies and murders, and then suddenly believed in God, repented and died as a result of an accident - passing merchants mistook him in the tall grass for a dangerous animal and shot. Yes, and according to the Gospel, the first to enter paradise was the robber crucified on the right hand of Christ, who himself recognized the justice of the sentence pronounced on him, but managed to repent a few hours before his death.

The stubborn fact that most of the life and entire reign of Emperor Nicholas, right up to his abdication and exile, is by no means an example of holiness, was also openly recognized at the 2000 council. “Summing up the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian emperor, the Commission did not find in this activity alone sufficient grounds for his canonization. It seems necessary to emphasize that the canonization of the monarch is in no way connected with the monarchist ideology, and even more so does not mean the “canonization” of the monarchical form of government,” Metropolitan Yuvenaly concluded then.

Canonization of the royal family- glorification in the face of Orthodox saints of the last Russian emperor Nicholas II, his wife and five children, who were shot in the basement of the Ipatiev house in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 16-17, 1918.

In 1981, they were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and in 2000, after lengthy disputes that caused a significant resonance in Russia, they were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, and are currently revered by it as "Royal Passion-bearers".

Main dates

• 1918 - the execution of the royal family.
• In 1928 they were canonized by the Catacomb Church.
• In 1938 they were canonized by the Serbian Orthodox Church (this fact is disputed by Professor A. I. Osipov). The first news about the appeals of believers to the Synod of the Serbian Church with a petition for the canonization of Nicholas II dates back to 1930.
• In 1981 they were glorified by the Russian Church Abroad.
• October 1996 - The ROC Commission on the glorification of the Royal Martyrs presented its report
• On August 20, 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church was canonized as the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, both revealed and unrevealed.

Day of Remembrance: July 4 (17) (the day of the execution), as well as among the Cathedral of the New Martyrs - January 25 (February 7), if this day coincides with Sunday, and if it does not coincide, then on the next Sunday after January 25 (February 7).

background

Execution

On the night of July 16-17, 1918, the Romanovs and their attendants were shot in the basement of the Ipatiev House by order of the "Ural Soviet of Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' Deputies", headed by the Bolsheviks.

Almost immediately after the announcement of the execution of the tsar and his family, moods began to arise in the believing layers of Russian society, which eventually led to canonization.

Three days after the execution, on July 8 (21), 1918, during a divine service in the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow, Patriarch Tikhon delivered a sermon in which he outlined the "essence of the spiritual feat" of the tsar and the church's attitude to the issue of execution: “The other day, a terrible thing happened: the former Sovereign Nikolai Alexandrovich was shot ... We must, in obedience to the teaching of the word of God, condemn this deed, otherwise the blood of the person who was shot will fall on us, and not only on those who committed it. We know that when he abdicated, he did this with the good of Russia in mind and out of love for her. After his renunciation, he could have found security and a relatively quiet life abroad, but he did not do this, wanting to suffer along with Russia. He did nothing to improve his position, meekly resigned himself to fate. In addition, Patriarch Tikhon blessed the archpastors and pastors to perform memorial services for the Romanovs.

The almost mystical respect for the anointed one, characteristic of the people, the tragic circumstances of his death at the hands of enemies, and the pity caused by the death of innocent children - all this became components from which the attitude towards the royal family gradually grew not as victims of political struggle, but as to Christian martyrs. As the Russian Orthodox Church notes, “the veneration of the Royal Family, begun by Tikhon, continued - despite the prevailing ideology - throughout several decades of the Soviet period of our history. The clergy and laity offered up prayers to God for the repose of the slain sufferers, members of the Royal Family. In the houses in the red corner one could see photographs of the Royal Family. There are no statistics on how widespread this veneration was.

In the émigré circle these sentiments were even more evident. For example, in the emigrant press there were reports of miracles performed by royal martyrs (1947, see below: Declared miracles of royal martyrs). Metropolitan Anthony of Surozh, in his 1991 interview characterizing the situation among Russian emigrants, points out that “many abroad venerate them as saints. Those who belong to the patriarchal church or other churches perform memorial services in their memory, and even prayers. And in private they consider themselves free to pray to them, ”which, in his opinion, is already a local veneration. In 1981, the royal family was glorified by the Church Abroad.

In the 1980s, even in Russia, voices began to be heard about the official canonization of at least the executed children (unlike Nicholas and Alexandra, their innocence is beyond doubt). Icons painted without church blessing are mentioned, in which only they were depicted alone, without parents. In 1992, the sister of the Empress Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, another victim of the Bolsheviks, was canonized. However, there were also many opponents of canonization.

Arguments against canonization

• The death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family was not a martyr's death for Christ, but only political repression.
• The unsuccessful state and church policy of the emperor, including such events as Khodynka, Bloody Sunday and the Lena massacre, and the extremely controversial activities of Grigory Rasputin.
• The abdication of the anointed king from the throne should be regarded as an ecclesiastical canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the priesthood.
• "The religiosity of the royal couple, for all their outwardly traditional Orthodoxy, had a distinct character of inter-confessional mysticism"
• The active movement for the canonization of the royal family in the 1990s was not of a spiritual, but of a political nature.
• “neither the holy Patriarch Tikhon, nor the holy Metropolitan Veniamin of Petrograd, nor the holy Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsy, nor the holy Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov), nor the holy Archbishop Thaddeus, nor Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), who, no doubt, will soon be canonized as saints, nor the other hierarchs now glorified by our Church, the new martyrs, who knew much more and better than we now, the personality of the former Tsar - none of them ever expressed the thought of him as a holy martyr (and at that time it was still possible to declare this in whole voice)
• Causes deep bewilderment and promoted by supporters of canonization of responsibility for "the gravest sin of regicide, which weighs on all the peoples of Russia."

Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad canonized Nicholas and the entire royal family in 1981. At the same time, the Russian New Martyrs and ascetics of that time were canonized, including Patriarch Tikhon (Bellavin) of Moscow and All Russia.

ROC

The official church of the latter raised the issue of the canonization of the executed monarchs (which, of course, was connected with the political situation in the country). When considering this issue, she was faced with the example of other Orthodox churches, the reputation that the dead had long begun to enjoy in the eyes of believers, as well as the fact that they had already been glorified as locally venerated saints in the Yekaterinburg, Lugansk, Bryansk, Odessa and Tulchinsk dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church .

In 1992, by the decision of the Council of Bishops of March 31 - April 4, the Synodal Commission for the canonization of saints was instructed “when studying the exploits of the New Martyrs of Russia, begin researching materials related to the martyrdom of the Royal Family”. From 1992 to 1997, the Commission, headed by Metropolitan Yuvenaly, devoted 19 meetings to this topic, in between which the members of the commission carried out in-depth research work to study various aspects of the life of the Royal Family. At the Council of Bishops in 1994, the report of the chairman of the commission outlined the position on a number of studies completed by that time.

The results of the work of the Commission were reported to the Holy Synod at a meeting on October 10, 1996. A report was published in which the position of the Russian Orthodox Church on this issue was announced. Based on this positive report, further steps were possible.

The main theses of the report:

• Canonization should not give reasons and arguments in the political struggle or worldly confrontations. Its purpose, on the contrary, is to promote the unification of the people of God in faith and piety.
• In connection with the particularly active activity of modern monarchists, the Commission emphasized its position: “the canonization of the Monarch is in no way connected with the monarchist ideology and, moreover, does not mean the “canonization” of the monarchical form of government ... While glorifying the saint, the Church does not pursue political goals ... but testifies before already honoring the righteous by the people of God, that the ascetic canonized by her really pleased God and intercedes for us before the Throne of God, regardless of what position he occupied in his earthly life.
• The commission notes that in the life of Nicholas II there were two periods of unequal duration and spiritual significance - the time of the reign and the time of being in prison. In the first period (staying in power), the Commission did not find sufficient grounds for canonization, the second period (spiritual and physical suffering) is more important for the Church, and therefore she focused her attention on it.

Based on the arguments taken into account by the ROC (see below), as well as thanks to petitions and miracles, the Commission announced the following conclusion:

In 2000, at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church, the royal family was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as a saint as part of the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, revealed and unmanifested (in total, including 860 people). The final decision was made on August 14 at a meeting in the hall of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, and until the very last moment it was not known whether the canonization would take place or not. They voted by standing up, and the decision was taken unanimously. The only church hierarch who spoke out against the canonization of the royal family was Metropolitan Nikolai (Kutepov) of Nizhny Novgorod: “ when all the bishops signed the act of canonization, I marked next to my mural that I signed everything except the third paragraph. In the third paragraph, the tsar-father was walking, and I did not sign under his canonization. ... he is a traitor. ... he, one might say, sanctioned the collapse of the country. And no one will convince me otherwise.» The rite of canonization was performed on August 20, 2000.

From the “Acts on the Cathedral Glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the 20th Century”:

Arguments for canonization, taken into account by the ROC

• Circumstances of death- physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents.
• Wide popular veneration royal passion-bearers served as one of the main grounds for their glorification as saints.
• “conversions of individual clerics and laity, as well as groups of believers from different dioceses, with support for the canonization of the Royal Family. Some of them bear the signatures of several thousand people. Among the authors of such appeals are Russian emigrants, as well as clerics and laity of the fraternal Orthodox Churches. Many of those who applied to the Commission spoke in favor of the speedy, immediate canonization of the Royal Martyrs. The idea of ​​the need for the speedy glorification of the Sovereign and the Royal Martyrs was expressed by a number of church and public organizations. In three years, 22,873 appeals for the glorification of the royal family were received, according to Metropolitan Yuvenaly.
• « Testimonies of miracles and grace-filled help through prayers to the Royal Martyrs. They are about healings, uniting separated families, protecting church property from schismatics. Particularly abundant is evidence of the myrrh-streaming of icons with images of Emperor Nicholas II and the Royal Martyrs, of the fragrance and miraculous appearance of blood-colored spots on the icons of the Royal Martyrs.
• Personal piety of the Sovereign: the emperor paid great attention to the needs of the Orthodox Church, generously donated to the construction of new churches, including those outside Russia. Deep religiosity singled out the Imperial couple among the representatives of the then aristocracy. All its members lived in accordance with the traditions of Orthodox piety. During the years of his reign, more saints were canonized than in the previous two centuries (in particular, Theodosius of Chernigov, Seraphim of Sarov, Anna Kashinskaya, Joasaph of Belgorod, Hermogenes of Moscow, Pitirim of Tambov, John of Tobolsk).
• “The Church policy of the Emperor did not go beyond the traditional synodal system of governing the Church. However, it was during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II that until then for two centuries the church hierarchy, which had been officially silent on the issue of convening a Council, had the opportunity not only to widely discuss, but also to practically prepare the convening of the Local Council.
• The activities of the empress and led. princes as sisters of mercy during the war.
• “Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often likened his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on the day of whose church memory he was born. Having accepted his cross in the same way as the biblical righteous man, he endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of grumbling. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor's life. From the moment of renunciation, it is not so much external events as the internal spiritual state of the Sovereign that draws our attention to itself. Most witnesses of the last period of the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk governor's and Yekaterinburg Ipatiev houses as people who suffered and, despite all the mockery and insults, led a pious life. "Their true greatness did not stem from their royal dignity, but from that amazing moral height to which they gradually rose."

Refutation of the arguments of opponents of canonization

• The emperor cannot be blamed for the events of Bloody Sunday: “The order to the troops to open fire was given not by the Emperor, but by the Commander of the St. Petersburg Military District. Historical data do not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign in the January days of 1905 a conscious evil will directed against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions.
• The guilt of Nicholas as an unsuccessful statesman should not be considered: “we must evaluate not this or that form of government, but the place that a particular person occupies in the state mechanism. The extent to which this or that person has managed to embody Christian ideals in his activity is subject to assessment. It should be noted that Nicholas II treated the duties of the monarch as his sacred duty.
• The renunciation of the royal dignity is not a crime against the church: “The desire, typical for some opponents of the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II, to present his abdication from the Throne as an ecclesiastical canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the holy dignity, cannot be recognized as having any serious grounds . The canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed for the Kingdom was not defined in church canons. Therefore, attempts to discover the composition of some ecclesiastical canonical crime in the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power seem to be untenable. On the contrary, “The spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of inner peace in Russia, gives his act a truly moral character.”
• "There is no reason to see in the relations of the Royal Family with Rasputin signs of spiritual delusion, and even more so of insufficient churching - there is no reason."

Aspects of canonization

Question about the face of holiness

In Orthodoxy, there is a very developed and carefully worked out hierarchy of faces of holiness - categories into which it is customary to divide saints depending on their work during their lifetime. The question of what kind of saints the royal family should be attributed to causes a lot of controversy among various currents of the Orthodox Church, which evaluate the life and death of the family in different ways.

• Passion-bearers- an option chosen by the Russian Orthodox Church, which did not find grounds for canonization in the face of martyrs. In the tradition (hagiographic and liturgical) of the Russian Church, the term “passion-bearer” is used in relation to those Russian saints who, “imitating Christ, patiently endured physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents. In the history of the Russian Church, such martyrs were the holy noble princes Boris and Gleb (+1015), Igor Chernigov (+1147), Andrei Bogolyubsky (+1174), Mikhail of Tverskoy (+1319), Tsarevich Dimitri (+1591). All of them, with their feat of passion-bearers, showed a high example of Christian morality and patience.
• Martyrs- despite the assignment of the death of the royal family to the category of martyrdom (see above the definition of the Council of Bishops), in order to be included in this face of holiness, it is necessary to suffer precisely for witnessing one's faith in Christ. Despite this, ROCOR in 1981 glorified the royal family in this very image of holiness. The reason for this was the reworking of the traditional principles of canonization in the face of martyrs by Archpriest Mikhail Polsky, who fled the USSR, who, based on the recognition of “Soviet power” in the USSR as essentially anti-Christian, considered all Orthodox Christians killed by representatives of state power in Soviet Russia to be “new Russian martyrs”. Moreover, in his interpretation, Christian martyrdom washes away all previously former sins from a person.

• the faithful- the most common face of holiness for monarchs. In Russia, this epithet even acted as part of the official title of the Grand Dukes and the first tsars. However, traditionally it is not used for saints canonized as martyrs or martyrs. Another important detail is that persons who had the status of a monarch at the time of death are glorified in the face of the faithful. Nicholas II, having abdicated the throne, at the direction of the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy A. I. Osipov, created a temptation for believers, without enduring, according to the word of the Gospel, to the end (Matt. 10:22). Osipov also believes that during the abdication of the throne, there was a renunciation of the grace received, according to the teachings of the church, during the worldview at the time of the crowning of the kingdom. Despite this, in radical monarchical circles, Nicholas II is also revered among the faithful.
• Also, in radical monarchical and pseudo-Orthodox circles, the epithet " redeemer". This is manifested both in written appeals sent to the Moscow Patriarchate when considering the issue of canonization of the royal family, and in non-canonical akathists and prayers: “ Oh wonderful and glorious Tsar-redeemer Nicholas". However, at a meeting of the Moscow clergy, Patriarch Alexy II spoke unequivocally about the inadmissibility of such a thing, stating that “ if he sees books in some church in which Nicholas II is called the Redeemer, he will consider the rector of this church as a preacher of heresy. We have one Redeemer - Christ».

Metropolitan Sergius (Fomin) in 2006 spoke disapprovingly about the action of a nationwide conciliar repentance for the sin of regicide, carried out by a number of near-Orthodox circles: “ The canonization of Nicholas II and his family as martyrs does not satisfy the newly-minted zealots of the monarchy", and called such monarchical predilections " the heresy of kings". (The reason is that the face of the martyrs seems to be not “solid” enough for the monarchists.)

Canonization of servants

Together with the Romanovs, four of their servants, who followed their masters into exile, were also shot. ROCOR canonized them jointly with the royal family. And the ROC points to a formal mistake made by the Church Abroad during the canonization against custom: “It should be noted that the decision, which has no historical analogies in the Orthodox Church, to include in the number of canonized, who accepted martyrdom together with the Royal Family, the royal servant of the Roman Catholic Aloysius Yegorovich Trupp and the Lutheran goflektriss Ekaterina Adolfovna Schneider”.

The position of the Russian Orthodox Church itself regarding the canonization of servants is as follows: “Due to the fact that they voluntarily remained with the Royal Family and were martyred, it would be legitimate to raise the question of their canonization”. In addition to the four who were shot in the basement, the Commission mentions that this list should have included those “killed” in various places and in different months of 1918, Adjutant General I. L. Tatishchev, Marshal Prince V. A. Dolgorukov, the “uncle” of the Heir K. G. Nagorny, children's footman I. D. Sednev, maid of honor of the Empress A. V. Gendrikov and goflektriss E. A. Schneider. Nevertheless, the Commission concluded that it “does not seem possible to it to make a final decision on the existence of grounds for the canonization of this group of laity, who accompanied the Royal Family on duty in their court service,” since there is no information about a wide nominal prayer commemoration of these servants by believers, in addition , there is no information about their religious life and personal piety. The final conclusion was: “The commission came to the conclusion that the most appropriate form of honoring the Christian feat of the faithful servants of the Royal Family, who shared its tragic fate, today may be to perpetuate this feat in the lives of the Royal Martyrs”.

Besides, there is one more problem. While the royal family has been canonized as martyrs, it is not possible to rank the suffered servants in the same category, because, as one of the members of the Commission stated in an interview, “since ancient times, the rank of martyrs has been applied only to representatives of grand ducal and royal families” .

Society's reaction to canonization

Positive

• The canonization of the royal family eliminated one of the contradictions between the Russian and Russian Churches Abroad (which canonized them 20 years earlier), noted in 2000 the chairman of the department for external church relations, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad. The same point of view was expressed by Prince Nikolai Romanovich Romanov (Chairman of the Association of the House of Romanov), who, however, refused to participate in the act of canonization in Moscow, citing that he was present at the canonization ceremony, which was held in 1981 in New York by ROCOR.
• Andrei Kuraev: “It was not the form of reign of Nicholas II that was canonized, but the form of his death… The 20th century was a terrible one for Russian Christianity. And you can not leave it without summing up some results. Since this was the age of martyrs, one could go in two ways in canonization: try to glorify all the new martyrs (...) Or canonize a certain Unknown Soldier, honor one innocently shot Cossack family, and with it millions of others. But this way for the church consciousness would probably be too radical. Moreover, in Russia there has always been a kind of identity “tsar-people.”

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

• The chapel-monument to the deceased Russian emigrants, Nicholas II and his august family was erected at the cemetery in Zagreb (1935)
• Chapel in memory of Emperor Nicholas II and Serbian King Alexander I in Harbin (1936)
• Church of St. martyr king and sv. New Martyrs and Confessors in Villemoisson, France (1980s)
• Temple of the Sovereign Icon of the Mother of God, Zhukovsky
• Church of St. Tsar Martyr Nicholas in Nikolskoye
• Church of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers Nicholas and Alexandra, pos. Sertolovo
• Monastery in honor of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers near Yekaterinburg.

Icons

• Myrrh-streaming icons
• Myrrh-streaming icon in Butovo
• Myrrh-streaming icon in the church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in Biryulyovo
• The myrrh-streaming icon of Oleg Belchenko (the first report of myrrh-streaming in the house of the writer A. V. Dyakova on November 7, 1998, that is, before the canonization of the royal family), is located in the church of St. Nicholas in Pyzhi
• Bleeding Icon
• fragrant icon

Iconography

There is both a collective image of the whole family, and each of the members individually. In the icons of the “foreign” model, canonized servants join the Romanovs. Passion-bearers can be depicted both in their contemporary clothes of the early twentieth century, and in robes stylized as Ancient Rus', reminiscent of royal robes with parsun in style.

The figures of the Saint Romanovs are also found in the multi-figure icons "Cathedral of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia" and "Cathedral of the Saints patrons of hunters and fishermen".

relics

Patriarch Alexy, on the eve of the classes of the Bishops' Council in 2000, which performed an act of glorification of the royal family, spoke about the remains found near Yekaterinburg: “We have doubts about the authenticity of the remains, and we cannot encourage believers to worship false relics if they are recognized as such in the future.” Metropolitan Yuvenaly (Poyarkov), referring to the judgment of the Holy Synod of February 26, 1998 (“The assessment of the reliability of scientific and investigative conclusions, as well as evidence of their inviolability or irrefutability, is not within the competence of the Church. Scientific and historical responsibility for the decisions taken during the investigation and studying the conclusions regarding the "Yekaterinburg remains" falls entirely on the Republican Center for Forensic Research and the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation. The decision of the State Commission to identify the remains found near Yekaterinburg as belonging to the Family of Emperor Nicholas II caused serious doubts and even opposition in the Church and society. " ), reported to the Council of Bishops in August 2000: “The “Ekaterinburg remains” buried on July 17, 1998 in St. Petersburg today cannot be recognized by us as belonging to the Royal Family.”

In view of this position of the Moscow Patriarchate, which has not changed since then, the remains identified by the government commission as belonging to members of the royal family and buried in July 1998 in the Peter and Paul Cathedral are not revered by the church as holy relics.

Revered as the relics of relics with a clearer origin, for example, the hair of Nicholas, cut off at the age of three.

Declared miracles of royal martyrs

Miraculous deliverance of hundreds of Cossacks. The story about this event appeared in 1947 in the Russian émigré press. The story set forth in it dates back to the time of the civil war, when a detachment of White Cossacks, surrounded and driven by the Reds into impenetrable swamps, appealed for help to the not yet officially glorified Tsarevich Alexei, since, according to the regimental priest, Fr. Elijah, in trouble, one should have prayed to the prince, as to the ataman of the Cossack troops. To the objection of the soldiers that the royal family was not officially glorified, the priest allegedly replied that the glorification takes place by the will of "God's people", and swore he assured the others that their prayer would not go unanswered, and indeed, the Cossacks managed to get out through the swamps that were considered impassable. The numbers of those saved by the intercession of the prince are called - “ 43 women, 14 children, 7 wounded, 11 elderly and disabled, 1 priest, 22 Cossacks, total 98 men and 31 horses».

The miracle of dry branches. One of the latest miracles recognized by the official church authorities occurred on January 7, 2007 in the Church of the Transfiguration of the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery in Zvenigorod, which was once a place of worship for the last tsar and his family. The boys from the monastery shelter, who came to the temple to rehearse the traditional Christmas performance, allegedly noticed that the long-withered branches lying under the glass of the icons of the royal martyrs gave seven shoots (according to the number of faces depicted on the icon) and released green flowers, 1-2 in diameter. see resembling roses, and the flowers and the mother branch belonged to different plant species. According to the publications referring to this event, the service, during which the branches were placed on the icon, was held in Pokrov, that is, three months earlier.

Miraculously grown flowers, four in number, were placed in an icon case, where by the time of Easter they “have not changed at all”, but by the beginning of the Holy Week of Great Lent, green shoots up to 3 cm long were unexpectedly thrown out. Another flower broke off and was planted in the ground , where it turned into a small plant. What happened to the other two is unknown.

With the blessing of Savva, the icon was transferred to the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin, to Savvin's chapel, where, apparently, it is still being found.

Descent of the miraculous fire. As stated, this miracle happened in the Cathedral of the Holy Iberian Monastery in Odessa, when during the divine service on February 15, 2000, a tongue of snow-white flame appeared on the throne of the temple. According to Hieromonk Peter (Golubenkov):

A miraculous image. In July 2001, in the monastery cathedral of the village of Bogolyubskoye, in the upper hemisphere of the ceiling, an image with a crown on his head gradually began to appear, in which they recognized the last tsar of the Romanov dynasty. According to witnesses, it is not possible to create something like this artificially, since the village is relatively small in size, and everyone here knows each other, moreover, it would be impossible to conceal such work by building scaffolding up to the ceiling at night, and at the same time it would be impossible to leave unnoticed . It is also added that the image did not appear instantly, but appeared constantly, as if on photographic film. According to the testimony of the parishioners of the Holy Bogolyubsky Church, the process did not end there, but on the right side of the iconostasis, the image of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna with her son gradually began to appear.

Skepticism about miracles

Professor of the MDA A. I. Osipov writes that when evaluating reports of miracles associated with the royal family, one should take into account that such “ facts in themselves do not at all confirm the holiness of those (a person, denomination, religion), through whom and where they are performed, and that such phenomena can also occur by virtue of faith - “according to your faith, let it be done to you” (Matthew 9:29 ), and by the action of another spirit (Acts 16:16-18), “to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24:24), and, perhaps, for other reasons, as yet unknown to us».

Osipov also notes the following aspects of canonical norms regarding miracles:

• Church recognition of a miracle requires the testimony of the ruling bishop. Only after it can we talk about the nature of this phenomenon - whether it is a divine miracle or a phenomenon of a different order. With regard to most of the described miracles associated with the royal martyrs, there is no such evidence.
• Declaring someone a saint without the blessing of the ruling bishop and a conciliar decision is a non-canonical act, and therefore all references to the miracles of the royal martyrs before their canonization should be taken with skepticism.
• The icon is an image of an ascetic canonized by the church, so the miracles from the icons painted to the official canonization are doubtful.

"The rite of repentance for the sins of the Russian people" and more

Since the end of the 1990s, annually, on the days dedicated to the anniversaries of the birth of the "Martyr Tsar Nicholas" by some representatives of the clergy (in particular, Archimandrite Peter (Kucher)), in Taininsky (Moscow Region), at the monument to Nicholas II by the sculptor Vyacheslav Klykov, a special "Order of repentance for the sins of the Russian people" is performed; the holding of the event was condemned by the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church (Patriarch Alexy II in 2007).

Among some Orthodox, the concept of the "Tsar-redeemer" is in circulation, according to which Nicholas II is revered as "the redeemer of the sin of unfaithfulness of his people"; the concept is referred to by some as the "royal heresy"

According to the unanimous opinion of observers, the key event of the Bishops' Council of the Russian Church taking place in Moscow was the issue of the canonization of the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II and his family. It is to this topic that the last few days have been devoted to the main subjects of television news and the front pages of newspapers and magazines. The dramatic situation was reinforced by the fact that until the very last moment it was not known whether the canonization of the royal martyrs would take place or not.

Certain forces even tried to exert massive informational pressure on the Moscow Patriarchate in order to prevent canonization. In his report at the opening of the Council on August 13, His Holiness the Patriarch deliberately refrained from any opinion on this issue, saying: “I would not impose my opinion on this topic on anyone. I propose to discuss it especially carefully and think about how to transfer this difficult issue to the will of God.”

The question of the canonization of the New Martyrs was decided at the Council of Bishops today, August 14. In the hall of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, where the chairman of the Synodal Commission for Canonization, Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna, was making a presentation, only bishops were present. At 5:20 p.m. we were informed from the Cathedral Hall that a few minutes ago the final positive decision on canonization had been made. In the debate before this, about 60 bishops spoke, who, with tears in their eyes, spoke of the need to glorify the martyr tsar and his family. Some doubts were expressed by only one bishop from Western Ukraine. They voted by standing up, and the hall of Church Councils, full of standing bishops, testified better than any words to the holiness of the royal martyrs. The decision was taken unanimously.

The Council also decided to canonize 860 of the vast number of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia who suffered for Christ in the 20th century. A number of locally revered saints are also included in the Council. The church celebration of the canonization of the host of the New Martyrs of Russia will take place in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior on the second day of the Transfiguration of the Lord, August 20. After that, services will be composed for the newly glorified saints, including the martyrs Tsar Nicholas, Tsarina Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Tsarevna Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and their lives will be written, and icons will be blessed for church-wide veneration. Ranking among the saints means that the Church testifies to the closeness of these people to God and prays to them as to their patrons.

The act of the Council, in particular, reads: “In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his Family, we see people who sincerely strived to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 4 (17), 1918, the light of Christ's faith conquering evil was revealed.

Prior to this, the royal martyrs were glorified as locally venerated saints in the Yekaterinburg, Lugansk, Bryansk, Odessa and Tulchinsk dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church. They were revered as saints in the Serbian Church. Among the church people, the veneration of the Royal Family, as Metropolitan Yuvenaly noted in one of his reports, was begun by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon in a prayer for the dead and a word at a memorial service for the murdered emperor three days after the Yekaterinburg assassination "and continued - despite the prevailing ideology - throughout several decades of the Soviet period of our history. In recent years, many miracles and healings have been recorded through prayers to the royal martyrs. Portraits and even icons of the royal family were distributed among the church people, which could be seen not only in houses, but also in churches. All this testified to the wide popular veneration of the royal martyrs, which served as one of the main grounds for their glorification as saints. According to church canons, the presence of the relics of a saint during his canonization is optional.

Orthodoxy 2000

The history of the life of the royal martyrs and their canonization is familiar to everyone in our country, and that is why questions arise around their glorification by the Church that could be asked about many other saints if their life stories were more widely known.

We have tried to collect the most common questions and give answers to them.

This helped us Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, Member of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Why was the royal family canonized?

Historical facts do not allow us to speak of members of the royal family as Christian martyrs. Martyrdom presupposes for a person the possibility of saving his life through renunciation of Christ. The sovereign family was killed precisely as the sovereign family: the people who killed them were quite secularized in their worldview and perceived them primarily as a symbol of imperial Russia they hated.

The family of Nicholas II was glorified in the rite of passion-bearing, which is characteristic of the Russian Church. In this rank, Russian princes and sovereigns are traditionally canonized, who, imitating Christ, patiently endured physical, moral suffering or death at the hands of political opponents.

Five reports were submitted to the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, devoted to the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian sovereign. The commission decided that the activities of Emperor Nicholas II in themselves do not provide sufficient grounds for both his canonization and the canonization of members of his family. However, the reports that determined the final - positive - decision of the Commission were the sixth and seventh: "The Last Days of the Royal Family" and "The Attitude of the Church towards Passion-Bearing".
“Most of the witnesses speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk Governor's House and the Ipatiev Yekaterinburg House,” the report “The Last Days of the Tsar's Family” emphasized, “as people suffering, but submissive to the will of God. Despite all the mockery and insults they endured in captivity, they led a pious life, sincerely strove to embody the commandments of the Gospel in it. Behind the many sufferings of the last days of the royal family, we see the all-conquering evil light of Christ's truth.

It is the last period of the life of members of the royal family, spent in captivity, and the circumstances of their death that contain serious grounds for glorifying them in the guise of martyrs. They became more and more aware that death was inevitable, but they managed to keep the spiritual world in their hearts and at the moment of martyrdom gained the ability to forgive their executioners. Before the abdication, the sovereign said to General D.N. Dubensky: “If I am an obstacle to the happiness of Russia and all the social forces now at the head of it ask me to leave the throne and pass it on to my son and brother, then I am ready to do this, not only the kingdom is ready, but also to give his life for the Motherland.

A few months later, Empress Alexandra wrote in captivity in Tsarskoye Selo: “How happy I am that we are not abroad, but with her [Motherland] we are going through everything. As you want to share everything with your beloved sick person, survive everything and follow him with love and excitement, so it is with the Motherland.

Does the canonization of the sovereign mean that the Church officially supports the monarchical idea and the political line of the last emperor?

Both in historical notes about Nicholas II and in his life, a rather restrained, and sometimes even critical assessment of his state activities is given. As for the renunciation, it was a politically unquestionably wrong act. Nevertheless, the guilt of the sovereign is to some extent expiated by the motives that guided him. The desire of the emperor to prevent civil strife with the help of renunciation is justified from the point of view of morality, but not from the position of politics ...

If Nicholas II had suppressed the revolutionary uprising by force, he would have gone down in history as an outstanding statesman, but he would hardly have become a saint. When submitting documents for glorification, the Synodal Commission for Canonization did not ignore the controversial episodes of his reign, in which not the best aspects of his personality were manifested. But the last Russian emperor was canonized not for his character, but for his martyrdom and humble death.

By the way, there are not so many canonized sovereigns in the history of the Russian Church. And of the Romanovs, only Nicholas II was glorified as a saint - this is the only case in the 300 years of the dynasty. So there is no "tradition of the canonization of monarchs".

But what about Bloody Sunday, spiritualism hobbies and Rasputin?

The materials of the Synodal Commission for the canonization of the family of Nicholas II contain historical notes that analyze all these problems separately. Bloody Sunday on January 9, 1905, the problem of the attitude of the sovereign and the empress towards Rasputin, the problem of the emperor's abdication - all this is evaluated from the point of view of whether this prevents canonization or not.

If we consider the events of January 9, then, firstly, we must take into account that we are dealing with mass riots that took place in the city. They were unprofessional suppressed, but it was really a mass illegal performance. Secondly, the sovereign did not give any criminal orders that day - he was in Tsarskoe Selo and was largely misinformed by the Minister of the Interior and the mayor of St. Petersburg. Nicholas II considered himself responsible for what happened, hence the tragic entry in his diary, which he, having learned about what had happened, left in the evening of that day: “A hard day! Serious riots broke out in St. Petersburg as a result of the desire of the workers to reach the Winter Palace. The troops had to shoot in different parts of the city, there were many killed and wounded. Lord, how painful and hard!”

All this allows us to take a somewhat different look at the figure of the last king. However, the Church is in no hurry to justify Nicholas II in everything. A canonized saint is not without sin. The drama of passion-bearing, “non-resistance to death” lies precisely in the fact that it is precisely weak people, who often sinned a lot, who find the strength in themselves to overcome weak human nature and die with the name of Christ on their lips.

Why were the servants of the royal family who were shot along with her not canonized? And in general, how does the feat of the family of Nicholas II differ from the feat of hundreds of thousands who accepted the same death, but were not glorified by the Church?

The servants of the royal family died as people who were fulfilling their professional duty to the sovereign. They are worthy of canonization, but the problem is that the Russian Orthodox Church has not yet developed a rite of glorifying the laity who are martyred, remaining faithful to their official or moral duty. The issue of glorifying people who died innocently during the years of unrest and political repression will certainly be resolved in the future: the 20th century created a precedent - millions of lay people became martyrs. And the Church remembers them.

The emperor abdicated the throne, ceased to be God's anointed, why then does the Church say that he became the redeemer of the sins of the whole people?

And here is just not the church's understanding of the problem. The Church never called Emperor Nicholas II the redeemer of the sins of the Russian people, for for a Christian there is only one Redeemer - Christ Himself. Similar ideas, as well as the idea of ​​the need to bring public repentance for the murder of the royal family, have been condemned by the Church more than once, since this is a very typical example of supplementing the Christian understanding of holiness with some new meanings of philosophical and political origin.

Rehabilitation

In June 2009, members of the Romanov family were rehabilitated by the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation. In accordance with Art. 1 and pp. "c", "e" art. 3 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the rehabilitation of victims of political repression", the Prosecutor General's Office decided to rehabilitate Romanov Mikhail Alexandrovich, Romanova Elizaveta Fedorovna, Romanov Sergey Mikhailovich, Romanov Ioan Konstantinovich, Romanov Konstantin Konstantinovich, Romanov Igor Konstantinovich, Romanova Elena Petrovna, Paley Vladimir Pavlovich, Yakovlev Varvara , Yanysheva Ekaterina Petrovna, Remez Fedor Semenovich (Mikhailovich), Kalin Ivan, Krukovsky, Dr. Gelmerson and Johnson Nikolai Nikolaevich (Bryan).

“Analysis of archival materials allows us to conclude that all of the above persons were subjected to repression in the form of arrest, expulsion and being under the supervision of the Cheka without being charged with a specific crime on class and social grounds,” an official representative told the Interfax news agency. Prosecutor General's Office Marina Gridneva. Earlier, the head of the Romanov family, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, addressed the Prosecutor General's Office with a request for the rehabilitation of members of the royal family.

(37 votes, average: 4,22 out of 5)

Comments

February 17, 2019 2:02

Try to pray to our Sovereign Emperor Nicholas 2 and his family. Ask for help in any need. Then it will immediately be clear to everyone why he was canonized. It is strange to see here a dispute about the holiness or unholiness of the Tsar, knowing that he and his family were brutally murdered by atheists and traitors of the Russian people. It seems that the Orthodox communicate on the Orthodox website. And such strange disputes.

August 8, 2018 18:40

In history, nothing happens by itself, everything has its roots and its beginning:
1. The abolition of serfdom in 1861 took place without the allocation of land to the peasants.

2. Employment of peasants (construction of railway roads) under Alexander II and
Alexander III.

3. The formation of the country from an agrarian to an industrial one (construction of mines, factories, ships, the North Sea shipping company, oil production, metallurgy, the continuation of the construction of railways, the beginning of aircraft construction, etc.), under Alexander III and Nicholas II.

4. The Trans-Siberian Railway and the CER were built. This entailed a large duty tax from the West.
Russia got off to a strong start. Westerners (in particular Churchill) said: “Another 10 years of such a rise in Russia, and we will never catch up with it, because Russia will distance itself from the West forever.

4. After the end of the First World War, Russia had to sit on the bench, and this gave her even greater advantages. England had already promised Russia the Strait of Gibraltar, which gave the country duty-free trade with the West.
But, Nicholas II abdicated, and then: civil war, devastation, World War II, Khrushchev's corn and voluntarism, stagnation, perestroika, Afghanistan, two Chechen wars and Putinism (all this followed one from the other). When we figure this out, God only knows, and will we figure it out at all?
This is what happened to Russia after the abdication of Nicholas II.
There is no subjunctive mood in history, but it is clearly seen that all the troubles of Russia began after the abdication of our last Tsar Nicholas II. So did he deserve to be canonized as a saint!?

July 31, 2018 21:33

when Nicholas and his family were executed, they had already been ordinary citizens for 1.5 years / and here the royal family /

July 26, 2018 16:39

I do not recognize him as a saint!

July 26, 2018 16:30

badly done that he was canonized and made a saint! people were just divided! I then have a question, let's make Stalin a saint, he even left the country with nuclear weapons and a powerful economy, even though he was a cruel ruler!? And Nicholas 2 ruined the country and lost the war. everything is comprehended in comparison! I see the film why Saint Nicholas 2 there is a lot of semi-nonsense - I agree with something, but with something I don’t! of course, he did a good job of refusing to flee abroad and admitting his mistakes, but this does not make him a saint!

July 22, 2018 10:58

but can you tell me in 1905, on whose orders the workers in St. Petersburg were shot? a priest walked at the head of the column and people carried icons, sang a prayer.

January 27, 2018 23:03

Saints are those who serve Christ “in the rank in which they are called” “until the end, in spite of everything, without betraying the entrusted.” The work that You entrusted to me, I have done.”

December 29, 2017 12:40

Is there a procedure for canceling canonization ???

November 25, 2017 13:40

Ladies and gentlemen, everything is very simple: any church is first of all a political organization with its own non-obvious and non-advertised goals and objectives. Therefore, there is nothing to be surprised at such a controversial decision on the canonization of the c.family. This is purely a political decision!

November 18, 2017 9:39

To the question “For what?”, the question “When?” answers well. In August 2000, when the current President became President.

November 18, 2017 9:21

They lose sight of how on March 8, 1917, Nikolai-2 was arrested
his personal adjutant general, and the personal company of the St. George Knights
palace life grenadiers, to the sounds of the Marsigillaise, deployed over Headquarters
red flags. Guards, generals, State Duma from
oligarchs, army, Cossacks and ordinary proletarians, top and bottom, left and
right, future "reds", "whites" and others in question
the worthlessness of Nicholas II as a monarch turned out to be unanimous. Even
the "grand princely opposition" of siblings, mothers and uncles wished
persecute such an Autocrat. And after the arrest, another year and a half of a citizen of the former
the king was marinated, passing from hand to hand to various committees,
and no one dared to help out until the avengers were found. Could
wrong all those contemporaries?

November 12, 2017 20:20

Sorry for the harshness of the previous comment, apparently I'm not a Christian yet. My thought is that all of us, Russia, are the prodigal son who has not yet gone to the Father. And if we all sin, how can we blame anyone.

November 11, 2017 17:42

When Christ promised to destroy Israel, and they were destroyed after 70 years, Who Was He - an accountant? When they counted the righteous in Sodom, who was He? We're no better than that Israel and Sodom. God Is Love, this is a Christian truth, and this implies our admonition and education. Only the blind can fail to see such admonition to Russia in the 20th century (100 million people).

November 10, 2017 22:40

An even more difficult question arises. After glorification in the face of a saint, the Church stops praying for a person and begins to ask the saint. If there was a premature confession, we deprive the person of help from here, and we will not wait for help from there. And how to ask for help from family members?

November 10, 2017 20:34

1917 - Russian Flood! This opinion is shared by many priests. And it started in the 17th century. At the same time, the end of the Romanov dynasty was predicted. The head of the Church is Christ, not the king! The attempt of the state (the Romanovs) to head the Church led to a general apostasy from the faith. They betrayed all classes and estates, for which this Flood was allowed. Nicholas 2 did not turn out to be Noah, although he knew about the approach of the end. Sorry everyone, because the Flood is not over yet!

November 5, 2017 9:16

And for me, Nicholas 2, just like the last king in history, but not a saint at all.

October 30, 2017 20:24

Yes, a saint. But what about the execution of a peaceful procession in January 1905, several hundred people?

October 15, 2017 11:05

Christ taught us to judge by fruits. What we see: the society is divided. Oil was added to the fire by the film Matilda, and Poklonskaya's "Tsarebezhnitsa", and "Christian State" with arson. It turns out that this is the first emperor canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. Why not Alexander 1 then, why not take Elder Fyodor Kuzmich seriously? The man was tormented by the sin of parricide, and for many years he prayed for it before God. Here is an example of a holy man. All that's left is a DNA test.

October 14, 2017 20:36

God! What a bucket of sewage in these comments. Gentlemen, non-shaking hands, if you do not want to recognize the Sovereign as a saint - please do not recognize, do not pray, do not consider yourself Orthodox. But at least keep the tact quiet! And temper your desire with rapture to wash the bones of a man who has long been killed by atheists. And keep in mind that our Church does not canonize anyone just like that! For this, there must be cases of miracles performed by this person; evidence of his righteous life; a lot more... And you undertake to talk about what you have no idea about. Church hierarchs know better. They graduate from seminary and have much more spiritual experience. No, you can't resist teaching the professionals. Shame on your head.

October 6, 2017 20:11

What to comprehend? Oil painting The result of the leadership is the end of the empire, the family was shot, there are no extreme ones.

October 5, 2017 15:01

To all those who, in their gloom, multiply blasphemy against the Sovereign and His family, I will say: your judgments are based on what you have been fed for 100 years by those who sought to make stupid cattle out of you, and to destroy those who disagree, like the holy martyrs! And, to my sorrow, I notice that so far they are doing well. Think about whose “gum” you are chewing while there is still time. And having realized, start searching, read, look, comprehend .. And having comprehended - pray and ask for forgiveness.
Yes, the devil is indeed strong. But God is stronger!
Forgive us, Sovereign!

October 4, 2017 12:00

For some reason, everyone here (and not only here) misses one significant nuance. Nicholas II Romanov was the head of state. This is a great responsibility. Responsibility for millions of your subjects and the fate of the country. Any head of state is responsible for everything that happens in this state (by and large, of course). Nicholas assumed this responsibility voluntarily, but, as the years of his mediocre rule show, he could not cope with it. If you can't handle it - leave. But he did not leave himself until the very end, until February 1917, when he was actually forced to do so.
But mediocre government is not a problem, the problem is that the result of his rule was the death and suffering of millions of Russian people. Including those who were tortured and innocently killed!
So why was such a person canonized? For the fact that he quietly sat with his family in Tobolsk, and then in Yekaterinburg, while Russia was already choking on the blood of Russian people who were killing each other?
There is a legal concept of a criminal act. Perhaps Nicholas did not commit criminal acts. But he committed a criminal inaction, and therefore I personally will never be convinced by anyone that his hands are clean. A person with unclean hands cannot be a saint!

P.S. And there is no need to say that, they say, he did not sign certain orders and decrees himself, that he was misinformed and deceived. I would like to understand everything. For some reason, no one misinformed Alexander III.
And yet it is not necessary to credit him with the fact that he did not flee abroad. He couldn't run! This is a myth, a fiction. He was arrested on March 9, and Kornilov arrested Alexandra even earlier. How would he run? On a horse? And therefore, he sat and waited limply and calmly for his fate, as he limply and calmly ruled the country for decades, letting everything take its course

September 28, 2017 16:02

There is a feeling that Nicholas 2 was appointed saint. A bunch of reservations, special explanations, assumptions. It's not serious.

September 17, 2017 18:24

Mayakovsky wrote that if the stars are lit -
Does that mean anyone needs it? The canonization and holiness of Nicholas II is definitely not needed by the people. The church needs it. Why? This is a great secret. But in my opinion, some kind of multi-way is buried here.

September 17, 2017 15:55

And Tsarevich Dimitri was canonized. Who is not even known for certain whether he was innocently murdered. And according to historical evidence, he went to the father of Ivan the Terrible in character (he loved to look at the torment of animals, or even laid his hand on himself). And in general he was illegitimate, that is, he had no special right to claim the throne. But it doesn't matter to the church, it's amazing.

September 14, 2017 16:12

A man who to a large extent contributed to the death of the Russian Empire, a mediocre leader and simply not the most sinless person, was canonized for his martyrdom. And the millions who died, both during his reign and after, are just a “gray mass”, unworthy of canonization!? Yes, the church is fair, you can’t say anything: the bourgeoisie go to heaven without a queue - that’s your motto.

September 14, 2017 11:22

Father George, as always, wrote everything excellently, his every word is balanced, but at the same time he is subject to a certain internal censorship, which, in fact, is understandable, because his official position obliges. At the same time, the fact that Nicholas II is a controversial and controversial figure is undeniable, as evidenced by at least these discussions. The canonization of a single saint has never been so opposed by the people. What exactly happened in the Ipatiev House, we do not know for certain - most of the documents have not yet been declassified and will not be declassified until the issue is so acute, about the remains - even the Russian Orthodox Church is not sure either. And how can we talk about the murder if the bodies are not found? Based on Yurovsky's notes? The Diary of a Special Purpose Home? It's even funny... Are there any testimonies not of the participants in the crime, but of disinterested witnesses? As far as I know (I could be wrong) no. The question arises: is it too early? Perhaps, at first it is worth waiting for at least an unequivocal answer about the bones found? I do not dispute the sanctity of the royal family, but I cannot accept it unconditionally with all my desire. The fact that Nicholas II and his family were very kind and pious people is a fact. But after all, the Canonization Commission did not find sufficient grounds for the canonization of the royal family, studying the life of the emperor, empress and their children, before the abdication of the king from the throne, but found such grounds, studying the last time of the life of the royal family - the most obscure, vague, controversial and politicized ( in terms of time of interpretation) pages of their life. Political rehabilitation could not but have an impact on the speedy glorification, because the rest of those shot in the Ipatiev House were not glorified, based on the position of Father George, in fact, because of the church bureaucracy - they have not yet managed to come up with and approve the rite of glorifying the laity) The glorification of the royal family acted as part of the political rehabilitation and condemnation of the first bloody Soviet years, while the issue of holiness, from my humble point of view, has not been fully explored.

August 19, 2017 23:48

Dmitry, Nicholas II and his family believed to the last that they would be saved. At first, Kerensky promised to send them to the Crimea, and later to England, but sent them to Tobolsk. Then Vyrubova prepared a conspiracy, but that's probably all. You don't have knowledge. The emperor did not condemn his family to death. Nothing could be done. Nobody wanted to save them!!!

August 17, 2017 21:50

Those who are against canonization apparently do not know the whole truth and do not read smart books ... Before condemning, get to the bottom of the truth. The royal family did not leave Russia. Didn't betray. Although they were not purebred Russians!!! This is how to love Russia! Those who argue that Nicholas II “killed” his family are very much mistaken! Read the essays of Western emigrants who saw all the action taking place. In particular, pay attention to the memoirs of Ivan Solonevich. After that, I hope everyone will understand everything and be ashamed of their attitude towards Nicholas and his elevation to the Face of Saints. And in the future, before condemning someone, think about whether you are ready to sacrifice yourself and your family for the sake of the Motherland. Or you, at the slightest opportunity, will run like “rats from a ship”.

August 3, 2017 10:22

Two quotes: "There is no 'tradition of canonization of monarchs'."

“As a member of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, noted, “since ancient times, the rank of martyrs has been applied only to representatives of grand ducal and royal families.” So decide already whether it exists or not ...

August 3, 2017 4:29

Does the performance of professional duties with Christian humility interfere with canonization as martyrs? It's funny...

And the fact that Alexandra Fedorovna considered Rasputin a saint and spiritual mentor until the end of her life, and that she never repented of her error, does not in any way prevent her from being canonized? Even more fun.

May 27, 2017 3:54

Vladimir. And let's not slip into expressions like: I paid for all my mistakes consciously, with my life and the life of the whole family. Since when has the murder of one's family become an Orthodox deed. Maybe for this? Ban. All? What does not match your opinion. Is it offensive language? Let's do it. There are two diametrically opposed opinions. In the light of one and the same concept of our Orthodoxy. In one. Nicholas II is considered a saint. In another, all the circles of hell are prophesied to him. Two religious extremes of our Orthodox religion. Paradise? Or Hell? Question. Which of these concepts is more offensive? And strangely, for a religious person, the notion that a person is worthy of having a frying pan in hell is offensive.

May 26, 2017 0:54

Pay for your mistakes. You need your life. Not the life of your family. By his inaction, Nikolai practically killed his family, whom he could send abroad. Even if against their will. It is unlikely that the feat of redemption consists in dooming innocent children to death. With the same success. Nicholas could kill his family himself. And go out to the firing squad alone. Unfortunately, in Orthodoxy, only direct murder is punished. And for death due to criminal inaction. They do not punish. (Criminal inaction is a volitional passive behavior of a person, which consists in the fact that a person does not perform or improperly performs the duty assigned to him, as a result of which harm is caused to the objects of protection or a threat of causing such harm is created. Or leaving in danger) . And since for Nikolai, the object of protection was his family. That Nicholas, with whatever readiness he could go to the sacrificial altar, alone. First of all, protecting your family. For me, the frying pan sizzles according to Nikolai. But his family, really passion-bearers. Who accepted their death, from their compatriots, due to their political motives, malice and deceit.

March 20, 2017 6:29

There are no and cannot be absolutely sinless people on earth. Saints are not born, but they become, realizing their sins and renouncing them (with God's help, of course). The thief crucified next to Christ, having repented, got into Paradise. Our life is so arranged - you have to pay for everything. Nicholas || he paid for all his mistakes consciously, with his life and the life of his whole family, although he had the opportunity to go abroad. This is his feat of redemption. To whom much is given, much will be required. He understood it. Probably the Lord accepted his sacrifice, since the Church drained him. So it turns out that repentance cleanses and makes holy - the result of life. Which is what I wish for everyone.

February 12, 2017 20:12

Yes, the last emperor became a martyr, but hardly of his own free will! Millions died with much purer souls, but for some reason it was the emperor who was canonized. I think that this should not have been done, since all arguments against are balanced by a single argument - he was martyred! But how many people in Russia accepted no less martyrdom from 1905 to 1945?!
So it turns out that Nicholas 2 owes his holiness to his position!
If there is even the slightest speck on the biography of a candidate for saints, then you should not even consider such a candidate! Not because the person is bad. But because the reputation of the Saint should not cause the slightest doubt!