When the Romanov royal family was canonized. Grounds for canonization of the royal family

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

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

Key dates

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

Background

Execution

Main article: Execution of the royal family

On the night of July 16-17, 1918, the Romanovs and their servants were shot in the basement of the Ipatiev House by order of the “Ural Council of Workers, Peasants and Soldiers’ Deputies,” headed by the Bolsheviks.

Almost immediately after the announcement of the execution of the Tsar and his family, sentiments began to arise in the religious layers of Russian society, which ultimately led to canonization.

Three days after the execution, on July 8 (21), 1918, during a service in the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow, Patriarch Tikhon gave a sermon in which he outlined the “essence of the spiritual feat” of the tsar and the attitude of the church to the issue of execution: “The other day a terrible thing happened: the former Sovereign Nikolai Alexandrovich was shot... We must, obeying the teachings of the word of God, condemn this thing, otherwise the blood of the shot will fall on us, and not just on those who committed it. We know that he, having abdicated the throne, did so with the good of Russia in mind and out of love for her. After his abdication, he could have found security and a relatively quiet life abroad, but he did not do this, wanting to suffer with Russia. He did nothing to improve his situation and resignedly 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 saint characteristic of the people, the tragic circumstances of his death at the hands of enemies and the pity that the death of innocent children evoked - all these became components from which the attitude towards the royal family gradually grew not as victims of a 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. Clergy and laity offered prayers to God for the repose of the murdered 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 emigrant circle, these sentiments were even more obvious. For example, reports appeared in the emigrant press about miracles performed by the royal martyrs (1947, see below: Announced miracles of the royal martyrs). Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, in his 1991 interview characterizing the situation among Russian emigrants, points out that “many abroad consider them saints. Those who belong to the patriarchal church or other churches perform funeral services in their memory, and even prayer services. And in private they consider themselves free to pray to them,” which, in his opinion, is already local veneration. In 1981, the royal family was glorified by the Church Abroad.

In the 1980s, voices began to be heard in Russia about the official canonization of at least the executed children (unlike Nikolai and Alexandra, their innocence does not raise any doubts). Mention is made of icons painted without a church blessing, in which only they were depicted, without their parents. In 1992, the Empress's sister, Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna, another victim of the Bolsheviks, was canonized. However, there were many opponents of canonization.

Arguments against canonization

Canonization of the royal family

Catacomb Church

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 the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Tikhon (Bellavin).

ROC

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

In 1992, by the determination of the Council of Bishops from March 31 - April 4, the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints was entrusted “when studying the exploits of the Russian new martyrs, begin researching materials related to the martyrdom of the Royal Family”. From 1992 to 1997, the Commission, headed by Metropolitan Juvenaly, devoted 19 meetings to the consideration of this topic, in between which 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 Commission’s work 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 became possible.

Main points of the report:

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

“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 Ekaterinburg 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 evil-conquering light of Christ's faith 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 Council the new martyrs and confessors of Russia in the guise of the passion-bearers Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia.”

In 2000, at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church, the royal family was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as part of the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, revealed and not revealed (totaling 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 canonization would take place or not. They voted by standing, and the decision was made 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 noted next to my painting that I was signing everything except the third paragraph. The third point was the Tsar-Father, and I did not sign up for his canonization. ...he is a state traitor. ... he, one might say, sanctioned the collapse of the country. And no one will convince me otherwise."The canonization ceremony took place on August 20, 2000.

From the “Act of the Conciliar Glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian 20th Century”:

“To glorify the Royal Family as passion-bearers in the host of new martyrs and confessors of Russia: Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia. In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his Family, 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 in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 4 (17), 1918, the evil-conquering light of Christ's faith was revealed, just as it shone in life and death millions of Orthodox Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the 20th century... Report the names of the newly glorified saints to the Primates of the fraternal Local Orthodox Churches for their inclusion in the calendar.”

Arguments for canonization, taken into account by the Russian Orthodox Church

Refuting the arguments of opponents of canonization

Aspects of canonization

Question about the face of holiness

In Orthodoxy, there is a very developed and carefully worked out hierarchy of the faces of holiness - categories into which it is customary to divide saints depending on their works during life. The question of which saints the royal family should be ranked among causes a lot of controversy among various movements of the Orthodox Church, which have different assessments of the life and death of the family.

Metropolitan Sergius (Fomin) in 2006 spoke disapprovingly of the campaign of 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 passion-bearers does not satisfy the newly minted zealots of the monarchy", and called such monarchical predilections " heresy of reign».

Canonization of servants

Along with the Romanovs, four of their servants, who followed their masters into exile, were also shot. The Russian Orthodox Church canonized them together with the royal family. And the Russian Orthodox Church points out a formal error committed by the Church Abroad during canonization against custom: “It should be noted that the decision, which has no historical analogies in the Orthodox Church, to include among the canonized, who accepted martyrdom together with the Royal Family, the royal servant of the Roman Catholic Aloysius Yegorovich Trupp and the Lutheran goblettress 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 accepted martyrdom, it would be legitimate to raise the question of their canonization.”. In addition to the four 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, “uncle” of the Heir K. G. Nagorny, children's footman I. D. Sednev, maid of honor of the Empress A. V. Gendrikova and goflektress E. A. Schneider. However, the Commission concluded that it “does not seem possible to make a final decision on the existence of grounds for the canonization of this group of laity, who accompanied the Royal Family as part of their court service,” since there is no information about the wide-ranging prayerful commemoration of these servants by believers; moreover, , 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 can be the perpetuation of this feat in the lives of the Royal Martyrs.”.

In addition, there is another problem. While the royal family is canonized as passion-bearers, it is not possible to include the servants who suffered in the same rank, since, as one of the members of the Commission stated in an interview, “the rank of passion-bearers has been applied since ancient times only to representatives of the grand ducal and royal families.” .

Society's reaction to canonization

Positive

Negative

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

• Church on the Blood in honor of All Saints who shone in the Russian Land on the site of the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg.
• 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)
• Temple of Tsarevich Alexy in Sharya, Kostroma region
• Church of St. Tsar-Martyr and St. New Martyrs and Confessors in Villemoisson, France (1980s)
• Church of the Holy Royal Martyrs and All New Martyrs and Confessors of the 20th Century, Mogilev Belarus
• Temple of the Sovereign Icon of the Mother of God, Zhukovsky
• Church of St. Tsar Martyr Nicholas, Nikolskoye
• Church of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers Nicholas and Alexandra, village. Sertolovo
• Church of the Royal Passion-Bearers in Mar del Plata (Argentina)
• Monastery in honor of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers near Yekaterinburg.
• Temple of the Royal Martyrs, Dnepropetrovsk (w/m Igren), Ukraine.

Icons

Iconography

There is both a collective image of the whole family and each member individually. In the icons of the “foreign” model, the Romanovs are joined by canonized servants. Passion-bearers can be depicted both in contemporary clothing from the early twentieth century, and in robes stylized as Ancient Rus', reminiscent in style of royal robes with parsuns.

Figures of the Romanov saints are also found in the multi-figure icons “Cathedral of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia” and “Cathedral of the Patron Saints of Hunters and Fishers.”

Relics

Patriarch Alexy, on the eve of the sessions of the Council of Bishops 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 venerate 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 (“Assessing 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 those accepted during the investigation "and studying the conclusions regarding the "Ekaterinburg remains" falls entirely on the Republican Center for Forensic Medical 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 confrontations 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 cannot today be recognized by us as belonging to the Royal Family.”

In view of this position of the Moscow Patriarchate, which has not undergone changes 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 venerated by the church as holy relics.

Relics with a clearer origin are revered as relics, for example, Nicholas’s hair, cut at the age of three.

Announced miracles of the royal martyrs

• The descent of the miraculous fire. Allegedly, this miracle occurred in the Cathedral of the Holy Iveron Monastery in Odessa, when during a service on February 15, 2000, a tongue of snow-white flame appeared on the altar of the temple. According to the testimony of Hieromonk Peter (Golubenkov):

Skeptical perception of miracles

MDA Professor A.I. Osipov writes that when assessing reports of miracles associated with the royal family, it should be taken into account that such “ facts in themselves do not at all confirm the holiness of those (person, confession, religion) through whom and where they occur, and that such phenomena can also occur by virtue of faith - “according to your faith be it done to you” (Matthew), and by the action of another spirit (Acts), “to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew), and, perhaps, for other reasons still unknown to us».

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

• For church recognition of a miracle, the testimony of the ruling bishop is necessary. Only after it can we talk about the nature of this phenomenon - whether it is a divine miracle or a phenomenon of another order. For most of the described miracles associated with the royal martyrs, such evidence is absent.
• Declaring someone a saint without the blessing of the ruling bishop and a council decision is a non-canonical act and therefore all references to the miracles of royal martyrs before their canonization should be viewed with skepticism.
• The icon is an image of an ascetic canonized by the church, therefore miracles from those painted before the official canonization of the icons are doubtful.

“The rite of repentance for the sins of the Russian people” and more

Main article: Doctrine of the King Redeemer

Since the late 1990s, annually, on the days dedicated to the anniversaries of the birth of the “Tsar-Martyr 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 “Rite 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 Christians, the concept of the “Tsar Redeemer” is in circulation, according to which Nicholas II is revered as “the redeemer of the sin of infidelity of his people”; critics call this concept the “royal redemptive heresy.”

see also

• Canonized by ROCOR Martyrs of the Alapaevsk Mine(Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, nun Varvara, Grand Dukes Sergei Mikhailovich, Igor Konstantinovich, Ivan Konstantinovich, Konstantin Konstantinovich (junior), Prince Vladimir Paley).
• Tsarevich Dmitry, died in 1591, canonized in 1606 - before the glorification of the Romanovs, he was chronologically the last representative of the ruling dynasty to be canonized.
• The question of the canonization of Ivan the Terrible
• Solomonia Saburova(Reverend Sophia of Suzdal) - the first wife of Vasily III, chronologically the penultimate of those canonized.
• The process of canonization of new martyrs

Notes

1. Tsar-Martyr
2. ? Emperor Nicholas II and his family canonized
3. ? Osipov A.I. On the canonization of the last Russian Tsar
4. Shargunov A. Miracles of the Royal Martyrs. M. 1995. P. 49
5. ? The blessed Tsar Nikolai Alexandrovich and his family on orthoslavie.ru
6. ? Grounds for canonization of the royal family. From the report of Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna, Chairman of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints. www.pravoslavie.ru
7. CHRONICLE OF REVERENCE TO THE HOLY ROYAL PASSION-BEARERS IN THE URAL: HISTORY AND MODERNITY
8. Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh. On the canonization of the royal family // “Russian Thought”, September 6, 1991 // Reprint: “Izvestia”. August 14, 2000
9. ? He had every reason to become embittered... Interview with Deacon Andrei Kuraev to the magazine “Vslukh”. Journal "Orthodoxy and Peace". Mon, 17 Jul 2006
10. ? Russian Bulletin. Explanation of the canonization of the royal family
11. From an interview with Met. Nizhny Novgorod Nikolai Kutepov (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Section Figures and Faces, 26.4.2001
12. The ceremony of canonization of the newly glorified saints took place in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior Pravoslavie.Ru
13. Metropolitan Yuvenaly: In three years we have received 22,873 appeals
14. Protopresbyter Michael Polsky. New Russian martyrs. Jordanville: Vol. I, 1943; T. II, 1957. (Abridged English edition of The new martyrs of Russia. Montreal, 1972. 137 p.)
15. Monk Vsevolod (Filipev). The path of the holy fathers. Patrology. Jordanville, M., 2007, p. 535.
16. “About Tsar Ivan the Terrible” (Appendix to the report of Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna, Chairman of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints
17. Akathist to the Holy Tsar-Redeemer Nicholas II
18. Kuraev A. Temptation that comes “from the right.” M.: Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2005. P. 67
19. The Voronezh diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church MP accused members of the group of “national repentance for the sin of regicide” of commercial aspirations
20. The martyrdom of the emperor is the main reason for his canonization
21. The canonization of the royal family eliminated one of the contradictions between the Russian and Russian Churches Abroad

By rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. Thank you.

Canonization of the royal family - canonization by the Russian Orthodox Church of the last Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family, one of the most controversial acts of the Russian Orthodox Church in its entire history, which caused an extremely negative reaction from a significant part of Orthodox believers, including such prominent figures of the Russian Orthodox Church as Metropolitan John of St. Petersburg and Ladoga, A.I. Osipov and others. Nicholas II and members of his family were glorified as passion-bearers. At the same time, the servants who were shot along with the royal family were not canonized.

History of glorification

In 1928, Nicholas II and his family were canonized as saints of the Catacomb Church.

In 1981, the emperor and his family were glorified by a group of bishops “who call themselves the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which does not have the recognition of the entire Orthodox Plenitude due to its anti-canonical nature” (From the appeal of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1990), in other words the so-called. Russian Church Abroad.

In the last decade of the 20th century in Russia, a number of clergy who sympathized with the so-called. The “Russian Church Abroad” launched a campaign for the canonization of the now Russian Orthodox Church of the emperor and his family, as well as servants. Many prominent representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church spoke out against canonization, including Metropolitan John (Snychev) of St. Petersburg and Ladoga. As a result, the Council of Bishops in 1997 refused to canonize the former sovereign. According to one of the prominent opponents of the canonization of Nicholas II, professor of the Moscow Theological Academy A.I. Osipov, the moral character and scale of the personality of Nicholas II in no way corresponded to those of the general church holy ascetics.

However, pressure on the Russian Orthodox Church from supporters of canonization increased. In radical monarchist and pseudo-Orthodox circles, even the epithet “redeemer” is used in relation to Nicholas II. 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: “O most wonderful and glorious Tsar-Redeemer Nicholas.” However, at a meeting of the Moscow clergy, Patriarch Alexy II unequivocally spoke out about the inadmissibility of this, saying that “if he sees in some church books in which Nicholas II is called the Redeemer, he will consider the rector of this temple as a preacher of heresy. We have one Redeemer - Christ."

In accordance with the next decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church dated August 20, 2000, Nicholas II, Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna, Tsarevich Alexei, princesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia were canonized as holy new martyrs and confessors of Russia, revealed and unmanifested.

Arguments against canonization

• The death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family was not a martyrdom for Christ, but only political repression.
• The emperor's unsuccessful state and church policies, including such events as Khodynka, Bloody Sunday and the Lena massacre.
• The extremely controversial activities of Grigory Rasputin.
• The abdication of the anointed king from the throne should be considered as a church-canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the priesthood.
• “The religiosity of the royal couple, for all its outwardly traditional Orthodoxy, bore a clearly expressed character of interconfessional mysticism.”
• The active movement for the canonization of the royal family in the 1990s was not spiritual, but political.
• MDA Professor A.I. Osipov: “Neither the holy Patriarch Tikhon, nor the holy Metropolitan of Petrograd Benjamin, nor the holy Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsky, nor the holy Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov), nor the holy Archbishop Thaddeus, nor the holy Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), who, without doubts, he will soon be canonized, neither 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 thoughts about him as a holy passion-bearer (and in At that time it was still possible to declare this loudly).”
• The responsibility for “the gravest sin of regicide, which weighs on all the peoples of Russia,” is also deeply bewildering, promoted by some supporters of canonization.

Pressure on the Russian Orthodox Church from supporters of canonization in the period between the first and second bishops’ councils

Question about the canonization of servants

A visual comparison of the personality of Nicholas II with the personalities of some other famous Russian Orthodox Church

Arguments for canonization in a different guise

The Jews are satisfied that the Royal Romanov family has been elevated to the ranks of passion-bearers, not martyrs, please note, but passion-bearers. What is the difference? The rite of martyrdom is the feat of death for Christ at the hands of non-believers. Passion-bearers are those who have suffered torment at the hands of their fellow Christians. According to the passion-bearing rite of canonization, it turns out that the Tsar and his Family were martyred by their own fellow Christians. Now, if the Council of Bishops had recognized the obvious, that the Tsar was tortured to death by the Gentiles, the Jews, then he would not have been a passion-bearer, but a great martyr. This is what the Jews are satisfied with, this is what they mean when they present an ultimatum to the Moscow Patriarchate: “It is very important that the decision on canonization in the form in which it was adopted by the Council becomes known to the widest circle of laity and clergy.”

There are no grounds for revising the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), however, discussions in Russian society about whether to consider the last Emperor of the Russian Empire a saint continue to this day. Statements that the Russian Orthodox Church “made a mistake” in canonizing Nicholas II and his family are far from uncommon. The arguments of opponents of the holiness of the last Sovereign of the Russian Empire are based on typical myths, mostly created by Soviet historiography, and sometimes by outright antagonists of Orthodoxy and independent Russia as a great power.

No matter how many wonderful books and articles are published about Nicholas II and the Royal Family, which are documented studies by professional historians, no matter how many documentaries and programs are made, many for some reason remain faithful to the negative assessment of both the personality of the Tsar and his state activities. Without heeding new scientific historical discoveries, such people stubbornly continue to attribute to Nicholas II a “weak, weak-willed character” and the inability to lead the state, blaming him for the tragedy of Bloody Sunday and the execution of workers, for the defeat in the Russian-Japanese War of 1904-1905. and Russia's involvement in the First World War; It all ends with an accusation against the Church that it canonized the Royal Family, and a threat that it, the Russian Orthodox Church, “will regret this.”

Some accusations are frankly naive, if not ridiculous, for example: “during the reign of Nicholas II, so many people died and a war was fought” (are there periods in history when no one died? Or were wars fought only under the last Emperor? Why are statistical indicators not compared with other periods of Russian history?). Other accusations indicate the extreme ignorance of their authors, who build their conclusions on the basis of pulp literature such as books by A. Bushkov, pseudo-historical novels by E. Radzinsky, or in general some dubious Internet articles by unknown authors who consider themselves to be nugget historians. I would like to draw the attention of readers of the "Orthodox Messenger" to the need to be critical of this kind of literature, which is subscribed, if at all, by unknown people, with an incomprehensible profession, education, outlook, mental and especially spiritual health.

As for the Russian Orthodox Church, its leadership consists of people not only capable of thinking logically, but also with deep humanitarian and natural science knowledge, including professional secular diplomas in various specialties, so there is no need to rush into statements about “misconceptions” » ROC and see in the Orthodox hierarchs some kind of religious fanatics, “far from real life.”

This article presents a number of the most common myths that could be found in old textbooks of the Soviet period and which, despite their complete groundlessness, are still repeated in the mouths of some people due to their reluctance to get acquainted with new research in modern science. After each myth, brief arguments for refutation are given, which it was decided, at the request of the editors, not to be burdened with numerous cumbersome references to historical documents, since the volume of the article is very limited, and the “Orthodox Messenger”, after all, does not belong to historical and scientific publications; however, an interested reader can easily find references to sources in any scientific work, especially since a huge number of them have been published recently.

Myth 1

Tsar Nicholas II was a gentle and kind family man, an intellectual who received a good education, a skillful interlocutor, but an irresponsible and absolutely unsuitable person for such a high position. He was pushed around by his wife Alexandra Fedorovna, a German by nationality, and since 1907. Elder Grigory Rasputin, who exercised unlimited influence on the tsar, removing and appointing ministers and military leaders.

If you read the memoirs of Emperor Nicholas II’s contemporaries, Russians and foreigners, who, of course, were not published or translated into Russian during the years of Soviet power, then we come across a description of Nicholas II as a kind, generous man, but far from weak. For example, French President Emile Loubet (1899-1806) believed that under the apparent timidity the king had a strong soul and a courageous heart, as well as always well-thought-out plans, the implementation of which he slowly achieved. Nicholas II possessed the strength of character necessary for the difficult royal service; moreover, according to Metropolitan of Moscow (since 1943 - Patriarch) Sergius (1867-1944), through anointing to the Russian throne he was given an invisible power from above, acting to elevate his royal valor. Many circumstances and events of his life prove that the Emperor had a strong will, which made his contemporaries who knew him closely believe that “the Emperor had an iron hand, and many were only deceived by the velvet glove he wore.”

Nicholas II received a real military upbringing and education; all his life he felt like a military man, which affected his psychology and many things in his life. The Emperor, as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army, himself, without the influence of any “good geniuses,” made absolutely all the important decisions that contributed to victorious actions.

The opinion that the Russian army was led by Alekseev, and the Tsar was in the post of Commander-in-Chief for the sake of form, is completely unfounded, which is refuted by telegrams from Alekseev himself.

As for the relations of the Royal Family with Grigory Rasputin, then, without going into details here of the extremely ambiguous assessments of the latter’s activities, there is no reason to see in these relations signs of any dependence or spiritual charm of the Royal Family. Even the Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry of the Provisional Government, which consisted of liberal lawyers who were sharply opposed to the Tsar, the dynasty and the monarchy as such, was forced to admit that G. Rasputin did not have any influence on the state life of the country.

Myth 2

Unsuccessful state and church policies of the Emperor. In defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. It is the Emperor who is to blame for failing to ensure the effectiveness and combat capability of the Russian army and navy. With his persistent reluctance to carry out the necessary economic and political reforms, as well as to conduct a dialogue with representatives of Russian citizens of all classes, the emperor “caused” the revolution of 1905-1907, which, in turn, led to the severe destabilization of Russian society and the state system. He also dragged Russia into the First World War, in which he was defeated.

In fact, under Nicholas II, Russia experienced an unprecedented period of material prosperity; on the eve of the First World War, its economy flourished and grew at the fastest pace in the world. For 1894-1914. The country's state budget increased by 5.5 times, gold reserves by 3.7 times, the Russian currency was one of the strongest in the world. At the same time, government revenues grew without the slightest increase in the tax burden. The overall growth of the Russian economy, even during the difficult years of the First World War, was 21.5%. Edinburgh University professor Charles Sarolea, who visited Russia before and after the revolution, believed that the Russian monarchy was the most progressive government in Europe.

The Emperor did a lot to improve the country's defense capability, having learned the hard lessons of the Russo-Japanese War. One of his most significant acts was the revival of the Russian fleet, which occurred against the will of military officials, but saved the country at the beginning of the First World War. The most difficult and most forgotten feat of Emperor Nicholas II was that, under incredibly difficult conditions, he brought Russia to the threshold of victory in the First World War, however, his opponents did not allow it to cross this threshold. General N.A. Lokhvitsky wrote: “It took Peter the Great nine years to turn the Narva vanquished into the Poltava victors. The last Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Army, Emperor Nicholas II, did the same great work in a year and a half, but his work was appreciated by his enemies, and between the Sovereign and his Army and victory “became a revolution.” The Sovereign's military talents were fully revealed at the post of Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Russia definitely began to win the war when the triumphant year of 1916 of the Brusilov breakthrough came, a plan with which many military leaders disagreed, and which the Emperor insisted on.

It should be noted that Nicholas II treated the duties of the monarch as his sacred duty and did everything in his power: he managed to suppress the terrible revolution of 1905 and delay the triumph of the “demons” for 12 years. Thanks to his personal efforts, a radical turning point was achieved in the course of the Russian-German confrontation. Already a prisoner of the Bolsheviks, he refused to approve the Brest Peace Treaty and thereby save his life. He lived with dignity and accepted death with dignity.

With regard to the Emperor’s church policy, it is necessary to take into account that it did not go beyond the traditional synodal system of governing the Church, and it was during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II that the church hierarchy, which had previously been officially silent for two centuries on the issue of convening a Council, received the opportunity not only to widely discuss, but and practically prepare the convening of the Local Council.

Myth 3

On the day of the Emperor’s coronation on May 18, 1896, during the distribution of gifts in a stampede on the Khodynka field, more than a thousand people died and more than a thousand were seriously injured, due to which Nicholas II received the nickname “Bloody.” On January 9, 1905, a peaceful demonstration of workers protesting against living and working conditions was shot at (96 people were killed, 330 were injured); On April 4, 1912, the Lena execution of workers protesting against the 15-hour working day took place (270 people were killed, 250 were injured). Conclusion: Nicholas II was a tyrant who destroyed the Russian people and especially hated workers.

The most important indicator of the effectiveness and morality of government and the well-being of the people is population growth. From 1897 to 1914, i.e. in just 17 years, it reached a fantastic figure of 50.5 million people. Since then, according to statistics, Russia has lost and continues to lose on average about 1 million deaths per year, plus those killed as a result of numerous government-organized actions, plus abortions, murdered children, the number of which in the 21st century has exceeded one and a half million per year. In 1913, a worker in Russia earned 20 gold rubles per month with the cost of bread being 3-5 kopecks, 1 kg of beef - 30 kopecks, 1 kg of potatoes - 1.5 kopecks, and income tax - 1 ruble per year (the lowest in the world) , which made it possible to support a large family.

From 1894 to 1914, the public education budget increased by 628%. The number of schools increased: higher - by 180%, secondary - by 227%, girls' gymnasiums - by 420%, public schools - by 96%. In Russia, 10,000 schools were opened annually. The Russian Empire was experiencing a flourishing cultural life. During the reign of Nicholas II, more newspapers and magazines were published in Russia than in the USSR in 1988.

The blame for the tragic events of Khodynka, Bloody Sunday and the Lena execution, of course, cannot be placed directly on the Emperor. The cause of the stampede on Khodynka Field was... greed. A rumor spread through the crowd that the bartenders were distributing gifts among “their own”, and therefore there were not enough gifts for everyone, as a result of which the people rushed to the temporary wooden buildings with such force that even 1,800 policemen, specially assigned to maintain order during the festivities, could not were able to hold back the onslaught.

According to recent research, the events of January 9, 1905 were a provocation organized by the Social Democrats in order to put certain political demands into the mouths of the workers and create the impression of popular protest against the existing government. On January 9, workers from the Putilov plant with icons, banners and royal portraits moved in procession to Palace Square, filled with joy and singing prayers to meet their Sovereign and bow to him. A meeting with him was promised to them by the socialist organizers, although the latter knew very well that the Tsar was not in St. Petersburg; on the evening of January 8, he left for Tsarskoe Selo.

People gathered in the square at the appointed hour and waited for the Tsar to come out to meet them. Time passed, the Emperor did not appear, and tension and unrest began to grow among the people. Suddenly, the provocateurs began shooting at the gendarmes from the attics of houses, gateways and other hiding places. The gendarmes returned fire, panic and a stampede arose among the people, as a result of which, according to various estimates, from 96 to 130 people were killed, and from 299 to 333 people were wounded. The Emperor was deeply shocked by the news of “Bloody Sunday.” He ordered the allocation of 50,000 rubles for benefits to the families of the victims, as well as the convening of a commission to determine the needs of the workers. Thus, the Tsar could not give the order to shoot civilians, as the Marxists accused him of, since he simply was not in St. Petersburg at that moment.

Historical data does not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign any conscious evil will directed against the people and embodied in specific decisions and actions. History itself eloquently testifies to who really should be called “bloody” - the enemies of the Russian state and the Orthodox Tsar.

Now about the Lena execution: modern researchers associate the tragic events at the Lena mines with raiding - activities to establish control over the mines of two conflicting joint stock companies, during which representatives of the Russian management company Lenzoto provoked a strike in an attempt to prevent actual control over the mines by the board British company Lena Goldfields. The working conditions of the miners of the Lena Gold Mining Partnership were as follows: the salary was significantly higher (up to 55 rubles) than in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the working day according to the employment contract was 8-11 hours (depending on the shift schedule), although in reality it, indeed, could last up to 16 hours, since at the end of the working day, prospecting work to find nuggets was allowed. The reason for the strike was the “meat story,” which is still ambiguously assessed by researchers, and the decision to open fire was made by the gendarmerie captain, and certainly not by Nicholas II.

Myth 4

Nicholas II easily agreed to the government's proposal to abdicate the throne, thereby violating his duty to the Fatherland and betraying Russia into the hands of the Bolsheviks. The abdication of the anointed king from the throne, moreover, should be considered as a church-canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the priesthood.

Here we should probably start with the fact that modern historians generally cast great doubt on the very fact of the Tsar’s abdication of the throne. The document on the abdication of Nicholas II, stored in the State Archives of the Russian Federation, is a typed sheet of paper, at the bottom of which is the signature “Nicholas,” written in pencil and circled, apparently through a window glass, with a pen. The style of the text is completely different from that of other documents compiled by the Emperor.

The counter-signature (assurance) inscription of the Minister of the Imperial Household, Count Fredericks, on the abdication was also made in pencil and then circled with a pen. Thus, this document raises serious doubts about its authenticity and allows many historians to conclude that the Autocrat of the All-Russian Sovereign, Emperor Nicholas II, never composed a renunciation, wrote it by hand and did not sign it.

In any case, the renunciation of the kingship itself is not a crime against the Church, since the canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed to the Kingdom was not defined in the church canons. And those spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, could abdicate the Throne in the name of internal peace in Russia, give his act a truly moral character.

Myth 5

The death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family was not a martyrdom for Christ, but... (further options): political repression; murder committed by the Bolsheviks; ritual murder committed by Jews, Freemasons, Satanists (to choose from); Lenin's blood revenge for the death of his brother; a consequence of a global conspiracy aimed at an anti-Christian coup. Another version: the Royal Family was not shot, but secretly transported abroad; The execution room in the Ipatiev House was a deliberate staging.

Actually, according to any of the listed versions of the death of the Royal Family (with the exception of the completely incredible one about its salvation), the indisputable fact remains that the circumstances of the death of the Royal Family were physical and moral suffering and death at the hands of opponents, that it was a murder associated with incredible human torment: long, long and savage.

In the “Act on the Conciliar Glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian 20th Century” it is written: “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 a murmur. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor’s life.” Most witnesses to the last period of the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk Governor's House and the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House as people who suffered and, despite all the mockery and insults, led a pious life. Their true greatness stemmed not from their royal dignity, but from the amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.

Those who wish to carefully and impartially familiarize themselves with published materials about the life and political activities of Nicholas II, the investigation into the murder of the Royal Family, can look at the following works in various publications:

Robert Wilton "The Last Days of the Romanovs" 1920;
Mikhail Diterikhs “The Murder of the Royal Family and Members of the House of Romanov in the Urals” 1922;
Nikolai Sokolov “The Murder of the Royal Family”, 1925;
Pavel Paganuzzi “The Truth about the Murder of the Royal Family” 1981;
Nikolai Ross “The Death of the Royal Family” 1987;
Multatuli P.V. "Nicholas II. The Road to Golgotha. M., 2010;
Multatuli P.V. “Witnessing for Christ even to death,” 2008;
Multatuli P.V. "God bless my decision." Nicholas II and the conspiracy of the generals."

Currently, historians and public figures are discussing the question: Is Emperor Nicholas 2 worthy to wear the vesture of a holy royal martyr? This issue is controversial, because during the reign of Nicholas 2 there were, of course, many disadvantages. For example, Khodynka, the senseless Russian-Japanese War, Bloody Sunday (for which the emperor received the nickname Bloody), the Lena execution, the First World War and then the February Revolution. All these events took the lives of millions of people. But there were also advantages during his reign. The population of the Russian Empire grew from 125 million to 170, before the First World War there were good rates of economic growth, etc. The emperor himself was weak-willed, but he was a kind man, deeply religious, and a good family man. During his reign, the especially revered saint of the Russian Orthodox Church, St. Seraphim of Sarov, was canonized. His wife Alexandra Feodorovna, together with her daughters, helped sick and wounded soldiers during the First World War and worked in the Tsarskoye Selo military hospital.
After abdicating the throne, as is known, the royal family was exiled first to Tobolsk, and after the October Revolution to Yekaterinburg, where they met their martyrdom.
Some historians and public figures believe that the emperor and the royal family are not worthy of canonization: 1. The death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family was not a martyrdom for Christ, but only political repression. 2. The unsuccessful state and church policies of the emperor, including such events as Khodynka, Bloody Sunday and the Lena massacre and the extremely controversial activities of Grigory Rasputin.
3. “The religiosity of the royal couple, with all its outwardly traditional Orthodoxy, bore a clearly expressed character of interconfessional mysticism”
4.The active movement for the canonization of the royal family in the 1990s was not spiritual, but political in nature.
5. The responsibility for “the most serious sin of regicide, which weighs on all the peoples of Russia,” is also deeply bewildering, promoted by some supporters of canonization.

Others believe that the emperor is worthy of being called the Holy Royal Passion-Bearer and there are arguments for this: 1. The circumstances of his death - physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents. 2. Widespread popular veneration of the royal passion-bearers served as one of the main reasons for their glorification as saints.
3. Testimonies of miracles and gracious help through prayers to the Royal Martyrs. They are talking about healings, uniting separated families, protecting church property from schismatics. There is especially abundant evidence of the streaming of myrrh from icons with images of Emperor Nicholas II and the Royal Martyrs, of the fragrance and the miraculous appearance of blood-colored stains on the icon faces of the Royal Martyrs.
4. Personal piety of the Emperor: the Emperor paid great attention to the needs of the Orthodox Church, donated generously for the construction of new churches, including outside Russia. Their deep religiosity distinguished the Imperial couple from 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).
5. Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often compared 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 a murmur. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor’s life. From the moment of abdication, it is not so much external events as the internal spiritual state of the Sovereign that attracts our attention.” Most witnesses to the last period of the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk Governor's House and the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House as people who suffered and, despite all the mockery and insults, led a pious life. “Their true greatness stemmed not from their royal dignity, but from the amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.”
I believe that the emperor and his family are worthy of the title of saint. Because the blame for the Events of January 9, 1905 cannot be placed on the emperor. The petition about workers' needs, with which the workers went to the tsar, had the nature of a revolutionary ultimatum, which excluded the possibility of its acceptance or discussion. The decision to prevent workers from entering the Winter Palace square was made not by the emperor, but by the government headed by the Minister of Internal Affairs P. D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. Minister Svyatopolk-Mirsky did not provide the emperor with sufficient information about the events taking place, and his messages were reassuring in nature. The order for the troops to open fire was also given not by the emperor, but by the commander of the St. Petersburg Military District, Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich. Thus, “historical data does not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign in the January days of 1905 a conscious evil will turned against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions.” Nevertheless, Emperor Nicholas II did not see reprehensible actions in the actions of the commander in shooting demonstrations: he was neither convicted nor removed from office. But he saw guilt in the actions of Minister Svyatopolk-Mirsky and mayor I. A. Fullon, who were dismissed immediately after the January events. Nicholas’s guilt as an unsuccessful statesman should not be considered: “we should not evaluate this or that form of government, but the place that a specific person occupies in the state mechanism. The extent to which a person was able to embody Christian ideals in his activities is subject to assessment. It should be noted that Nicholas II treated the duties of the monarch as his sacred duty. Abdication of the tsar's rank is not a crime against the church: “Characteristic of some opponents of the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II is the desire to present his abdication of the Throne as a church-canonical crime similar to refusal 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 to the Kingdom was not defined in the church canons. Therefore, attempts to discover the elements of a certain church-canonical crime in the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power seem 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 internal peace in Russia, gives his action 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 church involvement.
Based on all these arguments, I want to say that the emperor is worthy to bear the title of passion-bearer who gave his life for Christ.

The life story of the royal passion-bearers 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 in relation to many other saints if the stories of their lives were more widely known.

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

Helped us with this 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 the opportunity for a person to save his life through renunciation of Christ. The sovereign's family was killed precisely as the sovereign's family: the people who killed them were quite secularized in their worldview and perceived them primarily as a symbol of the imperial Russia they hated.

The family of Nicholas II is glorified in the rite of passion-bearing, which is characteristic specifically of the Russian Church. This rank is traditionally used to canonize Russian princes and sovereigns who, imitating Christ, patiently endured physical and moral suffering or death at the hands of political opponents.

Five reports devoted to the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian sovereign were submitted to the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints. 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 his family members. 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 Church’s Attitude to Passion.
“Most witnesses speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk governor’s and Ipatiev Yekaterinburg houses,” the report “The Last Days of the Royal Family” emphasized, “as people suffering, but submissive to the will of God. Despite all the mockery and insults they suffered in captivity, they led a pious life and sincerely sought 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 of the light of Christ’s truth.”

It is the last period of the life of the members of the royal family, spent in captivity, and the circumstances of their death that provide serious grounds for glorifying them as passion-bearers. They realized more and more that death was inevitable, but they managed to preserve spiritual peace in their hearts and at the moment of martyrdom they acquired the ability to forgive their executioners. Before his abdication, the sovereign said to General D.N. Dubensky: “If I am a hindrance 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 even not only the kingdom, but also to give one’s 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 [the Motherland] we are going through everything. Just as you want to share everything with your beloved sick person, experience everything and watch over 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 political line of the last emperor?

Both historical notes about Nicholas II and his life give a rather restrained and sometimes critical assessment of his state activities. As for the renunciation, it was definitely a politically erroneous act. Nevertheless, the sovereign’s guilt is to some extent redeemed by the motives that guided him. The emperor’s desire to prevent civil strife through abdication is justified from a moral point of view, but not from a political position...

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 canonization, the Synodal Commission for Canonization did not ignore the controversial episodes of his reign, in which the worst aspects of his personality were revealed. But the last Russian emperor was canonized not for his character, but for his martyrdom and humble death.

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

What about Bloody Sunday, spiritualism and Rasputin?

The materials of the Synodal Commission for the canonization of the family of Nicholas II contain historical notes that separately examine all these problems. Bloody Sunday on January 9, 1905, the problem of the attitude of the sovereign and empress to Rasputin, the problem of the abdication of the emperor - all this is assessed 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 unprofessionally suppressed, but it was truly a massive illegal demonstration. Secondly, the sovereign did not give any criminal orders that day - he was in Tsarskoe Selo and was largely misinformed by the Minister of Internal Affairs and the mayor of St. Petersburg. Nicholas II considered himself responsible for what happened, hence the tragic entry in his diary, which he left on the evening of that day after learning about what happened: “Hard day! Serious riots occurred in St. Petersburg as a result of the workers’ desire to reach the Winter Palace. The troops had to shoot in different places in the city, there were many killed and wounded. Lord, how painful and difficult!”

All this allows us to take a slightly 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 sinless. The drama of passion-suffering, “non-resistance to death” lies precisely in the fact that it is precisely weak people, who have often sinned a lot, who find the strength 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 fulfilled 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 for glorifying the laity who accept martyrdom while 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 entire people?

But here it is precisely the non-church 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 national repentance for the murder of the royal family, have more than once been condemned by the Church, since this represents a very characteristic example of supplementing the Christian understanding of holiness with some new meanings of philosophical and political origin.

Rehabilitation

In June 2009, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation rehabilitated members of the Romanov family. In accordance with Art. 1 and paragraphs. “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 Mikhail Alexandrovich Romanov, Elizaveta Fedorovna Romanova, Sergei Mikhailovich Romanov, Ivan Konstantinovich Romanov, Konstantin Konstantinovich Romanov, Igor Konstantinovich Romanov, Elena Petrovna Romanova, Vladimir Pavlovich Paley, Yakovleva Var Varu , Yanysheva Ekaterina Petrovna, Remez Fedor Semenovich (Mikhailovich), Kalin Ivan, Krukovsky, Dr. Gelmerson and Johnson Nikolai Nikolaevich (Brian).

“An analysis of archival materials allows us to conclude that all of the above persons were subjected to repression in the form of arrest, deportation and being under the supervision of the Cheka authorities without being charged with committing a specific crime on class and social grounds,” an official representative told the Interfax agency Prosecutor General's Office Marina Gridneva. Earlier, the head of the House of Romanov, 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 killed by atheists and traitors to the Russian people. It seems that Orthodox Christians communicate on an 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 occurred without allocating land to the peasants.

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

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

4. The Trans-Siberian Railway and the Chinese Eastern Railway were built. This entailed a large tax collection from the West.
Russia got off to a great 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 is distancing itself from the West forever.

4. After the end of the First World War, Russia had to sit on the winner’s bench, and this gave it even greater advantages. England had already promised Russia the Strait of Gibraltar, which gave the country duty-free trade with the West.
But, there was the abdication of Nicholas II, and then: civil war, devastation, World War II, Khrushchev’s corn and voluntarism, stagnation, perestroika, Afghanistan, two Chechen wars and Putinism (all this followed from one another). When we will figure this out, only God knows, and will we even 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 visible 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 /what does the royal family have to do with it/

July 26, 2018 16:39

I don’t recognize him as a saint!

July 26, 2018 16:30

They did a bad job of canonizing him and making him a saint! people were just divided! I have a question then, let’s make Stalin a saint, even though he left the country with nuclear weapons and a powerful economy, even though he was a cruel ruler!? And Nicholas II ruined the country and lost the war. everything is comprehended in comparison! I see the movie Why St. Nicholas 2 There is a lot of semi-nonsense there - I agree with some, but not with others! Of course, he’s great for refusing to flee abroad and admitting his mistakes, but that doesn’t make him a saint!

July 22, 2018 10:58

Could you please tell me in 1905, on whose orders were the workers in St. Petersburg shot? at the head of the column was a priest and people carried icons and sang prayers.

January 27, 2018 23:03

Saints are those who serve Christ “in the calling in which they were called” “to the end, in spite of everything, without betraying what was entrusted.” The work that You entrusted to me, I have completed.”

December 29, 2017 12:40

Is there a procedure for canceling canonization???

November 25, 2017 13:40

Gentlemen and ladies, everything is very simple: any church is, first of all, a political organization with its own unobvious and unpublicized goals and objectives. Therefore, there is nothing to be surprised at such a controversial decision on the canonization of the central family. This is a purely political decision!

November 18, 2017 9:39

The question “For what?” is well answered by the question “When?” In August 2000, when the current President became President.

November 18, 2017 9:21

They lose sight of how on March 8, 1917, Nicholas II was arrested
his personal adjutant general, and his personal company of St. George's cavaliers
palace life grenadier, to the sounds of the Marsillaise, deployed over Headquarters
red banners. Guard, generals, State Duma from
oligarchs, army, Cossacks and simple proletarians, top and bottom, left and
rightists, future “reds”, “whites” and others in question
the unsuitability of Nicholas 2 as a monarch was unanimous. Even
the “grand ducal front” of his siblings, mother and uncles wanted
drive out such an Autocrat. And after the arrest for another year and a half, the former citizen
the tsar was marinated, passed from hand to hand to different committees,
and no one decided to help until the avengers were found. How could they
Are all those contemporaries mistaken?

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

November 10, 2017 22:40

An even more difficult question arises. After being glorified as a saint, the Church stops praying for the person and begins to ask the saint. If there was a premature recognition, we deprive the person of help from here, and we will not receive help from there. And how to ask family members for help?

November 10, 2017 20:34

1917 - Russian Flood! Many priests share this opinion. And this began 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 lead the Church led to a general apostasy from the faith. All classes and estates were betrayed, which is why this Flood was allowed to happen. Nicholas 2 did not turn out to be Noah, although he knew the end was approaching. It's a pity for everyone, because the Flood is not over yet!

November 5, 2017 9:16

And for me, Nicholas 2 is simply like the last tsar in history, but in no way a saint.

October 30, 2017 20:24

Yes, he's a saint. But what about the shooting of several hundred people at a peaceful march in January 1905?

October 15, 2017 11:05

Christ taught us to judge by our fruits. What we see: society is divided. The film Matilda, Poklonskaya’s “Tsarebozhnitsa”, and “The Christian State” with arson added fuel to the fire. 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 remains is to conduct a DNA examination.

October 14, 2017 20:36

God! What a tub of sewage there is in these comments. Gentlemen who do not shake hands, if you do not want to recognize the Tsar as a saint, please do not recognize him, do not pray, do not consider yourself Orthodox. But at least have the tact to remain silent! And moderate your desire to ecstatically wash the bones of a man who was killed long ago by atheists. And keep in mind that our Church does not canonize anyone just like that! For this to happen, there must be instances of miracles performed by that person; evidence of his righteous life; there’s a lot more... And you start talking about something you don’t have the slightest idea about. Church hierarchs know better. They have graduated 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 leadership is the end of the empire, the family is shot, there are no extremists.

October 5, 2017 15:01

To everyone who, in their darkness, multiplies blasphemy against the Emperor and His family, I will say: your judgments are based on what those who fed you for 100 years were those who sought to make stupid cattle out of you, and to destroy those who disagree, like the holy passion-bearers! And, to my sorrow, I notice that so far they are doing well. Think about whose “cud” you are chewing while there is still time. And having realized it, start searching, reading, watching, comprehending... And having comprehended it, pray and ask for forgiveness.
Yes, the devil is powerful indeed. 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 took on this responsibility voluntarily, but, as the years of his incompetent reign show, he failed to cope with it. If you can't cope, leave. But he did not leave on his own until the very end, until February 1917, when he was actually forced to do so.
But incompetent rule is not a problem; the problem is that the result of his rule was the death and torment of millions of Russian people. Including those who were tortured and those who were innocently killed!
So why was such a person canonized? Because he sat quietly with his family in Tobolsk, and then in Yekaterinburg, while Russia was already choking on the blood of Russian people killing each other?
There is a legal concept of a criminal act. Perhaps Nikolai did not commit criminal acts. But he committed criminal inaction, and therefore I personally will never convince anyone that his hands are clean. But 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 these or those orders and decrees, that he was misinformed and deceived. I wish I could figure it all out. For some reason, no one misinformed Alexander III.
And there is no need to give him any credit for 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 Alexandra was arrested even earlier by Kornilov. How would he run? On a horse or what? And therefore, he sat and waited weakly and calmly for his fate, just as he weakly 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 a saint. A bunch of reservations, special explanations, assumptions. It's not serious.

September 17, 2017 18:24

Mayakovsky wrote that if the stars light up -
Does that mean anyone needs this? The people definitely don’t need the canonization and sanctity of Nicholas II. The church needs it. Why? This is a great secret. But in my opinion, some kind of multi-path is buried here.

September 17, 2017 15:55

Tsarevich Dimitri was also canonized. Which it is not even known for certain whether he was killed innocently. And according to historical evidence, his character was like that of Ivan the Terrible’s dad (he loved to watch the torture of animals, and even had a hand in it himself). And in general he was illegitimate, that is, he had no special right to claim the throne. But for the church this does not matter, an amazing thing.

September 14, 2017 16:12

A man who greatly 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 “gray masses” unworthy of canonization!? Yes, the church is fair, you can’t say anything: the bourgeoisie get into heaven without a queue - that’s your motto.

September 14, 2017 11:22

Father Georgy, as always, wrote everything superbly, every word of his is balanced, but at the same time subject to a certain internal censorship, which, in fact, is understandable, because his official position obliges him. At the same time, it is undeniable that Nicholas II is a controversial and ambiguous figure, as evidenced by at least these discussions. The canonization of no saint has ever been perceived so differently by the people. We don’t know for sure what exactly happened in the Ipatiev House - most of the documents have not yet been declassified and will not be declassified as long as the issue is so urgent; regarding the remains, even the Russian Orthodox Church is not sure. How can we talk about murder if no corpses are found? Based on Yurovsky's notes? Diary of a Special Purpose House? It’s even funny... Is there testimony not from participants in the crime, but from uninterested witnesses? As far as I know (I could be wrong), no. The question arises: is it too early? Perhaps we should first wait for at least a definitive answer regarding the bones found? I do not dispute the sanctity of the royal family, but I cannot accept it unconditionally, even if I want to. It is a fact that Nicholas II and his family were very kind and pious people. But 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 king’s abdication of the throne, but found such grounds by studying the last period of the life of the royal family - the most little-known, vague, controversial and politicized ( from the point of view of interpretation time) pages of their lives. Political rehabilitation could not but have an impact on the speedy glorification, because the rest of those executed in the Ipatiev House were not glorified, based on the position of Father George, in fact, because of the church bureaucracy - they had not yet managed to come up with and approve the rite of glorification of the laity) Glorification of the royal family acted as part of the political rehabilitation and condemnation of the first bloody Soviet years, but 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 until the last that they would be saved. At first, Kerensky promised to send them to Crimea, and later to England, but he sent them to Tobolsk. Then Vyrubova prepared a conspiracy, but that’s probably all. You have no 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 abandon Russia. I didn't betray you. Although they were not purebred Russians!!! This is how you should love Russia! Those who argue that Nicholas II “killed” his family are very mistaken! Read the essays of Western emigrants who saw all the action taking place. Pay special attention to the memoirs of Ivan Solonevich. After this, I hope everyone will understand and be ashamed of their attitude towards Nicholas and his elevation to the Face of Saints. And in the future, before judging someone, think about whether you are ready to sacrifice yourself and your family for the sake of your Motherland. Or, at the slightest opportunity, you will run away like “rats from a ship.”

August 3, 2017 10:22

Two quotes: “There is no ‘tradition of canonization of monarchs’.”

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

August 3, 2017 4:29

Does performing professional duties with Christian humility interfere with canonization as a passion-bearer? Funny...

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

May 27, 2017 3:54

Vladimir. And let's not slide into expressions like: I paid for all my mistakes consciously, with my life and the life of my entire family. Since when did killing your family become an Orthodox thing? Maybe for this? Ban. All? What does not correspond to your opinion. Is it offensive language?)). Let's do it this way. There are two diametrically opposed opinions. In the light of the same concept of our Orthodoxy. In one. Nicholas II is canonized. In another, all the circles of hell are prophesied for him. Two religious extremes of our Orthodox religion. Paradise? Or Hell? Question. Which of these concepts is more offensive? And it is strange that for a religious person, the concept that a person deserves a frying pan in hell is offensive.

May 26, 2017 0:54

Pay for your mistakes. I need it with my life. And not the life of your family. By his inaction, Nikolai practically killed his family, whom he could have sent abroad. Even if against their will. It is unlikely that the feat of redemption consists of dooming innocent children to death. With the same success. Nikolai could have killed his family himself. And go out to the firing squad alone. Unfortunately, in Orthodoxy, they punish only direct murder. And for death due to criminal inaction. They are not punished. (Criminal inaction is the volitional passive behavior of a person, which consists in the fact that a person does not fulfill or improperly fulfills the duty assigned to him, as a result of which harm is caused to 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. Then Nikolai, with any readiness, could go to the sacrificial altar, alone. First, protecting your family. For me, it’s like Nikolai’s frying pan is squealing. But his family are truly passion-bearers. Who accepted their death from their compatriots, due to their political motives, malice and deceit.

March 20, 2017 6:29

There are not and cannot be absolutely sinless people on earth. Saints are not born, but become by realizing their sins and renouncing them (with God’s help, of course). The thief crucified next to Christ, having repented, went to Paradise. Our life is structured this way - you have to pay for everything. Nikolai || he paid for all his mistakes consciously, with his life and the lives of his entire family, although he had the opportunity to go abroad. This is his feat of atonement. To whom much is given, much will be required. He understood this. Probably the Lord accepted his sacrifice, since the Church channeled him. So it turns out that repentance cleanses and makes holy - the result of life. That's 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 with much purer souls died, but for some reason it was the emperor who was canonized. I think this should not have been done, since all the arguments against are balanced by a single argument - he suffered martyrdom! But how many people in Russia suffered no less than martyrdom from 1905 to 1945?!
So it turns out that Nicholas 2 owes his holiness to his position!
If there is even the slightest blemish on the biography of a candidate for sainthood, then you should not even consider such a candidacy! Not because the person is bad. But because the reputation of the Saint should not raise the slightest doubt!