The Romanovs were canonized when. About the canonization of Nicholas II - why were many clergy against it? king - bloody or holy

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

• 1918 - 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 of believers appealing to the Synod of the Serbian Church with a request 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 canonized the holy new martyrs and confessors of Russia, revealed and unrevealed.

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

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 delivered 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

• The death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family was not a martyrdom for Christ, but only political repression.
• 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.
• 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.
• “neither the holy Patriarch Tikhon, nor the holy Metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd, nor the holy Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, nor the holy Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov), nor the holy Archbishop Thaddeus, nor Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), who, without a doubt, will soon be canonized, nor the other hierarchs now glorified by our Church, the new martyrs, who knew much more and better than we do now, the personality of the former Tsar - none of them ever expressed thoughts about him as a holy passion-bearer (and at that time this could still be stated in whole voice)"
• The responsibility for “the gravest sin of regicide, which weighs on all the peoples of Russia,” as advocated by supporters of canonization, also causes deep bewilderment.

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:

• Canonization should not provide reasons or arguments in political struggles 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 activities of modern monarchists, the Commission especially emphasized its position: “the canonization of the Monarch is in no way connected with monarchical ideology and, moreover, does not mean the “canonization” of the monarchical form of government... Glorifying the saint, the Church does not pursue political goals... but testifies to the people of God who already honor the righteous man, that the ascetic whom she canonizes really pleased God and stands before the Throne of God for us, 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 his reign and the time of his imprisonment. In the first period (being 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 it focused its attention on it.

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:

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”:

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

• Circumstances of death- physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents.
• Widespread popular veneration the royal passion-bearers served as one of the main reasons for their glorification as saints.
• “appeals from individual clergy and laity, as well as groups of believers from different dioceses, supporting 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 clergy and laity of the fraternal Orthodox Churches. Many of those who contacted the Commission spoke out in favor of the speedy, urgent canonization of the Royal Martyrs. The idea of ​​the need for the speedy glorification of the Tsar and the Royal Martyrs was expressed by a number of church and public organizations.” Over three years, 22,873 requests were received for the glorification of the royal family, according to Metropolitan Juvenaly.
• « Testimonies of miracles and grace-filled 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.”
• Personal piety of the Sovereign: 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).
• “The Emperor’s church policy did not go beyond the traditional synodal system of governing the Church. However, it was during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II that the church hierarchy, which had until then been officially silent for two centuries on the issue of convening a Council, had the opportunity not only to widely discuss, but also to practically prepare for the convening of a Local Council.”
• The activities of the empress and led. princesses as sisters of mercy during the war.
• “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.”

Refuting the arguments of opponents of canonization

• The blame for the events of Bloody Sunday cannot be placed on the Emperor: “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 does 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.”
• Nicholas’ guilt as an unsuccessful statesman should not be considered: “we must evaluate not 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 a monarch as his sacred duty.”
• Abdication of the tsar's rank is not a crime against the church: “The desire, characteristic of some opponents of the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II, to present his abdication of the Throne as a church-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 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.”

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.

• Passion-bearers- the option chosen by the Russian Orthodox Church, which did not find grounds for canonization as martyrs. In the tradition (hagiography and liturgical) of the Russian Church, the concept of “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 passion-bearers were the holy noble princes Boris and Gleb (+1015), Igor Chernigovsky (+1147), Andrei Bogolyubsky (+1174), Mikhail 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 classification of the death of the royal family as martyrdom (see above the definition of the Council of Bishops), in order to be included in this rank of holiness it is necessary to suffer precisely for testifying to one’s faith in Christ. Despite this, the 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 guise of martyrs by Archpriest Mikhail Polsky, who fled from the USSR, who, based on the recognition of the “Soviet power” in the USSR as essentially anti-Christian, considered “new Russian martyrs” all Orthodox Christians killed by government officials in Soviet Russia. Moreover, in his interpretation, Christian martyrdom washes away all previous sins from a person.

• The faithful- the most common face of holiness for monarchs. In Russia, this epithet even became part of the official title of the Grand Dukes and the first Tsars. However, it is not traditionally used for saints canonized as martyrs or passion-bearers. Another important detail is that persons who had the status of a monarch at the time of death are glorified in the ranks of the faithful. Nicholas II, having abdicated the throne, on the instructions 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 (Matthew 10:22). Osipov also believes that during the abdication of the throne, there was also a renunciation of the grace received, according to the teachings of the church, during the creation of the world at the moment of the crowning of the kingdom. Despite this, in radical monarchist circles, Nicholas II is revered among the faithful.
• Also in radical monarchist 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: “ 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 books in some temple 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».

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" (The reason is that the face of the passion-bearers does not seem “solid” enough for monarchists).

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

• 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 of 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 the ROCOR.
• Andrei Kuraev: “it was not the image of the reign of Nicholas II that was canonized, but the image of his death... The 20th was a terrible century for Russian Christianity. And you can’t leave it without drawing some conclusions. 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 executed Cossack family, and with it millions of others. But this path for church consciousness would probably be too radical. Moreover, in Russia there has always been a certain “tsar-people” identity.”

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. Tsar-Martyr and St. 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, village. 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 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 miraculous deliverance of hundreds of Cossacks. A story about this event appeared in 1947 in the Russian emigrant press. The story contained in it dates back to the time of the Civil War, when a detachment of White Cossacks, surrounded and driven by the Reds into impassable swamps, called 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 soldiers’ objection that the royal family had not been officially glorified, the priest allegedly replied that the glorification was taking place by the will of “God’s people,” and swore to the others that their prayer would not remain 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 old people and disabled people, 1 priest, 22 Cossacks, a total of 98 people 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 pilgrimage for the last tsar and his family. Boys from the monastery orphanage, 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 had sprouted seven shoots (according to the number of faces depicted on the icon) and produced green flowers with a diameter of 1-2 cm resembling roses, and the flowers and the mother branch belonged to different plant species. According to publications referring to this event, the service during which the branches were placed on the icon was held on Pokrov, that is, three months earlier.

The miraculously grown flowers, four in number, were placed in an icon case, where by the time of Easter “they had not changed at all,” but by the beginning of Holy Week of Great Lent, green shoots up to 3 cm long suddenly erupted. 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 Fr. Savva, the icon was transferred to the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, to the Savvin chapel, where it apparently remains to this day.

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 throne of the temple. According to the testimony of 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 king 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 leaving unnoticed would be impossible . It is also added that the image did not appear instantly, but appeared constantly, as if on photographic film. According to the parishioners of the Holy Bogolyubsky Church, the process did not end there, but on the right side of the iconostasis the image of Queen Alexandra Feodorovna and her son gradually began to appear.

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 9:29 ), and by the action of another spirit (Acts 16:16-18), “to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24), 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

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”; the concept is called by some the “royal redemptive heresy”

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 an obstacle to the happiness of Russia and all the social forces now at its head 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 the victims of political repressions”, the Prosecutor General’s prosecutor's office decided to rehabilitate Mikhail Alexandrovich Romanov, Romanov Elizaveta Fedorovna, Romanov Sergey Mikhailovich, Romanov Ioanna Konstantinovich, Romanov Konstantin Konstantinovich, Romanov Igor Konstantinovich, Romanov Elena Petrovna, Palea Vladimir Pavlovich, Yakovlovich Varvaru Varvar , 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 George, 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. Nikolay || 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!

Firstly no execution of the royal seven did not have, as evidenced by many facts described in the articles: There was no execution of the royal family. The royal family was not shot!

The whole truth about the canonization of Nicholas II

Why was Nicholas II canonized? This canonization seems strange to many people. I think that we need to dot all the i’s and cover all the most important issues related to Nicholas II and his canonization. But these questions are important, and every person for whom the history of Russia is important should know about it.

These important questions are as follows.

1. Was the death of Nicholas II martyrdom death for Christ? The death of martyrdom, which he accepted because he professed Christianity, professed Christ?

No. Nicholas II was executed not for his religious beliefs, but for his past political activities - this is a historical fact.

And actually, at that moment the Civil War was going on, and people mass death for their political views on all sides participating in the war (and not just the Reds and Whites). But for this reason, all of them were not canonized as Saints, they were not considered martyrs.

They did not demand that Nicholas II renounce his religious views; no torture (for this purpose or for any other purpose) was carried out. And he lived with his family after his arrest (which, by the way, was not carried out by the Bolsheviks, but by the future leaders of the Whites - General Alekseev arrested the king, general Kornilov- queen) not in prison, but in a private house. That is, the conditions of the tsar’s detention were very mild, incomparably softer than other arrests, both from the Reds and from the Whites.

On the day of the execution of Nicholas II, he and his family were simply forced to go down to the basement of the house, where the verdict was read out and they were shot. All. In general, after his arrest, the tsar lived with his family in a large merchant’s house, and then died from a bullet. This was considered “martyrdom.”

And the fact that before this hundreds of thousands of people died from bullets for the Tsar and the Christ-loving Fatherland during the First World War in much more difficult and painful circumstances was not a circumstance for all of them to be canonized as holy martyrs. Snout, apparently they didn’t come out, not of royal blood.

So the first historical fact that you need to know: the death of Nikolai Romanov was not a death for Christ and was not a martyrdom.

By the way, about renunciation. Here a second, also extremely important question arises.

2. How should the abdication of Nicholas II be viewed?

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. Quite clearly.

Any soldier who leaves his post without permission, leaving the facility entrusted to him without protection, without supervision, especially in wartime, especially at a strategically important post, is considered a criminal. At all times, in all countries and among all peoples, such a crime is considered extremely serious and very cruelly punishable, almost always the death penalty.

How should we treat the tsar, who left the country in the most difficult times of war, and not just the tsar, but Supreme Commander-in-Chief? Only as a cowardly coward and a traitor to the motherland. That's right: betrayal is, by definition, a violation of fidelity or failure to fulfill a duty. The Tsar, having abdicated, thereby refused to fulfill his duty to his homeland as a Tsar and as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Essentially, he renounced Russia, the army and the people.

The people and the army were simply presented with a fait accompli. Therefore, to claim that the people bear “the gravest sin of regicide, which weighs heavily on all the peoples of Russia,” and to demand from the people repentance before the tsar who is a traitor to their homeland, as the tzar-worshippers demand, is the height of cynicism and hypocrisy. This is how the count wrote in his memoirs Ignatiev, who took part in the coronation of Nicholas II, and since 1912 was a military attaché in France:

« ... king, who is he to me now? I only have to give up on him, but he gave up on Russia. He broke the oath taken in my presence under the ancient arches of the Assumption Cathedral during the coronation.

The florid words of the manifesto justifying the abdication of the throne are not convincing for me. The Russian Tsar cannot “renounce”.

What a pitiful figure he always seemed to me Paul I, but he also found the courage to say at the last minute to his killers - the guards officers who invited him to sign an act of abdication: “You can kill me, but I will die as your emperor,” - and he was strangled, and his successor, Alexander I, only thanks to this I was able, perhaps, to ascend the throne without hindrance.

Nikolay II, by his renunciation, he himself frees me from the oath given to him, and what a bad example he sets for all of us military men! How would we judge a soldier who left the ranks, especially in battle? And what can we think about the “first soldier” of the Russian Empire, the commander-in-chief of all land and naval forces, leaving his post without even thinking about what will happen to his army?

A.I. Ignatiev “Fifty years in service.” Volume 2, book 4, chapter 12.

From the fact of abdication it also follows that from March 1917, Nicholas II ceased to be tsar. He became just a citizen Nikolai Romanov. Therefore, when they say: the Bolsheviks shot the Tsar... But in 1918 there was no longer a Tsar in Russia, he was already dead in March 1917 - these are the facts. So the second historical fact that you need to know about: by the very fact of his abdication, Nicholas II committed two grave crimes - a church-canonical crime and betrayal of the homeland.

But perhaps during his reign, Nicholas II was remembered as virtuous and merciful, as a king from God, who brought prosperity and success to Russia? Let's talk about this too.

3. What was the reign of Nicholas II like? Was he a good king and a true Christian? Is the Tsar remembered as an example of Christian virtues?

It is not worth considering this issue in particular detail within the framework of this article, since Nicholas II was canonized precisely as a martyr, passion-bearer. That is, the reason for canonization was not the way he ruled(such as, Alexander Nevskiy- there really was something to canonize for) or how he lived, but how he died. That is, even those who had to canonize him understood that if we take the reign of Nicholas II, glorify him here there's just no point in it. The result of his reign was collapse of the Russian Empire- this is a historical fact.

How did it start? From the tragedy on Khodynka. Many hundreds of people died. And the king on the same day I went to have fun at a ball at the French embassy. The famine of 1901-1902, combined with brutal exploitation, caused mass peasant uprisings to spread throughout Russia in 1902. The workers also showed increasing dissatisfaction with their powerless situation, poverty and barbaric exploitation.

On January 9, 1905, the workers went with a petition to the Tsar. Workers who peacefully went with their wives and children to the Tsar to complain about their difficult and powerless situation were met with bullets. Hundreds of people died. And what about the king? The Tsar, in his speech of January 19... forgave those workers who were shot, if not even on his direct orders, then with his knowledge and approval. This is certainly not an example of Christian charity, but rather the height of cynicism, meanness and hypocrisy.

As the Gospel of Matthew says:

Is there a person among you who

When his son asks him for bread, would he give him a stone?

And when he asks for a fish, would you give him a snake?

(Matt. 7:9-10)

So, Nicholas II turned out to be such a person. When the king’s subjects came to him like children to their intercessor father and asked him for protection - his answer was bullets. The people neither forgot nor forgave this, which is natural. The answer was a revolution that was drowned in blood by the “good father.” And then there was also Lena execution, which was taken by the king as a matter of course.

Lena execution

And asking for help, including spiritual help, Rasputin, Rasputin’s influence even on politics and on the appointment of people to high government positions - is this also a model of following the canons of the Russian Orthodox Church? Hardly. No wonder neither saint Patriarch Tikhon, nor the holy Metropolitan of Petrograd Benjamin, nor the holy metropolitan Krutitsky Peter, nor the holy metropolitan Seraphim(Chichagov), nor the holy archbishop Thaddeus, nor the holy archbishop Hilarion(Troitsky), nor the other hierarchs now glorified by our church, the new martyrs, who knew much more and better than we do now, the personality of the former king - none of them ever expressed thoughts about him as a holy passion-bearer (and at that time this was still could be said loudly).

In other words, people who knew Nicholas II, including church ministers, including those who were canonized (which means the church has no reason not to trust them, but has every reason to listen to them) did not see there is no holiness in it.

So the third historical fact is that the life and reign of Nicholas II were such that there was nothing to glorify him for, for they were both mediocre and inglorious.

So why then do the fans of Nicholas II raise such a howl, high praise and hysteria around his name, and so insist on his holiness?

4. So who are they, fans of Nicholas II? Why, in fact, was Nicholas II canonized? What really stood behind this canonization?

Now let's move on to the main thing. Why, despite all the above, Nicholas II was still canonized? Moreover, why are the calls for nationwide repentance before him becoming more and more powerful? Who is behind this? What kind of power? Maybe these are monarchists? Does not look like it. Have you seen many communists who, after the collapse of the USSR, still revere Gorbachev, protect him in every possible way? I've never met anyone like that. Have you seen many Christians who worship Judas Iscariot? I haven't met.

There were tsars in Russia whose reign was very successful: for example, under Ekaterina II, outstanding military victories were won and Crimea was liberated, with Alexandra I won an outstanding victory over Napoleon. But they don’t rush around like a sack, they don’t make such a fuss and hysteria around them. So a monarchist defending Nicholas II is like a communist defending Gorbachev. Means, it's not about monarchism.

Maybe the point is that the sin of regicide is so terrible that it is absolutely necessary for the entire people to repent of it, otherwise there is no other way? Maybe so?

But let's remember Pavel I who was killed, remember Alexandra II, the king who freed the peasants from serfdom, who won the war with the Turks, and who was also killed. Moreover, both Paul I and Alexander II died as kings in the performance of their royal duties. Why don’t they treat them like this, demand that they repent before them and canonize them as saints? This means that the issue is not monarchism or the sin of regicide. The point is completely different.

The whole point is that these admirers of Nicholas II are actually just complete anti-Sovietists, and they don’t hide their anti-Sovietism! They need a compelling reason to accuse the Bolsheviks and the Soviet regime of something else! That's the whole point of canonization!

And now these people are also trying to present the execution of Nikolai Romanov as a ritual murder! Moreover, without having his remains (I mean, the remains of Nikolai Romanov, recognized as such by the church), that is, without any evidence to draw such a conclusion!

And the following important conclusions follow from this.

Firstly, the decision to canonize Nicholas II - a completely politically motivated decision, having not religious, but political grounds.

Secondly, it turns out that the church, even in such a purely ecclesiastical issue as the issue of canonization, guided not by the will of God, but by the wishes of worldly authorities. And this, in turn, indicates the lack of grace of such a church, which is, in essence, a political organization that uses religion merely as an instrument of class domination.

Thirdly, the very fact that the highest church hierarchs cover only their ambitions and the political wishes of the authorities with the name of God indicates that they themselves do not believe in God, otherwise they themselves would have feared the wrath of God for their monstrous deception of millions of people.

And so that people don’t think about all this, they can’t realize and understand it - it is necessary to plunge the people into the darkness of ignorance. This is precisely why all the current education reforms are being carried out, the introduction of the Unified State Examination, etc. This is the co-operation between the authorities and the church. But this is a topic for another article.

Questions and answers.

1. It is logical to pose the following question. So the king abdicated, he and his whole family were arrested. Did the church stand up for its Holy King or what?Exactly “or how”.

February 27, 1917(the king has not yet abdicated!) Chief Prosecutor N.P.Raev turned to the Holy Synod with a proposal to condemn the revolutionary movement. And what about the Holy Synod? The Synod rejected this proposal, motivating the refusal by the fact that it is not yet known where the betrayal comes from - from above or from below.

Like this! During the February Revolution, the church, it turns out, supported not the tsar, but precisely the revolution! What happened next? And then it was like this.

March 4, 1917 at the meeting of the Holy Synod on March 4, the Metropolitan of Kyiv presided Vladimir, and the new synodal chief prosecutor, Prince V.N. Lviv announced the granting of freedom to the Russian Orthodox Church from the tutelage of the state, which, they say, had a detrimental effect on church and public life. The members of the synod expressed sincere joy about the advent of a new era in the life of the church.

Like this! The Tsar has abdicated, a decision has already been made to arrest him, and the highest church hierarchs, instead of interceding for the holy Tsar, rejoice, unless they jump for joy!

5th of March The Synod ordered that in all churches of the Petrograd diocese many years to the reigning house " henceforth it was not proclaimed».

Like this! What kind of veneration is there for the holy king - you shouldn’t even pray for his health!

March 6–8. The Holy Synod ordered the removal of commemoration of the royal power from the liturgical rites, about which the first present member of the Synod, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev, on March 6 sent telegrams on his behalf to all dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church (66 within Russia and 1 to New York) with the order that “ prayers should be offered for the God-protected Russian state and the faithful Provisional Government her."

March 7–8 The Synod issued a definition according to which the entire Russian clergy was ordered: “in all cases during divine services, instead of commemorating the reigning house, offer a prayer “for the God-protected Russian state and the blessed Provisional Government her."

Like this! The highest church hierarchs commanded to pray not for the king, but for his persecutors and detractors! And then some of these hierarchs were also recognized as holy new martyrs...

2. How can this be? Why was he recognized as a saint? and Nicholas II and those who rejoiced at his abdication and arrest? How, for some reason, did they suddenly find themselves in the same host of saints?

Now it’s clear why – anti-Bolshevism and anti-Sovietism! That's what they have in common! However, I already wrote about this in paragraph 4 of this article, and this example is another confirmation of this. Which once again confirms that The Russian Orthodox Church is a political organization, religiosity is just a cover. And often, the more anti-communism, the more holiness. And therefore, when the Nazis came, it was often like this:

Never forget this.

Canonization of the traitor to Russia Nicholas II. Open letter to the Patriarch

About the information war, about religions

More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the “Keys of Knowledge” website. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone who wakes up and is interested...

Follow us

And for the simple reason that they clearly saw the royal sins and did not consider him a saint.
Among the critics of the canonization of the emperor was Alexei Osipov, a 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, he published an entire article with arguments against canonization.. .

ABOUT THE CANONIZATION OF THE LAST RUSSIAN TSAR

There are a number of serious considerations that should at least give any open-minded person pause. about the reasons for the emergence of the very idea of ​​canonization of Nicholas II, its arguments and the possible consequences of its implementation.

As is known, " not having recognition of the entire Orthodox Completeness, due to its anti-canonical nature, a group of bishops calling itself the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which for decades has been causing discord among our Orthodox compatriots" (From the Appeal of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. 1990), or the so-called Russian Church Abroad, without the blessing of the Mother Church canonized (mainly for political reasons) the last Russian Emperor.

And so, quite recently (since the time of the so-called perestroika), a small but extremely active circle of people who have the most ardent sympathies for the Church Abroad, using newspapers, magazines, radio, pedagogical and lecture departments and even pulpits, began to insist with amazing categoricalness on the canonization and Russian Orthodox Church of the former Sovereign (former, since he himself abdicated this rank, which, for example, for the late Metropolitan of St. Petersburg Ioann Snychev was the main argument against the canonization of Nicholas II) (! - V.K.) and his family, as well as servants (i.e., and non-Orthodox: Lutheran E. Schneider and Catholic A. Trupp).

At the same time, what is especially striking is the completely non-church, typically political nature of the excitement raised around this issue and, in essence, boils down to forcing the ranks of the Church and all its members to recognize the holiness of Nicholas II...
-
..If we raise the question of canonization based on his life and work, then One cannot ignore at least the following serious facts.

1. Unprecedented in the history of the Russian state, the abdication of the Sovereign from the throne had, among others, the following fatal consequences for the country. Nicholas II, having failed to ensure the implementation of the most important law of the Russian Empire in this exceptional situation - the unconditional inheritance of the throne (Article 37), by his abdication (and for the Heir) abolished the Autocracy in Russia and thereby opened a direct path to the establishment of a revolutionary dictatorship. At the same time, he not only illegally abdicated for the Heir, not only transferred power to someone (Mikhail) who did not even know about it, and when he found out, did not accept it, but also directly violated the decisions and oaths of the Great Moscow Council of 1613...

In the case of Nicholas II, the situation is even more serious. He not only abdicated the throne himself, but also, without ensuring his succession, completely destroyed the tsarist power in Russia as such. So his renunciation corresponds not to the retirement of a clergyman, when the right to serve is preserved, and not even to simply the removal of his rank, but to the destruction of this service itself in Rus'...

2. The attitude of Nicholas II to the Church. Not only did he not abolish or soften the anti-canonical leadership and management of the Church by a layman (emperor), introduced according to the Protestant model, and its actual subordination to the chief prosecutors, the tsar’s favorites, Rasputin, which was expressed in their interference in any, including purely internal affairs, but and aggravated its oppressed position with the reforms of 1905-1906...

Previously persecuted religious communities received freedom. In ancient Orthodox Moscow, cathedrals of schismatics met without hindrance and congresses of Baptists gathered. For the Orthodox Church, a favorable summer has not yet arrived. .. The attitude of the reigning dynasty towards the Orthodox Church is a historical example of ingratitude... The St. Petersburg period of Russian history ends with a terrible shame and grave national disaster” (“Church and Society.” 1998. No. 4. P. 60).

3. The freedoms granted by the Emperor in 1905, not limited by proper limits and soon degenerated, in fact, into outright arbitrariness, in addition to the direct humiliation of the Russian Church, opened up the legal possibility of discrediting both the throne and Orthodoxy, the development in the country of all kinds of mysticism, occultism, sectarianism, immoralism and so on.

Immediately after the decree, all kinds of societies, organizations, parties and unions began to emerge in abundance from underground and re-emerge, publishing a huge number of magazines, newspapers, and books in which liberal, anti-monarchist, anti-church, revolutionary, atheistic ideas were actively promoted. An era of democracy in the image and likeness of the “enlightened” West has arrived in Russia...

Many of the hierarchs of the Church, from the Royal House and government officials, even from close friends, turned their backs on Nicholas II (and took part in a conspiracy against the person closest to the royal family - Rasputin). The reaction of the Holy Synod to his abdication convincingly illustrates this. The Synod did not express regret either about what happened, or even about the arrest of the former Sovereign, and thus clearly showed its assessment of Nicholas II as a ruler.

4. Persistent continuation and deepening of the connection with Rasputin until his death, despite the general temptation and the most decisive protests of the most prominent people of Russia (for example: the holy Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna / “he is a servant of Satan” / and other Grand Dukes, holy Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany ), Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky), confessor of the royal family Bishop Feofan (Bistrov), Chairman of the Government P. A. Stolypin, ministers, government and public figures...

The first anti-Rasputin articles were written not by enemies of the Church and the throne, but by the famous deep Orthodox writer M.N. Novoselov and a convinced monarchist, friend of Tsar L.A. Tikhomirov and appeared in Moskovskie Vedomosti in 1910)...

L.A. was also suspended. Tikhomirov, a former People's Volunteer revolutionary, and then a defender of the idea of ​​autocracy and a friend of the Tsar. One day a group of intellectuals gathered to write an “open letter” to the Tsar, but Tikhomirov convinced them not to do this: “Everything is useless! God has closed the Tsar’s eyes, and no one can change this. The revolution will inevitably come anyway.”... Outrage against Rasputin’s influence is all grew, and at the same time attacks on the royal house grew" (At the turn of two eras. P. 142).

5. The religiosity of the royal couple, for all its outwardly traditional Orthodoxy, bore a clearly expressed character of interconfessional mysticism. This conclusion follows from many facts. The coldness of the royal family, mainly the queen, towards the Russian clergy is known, which is especially clearly revealed from the letters of Alexandra Feodorovna (“there are only animals in the Synod”!). Even with the highest hierarchs, the relations between the king and queen were exclusively of an official nature...

6. What fundamentally does not allow us to raise the question of the canonization of Nicholas II from a Christian point of view is his personal confession to his mother in a letter from exile: “God gives me the strength to forgive everyone, but I cannot forgive General Ruzsky.” This confession is not removed by the testimony of Grand Duchess Olga that her father forgave everyone, since she does not say anything about the main thing in this matter - did he forgive Ruzsky? Consequently, she either did not know about it, or chose, for obvious reasons, to remain silent.

Due to both these and a number of other facts, the Commission of the Holy Synod on Canonization made, in particular, the following conclusion: “Summarizing the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian Emperor, the Commission did not find sufficient grounds for his canonization” (Materials. ..P.5).
-
...But, firstly, what will the holiness of our Church then turn into? Secondly, the very posing of the question of canonization specifically of Nikolai Alexandrovich and his family, and not of the Sovereigns who had previously suffered, testifies that it is not due to church reasons, but to other reasons.

At the same time, statements about the voluntary acceptance of death by the last Emperor for his people seem completely untrue. There is direct evidence that the former august family sought to go abroad. The materials of the Synodal Commission for Canonization indicate: “we will only note the desire of the Royal Family to go abroad and in confirmation of this we will quote the Emperor’s diary entry dated March 10 (23): “I sorted through my things and books and began to put aside everything that I want to take from yourself if you have to leave for England" (P.58)...

The suffering and death of the last Emperor objectively speak of only one thing: God gave him the opportunity to suffer for the sins that he committed (consciously or unconsciously) against Russia. This idea about his guilt in the suffering of Russia was expressed ten years before the Yekaterinburg tragedy of St. John of Kronstadt. In an entry dated October 9, 1908, he, who called the Tsar pious, utters these terrible words: “The Earthly Fatherland suffers for the sins of the Tsar and the people, for the Tsar’s lack of faith and short-sightedness, for his indulgence in the unbelief and blasphemy of Leo Tolstoy...”. (TsGA. St. Petersburg. F.2219. Op.1. D.71. L.40-40 volume. See also: S.L. Firsov. The Orthodox Church and the State in the last decade of the existence of autocracy in Russia. St. Petersburg. 1996) ...

The responsibility for “the grave sin of regicide, which weighs on all the peoples of Russia” (Address of the participants of the 3rd conference “The Tsar’s Affair and Yekaterinburg Remains”, December 8, 1998) and the call of those living today to repentance of it, also causes deep bewilderment.

Is it not obvious, firstly, that sin is a matter of the personal conscience of the sinner, and not of the one who took no part in it? Therefore, it is possible and necessary to pray for someone who has committed a sin, but it is impossible to repent in his place. The Ninevites repented for their own sins, not for the sins of their forefathers.

Secondly, it is completely incomprehensible why the people are guilty of the murder of Nicholas II, and not the Emperors Alexander II, Paul I, Peter III, Tsar Fyodor Godunov, or the Grand Dukes Sergei, Michael and others, or Saint Tsarevich Demetrius, Saint Elizabeth Feodorovna, Saints Boris and Gleb, or...? What is the reason for this amazing oddity?

Thirdly, doesn’t the idea of ​​the people’s guilt for the sin of murdering Nicholas II lead to the fact that our peoples, primarily the Russians, become the main criminals, and the real murderers fade into the shadows?
And finally, doesn’t this idea contribute to the emergence among the people of a painful guilt complex, which is completely false, also because, unlike any other sin that can be washed away by repentance, here no one knows what and how to repent of in order to be cleansed from this sin.
(I wonder what the priest will decide if someone repents to him of the sin of murdering Tsar Fyodor Godunov or Nicholas II?)...

It is necessary to comprehend those consequences that canonization may entail former august family.
First. The very question about it has already caused such a confrontation in the church environment, among the people, which has never existed in the history of our Church.
Instead of a sober, serious discussion of the problems that are natural in such cases, the Orthodox media began to make the most harsh statements, completely unbecoming for Christians in the face of the outside world, addressed to their fellow men.

Isn’t this a temptation for believers and non-believers and not a direct undermining of the authority of the Church and its preaching about love?
Possible canonization with the obvious disagreement of many (for example, during the meeting of Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna with students of Moscow theological schools on March 31, 1997, it turned out that there were approximately half of them) could even more seriously complicate the situation in our society and divide it even further. one sign, for many will perceive this act as forcing their conscience to venerate someone in whom they do not see either a proper example of Christian life, much less holiness...
http://www.istina.ucoz.ru/osipov_o_kanonisazii.html
---
Priesthood and kingdom in Russian public consciousness(from the history of one archetype) 2000

Trying to understand the events taking place in modern Russia, we base our calculations on various political, economic and other factors that are easy to calculate and measure. But the longer we do this, the more we become convinced that behind current events there is also a reality of a different kind: the moods that dominate Russian society, changing according to some inexplicable, but quite perceptible logic. Paradoxically, they turn out to be more durable and durable than official ideologies and political regimes. They can be given different names, but here we will call them archetypes of social consciousness.

One of the most important such archetypes is the idea of ​​merging church and state (primarily monarchy), or priesthood and kingdom. This model has a very long history and is still popular even among people who are completely far from religion and monarchical ideology...

One of the most heated and significant discussions in this regard took place over the possible canonization of Nicholas II and his family. Although the Synodal Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church sees as possible grounds for canonization only the patient enduring of suffering and personal piety of members of the royal family (that is, those aspects of their lives that were not directly related to the imperial dignity)2, but for supporters of canonization we are talking about something completely different, namely, the recognition of the sacrifice made by the royal family for all of Russia3, and the canonization of everything and everyone that was connected with the life of the last emperor, right up to Grigory Rasputin. The canonization of the Tsar is called a matter of repentance for the entire Church. The hierarchs of the ROCOR establish recognition of the holiness of the imperial family as a necessary condition for reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate and practically raise it to the level of a dogma of faith; Thus, this confession is separately mentioned in the standard text of repentance pronounced by clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate upon their transition to the Church Abroad....
http://magazines.russ.ru/continent/2000/104/de10.html
---
About the authorities and the Church of Christ 2002

Metropolitan Nicholas of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas states that he did not sign the act of canonization of the royal family at the 2000 Council...
The interview with one of the oldest and most authoritative bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Nicholas of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas, is sensational in its own way. Vladyka Nicholas, who went through the war, repeatedly stated that he fears no one but God, and therefore always says only what he thinks. It seems to us that his interview has no analogues in terms of the courage and frankness of his opinions...
- There is a temple in Moscow where you can see the icon of Rasputin. Now the question of his canonization is being openly raised, that he was a holy elder who was slandered by Freemasons and liberals. How can the Church relate to such statements? Maybe it’s really time to reconsider Rasputin and study his life?
- A whole series of documents that I am familiar with do not speak in favor of Rasputin. The question of it, naturally, will be raised as one of the levers that they want to use to bring schismatic turmoil into the Church. Once I looked at a book about Rasputin. Well, you know, you have to have a conscience. And if there is no conscience, then, of course, you can then canonize everyone. The question here is how firm or focused the Church will be. Why purposeful? Because some time ago the church meeting heard that there were no grounds for the canonization of the tsar, and then all these words were forgotten.
http://ruskline.ru/monitoring_smi/2002/05/07/o_vlastyah_i_cerkvi_hristovoj/
---
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 2006
At the end of March, color printed posters were posted all over Voronezh inviting everyone to take part in a conciliar participation in nationwide repentance for the sin of regicide...

The most widely circulated Voronezh publication is the weekly “Moyo!” (110 thousand copies), whose leadership, according to expert estimates, has close contacts with the diocese, included a commentary by the ruling bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church MP, Metropolitan Sergius (Fomin) and representatives of the diocesan clergy.

According to Metropolitan Sergius, “The canonization of Nicholas II and his family as passion-bearers does not satisfy the newly minted zealots of the monarchy,” reports a correspondent for “Portal-Credo.Ru.”

The hierarch publicly called the “monarchical biases” the “heresy of kingship.” In some parishes, he continued, “unauthorized akathists have become widespread, where the emperor, by the way, who abdicated the throne, is called the king-redeemer.” Such ideas, as the hierarch specifically points out, contradict the basic dogmas of Christianity about the atoning sacrifice of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The Metropolitan recommends that those living today repent of their personal sins and, perhaps first of all, “those who sow confusion and division among the Orthodox and pervert Orthodox dogmas.”

Another commentary for the newspaper by the head of the youth department of the diocese, priest Oleg Shamaev, speaks of a well-organized business on the “rite of repentance”, in which part of the clergy of many dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church MP is not quite openly, but still involved.

Their main goal, according to the representative of the diocese, is to sow a split among the Orthodox in Russia. According to him, the clergy of the Voronezh diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church MP have recently often heard in confessions from believers confession of the sin of regicide.

The diocesan priest also noted that the participants in this business project are misleading people also because they call their call to national repentance as if it came from Patriarch Alexy II himself and declare that they have a blessing to conduct their specific pilgrimage activities.
http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/print.php?act=news&id=42112
---
Orthodox Christians against Nicholas II: why the Tsar was recognized as a saint 2017

Despite the scandals surrounding Matilda, there were and remain different opinions in the Russian Orthodox Church about the holiness of the last emperor and his family.
The vigorous 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 illusion among the public that being Orthodox means being Orthodox. It is impossible for the Russian emperor to live without trepidation. However, in the Russian Orthodox Church there were and still are different opinions about his holiness.
Let us remember 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 passion-bearers and by 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 the council in 1997, but then it turned out that several bishops, as well as some of the clergy and laity, were against the recognition of Nicholas II..
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 the White emigrants and their descendants by uniting with the ROCOR.
The future Patriarch Kirill, who then headed the department of external church relations, stated that by canonizing the royal family and other victims of the Bolsheviks in 2000, one of the contradictions between the two Churches was eliminated. And indeed, six years later the Churches were reunited.
“We glorified the royal family precisely as passion-bearers: the basis for this canonization was the innocent death accepted by Nicholas II with Christian humility, and not political activity, which was quite controversial. By the way, this cautious decision did not suit many, because some did not want this canonization at all, and some 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 Saints Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov.
And he added: “We must keep in mind that someone in our calendar, as it will become clear at the Last Judgment, is not a saint.”

"Traitor to the State"
The highest-ranking opponents of the canonization of the emperor in the church hierarchy in the 1990s were Metropolitans of St. Petersburg and Ladoga John (Snychev) and Metropolitans of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas Nikolai (Kutepov).
For Bishop John, the tsar’s worst offense was abdicating the throne at a critical moment for the country...
However, Metropolitan John died in 1995 and was unable to influence the decisions of other bishops.
Metropolitan Nicholas of Nizhny Novgorod, a veteran of the Great Patriotic War who fought at Stalingrad, until recently denied Nicholas II sainthood, calling him a “state traitor.” Shortly after the 2000 council, he gave an interview in which he explicitly stated that he voted against the decision to canonize.
“You see, I didn’t take any steps, because if the icon had already been created, where, so to speak, the Tsar-Father sits, what’s the point of speaking out? So the issue is resolved. It was decided without me, decided without you. 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. He had to use force, even taking his life, because everything was handed to him, but he considered it necessary to escape under Alexandra Fedorovna’s skirt,” the hierarch was convinced.
As for the Orthodox “abroad”, Bishop Nicholas spoke very harshly about them. “It doesn’t take much intelligence to run away and bark from there,” he said...

"A wise decision"
There were opponents of canonization not only in Russia, but also abroad. Among them is the former prince, Archbishop of San Francisco John (Shakhovskoy). The first Primate of the ROCOR, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), a member of the Holy Synod, a witness of the revolution and one of the most respected hierarchs of his time, did not even think about canonizing the tsar, considering his tragic death as retribution for the “sins of the dynasty,” whose representatives “insanely proclaimed themselves the head Churches". However, 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 Nicholas and other opponents of the tsar’s canonization found themselves in the minority at the 2000 council.
“Let's remember the Council of Bishops in 1997, at which the issue of canonization of the royal martyrs was discussed. Then the materials were already collected and carefully studied. Some bishops said that the sovereign-emperor should be glorified, others called for the opposite, while most bishops took a neutral position. At that time, the decision on the issue of canonization of the royal martyrs could probably lead to division. And His Holiness [Patriarch Alexy II] made a very wise decision. He said that glorification should take place at the Jubilee Council. Three years passed, and when I talked with those bishops who were against canonization, I saw that their opinion had changed. Those who wavered stood for canonization,” the bishop testified.
One way or another, opponents of the emperor’s canonization remained in the minority, and their arguments were consigned to oblivion. Although conciliar decisions are obligatory for all believers and now they cannot afford to openly disagree with the holiness of Nicholas II, judging by the discussions on the RuNet around “Matilda”, complete unanimity on this issue was not achieved in the ranks of the Orthodox...

Holiness Commission
To understand more clearly who is called passion-bearers in the Church, one should turn to the official explanations from the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints. From 1989 to 2011, it was headed by Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna, during which time 1,866 ascetics of piety were canonized, including 1,776 new martyrs and confessors who suffered during the years of Soviet power.
In his report at the Council of Bishops in 2000 - the same one where the issue of the royal family was decided - Bishop Juvenaly 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 to be recognized as a martyr for Christ. The commission, based on a careful consideration of the circumstances of the death of the royal family, proposes to carry out its canonization as holy passion-bearers. 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 passion-bearers were the holy noble princes Boris and Gleb (1015), Igor Chernigovsky (1147), Andrei Bogolyubsky (1174), Mikhail 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 passion-bearers, 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 to the rank of martyr or passion-bearer in no way whitens his entire biography as a whole...
The stubborn fact that most of the life and entire reign of Emperor Nicholas, right up to his abdication and exile, did not at all represent an example of holiness, was openly recognized at the council in 2000.
“Summarizing 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 monarchical ideology, and certainly does not mean the “canonization” of the monarchical form of government,” Metropolitan Yuvenaly concluded then.
https://www.ridus.ru/news/258954
---
Well, in conclusion, an extremely interesting testimony from a person who personally communicated with representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church -

banana_bunker
The glorification in Washington in November 1981 of the family of Romanov citizens (the former royal family) in the ranks of (as much as!) martyrs was not even an act of the ROCOR, in which half were definitely against it. This is the act of the Reagan administration and the structures behind it, as part of the “Crusade” against the “evil empire” of the USSR.

1) How it happened.
In 1959, one of the bishops of the ROCOR said in a sermon that Tsar Nicholas accepted death for the people. Moreover, a martyr(?). And that the godless Russian people need to repent of this too.

The latter was their usual rhetoric. Just as they called for the “purifying (atomic) fire” of “Christian,” “God-loving America” on the atheists in the USSR. But after this advance (private theological opinion) of this archbishop, no one returned to the idea of ​​​​glorification in the ROCOR: Niki was too insignificant a person. (Yes, and Yevonna’s little wife too...)

But the artist Reagan came to their nominally supreme power. And they came up with the idea for him to put on such a performance. So that religion can help instill in Russians an inferiority complex not only in front of the West and its consumer products, but also in front of their own history.

2) What about MP?
The Moscow Patriarchate resisted for a long time, but in 2000 it gave in, and glorified the Romanovs in the guise of not martyrs (the rank of general), not reverends (like senior officers), but... the ridiculous rank of passion-bearers (this is not even a junior officer, this is a sergeant major/ensign ).

3) Useful idiots.
Both before and after this shameful act, psychopaths speaking publicly promoted the cult of these empty and pathetic Romanov personalities.
First of all, it was Konstantin Dushenov. (Former lieutenant captain and not just a member of the CPSU, but a party organizer. He wrote a letter to General Secretary M.S. Gorbachev where he spoke about the shortcomings of perestroika in the Northern Fleet, but received a spanking. And, instead of a surge in career growth, he was quietly left with The navy, where it is clear, does not like informers. Arriving in his native Leningrad, he retrained as an administrator... into professional Orthodox Christians, for which he grew a beard to his waist...)...

Today, such a public psychopath is the Ukrainian (mentality can’t be avoided) Mrs. Poklonska.
-
I know this from the personal stories of old people who have already passed into another world - the laity of the ROCOR.

The canonization was pushed by the Bishop of Washington and Florida Gregory ((Count) Grabbe), the omnipotent, as everyone guessed, overseeing the intelligence services (Empire of GOOD) in the central structures of the ROCOR, who held the post of Secretary of the Synod for decades.
Moreover, he intrigued against everyone, right and left, and he didn’t care about anything.
Even against the archepa. John (Maksimovich) of San Francisco, glorified for his cause only in 1994 as the Saint of Shanghai and San Francisco, whom he hated fiercely, accusing him, a “chemically pure” anti-Soviet, as standard, of having connections with the communists and Moscow.. .

Here is something about the personality of this figure, who has gone crazy with anti-Sovietism since his tender youth:
yandex.ru/search/?text=Secretary%20Synod%20ROCOR%20bishop%20Gregory%20Grabbe

For example, even in the “truest” Wiki it is already eloquent:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_(Grabbe)

Once again, briefly, on the canonization of Nika
It was so that immediately after Reagan’s inauguration, Count Grabbe, sensing the wind of perestroika of change, blowing in a bitchy anti-Soviet manner, proposed to the competent structures of the “Empire of Good” to finally wrap up this business - to make Niki perfect. holy MARTYR, hanging his “torment” on the Soviet (Russian) people.
Like the whole ROCOR “with one mouth and one heart” “is hoping for a bright day”, and for many decades now, but hidden agents of Moscow***) in the Synod of the ROCOR interfere, and resist, and put a spoke in the wheels.
The idea was liked and met with support in the presidential party (administration) of the artist R.
We decided - we did it. And no one asked ROCOR. Like everyone is FOR...

I don’t know where to read about this specifically today :-(
The fact is that in ROCOR, the former criticism of glorification in the public space died out immediately after the glorification. In the West, societies are much more totalitarian in the sense of unanimity. And the dissatisfied risked being accused of aiding the enemy - Soviet communism. With all the consequences. [And flowing in].
Only t.s. in oral traditions.
Where did I get this from?

P.S.
Well, US agitprop began to develop this topic to its fullest.
This is how I personally listened to religion. (Orthodox) Voice of America program shortly after November 1981. The presenter [with the epic name Zoran Safir, which is why it was imprinted in the brain] informed the Soviet people seeking religious enlightenment that in the USSR they, i.e. Orthodox believers [secretly from the party committees and the KGB], reverence St. Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna Romanova as...the second Mother of God (!!) Neither more nor less.
Those who are in the know understand that this is worse than the “myrrh-streaming” of the bronze bust of the “sovereign”.

***) There was no Russia Today at that time, nor were there any social networks... Not even Kaspersky Anti-Virus... But there were already Moscow agents.

P.S.
I forgot to add anything else.
Archbishop of San Francisco John (Maximovich) (*1896 -- +1966) - a man of holy personal life, was subjected (see Wiki) to even a public civil trial, where Grabbe was the main accuser. There were many of his admirers and zealots of glorification, but all in vain. Only immediately after Grabbe's removal in 1994 was it possible to glorify John as a saint of Shanghai and San Francisco.

Well, theoretically speaking, the Reagan crowd could limit itself to glorifying John of Shanghai as a saint, a real holy man. As well as a truly stubborn anti-Soviet who refused precisely for fundamental church-political reasons to reunite with Moscow. Patriarchate immediately after the war. (And with great personal labor, he evacuated a mass of Orthodox Russian people (from the Harbin diaspora) from China through the Pacific Islands and ultimately to the coveted western coast of the United States). Why not a style icon?
Ann no!
The profit from John would not have been the same.

From the “Russian Tsar”, “killed and tortured” by “communist barbarians”, who were his loyal subjects at that, the profit was getting worse...

Opponents of St. Niki in Russia
Many people in the Russian Federation were against the glorification of Nika. But... who listens to brides... people?

And today not a single clergyman in the MP dares to publicly admit that he “somehow doesn’t really... believe in the holiness of Nika and her family.”

How many serious books have been published since 2000 against the glorification of Nika? I know only one, Alexander Kolpakidi’s “Nicholas II. Saint or Bloody?”, and only this year.

This is very, very little, realizing that 90% of Russians, if they don’t understand, then feel that Nika’s “holiness” is a complex of guilt towards Russians, stupid and bloody “scoops”...

Results
So, how can we know that the glorification of the “Holy Martyr.” Nicky - is this an act as part of the Reagan crusade against the USSR as an "evil empire"?

From a comparison of facts!
NB Legitimate historical method, if we don’t have any others

Including considering the colorful personality of Grabbe. As well as the [impudent] non-glorification of John (Maksimovich) - a real saint, but hated by [special services agent] Grabbe

---
As we see, everyone agrees that -
a) canonization was pushed by the West, b) it was a political decision, c) it was necessary to create a sense of guilt among Russians, c) there was no talk of any holiness of the Tsar at that time, d) many clergy were against it, e) the process itself was carried out with violations all norms.

In summary: canonization was intended to serve as a tool for discrediting the Russian people and imputing collective responsibility for the regicide; the last tsar turned out to be the most convenient figure for this.

Conclusion: those who are trying to present Nicholas as a saint and demand repentance from the Russian people for the regicide are directly and openly working against Russia and Russians in the interests of the West.

Draw conclusions based on personalities.

Plan
Introduction
1 Key dates
2 Background
2.1 Execution
2.2 “Secret” spontaneous veneration in Soviet times

3 Arguments against canonization
4 Canonization of the royal family
4.1 Catacomb Church
4.2 Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
4.3 ROC
4.3.1 Arguments for canonization, taken into account by the Russian Orthodox Church
4.3.2 Refuting the arguments of opponents of canonization

5 Aspects of canonization
5.1 Question about the face of holiness
5.2 Canonization of servants

6 Society's reaction to canonization
6.1 Positive
6.2 Negative

7 Modern veneration of the royal family by believers
7.1 Churches
7.2 Icons
7.2.1 Iconography

7.3 Powers
7.4 Announced miracles of the royal martyrs
7.4.1 Miraculous deliverance of hundreds of Cossacks
7.4.2 The Miracle of the Dry Branches
7.4.3 Descent of the miraculous fire
7.4.4 Image not made by hands
7.4.5 Healing miracles
7.4.6 Skeptical perception of miracles

7.5 “Rite of repentance for the sins of the Russian people” and more

Bibliography
Canonization of the royal family

Introduction

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 the Ipatiev 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.”

1. Key dates

· 1918 - 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 of believers appealing to the Synod of the Serbian Church with a request for the canonization of Nicholas II dates back to 1930.

· In 1981 they were glorified by the Russian Church Abroad.

· October 1996 - The Russian Orthodox Church Commission on the glorification of the Royal Martyrs presented its report

· On August 20, 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church canonized the holy new martyrs and confessors of Russia, revealed and unrevealed.

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).

2. Background

2.1. Execution

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.

List of victims:

2.2. “Secret” spontaneous veneration in Soviet times

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 delivered 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.

3. 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 and 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 in nature.

· “Neither the holy Patriarch Tikhon, nor the holy Metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd, nor the holy Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, nor the holy Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov), nor the holy Archbishop Thaddeus, nor Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), who, without a doubt, will soon be canonized , nor the other hierarchs now glorified by our Church, the new martyrs, who knew much more and better than we do now, the personality of the former Tsar - none of them ever expressed thoughts about him as a holy passion-bearer (and at that time this could still be stated in a loud voice)"

· The responsibility for “the gravest sin of regicide, which weighs on all the peoples of Russia”, which is propagated by supporters of canonization, also causes deep bewilderment.

4. 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).

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:

· Canonization should not provide reasons or arguments in 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 activities of modern monarchists, the Commission especially emphasized its position: “the canonization of the Monarch is in no way connected with monarchical ideology and, moreover, does not mean the “canonization” of the monarchical form of government... Glorifying the saint, the Church does not pursue political goals... but testifies before the people of God, who already reverence the righteous man, that the ascetic whom she canonizes really pleased God and stands before the Throne of God for us, 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 his reign and the time of his imprisonment. In the first period (being 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 it focused its attention on it.