The royal family was canonized. Orthodox Christians against Nicholas II: why the Tsar was recognized as a saint

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

By the determination of the Council of Bishops from March 31 - April 4, 1992, the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints was instructed “in studying the exploits of the new Russian martyrs to begin researching materials related to the martyrdom of the Royal Family.”

The Commission saw the main task in this matter as an objective consideration of all the circumstances of the lives of members of the Imperial Family in the context of historical events and their ecclesiastical understanding outside the ideological stereotypes that have dominated our country over the past decades. The commission was guided by pastoral concern so that the canonization of the Royal Family in the host of Russian new martyrs would not provide a reason or argument for political struggle or worldly confrontations, but would contribute to the unification of the people of God in faith and piety. We also sought to take into account the fact of the canonization of the Royal Family by the Russian Church Abroad in 1981, which caused a far from unambiguous reaction both among the Russian emigration, some representatives of which did not then see enough convincing grounds in it, and in Russia itself, not to mention such which has no historical analogies in the Orthodox Church, the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, such as the inclusion of the Roman Catholic Roman Catholic servant Aloysius Yegorovich Trupp and the Lutheran goflektress Ekaterina Adolfovna Schneider among the canonized who accepted the martyrdom of the royal servant with the Royal Family.

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

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

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

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

One of the main arguments of opponents of the canonization of the Royal Family is the assertion that the death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his Family cannot be recognized as a martyr’s death 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.

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

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

Their deep religiosity distinguished the Imperial couple from the representatives of the then aristocracy. The education of the children of the Imperial Family was imbued with a religious spirit. All its members lived in accordance with the traditions of Orthodox piety. Mandatory attendance at services on Sundays and holidays, and fasting during fasting were an integral part of their life. The personal religiosity of the Tsar and his wife was not a simple adherence to traditions. The royal couple visits churches and monasteries during their numerous trips, venerates miraculous icons and relics of saints, and makes pilgrimages, as was the case in 1903 during the glorification of St. Seraphim of Sarov. Brief services in court churches did not satisfy the Emperor and Empress. Services are held especially for them in the Tsarskoye Selo Feodorovsky Cathedral, built in the Old Russian style. Empress Alexandra prayed here in front of a lectern with open liturgical books, carefully watching the service.

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

As a politician and statesman, the Emperor acted based on his religious and moral principles. One of the most common arguments against the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II is the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. In the historical information of the Commission on this issue, we indicate: having become acquainted on the evening of January 8 with the contents of Gapon’s petition, which had the nature of a revolutionary ultimatum, which did not allow entering into constructive negotiations with representatives of the workers, the Sovereign ignored this document, illegal in form and undermining the prestige of the already wavering in the conditions wars of state power. Throughout January 9, 1905, the Sovereign did not make a single decision that determined the actions of the authorities in St. Petersburg to suppress mass protests by workers. The order for 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.

Since the beginning of the First World War, the Tsar regularly travels to Headquarters, visiting military units of the active army, dressing stations, military hospitals, rear factories, in a word, everything that played a role in the conduct of this war.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

A very small circle of people could directly communicate with the Sovereign in an informal setting. Everyone who knew his family life first-hand noted the amazing simplicity, mutual love and harmony of all members of this closely knit Family. Its center was Alexey Nikolaevich, all attachments, all hopes were focused on him.

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

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

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

In the relationship with Rasputin, there was an element of human frailty, associated in the Empress with a deep feeling of the incurability of her son’s deadly illness, and in the Emperor it was due to the desire to maintain peace in the Family through compassionate compliance with the maternal torment of the Empress. However, there is no reason to see in the relations of the Royal Family with Rasputin signs of spiritual delusion, and even more so of insufficient church involvement.

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

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

Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often 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.

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

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

Consistently and methodically killing all members of the Imperial Family who fell into their hands, the Bolsheviks were primarily guided by ideology, and then by political calculations - after all, in the popular consciousness, the Emperor continued to remain the Anointed of God, and the entire Royal Family symbolized the Russia that was leaving and the Russia that was being destroyed. On July 21, 1918, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, in his word during the Divine Liturgy at the Moscow Kazan Cathedral, seemed to answer those questions and doubts that eight decades later the Russian Church would try to comprehend: “We know that he (Emperor Nicholas II - M.Yu. .), abdicating the Throne, did so with the good of Russia in mind and out of love for her.”

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. In the Royal Family, which found itself in captivity, we see people who sincerely sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives.

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

Kindness and peace of mind did not leave the Empress during this difficult time. The emperor, naturally reserved, felt calm and complacent primarily in his narrow family circle. The Empress did not like social interaction or balls. Her strict upbringing was alien to the moral laxity that reigned in the court environment; the Empress's religiosity was called oddity, even hypocrisy. Alexandra Feodorovna’s letters reveal the full depth of her religious feelings - how much strength of spirit they contain, grief over the fate of Russia, faith and hope for God’s help. And no matter who she wrote to, she found words of support and consolation. These letters are real testimonies of the Christian faith.

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

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

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

Their true greatness stemmed not from their royal dignity, but from the amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.

Along with the Imperial Family, their servants who followed their masters into exile were also shot. 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; to them, in addition to those shot along with the Imperial Family by Dr. E.S. Botkin, the room girl of the Empress A.S. Demidova, court cook I.M. Kharitonov and lackey A.E. The troupe included those killed in various places and in different months of 1918, Adjutant General I.L. Tatishchev, Marshal Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, “uncle” of Heir K.G. Nagorny, children's footman I.D. Sednev, maid of honor to Empress A.V. Gendrikova and goflectress E.A. Schneider. It does not seem possible for the Commission to make a final decision on the existence of grounds for the canonization of this group of laymen, who, as part of their court service, accompanied the Royal Family during the period of its imprisonment and suffered a violent death. The Commission does not have information about the widespread prayerful commemoration of these laymen by name. In addition, there is little information about religious life and their personal piety. The commission came to the conclusion that the most appropriate form of honoring the Christian feat of the faithful servants of the Royal Family, who shared its tragic fate, today could be the perpetuation of this feat in the lives of the Royal Martyrs.

The topic of canonization of Emperor Nicholas II and members of the Royal Family was widely discussed in the 90s in a number of publications in the church and secular press. The overwhelming majority of books and articles by religious authors support the idea of ​​glorifying the Royal Martyrs. A number of publications contain convincing criticism of the arguments of opponents of canonization.

Many appeals were addressed to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II, the Holy Synod and the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, approving the conclusions made in October 1996 by the Commission for the Canonization of Saints regarding the glorification of the Royal Martyrs.

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

In some dioceses the issue of canonization was discussed at diocesan, deanery and parish meetings. They expressed unanimous support for the idea of ​​glorifying the Royal Martyrs. The Commission also received appeals from individual 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.

Of particular value are publications and appeals to the Commission and other church authorities, containing testimonies of miracles and grace-filled help through prayers to the Royal Martyrs. They are 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.

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

“2. Assessing the reliability of scientific and investigative conclusions, as well as testifying to their inviolability or irrefutability, is not within the competence of the Church. Scientific and historical responsibility for the conclusions regarding the “Ekaterinburg remains” adopted during the investigation and study falls entirely on the Republican Center for Forensic Research and the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation.

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

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

The veneration of the Royal Family, begun by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon in the funeral prayer and word at the memorial service in the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow for the murdered Emperor three days after the Yekaterinburg murder, 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, and recently icons depicting the Royal Martyrs have become widespread. Now such icons are found in some monasteries and churches of a number of dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church. Prayers addressed to them and various musical, cinematic, and literary works are compiled, reflecting the suffering and martyrdom of the Royal Family. Funeral services are being held for her everywhere and more and more often. All this testifies to the growing veneration of the murdered Royal Family throughout Russia.

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

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

It is in understanding this feat of the Royal Family that the Commission, in complete unanimity and with the approval of the Holy Synod, finds it possible to glorify in the Council the new martyrs and confessors of Russia in the guise of the passion-bearers Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia.

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.

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

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.

Royal sins

Among the critics of the emperor’s canonization was Alexey 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. The professor wrote and published an entire article with arguments against canonization.

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

Professor Osipov also recalled how Rasputin disgraced the royal family and interfered in the work of the Holy Synod, and that the tsar did not abolish “the anti-canonical leadership and administration of the Church by a layman, introduced according to the Protestant model.”

Separately, he focused on the religiosity of Nicholas II, which, according to Osipov, “had a clearly expressed character of interconfessional mysticism.”

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

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

Like Metropolitans John and Nicholas, Osipov insisted that the emperor, with his abdication, “abolished autocracy in Russia and thereby opened a direct path to the establishment of a revolutionary dictatorship.”

“None of the currently canonized holy new martyrs of Russia - Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitan Benjamin of St. Petersburg, Archbishop Thaddeus (Uspensky), Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov), the same Hilarion of the Trinity - none of them called the king a holy passion-bearer. But they could. Moreover, the decision of the Holy Synod regarding the abdication of the sovereign did not express the slightest regret,” concludes Alexei Osipov.

"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 very 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 binding on 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 among the Orthodox.

Dissenters in the Russian Orthodox Church

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

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

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

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

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. Thus, the holy passion-bearer Grand Duke Andrei Bogolyubsky in 1169 ordered the storming of Kyiv - “the mother of Russian cities”, after which houses, churches and monasteries were mercilessly plundered and destroyed, which made a terrible impression on his contemporaries.

In the list of holy martyrs you can also find people like Barbarian of Lukan, who for the first part of his life was engaged in robbery, robbery and murder, and then suddenly believed in God, repented and died as a result of an accident - passing merchants mistook him in the tall grass for a dangerous the animal was shot. And according to the Gospel, the first to enter heaven was the thief crucified on the right hand of Christ, who himself recognized the justice of the sentence passed on him, but managed to repent a few hours before his death.

The stubborn fact that most of the life and entire reign of Emperor Nicholas, right up to his abdication and exile, 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.

In 1981, the royal family was glorified by the Russian Church Abroad.

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

Arguments against canonization

Canonization of the royal family

Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

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

ROC

Alexandra Fedorovna. Modern icon.

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 since 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 .

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

Main points of the report:

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

“Behind the many sufferings endured by the Royal Family over the last 17 months of their lives, which ended with execution in the basement of the Ekaterinburg Ipatiev House on the night of July 17, 1918, we see people who sincerely sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom, the evil-conquering light of Christ's faith was revealed, just as it shone in the life and death of millions of Orthodox Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the 20th century. It is in understanding this feat of the Royal Family that the Commission, in complete unanimity and with the approval of the Holy Synod, finds it possible to glorify in the Council the new martyrs and confessors of Russia in the guise of the passion-bearers Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia.”

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

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

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

Refuting the arguments of opponents of canonization

Aspects of canonization

Question about the face of holiness

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

"Coronation of Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna." Painting by L. Tuxen

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

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

Society's reaction to canonization

Positive

Negative

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

• Church on the Blood in honor of All Saints who shone in the Russian Land on the site of the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg.
• The chapel-monument to the deceased Russian emigrants, Nicholas II and his august family was erected at the cemetery in Zagreb (1935)
• Chapel in memory of Emperor Nicholas II and Serbian King Alexander I in Harbin (1936)
• Church of the Royal Passion-Bearers at the entrance to Ryazan from Moscow.
• Church of the Royal Passion-Bearers in the Tver Nativity of Christ Monastery.
• Church of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers in Kursk
• Temple of Tsarevich Alexy in Sharya, Kostroma region
• Church of St. Tsar-Martyr and St. New Martyrs and Confessors in Villemoisson, France (1980s)
• Church of the Holy Royal Martyrs and All New Martyrs and Confessors of the 20th Century, Mogilev Belarus
• Temple of the Sovereign Icon of the Mother of God, Zhukovsky
• Church of St. Tsar Martyr Nicholas, Nikolskoye
• Church of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers Nicholas and Alexandra, village. Sertolovo
• Church of the Royal Passion-Bearers in Mar del Plata (Argentina)
• Monastery in honor of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers near Yekaterinburg.
• Temple of the Royal Martyrs, Dnepropetrovsk (w/m Igren), Ukraine.
• Temple in the name of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers, Saratov, Russia.
• Temple in the name of the Holy Royal Martyrs, Dubki village, Saratov district, Saratov region, Russia.

Icons

Iconography

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

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 adopted during the investigation "and studying the conclusions regarding the "Ekaterinburg remains" falls entirely on the Republican Center for Forensic Medical Research and the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation. The decision of the State Commission to identify the remains found near Yekaterinburg as belonging to the Family of Emperor Nicholas II caused serious doubts and even confrontations in the Church and society." ), reported to the Council of Bishops in August 2000: “The “Ekaterinburg remains” buried on July 17, 1998 in St. Petersburg cannot today be recognized by us as belonging to the Royal Family.”

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

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

Announced miracles of the royal martyrs

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

Skeptical perception of miracles

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”; critics call this concept the “royal redemptive heresy.”

see also

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

Notes

1. Tsar-Martyr
2. Emperor Nicholas II and his family canonized
3. Osipov A.I. On the canonization of the last Russian Tsar
4. Shargunov A. Miracles of the Royal Martyrs. M. 1995. P. 49
5. The blessed Tsar Nikolai Alexandrovich and his family on orthoslavie.ru
6. Grounds for canonization of the royal family. From the report of Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna, Chairman of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints. www.pravoslavie.ru
7. CHRONICLE OF REVERENCE TO THE HOLY ROYAL PASSION-BEARERS IN THE URAL: HISTORY AND MODERNITY
8. Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh. On the canonization of the royal family // “Russian Thought”, September 6, 1991 // Reprint: “Izvestia”. August 14, 2000
9. He had every reason to become embittered... Interview with Deacon Andrei Kuraev to the magazine “Vslukh”. Journal "Orthodoxy and Peace". Mon, 17 Jul 2006
10. Russian Bulletin. Explanation of the canonization of the royal family
11. From an interview with Met. Nizhny Novgorod Nikolai Kutepov (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Section Figures and Faces, 26.4.2001
12. The ceremony of canonization of the newly glorified saints took place in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior Pravoslavie.Ru
13. Metropolitan Yuvenaly: In three years we have received 22,873 appeals
14. Emperor Nicholas II and the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. Part I // Orthodox newspaper. - Ekaterinburg, 2003. - No. 31.
15. Emperor Nicholas II and the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. Part II // Orthodox newspaper. - Ekaterinburg, 2003. - No. 32.
16. Protopresbyter Michael Polsky. New Russian martyrs. Jordanville: Vol. I, 1943; T. II, 1957. (Abridged English edition of The new martyrs of Russia. Montreal, 1972. 137 p.)
17. Monk Vsevolod (Filipev). The path of the holy fathers. Patrology. Jordanville, M., 2007, p. 535.
18. “About Tsar Ivan the Terrible” (Appendix to the report of Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna, Chairman of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints
19. Akathist to the Holy Tsar-Redeemer Nicholas II
20. Kuraev A. Temptation that comes “from the right.” M.: Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2005. P. 67
21. 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
22. The martyrdom of the emperor is the main reason for his canonization
23. The canonization of the royal family eliminated one of the contradictions between the Russian and Russian Churches Abroad
24. Prince Nikolai Romanov welcomes the decision to canonize the royal family
25. The head of the House of Romanov will not come to the act of canonization of Nicholas II
26. The Miracle of Myrrh Streaming of the Icon of the Royal Martyrs
27. Great shrine of Orthodoxy
28. Ten years later, conflicting information has emerged about the fate of the icon of the martyr Tsar Nicholas II, which was myrrh-streamed in Moscow on November 7, 1998
29. Patriarch Alexy: The attitude of the church towards the “Ekaterinburg remains” remains unchanged
30. JMP. 1998, No. 4, p. 10. The decision of the Holy Synod also, among other things, said: “<…>In this regard, the Holy Synod speaks out in favor of the immediate burial of these remains in a symbolic grave-monument. When all doubts regarding the “Ekaterinburg remains” are removed and the grounds for confusion and confrontation in society disappear, we should return to the final decision on the issue of their burial place.”
31. REPORT OF METROPOLITAN JUVENALIY OF KRUTITSKY AND KOLOMENSKOYE, CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNODAL COMMISSION FOR THE CANONIZATION OF SAINTS, AT THE BISHOP JUBILEE CATHEDRAL

In such cases, it is better to refer to the following documents:

The first thing is important. The king is not glorified alone personally, as some leaders are given attention; there is no leader-centrism.

Act of the Jubilee Council of Bishops on the conciliar glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the 20th century

1. To glorify for church-wide veneration as saints the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian twentieth century, known by name and not yet revealed to the world, but known to God.

Here we see that the frequent objection “they killed many people, why do we only remember the king” is unfounded. It is the unknown who are glorified first.

2. Include in the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia the names of those who suffered for the faith, testimonies about which were received:

from the Alma-Ata diocese:

• Metropolitan Nicholas of Alma-Ata (Mogilevsky; 1877-1955)
• Metropolitan of Gorky Evgeniy (Zernov; 1877-1937)
• Archbishop of Voronezh Zakhary (Lobov; 1865-1937)

And only at the end the royal family with the following wording:

3. Glorify the Royal Family as passion-bearers in the host of new martyrs and confessors of Russia: Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia. In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his Family, we see people who sincerely sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 4 (17), 1918, the evil-conquering light of Christ's faith was revealed, just as it shone in life and death millions of Orthodox Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the twentieth century.

At the same time, the church did not idealize the king and views his activities as follows:

Report on the work of the Commission of the Holy. Synod for the Canonization of Saints on the issue of the martyrdom of the royal family

Being anointed to the Kingdom, endowed with full power, Emperor Nicholas II was responsible for all events that took place in his state, both before his people and before God. Therefore, a certain share of personal responsibility for historical mistakes such as the events of January 9, 1905 - and a special report adopted by the Commission was devoted to this topic - falls on the Emperor himself, although it cannot be measured by the degree of his participation, or rather non-participation in these events.

Another example of the Emperor’s actions, which had disastrous consequences for the fate of Russia and the Royal Family itself, was his relationship with Rasputin - and this was shown in the study “The Royal Family and G. E. Rasputin.” Indeed, how could it happen that such a figure as Rasputin could influence the Royal Family and Russian state and political life of his time? The solution to the Rasputin phenomenon lies in the illness of Tsarevich Alexy. Although it is known that the Emperor repeatedly tried to get rid of Rasputin, but each time he retreated under pressure from the Empress due to the need to seek help from Rasputin to cure the Heir. It can be said that the Emperor was unable to resist Alexandra Feodorovna, who was tormented by grief due to her son’s illness and was therefore under the influence of Rasputin.

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

However, in the Orthodox Church there are known cases of canonization of even those Christians who led a sinful life after baptism. Their canonization was carried out precisely because they atoned for their sins not only by repentance, but also by a special feat - martyrdom or asceticism.

Interview with Deacon Andrei Kuraev to the magazine “Aloud”

Olga Sevastyanova: Father Andrei, in your opinion, why was the canonization of the royal family so complicated and difficult?
O. Andrey Kuraev: The fact that it was complicated and difficult seems absolutely natural to me. The circumstances of the last years of the Russian emperor’s life were too unusual. On the one hand, in the church understanding, the emperor is a church rank, he is the bishop of the external affairs of the church. And, of course, if a bishop himself resigns his rank, then this can hardly be called a worthy act. This was where the main difficulties were associated, primarily doubts.

O.S. That is, the fact that the tsar abdicated at one time, in modern terms, did not benefit his historical image?

A.K. Undoubtedly. And the fact that canonization did take place... The church’s position here was quite clear: it was not the image of the reign of Nicholas II that was canonized, but the image of his death, if you like, his departure from the political arena. After all, he had every reason to become embittered, frantic, in the last months of his life, while under arrest, seething with anger and blaming everyone and everything. But none of this happened. We have his personal diaries, the diaries of his family members, the memories of guards, servants, and we see that nowhere is there a shadow of a desire for revenge, they say, I will return to power and I will take you all down. In general, sometimes the greatness of a person is sometimes determined by the magnitude of the losses he has suffered.

Boris Pasternak had these lines about a great era, “about a life that was poor in appearance, but great under the sign of the losses suffered.” Imagine, on the street in a crowd we see an unfamiliar woman. I look - a woman is like a woman. And you tell me that she suffered a terrible grief: her three children died in a fire. And only this misfortune is capable of distinguishing her from the crowd, from all those similar to her, and elevating her above those around her. It’s exactly the same with the royal family. There was no other person in Russia who would have lost more than Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov in 1917. In fact, then he was already the ruler of the world, the master of the country that practically won the First World War. But Tsarist Russia undoubtedly won it and became the number one power in the world, and the emperor had great plans, among which, by the way, was abdication of the throne, oddly enough. There is evidence that he told very trusted people that he would like to introduce a constitution, a parliamentary monarchy in Russia, and transfer power to his son Alexei, but in war conditions he simply did not have the right to do this. That's what he thought in '16. And then events unfolded somewhat differently. In any case, the image of the passion-bearer turns out to be very Christian. In addition, when it comes to our attitude towards the last emperor, we must take into account the symbolism of the church’s perception of the world.

O.S. What is the symbolism?

A.K. The 20th century was a terrible century for Russian Christianity. And you can’t leave it without drawing some conclusions. Since this was the age of martyrs, there were two ways to go about canonization: try to glorify all the new martyrs, in the words of Anna Akhmatova, “I would like to name everyone by name, but they took away the list and it’s impossible to recognize everyone.” 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. Therefore, considering that the royal family could again say about themselves in the words of Anna Akhmatova:

No, and not under an alien sky,
And not under the protection of alien wings -
I was then with my people,
Where my people unfortunately were...

canonization of the passion-bearing king Nicholas II- this is the canonization of “Ivan the Hundred Thousand”. There is also a special overtone here. I'll try to explain this with an almost personal example.

Let's say I was visiting in another city. Visited with my father. Then we had a heated discussion with this priest: whose vodka is better - Moscow-made or local. We found a consensus only by agreeing to go through trial and error. We tried it, tasted it, agreed in the end that both were good, and then, before going to bed, I went for a walk in the city. Moreover, under the priest’s windows there was a city park. But the priest did not warn me that Satanists gather under the windows at night. And so in the evening I go out into the garden, and the Satanists look at me and think: our ruler sent us this well-fed calf as a sacrifice! And they kill me. And here’s the question: if something similar happened to me, and, I emphasize, I myself did not strive for martyrdom, I was not very spiritually ready, I tasted vodka and just like that I met my death, to determine my posthumous fate at God’s court, will it be does it matter what I was wearing that day? Secular reaction: what difference does it make what one wears, the main thing is what is in the heart, in the soul, and so on. But I believe that in this case it is much more important what clothes were worn. If I were in civilian clothes in this park, it would be “everyday life”. And if I walked in church clothes, then people whom I personally don’t know, who have no complaints against me personally, they splashed out on me the hatred that they have for the Church and for Christ. In this case, it turned out that I suffered for Christ. It's the same with the royal family. Let the lawyers argue among themselves whether Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov was a tsar in 1818 or just a private person, a retired colonel. But, in the eyes of those people who shot at him, he was certainly an emperor. And then all their lives they wrote memoirs and told the pioneers about how they killed the last Russian Tsar. Therefore, it is obvious to the Church that this man is a martyr for our faith, as is his family.

O.S. And family too?
A.K. Likewise. You can make some political claims to the ruler of Russia, Nicholas II, but what do children have to do with it? Moreover, in the 80s, voices were heard saying that, let’s at least canonize children, what are they guilty of?

O.S. What is the holiness of a martyr in the church understanding?

A.K. The holiness of a martyr is a special holiness. This is the holiness of one minute. In the history of the church there were people, for example, in ancient Rome, when a theatrical execution was staged in the arena, during which Christians were executed in all seriousness. They choose the filthiest jester and in the course of the action, another jester, dressed as a priest, baptizes him. And so when one jester baptizes another and pronounces these sacred words: “the servant of God is baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” And when, after the words of prayer, grace actually descended on the jester, who was portraying a Christian, and he began to repeat that he had seen God, that Christianity was true, the tribunes first laughed, and then, realizing that this was not a joke, they killed the jester. And he is revered as a martyr... Therefore, the holiness of a martyr is something different than the holiness of a saint. A reverend is a monk. And his whole life is taken into account. And for a martyr, this is a kind of photo finish.

O.S. How does the Church feel about the fact that all sorts of false Anastasias arose in different centuries?

A.K. For an Orthodox person, this is speculation on a shrine. But if this were proven, the Church would recognize it. There was a similar incident in the history of the Church, however, not connected with royal names. Any Orthodox person knows the story of the seven youths of Ephesus, who hid from the persecution of Emperor Julian in caves, where they fell into a lethargic state and woke up 150 years later. When they left the caves, from what they said, it became clear that these children were miraculous Thus we missed one and a half hundred years. It has never been a problem for the Church to accept among the living people who were considered dead. Moreover, not resurrected, but dead. Because there were cases of miraculous resurrection, and then a person disappeared, was considered dead, and after some time appeared again. But, in order for this to happen, the Church will wait for confirmation from secular science, secular examinations. Buddhists resolve such issues more easily. They believe that the soul of the deceased Dalai Lama is reincarnated into a child, a boy, children are shown toys, and if a two-year-old boy, instead of a shiny rattle, suddenly reaches for the old cup of the former Dalai Lama, then it is believed that he recognized his cup. So the Orthodox Church has more complex criteria.

O.S. That is, if a hundred-year-old woman appeared now and said that she was a princess, they would take a long time to make sure she was normal, but would they take such a statement seriously?

A.K. Undoubtedly. But I think that genetic testing would be enough
O.S. What do you think about the story of the “Ekaterinburg remains”?

A.K. Is this what is buried in the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg, the remains found in the Yekaterinburg region? From the point of view of the state commission, headed by Boris Nemtsov, these are the remains of the royal family. But the church examination did not confirm this. The church simply did not participate in this burial. Despite the fact that the Church itself does not have any remains, it does not recognize that those bones that were buried in the Peter and Paul Cathedral belonged to the royal family. The Church expressed its disagreement with state policy in this. Moreover, not the past, but the current one.
O.S. Is it true that before the royal family, no one was canonized in our country for a very long time?

A.K. No, I wouldn't say that. Since 1988, Andrei Rublev, Ksenia of Petersburg, Feofan the Recluse, Maxim the Greek, and Georgian poet Ilya Chavchavadze have been canonized.

O.S. Were there cases of canonization related to the Great Patriotic War and besieged Leningrad?
A.K. No, strangely enough, I haven’t seen anything like this yet. Still, a martyr is not someone who sacrificed himself, even if religiously motivated, died a terrible death, or suffered innocently. This is the one who faced a clear choice: faith or death. During the war, people in most cases did not have such a choice.

O.S. Did the king really have a radical choice?

A.K. This is one of the most difficult issues of canonization. Unfortunately, it is not completely known to what extent he was attracted, to what extent something depended on him. Another thing is that every minute he was able to choose whether to feed his soul with revenge or not. There is another aspect to this situation. Church thinking is precedent thinking. What happened once can serve as an example to follow. How can I explain this to people so that they don’t follow his example? It's really difficult. Imagine: an ordinary school headmistress. She converted to Orthodoxy and is trying to educate the children at her school accordingly. Turns excursions into Orthodox pilgrimages. Invites the priest to school holidays. Selects Orthodox teachers. This causes dissatisfaction among some students, parents, and teachers. And then the higher authorities. And then some deputy invites her to his place and says: “you know, there’s a complaint against you. You are violating the law on secular education by inviting a priest. Therefore, you know, in order to avoid a scandal now, write a letter of resignation now, don’t worry about the school, here is Sara Isaakovna, she understands perfectly how to raise Russian children, and how not to raise them. She will be appointed in your place, and you will sign a waiver of the position. What should this headmistress do? She is an Orthodox person, she cannot easily give up her beliefs. But, on the other hand, she remembers that there was a man who humbly gave up power. And the children will be taught by Sarah Isaakovna, who will raise them in the best case – in a secular version, in the worst case – simply in an anti-Christian one. Therefore, I think it is very important to explain here that in the case of the emperor this would be foolishness.

O.S. Like this?

A.K. A holy fool is a person who violates ecclesiastical and secular laws in order to fulfill the will of God. At that moment, obviously the will of God was that Russia should go through the way of the cross that it was supposed to go through. At the same time, each of us should not push Russia to take this step. Simply put, if there is the will of God, then one must be ready to fulfill it in the most unexpected way. And we must also remember that foolishness and orphanhood, in this case foolishness, do not abolish the law. The law is clear: the position of the emperor is that he is given a sword so that he can defend his people and his faith with the power of the state sword. And the emperor’s task is not to lay down the sword, but to be able to wield it well. In this case, Emperor Constantine XXII, the last Byzantine emperor, who, when the Turks had already broken through the walls of Constantinople in 1453, took off his royal regalia, remained in the clothes of a simple soldier and, with a sword, is much closer to me, in a churchly and masculine way, in this case. rushing into the very thick of the enemy, he found his death there. I understand this behavior much more clearly than renunciation or refusal. So the behavior of Emperor Constantine is the law, this is the norm. The behavior of Emperor Nicholas is foolishness.

O.S. Well, in Rus' there were many blessed people, but so...

A.K. They were beggars. And this is the king.

O.S. Does time mean anything to the church? After all, many years have passed, generations have changed...

A.K. This is what means a lot. Moreover, canonization cannot take place before 50 years to allow the memory to last.

O.S. And as for the canonization procedure itself, is it a big responsibility for the one who makes this decision?

A.K. The decision is made by the Council, that is, all the bishops. Not only Russia, but also Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Central Asia... There were discussions about canonization at the Council itself

O.S. This means that the royal family was simply included in some special lists or were there other procedures?

A.K. No, there was also a blessing of the icon, prayers... This is very important, because in the early 90s other prayers had already appeared, both literary and theologically completely illiterate.

O.S. I have heard the expression “unprayed icon.” Can an icon depicting the royal family be considered “prayed”? How do believers treat it?

A.K. Let’s say the church doesn’t know such an expression. And the icon has already become familiar in homes and churches. A variety of people turn to her. The canonization of the royal family is the canonization of the family, this is very good, because we have almost no holy families in our calendar. What is important here is that this is a large family about which we know a lot. Therefore, many people value precisely this nepotism.

O.S. Does the Church really believe that everything was smooth and correct in this family?

A.K. No matter how many opinions there were, no one seemed to accuse anyone of adultery.

Olga Sevastyanova spoke with Deacon Andrei Kuraev.