Why was Nicholas II canonized? Russian history in faces.

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

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

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

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

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

Myth 1

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

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

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

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

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

Myth 2

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

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

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

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

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

Myth 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Myth 4

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

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

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

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

Myth 5

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

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

In the “Act on the Conciliar Glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian 20th Century” it is written: “Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often likened his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on whose church memorial day he was born. Having accepted his cross in the same way as the biblical righteous man, he endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of a murmur. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor’s life.” Most witnesses to the last period of the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk Governor's House and the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House as people who suffered and, despite all the mockery and insults, led a pious life. Their true greatness stemmed not from their royal dignity, but from the amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.

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

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

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.

Nikolai 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 Kiev 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

July 17 is the day of remembrance of the Passion-Bearers Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia.

In 2000, the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II and his family were canonized by the Russian Church as holy passion-bearers. Their canonization in the West - in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - occurred even earlier, in 1981. And although holy princes are not uncommon in the Orthodox tradition, this canonization still raises doubts among some. Why is the last Russian monarch glorified as a saint? Does his life and the life of his family speak in favor of canonization, and what were the arguments against it? Is the veneration of Nicholas II as the Tsar-Redeemer an extreme or a pattern? We are talking about this with the secretary of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, the rector of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University, Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov.

Death as an argument

- Father Vladimir, where does this term come from - royal passion-bearers? Why not just martyrs?

— When in 2000, the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints discussed the issue of glorifying the royal family, it came to the conclusion: although the family of Emperor Nicholas II was deeply religious, ecclesiastical and pious, all its members performed their prayer rule daily, regularly received the Holy Mysteries of Christ and lived a highly moral life, observing the Gospel commandments in everything, constantly performed works of mercy, during the war they worked diligently in the hospital, caring for wounded soldiers; they can be canonized as saints primarily for their Christianly accepted suffering and violent death caused by persecutors Orthodox faith with incredible cruelty. But it was still necessary to clearly understand and clearly formulate why exactly the royal family was killed. Maybe it was just a political assassination? Then they cannot be called martyrs. However, both the people and the commission had an awareness and feeling of the holiness of their feat. Since the noble princes Boris and Gleb, called passion-bearers, were glorified as the first saints in Rus', and their murder was also not directly related to their faith, the idea arose to discuss the glorification of the family of Emperor Nicholas II in the same person.

— When we say “royal martyrs,” do we mean only the king’s family? The relatives of the Romanovs, the Alapaevsk martyrs, who suffered at the hands of the revolutionaries, do not belong to this list of saints?

- No, they don’t. The very word “royal” in its meaning can only be attributed to the family of the king in the narrow sense. Relatives did not reign; they were even titled differently than members of the sovereign’s family. In addition, Grand Duchess Elizaveta Fedorovna Romanova - the sister of Empress Alexandra - and her cell attendant Varvara can be called martyrs for the faith. Elizaveta Feodorovna was the wife of the Governor-General of Moscow, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich Romanov, but after his murder she was not involved in state power. She devoted her life to the cause of Orthodox charity and prayer, founded and built the Martha and Mary Convent, and led the community of her sisters. The cell attendant Varvara, a sister of the monastery, shared her suffering and death with her. The connection between their suffering and faith is completely obvious, and they were both canonized as new martyrs - abroad in 1981, and in Russia in 1992. However, now such nuances have become important for us. In ancient times, no distinction was made between martyrs and passion-bearers.

- But why was it that the family of the last sovereign was glorified, although many representatives of the Romanov dynasty ended their lives in violent deaths?

— Canonization generally takes place in the most obvious and edifying cases. Not all killed representatives of the royal family show us an image of holiness, and most of these murders were committed for political purposes or in the struggle for power. Their victims cannot be considered victims for their faith. As for the family of Emperor Nicholas II, it was so incredibly slandered by both contemporaries and the Soviet government that it was necessary to restore the truth. Their murder was epochal, it amazes with its satanic hatred and cruelty, leaving a feeling of a mystical event - the reprisal of evil against the divinely established order of life of the Orthodox people.

—What were the criteria for canonization? What were the pros and cons?

“The Canonization Commission worked on this issue for a very long time, very pedantically checking all the pros and cons.” At that time there were many opponents of the canonization of the king. Someone said that this could not be done because Emperor Nicholas II was “bloody”; he was blamed for the events of January 9, 1905 - the shooting of a peaceful demonstration of workers. The commission carried out special work to clarify the circumstances of Bloody Sunday. And as a result of the study of archival materials, it turned out that the sovereign was not in St. Petersburg at that time, he was in no way involved in this execution and could not give such an order - he was not even aware of what was happening. Thus, this argument was eliminated. All other arguments “against” were considered in a similar way until it became obvious that there were no significant counter-arguments. The royal family was canonized not simply because they were killed, but because they accepted the torment with humility, in a Christian way, without resistance. They could have taken advantage of the offers to flee abroad that were made to them in advance. But they deliberately did not want this.

- Why can’t their murder be called purely political?

— The royal family personified the idea of ​​the Orthodox kingdom, and the Bolsheviks not only wanted to destroy possible contenders for the royal throne, they hated this symbol - the Orthodox king. By killing the royal family, they destroyed the very idea, the banner of the Orthodox state, which was the main defender of all world Orthodoxy. This becomes understandable in the context of the Byzantine interpretation of royal power as the ministry of the “external bishop of the church.” And during the synodal period, the “Basic Laws of the Empire” published in 1832 (Articles 43 and 44) ​​stated: “The Emperor, as a Christian Sovereign, is the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas of the ruling faith and the guardian of orthodoxy and all holy deanery in the Church. And in this sense, the emperor in the act of succession to the throne (dated April 5, 1797) is called the Head of the Church.”

The Emperor and his family were ready to suffer for Orthodox Russia, for the faith; this is how they understood their suffering. The Holy Righteous Father John of Kronstadt wrote back in 1905: “We have a Tsar of righteous and pious life, God sent Him a heavy cross of suffering, as His chosen one and beloved child.”

Renunciation: weakness or hope?

- How to understand then the abdication of the sovereign from the throne?

- Although the sovereign signed the abdication of the throne as a responsibilities for governing the state, this does not mean his renunciation of royal dignity. Until his successor was installed as king, in the minds of all the people he still remained the king, and his family remained the royal family. They themselves understood themselves this way, and the Bolsheviks perceived them the same way. If the sovereign, as a result of abdication, would lose his royal dignity and become an ordinary person, then why and who would need to persecute and kill him? When, for example, the presidential term ends, who will prosecute the former president? The king did not seek the throne, did not conduct election campaigns, but was destined for this from birth. The whole country prayed for their king, and the liturgical rite of anointing him with holy myrrh for the kingdom was performed over him. The pious Emperor Nicholas II could not refuse this anointing, which manifested God’s blessing for the most difficult service to the Orthodox people and Orthodoxy in general, without having a successor, and everyone understood this perfectly well.

The sovereign, transferring power to his brother, stepped away from fulfilling his managerial duties not out of fear, but at the request of his subordinates (almost all front commanders were generals and admirals) and because he was a humble man, and the very idea of ​​a struggle for power was completely alien to him. He hoped that the transfer of the throne in favor of his brother Michael (subject to his anointing as king) would calm the unrest and thereby benefit Russia. This example of abandoning the struggle for power in the name of the well-being of one’s country and one’s people is very edifying for the modern world.

— Did he somehow mention these views in his diaries and letters?

- Yes, but this can be seen from his very actions. He could strive to emigrate, go to a safe place, organize reliable security, and protect his family. But he did not take any measures, he wanted to act not according to his own will, not according to his own understanding, he was afraid to insist on his own. In 1906, during the Kronstadt rebellion, the sovereign, after the report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said the following: “If you see me so calm, it is because I have an unshakable belief that the fate of Russia, my own fate and the fate of my family lies in hands of the Lord. Whatever happens, I bow to His will.” Shortly before his suffering, the sovereign said: “I would not like to leave Russia. I love her too much, I’d rather go to the farthest end of Siberia.” At the end of April 1918, already in Yekaterinburg, the Emperor wrote: “Perhaps an atoning sacrifice is necessary to save Russia: I will be this sacrifice - may God’s will be done!”

“Many see renunciation as an ordinary weakness...

- Yes, some see this as a manifestation of weakness: a powerful person, strong in the usual sense of the word, would not abdicate the throne. But for Emperor Nicholas II, strength lay in something else: in faith, in humility, in the search for a grace-filled path according to the will of God. Therefore, he did not fight for power - and it was unlikely that it could be retained. But the holy humility with which he abdicated the throne and then accepted a martyr’s death even now contributes to the conversion of the entire people with repentance to God. Still, the vast majority of our people—after seventy years of atheism—consider themselves Orthodox. Unfortunately, the majority are not churchgoers, but still not militant atheists. Grand Duchess Olga wrote from captivity in the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg: “Father asks to tell all those who remained devoted to him, and those on whom they may have influence, so that they do not take revenge for him - he has forgiven everyone and is praying for everyone, and so that they remember that the evil that is now in the world will be even stronger, but that it is not evil that will defeat evil, but only love.” And, perhaps, the image of the humble martyr king moved our people to repentance and faith to a greater extent than a strong and powerful politician could have done.

Room of the Grand Duchesses in the Ipatiev House

Revolution: the inevitability of disaster?

— Did the way the last Romanovs lived and believed influence their canonization?

- Undoubtedly. A lot of books have been written about the royal family, a lot of materials have been preserved that indicate a very high spiritual structure of the sovereign himself and his family - diaries, letters, memoirs. Their faith was evidenced by all who knew them and by many of their actions. It is known that Emperor Nicholas II built many churches and monasteries; he, the empress and their children were deeply religious people who regularly partook of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. In conclusion, they constantly prayed and prepared in a Christian manner for their martyrdom, and three days before their death, the guards allowed the priest to perform a liturgy in the Ipatiev House, during which all members of the royal family received communion. There, Grand Duchess Tatiana, in one of her books, emphasized the lines: “Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ went to death as if on a holiday, facing inevitable death, they retained the same wondrous calm of spirit that did not leave them for a minute. They walked calmly towards death because they hoped to enter into a different, spiritual life, which opens up for a person beyond the grave.” And the Emperor wrote: “I firmly believe that the Lord will have mercy on Russia and pacify passions in the end. Let His Holy Will be done.” It is also well known what place in their lives occupied works of mercy, which were performed in the spirit of the Gospel: the royal daughters themselves, together with the empress, cared for the wounded in the hospital during the First World War.

— There are very different attitudes towards Emperor Nicholas II today: from accusations of lack of will and political insolvency to veneration as a tsar-redeemer. Is it possible to find a middle ground?

“I think that the most dangerous sign of the difficult state of many of our contemporaries is the lack of any attitude towards the martyrs, towards the royal family, towards everything in general. Unfortunately, many are now in some kind of spiritual hibernation and are not able to accommodate any serious questions in their hearts or look for answers to them. The extremes that you named, it seems to me, are not found in the entire mass of our people, but only in those who are still thinking about something, are still looking for something, are internally striving for something.

— How can one answer such a statement: the Tsar’s sacrifice was absolutely necessary, and thanks to it Russia was redeemed?

“Such extremes come from the lips of people who are theologically ignorant. Therefore, they begin to reformulate some points of the doctrine of salvation in relation to the king. This, of course, is completely wrong; there is no logic, consistency or necessity in this.

- But they say that the feat of the new martyrs meant a lot for Russia...

—Only the feat of the new martyrs was able to withstand the rampant evil to which Russia was subjected. At the head of this martyr's army were great people: Patriarch Tikhon, the greatest saints, such as Metropolitan Peter, Metropolitan Kirill and, of course, Emperor Nicholas II and his family. These are such great images! And the more time passes, the clearer their greatness and their meaning will become.

I think that now, in our time, we can more adequately assess what happened at the beginning of the twentieth century. You know, when you are in the mountains, an absolutely amazing panorama opens up - many mountains, ridges, peaks. And when you move away from these mountains, all the smaller ridges go beyond the horizon, but above this horizon there remains one huge snow cap. And you understand: here is the dominant!

So it is here: time passes, and we are convinced that these new saints of ours were truly giants, heroes of the spirit. I think that the significance of the feat of the royal family will be revealed more and more over time, and it will be clear what great faith and love they showed through their suffering.

In addition, a century later it is clear that no most powerful leader, no Peter I, could have restrained with his human will what was happening then in Russia.

- Why?

- Because the cause of the revolution was the state of the entire people, the state of the Church - I mean its human side. We often tend to idealize that time, but in reality everything was far from rosy. Our people received communion once a year, and it was a mass phenomenon. There were several dozen bishops throughout Russia, the patriarchate was abolished, and the Church had no independence. The system of parochial schools throughout Russia - a huge merit of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K. F. Pobedonostsev - was created only towards the end of the 19th century. This is, of course, a great thing; people began to learn to read and write precisely under the Church, but this happened too late.

There is a lot to list. One thing is clear: faith has become largely ritualistic. Many saints of that time, if I may say so, testified to the difficult state of the people's soul - first of all, Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov), holy righteous John of Kronstadt. They foresaw that this would lead to disaster.

— Did Tsar Nicholas II himself and his family foresee this catastrophe?

- Of course, and we find evidence of this in their diary entries. How could Tsar Nicholas II not feel what was happening in the country when his uncle, Sergei Aleksandrovich Romanov, was killed right next to the Kremlin by a bomb thrown by the terrorist Kalyaev? And what about the revolution of 1905, when even all the seminaries and theological academies were engulfed in rebellion, so that they had to be temporarily closed? This speaks about the state of the Church and the country. For several decades before the revolution, systematic persecution took place in society: the faith and the royal family were persecuted in the press, terrorist attempts were made on the lives of rulers...

— Do you want to say that it is impossible to blame solely Nicholas II for the troubles that befell the country?

- Yes, that’s right - he was destined to be born and reign at this time, he could no longer simply by exerting his will change the situation, because it came from the depths of people’s life. And under these conditions, he chose the path that was most characteristic of him - the path of suffering. The Tsar suffered deeply, suffered mentally long before the revolution. He tried to defend Russia with kindness and love, he did it consistently, and this position led him to martyrdom.

What kind of saints are these?..

— Father Vladimir, in Soviet times, obviously, canonization was impossible for political reasons. But even in our time it took eight years... Why so long?

— You know, more than twenty years have passed since perestroika, and the remnants of the Soviet era are still very much felt. They say that Moses wandered through the desert with his people for forty years because the generation that lived in Egypt and was raised in slavery needed to die. For the people to become free, that generation had to leave. And it is not very easy for the generation that lived under Soviet rule to change their mentality.

— Because of a certain fear?

- Not only because of fear, but rather because of the cliches that were implanted from childhood, which owned people. I knew many representatives of the older generation - among them priests and even one bishop - who still saw Tsar Nicholas II during his lifetime. And I witnessed what they did not understand: why canonize him? what kind of saint is he? It was difficult for them to reconcile the image that they had perceived since childhood with the criteria of holiness. This nightmare, which we now cannot truly imagine, when huge parts of the Russian Empire were occupied by the Germans, although the First World War promised to end victoriously for Russia; when terrible persecution, anarchy, and Civil War began; when famine came in the Volga region, repressions unfolded, etc. - apparently, in the young perception of people of that time, it was somehow linked to the weakness of the government, to the fact that the people did not have a real leader who could resist all this rampant evil . And some people remained under the influence of this idea until the end of their lives...

And then, of course, it is very difficult to compare in your mind, for example, St. Nicholas of Myra, the great ascetics and martyrs of the first centuries with the saints of our time. I know one old woman whose priest uncle was canonized as a new martyr - he was shot for his faith. When they told her about this, she was surprised: “How?! No, he, of course, was a very good person, but what kind of saint was he? That is, it is not so easy for us to accept the people with whom we live as saints, because for us saints are “celestials,” people from another dimension. And those who eat, drink, talk and worry with us - what kind of saints are they? It is difficult to apply the image of holiness to a person close to you in everyday life, and this is also very important.

End crowns the work

— Father Vladimir, I see on your table, among others, there is a book about Nicholas II. What is your personal attitude towards him?

“I grew up in an Orthodox family and knew about this tragedy from early childhood. Of course, he always treated the royal family with reverence. I have been to Yekaterinburg several times...

I think that if you pay attention and seriously, you cannot help but feel and see the greatness of this feat and not be fascinated by these wonderful images - the sovereign, the empress and their children. Their life was full of difficulties, sorrows, but it was beautiful! How strictly the children were brought up, how they all knew how to work! How can one not admire the amazing spiritual purity of the Grand Duchesses! Modern young people need to see the life of these princesses, they were so simple, majestic and beautiful. For their chastity alone they could have been canonized, for their meekness, modesty, readiness to serve, for their loving hearts and mercy. After all, they were very modest people, unassuming, never aspired to glory, they lived as God placed them, in the conditions in which they were placed. And in everything they were distinguished by amazing modesty and obedience. No one has ever heard of them displaying any passionate traits of character. On the contrary, a Christian disposition of the heart was nurtured in them - peaceful, chaste. It is enough to even just look at photographs of the royal family; they themselves already reveal an amazing inner appearance - of the sovereign, and the empress, and the grand duchesses, and Tsarevich Alexei. The point is not only in upbringing, but also in their very life, which corresponded to their faith and prayer. They were true Orthodox people: they lived as they believed, they acted as they thought. But there is a saying: “The end is the end.” “What I find, in that I judge,” says the Holy Scripture on behalf of God.

Therefore, the royal family was canonized not for their life, which was very high and beautiful, but, above all, for their even more beautiful death. For the suffering before death, for the faith, meekness and obedience with which they went through this suffering to the will of God - this is their unique greatness.

The interview is published in abbreviation. Read the full version in the special issue of the Foma magazine “The Romanovs: 400 years in history” (2013)

Valeria Mikhailova (Posashko)

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

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

Key dates

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

Background

Execution

Main article: Execution of the royal family

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments against canonization

Canonization of the royal family

Catacomb Church

Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

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

ROC

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

In 1992, by the determination of the Council of Bishops from March 31 - April 4, the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints was entrusted “when studying the exploits of the Russian new martyrs, begin researching materials related to the martyrdom of the Royal Family”. From 1992 to 1997, the Commission, headed by Metropolitan Juvenaly, devoted 19 meetings to the consideration of this topic, in between which members of the commission carried out in-depth research work to study various aspects of the life of the Royal Family. At the Council of Bishops in 1994, the report of the chairman of the commission outlined the position on a number of studies completed by that time.

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

Main points of the report:

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

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

In 2000, at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church, the royal family was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as part of the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, revealed and not revealed (totaling 860 people). The final decision was made on August 14 at a meeting in the hall of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, and until the very last moment it was not known whether canonization would take place or not. They voted by standing, and the decision was made unanimously. The only church hierarch who spoke out against the canonization of the royal family was Metropolitan Nikolai (Kutepov) of Nizhny Novgorod: “ When all the bishops signed the act of canonization, I noted next to my painting that I was signing everything except the third paragraph. The third point was the Tsar-Father, and I did not sign up for his canonization. ...he is a state traitor. ... he, one might say, sanctioned the collapse of the country. And no one will convince me otherwise."The canonization ceremony took place on August 20, 2000.

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

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

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

Refuting the arguments of opponents of canonization

Aspects of canonization

Question about the face of holiness

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

Metropolitan Sergius (Fomin) in 2006 spoke disapprovingly of the campaign of nationwide conciliar repentance for the sin of regicide, carried out by a number of near-Orthodox circles: “ The canonization of Nicholas II and his family as passion-bearers does not satisfy the newly minted zealots of the monarchy", and called such monarchical predilections " heresy of reign».

Canonization of servants

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

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

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

Society's reaction to canonization

Positive

Negative

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

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

Icons

Iconography

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

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

Relics

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

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

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

Announced miracles of the royal martyrs

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

Skeptical perception of miracles

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

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

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

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

Main article: Doctrine of the King Redeemer

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

Among some Orthodox Christians, the concept of the “Tsar Redeemer” is in circulation, according to which Nicholas II is revered as “the redeemer of the sin of infidelity of his people”; critics call this concept the “royal redemptive heresy.”

see also

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

Notes

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

In 1981, the royal family was glorified by the decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad. This event increased attention to the issue of the holiness of the last Russian Tsar in the USSR, so underground literature was sent there and foreign broadcasting was carried out.

July 16, 1989. In the evening, people began to gather in the vacant lot where Ipatiev’s house once stood. For the first time, public prayers to the Royal Martyrs were openly heard. On August 18, 1990, the first wooden cross was installed on the site of the Ipatiev House, near which believers began to pray once or twice a week and read akathists.

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 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

• 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.
• « 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.”
• Activities of the Empress and Grand Duchesses as sisters of mercy during the war.
• “Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often likened his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on whose church memorial day he was born. Having accepted his cross in the same way as the biblical righteous man, he endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of a murmur. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor’s life. 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 January 9, 1905 cannot be placed on the emperor. The petition about workers' needs, with which the workers went to the tsar, had the character of a revolutionary ultimatum, which excluded the possibility of its acceptance or discussion. The decision to prevent workers from entering the Winter Palace square was made not by the emperor, but by the government headed by the Minister of Internal Affairs P. D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. Minister Svyatopolk-Mirsky did not provide the emperor with sufficient information about the events taking place, and his messages were of a reassuring nature. The order for the troops to open fire was also given not by the emperor, but by the commander of the St. Petersburg Military District, Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich. Thus, “historical data does not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign in the January days of 1905 a conscious evil will turned against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions.” Nevertheless, Emperor Nicholas II did not see reprehensible actions in the actions of the commander in shooting demonstrations: he was neither convicted nor removed from office. But he saw guilt in the actions of Minister Svyatopolk-Mirsky and mayor I. A. Fullon, who were dismissed immediately after the January events.
• Nicholas’ 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 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.

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 Egorovich Troupe and the Lutheran goblettress Ekaterina Adolfovna Schneider” .

As a basis for such canonization, Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles (Sinkevich) argued “that these people, being devoted to the king, were baptized with their martyr’s blood, and they are thus worthy of being canonized along with the Family.”

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 widespread named prayerful commemoration of these servants by believers, in addition , there is no information about their religious life and personal piety. The final conclusion was: “The commission came to the conclusion that the most appropriate form of honoring the Christian feat of the faithful servants of the Royal Family, who shared its tragic fate, today 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 Archpriest Georgiy Mitrofanov, a member of the Synodal Commission, stated, “the rank of passion-bearers has been applied since ancient times only to representatives of grand-ducal and royal families.” .

Reaction to canonization

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.

I have no doubt about the holiness of the last tsar, Nicholas II. Critically assessing his activities as an emperor, I, being the father of two children (and he was the father of five!), cannot imagine how he could maintain such a firm and at the same time gentle state of mind in prison, when it became clear that they would all die. His behavior at this moment, this side of his personality evokes my deepest respect.

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, while others demanded the canonization of the sovereign as a great martyr, “ritually martyred by the Jews.”

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

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 Fishermen”.

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 (“Assessment of the reliability of scientific and investigative conclusions, as well as evidence of their inviolability or irrefutability, is not within the competence of the Church. Scientific and historical responsibility for 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 any 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, the hair of Nicholas II, 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 set out in it dates back to the time of the Civil War, when a detachment of White Cossacks, surrounded and driven by the Reds into impenetrable swamps, 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):

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.”

In 1993, “repentance for the sin of regicide on behalf of the entire Church” was brought by Patriarch Alexy II, who wrote: “We call to repentance all our people, all their children, regardless of their political views and views on history, regardless of their ethnic origin, religious affiliation, regardless of their attitude to the idea of ​​​​the monarchy and to the personality of the last Russian Emperor.”. In the 21st century, with the blessing of Metropolitan Vladimir of St. Petersburg and Ladoga, a penitential procession of the cross from St. Petersburg to Yekaterinburg to the place of the death of the family of Nicholas II began to be held annually. It symbolizes repentance for the sin of the Russian people’s deviation from the conciliar oath of 1613 to allegiance to the royal family of the Romanovs.

see also

• Canonized by ROCOR Martyrs of the Alapaevsk Mine(Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, nun Varvara, Grand Dukes Sergei Mikhailovich, Igor Konstantinovich, John 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

Sources

1. Tsar-Martyr
2. Emperor Nicholas II and his family are canonized
3. Osipov A. I. On canonization of the last Russian Tsar
4. Shargunov A. Miracles of the Royal Martyrs. M. 1995. P. 49