The whole truth about the canonization of Nicholas II. Canonization of the royal family

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.”
• The 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 the wide-ranging prayerful commemoration of these servants by believers; moreover, , there is no information about their religious life and personal piety. The final conclusion was: “The commission came to the conclusion that the most appropriate form of honoring the Christian feat of the faithful servants of the Royal Family, who shared its tragic fate, today can be the perpetuation of this feat in the lives of the Royal Martyrs.” .

In addition, there is another problem. While the royal family is canonized as passion-bearers, it is not possible to include the servants who suffered in the same rank, since, as 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 XXI century, with the blessing of the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga Vladimir, a repentant procession from St. Petersburg to Yekaterinburg to the place of 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

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

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

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

6 Society's reaction to canonization
6.1 Positive
6.2 Negative

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

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

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

Bibliography
Canonization of the royal family

Introduction

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

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

1. Key dates

· 1918 - execution of the royal family.

· In 1928 they were canonized by the Catacomb Church.

· In 1938 they were canonized by the Serbian Orthodox Church (this fact is disputed by Professor A.I. Osipov). The first news of believers appealing to the Synod of the Serbian Church with a request for the canonization of Nicholas II dates back to 1930.

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

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

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

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

2. Background

2.1. Execution

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

List of victims:

2.2. “Secret” spontaneous veneration in Soviet times

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

Three days after the execution, on July 8 (21), 1918, during a service in the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow, Patriarch Tikhon 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.

3. Arguments against canonization

· The death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family was not a martyrdom for Christ, but only political repression.

· The unsuccessful state and church policies of the emperor, including such events as Khodynka, Bloody Sunday and the Lena massacre and the extremely controversial activities of Grigory Rasputin.

· The abdication of the anointed king from the throne should be considered as a church-canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the priesthood.

· “The religiosity of the royal couple, for all its outwardly traditional Orthodoxy, bore a clearly expressed character of interconfessional mysticism”

· The active movement for the canonization of the royal family in the 1990s was not spiritual, but political in nature.

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

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

4. Canonization of the royal family

Catacomb Church Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

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

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

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

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

Main points of the report:

· Canonization should not provide reasons or arguments in political struggle or worldly confrontations. Its purpose, on the contrary, is to promote the unification of the people of God in faith and piety.

· In connection with the particularly active activities of modern monarchists, the Commission especially emphasized its position: “the canonization of the Monarch is in no way connected with monarchical ideology and, moreover, does not mean the “canonization” of the monarchical form of government... Glorifying the saint, the Church does not pursue political goals... but testifies before the people of God, who already reverence the righteous man, that the ascetic whom she canonizes really pleased God and stands before the Throne of God for us, regardless of what position he occupied in his earthly life.”

· The commission notes that in the life of Nicholas II there were two periods of unequal duration and spiritual significance - the time of his reign and the time of his imprisonment. In the first period (being in power) the Commission did not find sufficient grounds for canonization; the second period (spiritual and physical suffering) is more important for the Church, and therefore it focused its attention on it.

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 to me. The Russian Tsar cannot “renounce”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the Gospel of Matthew says:

Is there a person among you who

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

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

(Matt. 7:9-10)

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

Lena execution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the following important conclusions follow from this.

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

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

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

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

Questions and answers.

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

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

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

March 4, 1917 at the meeting of the Holy Synod on March 4, the Metropolitan of 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

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

Others believe that the emperor is worthy of being called the Holy Royal Passion-Bearer and there are arguments for this: 1. The circumstances of his death - physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents. 2. Widespread popular veneration of the royal passion-bearers served as one of the main reasons for their glorification as saints.
3. Testimonies of miracles and gracious help through prayers to the Royal Martyrs. They are talking about healings, uniting separated families, protecting church property from schismatics. There is especially abundant evidence of the streaming of myrrh from icons with images of Emperor Nicholas II and the Royal Martyrs, of the fragrance and the miraculous appearance of blood-colored stains on the icon faces of the Royal Martyrs.
4. Personal piety of the Emperor: the Emperor paid great attention to the needs of the Orthodox Church, donated generously for the construction of new churches, including outside Russia. Their deep religiosity distinguished the Imperial couple from the representatives of the then aristocracy. All its members lived in accordance with the traditions of Orthodox piety. During the years of his reign, more saints were canonized than in the previous two centuries (in particular, Theodosius of Chernigov, Seraphim of Sarov, Anna Kashinskaya, Joasaph of Belgorod, Hermogenes of Moscow, Pitirim of Tambov, John of Tobolsk).
5. Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often compared his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on whose church memorial day he was born. Having accepted his cross in the same way as the biblical righteous man, he endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of a murmur. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor’s life. From the moment of abdication, it is not so much external events as the internal spiritual state of the Sovereign that attracts our attention.” Most witnesses to the last period of the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk Governor's House and the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House as people who suffered and, despite all the mockery and insults, led a pious life. “Their true greatness stemmed not from their royal dignity, but from the amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.”
I believe that the emperor and his family are worthy of the title of saint. Because the blame for the Events of January 9, 1905 cannot be placed on the emperor. The petition about workers' needs, with which the workers went to the tsar, had the nature of a revolutionary ultimatum, which excluded the possibility of its acceptance or discussion. The decision to prevent workers from entering the Winter Palace square was made not by the emperor, but by the government headed by the Minister of Internal Affairs P. D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. Minister Svyatopolk-Mirsky did not provide the emperor with sufficient information about the events taking place, and his messages were reassuring in nature. The order for the troops to open fire was also given not by the emperor, but by the commander of the St. Petersburg Military District, Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich. Thus, “historical data does not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign in the January days of 1905 a conscious evil will turned against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions.” Nevertheless, Emperor Nicholas II did not see reprehensible actions in the actions of the commander in shooting demonstrations: he was neither convicted nor removed from office. But he saw guilt in the actions of Minister Svyatopolk-Mirsky and mayor I. A. Fullon, who were dismissed immediately after the January events. Nicholas’s guilt as an unsuccessful statesman should not be considered: “we should not evaluate this or that form of government, but the place that a specific person occupies in the state mechanism. The extent to which a person was able to embody Christian ideals in his activities is subject to assessment. It should be noted that Nicholas II treated the duties of the monarch as his sacred duty. Abdication of the tsar's rank is not a crime against the church: “Characteristic of some opponents of the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II is the desire to present his abdication of the Throne as a church-canonical crime similar to refusal a representative of the church hierarchy from the priesthood cannot be recognized as having any serious grounds. The canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed to the Kingdom was not defined in the church canons. Therefore, attempts to discover the elements of a certain church-canonical crime in the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power seem untenable.” On the contrary, “The spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of internal peace in Russia, gives his action a truly moral character.” There is no reason to see in the relations of the Royal Family with Rasputin signs of spiritual delusion, and even more so of insufficient church involvement.
Based on all these arguments, I want to say that the emperor is worthy to bear the title of passion-bearer who gave his life for Christ.

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

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

The issue of canonization of the new martyrs was decided at the Council of Bishops today, August 14. In the hall of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, where the chairman of the Synodal Commission for Canonization, Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna, gave a report, only bishops were present. At 17:20 we were informed from the Council Hall that a few minutes ago the final positive decision on canonization had been made. In the debate before this, about 60 bishops spoke, who with tears in their eyes spoke about the need to glorify the martyr king and his family. Only one bishop from Western Ukraine expressed some doubts. They voted by standing, and the hall of Church Councils, full of standing bishops, testified better than any words to the holiness of the royal passion-bearers. The decision was made unanimously.

The Council also decided to canonize 860 people from the huge number of Russian new martyrs and confessors who suffered for Christ in the 20th century. A number of locally revered saints were also included in the Council. The church celebration of the canonization of the host of Russian new martyrs will take place in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior on the second day of the Transfiguration of the Lord, August 20. After this, the newly glorified saints, including the passion-bearers Tsar Nicholas, Tsarina Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, princesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, will have services compiled, lives written, and icons blessed for church-wide veneration. Canonization means that the Church testifies to the closeness of these people to God and prays to them as its patrons.

The Act of the Council, in particular, reads: “In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his Family, we see people who sincerely 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.”

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

Orthodoxy 2000