The Romanovs are canonized as saints. Emperor Nicholas II and his family canonized as saints

13.10.2019

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

By the decision of the Council of Bishops of March 31 - April 4, 1992, the Synodal Commission for the canonization of saints was instructed "when studying the exploits of the new martyrs of Russia, to begin researching materials related to the martyrdom of the Royal Family."

The Commission saw the main task in this matter in an objective examination of all the circumstances of the life of members of the Imperial Family in the context of historical events and their ecclesiastical comprehension outside the ideological stereotypes that have prevailed in our country over the past decades. The Commission was guided by pastoral concerns so that the canonization of the Royal Family in the host of the New Martyrs of Russia would not give rise to and arguments in political struggle or worldly confrontations, but would contribute to the unification of the people of God in faith and piety. We also sought to take into account the fact of the canonization of the Royal Family by the Russian Church Abroad in 1981, which caused a far from unambiguous reaction both among the Russian emigration, some representatives of which did not see sufficient convincing grounds in it at that time, and in Russia itself, not to mention such, having no historical analogy in Orthodox Church, the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as the inclusion in the number of canonized who, together with the Royal Family, accepted the martyrdom of the royal servant, the Roman Catholic Aloysius Egorovich Trupp and the Lutheran Goflektress Ekaterina Adolfovna Schneider.

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

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

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

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

One of the main arguments of opponents of the canonization of the Royal Family is the assertion that the death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his Family cannot be recognized as martyrdom for Christ. The Commission, on the basis of a thorough examination of the circumstances of the death of the Royal Family, proposes to carry out its canonization in the guise of holy martyrs. in liturgical and hagiographic literature In the Russian Orthodox Church, the word “passion-bearer” began to be used in relation to those Russian saints who, imitating Christ, patiently endured physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents.

In the history of the Russian Church, such martyrs were the holy noble princes Boris and Gleb (+1015), Igor Chernigov (+1147), Andrei Bogolyubsky (+1174), Mikhail of Tverskoy (+1319), Tsarevich Dimitri (+1591). All of them, with their feat of passion-bearers, showed a high example of Christian morality and patience.

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

The Church policy of the Emperor did not go beyond the traditional synodal system of governing the Church. However, it was during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II that until then for two centuries the church hierarchy, which had been officially silent on the issue of convening a Council, had the opportunity not only to widely discuss, but also to practically prepare the convening of the Local Council.

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

Deep religiosity singled out the Imperial couple among the representatives of the then aristocracy. The upbringing of the children of the Imperial Family was imbued with a religious spirit. All its members lived in accordance with the traditions of Orthodox piety. Compulsory attendance at church services on Sundays and holidays, fasting during fasting was an integral part of their life. The personal religiosity of the Sovereign and his wife was not simply following traditions. The royal couple visit churches and monasteries during their many trips, venerate miraculous icons and relics of saints, and make pilgrimages, as was the case in 1903 during the glorification of St. Seraphim of Sarov. Brief services in the court temples did not satisfy the Emperor and the Empress. Especially for them, services are performed in the Tsarskoye Selo Feodorovsky Cathedral, built in the Old Russian style. Empress Alexandra prayed here in front of the lectern with open liturgical books, closely following the service.

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

As a politician and statesman, the Sovereign acted on the basis of his religious and moral principles. One of the most common arguments against the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II is the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. V historical background On this issue, we point out to the commission: on the evening of January 8, having become acquainted with the content of Gapon's petition, which had the character of a revolutionary ultimatum, which did not allow to enter into constructive negotiations with representatives of the workers, the Sovereign ignored this document, illegal in form and undermining the prestige of state power already wavering in the conditions of war . During the whole of January 9, 1905, the Sovereign did not take a single decision that determined the actions of the authorities in St. Petersburg to suppress mass demonstrations of workers. The order to the troops to open fire was given not by the Emperor, but by the Commander of the St. Petersburg Military District. Historical data do not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign in the January days of 1905 a conscious evil will directed against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions.

With the outbreak of the First World War, the Sovereign regularly travels to Headquarters, visits military units of the army in the field, dressing stations, military hospitals, rear factories, in a word, everything that played a role in the conduct of this war.

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

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

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

The desire, characteristic of some opponents of the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II, to present his abdication as an ecclesiastical 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 for the Kingdom was not defined in church canons. Therefore, attempts to discover the composition of a certain church-canonical crime in the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power seem to be untenable.

As external factors that brought into being the Act of Renunciation, which took place in political life Russia, one should first of all single out the sharp aggravation of the socio-political situation in Petrograd in February 1917, the inability of the government to control the situation in the capital, the widespread belief in the need for strict constitutional restrictions on monarchical power, the urgent demand of the Chairman of the State Duma M.V. Rodzianko's renunciation of Emperor Nicholas II from power in the name of preventing internal political chaos in the context of Russia's large-scale war, the almost unanimous support provided by the highest representatives of the Russian generals to the demand of the Chairman of the State Duma. It should also be noted that the Act of Abdication was adopted by Emperor Nicholas II under the pressure of sharply changing political circumstances in an extremely short time.

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

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

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

A very small circle of people could communicate directly with the Sovereign in an informal setting. All those who knew his family life firsthand noted the amazing simplicity, mutual love and the consent of all the members of this closely knit Family. Aleksey Nikolayevich was its center; all attachments, all hopes were concentrated on him.

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

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

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

In relation to Rasputin, there was an element of human weakness, associated in the Empress with a deep experience of the incurability of the deadly disease of her son, and in the Emperor due to the desire to preserve peace in the Family by compassionate compliance with the maternal torments of the Empress. However, there is no reason to see in the relations of the Royal Family with Rasputin signs of spiritual charm, and even more so of insufficient churching.

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

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

Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often likened his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on the day of whose church memory 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 grumbling. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor's life. From the moment of renunciation, it is not so much external events as the inner spiritual state of the Sovereign that draws our attention to itself.

The sovereign, having accepted, as it seemed to him, the only the right decision However, he suffered severe mental anguish. “If I am an obstacle to the happiness of Russia and all the social forces now at the head of it ask me to leave the throne and pass it on to my son and brother, then I am ready to do this, I am ready not only to give the Kingdom, but also to give my life for the Motherland. I think that no one doubts this among those who know me, ”said the Sovereign to General D.N. Dubensky.

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

Consistently and methodically killing all members of the Imperial Family who fell into their hands, the Bolsheviks were primarily guided by ideology, and then by political calculation - after all, in the popular mind, the Emperor continued to be the Anointed of God, and the entire Royal Family symbolized Russia leaving and Russia being destroyed. On July 21, 1918, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, in his speech during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the Moscow Kazan Cathedral, as if answered those questions and doubts that the Russian Church will try to comprehend in eight decades: “We know that he (Emperor Nicholas II - M.Yu. .), abdicating the Throne, did it, bearing in mind the good of Russia and out of love for her.”

Most witnesses of the last period of the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk governor's and Yekaterinburg Ipatiev houses as people who suffered and, despite all the mockery and insults, led a pious life. In the Imperial Family, which found itself in captivity, we see people who sincerely strived to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives.

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

Kindness and peace of mind did not leave the Empress during this difficult time. The emperor, by nature closed, felt calm and complacent, especially in a narrow family circle. The Empress did not like secular communication, balls. Her strict upbringing was alien to the moral licentiousness that reigned in the court environment, the religiosity of the Empress was called strangeness, even hypocrisy. Alexandra Fedorovna's letters reveal the whole depth of her religious feelings - how much fortitude they contain, sorrow for the fate of Russia, faith and hope for God's help. And to whomever she wrote, she found words of support and consolation. These letters are true testimonies of the Christian faith.

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

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

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

Their true greatness did not stem from their royal dignity, but from that amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.

Together with the Imperial Family, their servants, who followed their masters into exile, were also shot. In connection with the fact that they voluntarily remained with the Royal Family and were martyred, it would be legitimate to raise the question of their canonization; to them, in addition to those shot together with the Imperial Family by Dr. E.S. Botkin, Empress A.S. Demidova, court cook I.M. Kharitonov and footman A.E. The troupe belonged to 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 goflectress E.A. Schneider. It is not possible for the commission to make a final decision on the existence of grounds for the canonization of this group of laity, who, on duty as court service, accompanied the Royal Family during its imprisonment and suffered a violent death. The commission does not have information about a wide prayerful commemoration of these laity by name. In addition, there is little information about religious life and their personal piety. The Commission came to the conclusion that the most appropriate form of veneration of 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.

The topic of the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II and members of the Royal Family was widely discussed in the 1990s in a number of publications in the ecclesiastical and secular press. The decisive majority of books and articles by religious authors support the idea of glorifying the Royal Martyrs. A number of publications contain convincing criticism of the arguments of the opponents of canonization.

In the name of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II, the Holy Synod and the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints received many appeals approving the conclusions made in October 1996 by the Commission for the Canonization of Saints regarding the glorification of the Royal Martyrs.

The Synodal Commission for the canonization of saints also received appeals ruling bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, in which, on behalf of the clergy and laity, they expressed their approval of the conclusions of the Commission.

In some dioceses, the issue of canonization was discussed at diocesan, deanery, and parish meetings. They expressed unanimous support for the idea of glorifying the Royal Martyrs. The Commission also received appeals from individual clerics and laity, as well as groups of believers from different dioceses, with support for the canonization of the Royal Family. Some of them bear the signatures of several thousand people. Among the authors of such appeals are Russian emigrants, as well as clerics and laity of the fraternal Orthodox Churches. Many of those who applied to the Commission spoke in favor of the speedy, immediate canonization of the Royal Martyrs. The idea of the need for the speedy glorification of the Sovereign and the Royal Martyrs was expressed by a number of church and public organizations.

Of particular value are publications and appeals to the Commission and other church authorities, containing testimonies of miracles and grace-filled help through prayers to the Royal Martyrs. They are about healings, uniting separated families, protecting church property from schismatics. Particularly abundant is evidence of the myrrh-streaming of icons with images of Emperor Nicholas II and the Royal Martyrs, of the fragrance and miraculous appearance of blood-colored spots on the icons of the Royal Martyrs.

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

“2. Evaluation 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 the conclusions made during the investigation and study regarding the “Yekaterinburg remains” lies entirely with the Republican Center for Forensic Medical Research and the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation.

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

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

The veneration of the Royal Family, already begun by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon in a prayer for the dead and a word at a memorial service in the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow for the murdered Emperor three days after the Yekaterinburg assassination, continued - despite the prevailing ideology - throughout several decades of the Soviet period of our history. The clergy and laity offered up prayers to God for the repose of the slain sufferers, members of the Royal Family. In the houses in the red corner one could see photographs of the Royal Family, and recently icons depicting the Royal Martyrs began to be widely distributed. Now such icons are found in some monasteries and churches of a number of dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church. Prayers addressed to them and various musical and cinematographic, literary works reflecting the suffering and martyrdom of the Royal Family. Everywhere and more often funeral requiems are performed for her. All this testifies to the growing reverence for the murdered Royal Family throughout Russia.

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

Behind the many sufferings endured by the Royal Family over the last 17 months of their lives, which ended with execution in the basement of the Yekaterinburg 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 light of Christ's faith conquering evil 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 Holy Synod finds it possible to glorify in the Cathedral of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia as Passion-Bearers Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatyana, Maria and Anastasia.

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 question of the sanctity of the last Russian tsar in the USSR, as underground literature was sent there and foreign broadcasting was carried out.

July 16, 1989 In the evening, people began to gather in the wasteland where Ipatiev's house had once stood. For the first time, people's 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, read akathists.

In the 1980s, even in Russia, voices began to be heard about the official canonization of at least shot children, whose innocence is beyond doubt. Icons painted without church blessing are mentioned, in which only they were depicted alone, without parents. In 1992, the sister of the Empress was canonized as a saint grand duchess Elizaveta Fyodorovna, another victim of the Bolsheviks. However, there were also many opponents of canonization.

Arguments against canonization

Canonization of the royal family

Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

The results of the work of the Commission 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 were possible.

The main theses of the report:

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

“Behind the many sufferings endured by the Royal Family over the last 17 months of their lives, which ended in execution in the basement of the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House on the night of July 17, 1918, we see people who sincerely strived 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 light of Christ's faith that overcomes evil 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 Cathedral of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the face of the Passion-Bearers Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatyana, Maria and Anastasia.

From the “Acts on the Cathedral Glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the 20th Century”:

“Glorify as passion-bearers in the host of new martyrs and confessors of Russia the Royal Family: 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 strived to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the Imperial family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 4 (17), 1918, the light of Christ's faith conquering evil was revealed, just as it shone in life and death millions of Orthodox Christians who endured 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 of calendars.

Arguments for canonization, taken into account by the ROC

Circumstances of death- physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents.
Wide popular veneration royal passion-bearers served as one of the main grounds for their glorification in the face of saints.
« Testimonies of miracles and grace-filled help through prayers to the Royal Martyrs. They are about healings, uniting separated families, protecting church property from schismatics. Particularly abundant is evidence of the myrrh-streaming of icons with images of Emperor Nicholas II and the Royal Martyrs, of the fragrance and miraculous appearance of blood-colored spots on the icons of the Royal Martyrs.
Personal piety of the Sovereign: the emperor paid great attention to the needs of the Orthodox Church, generously donated to the construction of new churches, including those outside Russia. Deep religiosity singled out the Imperial couple among 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 Chernigov, Seraphim Sarov, Anna Kashinskaya, Joasaph Belgorod, Hermogenes Moscow, Pitirim Tambov, John Tobolsk).
“The Church policy of the Emperor did not go beyond the traditional synodal system of governing the Church. However, it was precisely during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II that until then for two centuries the church hierarchy, which had been officially silent on the issue of convening the Council, had the opportunity not only to widely discuss, but also to practically prepare the convening of the Local Council.
The activities of the Empress and the Grand Duchesses as sisters of mercy during the war.
“Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often likened his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on the day of whose church memory 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 grumbling. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor's life. From the moment of renunciation, it is not so much external events as the internal spiritual state of the Sovereign that attracts our attention. Most witnesses of the last period of the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk governor's and Yekaterinburg Ipatiev houses as people who suffered and, despite all the mockery and insults, led a pious life. "Their true greatness did not stem from their royal dignity, but from that amazing moral height to which they gradually rose."

Refutation of 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 adoption or discussion. The decision to prevent workers from entering the area of the Winter Palace was made not by the emperor, but by the government headed by the Minister of the Interior P. D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. Minister Svyatopolk-Mirsky did not provide the emperor with sufficient information about the ongoing events, and his messages were of a reassuring nature. The order to 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 directed against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions" . Nevertheless, Emperor Nicholas II did not see in the actions of the commander reprehensible actions to shoot demonstrations: he was neither convicted nor removed from office. But he saw the blame in the actions of the minister Svyatopolk-Mirsky and the mayor I. A. Fullon, who were dismissed immediately after the January events.
The guilt of Nicholas as an unsuccessful statesman should not be considered: “we must evaluate not this or that form of government, but the place that a particular person occupies in the state mechanism. The extent to which this or that person has managed to embody Christian ideals in his activity is subject to assessment. It should be noted that Nicholas II treated the duties of the monarch as his sacred duty.
Renunciation of the royal dignity is not a crime against the Church: “The desire, typical for some opponents of the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II, to present his abdication of the Throne as an ecclesiastical canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the holy dignity, cannot be recognized as having any serious grounds. . The canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed for the Kingdom was not defined in church canons. Therefore, attempts to discover the composition of some ecclesiastical canonical crime in the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power seem to be 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 inner peace in Russia, gives his act 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 churchness.”

Aspects of canonization

Question about the face of holiness

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

Canonization of servants

Together with the Romanovs, four of their servants, who followed their masters into exile, were also shot. ROCOR canonized them jointly with the royal family. And the ROC points to a formal mistake made by the Church Abroad during the canonization against custom: “It should be noted that the decision, which has no historical analogies in the Orthodox Church, to include in the number of canonized, who, together with the Royal Family, was martyred, the royal servant of the Roman Catholic Aloysius Egorovich Troupe and the Lutheran goflektriss Catherine Adolfovna Schneider” .

As a basis for such canonization, Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles (Sinkevich) cited the argument “that these people, being devoted to the tsar, were baptized with their martyr’s blood, and they are worthy, thereby, to be 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 were martyred, it would be legitimate to raise the question of their canonization”. In addition to the four who were 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, the “uncle” of the Heir K. G. Nagorny, children's lackey I. D. Sednev, maid of honor of the Empress A. V. Gendrikov and goflectress E. A. Shneider. Nevertheless, the Commission concluded that it "does not seem possible to it to make a final decision on the existence of grounds for the canonization of this group of laity, who accompanied the Royal Family on duty in their court service", since there is no information about the wide prayerful commemoration of these servants by the faithful, 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” .

Besides, there is one more problem. While the royal family has been canonized as martyrs, it is not possible to rank the suffered servants in the same category, because, as Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, a member of the Synodal Commission, said, “the rank of martyrs since ancient times has been applied only in relation to representatives of grand ducal and royal families” .

Reaction to canonization

Canonization 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 for 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 the Romanovs), 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 ROCOR.

I have no doubts about the holiness of the last tsar, Nicholas II. Critically evaluating his activities as an emperor, I, being the father of two children (and he was the father of five!), I 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, causes my deepest reverence.
We glorified the royal family precisely as martyrs: the basis for this canonization was the innocent death accepted by Nicholas II with Christian humility, and not political activity, which was rather contradictory. By the way, this cautious decision did not suit many, because someone did not want this canonization at all, and someone demanded the canonization of the sovereign as a great martyr, “ritually martyred by the Jews.”

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

The figures of the Saint Romanovs are also found in the multi-figured icons "Cathedral of New Martyrs and Confessors" of Russia and "Cathedral of the Saints of Hunters and Fishermen".

relics

Patriarch Alexy, on the eve of the classes of the Bishops' Council 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 worship 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 the decisions taken during the investigation and studying the conclusions regarding the "Yekaterinburg remains" falls entirely on the Republican Center for Forensic 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 opposition 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 today cannot be recognized by us as belonging to the Royal Family.”

In view of this position of the Moscow Patriarchate, which has not changed 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 revered by the church as holy relics.

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

Declared miracles of royal martyrs

Miraculous deliverance of hundreds of Cossacks. The story about this event appeared in 1947 in the Russian émigré press. The story set forth in it dates back to the time of the civil war, when a detachment of White Cossacks, surrounded and driven into impenetrable swamps by the Reds, appealed 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 objection of the soldiers that the royal family was not officially glorified, the priest allegedly replied that the glorification takes place by the will of "God's people", and swore he assured the others that their prayer would not go 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 elderly and disabled, 1 priest, 22 Cossacks, total 98 men 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 worship for the last tsar and his family. The boys from the monastery shelter, 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 gave seven shoots (according to the number of faces depicted on the icon) and released green flowers, 1-2 in diameter. see resembling roses, and the flowers and the mother branch belonged to different plant species. According to the publications referring to this event, the service, during which the twigs were placed on the icon, was held in Intercession, that is, three months earlier. 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 were unexpectedly thrown out. Another flower broke off, was planted in the ground , where it turned into a small plant. What happened to the other two is unknown. With the blessing of Savva, the icon was transferred to the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin, to Savvin's chapel, where, apparently, it is found to this day.
Descent of the miraculous fire. It is alleged that this miracle happened in the Cathedral of the Holy Iberian Monastery in Odessa, when during the divine service on February 15, 2000, a tongue of snow-white flame appeared on the throne of the temple. According to Hieromonk Peter (Golubenkov):

When I finished communing people and entered the altar with the Holy Gifts, after the words: “Save, O Lord, Thy people and bless Thy inheritance”, a flash of fire appeared on the throne (on the diskos). At first I did not understand what it was, but then, when I saw this fire, it was impossible to describe the joy that seized my heart. At first I thought it was a piece of coal from a censer. But this little petal of fire was the size of a poplar leaf and all white and white. Then I compared the white color of the snow - and it is impossible even to compare - the snow seems to be grayish. I thought that this is a demonic temptation that happens. And when he took the cup with the Holy Gifts to the altar, there was no one near the altar, and many parishioners saw how the petals of the Holy Fire scattered over the antimension, then gathered together and entered the altar lamp. The evidence of that miracle of the descent of the Holy Fire continued throughout the day...

Skepticism about miracles

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

Church recognition of a miracle requires the testimony of the ruling bishop. Only after it can we talk about the nature of this phenomenon - whether it is a divine miracle or a phenomenon of a different order. With regard to most of the described miracles associated with the royal martyrs, there is no such evidence.
Declaring someone a saint without the blessing of the ruling bishop and a conciliar decision is a non-canonical act, and therefore all references to the miracles of the royal martyrs before their canonization should be taken with skepticism.
The icon is an image of an ascetic canonized by the church, so the miracles from the icons painted to the official canonization are doubtful.

"The rite of repentance for the sins of the Russian people" and more

Since the end of the 1990s, annually, on the days dedicated to the anniversaries of the birth of the “Martyr Tsar 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 "Order 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 a part of the Orthodox, 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 refer to this concept as the "royal 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, their attitude to the idea of a 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, Vladimir annually began to conduct a penitential procession from St. Petersburg to Yekaterinburg to the place of death of the family of Nicholas II. It symbolizes repentance for the sin of the retreat of the Russian people from the conciliar oath 1613 of allegiance to the royal family of the Romanovs.

Notes

Sources

Tsar Martyr
Emperor Nicholas II and his family are canonized as saints
Osipov A. I. On canonization of the last Russian tsar
Shargunov A . Miracles of the Royal Martyrs. M. 1995. S. 49

The stormy activity to protect the good name of Emperor Nicholas II from director Alexei Uchitel with his film "Matilda", which was developed by Orthodox activists, part of the clergy and even State Duma deputies led by Natalia Poklonskaya, created the public the illusion that being Orthodox and relating to the latter Russian emperor without trembling is impossible. However, in the Russian Orthodox Church there were and still are different opinions about his holiness.

Recall that Nicholas II, his wife, four daughters, a son and ten servants were canonized in 1981 by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia as martyrs, and then, in 2000, the royal family was recognized as holy martyrs and the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church made this decision only on the second attempt.

The first time this could have happened at a council in 1997, but then it turned out that several bishops, as well as some part of the clergy and laity, opposed the recognition of Nicholas II at once.

Last Judgment

After the fall of the USSR, church life in Russia was on the rise, and in addition to restoring churches and opening monasteries, the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate was faced with the task of “healing” the schism with white émigrés and their descendants by uniting with ROCOR.

The fact that the canonization of the royal family and other victims of the Bolsheviks in 2000 eliminated one of the contradictions between the two Churches was stated by the future Patriarch Kirill, who then headed the department for external church relations. Indeed, six years later the Churches were reunited.

“We glorified the royal family precisely as martyrs: the basis for this canonization was the innocent death accepted by Nicholas II with Christian humility, and not political activity, which was rather controversial. By the way, this cautious decision did not suit many, because someone did not want this canonization at all, and someone demanded the canonization of the sovereign as a great martyr, “ritually martyred by the Jews,” said many years later a member of the Synodal Commission for Canonization Holy Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov.

And he added: “It must be borne in mind that someone in our calendar, as it turns out at the Last Judgment, is not a saint.”

"State traitor"

The highest-ranking opponents of the emperor's canonization in the church hierarchy in the 1990s were Metropolitans of St. Petersburg and Ladoga John (Snychev) and Nikolai (Kutepov) of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas.

For Vladyka John, the tsar's worst transgression was his abdication of the throne at a critical moment for the country.

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

However, Metropolitan John died in 1995 and was unable to influence the decision of other bishops.

Metropolitan Nicholas of Nizhny Novgorod - a veteran of the Great Patriotic War who fought near Stalingrad - until the last refused Nicholas II in holiness, calling him a "traitor". Shortly after the 2000 council, he gave an interview in which he explicitly stated that he had voted against the canonization decision.

“You see, I didn’t take any steps, because if an icon has already been made, where, so to speak, the tsar-father is sitting, what is there to perform? So the issue is resolved. It is resolved without me, without you it is resolved. When all the bishops signed the act of canonization, I marked next to my mural that I signed everything except the third paragraph. In the third paragraph, the tsar-father was walking, and I did not sign under his canonization. He is a traitor. He, one might say, sanctioned the collapse of the country. And no one will convince me otherwise. He had to use force, up to the deprivation of life, because everything was handed over to him, but he considered it necessary to escape under the skirt of Alexandra Feodorovna, ”the hierarch was convinced.

As for the Orthodox "foreigners", Vladyka Nikolai spoke very harshly about them. “Escape and bark from there - no big mind is required,” he said.

Royal sins

Among the critics of the canonization of the emperor was Alexei Osipov, professor of theology at the Moscow Theological Academy, who, despite the lack of holy orders, has great authority among some Orthodox believers and bishops: dozens of the current bishops are simply his students. The professor wrote and published an entire article arguing against canonization.

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

Professor Osipov also recalled how Rasputin dishonored the royal family and interfered in the work of the Holy Synod, and that the tsar did not abolish "the anti-canonical leadership and management of the Church by the laity, introduced according to the Protestant model."

Separately, he dwelled on the religiosity of Nicholas II, which, according to Osipov, "had a distinct character of inter-confessional mysticism."

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

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

Like Metropolitans John and Nikolai, Osipov insisted that the emperor, by his abdication, "abolished the autocracy in Russia and thereby opened the direct road to the establishment of a revolutionary dictatorship."

“None of the now canonized holy new martyrs of Russia - Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitan Veniamin of St. Petersburg, Archbishop Thaddeus (Uspensky), Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov), the same Hilarion of Troitsky - none of them called the tsar a holy martyr. But they could. Moreover, in the decision of the Holy Synod regarding the abdication of the sovereign, not the slightest regret was expressed, ”concludes Alexei Osipov.

"A wise decision"

Opponents of canonization were not only in Russia, but also abroad. Among them - former prince, Archbishop of San Francisco John (Shakhovskoy). The very first primate of ROCOR, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) - a member of the Holy Synod, a witness to the revolution and one of the most respected hierarchs of his time - did not even think about canonizing the tsar, considering his tragic death as retribution for the "sins of the dynasty", whose representatives "madly proclaimed themselves the head of Churches". However, the hatred of the Bolsheviks and the desire to emphasize their cruelty turned out to be more important for the followers of Metropolitan Anthony.

Bishop Maximilian of Vologda later told reporters how Metropolitan Nikolai and other opponents of the canonization of the tsar found themselves in the minority at the 2000 council.

“Let's recall the Council of Bishops in 1997, at which the question of the canonization of the royal martyrs was discussed. Then the materials were already collected and carefully studied. Some bishops said that it was necessary to glorify the sovereign-emperor, others called for the opposite, while most of the bishops took a neutral position. At that time, the solution of the issue of the canonization of the royal martyrs, probably, could have led to a division. And His Holiness [Patriarch Alexy II] made a very wise decision. He said that the glorification should be at the Jubilee Cathedral. Three years have passed, and while talking with those bishops who were against canonization, I saw that their opinion had changed. Those who hesitated stood for canonization,” the bishop testified.

One way or another, but the opponents of the canonization of the emperor remained in the minority, and their arguments were consigned to oblivion. Although conciliar decisions are binding on all believers and now they cannot afford to openly disagree with the holiness of Nicholas II, judging by the discussions in Runet around Matilda, complete unanimity on this issue in the ranks of the Orthodox has not been achieved.

Dissenters in the ROC

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

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

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

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

Holiness Commission

In order to more clearly understand who the Passion-bearers are called in the Church, one should refer to the official clarifications from the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints. From 1989 to 2011, it was headed by Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna, during which time 1866 ascetics of piety were canonized, including 1776 new martyrs and confessors who suffered during the Soviet power.

In his report at the Council of Bishops in 2000 - the very one where the issue of the royal family was decided - Bishop Yuvenaly stated the following: “One of the main arguments of opponents of the canonization of the royal family is the assertion that the death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family cannot be recognized as a martyr for Christ. The commission, on the basis of a careful consideration of the circumstances of the death of the royal family, proposes to carry out its canonization in the guise of holy martyrs. In the liturgical and hagiographic literature of the Russian Orthodox Church, the word “passion-bearer” began to be used in relation to those Russian saints who, imitating Christ, endured with patience physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents.

“In the history of the Russian Church, such martyrs were the holy noble princes Boris and Gleb (1015), Igor Chernigov (1147), Andrei Bogolyubsky (1174), Mikhail of Tverskoy (1319), Tsarevich Dimitri (1591). All of them, with their feat of passion-bearers, showed a high example of Christian morality and patience,” he noted.

The proposal was accepted, and the council decided to recognize the emperor, his wife and children as holy martyrs, despite the fact that the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad in 1981 had already recognized the entire royal family and even its servants as “full-fledged” martyrs, among whom was the Catholic valet Aloysius Troupe and Lutheran Goflektress Ekaterina Schneider. The latter died not with the royal family in Yekaterinburg, but two months later in Perm. History knows no other examples of the canonization of Catholics and Protestants by the Orthodox Church.

unholy saints

Meanwhile, the canonization of a Christian in the rank of martyr or passion-bearer in no way whitewashes his entire biography as a whole. Thus, in 1169, the Holy Passion-Bearer Grand Duke Andrei Bogolyubsky ordered Kiev, the “mother of Russian cities,” to be taken by storm, after which houses, churches and monasteries were mercilessly looted and destroyed, which made a terrible impression on contemporaries.

In the list of holy martyrs, one can also find such people as Barbarian Lukansky, who for the first part of his life was engaged in robberies, robberies and murders, and then suddenly believed in God, repented and died as a result of an accident - passing merchants mistook him in the tall grass for a dangerous animal and shot. Yes, and according to the Gospel, the robber crucified on the right hand of Christ was the first to enter paradise, who himself recognized the justice of the sentence pronounced on him, but managed to repent a few hours before his death.

The stubborn fact that most of the life and entire reign of Emperor Nicholas, right up to his abdication and exile, is by no means an example of holiness, was also openly recognized at the 2000 council. “Summing up the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian emperor, the Commission did not find in this activity alone sufficient grounds for his canonization. It seems necessary to emphasize that the canonization of the monarch is in no way connected with the monarchist ideology, and even more so does not mean the “canonization” of the monarchical form of government,” Metropolitan Yuvenaly concluded then.

ROYAL PASSION BEARERS. WHAT IS EMPEROR NICHOLAS II AND HIS FAMILY CANONIZED FOR?

In 2000 the last Russian emperor Nicholas II and his family were canonized by the Russian Church as holy martyrs. Their canonization in the West, in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, took place even earlier, in 1981. And although holy princes are not uncommon in the Orthodox tradition, this canonization is still in doubt among some. Why is the last Russian monarch glorified in the face of saints? Does his life and the life of his family speak in favor of canonization, and what were the arguments against it? The veneration of Nicholas II as the king-redeemer - an extreme or a pattern?

We are talking about this with a member of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, the rector of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University, Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov.

The family of Nicholas II: Alexandra Feodorovna and children - Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia and Alexei. 1913

Death as an argument

- Father Vladimir, where does such a term - royal passion-bearers come from? 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 that although the family of Tsar Nicholas II was deeply religious, ecclesiastical and pious, all its members performed their prayer rule daily, regularly communed 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 perceived suffering and violent death caused by persecutors Orthodox faith with incredible cruelty. But still, it was necessary to clearly understand and clearly articulate why exactly the royal family was killed. Maybe it was just a political assassination? Then they cannot be called martyrs. However, both among the people and in the commission there was a consciousness and a sense of the holiness of their feat. Since the noble princes Boris and Gleb, called martyrs, were glorified as the first saints in Russia, and their murder was also not directly related to their faith, the idea arose to discuss the glorification of the family of Tsar Nicholas II in the same face.

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

- No, they do not. The very word "royal" in its meaning can only be attributed to the family of the king in the narrow sense. After all, relatives did not reign, they were even titled differently than members of the sovereign's family. In addition, Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna Romanova, the sister of Empress Alexandra, and her cell-attendant Varvara can be called precisely martyrs for the faith. Elizaveta Feodorovna was the wife of the Governor-General of Moscow, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich Romanov, but after his assassination she was not involved in state power. She devoted her life to the cause of Orthodox mercy and prayer, founded and built the Martha and Mary Convent, and led the community of her sisters. Varvara, the sister of the monastery, shared her suffering and death with her. The connection of their suffering with faith is quite obvious, and both of them were 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 martyrs.

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

— Canonization generally takes place in the most obvious and instructive cases. Not all the murdered 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 Tsar 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 epoch-making, it strikes with its satanic hatred and cruelty, leaves a feeling of a mystical event - the reprisal of evil with the God-established order of life of the Orthodox people.

What were the criteria for canonization? What were the arguments for and against?

- The Commission on Canonization worked on this issue for a very long time, very meticulously checked all the arguments "for" and "against". At that time there were many opponents of the canonization of the king. Someone said that this should not be done because Tsar Nicholas II was "bloody", he was charged with 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 at that time was not in St. Petersburg at all, 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 dropped. All other "against" arguments were considered in a similar way, until it became clear that there were no weighty counter-arguments. The royal family was canonized not just because they were killed, but because they accepted the torment with humility, in a Christian way, without resistance. They could have taken advantage of those offers to flee abroad, which were made to him in advance. But they deliberately didn't want to.

Why can't their murder be called purely political?

- The royal family personified the idea of an Orthodox kingdom, and the Bolsheviks not only wanted to destroy possible contenders for the royal throne, they hated this symbol - the Orthodox tsar. 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 “outside bishop of the church.” And in the synodal period, in the “Basic Laws of the Empire” published in 1832 (Articles 43 and 44), it was said: “The Emperor, like a Christian Sovereign, is the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas of the dominant faith and the guardian of orthodoxy and every 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 sovereign and his family were ready to suffer for Orthodox Russia, for the faith, they understood their suffering in this way. The Holy Righteous Father John of Kronstadt wrote back in 1905: “Our Tsar of a 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 duty to govern the state, this does not mean that he renounced his royal dignity. Until his successor was appointed to the kingdom, in the minds of the whole people he still remained the king, and his family remained the royal family. They themselves perceived themselves as such, and the Bolsheviks perceived them in 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 persecute 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 its king, and a liturgical rite of anointing with holy chrism to the kingdom was performed over him. From this anointing, which was the blessing of God on the most difficult service to the Orthodox people and Orthodoxy in general, the pious sovereign Nicholas II could not refuse without having a successor, and everyone understood this very well.

The sovereign, transferring power to his brother, withdrew from 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 person, and the very idea of \u200b\u200bstruggle for power was absolutely alien to him. He hoped that the transfer of the throne in favor of brother Michael (subject to his anointing to the throne) would calm the unrest and thereby benefit Russia. This example of refusal to fight for power in the name of the well-being of one's country, one's people is very instructive for the modern world.

The royal train, in which Nicholas II signed the abdication of the throne.

- Did he somehow mention these views of his in diaries, letters?

- Yes, but it is evident from his very actions. He could have sought to emigrate, to go to a safe place, to organize a reliable guard, to secure 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 faith that the fate of Russia, my own fate and the fate of my family are in the hands of the Lord. Whatever happens, I bow to His will." Already shortly before his suffering, the sovereign said: “I would not want 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 Sovereign wrote: “Perhaps an expiatory sacrifice is needed to save Russia: I will be this sacrifice - may the will of God be done!”

“Many see renunciation as an ordinary weakness…

Yes, some people see this as a manifestation of weakness: a powerful man, strong in the usual sense of the word, would not abdicate. But for Emperor Nicholas II, strength was 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 hardly possible to keep it. But holy humility, with which he abdicated the throne and then accepted a martyr's death, and now contributes to the conversion of the whole 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 church-going people, but still they are not militant atheists. Grand Duchess Olga wrote from imprisonment in the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg: “Father asks me to tell all those who remained devoted to him, and those on whom they can influence, so that they do not avenge him - he has forgiven everyone and prays 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 overcome evil, but only love. And, perhaps, the image of a humble martyr king moved our people to repentance and faith to a greater extent than a strong and powerful politician could do.

Room of the Grand Duchesses in the Ipatiev House

Revolution: catastrophe inevitable?

- Did the way the last Romanovs lived, how they believed, influenced 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 disposition of the sovereign himself and his family - diaries, letters, memoirs. Their faith is attested by all who knew them and by many of their deeds. It is known that Emperor Nicholas II built many churches and monasteries, he, the Empress and their children were deeply religious people, regularly partaking of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. In conclusion, they constantly prayed and prepared in a Christian way for their martyrdom, and three days before their death, the guards allowed the priest to celebrate the liturgy in the Ipatiev House, at which all members of the royal family took communion. In the same place, Grand Duchess Tatiana in one of her books underlined the lines: “Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ went to their death, as if on a holiday, facing inevitable death, retaining the same wondrous peace of mind that did not leave them for a minute. They walked calmly towards death because they hoped to enter into a different, spiritual life, opening up for a person beyond the grave. And the Sovereign wrote: “I firmly believe that the Lord will have mercy on Russia and pacify passions in the end. May His Holy Will be done." It is also well known what place in their lives was occupied by 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.

- Very different attitudes towards Emperor Nicholas II today: from accusations of lack of will and political failure to veneration as a redeeming king. Is it possible to find a golden mean?

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

- What can be answered to 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. So they begin to reformulate certain 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 to Russia…

—Only the feat of the New Martyrs alone was able to withstand the rampant evil that Russia was subjected to. Great people stood at the head of this martyr's army: Patriarch Tikhon, the greatest saints, such as Metropolitan Peter, Metropolitan Kirill and, of course, Tsar Nicholas II and his family. These are such great images! And the more time passes, the clearer will be their greatness and their significance.

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 - a lot of mountains, ridges, peaks. And when you move away from these mountains, then all the smaller ridges go beyond the horizon, but only one huge snow cap remains above this horizon. And you understand: here is the dominant!

So it is here: time passes, and we are convinced that these new saints of ours were really 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, by his human will, restrain what was happening then in Russia.

- Why?

“Because the cause of the revolution was the condition of the whole people, the condition of the Church—I mean the human side of it. We often tend to idealize that time, but in fact, everything was far from cloudless. Our people took 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 - the great merit of the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod K. F. Pobedonostsev - was created only towards the end of the 19th century. This, of course, is a great thing, the people began to learn to read and write precisely under the Church, but this happened too late.

Much can be listed. One thing is clear: faith has become largely ritual. The difficult state of the soul of the people, if I may say so, was testified by many saints of that time - first of all, St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov), the holy righteous John of Kronstadt. They foresaw that this would lead to disaster.

Did Tsar Nicholas II 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 is happening in the country when his uncle, Sergei Alexandrovich Romanov, was killed right by the Kremlin with 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 a riot, so that they had to be temporarily closed? This speaks volumes about the state of the Church and the country. For several decades before the revolution, systematic persecution took place in society: faith, the royal family were persecuted in the press, terrorists attempted to kill the rulers ...

- You want to say that it is impossible to blame only Nicholas II for the troubles that have fallen on the country?

- Yes, that's right - he was destined to be born and reign at that time, he could no longer change the situation simply by exerting his will, 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, mentally suffered long before the revolution. He tried to defend Russia with kindness and love, he did it consistently, and this position led him to martyrdom.

Basement of the Ipatiev house, Yekaterinburg. On the night of July 16-17, 1918, Emperor Nicholas II was shot here along with his family and household

What are these saints?

- 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 still have a very strong effect. They say that Moses wandered in the desert with his people for forty years because the generation that lived in Egypt and was brought up in slavery had 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 stamps that were planted from childhood, which owned people. I knew many representatives of the older generation - among them priests and even one bishop - who still found 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, which they perceived from 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 persecutions began, anarchy, Civil War; when the famine came in the Volga region, repressions unfolded, etc. - apparently, somehow it turned out to be linked in the young perception of the people of that time with the weakness of power, with the fact that there was no real leader among the people 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 uncle, a priest, was canonized as a new martyr - he was shot for his faith. When she was told about this, she was surprised: “How ?! No, of course he was a very good man, but what kind of a saint is he? That is, it is not so easy for us to accept the people with whom we live as saints, because for us the 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 of great importance.

- In 1991, the remains of the royal family were found and buried in Peter and Paul Fortress. But the Church doubts their authenticity. Why?

- Yes, there was a very long debate about the authenticity of these remains, many examinations were carried out abroad. Some of them confirmed the authenticity of these remains, while others confirmed the not very obvious reliability of the examinations themselves, that is, an insufficiently clear scientific organization of the process was recorded. Therefore, our Church has evaded the solution of this issue and left it open: it does not risk accepting what has not been sufficiently verified. There are fears that by taking one position or another, the Church will become vulnerable, because there is no sufficient basis for an unambiguous decision.

Cross at the construction site of the temple of the Sovereign Icon Mother of God, Monastery of the Royal Passion-Bearers on Ganina Yama. Photo provided by the press service of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia

End crowns the work

- Father Vladimir, I see that 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 many times...

I think if you take it seriously, you can't help but feel, see the greatness of this feat and be fascinated by these wonderful images - the sovereign, the empress and their children. Their life was full of difficulties, sorrows, but it was wonderful! In what severity the children were brought up, how they all knew how to work! How not to 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 already be canonized, for their meekness, modesty, readiness to serve, for their loving hearts and mercy. After all, they were very modest people, unpretentious, they never aspired to glory, they lived the way God set them, in the conditions in which they were placed. And in everything they were distinguished by amazing modesty, obedience. No one has ever heard them display any passionate character traits. On the contrary, a Christian dispensation of the heart was nurtured in them—peaceful, chaste. It is enough even just to look at photographs of the royal family, they themselves already show an amazing inner appearance - of the sovereign, and the empress, and the grand duchesses, and Tsarevich Alexei. The point is not only in education, but also in their very life, which corresponded to their faith and prayer. They were real Orthodox people: as they believed, so they lived, as they thought, so they acted. But there is a saying: "The end crowns the deed." “In whatever I find, in that I will judge,” says the Holy Scripture on behalf of God.

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

Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov

Interview of Deacon Andrey Kuraev to Vsluh magazine

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

O.S. That is, the fact that the king once abdicated, in modern terms, did not benefit his historical image?

A.K. Undoubtedly. And the fact that the canonization still took place ... The Church's position here was quite clear: it was not the form of the reign of Nicholas II that was canonized, but the image of his death, if you like, leaving the political arena. After all, he had every reason to become embittered, freaked out, the last months of his life, while under arrest, seethe with anger and blame everyone and everything. But none of this happened. We have his personal diaries, diaries of his family members, memoirs of guards, servants, and we see that nowhere is there a shadow of a desire to take revenge, they say, I will return to power and I will nail you all. In general, sometimes the greatness of a person is sometimes determined by the amount of losses suffered by him.

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

O.S. And what is the symbolism?

A.K. XX was terrible age for Russian Christianity. And you can not leave it without summing up some results. Since this was the age of martyrs, there were two ways to go about canonization: try to glorify all the new martyrs, in the words of Anna Akhmatova, “I would like to call everyone by name, but they took away the list and did not recognize everyone.” Or to canonize a certain Unknown Soldier, to honor one innocently shot Cossack family, and with it millions of others. But this way for the church consciousness would probably be too radical. Moreover, in Russia there has always been a certain identity “king-people”. Therefore, given that the royal family could again say about themselves in the words of Anna Akhmatova:

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

canonization of the martyr king Nicholas II- this is the canonization of "Ivan the Hundred Thousand". There is also a special overtone here. I will try to explain this almost with a personal example.

Let's say I was visiting in another city. Stayed with my father. Then we had a heated discussion with this priest: whose vodka is better - Moscow-made or local. We found a consensus only by agreeing to go through trial and error. We tried, tasted, agreed, in the end, that both are good, and then, before going to bed, I went out for a walk in the city. Moreover, under the windows of the priest there was a city park. But the priest did not warn me that satanists were gathering under the windows at night. And in the evening I go out into the garden, and the Satanists look at me and think: what a well-fed calf our lord sent as a sacrifice to us! And they kill me. And here is the question: if something similar happened to me, and, I emphasize, I myself did not strive for martyrdom, I was not very spiritually prepared, I tasted vodka and met my death like that, to determine my posthumous fate at God's judgment, whether does it matter what I was wearing that day? Secular reaction: what difference does it make what he wears, the main thing is what is in his heart, in his soul, and so on. But I think that in this case it is much more important what the clothes were. If I were in civilian clothes in this park, it would be “everyday life”. And if I walked in church clothes, then people whom I personally do not know, who have no personal claims against me, they threw out on me the hatred that they have for the Church and for Christ. In this case, it turned out that I suffered for Christ. It's the same with the royal family. Let lawyers argue among themselves whether Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov was a tsar in 18 or just a private individual, a retired colonel. But, in the eyes of the people who shot him, he certainly was an emperor. And then they wrote memoirs all their lives and told the pioneers about how the last Russian tsar was killed. Therefore, it is obvious to the Church that this man is a martyr for our faith, as well as his family.

O.S. And family too?
A.K. Likewise. It is possible for the ruler of Russia, Nicholas II, to present some political claims, but what do children have to do with it? Moreover, in the 80s there were voices that, they say, let's at least canonize children, what are they to blame for?

O.S. What is the sanctity of a martyr in the church's understanding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

A.K. No, I wouldn't say that. Beginning in 1988, Andrei Rublev, Ksenia of Petersburg, Theophan the Recluse, Maxim Grek, and the Georgian poet Ilya Chavchavadze were canonized.

O.S. And there were cases of canonization associated with the Great Patriotic War, besieged Leningrad?
A.K. No, oddly enough, I haven't come across anything like this yet. Still, a martyr is not the one who sacrificed himself, even if religiously motivated, died a terrible death, suffered innocently. This is the one who faced a clear choice: faith or death. During the war, people in most cases did not have such a choice.

O.S. Did the king have a cardinal choice?

A.K. This is one of the most difficult questions canonization. Unfortunately, it is not completely known to what extent he was attracted, to what extent something depended on him. Another thing is that every minute he was able to choose whether to feed his soul with revenge or not. There is another aspect of this situation. Church thinking is precedent thinking. What happened once can serve as an example to follow. How to explain this to people so that they do not take an example from him? It's really difficult. Imagine: an ordinary school principal. She has converted to Orthodoxy and is trying to educate the children in her school accordingly. Excursions turn into Orthodox pilgrimages. Invites the father to school holidays. Chooses Orthodox teachers. This causes dissatisfaction of some students, parents, teachers. And then the higher authorities. And then some deputy invites her to his place and says: “You know, a complaint against you. Violate the law on secular education, invite a priest. Therefore, you know, so that now there would be no scandal, write a letter of resignation now, don’t worry about the school, here Sarah Isaakovna is standing, she perfectly understands how Russian children should be educated, and how they should not be educated. She will be appointed to your place, and you will sign a waiver of the position. What is this director to do? She is an Orthodox person, she cannot give up her beliefs so easily. But, on the other hand, she remembers that there was a man who humbly gave up power. And the children will be taught by Sarah Isaakovna, who will educate them at best - in a secular version, at worst - simply anti-Christian. Therefore, I consider it very important to explain here that in the case of the emperor, this would be foolishness.

O.S. Like this?

A.K. A holy fool is a person who violates church and secular laws in order to fulfill the will of God. At that moment, it was obviously the will of God that Russia should pass through that by the way of the cross which had to pass. At the same time, each of us still should not push Russia to take this step. Simply put, if there is the will of God, then one must be ready to fulfill it in the most unexpected way. And we must also remember that foolishness and orphanhood, in this case foolishness, does not cancel the law. The law is clear: the position of the emperor is that he is given a sword, so that he can defend his people and his faith with the power of the state sword. And the task of the emperor is not to fold the sword, but to be able to wield it well. In this case, Emperor Constantine XXII, the last Byzantine emperor, who, when the Turks had already broken through the walls of Constantinople in 1453, took off his royal regalia, remained in the clothes of a simple soldier and, with a sword rushing into the midst of opponents, he found his death there. This behavior is much clearer to me than renunciation, refusal. So the behavior of Emperor Constantine is the law, this is the norm. The behavior of Emperor Nicholas is foolishness.

O.S. Well, in Russia there were many all kinds of blessed ones, but so that ...

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

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

A.K. That is what means a lot. Moreover, canonization cannot take place earlier than 50 years, so that the memory can stand.

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

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

O.S. So, the royal family was simply included in some special lists, or were there other procedures?

A.K. No, there was also the blessing of an icon, a prayer… This is very important, because in the early 1990s other prayers already appeared, both literary and theologically completely illiterate.

O.S. I have heard the expression “an unprayed icon”. Is it possible to consider an icon depicting the royal family as “prayerful” How do believers treat it?

A.K. Suppose the church does not know such an expression. And the icon has already become familiar in homes and churches. She is approached by the most different people. The canonization of the royal family is the canonization of the family, which is very good, because we have almost no holy families in the holy calendar. What is important here is that this is a large family, about which we know a lot. Therefore, this nepotism is dear to many people.

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

A.K. No matter how many opinions there are, no one seems to have accused anyone of adultery.

Olga Sevastyanova spoke with Deacon Andrei Kuraev.