Church status of Nicholas 2. Orthodox against Nicholas II: for which the king was recognized as a saint

13.10.2019

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

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

Act of the Jubilee Bishops' Council on the conciliar glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the 20th century
1. To glorify for general church veneration in the face of saints the Cathedral of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia of the 20th century, known by name and until now not revealed to the world, but led by God.

Here we see that the frequent objection "many people were killed, why only the king is remembered" is unfounded. First of all, it is the unknown who are glorified.

2. To include in the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia the names of those who suffered for their faith, the testimonies of which were received:
from the Alma-Ata diocese:
Metropolitan of Alma-Ata Nicholas (Mogilevsky; 1877-1955)
Metropolitan Evgeny of Gorky (Zernov; 1877-1937)
Archbishop of Voronezh Zakhary (Lobov, 1865-1937)

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

3. To glorify as martyrs in the host of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia 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 sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the sufferings endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 4 (17), 1918, the light of Christ's faith conquering evil was revealed, just as it shone in life and death millions of Orthodox Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the 20th century.

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

Report on the work of the Commission Rev. Synod for the canonization of saints on the issue of martyrdom royal family

Being anointed to the Kingdom, endowed with full power, Emperor Nicholas II was responsible for all the events that took place in his state, both before his people and before God. Therefore, a certain share of personal responsibility for historical mistakes like the events of January 9, 1905 - and this topic was devoted to a special report adopted by the Commission - lies with the Emperor himself, although it cannot be measured by the degree of his participation, or rather non-participation in these events.
Another example of the actions of the Emperor, which had ill effects for the fate of Russia and the Royal Family itself, was his relationship with Rasputin - and this was shown in the study "The Royal Family and G. E. Rasputin". Indeed, how could it happen that such a figure as Rasputin could influence the Royal Family and the Russian state-political life of his time? The key to the Rasputin phenomenon lies in the illness of Tsarevich Alexy. Although it is known that the Sovereign repeatedly tried to get rid of Rasputin, but every time he retreated under pressure from the Empress because of the need to seek help from Rasputin to heal the Heir. It can be said that the Emperor was unable to resist Alexandra Feodorovna, tormented by grief because of the illness of her son and, in connection with this, was under the influence of Rasputin.
Summing up the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian Emperor, the Commission did not find sufficient grounds for his canonization.
However, in the Orthodox Church there are known cases of canonization of saints, even those Christians who led a sinful life after baptism. Their canonization was carried out precisely because they atoned for their sins not only by repentance, but also by a special feat - martyrdom or asceticism.

Interview 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. Circumstances were too unusual recent years life of the Russian emperor. 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, that the king at one time renounced, saying modern language, 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 a great era, “about a life that looks poor, but great under the sign of the losses suffered.” Imagine on the street in the crowd we see unknown 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 master of the country, which 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. The 20th century was a terrible century 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. When they left the caves, it became clear from what they said that these children were miraculous thus missed one and a half hundred years. It has never been a problem for the Church to accept among the living people who were considered dead. Moreover, 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 issues of canonization. Unfortunately, it is not completely known to what extent he was attracted, to what extent something depended on him. Another thing is that every minute he was able to choose whether to feed his soul with revenge or not. There is another aspect 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 will 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 raised, and how they should not be raised. 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.

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

In 2000, the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II and his family were canonized by the Russian Church as holy martyrs. Their canonization in the West, in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, took place even earlier, in 1981. And although the holy princes in Orthodox tradition not uncommon, this canonization is still in some doubts. 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 the secretary of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, the rector of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University, Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov.

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 glorification of 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 daily prayer rule, 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 Christian perception 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 his renunciation of 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 renunciation, would lose his royal dignity and become ordinary person, then why and who would need to pursue 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 manifested the blessing of God on the most difficult service 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.

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

- Yes, but it is evident from his very actions. He might aspire to emigrate, go to safe place, organize reliable security, secure the 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 tsar 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 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.

What are these saints?

— Father Vladimir, in Soviet time, 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. It is said 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 the generation that lived under Soviet power, not very easy to change your 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 Russian Empire, although the First World War promised to end victoriously for Russia; when terrible persecution, anarchy, civil war began; 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 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.

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 treat it with attention, seriously, then you can’t help but feel, see the greatness of this feat and not be fascinated by these wonderful images - the sovereign, the empress and their children. Their life was full of difficulties, sorrows, but it was 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. They were very humble people, unpretentious, never aspired to glory, lived as 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 traits of character. 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 what I find, in that I judge,” says Holy Bible from the face 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.

The interview is printed in abbreviated form. Full version read in the special issue of the magazine "Foma" "The Romanovs: 400 years in history" (2013)

Valeria Mikhailova (Posashko)

In Russia, many people at the end of the XIX century. it was believed that for a long time in the history of the country a simple principle (or, as they would say now, an algorithm) operated: a good ruler was replaced by a bad one, but the next one was good. Let's remember: Peter III was bad and very unpopular, Catherine II went down in history as the Great, Paul I was killed, Alexander I defeated Napoleon and was very popular, Nicholas I was feared, Alexander II carried out great reforms, and Alexander III - counter-reforms. Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894, at the age of 26, received a good education. He was expected to continue reforms, primarily the completion of political reforms.

Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna in costumes from the era of Mikhail Romanov

Nicholas II was born in 1868 and as a teenager was present at the death of his grandfather, Alexander the Liberator. In 1894, after the death of his father, he came to the throne. In 1917 he was overthrown from the throne, and in 1918 he was shot without trial together with his family in Yekaterinburg.

He received a good education, made a good impression on those around him with his manners. Nicholas himself and many of his entourage believed that at the age of 26 he was "not ready to rule." He was strongly influenced by relatives, uncles, the dowager empress, the most influential finance minister S.Yu. “The tsar was a rag, without a single thought in his head, frail, despised by everyone,” Ernest Feterlein, admiral, head of the decryption service until 1917 in Russia, and after 1917 in England, characterized Nikolai.

During his lifetime, Nicholas was called "bloody". In 1896, during the coronation celebrations in Moscow, during the distribution of royal gifts on the Khodynka field, a stampede arose in which more than a thousand people died. On January 9, 1905, a peaceful procession was shot in St. Petersburg. On the day of Bloody Sunday, more than 1,500 people died and more than 5,000 people were injured. During the mediocre Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905, to which the tsar was pushed by his closest personal entourage, more than 200 thousand Russian soldiers died. More than 30 thousand people became victims of repressions by the gendarmerie, police, cartel expeditions, and pogroms inspired by the tsarist police. During the First World War of 1914-1918, in which Russia was drawn into due to short-sighted, inconsistent and indecisive foreign policy Nicholas II, Russia had already lost 2 million killed and 4 million maimed by the time the tsar was overthrown.

“The people forgave him Khodynka; he was surprised, but did not murmur against the Japanese war, and at the beginning of the war with Germany he treated it with touching confidence. But all this was imputed to nothing, and the interests of the Motherland were sacrificed to the shameful orgy of rasputinism and the avoidance of family scenes by the power-hungry hysteria. The absence of a heart that would tell him how cruelly and dishonorably he brought Russia to the brink of destruction is also reflected in the lack of self-esteem, thanks to which, amid the humiliation, abuse and misfortune of all those close to him, he continues to drag out his miserable life, unable to die with honor in defending one’s historical rights or yielding to the legitimate demands of the country,” wrote Anatoly Fedorovich Koni (1844-1927), a lawyer, writer, senator, member of the State Council, honorary academician of the Pushkin Department of Fine Literature of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, in his declining years.

In Soviet times, there was such an anecdote. With the introduction of the title of Hero of Socialist Labor in 1938, one of the first to receive this title was Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov (posthumously). With the wording "For the creation of a revolutionary situation in Russia."

This anecdote reflects a sad historical reality. Nicholas II inherited from his father a rather powerful country and an excellent assistant - the outstanding Russian reformer S. Yu. Witte. Witte was dismissed because he opposed Russia's involvement in the war with Japan. Defeat in Russo-Japanese War accelerated the revolutionary processes - the first Russian revolution took place. Witte was replaced by the strong-willed and decisive P. A. Stolypin. He began reforms that were supposed to turn Russia into a decent bourgeois-monarchical state. Stolypin categorically objected to any action that could drag Russia into a new war. Stolypin died. A new big war led Russia to a new, big revolution in 1917. It turns out that Nicholas II, with his own hands, contributed to the emergence of two revolutionary situations in Russia.

Nevertheless, in 2000, he and his family were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as saints. The attitude towards the personality of Nicholas II in Russian society is polar, although the official media did everything to portray the last Russian Tsar as "white and fluffy." During the reign of Boris N. Yeltsin, the found remains of the royal family were buried in the aisle of the Peter and Paul Cathedral.

Curious about what activities the last Russian tsar, even biased media can write little about his personal contribution to solving the country's diverse problems. Everything more or less reasonable, promising and important that appeared during the reign of Nicholas II (parliament, the legalization of political parties and trade unions, the reduction of the working day, the introduction of social insurance, the development of cooperation, preparations for the introduction of universal primary education, etc.) was the result of his own positions, and often took place in spite of his active resistance. “Remember one thing: never trust him, he is the most false person in the world,” said I. L. Goremykin, who twice served as chairman of the Council of Ministers under Nicholas II, with knowledge of the matter.

After the revolution of 1917, the elderly Ivan Logginovich Goremykin was killed by peasants from the villages adjacent to his estate.

From a purely human point of view, Nikolai Romanov can be understood and pitied. After four daughters, his beloved wife gave birth to a son, who turned out to be sick with hemophilia (blood incoagulability). The child suffered terribly. At that time, people with hemophilia rarely survived to adulthood. “The illness of the heir was a terrible blow to the sovereign and empress. I will not exaggerate if I say that grief undermined the health of the Empress, she was never able to get rid of the feeling of responsibility for her son's illness. The sovereign himself aged many years in a year, and those who closely observed could not fail to notice that disturbing thoughts never left him, ”wrote A. A. Vyrubova, a lady-in-waiting very close to the royal family, about the situation.

It seems that the family tragedy pushed all other problems into the background for the royal couple. Can the supreme ruler of a huge state afford it? The answer is unequivocal. “There is cowardice, treachery and deception all around,” Nicholas II wrote in his diary on the day of his abdication. And what did he, I wonder, count on if he didn’t care about anyone or anything? The tsar realized that the commanders of the fronts did not support him. The doctor told him that the prince was unlikely to live another couple of years. And the king signed the Manifesto on abdication. “He did it with the same ease as if he had surrendered the squadron,” one of the eyewitnesses recalled.

“The fate of Alexei strikes with some kind of gloomy paradox - the long years of the struggle of parents and doctors to save the life of a seriously ill child ended in an instant brutal reprisal,” writes the author of the special work, Barbara Berne.

From that moment on, the tsar became a private person, a citizen of the Romanovs. His canonization will remain a highly controversial decision of the Russian Orthodox Church, since at least the life of Nicholas II was by no means the life of a holy man, and his death was the result of a struggle of many forces. For some, the deceased emperor was more desirable than a prosperous pensioner somewhere in England, where the English did not want to accept the royal family. The Royal Family. By the way, none of the more than 100 clergymen went into exile in Siberia with the imperial family. Yes, and the Russian Orthodox Church successfully took advantage of the situation in order to restore the patriarchate in general in the absence of a tsar and a strong government.

The burial of the king in the Peter and Paul Cathedral also seems to be overkill. Under pre-revolutionary legislation, a private person could not be buried with rulers who died "in the line of duty."

The only consolation is that the fuss of the members of the Romanov dynasty around the empty throne has almost stopped. They know that under the Law of Succession, one of the most important laws Russian Empire, none of the remaining Romanovs have legal rights to the throne. Does Russia need a new dynasty? This is another question.

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

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

Main dates

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

background

Execution

Main article: The execution of the royal family

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

List of victims:

Almost immediately after the announcement of the execution of the tsar and his family, moods began to arise in the believing layers of Russian society, which eventually led to canonization.

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

The almost mystical respect for the anointed one, characteristic of the people, the tragic circumstances of his death at the hands of enemies, and the pity caused by the death of innocent children - all this became components from which the attitude towards the royal family gradually grew not as victims of political struggle, but as to Christian martyrs. As the Russian Orthodox Church notes, “the veneration of the Royal Family, begun by Tikhon, continued - despite the prevailing ideology - throughout several decades of the Soviet period of our history. 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. There are no statistics on how widespread this veneration was.

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

In the 1980s, even in Russia, voices began to be heard about the official canonization of at least the executed children (unlike Nicholas and Alexandra, their 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 Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, another victim of the Bolsheviks, was canonized. However, there were also many opponents of canonization.

Arguments against canonization

Canonization of the royal family

catacomb church

Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

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

ROC

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

In 1992, by the decision of the Council of Bishops of March 31 - April 4, the Synodal Commission for the canonization of saints was instructed “when studying the exploits of the New Martyrs of Russia, begin researching materials related to the martyrdom of the Royal Family”. From 1992 to 1997, the Commission, headed by Metropolitan Yuvenaly, devoted 19 meetings to this topic, in between which the members of the commission carried out in-depth research work to study various aspects of the life of the Royal Family. At the Council of Bishops in 1994, the report of the chairman of the commission outlined the position on a number of studies completed by that time.

The results of the 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 with 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 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 2000, at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church, the royal family was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as a saint as part of the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, revealed and unmanifested (in total, including 860 people). The final decision was made on August 14 at a meeting in the hall of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, and until the very last moment it was not known whether the canonization would take place or not. They voted by standing up, and the decision was taken unanimously. The only church hierarch who spoke out against the canonization of the royal family was Metropolitan Nikolai (Kutepov) of Nizhny Novgorod: “ when all the bishops signed the act of canonization, I 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.» The rite of canonization was performed on August 20, 2000.

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 sought 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 that conquered 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 holy calendar.”

Arguments for canonization, taken into account by the ROC

Refutation of the arguments of opponents of canonization

Aspects of canonization

Question about the face of holiness

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

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

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 among the canonized who, together with the Royal Family, was martyred, the royal servant of the Roman Catholic Aloysius Egorovich Trupp and the Lutheran goflektriss Ekaterina Adolfovna Schneider”.

The position of the Russian Orthodox Church itself regarding the canonization of servants is as follows: “Due to the fact that they voluntarily stayed with the Royal Family and accepted martyrdom, 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 footman I. D. Sednev, maid of honor of the Empress A. V. Gendrikov and goflektriss E. A. Schneider. 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 may be to perpetuate 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 classify the suffered servants as the same, since, as one of the members of the Commission stated in an interview, “since ancient times, the rank of martyrs has been applied only to representatives of grand ducal and royal families” .

Society's reaction to canonization

Positive

Negative

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

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

Icons

Iconography

There is both a collective image of the whole family, and each of the members individually. In the icons of the “foreign” model, canonized servants join the Romanovs. Passion-bearers can be depicted both in contemporary clothes of the early twentieth century, and in stylized Ancient Russia robes, in style reminiscent of royal robes with parsun.

The figures of the Saint Romanovs are also found in the multi-figure icons "Cathedral of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia" and "Cathedral of the Saint Patrons 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 (“The 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 the study of the conclusions regarding the "Yekaterinburg remains" falls entirely on the Republican Center for Forensic Research and the Prosecutor General's Office 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.

Revered as the relics of relics with a clearer origin, for example, the hair of Nicholas, cut off at the age of three.

Declared miracles of royal martyrs

Descent of the miraculous fire. As stated, 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 bowl with the Holy Gifts to the altar, there was no one near the throne, and many parishioners saw how the petals 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

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

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

Main article: The doctrine of the king-redeemer

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 unfaithfulness of his people”; critics refer to this concept as the "royal heresy".

Notes

Tsar Martyr
? Emperor Nicholas II and his family canonized as saints
? Osipov A. I. On the canonization of the last Russian Tsar
Shargunov A. Miracles of the Royal Martyrs. M. 1995. S. 49
? Blessed Tsar Nikolai Alexandrovich and his family on pravoslavie.ru
? Grounds for the canonization of the royal family. From the report of Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna, chairman of the synodal commission for the canonization of saints. www.pravoslavie.ru
CHRONICLE OF HONORING THE HOLY ROYAL PASSION BEARERS IN THE URALS: HISTORY AND PRESENT
Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh. On the canonization of the royal family as saints // Russian Thought, September 6, 1991 // Reprint: Izvestia. August 14, 2000
? He had every reason to be embittered… Interview of Deacon Andrey Kuraev to the Vslukh magazine. Journal "Orthodoxy and Peace". Mon, 17 Jul 2006
? Russian Bulletin. Explanation of the canonization of the royal family
From an interview with Mr. Nizhny Novgorod Nikolai Kutepov (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, section Figures and Faces, 26.4.2001
The rite of canonization of the newly glorified saints took place in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior Orthodoxy.Ru
Metropolitan Yuvenaly: We have received 22,873 appeals in three years
Protopresbyter Michael Polsky. New Russian martyrs. Jordanville: T. I, 1943; T. II, 1957. (Abridged English edition of The new martyrs of Russia. Montreal, 1972. 137 p.)
Inok Vsevolod (Filipiev). Way of the Holy Fathers. Patrology. Jordanville, M., 2007, p. 535.
"On Tsar John the Terrible" (Appendix to the report of Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna, Chairman of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints
Akathist to the Holy Tsar-Redeemer Nicholas II
Kuraev A. The temptation that comes "from the right". M .: Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2005. S. 67
The Voronezh diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church MP accused the members of the group of "nationwide repentance for the sin of regicide" of commercial aspirations
The martyrdom of the emperor is the main reason for his canonization
The canonization of the royal family eliminated one of the contradictions between the Russian and Russian Churches Abroad