Why Nicholas II was canonized. Russian history in faces

13.10.2019

On August 20, 2000, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow, in the presence of the heads and representatives of all Orthodox Autocephalous Churches, a glorification took place Royal Family in full force. The deed on the conciliar glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia of the 20th century reads: “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 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 the life and death of millions Orthodox Christians who endured persecution for Christ in the 20th century.

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

No matter how many excellent books and articles about Nicholas II and the Royal Family are published, which are documented studies of professional historians, no matter how many documentaries and broadcasts are made, many for some reason remain true to the negative assessment of both the personality of the Tsar and his state activities. Ignoring new scientific historical discoveries, such people stubbornly continue to attribute to Nicholas II a “weak, weak-willed character” and inability to lead the state, accuse him of the tragedy of Bloody Sunday and the executions of workers, of defeat in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. and involvement of Russia in the First World War; it all ends with the accusation of the Church that she canonized the Royal Family as saints, and the threat that she, the Russian Orthodox Church, "will still regret it."

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

As for the Russian Orthodox Church, its leadership consists of people who are not only capable of thinking logically, but also possessing deep humanitarian and natural science knowledge, including professional secular diplomas in various specialties, so do not rush to allegations of “delusions » ROC and see in the Orthodox hierarchs some kind of religious fanatics, "far from real life."

This article contains a number of the most common myths that could be found in the old textbooks of the Soviet period and which, despite their complete groundlessness, are still repeated in the mouths of some people due to their unwillingness to get acquainted with new studies of modern science. After each myth, brief arguments for refutation are given, which, at the request of the editors, were decided not to be burdened with numerous cumbersome references to historical documents, since the volume of the article is very limited, and Pravoslavny Vestnik, after all, does not apply to historical and scientific publications; however, the interested reader himself will easily find indications of sources in any scientific work, especially since there have been a huge number of them lately.

Myth 1

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

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

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

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

As for the relationship of the Royal Family with Grigory Rasputin, without going into the details of the extremely ambiguous assessments of the latter's activities, there is no reason to see in these relations signs of any dependence or spiritual charm of the Royal Family. Even the Extraordinary Investigation Commission of the Provisional Government, which consisted of liberal lawyers who were sharply opposed to the Sovereign, the dynasty and the monarchy as such, was forced to admit that G. Rasputin had no influence on the public life of the country.

Myth 2

Unsuccessful state and church policy of the Emperor. In defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. It is the Emperor who is to blame, who failed to ensure the effectiveness and combat capability of the Russian army and navy. With his stubborn unwillingness to carry out the necessary economic and political reforms, as well as to engage in dialogue with representatives of Russian citizens of all classes, the emperor "caused" the revolution of 1905-1907, which, in turn, led to the strongest destabilization of Russian society and state system. He also dragged Russia into the First World War, in which he was defeated.

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

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

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

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

Myth 3

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

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

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

The blame for the tragic events of Khodynka, Bloody Sunday and the Lena massacre, of course, cannot be placed directly on the Emperor. The cause of the stampede on the Khodynka field was ... greed. A rumor swept through the crowd that the bartenders were distributing gifts among "their own", and therefore there would not be enough gifts for everyone, as a result of which the people rushed to the temporary wooden buildings with such force that even 1800 police officers specially assigned to maintain order during the festivities could not were able to withstand the pressure.

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

People gathered in the square at the appointed hour and waited for the Tsar to come out to meet them. Time passed, the Sovereign did not appear, and tension and excitement began to grow among the people. Unexpectedly, the provocateurs began to shoot at the gendarmes from the attics of houses, gates and other shelters. The gendarmes returned fire, panic and stampede arose among the people, as a result of which, according to various estimates, from 96 to 130 people were killed, from 299 to 333 people were injured. The sovereign was deeply shocked by the news of "Bloody Sunday". He ordered to allocate 50,000 rubles for benefits to the families of the victims, as well as to convene a commission to clarify the needs of the workers. Thus, the Tsar could not order the execution of civilians, which the Marxists accused him of, since he simply was not in St. Petersburg at that moment.

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

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

Myth 4

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

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

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

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

Myth 5

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

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

In the “Deed on the conciliar glorification of the new martyrs and confessors of the Russian XX century” it is written: “Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often likened his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on whose day of 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. 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.

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

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

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 of 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, 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 bacchanalia 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 their historical rights or give in 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 branch of fine literature of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, in his declining years.

V Soviet time 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. The defeat in the 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 dead emperor was more desirable than a prosperous pensioner somewhere in England, where the royal family did not want to accept the English 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.

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

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

ROC

Alexandra Fedorovna. Modern icon.

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 .

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

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 attributed to causes a lot of controversy among various currents of the Orthodox Church, which evaluate the life and death of the family in different ways.

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

The position of the Russian Orthodox Church itself regarding the canonization of servants is as follows: “Due to the fact that they voluntarily remained with the Royal Family and 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 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)
Temple of the Royal Passion-Bearers at the entrance to Ryazan from Moscow.
Church of the Royal Passion-Bearers in the Tver Nativity Monastery.
Church of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers in Kursk
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 in honor of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers near Yekaterinburg.
Church of the Royal Martyrs, Dnepropetrovsk (f/m Igren), Ukraine.
Temple in the name of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers, Saratov, Russia.
Temple in the name of the Holy Royal Martyrs, Dubki village, Saratov district, Saratov region, Russia.

Icons

Iconography

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

The figures of the Saint Romanovs are also found in the multi-figured 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 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.

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. 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 White color snow - and it is impossible even to compare - the snow seems 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

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 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
Emperor Nicholas II and the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. Part I // Orthodox newspaper. - Yekaterinburg, 2003. - No. 31.
Emperor Nicholas II and the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. Part II // Orthodox newspaper. - Ekaterinburg, 2003. - No. 32.
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
Prince Nikolai Romanov welcomes the decision to canonize the royal family
The head of the Romanov dynasty will not come to the act of canonization of Nicholas II
The Miracle of the Myrrh-streaming of the Icon of the Royal Martyrs
Great shrine of Orthodoxy
Ten years later, conflicting data appeared about the fate of the icon of the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II, which became myrrh-streaming in Moscow on November 7, 1998.
Patriarch Alexy: The attitude of the church towards the "Ekaterinburg remains" remains unchanged
ZhMP. 1998, No. 4, p. 10. The decision of the Holy Synod also, among other things, said: “<…>In this regard, the Holy Synod speaks in favor of the immediate burial of these remains in a symbolic memorial grave. When all doubts about the “Ekaterinburg remains” are removed and the grounds for embarrassment and confrontation in society disappear, we should return to the final decision on the place of their burial.”
REPORT BY METROPOLITAN YUVENALY OF KRUTITSKY AND KOLOMENSKOYE, CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNODAL COMMISSION FOR THE CANONIZATION OF SAINTS, AT THE BISHOPAL JUBILEE COUNCIL

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 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 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 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 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 of the murdered members 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 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 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. On the other hand, the holy humility with which he abdicated the throne and then accepted a martyr's death still 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. Many saints of that time, if I may say so, testified to the difficult state of the soul of the people - 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 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 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 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.

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. 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 the 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.

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)

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, which has no historical analogies in the 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 Yegorovich Trupp and the Lutheran goflektriss 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: "An 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 to 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 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 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 visits temples and monasteries during their numerous trips, worships miraculous icons and the relics of saints, makes pilgrimages, as it was 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 reference 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 . Throughout 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 passed the courses of sisters of mercy together with her eldest daughters - the Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatyana - she looked after 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 ecclesiastical canonical crime in the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power seem to be untenable.

As external factors that brought to life the Act of Abdication, which took place in the political life of Russia, one should single out, first of all, a sharp aggravation of the socio-political situation in Petrograd in February 1917, the inability of the government to control the situation in the capital, which spread to wide sections of society conviction of 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 answered, but the attacks were repeated again, and this filled the mother's soul with endless sorrow. She was ready to believe anyone who was able to help her grief, to somehow alleviate 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 several times tried 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 delusion, 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 whose church memorial day he was born. Having accepted his cross in the same way as the biblical righteous man, he endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of 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 are asking 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 no one doubts this among those who know me," the Sovereign said 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 this, 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 themselves in prison, 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 soulful reading, primarily Holy Scripture, and in regular - almost non-lethal - attendance of worship services.

kindness and peace of mind they did not leave the Empress in this difficult time either. 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 Feodorovna'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 real testimonies of the Christian faith.

Consolation and strength in enduring sorrows gave the prisoners spiritual reading, prayer, divine services, communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. 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 are not contains the love of God in hardened hearts, who see only everything 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, following love and suffering, understands all the greatness of the Kingdom of Heaven " .

Together with their parents, the Tsar's children endured all humiliation and suffering with meekness and humility. Archpriest Afanasy Belyaev, who confessed the Tsar's children, wrote: "The impression [of confession] turned out to be this: grant, Lord, that all children are 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 decidedly perplexed: is it necessary to remind me, as a confessor, of sins, perhaps unknown to them, and how to dispose to repentance in known their sins."

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. The assessment of the reliability of scientific and investigative conclusions, as well as the 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 "Ekaterinburg remains" lies entirely with the Republican Center for Judicial 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 "Ekaterinburg remains" buried on July 17, 1998 in St. Petersburg cannot today be recognized by us as belonging to the Royal Family.

The veneration of the Royal Family, already begun by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon in 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, cinematographic and literary works are compiled, 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 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.