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

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

Key dates

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

Background

Execution

Main article: Execution of the royal family

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

List of victims:

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments against canonization

Canonization of the royal family

Catacomb Church

Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

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

ROC

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

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

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

Main points of the report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refuting the arguments of opponents of canonization

Aspects of canonization

Question about the face of holiness

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

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

Canonization of servants

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

The position of the Russian Orthodox Church itself regarding the canonization of servants is as follows: “Due to the fact that they voluntarily remained with the Royal Family and accepted martyrdom, it would be legitimate to raise the question of their canonization.”. In addition to the four shot in the basement, the Commission mentions that this list would have to include those “killed” in various places and in different months 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 goblettress E.A. Schneider. However, the Commission concluded that it “does not seem possible to make a final decision on the existence of grounds for the canonization of this group of laity, who accompanied the Royal Family as part of their court service,” since there is no information about the wide-ranging prayerful commemoration of these servants by believers; moreover, , there is no information about them religious life and personal piety. The final conclusion was: “The commission came to the conclusion that the most appropriate form of honoring the Christian feat of the faithful servants of the Royal Family, who shared its tragic fate, today can be the perpetuation of this feat in the lives of the Royal Martyrs.”.

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

Society's reaction to canonization

Positive

Negative

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

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

Icons

Iconography

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

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

Relics

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

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

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

Announced miracles of the royal martyrs

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

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

Skeptical perception of miracles

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

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

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

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

Main article: Doctrine of the King Redeemer

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

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

Notes

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

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

Key dates

1918 - execution of the royal family.
In 1928 they were canonized by the Catacomb Church.
In 1938 they were canonized by the Serbian Orthodox Church (this fact is disputed by Professor A.I. Osipov). The first news of believers appealing to the Synod of the Serbian Church with a request for the canonization of Nicholas II dates back to 1930.
In 1981 they were glorified by the Russian Church Abroad.
October 1996 - The ROC Commission on the glorification of the Royal Martyrs presented its report
On August 20, 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church canonized the holy new martyrs and confessors of Russia, revealed and unrevealed.

Background

Execution

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

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

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

Arguments against canonization

The death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family was not a martyrdom for Christ, but only political repression.
The unsuccessful state and church policies of the emperor, including such events as Khodynka, Bloody Sunday and the Lena massacre and the extremely controversial activities of Grigory Rasputin.
The abdication of the anointed king from the throne should be considered as a church-canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the priesthood.
“The religiosity of the royal couple, for all its outwardly traditional Orthodoxy, bore a clearly expressed character of interconfessional mysticism.”
The active movement for the canonization of the royal family in the 1990s was not spiritual, but political.
“neither the holy Patriarch Tikhon, nor the holy Metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd, nor the holy Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, nor the holy Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov), nor the holy Archbishop Thaddeus, nor Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), who, without a doubt, will soon be canonized, nor the other hierarchs now glorified by our Church, the new martyrs, who knew much more and better than we do now, the personality of the former Tsar - none of them ever expressed thoughts about him as a holy passion-bearer (and at that time this could still be stated in whole voice)"
The responsibility for “the gravest sin of regicide, which weighs on all the peoples of Russia,” as advocated by supporters of canonization, also causes deep bewilderment.

Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

ROC

Main points of the report:

Canonization should not provide reasons or arguments in political struggles or worldly confrontations. Its purpose, on the contrary, is to promote the unification of the people of God in faith and piety.
In connection with the particularly active activities of modern monarchists, the Commission especially emphasized its position: “the canonization of the Monarch is in no way connected with monarchical ideology and, moreover, does not mean the “canonization” of the monarchical form of government... Glorifying the saint, the Church does not pursue political goals... but testifies to the people of God who already honor the righteous man, that the ascetic whom she canonizes really pleased God and stands before the Throne of God for us, regardless of what position he occupied in his earthly life.”
The commission notes that in the life of Nicholas II there were two periods of unequal duration and spiritual significance - the time of his reign and the time of his imprisonment. In the first period (being in power) the Commission did not find sufficient grounds for canonization; the second period (spiritual and physical suffering) is more important for the Church, and therefore it focused its attention on it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Circumstances of death- physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents.
Widespread popular veneration the royal passion-bearers served as one of the main reasons for their glorification as saints.

“appeals from individual clergy and laity, as well as groups of believers from different dioceses, supporting 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 clergy and laity of the fraternal Orthodox Churches. Many of those who contacted the Commission spoke out in favor of the speedy, urgent canonization of the Royal Martyrs. The idea of the need for the speedy glorification of the Tsar and the Royal Martyrs was expressed by a number of church and public organizations.” Over three years, 22,873 requests were received for the glorification of the royal family, according to Metropolitan Juvenaly.

« Testimonies of miracles and grace-filled help through prayers to the Royal Martyrs. They are talking about healings, uniting separated families, protecting church property from schismatics. There is especially abundant evidence of the streaming of myrrh from icons with images of Emperor Nicholas II and the Royal Martyrs, of the fragrance and the miraculous appearance of blood-colored stains on the icon faces of the Royal Martyrs.”
Personal piety of the Sovereign: the Emperor paid great attention to the needs of the Orthodox Church, donated generously for the construction of new churches, including outside Russia. Their deep religiosity distinguished the Imperial couple from the representatives of the then aristocracy. All its members lived in accordance with the traditions of Orthodox piety. During the years of his reign, more saints were canonized than in the previous two centuries (in particular, Theodosius of Chernigov, Seraphim of Sarov, Anna Kashinskaya, Joasaph of Belgorod, Hermogenes of Moscow, Pitirim of Tambov, John of Tobolsk).
“The Emperor’s church policy did not go beyond the traditional synodal system of governing the Church. However, it was during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II that the church hierarchy, which had until then been officially silent for two centuries on the issue of convening a Council, had the opportunity not only to widely discuss, but also to practically prepare for the convening of a Local Council.”
The activities of the empress and led. princesses as sisters of mercy during the war.
“Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often compared his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on whose church memorial day he was born. Having accepted his cross in the same way as the biblical righteous man, he endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of a murmur. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in last days life of the Emperor. From the moment of abdication, it is not so much external events as the internal spiritual state of the Sovereign that attracts our attention.” Most witnesses to the last period of the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk Governor's House and the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House as people who suffered and, despite all the mockery and insults, led a pious life. “Their true greatness stemmed not from their royal dignity, but from the amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.”

Refuting the arguments of opponents of canonization

The blame for the events of Bloody Sunday cannot be placed on the Emperor: “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 does not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign in the January days of 1905 a conscious evil will directed against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions.”
Nicholas’s guilt as an unsuccessful statesman should not be considered: “we must evaluate not this or that form government structure, but the place that a specific person occupies in the state mechanism. The extent to which a person was able to embody Christian ideals in his activities is subject to assessment. It should be noted that Nicholas II treated the duties of a monarch as his sacred duty.”
Abdication of the tsar's rank is not a crime against the church: “The desire, characteristic of some opponents of the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II, to present his abdication of the Throne as a church-canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the priesthood, cannot be recognized as having any serious grounds . The canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed to the Kingdom was not defined in the church canons. Therefore, attempts to discover the elements of a certain church-canonical crime in the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power seem untenable.” On the contrary, “The spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of inner world in Russia, gives his action a truly moral character.”
“There is no reason to see in the relations of the Royal Family with Rasputin signs of spiritual delusion, and even more so of insufficient church involvement.”

Aspects of canonization

Question about the face of holiness

Passion-bearers- the option chosen by the Russian Orthodox Church, which did not find grounds for canonization as martyrs. In the tradition (hagiography and liturgical) of the Russian Church, the concept of “passion-bearer” is 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 passion-bearers were the holy noble princes Boris and Gleb (+1015), Igor Chernigovsky (+1147), Andrei Bogolyubsky (+1174), Mikhail Tverskoy (+1319), Tsarevich Dimitri (+1591). All of them, with their feat of passion-bearers, showed a high example of Christian morality and patience.”
Martyrs- despite the classification of the death of the royal family as martyrdom (see above the definition of the Council of Bishops), in order to be included in this rank of holiness it is necessary to suffer precisely for testifying to one’s faith in Christ. Despite this, the ROCOR in 1981 glorified the royal family in this very image of holiness. The reason for this was the reworking of the traditional principles of canonization in the guise of martyrs by Archpriest Mikhail Polsky, who fled from the USSR, who, based on the recognition of the “Soviet power” in the USSR as essentially anti-Christian, considered “new Russian martyrs” all Orthodox Christians killed by government officials in Soviet Russia. Moreover, in his interpretation, Christian martyrdom washes away all previous sins from a person.

The faithful- the most common face of holiness for monarchs. In Russia, this epithet even became part of the official title of the Grand Dukes and the first Tsars. However, it is not traditionally used for saints canonized as martyrs or passion-bearers. Other important detail- persons who had the status of a monarch at the time of death are glorified in the ranks of the faithful. Nicholas II, having abdicated the throne, on the instructions of the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy A.I. Osipov, created a temptation for believers, without enduring, according to the word of the Gospel, to the end (Matthew 10:22). Osipov also believes that during the abdication of the throne, there was also a renunciation of the grace received, according to the teachings of the church, during the creation of the world at the moment of the crowning of the kingdom. Despite this, in radical monarchist circles, Nicholas II is revered among the faithful.
Also in radical monarchist and pseudo-Orthodox circles, the epithet “ redeemer" This is manifested both in written appeals sent to the Moscow Patriarchate when considering the issue of canonization of the royal family, and in non-canonical akathists and prayers: “ O most wonderful and glorious Tsar-Redeemer Nicholas" However, at a meeting of the Moscow clergy, Patriarch Alexy II unequivocally spoke out about the inadmissibility of this, saying that “ if he sees books in some temple in which Nicholas II is called the Redeemer, he will consider the rector of this temple as a preacher of heresy. We have one Redeemer - Christ».

Canonization of servants

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

Society's reaction to canonization

Positive

The canonization of the royal family eliminated one of the contradictions between the Russian and Russian Churches Abroad (which canonized them 20 years earlier), noted in 2000 the chairman of the department of external church relations, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad. The same point of view was expressed by Prince Nikolai Romanovich Romanov (chairman of the Association of the House of Romanov), who, however, refused to participate in the act of canonization in Moscow, citing that he was present at the canonization ceremony, which was held in 1981 in New York by the ROCOR.
Andrei Kuraev: “it was not the image of the reign of Nicholas II that was canonized, but the image of his death... The 20th was a terrible century for Russian Christianity. And you can’t leave it without drawing some conclusions. Since this was the age of martyrs, one could go in two ways in canonization: try to glorify all the new martyrs (...) Or canonize a certain Unknown Soldier, honor one innocently executed Cossack family, and with it millions of others. But this path for church consciousness would probably be too radical. Moreover, in Russia there has always been a certain “tsar-people” identity.”

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

The chapel-monument to the deceased Russian emigrants, Nicholas II and his august family was erected at the cemetery in Zagreb (1935)
Chapel in memory of Emperor Nicholas II and Serbian King Alexander I in Harbin (1936)
Church of St. Tsar-Martyr and St. New Martyrs and Confessors in Villemoisson, France (1980s)
Temple of the Sovereign Icon of the Mother of God, Zhukovsky
Church of St. Tsar Martyr Nicholas in Nikolskoye
Church of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers Nicholas and Alexandra, village. Sertolovo
Monastery in honor of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers near Yekaterinburg.

Icons

Myrrh-streaming icons

Myrrh-streaming icon in Butovo
Myrrh-streaming icon in the Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in Biryulyovo
The myrrh-streaming icon of Oleg Belchenko (the first report of myrrh-streaming in the house of the writer A.V. Dyakova on November 7, 1998, that is, before the canonization of the royal family), is located in the Church of St. Nicholas in Pyzhi

Bleeding icon
Fragrant icon

Iconography

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

Relics

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

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

Announced miracles of the royal martyrs

The miraculous deliverance of hundreds of Cossacks. A story about this event appeared in 1947 in the Russian emigrant press. The story contained in it dates back to the time of the Civil War, when a detachment of White Cossacks, surrounded and driven by the Reds into impassable swamps, called for help to the not yet officially glorified Tsarevich Alexei, since, according to the regimental priest, Fr. Elijah, in trouble, one should have prayed to the prince, as to the ataman of the Cossack troops. To the soldiers’ objection that the royal family had not been officially glorified, the priest allegedly replied that the glorification was taking place by the will of “God’s people,” and swore to the others that their prayer would not remain unanswered, and indeed, the Cossacks managed to get out through the swamps that were considered impassable. The numbers of those saved by the intercession of the prince are called - “ 43 women, 14 children, 7 wounded, 11 old people and disabled people, 1 priest, 22 Cossacks, a total of 98 people and 31 horses».

The miracle of dry branches. One of the latest miracles recognized by the official church authorities occurred on January 7, 2007 in the Church of the Transfiguration of the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery in Zvenigorod, which was once a place of pilgrimage for the last tsar and his family. Boys from the monastery orphanage, who came to the temple to rehearse the traditional Christmas performance, allegedly noticed that the long-withered branches lying under the glass of the icons of the royal martyrs had sprouted seven shoots (according to the number of faces depicted on the icon) and produced green flowers with a diameter of 1-2 cm resembling roses, and the flowers and the mother branch belonged to different plant species. According to publications referring to this event, the service during which the branches were placed on the icon was held on Pokrov, that is, three months earlier.

The miraculously grown flowers, four in number, were placed in an icon case, where by the time of Easter “they had not changed at all,” but by the beginning of Holy Week of Great Lent, green shoots up to 3 cm long suddenly erupted. Another flower broke off and was planted in the ground , where it turned into a small plant. What happened to the other two is unknown.

With the blessing of Fr. Savva, the icon was transferred to the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, to the Savvin chapel, where it apparently remains to this day.

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

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

A miraculous image. In July 2001, in the monastery cathedral of the village of Bogolyubskoye, in the upper hemisphere of the ceiling, an image with a crown on his head gradually began to appear, in which they recognized the last king of the Romanov dynasty. According to witnesses, it is not possible to create something like this artificially, since the village is relatively small in size, and everyone here knows each other, and, moreover, it is impossible to hide similar work, having built scaffolding up to the ceiling at night, and it would have been impossible to leave unnoticed. It is also added that the image did not appear instantly, but appeared constantly, as if on photographic film. According to the parishioners of the Holy Bogolyubsky Church, the process did not end there, but on the right side of the iconostasis the image of Queen Alexandra Feodorovna and her son gradually began to appear.

Skeptical perception of miracles

MDA Professor A.I. Osipov writes that when assessing reports of miracles associated with the royal family, it should be taken into account that such “ facts in themselves do not at all confirm the holiness of those (person, confession, religion) through whom and where they occur, and that such phenomena can also occur by virtue of faith - “according to your faith be it done to you” (Matthew 9:29 ), and by the action of another spirit (Acts 16:16-18), “to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24), and, perhaps, for other reasons still unknown to us».

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

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

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

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

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

In 2000, the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II and his family were canonized by the Russian Church as holy passion-bearers. Their canonization in the West - in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - occurred even earlier, in 1981. And although holy princes are not uncommon in the Orthodox tradition, this canonization still raises doubts among some. Why is the last Russian monarch glorified as a saint? Does his life and the life of his family speak in favor of canonization, and what were the arguments against it? Is the veneration of Nicholas II as the Tsar-Redeemer an extreme or a pattern?

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

Family of Nicholas II: Alexandra Fedorovna and children - Olga, Tatyana, Maria, Anastasia and Alexey. 1913

Death as an argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renunciation: weakness or hope?

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

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

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

The Tsar's train, in which Nicholas II signed his abdication from the throne.

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

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

“Many see renunciation as an ordinary weakness...

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

Room of the Grand Duchesses in the Ipatiev House

Revolution: the inevitability of disaster?

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

- Very different attitude to Emperor Nicholas II today: from accusations of lack of will and political insolvency to veneration as a tsar-redeemer. Is it possible to find a middle ground?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of saints are these?..

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

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

— Because of a certain fear?

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

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

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

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

Cross at the construction site of the Church of the Sovereign Icon of the Mother of God, Monastery of the Royal Passion-Bearers on Ganina Yama. Photo courtesy of the press service of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'

End crowns the work

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

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

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

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

Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov

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

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

Act of the Jubilee Council of Bishops on the conciliar glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the 20th century
1. To glorify for church-wide veneration as saints the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian twentieth century, known by name and not yet revealed to the world, but known to God.

Here we see that the frequent objection “they killed many people, why do we only remember the king” is unfounded. It is the unknown who are glorified first.

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

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

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

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

Report on the work of the Commission of the Holy. Synod for the Canonization of Saints on the issue of the martyrdom of the royal family

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

And for the simple reason that they clearly saw the royal sins and did not consider him a saint.
Among the critics of the canonization of the emperor was Alexei Osipov, a professor of theology at the Moscow Theological Academy, who, despite the lack of holy orders, has great authority among some Orthodox believers and bishops: dozens of the current bishops are simply his students, he published an entire article with arguments against canonization.. .

ABOUT THE CANONIZATION OF THE LAST RUSSIAN TSAR

There are a number of serious considerations that should at least give any open-minded person pause. about the reasons for the emergence of the very idea of canonization of Nicholas II, its arguments and the possible consequences of its implementation.

As is known, " not having recognition of the entire Orthodox Completeness, due to its anti-canonical nature, a group of bishops calling itself the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which for decades has been causing discord among our Orthodox compatriots" (From the Appeal of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. 1990), or the so-called Russian Church Abroad, without the blessing of the Mother Church canonized (mainly by political reasons) the last Russian Emperor.

And so, quite recently (since the time of the so-called perestroika), a small but extremely active circle of people who have the most ardent sympathies for the Church Abroad, using newspapers, magazines, radio, pedagogical and lecture departments and even pulpits, began to insist with amazing categoricalness on the canonization and Russian Orthodox Church of the former Sovereign (former, since he himself abdicated this rank, which, for example, for the late Metropolitan of St. Petersburg Ioann Snychev was the main argument against the canonization of Nicholas II) (! - V.K.) and his family, as well as servants (i.e., and non-Orthodox: Lutheran E. Schneider and Catholic A. Trupp).

At the same time, what is especially striking is the completely non-church, typically political nature of the excitement raised around this issue and, in essence, boils down to forcing the ranks of the Church and all its members to recognize the holiness of Nicholas II...
-
..If we raise the question of canonization based on his life and work, then One cannot ignore at least the following serious facts.

1. Unprecedented in the history of the Russian state, the abdication of the Sovereign from the throne had, among others, the following fatal consequences for the country. Nicholas II, having failed to ensure the implementation of the most important law of the Russian Empire in this exceptional situation - the unconditional inheritance of the throne (Article 37), by his abdication (and for the Heir) abolished the Autocracy in Russia and thereby opened a direct path to the establishment of a revolutionary dictatorship. At the same time, he not only illegally abdicated for the Heir, not only transferred power to someone (Mikhail) who did not even know about it, and when he found out, did not accept it, but also directly violated the decisions and oaths of the Great Moscow Council of 1613...

In the case of Nicholas II, the situation is even more serious. He not only abdicated the throne himself, but also, without ensuring his succession, completely destroyed the tsarist power in Russia as such. So his renunciation corresponds not to the retirement of a clergyman, when the right to serve is preserved, and not even to simply the removal of his rank, but to the destruction of this service itself in Rus'...

2. The attitude of Nicholas II to the Church. Not only did he not abolish or soften the anti-canonical leadership and management of the Church by a layman (emperor), introduced according to the Protestant model, and its actual subordination to the chief prosecutors, the tsar’s favorites, Rasputin, which was expressed in their interference in any, including purely internal affairs, but and aggravated its oppressed position with the reforms of 1905-1906...

Previously persecuted religious communities received freedom. In ancient Orthodox Moscow, cathedrals of schismatics met without hindrance and congresses of Baptists gathered. For the Orthodox Church, a favorable summer has not yet arrived. .. The attitude of the reigning dynasty towards the Orthodox Church is a historical example of ingratitude... The St. Petersburg period of Russian history ends with a terrible shame and grave national disaster” (“Church and Society.” 1998. No. 4. P. 60).

3. The freedoms granted by the Emperor in 1905, not limited by proper limits and soon degenerated, in fact, into outright arbitrariness, in addition to the direct humiliation of the Russian Church, opened up the legal possibility of discrediting both the throne and Orthodoxy, the development in the country of all kinds of mysticism, occultism, sectarianism, immoralism and so on.

Immediately after the decree, all kinds of societies, organizations, parties and unions began to emerge in abundance from underground and re-emerge, publishing a huge number of magazines, newspapers, and books in which liberal, anti-monarchist, anti-church, revolutionary, atheistic ideas were actively promoted. An era of democracy in the image and likeness of the “enlightened” West has arrived in Russia...

Many of the hierarchs of the Church, from the royal House and statesmen, even some of their close friends turned away from Nicholas II (and took part in a conspiracy against the person closest to the royal family - Rasputin). The reaction of the Holy Synod to his abdication convincingly illustrates this. The Synod did not express regret either about what happened, or even about the arrest of the former Sovereign, and thus clearly showed its assessment of Nicholas II as a ruler.

4. Persistent continuation and deepening of the connection with Rasputin until his death, despite the general temptation and the most decisive protests of the most prominent people of Russia (for example: the holy Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna / “he is a servant of Satan” / and other Grand Dukes, holy Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany ), Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky), confessor of the royal family Bishop Feofan (Bistrov), Chairman of the Government P. A. Stolypin, ministers, government and public figures...

The first anti-Rasputin articles were written not by enemies of the Church and the throne, but by the famous deep Orthodox writer M.N. Novoselov and a convinced monarchist, friend of Tsar L.A. Tikhomirov and appeared in Moskovskie Vedomosti in 1910)...

L.A. was also suspended. Tikhomirov, a former People's Volunteer revolutionary, and then a defender of the idea of autocracy and a friend of the Tsar. One day a group of intellectuals gathered to write an “open letter” to the Tsar, but Tikhomirov convinced them not to do this: “Everything is useless! God has closed the Tsar’s eyes, and no one can change this. The revolution will inevitably come anyway.”... Outrage against Rasputin’s influence is all grew, and at the same time attacks on the royal house grew" (At the turn of two eras. P. 142).

5. The religiosity of the royal couple, for all its outwardly traditional Orthodoxy, bore a clearly expressed character of interconfessional mysticism. This conclusion follows from many facts. The coldness of the royal family, mainly the queen, towards the Russian clergy is known, which is especially clearly revealed from the letters of Alexandra Feodorovna (“there are only animals in the Synod”!). Even with the highest hierarchs, the relations between the king and queen were exclusively of an official nature...

6. What fundamentally does not allow us to raise the question of the canonization of Nicholas II from a Christian point of view is his personal confession to his mother in a letter from exile: “God gives me the strength to forgive everyone, but I cannot forgive General Ruzsky.” This confession is not removed by the testimony of Grand Duchess Olga that her father forgave everyone, since she does not say anything about the main thing in this matter - did he forgive Ruzsky? Consequently, she either did not know about it, or chose, for obvious reasons, to remain silent.

Due to both these and a number of other facts, the Commission of the Holy Synod on Canonization made, in particular, the following conclusion: “Summarizing the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian Emperor, the Commission did not find sufficient grounds for his canonization” (Materials. ..P.5).
-
...But, firstly, what will the holiness of our Church then turn into? Secondly, the very posing of the question of canonization specifically of Nikolai Alexandrovich and his family, and not of the Sovereigns who had previously suffered, testifies that it is not due to church reasons, but to other reasons.

At the same time, statements about the voluntary acceptance of death by the last Emperor for his people seem completely untrue. There is direct evidence that the former august family sought to go abroad. The materials of the Synodal Commission for Canonization indicate: “we will only note the desire of the Royal Family to go abroad and in confirmation of this we will quote the Emperor’s diary entry dated March 10 (23): “I sorted through my things and books and began to put aside everything that I want to take from yourself if you have to leave for England" (P.58)...

The suffering and death of the last Emperor objectively speak of only one thing: God gave him the opportunity to suffer for the sins that he committed (consciously or unconsciously) against Russia. This idea about his guilt in the suffering of Russia was expressed ten years before the Yekaterinburg tragedy of St. John of Kronstadt. In an entry dated October 9, 1908, he, who called the Tsar pious, utters these terrible words: “The Earthly Fatherland suffers for the sins of the Tsar and the people, for the Tsar’s lack of faith and short-sightedness, for his indulgence in the unbelief and blasphemy of Leo Tolstoy...”. (TsGA. St. Petersburg. F.2219. Op.1. D.71. L.40-40 volume. See also: S.L. Firsov. The Orthodox Church and the State in the last decade of the existence of autocracy in Russia. St. Petersburg. 1996) ...

The responsibility for “the grave sin of regicide, which weighs on all the peoples of Russia” (Address of the participants of the 3rd conference “The Tsar’s Affair and Yekaterinburg Remains”, December 8, 1998) and the call of those living today to repentance of it, also causes deep bewilderment.

Is it not obvious, firstly, that sin is a matter of the personal conscience of the sinner, and not of the one who took no part in it? Therefore, it is possible and necessary to pray for someone who has committed a sin, but it is impossible to repent in his place. The Ninevites repented for their own sins, not for the sins of their forefathers.

Secondly, it is completely incomprehensible why the people are guilty of the murder of Nicholas II, and not the Emperors Alexander II, Paul I, Peter III, Tsar Fyodor Godunov, or the Grand Dukes Sergei, Michael and others, or Saint Tsarevich Demetrius, Saint Elizabeth Feodorovna, Saints Boris and Gleb, or...? What is the reason for this amazing oddity?

Thirdly, doesn’t the idea of the people’s guilt for the sin of murdering Nicholas II lead to the fact that our peoples, primarily the Russians, become the main criminals, and the real murderers fade into the shadows?
And finally, doesn’t this idea contribute to the emergence among the people of a painful guilt complex, which is completely false, also because, unlike any other sin that can be washed away by repentance, here no one knows what and how to repent of in order to be cleansed from this sin.
(I wonder what the priest will decide if someone repents to him of the sin of murdering Tsar Fyodor Godunov or Nicholas II?)...

It is necessary to comprehend those consequences that canonization may entail former august family.
First. The very question about it has already caused such a confrontation in the church environment, among the people, which has never existed in the history of our Church.
Instead of a sober, serious discussion of natural problems in such cases, Orthodox means mass media the most severe statements, completely unbecoming for Christians, began to be made in the face of the outside world towards their fellow men.

Isn’t this a temptation for believers and non-believers and not a direct undermining of the authority of the Church and its preaching about love?
Possible canonization with the obvious disagreement of many (for example, during the meeting of Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna with students of Moscow theological schools on March 31, 1997, it turned out that there were approximately half of them) could even more seriously complicate the situation in our society and divide it even further. one sign, for many will perceive this act as forcing their conscience to venerate someone in whom they do not see either a proper example of Christian life, much less holiness...
http://www.istina.ucoz.ru/osipov_o_kanonisazii.html
---
Priesthood and kingdom in Russian public consciousness(from the history of one archetype) 2000

Trying to understand the events taking place in modern Russia, we base our calculations on various political, economic and other factors that are easy to calculate and measure. But the longer we do this, the more we become convinced that behind current events there is also a reality of a different kind: the moods that dominate Russian society, changing according to some inexplicable, but quite perceptible logic. Paradoxically, they turn out to be more durable and durable than official ideologies and political regimes. They can be given different names, but here we will call them archetypes of social consciousness.

One of the most important such archetypes is the idea of merging church and state (primarily monarchy), or priesthood and kingdom. This model has very long history and is still popular even among people completely far from religion and monarchical ideology...

One of the most heated and significant discussions in this regard took place over the possible canonization of Nicholas II and his family. Although the Synodal Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church sees as possible grounds for canonization only the patient enduring of suffering and personal piety of members of the royal family (that is, those aspects of their lives that were not directly related to the imperial dignity)2, but for supporters of canonization we are talking about something completely different, namely, the recognition of the sacrifice made by the royal family for all of Russia3, and the canonization of everything and everyone that was connected with the life of the last emperor, right up to Grigory Rasputin. The canonization of the Tsar is called a matter of repentance for the entire Church. The hierarchs of the ROCOR place recognition of the holiness of the imperial family as a necessary condition for reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate and practically raise it to the level of a dogma of faith; Thus, this confession is separately mentioned in the standard text of repentance pronounced by clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate upon their transition to the Church Abroad....
http://magazines.russ.ru/continent/2000/104/de10.html
---
About the authorities and the Church of Christ 2002

Metropolitan Nicholas of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas states that he did not sign the act of canonization of the royal family at the 2000 Council...
The interview with one of the oldest and most authoritative bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Nicholas of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas, is sensational in its own way. Vladyka Nicholas, who went through the war, repeatedly stated that he fears no one but God, and therefore always says only what he thinks. It seems to us that his interview has no analogues in terms of the courage and frankness of his opinions...
- There is a temple in Moscow where you can see the icon of Rasputin. Now the question of his canonization is being openly raised, that he was a holy elder who was slandered by Freemasons and liberals. How can the Church relate to such statements? Maybe it’s really time to reconsider Rasputin and study his life?
- A whole series of documents that I am familiar with do not speak in favor of Rasputin. The question of it, naturally, will be raised as one of the levers that they want to use to bring schismatic turmoil into the Church. Once I looked at a book about Rasputin. Well, you know, you have to have a conscience. And if there is no conscience, then, of course, you can then canonize everyone. The question here is how firm or focused the Church will be. Why purposeful? Because some time ago the church meeting heard that there were no grounds for the canonization of the tsar, and then all these words were forgotten.
http://ruskline.ru/monitoring_smi/2002/05/07/o_vlastyah_i_cerkvi_hristovoj/
---
The Voronezh diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church MP accused members of the group of “national repentance for the sin of regicide” of commercial aspirations 2006
At the end of March, color printed posters were posted all over Voronezh inviting everyone to take part in a conciliar participation in nationwide repentance for the sin of regicide...

The most widely circulated Voronezh publication is the weekly “Moyo!” (110 thousand copies), the leadership of which, according to expert assessments, has close contacts with the diocese, included a commentary by the ruling bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church MP, Metropolitan Sergius (Fomin) and representatives of the diocesan clergy.

According to Metropolitan Sergius, “The canonization of Nicholas II and his family as passion-bearers does not satisfy the newly minted zealots of the monarchy,” reports a correspondent for “Portal-Credo.Ru.”

The hierarch publicly called the “monarchical biases” the “heresy of kingship.” In some parishes, he continued, “unauthorized akathists have become widespread, where the emperor, by the way, who abdicated the throne, is called the king-redeemer.” Such ideas, as the hierarch specifically points out, contradict the basic dogmas of Christianity about the atoning sacrifice of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The Metropolitan recommends that those living today repent of their personal sins and, perhaps first of all, “those who sow confusion and division among the Orthodox and pervert Orthodox dogmas.”

In another commentary for the leader's newspaper youth department The diocese of priest Oleg Shamaev speaks of a well-organized business on the “rite of repentance”, to which part of the clergy of many dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church MP is not entirely openly, but still involved.

Their main goal, according to the representative of the diocese, is to sow a split among the Orthodox in Russia. According to him, the clergy of the Voronezh diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church MP have recently often heard in confessions from believers confession of the sin of regicide.

The diocesan priest also noted that the participants in this business project are misleading people also because they call their call to national repentance as if it came from Patriarch Alexy II himself and declare that they have a blessing to conduct their specific pilgrimage activities.
http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/print.php?act=news&id=42112
---
Orthodox Christians against Nicholas II: why the Tsar was recognized as a saint 2017

Despite the scandals surrounding Matilda, there were and remain different opinions in the Russian Orthodox Church about the holiness of the last emperor and his family.
The vigorous activity to protect the good name of Emperor Nicholas II from director Alexei Uchitel with his film “Matilda”, which was developed by Orthodox activists, part of the clergy and even State Duma deputies led by Natalia Poklonskaya, created the illusion among the public that being Orthodox means being Orthodox. It is impossible for the Russian emperor to live without trepidation. However, in the Russian Orthodox Church there were and still are different opinions about his holiness.
Let us remember that Nicholas II, his wife, four daughters, a son and ten servants were canonized in 1981 by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia as martyrs, and then, in 2000, the royal family was recognized as holy passion-bearers and by the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.
The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church made this decision only on the second attempt.
The first time this could have happened at the council in 1997, but then it turned out that several bishops, as well as some of the clergy and laity, were against the recognition of Nicholas II..
Last Judgment
After the fall of the USSR, church life in Russia was on the rise, and in addition to restoring churches and opening monasteries, the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate was faced with the task of “healing” the schism with the White emigrants and their descendants by uniting with the ROCOR.
The future Patriarch Kirill, who then headed the department of external church relations, stated that by canonizing the royal family and other victims of the Bolsheviks in 2000, one of the contradictions between the two Churches was eliminated. And indeed, six years later the Churches were reunited.
“We glorified the royal family precisely as passion-bearers: the basis for this canonization was an innocent death, accepted by Nikolai II with Christian humility, rather than political activity, which was quite controversial. By the way, this cautious decision did not suit many, because some did not want this canonization at all, and some demanded the canonization of the sovereign as a great martyr, “ritually martyred by the Jews,” said many years later, a member of the Synodal Commission for Canonization Saints Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov.
And he added: “We must keep in mind that someone in our calendar, as it will become clear at the Last Judgment, is not a saint.”

"Traitor to the State"
The highest-ranking opponents of the canonization of the emperor in the church hierarchy in the 1990s were Metropolitans of St. Petersburg and Ladoga John (Snychev) and Metropolitans of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas Nikolai (Kutepov).
For Bishop John, the tsar’s worst offense was abdicating the throne at a critical moment for the country...
However, Metropolitan John died in 1995 and was unable to influence the decisions of other bishops.
Metropolitan Nicholas of Nizhny Novgorod, a veteran of the Great Patriotic War who fought at Stalingrad, until recently denied Nicholas II sainthood, calling him a “state traitor.” Shortly after the 2000 council, he gave an interview in which he explicitly stated that he voted against the decision to canonize.
“You see, I didn’t take any steps, because if the icon had already been created, where, so to speak, the Tsar-Father sits, what’s the point of speaking out? So the issue is resolved. It was decided without me, decided without you. When all the bishops signed the act of canonization, I noted next to my painting that I was signing everything except the third paragraph. The third point was the Tsar-Father, and I did not sign up for his canonization. He is a state traitor. He, one might say, sanctioned the collapse of the country. And no one will convince me otherwise. He had to use force, even taking his life, because everything was handed to him, but he considered it necessary to escape under Alexandra Fedorovna’s skirt,” the hierarch was convinced.
As for the Orthodox “abroad”, Bishop Nicholas spoke very harshly about them. “It doesn’t take much intelligence to run away and bark from there,” he said...

"A wise decision"
There were opponents of canonization not only in Russia, but also abroad. Among them is the former prince, Archbishop of San Francisco John (Shakhovskoy). The first Primate of the ROCOR, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), a member of the Holy Synod, a witness of the revolution and one of the most respected hierarchs of his time, did not even think about canonizing the tsar, considering his tragic death as retribution for the “sins of the dynasty,” whose representatives “insanely proclaimed themselves the head Churches". However, hatred of the Bolsheviks and the desire to emphasize their cruelty turned out to be more important for the followers of Metropolitan Anthony.
Bishop Maximilian of Vologda later told reporters how Metropolitan Nicholas and other opponents of the tsar’s canonization found themselves in the minority at the 2000 council.
“Let's remember the Council of Bishops in 1997, at which the issue of canonization of the royal martyrs was discussed. Then the materials were already collected and carefully studied. Some bishops said that the sovereign-emperor should be glorified, others called for the opposite, while most bishops took a neutral position. At that time, the decision on the issue of canonization of the royal martyrs could probably lead to division. And His Holiness [Patriarch Alexy II] made a very wise decision. He said that glorification should take place at the Jubilee Council. Three years passed, and when I talked with those bishops who were against canonization, I saw that their opinion had changed. Those who wavered stood for canonization,” the bishop testified.
One way or another, opponents of the emperor’s canonization remained in the minority, and their arguments were consigned to oblivion. Although conciliar decisions are obligatory for all believers and now they cannot afford to openly disagree with the holiness of Nicholas II, judging by the discussions on the RuNet around “Matilda”, complete unanimity on this issue was not achieved in the ranks of the Orthodox...

Holiness Commission
To understand more clearly who is called passion-bearers in the Church, one should turn to the official explanations from the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints. From 1989 to 2011, it was headed by Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna, during which time 1,866 ascetics of piety were canonized, including 1,776 new martyrs and confessors who suffered during the years of Soviet power.
In his report at the Council of Bishops in 2000 - the same one where the issue of the royal family was decided - Bishop Juvenaly stated the following: “One of the main arguments of opponents of the canonization of the royal family is the assertion that the death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family cannot to be recognized as a martyr for Christ. The commission, based on a careful consideration of the circumstances of the death of the royal family, proposes to carry out its canonization as holy passion-bearers. In the liturgical and hagiographic literature of the Russian Orthodox Church, the word “passion-bearer” began to be used in relation to those Russian saints who, imitating Christ, patiently endured physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents.”
“In the history of the Russian church, such passion-bearers were the holy noble princes Boris and Gleb (1015), Igor Chernigovsky (1147), Andrei Bogolyubsky (1174), Mikhail Tverskoy (1319), Tsarevich Dimitri (1591). All of them, with their feat of passion-bearers, showed a high example of Christian morality and patience,” he noted.
The proposal was accepted, and the council decided to recognize the emperor, his wife and children as holy passion-bearers, despite the fact that the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad in 1981 had already recognized the entire royal family and even its servants as “full-fledged” martyrs, among whom was the Catholic valet Aloysius Troupe and Lutheran goflektress Ekaterina Schneider. The latter died not with the royal family in Yekaterinburg, but two months later in Perm. History knows no other examples of the canonization of Catholics and Protestants by the Orthodox Church.

Unholy Saints
Meanwhile, the canonization of a Christian to the rank of martyr or passion-bearer in no way whitens his entire biography as a whole...
The stubborn fact that most of the life and entire reign of Emperor Nicholas, right up to his abdication and exile, did not at all represent an example of holiness, was openly recognized at the council in 2000.
“Summarizing the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian emperor, the Commission did not find in this activity alone sufficient grounds for his canonization.
It seems necessary to emphasize that the canonization of the monarch is in no way connected with monarchical ideology, and certainly does not mean the “canonization” of the monarchical form of government,” Metropolitan Yuvenaly concluded then.
https://www.ridus.ru/news/258954
---
Well, in conclusion, an extremely interesting testimony from a person who personally communicated with representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church -

banana_bunker
The glorification in Washington in November 1981 of the family of Romanov citizens (the former royal family) in the ranks of (as much as!) martyrs was not even an act of the ROCOR, in which half were definitely against it. This is the act of the Reagan administration and the structures behind it, as part of the “Crusade” against the “evil empire” of the USSR.

1) How it happened.
In 1959, one of the bishops of the ROCOR said in a sermon that Tsar Nicholas accepted death for the people. Moreover, a martyr(?). And that the godless Russian people need to repent of this too.

The latter was their usual rhetoric. Just as they called for the “purifying (atomic) fire” of “Christian,” “God-loving America” on the atheists in the USSR. But after this advance (private theological opinion) of this archbishop, no one returned to the idea of glorification in the ROCOR: Niki was too insignificant a person. (Yes, and Yevonna’s little wife too...)

But the artist Reagan came to their nominally supreme power. And they came up with the idea for him to put on such a performance. So that religion can help instill in Russians an inferiority complex not only in front of the West and its consumer products, but also in front of their own history.

2) What about MP?
The Moscow Patriarchate resisted for a long time, but in 2000 it gave in, and glorified the Romanovs in the guise of not martyrs (the rank of general), not reverends (like senior officers), but... the ridiculous rank of passion-bearers (this is not even a junior officer, this is a sergeant major/ensign ).

3) Useful idiots.
Both before and after this shameful act, psychopaths speaking publicly promoted the cult of these empty and pathetic Romanov personalities.
First of all, it was Konstantin Dushenov. (Former lieutenant captain and not just a member of the CPSU, but a party organizer. He wrote a letter to General Secretary M.S. Gorbachev where he spoke about the shortcomings of perestroika in the Northern Fleet, but received a spanking. And, instead of a surge in career growth, he was quietly left with The navy, where it is clear, does not like informers. Arriving in his native Leningrad, he retrained as an administrator... into professional Orthodox Christians, for which he grew a beard to his waist...)...

Today, such a public psychopath is the Ukrainian (mentality can’t be avoided) Mrs. Poklonska.
-
I know this from the personal stories of old people who have already passed into another world - the laity of the ROCOR.

The canonization was pushed by the Bishop of Washington and Florida Gregory ((Count) Grabbe), the omnipotent, as everyone guessed, overseeing the intelligence services (Empire of GOOD) in the central structures of the ROCOR, who held the post of Secretary of the Synod for decades.
Moreover, he intrigued against everyone, right and left, and he didn’t care about anything.
Even against the archepa. John (Maksimovich) of San Francisco, glorified for his cause only in 1994 as the Saint of Shanghai and San Francisco, whom he hated fiercely, accusing him, a “chemically pure” anti-Soviet, as standard, of having connections with the communists and Moscow.. .

Here is something about the personality of this figure, who has gone crazy with anti-Sovietism since his tender youth:
yandex.ru/search/?text=Secretary%20Synod%20ROCOR%20bishop%20Gregory%20Grabbe

For example, even in the “truest” Wiki it is already eloquent:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_(Grabbe)

Once again, briefly, on the canonization of Nika
It was so that immediately after Reagan’s inauguration, Count Grabbe, sensing the wind of perestroika of change, blowing in a bitchy anti-Soviet manner, proposed to the competent structures of the “Empire of Good” to finally wrap up this business - to make Niki perfect. holy MARTYR, hanging his “torment” on the Soviet (Russian) people.
Like the whole ROCOR “with one mouth and one heart” “is hoping for a bright day”, and for many decades now, but hidden agents of Moscow***) in the Synod of the ROCOR interfere, and resist, and put a spoke in the wheels.
The idea was liked and met with support in the presidential party (administration) of the artist R.
We decided - we did it. And no one asked ROCOR. Like everyone is FOR...

I don’t know where to read about this specifically today :-(
The fact is that in ROCOR, the former criticism of glorification in the public space died out immediately after the glorification. In the West, societies are much more totalitarian in the sense of unanimity. And the dissatisfied risked being accused of aiding the enemy - Soviet communism. With all the consequences. [And flowing in].
Only t.s. in oral traditions.
Where did I get this from?

P.S.
Well, US agitprop began to develop this topic to its fullest.
This is how I personally listened to religion. (Orthodox) Voice of America program shortly after November 1981. The host [with the epic name Zoran Safir, which is why it was imprinted in the brain] informed those seeking religious enlightenment to the Soviet people, that in the USSR they, i.e. Orthodox believers [secretly from the party committees and the KGB], reverence St. Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna Romanova as...the second Mother of God (!!) Neither more nor less.
Those who are in the know understand that this is worse than the “myrrh-streaming” of the bronze bust of the “sovereign”.

***) There was no Russia Today at that time, nor were there any social networks... Not even Kaspersky Anti-Virus... But there were already Moscow agents.

P.S.
I forgot to add anything else.
Archbishop of San Francisco John (Maximovich) (*1896 -- +1966) - a man of holy personal life, was subjected (see Wiki) to even a public civil trial, where Grabbe was the main accuser. There were many of his admirers and zealots of glorification, but all in vain. Only immediately after Grabbe's removal in 1994 was it possible to glorify John as a saint of Shanghai and San Francisco.

Well, theoretically speaking, the Reagan crowd could limit itself to glorifying John of Shanghai as a saint, a real holy man. As well as a truly stubborn anti-Soviet who refused precisely for fundamental church-political reasons to reunite with Moscow. Patriarchate immediately after the war. (And with great personal labor, he evacuated a mass of Orthodox Russian people (from the Harbin diaspora) from China through the Pacific Islands and ultimately to the coveted western coast of the United States). Why not a style icon?
Ann no!
The profit from John would not have been the same.

From the “Russian Tsar”, “killed and tortured” by “communist barbarians”, who were his loyal subjects at that, the profit was getting worse...

Opponents of St. Niki in Russia
Many people in the Russian Federation were against the glorification of Nika. But... who listens to brides... people?

And today not a single clergyman in the MP dares to publicly admit that he “somehow doesn’t really... believe in the holiness of Nika and her family.”

How many serious books have been published since 2000 against the glorification of Nika? I know only one, Alexander Kolpakidi’s “Nicholas II. Saint or Bloody?”, and only this year.

This is very, very little, realizing that 90% of Russians, if they don’t understand, then feel that Nika’s “holiness” is a complex of guilt towards Russians, stupid and bloody “scoops”...

Results
So, how can we know that the glorification of the “Holy Martyr.” Nicky - is this an act as part of the Reagan crusade against the USSR as an "evil empire"?

From a comparison of facts!
NB Legitimate historical method, if we don’t have any others

Including considering the colorful personality of Grabbe. As well as the [impudent] non-glorification of John (Maksimovich) - a real saint, but hated by [special services agent] Grabbe

---
As we see, everyone agrees that -
a) canonization was pushed by the West, b) it was a political decision, c) it was necessary to create a sense of guilt among Russians, c) there was no talk of any holiness of the Tsar at that time, d) many clergy were against it, e) the process itself was carried out with violations all norms.

In summary: canonization was intended to serve as a tool for discrediting the Russian people and imputing collective responsibility for the regicide; the last tsar turned out to be the most convenient figure for this.

Conclusion: those who are trying to present Nicholas as a saint and demand repentance from the Russian people for the regicide are directly and openly working against Russia and Russians in the interests of the West.

Draw conclusions based on personalities.

Nikolai Romanov is canonized. Orthodox Christians against Nicholas II: why the Tsar was recognized as a saint

Key dates

Background

Execution

Arguments against canonization

Canonization of the royal family

Catacomb Church

Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

ROC

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

Refuting the arguments of opponents of canonization

Aspects of canonization

Question about the face of holiness

Canonization of servants

Society's reaction to canonization

Positive

Negative

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

Icons

Iconography

Relics

Announced miracles of the royal martyrs

Skeptical perception of miracles

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

see also

Notes

Key dates

Background

Execution

Arguments against canonization

Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

ROC

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

Refuting the arguments of opponents of canonization

Aspects of canonization

Question about the face of holiness

Canonization of servants

Society's reaction to canonization

Positive

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

Icons

Iconography

Relics

Announced miracles of the royal martyrs

Skeptical perception of miracles

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

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

Death as an argument

Renunciation: weakness or hope?

What kind of saints are these?..