By rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. Thank you.
Canonization royal family - canonization by the Russian Orthodox Church of the last Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family, one of the most controversial acts of the Russian Orthodox Church in its entire history, which caused an extremely negative reaction from a significant part of Orthodox believers, including such prominent figures The Russian Orthodox Church as Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga John, A. I. Osipov and others. Nicholas II and members of his family were glorified as passion-bearers. At the same time, the servants who were shot along with the royal family were not canonized.
History of glorification
In 1928, Nicholas II and his family were canonized as saints of the Catacomb Church.
In 1981, the emperor and his family were glorified by a group of bishops “calling themselves the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad, which does not have recognition of the entire Orthodox Completeness due to its anti-canonical nature” (From the appeal of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1990), in other words, the so-called. Russian Church Abroad.
IN last decade XX century in Russia, a number of clergy who sympathize with the so-called. The “Russian Church Abroad” launched a campaign for the canonization of the now Russian Orthodox Church of the emperor and his family, as well as servants. Many prominent representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church spoke out against canonization, including Metropolitan John (Snychev) of St. Petersburg and Ladoga. As a result, the Council of Bishops in 1997 refused to canonize the former sovereign. According to one of the prominent opponents of the canonization of Nicholas II, professor of the Moscow Theological Academy A.I. Osipov, the moral character and scale of the personality of Nicholas II in no way corresponded to those of the general church holy ascetics.
However, pressure on the Russian Orthodox Church from supporters of canonization increased. In radical monarchist and pseudo-Orthodox circles, even the epithet “redeemer” is used in relation to Nicholas II. 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 in some church books 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."
In accordance with the next decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church dated August 20, 2000, Nicholas II, Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna, Tsarevich Alexei, princesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia were canonized as holy new martyrs and confessors of Russia, revealed and unmanifested.
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 emperor's unsuccessful state and church policies, including such events as Khodynka, Bloody Sunday and the Lena shooting.
- 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.
- MDA Professor A.I. Osipov: “Neither the holy Patriarch Tikhon, nor the holy Metropolitan of Petrograd Benjamin, nor the holy Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsky, nor the holy Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov), nor the holy Archbishop Thaddeus, nor the holy Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), who, without doubts, he will soon be canonized, neither the other hierarchs now glorified by our Church, the new martyrs, who knew much more and better than we now, the personality of the former Tsar - none of them ever expressed thoughts about him as a holy passion-bearer (and in At that time it was still possible to declare this loudly).”
- The responsibility for “the gravest sin of regicide, which weighs on all the peoples of Russia,” is also deeply bewildering, promoted by some supporters of canonization.
Pressure on the Russian Orthodox Church from supporters of canonization in the period between the first and second bishops’ councils
Question about the canonization of servants
A visual comparison of the personality of Nicholas II with the personalities of some other famous Russian Orthodox Church
Arguments for canonization in a different guise
On August 20, 2000, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow, in the presence of the heads and representatives of all Orthodox Autocephalous Churches, the entire glorification of the Royal Family took place. The act of conciliar glorification of the new martyrs and confessors of the Russian twentieth century reads: “Glorify as passion-bearers in the host of new martyrs and confessors of Russia Royal Family: Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia. In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his Family, we see people who sincerely sought to implement 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 the lives and deaths of millions Orthodox Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the twentieth century.”The Jews are satisfied that the Royal Romanov family has been elevated to the ranks of passion-bearers, not martyrs, please note, but passion-bearers. What is the difference? The rite of martyrdom is the feat of death for Christ at the hands of non-believers. Passion-bearers are those who have suffered torment at the hands of their fellow Christians. According to the passion-bearing rite of canonization, it turns out that the Tsar and his Family were martyred by their own fellow Christians. Now, if the Council of Bishops had recognized the obvious, that the Tsar was tortured to death by the Gentiles, the Jews, then he would not have been a passion-bearer, but a great martyr. This is what the Jews are satisfied with, this is what they mean when they present an ultimatum to the Moscow Patriarchate: “It is very important that the decision on canonization in the form in which it was adopted by the Council becomes known to the widest circle of laity and clergy.”
There are no grounds for revising the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), however, discussions in Russian society about whether to consider last Emperor Russian Empire saints, continue to this day. Statements that the Russian Orthodox Church “made a mistake” in canonizing Nicholas II and his family are far from uncommon. The arguments of opponents of the holiness of the last Sovereign of the Russian Empire are based on typical myths, mostly created by Soviet historiography, and sometimes by outright antagonists of Orthodoxy and independent Russia as a great power.
No matter how many wonderful books and articles are published about Nicholas II and the Royal Family, which represent documented research by professional historians, no matter how many films are made documentaries and programs, many for some reason remain faithful to the negative assessment of both the personality of the Tsar and his state activities. Without heeding new scientific historical discoveries, such people stubbornly continue to attribute to Nicholas II a “weak, weak-willed character” and the inability to lead the state, blaming him for the tragedy of Bloody Sunday and the execution of workers, for the defeat in the Russian-Japanese War of 1904-1905. and Russia's involvement in the First World War; It all ends with an accusation against the Church that it canonized the Royal Family, and a threat that it, the Russian Orthodox Church, “will regret this.”
Some accusations are frankly naive, if not ridiculous, for example: “during the reign of Nicholas II, so many people died and a war was fought” (are there periods in history when no one died? Or were wars fought only under the last Emperor? Why are statistical indicators not compared with other periods of Russian history?). Other accusations indicate the extreme ignorance of their authors, who build their conclusions on the basis of pulp literature such as books by A. Bushkov, pseudo-historical novels by E. Radzinsky, or in general some dubious Internet articles by unknown authors who consider themselves to be nugget historians. I would like to draw the attention of readers of the "Orthodox Messenger" to the need to be critical of this kind of literature, which is subscribed, if at all, by unknown people, with an incomprehensible profession, education, outlook, mental and especially spiritual health.
As for the Russian Orthodox Church, its leadership consists of people not only capable of thinking logically, but also with deep humanitarian and natural science knowledge, including professional secular diplomas in various specialties, so there is no need to rush into statements about “misconceptions” » ROC and see in the Orthodox hierarchs some kind of religious fanatics, “far from real life.”
This article presents a number of the most common myths that could be found in old textbooks of the Soviet period and which, despite their complete groundlessness, are still repeated in the mouths of some people due to their reluctance to get acquainted with new research modern science. After each myth, brief arguments for refutation are given, which it was decided, at the request of the editors, not to be burdened with numerous cumbersome references to historical documents, since the volume of the article is very limited, and the “Orthodox Messenger”, after all, does not belong to historical and scientific publications; however, an interested reader can easily find references to sources in any scientific work, especially since a huge number of them have been coming out lately.
Myth 1
Tsar Nicholas II was a gentle and kind family man, an intellectual who received a good education, a skillful interlocutor, but an irresponsible and absolutely unsuitable person for such a high position. He was pushed around by his wife Alexandra Fedorovna, a German by nationality, and since 1907. Elder Grigory Rasputin, who exercised unlimited influence on the tsar, removing and appointing ministers and military leaders.
If you read the memoirs of Emperor Nicholas II’s contemporaries, Russians and foreigners, who, of course, were not published or translated into Russian during the years of Soviet power, then we come across a description of Nicholas II as a kind, generous man, but far from weak. For example, French President Emile Loubet (1899-1806) believed that under the apparent timidity the king had a strong soul and a courageous heart, as well as always well-thought-out plans, the implementation of which he slowly achieved. Nicholas II possessed the strength of character necessary for the difficult royal service; moreover, according to Metropolitan of Moscow (since 1943 - Patriarch) Sergius (1867-1944), through anointing to the Russian throne he was given an invisible power from above, acting to elevate his royal valor. Many circumstances and events of his life prove that the Emperor had a strong will, which made his contemporaries who knew him closely believe that “the Emperor had an iron hand, and many were only deceived by the velvet glove he wore.”
Nicholas II received a real military upbringing and education; all his life he felt like a military man, which affected his psychology and many things in his life. The Emperor, as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army, himself, without the influence of any “good geniuses,” accepted absolutely everything important decisions, contributed to victorious actions.
The opinion that the Russian army was led by Alekseev, and the Tsar was in the post of Commander-in-Chief for the sake of form, is completely unfounded, which is refuted by telegrams from Alekseev himself.
As for the relations of the Royal Family with Grigory Rasputin, then, without going into details here of the extremely ambiguous assessments of the latter’s activities, there is no reason to see in these relations signs of any dependence or spiritual charm of the Royal Family. Even the Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry of the Provisional Government, which consisted of liberal lawyers who were sharply opposed to the Sovereign, the dynasty and the monarchy as such, was forced to admit that there was no influence on public life G. Rasputin did not provide assistance to the country.
Myth 2
Unsuccessful state and church policies of the Emperor. In defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. It is the Emperor who is to blame for failing to ensure the effectiveness and combat capability of the Russian army and navy. With his persistent reluctance to carry out the necessary economic and political reforms, as well as to conduct a dialogue with representatives of Russian citizens of all classes, the emperor “caused” the revolution of 1905-1907, which, in turn, led to severe destabilization of Russian society and state system. He also dragged Russia into the First World War, in which he was defeated.
In fact, under Nicholas II, Russia experienced an unprecedented period of material prosperity; on the eve of the First World War, its economy flourished and grew at the fastest pace in the world. For 1894-1914. The country's state budget increased by 5.5 times, gold reserves by 3.7 times, the Russian currency was one of the strongest in the world. Wherein government revenues grew without the slightest increase in the tax burden. Overall growth Russian economy even in difficult years World War I accounted for 21.5%. Edinburgh University professor Charles Sarolea, who visited Russia before and after the revolution, believed that the Russian monarchy was the most progressive government in Europe.
The Emperor did a lot to improve the country's defense capability, having learned hard lessons Russo-Japanese War. One of his most significant acts was the revival of the Russian fleet, which occurred against the will of military officials, but saved the country at the beginning of the First World War. The most difficult and most forgotten feat of Emperor Nicholas II was that, under incredibly difficult conditions, he brought Russia to the threshold of victory in the First World War, however, his opponents did not allow it to cross this threshold. General N.A. Lokhvitsky wrote: “It took Peter the Great nine years to turn the Narva vanquished into the Poltava victors. Last Supreme Commander Imperial Army- Emperor Nicholas II did the same great work in a year and a half, but his work was appreciated by his enemies, and between the Sovereign and his Army and victory “became a revolution.” The Sovereign's military talents were fully revealed at the post of Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Russia definitely began to win the war when the triumphant year of 1916 of the Brusilov breakthrough arrived, with the plan of which many military leaders did not agree, and on which it was the Emperor who insisted.
It should be noted that Nicholas II treated the duties of the monarch as his sacred duty and did everything in his power: he managed to suppress the terrible revolution of 1905 and delay the triumph of the “demons” for 12 years. Thanks to his personal efforts, a radical turning point was achieved in the course of the Russian-German confrontation. Being already a prisoner of the Bolsheviks, he refused to approve Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and thereby save your life. He lived with dignity and accepted death with dignity.
With regard to the Emperor’s church policy, it is necessary to take into account that it did not go beyond the traditional synodal system of governing the Church, and it was during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II that the church hierarchy, which had previously been officially silent for two centuries on the issue of convening a Council, received the opportunity not only to widely discuss, but and practically prepare the convening of the Local Council.
Myth 3
On the day of the Emperor’s coronation on May 18, 1896, during the distribution of gifts in a stampede on the Khodynka field, more than a thousand people died and more than a thousand were seriously injured, due to which Nicholas II received the nickname “Bloody.” On January 9, 1905, a peaceful demonstration of workers protesting against living and working conditions was shot at (96 people were killed, 330 were injured); On April 4, 1912, the Lena execution of workers protesting against the 15-hour working day took place (270 people were killed, 250 were injured). Conclusion: Nicholas II was a tyrant who destroyed the Russian people and especially hated workers.
The most important indicator of the effectiveness and morality of government and the well-being of the people is population growth. From 1897 to 1914, i.e. in just 17 years, it reached a fantastic figure of 50.5 million people. Since then, according to statistics, Russia has lost and continues to lose on average about 1 million deaths per year, plus those killed as a result of numerous government-organized actions, plus abortions, murdered children, the number of which in the 21st century has exceeded one and a half million per year. In 1913, a worker in Russia earned 20 gold rubles per month with the cost of bread being 3-5 kopecks, 1 kg of beef - 30 kopecks, 1 kg of potatoes - 1.5 kopecks, and income tax - 1 ruble per year (the lowest in the world) , which made it possible to contain large family.
From 1894 to 1914 budget public education increased by 628%. The number of schools increased: higher - by 180%, secondary - by 227%, girls' gymnasiums - by 420%, public schools - by 96%. In Russia, 10,000 schools were opened annually. The Russian Empire was in its heyday cultural life. During the reign of Nicholas II, more newspapers and magazines were published in Russia than in the USSR in 1988.
The blame for the tragic events of Khodynka, Bloody Sunday and the Lena execution, of course, cannot be placed directly on the Emperor. The cause of the stampede on Khodynka Field was... greed. A rumor spread through the crowd that the bartenders were distributing gifts among “their own”, and therefore there were not enough gifts for everyone, as a result of which the people rushed to the temporary wooden buildings with such force that even 1,800 policemen, specially assigned to maintain order during the festivities, could not were able to hold back the onslaught.
According to recent research, the events of January 9, 1905 were a provocation organized by the Social Democrats in order to put certain political demands into the mouths of the workers and create the impression of popular protest against the existing government. On January 9, workers from the Putilov plant with icons, banners and royal portraits moved procession to Palace Square, filled with joy and performing prayer chants to meet their Sovereign and bow to him. A meeting with him was promised to them by the socialist organizers, although the latter knew very well that the Tsar was not in St. Petersburg; on the evening of January 8, he left for Tsarskoe Selo.
People gathered in the square at the appointed hour and waited for the Tsar to come out to meet them. Time passed, the Emperor did not appear, and tension and unrest began to grow among the people. Suddenly, the provocateurs began shooting at the gendarmes from the attics of houses, gateways and other hiding places. The gendarmes returned fire, panic and a stampede arose among the people, as a result of which, according to various estimates, from 96 to 130 people were killed, and from 299 to 333 people were wounded. The Emperor was deeply shocked by the news of “Bloody Sunday.” He ordered the allocation of 50,000 rubles for benefits to the families of the victims, as well as the convening of a commission to determine the needs of the workers. Thus, the Tsar could not give the order to shoot civilians, as the Marxists accused him of, since he simply was not in St. Petersburg at that moment.
Historical data does not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign any conscious evil will directed against the people and embodied in specific decisions and actions. History itself eloquently testifies to who really should be called “bloody” - the enemies Russian state and the Orthodox Tsar.
Now about the Lena execution: modern researchers connect the tragic events at the Lena mines with raiding - activities to establish control over the mines of two conflicting joint stock companies, during which representatives of the Russian management company Lenzoto provoked the strike in an attempt to prevent the management of the British company Lena Goldfields from effectively controlling the mines. The working conditions of the miners of the Lena Gold Mining Partnership were as follows: the salary was significantly higher (up to 55 rubles) than in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the working day according to the employment contract was 8-11 hours (depending on the shift schedule), although in reality it, indeed, could last up to 16 hours, since at the end of the working day, prospecting work to find nuggets was allowed. The reason for the strike was the “meat story,” which is still ambiguously assessed by researchers, and the decision to open fire was made by the gendarmerie captain, and certainly not by Nicholas II.
Myth 4
Nicholas II easily agreed to the government's proposal to abdicate the throne, thereby violating his duty to the Fatherland and betraying Russia into the hands of the Bolsheviks. The abdication of the anointed king from the throne, moreover, should be considered as a church-canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the priesthood.
Here we should probably start with the fact that modern historians generally cast great doubt on the very fact of the Tsar’s abdication of the throne. The document on the abdication of Nicholas II, stored in the State Archives of the Russian Federation, is a typed sheet of paper, at the bottom of which is the signature “Nicholas,” written in pencil and circled, apparently through a window glass, with a pen. The style of the text is completely different from that of other documents compiled by the Emperor.
The counter-signature (assurance) inscription of the Minister of the Imperial Household, Count Fredericks, on the abdication was also made in pencil and then circled with a pen. Thus, this document raises serious doubts about its authenticity and allows many historians to conclude that the Autocrat of the All-Russian Sovereign, Emperor Nicholas II, never composed a renunciation, wrote it by hand and did not sign it.
In any case, the renunciation of the kingship itself is not a crime against the Church, since the canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed to the Kingdom was not defined in the church canons. And those spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, could abdicate the Throne in the name of inner world in Russia, they give his actions a genuine moral character.
Myth 5
The death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family was not a martyrdom for Christ, but... (further options): political repression; murder committed by the Bolsheviks; ritual murder committed by Jews, Freemasons, Satanists (to choose from); Lenin's blood revenge for the death of his brother; a consequence of a global conspiracy aimed at an anti-Christian coup. Another version: the Royal Family was not shot, but secretly transported abroad; The execution room in the Ipatiev House was a deliberate staging.
Actually, according to any of the listed versions of the death of the Royal Family (with the exception of the completely incredible one about its salvation), the indisputable fact remains that the circumstances of the death of the Royal Family were physical and moral suffering and death at the hands of opponents, that it was a murder associated with incredible human torment: long, long and savage.
In the “Act on the Conciliar Glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian 20th Century” it is written: “Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often likened his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on whose church memorial day he was born. Having accepted his cross in the same way as the biblical righteous man, he endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of a murmur. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in last days life of the Emperor." Most of the witnesses last period life Royal Martyrs they talk about the prisoners of the Tobolsk governor's and Yekaterinburg Ipatiev houses as people who suffered and, despite all the bullying and insults, led godly life. Their true greatness stemmed not from their royal dignity, but from the amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.
Those who wish to carefully and impartially familiarize themselves with published materials about life and political activity Nicholas II, the investigation into the murder of the Royal Family, can look at the following works in different publications:
Robert Wilton "The Last Days of the Romanovs" 1920;
Mikhail Diterikhs “The Murder of the Royal Family and Members of the House of Romanov in the Urals” 1922;
Nikolai Sokolov “The Murder of the Royal Family”, 1925;
Pavel Paganuzzi “The Truth about the Murder of the Royal Family” 1981;
Nikolai Ross “The Death of the Royal Family” 1987;
Multatuli P.V. "Nicholas II. The Road to Golgotha. M., 2010;
Multatuli P.V. “Witnessing for Christ even to death,” 2008;
Multatuli P.V. "God bless my decision." Nicholas II and the conspiracy of the generals."
According to the unanimous opinion of observers, the key event of the Bishops' Council of the Russian Church taking place in Moscow was the issue of canonization of the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II and his family. The main stories of television news and the front pages of newspapers and magazines have been devoted to this topic over the past few days. The drama of the situation was enhanced by the fact that until the very last moment it was not known whether the canonization of the royal passion-bearers would take place or not.
Certain forces even tried to exert massive information pressure on the Moscow Patriarchate in order to prevent canonization. In his report at the opening of the Council on August 13, His Holiness the Patriarch deliberately distanced himself from any opinion on this issue, saying: “I would not impose my judgment on this topic on anyone. I propose to discuss it especially carefully and think about how to transfer this difficult issue to the will of God.”
The issue of canonization of the new martyrs was decided at the Council of Bishops today, August 14. In the hall of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, where the chairman of the Synodal Commission for Canonization, Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna, gave a report, only bishops were present. At 17:20 we were informed from the Council Hall that a few minutes ago the final positive decision on canonization had been made. In the debate before this, about 60 bishops spoke, who with tears in their eyes spoke about the need to glorify the martyr king and his family. Only one bishop from Western Ukraine. They voted by standing, and the hall of Church Councils, full of standing bishops, testified better than any words to the holiness of the royal passion-bearers. The decision was made unanimously.
The Council also decided to canonize 860 people from the huge number of Russian new martyrs and confessors who suffered for Christ in the 20th century. A number of locally revered saints were also included in the Council. The church celebration of the canonization of the host of Russian new martyrs will take place in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior on the second day of the Transfiguration of the Lord, August 20. After this, the newly glorified saints, including the passion-bearers Tsar Nicholas, Tsarina Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, princesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, will have services compiled, lives written, and icons blessed for church-wide veneration. Canonization means that the Church testifies to the closeness of these people to God and prays to them as its patrons.
The Act of the Council, in particular, reads: “In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his Family, we see people who sincerely sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 4 (17), 1918, the evil-conquering light of Christ’s faith was revealed.”
Before this, the royal martyrs were glorified as locally revered saints in the Yekaterinburg, Lugansk, Bryansk, Odessa and Tulchin dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church. They were revered as saints in the Serbian Church. Among the church people, the veneration of the Royal Family, as Metropolitan Yuvenaly noted in one of his reports, began as early as His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon in a funeral prayer and a word at a memorial service about the murdered emperor three days after the Yekaterinburg murder “and continued - despite the prevailing ideology - for several decades of the Soviet period of our history.” IN last years Many miracles and healings were recorded through prayers to the royal martyrs. Portraits and even icons of the royal family circulated among the church people, which could be seen not only in homes, but also in churches. All this testified to the widespread popular veneration of the royal passion-bearers, which served as one of the main reasons for their glorification as saints. According to church canons, the presence of the relics of a saint during his canonization is not necessary.
Orthodoxy 2000
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 persecute 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 of the throne
- Did he somehow mention these views in his diaries and letters?
Yes, but this is clear 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 is in my hands.” Gentlemen. Whatever happens, I bow to His will." Already 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 down: “Perhaps a redemptive sacrifice is necessary to save Russia: I will be this sacrifice - may God’s will be done!”
- Many see renunciation as 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 her captivity in the 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?
- Did the way the last Romanovs lived and believed influence 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. Ibid. Grand Duchess Tatyana, 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 wonderful 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.
There are very different attitudes towards 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 The difficult state of many of our contemporaries is the lack of any relationship to the martyrs, to the royal family, to 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 they showed love 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 is a huge merit of the Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod K. F. Pobedonostsev - was created only for end of the 19th century 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, so to speak, testified to the difficult state of the people's soul - first of all, Saint 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, we also 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 change the situation with willpower, because it came from the depths folk 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 killed here along with his family and household members.
What kind of saints are these?..
Father Vladimir, in Soviet time, obviously, canonization was impossible due to 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 huge parts of the Russian Empire were occupied by the Germans, although the First World War promised to end victoriously for Russia; when terrible persecution, anarchy, and Civil War began; when famine came in the Volga region, repressions unfolded, etc. - apparently, in the young perception of the people of that time, it was somehow tied up with the weakness of the government, with 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 uncle, a priest, was canonized as a new martyr - he was shot for his faith. When they told her about this, she was surprised: “How?! No, of course he was very good man, but what kind of saint is he? That is, it is not so easy for us to accept the people with whom we live as saints, because for us 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 the Peter and Paul Fortress. But the Church doubts their authenticity. Why?
Yes, there was a very long controversy 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 temple Sovereign icons 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 from the very beginning early childhood knew about this tragedy. 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, 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 dispensation of heart was nurtured in them - peaceful, chaste. It’s 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 their near-death suffering, for the faith, meekness and obedience with which they went through this suffering to the will of God - this is their unique greatness.
Valeria POSASHKO
GROUNDS FOR CANONIZATION OF THE ROYAL FAMILY
FROM THE REPORT OF METROPOLITAN JUVENALIY OF KRUTITSKY AND KOLOMENSKY,
CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNODAL COMMISSION FOR THE CANONIZATION OF SAINTS
By the determination of the Council of Bishops from March 31 - April 4, 1992, the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints was instructed “in studying the exploits of the new Russian martyrs to begin researching materials related to the martyrdom of the Royal Family.”
The Commission saw the main task in this matter as an objective consideration of all the circumstances of life of members of the Imperial Family in the context historical events and their church understanding beyond the ideological stereotypes that have dominated our country over the past decades. The commission was guided by pastoral concern so that the canonization of the Royal Family in the host of Russian new martyrs would not give rise to reasons or arguments for political struggle or worldly confrontations, but would contribute to the unification of the people of God in faith and piety. We also sought to take into account the fact of the canonization of the Royal Family by the Russian Church Abroad in 1981, which caused a far from unambiguous reaction both among the Russian emigration, some representatives of which did not then see enough convincing grounds in it, and in Russia itself, not to mention such which has no historical analogies in the Orthodox Church, the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, such as the inclusion of the Roman Catholic Roman Catholic servant Aloysius Yegorovich Trupp and the Lutheran goflektress Ekaterina Adolfovna Schneider among the canonized who accepted the martyrdom of the royal servant with the Royal Family.
Already at the first meeting of the Commission after the Council, we began to study the religious, moral and state aspects of the reign of the last Emperor of the Romanov dynasty. The following topics were carefully studied: “The Orthodox view of the state activities of Emperor Nicholas II”; “Emperor Nicholas II and the events of 1905 in St. Petersburg”; “On the Church Policy of Emperor Nicholas II”; “The reasons for the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne and Orthodox attitude to this act”; “The Royal Family and G.E. Rasputin"; “The Last Days of the Royal Family” and “The Church’s Attitude to Passion-Bearing.”
In 1994 and 1997, I introduced the members of the Councils of Bishops to the results of the study of the above topics. Since that time, no new problems have appeared in the issue under study.
Let me remind you of the Commission’s approaches to these key and difficult topics, the understanding of which is necessary for the members of the Council of Bishops when deciding the issue of canonization of the Royal Family.
The arguments of opponents of the canonization of the Royal Family, which are very different in religious and moral content and level of scientific competence, can be reduced to a list of specific theses that have already been analyzed in historical references compiled by the Commission and at your disposal.
One of the main arguments of opponents of the canonization of the Royal Family is the assertion that the death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his Family cannot be recognized as a martyr’s death 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 liturgical and hagiographic literature In the Russian Orthodox Church, the word “passion-bearer” began to be used in relation to those Russian saints who, imitating Christ, patiently endured physical and 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.
Opponents of this canonization are trying to find obstacles to the glorification of Nicholas II in facts related to his state and church policies.
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 Emperor paid great attention to the needs of the Orthodox Church and generously donated for the construction of new churches, including outside Russia. During the years of his reign, the number of parish churches in Russia increased by more than 10 thousand, and more than 250 new monasteries were opened. The emperor personally participated in the laying of new temples and other church celebrations.
Their deep religiosity distinguished the Imperial couple from the representatives of the then aristocracy. The education of the children of the Imperial Family was imbued with a religious spirit. All its members lived in accordance with the traditions of Orthodox piety. Compulsory attendance at worship services on Sundays and holidays, fasting during fasting was an integral part of their life. The personal religiosity of the Tsar and his wife was not a simple adherence to traditions. The royal couple visit temples and monasteries during their many trips, worship miraculous icons and the relics of saints, makes pilgrimages, as was the case in 1903 during the glorification St. Seraphim Sarovsky. Brief services in court churches did not satisfy the Emperor and Empress. Services are held especially for them in the Tsarskoye Selo Feodorovsky Cathedral, built in the Old Russian style. Empress Alexandra prayed here in front of a lectern with open liturgical books, carefully watching the service.
The personal piety of the Sovereign was manifested in the fact that during the years of his reign more saints were canonized than in the two previous centuries, when only 5 saints were glorified. During the last reign, St. Theodosius of Chernigov (1896), St. Seraphim of Sarov (1903), Holy Princess Anna Kashinskaya (restoration of veneration in 1909), St. Joasaph of Belgorod (1911), St. Hermogenes of Moscow (1913), Saint Pitirim of Tambov (1914), Saint John of Tobolsk (1916). At the same time, the Emperor was forced to show special persistence, seeking the canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov, Saints Joasaph of Belgorod and John of Tobolsk. Nicholas II highly revered the holy righteous father John of Kronstadt. After his blessed death, the king ordered a nationwide prayerful commemoration of the deceased on the day of his repose.
As a politician and statesman The sovereign acted based on his religious and moral principles. One of the most common arguments against the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II is the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. IN historical information We point out to the commission on this issue: having become acquainted with the contents of Gapon’s petition on the evening of January 8, which had the nature of a revolutionary ultimatum, which did not allow entering into constructive negotiations with representatives of the workers, the Emperor ignored this document, which was illegal in form and undermined the prestige of state power already wavering in the conditions of war . Throughout January 9, 1905, the Sovereign did not make a single decision that determined the actions of the authorities in St. Petersburg to suppress mass protests by workers. The order for 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.
Since the beginning of the First World War, the Emperor regularly travels to Headquarters and visits military units active army, dressing stations, military hospitals, rear factories, in a word, everything that played a role in waging this war.
From the very beginning of the war, the Empress devoted herself to the wounded. Having completed nursing courses together with her eldest daughters, Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatiana, she spent several hours a day caring for the wounded in the Tsarskoye Selo infirmary.
The Emperor considered remaining in office Supreme Commander-in-Chief as the fulfillment of a moral and national duty to God and the people, however, always presenting leading military specialists with a broad initiative in resolving the entire range of military-strategic and operational-tactical issues.
Assessments of Nicholas II as a statesman are extremely contradictory. Speaking about this, we should never forget that, comprehending state activity from a Christian point of view, 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 the monarch as his sacred duty.
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.
As external factors, which gave rise to the Act of Abdication, which took place in political life Russia, we should highlight, first of all, the sharp aggravation of the socio-political situation in Petrograd in February 1917, the inability of the government to control the situation in the capital, the conviction that spread among wide sections of society in the need for strict constitutional restrictions on monarchical power, the urgent demand of the Chairman of the State Duma M.V. Rodzianko, the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power in the name of preventing internal political chaos in the context of Russia waging a large-scale war, almost unanimous support provided senior representatives Russian generals at the request of the Chairman of the State Duma. It should also be noted that the Act of Abdication was adopted by Emperor Nicholas II under the pressure of dramatically changing political circumstances in an extremely short time.
The Commission expresses the opinion that the very fact of the abdication of the Throne of Emperor Nicholas II, which is directly related to his personal qualities, is generally an expression of the then historical situation in Russia.
He made this decision only in the hope that those who wanted to remove him would still be able to continue the war with honor and would not ruin the cause of saving Russia. He was afraid then that his refusal to sign the renunciation would lead to civil war in sight of the enemy. The Tsar did not want even a drop of Russian blood to be shed because of him.
The spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of internal peace in Russia, give his action a truly moral character. It is no coincidence that during the discussion in July 1918 at the Council of the Local Council of the question of the funeral commemoration of the murdered Sovereign, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon made a decision on the widespread service of memorial services with the commemoration of Nicholas II as Emperor.
A very small circle of people could directly communicate with the Sovereign in an informal setting. Everyone who knew him family life noted firsthand the amazing simplicity mutual love and the consent of all members of this closely knit Family. Its center was Alexey Nikolaevich, all attachments, all hopes were focused on him.
A circumstance that darkened the life of the Imperial Family was incurable disease The heir. Attacks of hemophilia, during which the child experienced severe suffering, were repeated several times. In September 1912, due to careless movement, a internal bleeding and the situation was so serious that they feared for the life of the Tsarevich. Prayers for his recovery were served in all churches in Russia. The nature of the illness was a state secret, and parents often had to hide their feelings while participating in the usual routine of palace life. The Empress understood well that medicine was powerless here. But nothing is impossible for God. Being deeply religious, she devoted herself wholeheartedly to fervent prayer in the hope of a miraculous healing. Sometimes, when the child was healthy, it seemed to her that her prayer had been answered, but the attacks were repeated again, and this filled the mother’s soul with endless sorrow. She was ready to believe anyone who was able to help her grief, to somehow alleviate her son’s suffering.
The illness of the Tsarevich opened the doors to the palace to the peasant Grigory Rasputin, who was destined to play his role in the life of the Royal Family, and in the fate of the entire country. The most significant argument among opponents of the canonization of the Royal Family is the very fact of their communication with G.E. Rasputin.
The relationship between the Emperor and Rasputin was complex; disposition towards him was combined with caution and doubts. “The Emperor tried several times to get rid of the “old man,” but each time he retreated under pressure from the Empress because of the need for Rasputin’s help to heal the Heir.”
In her relationship with Rasputin there was an element of human weakness associated with the Empress deep feeling incurability is fatal dangerous disease son, and for the Emperor it was conditioned by the desire to maintain peace in the Family by compassionate compliance with the maternal torments of the Empress. However, there is no reason to see in the relations of the Royal Family with Rasputin signs of spiritual delusion, and even more so of insufficient church involvement.
Summing up the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian Emperor, the Commission did not find in this activity alone sufficient grounds for his canonization.
In the life of Emperor Nicholas II there were two periods of unequal duration and spiritual significance - the time of his reign and the time of his imprisonment. The commission carefully studied the last days of the Royal Family, associated with the suffering and martyrdom of its members.
Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often compared his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on whose church memorial day he was born. Having accepted his cross in the same way as the biblical righteous man, he endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of a murmur. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor’s life. From the moment of abdication, it is not so much external events as the internal spiritual state of the Sovereign that attracts our attention.
The sovereign, having made, as it seemed to him, the only correct decision, nevertheless experienced severe mental anguish. “If I am an obstacle to the happiness of Russia and all the social forces now at the head of it ask me to leave the throne and hand it over to my son and brother, then I am ready to do this, I am even ready to give not only the Kingdom, but also my life for the Motherland. I think no one who knows me doubts this,” the Emperor said to General D.N. Dubensky.
“The Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, who saw so much betrayal around him... retained an unshakable faith in God, fatherly love to the Russian people, readiness to lay down one’s life for the honor and glory of the Motherland.” On March 8, 1917, the commissioners of the Provisional Government, having arrived in Mogilev, announced through General M.V. Alekseev about the arrest of the Sovereign and the need to proceed to Tsarskoe Selo. IN last time he addresses his troops, calling on them to be loyal to the Provisional Government, the very one that arrested him, to fulfill their duty to the Motherland until complete victory.
Consistently and methodically killing all members of the Imperial Family who fell into their hands, the Bolsheviks were primarily guided by ideology, and then by political calculations - after all, in the popular consciousness, the Emperor continued to remain the Anointed of God, and the entire Royal Family symbolized the Russia that was leaving and the Russia that was being destroyed. On July 21, 1918, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, in his word during the Divine Liturgy at the Moscow Kazan Cathedral, seemed to answer those questions and doubts that eight decades later the Russian Church would try to comprehend: “We know that he (Emperor Nicholas II - M.Yu. .), abdicating the Throne, did so with the good of Russia in mind and out of love for her.”
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. In the Royal Family, which found itself in captivity, we see people who sincerely sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives.
The Imperial Family spent a lot of time in soulful reading, especially Holy Scripture, and in regular – almost unforgettable – attendance at divine services.
Kindness and peace of mind They did not leave the Empress during this difficult time. The emperor, naturally reserved, felt calm and complacent primarily in his narrow family circle. The Empress did not like social interaction or balls. Her strict upbringing was alien to the moral laxity that reigned in the court environment; the Empress's religiosity was called oddity, even hypocrisy. Alexandra Feodorovna’s letters reveal the full depth of her religious feelings - how much strength of spirit they contain, grief over the fate of Russia, faith and hope for God’s help. And no matter who she wrote to, she found words of support and consolation. These letters are real testimonies of the Christian faith.
Consolation and strength in enduring sorrows were given to the prisoners by spiritual reading, prayer, worship, and communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. Many times the Empress’s letters speak about the spiritual life of her and other members of the Family: “There is consolation in prayer: I feel sorry for those who find it unfashionable and unnecessary to pray...” In another letter she writes: “Lord, help those who cannot contain love God in hardened hearts that see only all the bad things and do not try to understand that all this will pass; It cannot be otherwise, the Savior came and showed us an example. Whoever follows His path, following love and suffering, understands all the greatness of the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Together with their parents, the Tsar's children endured all humiliation and suffering with meekness and humility. Archpriest Afanasy Belyaev, who confessed the Tsar’s children, wrote: “The impression [from the confession] was this: God grant that all the children would be as morally high as the children of the former Tsar. Such kindness, humility, obedience to the parental will, unconditional devotion to the will of God, purity of thoughts and complete ignorance of earthly dirt - passionate and sinful, - he writes, - led me to amazement and I was absolutely perplexed: is it necessary to remind me as a confessor of sins, perhaps unknown to them, and how to induce them to repent of sins known to them.”
In almost complete isolation from the outside world, surrounded by rude and cruel guards, the prisoners of the Ipatiev House display amazing nobility and clarity of spirit.
Their true greatness stemmed not from their royal dignity, but from the amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.
Together with Imperial Family Their servants who followed their masters into exile were also shot. 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; to them, in addition to those shot along with the Imperial Family by Dr. E.S. Botkin, the room girl of the Empress A.S. Demidova, court cook I.M. Kharitonov and lackey A.E. The troupe included those killed in various places and in different months of 1918, Adjutant General I.L. Tatishchev, Marshal Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, “uncle” of Heir K.G. Nagorny, children's footman I.D. Sednev, maid of honor to Empress A.V. Gendrikova and goflectress E.A. Schneider. Commission is not possible final decision the question of whether there are grounds for the canonization of this group of laity, who, as part of their court service, accompanied the Royal Family during the period of its imprisonment and suffered a violent death. The Commission does not have information about the widespread prayerful commemoration of these laymen by name. Moreover, there is little information about religious life and their personal piety. 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 could be the perpetuation of this feat in the lives of the Royal Martyrs.
The topic of canonization of Emperor Nicholas II and members of the Royal Family was widely discussed in the 90s in a number of publications in the church and secular press. The overwhelming majority of books and articles by religious authors support the idea of glorifying the Royal Martyrs. A number of publications contain convincing criticism of the arguments of opponents of canonization.
Many appeals were addressed to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II, the Holy Synod and the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, approving the conclusions made in October 1996 by the Commission for the Canonization of Saints regarding the glorification of the Royal Martyrs.
The Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints also received appeals from the ruling bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, in which, on behalf of clergy and laity, they expressed approval of the Commission’s conclusions.
In some dioceses the issue of canonization was discussed at diocesan, deanery and parish meetings. They expressed unanimous support for the idea of glorifying the Royal Martyrs. The Commission also received appeals from individual 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.
Of particular value are publications and appeals to the Commission and other church authorities, containing testimonies of miracles and grace-filled help through prayers to the Royal Martyrs. They are 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.
I would like to touch upon the issue of the remains of the Royal Family. State Commission “for the study of issues related to the research and reburial of remains Russian Emperor Nicholas II and members of his Family”, as is known, completed its work on January 30, 1998. The State Commission recognized as correct the scientific and historical conclusions made during the investigation by the Republican Center for Forensic Research and the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation about the belonging of the Royal Family and its servants to the remains found near Yekaterinburg. However, doubts arose in connection with the well-known conclusions of investigator Sokolov, who back in 1918 testified that all the bodies of the Imperial Family and their servants were dismembered and destroyed. The Holy Synod, at its meeting on February 26, 1998, had a judgment on this issue and came to the following conclusion:
“2. Assessing the reliability of scientific and investigative conclusions, as well as testifying to their inviolability or irrefutability, is not within the competence of the Church. Scientific and historical responsibility for the conclusions regarding the “Ekaterinburg remains” adopted during the investigation and study falls entirely on the Republican Center for Forensic Research and the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation.
3. The decision of the State Commission to identify the remains found near Yekaterinburg as belonging to the Family of Emperor Nicholas II raised serious doubts and even confrontations in the Church and society.”
Since since then, as far as we know, there have been no new results of scientific research in this area, the “Ekaterinburg remains” buried on July 17, 1998 in St. Petersburg cannot today be recognized by us as belonging to the Royal Family.
The veneration of the Royal Family, begun by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon in the funeral prayer and word at the memorial service in the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow for the murdered Emperor three days after the Yekaterinburg murder, 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, and recently icons depicting the Royal Martyrs have become widespread. Now such icons are found in some monasteries and churches of a number of dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church. Prayers addressed to them and various musical, cinematic, and literary works are compiled, reflecting the suffering and martyrdom of the Royal Family. Funeral services are being held for her everywhere and more and more often. All this testifies to the growing veneration of the murdered Royal Family throughout Russia.
The Commission, in its approach to this topic, sought to ensure that the glorification of the Royal Martyrs was free from any political or other conjuncture. In this regard, it seems necessary to emphasize that the canonization of the Monarch is in no way connected with monarchical ideology and, moreover, does not mean the “canonization” of the monarchical form of government, which can, of course, be treated differently. The activities of the head of state cannot be removed from the political context, but this does not mean that the Church, when canonizing a Tsar or a prince, as it did in the past, is guided by political or ideological considerations. Just as the acts of canonization of monarchs that took place in the past were not of a political nature, no matter how the biased enemies of the Church interpreted these events in their tendentious assessments, so the upcoming glorification of the Royal Martyrs will not and should not have a political nature, for while glorifying the saint, the Church does not persecute political goals, which she actually does not have by the nature of things, but she testifies before the people of God who already honor the righteous man that the ascetic she canonizes really pleased God and stands before the Throne of God for us, regardless of what position he occupied in his earthly life: was he one of these little ones, like the holy righteous John of Russia, or powerful of the world like the holy Emperor Justinian.
Behind the many sufferings endured by the Royal Family over the last 17 months of their lives, which ended with execution in the basement of the 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 twentieth century.
It was in understanding this feat of the Royal Family that the Commission was in complete unanimity and with the approval 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.
Loading...
