Why was Nicholas II canonized? Grounds for the canonization of the royal family.

The history of the life of the royal martyrs and their canonization is familiar to everyone in our country, and that is why questions arise around their glorification by the Church that could be asked about many other saints if their life stories were more widely known.

We have tried to collect the most common questions and give answers to them.

This helped us Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, Member of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Why was the royal family canonized?

Historical facts do not allow talking about members royal family as Christian martyrs. Martyrdom presupposes for a person the possibility of saving his life through renunciation of Christ. The sovereign family was killed precisely as the sovereign family: the people who killed them were quite secularized in their worldview and perceived them primarily as a symbol of imperial Russia they hated.

The family of Nicholas II was glorified in the rite of passion-bearing, which is characteristic of the Russian Church. In this rank, Russian princes and sovereigns are traditionally canonized, who, imitating Christ, patiently endured physical, moral suffering or death at the hands of political opponents.

Five reports were submitted to the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, devoted to the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian sovereign. The commission decided that the activities of Emperor Nicholas II in themselves do not provide sufficient grounds for both his canonization and the canonization of members of his family. However, the reports that determined the final - positive - decision of the Commission were the sixth and seventh: "The Last Days of the Royal Family" and "The Attitude of the Church towards Passion-Bearing".
“Most of the witnesses speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk Governor's House and the Ipatiev Yekaterinburg House,” the report “The Last Days of the Tsar's Family” emphasized, “as people who are suffering, but obedient to the will of God. Despite all the mockery and insults they endured in captivity, they led a pious life, sincerely strove to embody the commandments of the Gospel in it. Behind the many sufferings of the last days of the royal family, we see the all-conquering evil light of Christ's truth.

It is the last period of the life of members of the royal family, spent in captivity, and the circumstances of their death that contain serious grounds for glorifying them as martyrs. They became more and more aware that death was inevitable, but they managed to keep the spiritual world in their hearts and at the moment of martyrdom gained the ability to forgive their executioners. Before the abdication, the sovereign said to General D.N. Dubensky: “If I am an obstacle to the happiness of Russia and all the social forces now at the head of it ask me to leave the throne and pass it on to my son and brother, then I am ready to do this, not only the kingdom is ready, but also to give his life for the Motherland.

A few months later, Empress Alexandra wrote in captivity in Tsarskoye Selo: “How happy I am that we are not abroad, but with her [Motherland] we are going through everything. As you want to share everything with your beloved sick person, survive everything and follow him with love and excitement, so it is with the Motherland.

Does the canonization of the sovereign mean that the Church officially supports the monarchical idea and the political line of the last emperor?

Both in historical notes about Nicholas II and in his life, a rather restrained, and sometimes even critical assessment of his state activities is given. As for the renunciation, it was a politically unquestionably wrong act. Nevertheless, the guilt of the sovereign is to some extent expiated by the motives that guided him. The desire of the emperor to prevent civil strife with the help of renunciation is justified from the point of view of morality, but not from the position of politics ...

If Nicholas II had suppressed the revolutionary uprising by force, he would have gone down in history as an outstanding statesman, but he would hardly have become a saint. When submitting documents for glorification, the Synodal Commission for Canonization did not ignore the controversial episodes of his reign, in which not the best aspects of his personality were manifested. But the last canonized Russian emperor not for his character, but for a martyr's and humble death.

By the way, there are not so many canonized sovereigns in the history of the Russian Church. And of the Romanovs, only Nicholas II was glorified as a saint - this is the only case in the 300 years of the dynasty. So there is no "tradition of the canonization of monarchs".

But what about Bloody Sunday, spiritualism hobbies and Rasputin?

The materials of the Synodal Commission for the canonization of the family of Nicholas II contain historical notes that analyze all these problems separately. Bloody Sunday on January 9, 1905, the problem of the attitude of the sovereign and the empress towards Rasputin, the problem of the emperor's abdication - all this is assessed in terms of whether this prevents canonization or not.

If we consider the events of January 9, then, firstly, we must take into account that we are dealing with mass riots that took place in the city. They were unprofessional suppressed, but it was really a mass illegal performance. Secondly, the sovereign did not give any criminal orders that day - he was in Tsarskoye Selo and was largely misinformed by the Minister of the Interior and the mayor of St. Petersburg. Nicholas II considered himself responsible for what happened, hence the tragic entry in his diary, which he, having learned about what had happened, left in the evening of that day: “A hard day! Serious riots broke out in St. Petersburg as a result of the desire of the workers to reach the Winter Palace. The troops had to shoot in different parts of the city, there were many killed and wounded. Lord, how painful and hard!”

All this allows us to take a somewhat different look at the figure of the last king. However, the Church is in no hurry to justify Nicholas II in everything. A canonized saint is not without sin. The drama of passion-bearing, “non-resistance to death” lies precisely in the fact that it is precisely weak people, who often sinned a lot, who find the strength in themselves to overcome weak human nature and die with the name of Christ on their lips.

Why were the servants of the royal family who were shot along with her not canonized? And in general, how does the feat of the family of Nicholas II differ from the feat of hundreds of thousands who accepted the same death, but were not glorified by the Church?

The servants of the royal family died as people who were fulfilling their professional duty to the sovereign. They are worthy of canonization, but the problem is that the Russian Orthodox Church has not yet developed a rite of glorifying the laity who are martyred, remaining faithful to their official or moral duty. The issue of glorifying people who died innocently during the years of unrest and political repression will certainly be resolved in the future: the 20th century created a precedent - millions of lay people became martyrs. And the Church remembers them.

The emperor abdicated the throne, ceased to be God's anointed, why then does the Church say that he became the redeemer of the sins of the whole people?

And here is just not the church's understanding of the problem. The Church never called Emperor Nicholas II the redeemer of the sins of the Russian people, for for a Christian there is only one Redeemer - Christ Himself. Similar ideas, as well as the idea of ​​the need to bring public repentance for the murder of the royal family, have been condemned by the Church more than once, since this is a very typical example of supplementing the Christian understanding of holiness with some new meanings of philosophical and political origin.

Rehabilitation

In June 2009, members of the Romanov family were rehabilitated by the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation. In accordance with Art. 1 and pp. "c", "e" art. 3 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the rehabilitation of victims of political repression", the Prosecutor General's Office decided to rehabilitate Romanov Mikhail Alexandrovich, Romanova Elizaveta Fedorovna, Romanov Sergei Mikhailovich, Romanov Ioan Konstantinovich, Romanov Konstantin Konstantinovich, Romanov Igor Konstantinovich, Romanova Elena Petrovna, Paley Vladimir Pavlovich, Yakovlev Varvara , Yanysheva Ekaterina Petrovna, Remez Fedor Semenovich (Mikhailovich), Kalin Ivan, Krukovsky, Dr. Gelmerson and Johnson Nikolai Nikolaevich (Bryan).

“Analysis of archival materials allows us to conclude that all of the above persons were subjected to repression in the form of arrest, expulsion and being under the supervision of the Cheka without being charged with a specific crime on class and social grounds,” an official representative told the Interfax news agency. Prosecutor General's Office Marina Gridneva. Earlier, the head of the Romanov dynasty addressed the Prosecutor General's Office with a request for the rehabilitation of members of the royal family. grand duchess Maria Vladimirovna.

(37 votes, average: 4,22 out of 5)

Comments

February 17, 2019 2:02

Try to pray to our Sovereign Emperor Nicholas 2 and his family. Ask for help in any need. Then it will immediately be clear to everyone why he was canonized. It is strange to see here a dispute about the holiness or unholiness of the Tsar, knowing that he and his family were brutally murdered by atheists and traitors of the Russian people. It seems that the Orthodox communicate on the Orthodox website. And such strange disputes.

August 8, 2018 18:40

In history, nothing happens by itself, everything has its roots and its beginning:
1. The abolition of serfdom in 1861 took place without the allocation of land to the peasants.

2. Employment of peasants (construction of railway roads) under Alexander II and
Alexander III.

3. The formation of the country from an agrarian to an industrial one (construction of mines, factories, ships, the North Sea shipping company, oil production, metallurgy, the continuation of the construction of railways, the beginning of aircraft construction, etc.), under Alexander III and Nicholas II.

4. The Trans-Siberian Railway and the CER were built. This entailed a large duty tax from the West.
Russia got off to a strong start. Westerners (in particular Churchill) said: “Another 10 years of such a rise in Russia, and we will never catch up with it, because Russia will distance itself from the West forever.

4. After the end of the First World War, Russia had to sit on the bench, and this gave her even greater advantages. England had already promised Russia the Strait of Gibraltar, which gave the country duty-free trade with the West.
But, there was the abdication of Nicholas II, and then: a civil war, devastation, World War II, Khrushchev's corn and voluntarism, stagnation, perestroika, Afghanistan, two Chechen wars and Putinism (all this followed one from the other). When we figure this out, God only knows, and will we figure it out at all?
This is what happened to Russia after the abdication of Nicholas II.
There is no subjunctive mood in history, but it is clearly seen that all the troubles of Russia began after the abdication of our last Tsar Nicholas II. So did he deserve to be canonized as a saint!?

July 31, 2018 21:33

when Nicholas and his family were executed, they had already been ordinary citizens for 1.5 years / and here the royal family /

July 26, 2018 16:39

I do not recognize him as a saint!

July 26, 2018 16:30

badly done that he was canonized and made a saint! people were only divided! I then have a question, let's make Stalin a saint, he even left the country with nuclear weapons and a powerful economy, even though he was a cruel ruler!? And Nicholas 2 ruined the country and lost the war. everything is comprehended in comparison! I see the film why Saint Nicholas 2 there is a lot of semi-nonsense - I agree with something, but with something I don’t! of course, he did a good job of refusing to flee abroad and admitting his mistakes, but this does not make him a saint!

July 22, 2018 10:58

but can you tell me in 1905, on whose orders the workers in St. Petersburg were shot? a priest walked at the head of the column and people carried icons, sang a prayer.

January 27, 2018 23:03

Saints are those who serve Christ “in the rank in which they are called” “until the end, in spite of everything, without betraying the entrusted.” The work that You entrusted to me, I have done.”

December 29, 2017 12:40

Is there a procedure for canceling canonization ???

November 25, 2017 13:40

Ladies and gentlemen, everything is very simple: any church is, first of all, political organization with its non-obvious and non-advertised goals and objectives. So there is nothing to be surprised controversial decision on the canonization of the c.family. This is purely a political decision!

November 18, 2017 9:39

To the question “For what?”, the question “When?” answers well. In August 2000, when the current President became President.

November 18, 2017 9:21

They lose sight of how on March 8, 1917, Nikolai-2 was arrested
his personal adjutant general, and the personal company of the St. George Knights
Palace Life Grenadiers, to the sounds of the Marsigillaise, deployed over Headquarters
red flags. Guards, generals, The State Duma from
oligarchs, army, Cossacks and ordinary proletarians, top and bottom, left and
right, future "reds", "whites" and others in question
the worthlessness of Nicholas II as a monarch turned out to be unanimous. Even
the "grand princely opposition" of siblings, mothers and uncles wished
persecute such an Autocrat. And after the arrest, another year and a half of a citizen of the former
the king was marinated, passing from hand to hand to various committees,
and no one dared to help out until the avengers were found. Could
wrong all those contemporaries?

November 12, 2017 20:20

Sorry for the harshness of the previous comment, apparently I'm not a Christian yet. My thought is that all of us, Russia, are the prodigal son who has not yet gone to the Father. And if we all sin, how can we blame anyone.

November 11, 2017 17:42

When Christ promised to destroy Israel, and they were destroyed after 70 years, Who Was He - an accountant? When they counted the righteous in Sodom, who was He? We are nothing better than that Israel and Sodom. God Is Love, this is a Christian truth, and this implies our admonition and education. Only the blind can fail to see such admonition to Russia in the 20th century (100 million people).

November 10, 2017 22:40

An even more difficult question arises. After glorification in the face of a saint, the Church stops praying for a person and begins to ask the saint. If there was a premature confession, we deprive the person of help from here, and we will not wait for help from there. And how to ask for help from family members?

November 10, 2017 20:34

1917 - Russian Flood! This opinion is shared by many priests. And it started in the 17th century. At the same time, the end of the Romanov dynasty was predicted. The head of the Church is Christ, not the king! The attempt of the state (the Romanovs) to head the Church led to a general apostasy from the faith. They betrayed all classes and estates, for which this Flood was allowed. Nicholas 2 did not turn out to be Noah, although he knew about the approach of the end. Sorry everyone, because the Flood is not over yet!

November 5, 2017 9:16

And for me, Nicholas 2, just like the last king in history, but not a saint at all.

October 30, 2017 20:24

Yes, a saint. But what about the execution of a peaceful procession in January 1905, several hundred people?

October 15, 2017 11:05

Christ taught us to judge by fruits. What we see: the society is divided. Oil was added to the fire by the film Matilda, and Poklonskaya's "Tsarebezhnitsa", and "Christian State" with arson. It turns out that this is the first emperor canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. Why not Alexander 1 then, why not take Elder Fyodor Kuzmich seriously? The man was tormented by the sin of parricide, and for many years he prayed for it before God. Here is an example of a holy man. All that's left is a DNA test.

October 14, 2017 20:36

God! What a bucket of sewage in these comments. Gentlemen, non-shaking hands, if you do not want to recognize the Sovereign as a saint - please do not recognize, do not pray, do not consider yourself Orthodox. But at least keep the tact quiet! And temper your desire with rapture to wash the bones of a man who has long been killed by atheists. And keep in mind that our Church does not canonize anyone just like that! For this, there must be cases of miracles performed by this person; evidence of his righteous life; a lot more... And you undertake to talk about what you have no idea about. Church hierarchs know better. They graduate from seminary and have much more spiritual experience. No, you can't resist teaching the professionals. Shame on your head.

October 6, 2017 20:11

What to comprehend? Oil painting The result of the leadership is the end of the empire, the family was shot, there are no extreme ones.

October 5, 2017 15:01

To all those who, in their gloom, multiply blasphemy against the Sovereign and His family, I will say: your judgments stand on what you have been fed for 100 years by those who sought to make stupid cattle out of you, and to destroy those who disagree, like the holy martyrs! And, to my sorrow, I notice that so far they are doing well. Think about whose “gum” you are chewing while there is still time. And having realized, start searching, read, look, comprehend .. And having comprehended - pray and ask for forgiveness.
Yes, the devil is indeed strong. But God is stronger!
Forgive us, Sovereign!

October 4, 2017 12:00

For some reason, everyone here (and not only here) misses one significant nuance. Nicholas II Romanov was the head of state. This is a great responsibility. Responsibility for millions of your subjects and the fate of the country. Any head of state is responsible for everything that happens in this state (by and large, of course). Nicholas assumed this responsibility voluntarily, but, as the years of his mediocre rule show, he could not cope with it. If you can't handle it - leave. But he did not leave himself until the very end, until February 1917, when he was actually forced to do so.
But mediocre government is not a problem, the problem is that the result of his rule was the death and suffering of millions of Russian people. Including those who were tortured and innocently killed!
So why was such a person canonized? For the fact that he quietly sat with his family in Tobolsk, and then in Yekaterinburg, while Russia was already choking on the blood of Russian people who were killing each other?
There is a legal concept of a criminal act. Perhaps Nicholas did not commit criminal acts. But he committed a criminal inaction, and therefore I personally will never be convinced by anyone that his hands are clean. A person with unclean hands cannot be a saint!

P.S. And there is no need to say that, they say, he did not sign certain orders and decrees himself, that he was misinformed and deceived. I would like to understand everything. For some reason, no one misinformed Alexander III.
And yet it is not necessary to credit him with the fact that he did not flee abroad. He couldn't run! This is a myth, a fiction. He was arrested on March 9, and Kornilov arrested Alexandra even earlier. How would he run? On a horse? And therefore, he sat and waited limply and calmly for his fate, as he limply and calmly ruled the country for decades, letting everything take its course

September 28, 2017 16:02

There is a feeling that Nicholas 2 was appointed saint. A bunch of reservations, special explanations, assumptions. It's not serious.

September 17, 2017 18:24

Mayakovsky wrote that if the stars are lit -
Does that mean anyone needs it? The canonization and holiness of Nicholas II is definitely not needed by the people. The church needs it. Why? This is a great secret. But in my opinion, some kind of multi-way is buried here.

September 17, 2017 15:55

And Tsarevich Dimitri was canonized. Who is not even known for certain whether he was innocently murdered. And according to historical evidence, he went to the father of Ivan the Terrible in character (he liked to look at the torment of animals, and even he himself had a hand in it). And in general he was illegitimate, that is, he had no special right to claim the throne. But it doesn't matter to the church, it's amazing.

September 14, 2017 16:12

The man who contributed to his death Russian Empire, a mediocre leader and simply not the most sinless person, canonized for his martyrdom. And the millions who died, both during his reign and after, are just a “gray mass”, unworthy of canonization!? Yes, the church is fair, you can’t say anything: the bourgeoisie go to heaven without a queue - that’s your motto.

September 14, 2017 11:22

Father George, as always, wrote everything excellently, his every word is balanced, but at the same time subject to a certain internal censorship, which, in fact, is understandable, because his official position obliges. At the same time, the fact that Nicholas II is a controversial and controversial figure is undeniable, as evidenced by at least these discussions. The canonization of a single saint has never been so opposed by the people. What exactly happened in the Ipatiev House, we do not know for certain - most of the documents have not yet been declassified and will not be declassified until the issue is so acute, about the remains - even the Russian Orthodox Church is not sure either. And how can we talk about the murder, if the corpses are not found? Based on Yurovsky's notes? The Diary of a Special Purpose Home? It's even funny... Are there any testimonies not of the participants in the crime, but of disinterested witnesses? As far as I know (I could be wrong) no. The question arises: is it too early? Perhaps, at first it is worth waiting for at least an unequivocal answer about the bones found? I do not dispute the sanctity of the royal family, but I cannot accept it unconditionally with all my desire. The fact that Nicholas II and his family were very kind and pious people is a fact. But after all, the Canonization Commission did not find sufficient grounds for the canonization of the royal family, studying the life of the emperor, empress and their children, before the abdication of the king from the throne, but found such grounds, studying Lately the lives of the royal family are the most obscure, vague, controversial and politicized (from the point of view of the time of interpretation) pages of their life. Political rehabilitation could not but have an impact on the speedy glorification, because the rest of those shot in the Ipatiev House were not glorified, based on the position of Father George, in fact, because of the church bureaucracy - they have not yet had time to come up with and approve the rite of glorifying the laity) The glorification of the royal family acted as part of the political rehabilitation and condemnation of the first bloody Soviet years, while the issue of holiness, from my humble point of view, has not been fully explored.

August 19, 2017 23:48

Dmitry, Nicholas II and his family believed to the last that they would be saved. At first, Kerensky promised to send them to the Crimea, and later to England, but sent them to Tobolsk. Then Vyrubova prepared a conspiracy, but that's probably all. You don't have knowledge. The emperor did not condemn his family to death. Nothing could be done. Nobody wanted to save them!!!

August 17, 2017 21:50

Those who are against canonization apparently do not know the whole truth and do not read smart books ... Before condemning, get to the bottom of the truth. The royal family did not leave Russia. Didn't betray. Although they were not purebred Russians!!! This is how to love Russia! Those who argue that Nicholas II “killed” his family are very much mistaken! Read the essays of Western emigrants who saw all the action taking place. In particular, pay attention to the memoirs of Ivan Solonevich. After that, I hope everyone will understand everything and be ashamed of their attitude towards Nicholas and his elevation to the Face of Saints. And in the future, before condemning someone, think about whether you are ready to sacrifice yourself and your family for the sake of the Motherland. Or you, at the slightest opportunity, will run like “rats from a ship”.

August 3, 2017 10:22

Two quotes: "There is no 'tradition of canonization of monarchs'."

“As a member of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, noted, “since ancient times, the rank of martyrs has been applied only to representatives of grand ducal and royal families.” So decide already whether it exists or not ...

August 3, 2017 4:29

Does the performance of professional duties with Christian humility interfere with canonization as martyrs? It's funny...

And the fact that Alexandra Feodorovna considered Rasputin a saint and spiritual mentor until the end of her life, and never once repented of her error, does it in any way prevent her from being canonized? Even more fun.

May 27, 2017 3:54

Vladimir. And let's not slip into expressions like: I paid for all my mistakes consciously, with my life and the life of the whole family. Since when has the murder of one's family become an Orthodox deed. Maybe for this? Ban. Everything? What does not match your opinion. Is it offensive language? Let's do it. There are two diametrically opposed opinions. In the light of one and the same concept of our Orthodoxy. In one. Nicholas II is considered a saint. In another, all the circles of hell are prophesied to him. Two religious extremes of our Orthodox religion. Paradise? Or Hell? Question. Which of these concepts is more offensive? And strangely, for a religious person, the notion that a person is worthy of having a frying pan in hell is offensive.

May 26, 2017 0:54

Pay for your mistakes. You need your life. Not the life of your family. By his inaction, Nikolai practically killed his family, whom he could send abroad. Even if against their will. It is unlikely that the feat of redemption consists in dooming innocent children to death. With the same success. Nicholas could kill his family himself. And go out to the firing squad alone. Unfortunately, in Orthodoxy, only direct murder is punished. And for death due to criminal inaction. They do not punish. (Criminal inaction is a volitional passive behavior of a person, which consists in the fact that a person does not perform or improperly performs the duty assigned to him, as a result of which harm is caused to the objects of protection or a threat of causing such harm is created. Or leaving in danger) . And since for Nikolai, the object of protection was his family. That Nicholas, with whatever readiness he could go to the sacrificial altar, alone. First of all, protecting your family. For me, the frying pan sizzles according to Nikolai. But his family, really passion-bearers. Who accepted their death, from their compatriots, due to their political motives, malice and deceit.

March 20, 2017 6:29

There are no and cannot be absolutely sinless people on earth. Saints are not born, but they become, realizing their sins and renouncing them (with God's help certainly). The thief crucified next to Christ, having repented, got into Paradise. Our life is so arranged - you have to pay for everything. Nicholas || he paid for all his mistakes consciously, with his life and the life of his whole family, although he had the opportunity to go abroad. This is his feat of redemption. To whom much is given, much will be required. He understood it. Probably the Lord accepted his sacrifice, since the Church drained him. So it turns out that repentance cleanses and makes holy - the result of life. Which is what I wish for everyone.

February 12, 2017 20:12

Yes, the last emperor became a martyr, but hardly of his own free will! Millions died with much purer souls, but for some reason it was the emperor who was canonized. I think that this should not have been done, since all arguments against are balanced by a single argument - he was martyred! But how many people in Russia accepted no less martyrdom from 1905 to 1945?!
So it turns out that Nicholas 2 owes his holiness to his position!
If there is even the slightest speck on the biography of a candidate for saints, then you should not even consider such a candidate! Not because the person is bad. But because the reputation of the Saint should not cause the slightest doubt!

At present, historians and public figures are discussing the question: Is Emperor Nicholas II worthy to wear the vestments of a holy royal martyr? This issue is debatable, because during the reign of Nicholas 2 there were, of course, many minuses. For example, Khodynka, the senseless Russo-Japanese War, Bloody Sunday (for which the emperor received the nickname Bloody), the Lena massacre, the First World War and then the February Revolution. All these events took the lives of millions of people. But there were pluses during his reign. The population of the Russian Empire grew from 125 million to 170, before the First World War there were good rates of economic growth, etc. The emperor himself was weak-willed, but he was a kind, deeply religious man, a good family man. During his reign, a particularly revered saint of the Russian Orthodox Church was canonized Reverend Seraphim Sarovskiy. His wife Alexandra Feodorovna, together with her daughters during the First World War, helped the sick and wounded soldiers, worked in the Tsarskoye Selo military hospital.
After the abdication of the throne, as you know, the royal family was exiled first to Tobolsk, and after the October Revolution to Yekaterinburg, where they accepted their martyr's death.
Some historians public figures believe that the emperor and the royal family are not worthy of canonization: 1. The death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family was not a martyr's death for Christ, but only political repression. 2. Unsuccessful state and church policy of the emperor, including such events as Khodynka, Bloody Sunday and the Lena massacre and the extremely controversial activities of Grigory Rasputin.
3. "The religiosity of the royal couple, for all their outwardly traditional Orthodoxy, had a distinct character of inter-confessional mysticism"
4. The active movement for the canonization of the royal family in the 1990s was not of a spiritual, but of a political nature.
5. Causes deep bewilderment and promoted by some supporters of the canonization of responsibility for "the gravest sin of regicide, which weighs on all the peoples of Russia."

Others believe that the emperor deserves to be called the Holy Royal Passion-Bearer and there are arguments for this: 1. The circumstances of death are physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents. 2. Wide popular veneration of the royal martyrs served as one of the main reasons for their glorification as saints.
3. Testimony of miracles and grace-filled help through prayers to the Royal Martyrs. They are about healings, uniting separated families, protecting church property from schismatics. Particularly abundant is evidence of the myrrh-streaming of icons with images of Emperor Nicholas II and the Royal Martyrs, of the fragrance and miraculous appearance of blood-colored spots on the icons of the Royal Martyrs.
4. Personal piety of the Sovereign: the emperor paid great attention to the needs of the Orthodox Church, generously donated to the construction of new churches, including those outside Russia. Deep religiosity singled out the Imperial couple among the representatives of the then aristocracy. All its members lived in accordance with the traditions of Orthodox piety. During the years of his reign, more saints were canonized than in the previous two centuries (in particular, Theodosius of Chernigov, Seraphim of Sarov, Anna Kashinskaya, Joasaph of Belgorod, Hermogenes of Moscow, Pitirim of Tambov, John of Tobolsk).
5. Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often likened his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on the day of whose church memory he was born. Having accepted his cross in the same way as the biblical righteous man, he endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of grumbling. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor's life. From the moment of renunciation, not so much external events as internal spiritual state The sovereign draws our attention to himself. Most witnesses of the last period of the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk governor's and Yekaterinburg Ipatiev houses as people who suffered and, despite all the mockery and insults, led a pious life. "Their true greatness did not stem from their royal dignity, but from that amazing moral height to which they gradually rose."
I believe that the emperor and his family are worthy to bear the title of saint. Because the blame for the events of January 9, 1905 cannot be placed on the emperor. The petition about workers' needs, with which the workers went to the tsar, had the character of a revolutionary ultimatum, which excluded the possibility of its acceptance or discussion. The decision to prevent workers from entering the area of ​​the Winter Palace was made not by the emperor, but by the government, headed by the Minister of the Interior, P. D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. Minister Svyatopolk-Mirsky did not provide the emperor with sufficient information about the ongoing events, and his messages were of a reassuring nature. The order to the troops to open fire was also given not by the emperor, but by the commander of the St. Petersburg Military District Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich. Thus, "historical data does not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign in the January days of 1905 a conscious evil will directed against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions." Nevertheless, Emperor Nicholas II did not see in the actions of the commander reprehensible actions to shoot demonstrations: he was neither convicted nor removed from office. But he saw the blame in the actions of the minister Svyatopolk-Mirsky and the mayor I. A. Fullon, who were dismissed immediately after the January events. The fault of Nikolai as an unlucky statesman should not be considered: “we should not evaluate this or that form state structure but the place occupied by a particular person in the state mechanism. The extent to which this or that person has managed to embody Christian ideals in his activity is subject to assessment. It should be noted that Nicholas II treated the performance of the duties of the monarch as his sacred duty. Abdication of the royal dignity is not a crime against the church: “Characteristic of some opponents of the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II, the desire to present his abdication representative of the church hierarchy from the holy order, cannot be recognized as having any serious grounds. The canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed for the Kingdom was not defined in church canons. Therefore, attempts to discover the composition of some ecclesiastical canonical crime in the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power seem to be untenable. On the contrary, “The spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of inner peace in Russia, gives his act a truly moral character. ”There is no reason to see in the relations of the Royal Family with Rasputin signs of spiritual delusion, and even more so insufficient churching.
Based on all these arguments, I want to say that the emperor is worthy to bear the title of a passion-bearer who gave his life for Christ.

On August 20, 2000, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow, in the presence of the heads and representatives of all the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches, the glorification of many saints of God, New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian twentieth century, including the Royal Family in full force, took place. The deed on the conciliar glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the 20th century reads:

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

There is no reason to reconsider this decision.

http://www.rv.ru/content.php3?id=811

This is how the royal family, including Nicholas II, was canonized as a saint. Here's what I think about it.

Some rush about with Nicholas II and his family like with a hand-written bag, saying how wonderful the tsar was! But let's briefly recap history.

1. Immediately after the tragedy on the Khodynka field, he indulged in amusements with the ambassadors of foreign powers, not deeming it necessary to cancel them.

After the execution of the workers of St. Petersburg, in his speech of January 19, 1905, Nicholas II said:
« I believe in the honest feelings of working people and in their unshakable devotion to Me, and therefore I forgive them their guilt. Now return to your peaceful work, blessed, get down to business together with your comrades, and may God help you».

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%87%D1%8C_%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0 %B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%8F_II_%D0%BA_ %D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0 %BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%85_19_%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_1905_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4 %D0%B0

So Nicholas II granted forgiveness to the workers whom he shot. The people, seeing such neglect towards themselves, repaid the tsar in kind.

3. Bad Conduct Russo-Japanese War and defeat in it.

4. First World War. For some reason, they forget how many hundreds of thousands of people died due to the fact that the tsar dragged Russia into the First World War, which was unnecessary and in its interests, although no one attacked Russia and was not going to (the German Schlieffen Plan was developed specifically against France).

How many people took a hard death, how many wives and children were doomed to hunger and suffering because of this war? Did the ministers of the church think about these hundreds of thousands, millions of people? After all, so many people died because of his mediocre actions!!! So maybe we will glorify these hundreds of thousands of people, who were driven to slaughter for the sake of the interests of allied sponsors?

5. Moreover, in the end, the war, incomprehensible to the people, and the deprivation of the people (and the bourgeoisie, on the contrary, profited) caused social protests and a second revolution. What kind of a tsar is so holy that revolutions follow one after another? From a good life, probably ... In addition, it does not hurt to notice that the February Revolution was not made by the Bolsheviks, but just by their future enemies (otherwise, lately they have been hanging all the dogs on them that they destroyed the Russian Empire. Not true, not them).

The Russian Empire came to an end, resulting in chaos and civil war, which led to even more victims. Such were the results of the mediocre reign of Nicholas II.

And what else should you pay special attention to.

When the February revolution took place, no one interceded for the tsar, not a single political force wishing to intercede for Nicholas II appeared. This best of all, most clearly shows the attitude of the people towards the "holy king." And in the Civil War, the main belligerents: the Whites (whose leader Kornilov arrested the royal family, and the other leader Alekseev was one of the main conspirators who prepared the overthrow of the tsar)) and the Reds did not return the throne to Nicholas II nor did they plan to restore the monarchy at all.

But, when almost all the people who lived under Nicholas diedII- you can already declare him a saint, and write history in a new way, showing what a benefactor of the people he is ...

Thus, the ministers of the church, ranking NicholasIIto the face of the saints showed first of all how far they are from the people.

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

The sovereign, transferring power to his brother, withdrew from his managerial duties not out of fear, but at the request of his subordinates (almost all front commanders were generals and admirals) and because he was a humble person, and the very idea of ​​\u200b\u200bstruggle for power was absolutely alien to him. He hoped that the transfer of the throne in favor of brother Michael (subject to his anointing to the throne) would calm the unrest and thereby benefit Russia. This example of refusing to fight for power in the name of the well-being of one's country, one's people is very instructive for modern world.

The royal train in which Nicholas II signed his abdication

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

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

“Many see renunciation as an ordinary weakness…

Yes, some see this as a manifestation of weakness: a powerful man, strong in the usual sense of the word, would not abdicate. But for Emperor Nicholas II, strength was in something else: in faith, in humility, in the search for a grace-filled path according to the will of God. Therefore, he did not fight for power - and it was hardly possible to keep it. On the other hand, the holy humility with which he abdicated the throne and then accepted a martyr's death still contributes to the conversion of the whole people with repentance to God. Still, the vast majority of our people - after seventy years of atheism - consider themselves Orthodox. Unfortunately, the majority are not churched people, but still they are not militant atheists. Grand Duchess Olga wrote from imprisonment in the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg: “The father asks to convey to all those who remained devoted to him, and to those on whom they can have influence, so that they do not avenge him - he has forgiven everyone and prays 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 conquer evil, but only love.” And, perhaps, the image of a humble martyr tsar moved our people to repentance and faith to a greater extent than a strong and powerful politician could do.

Room of the Grand Duchesses in the Ipatiev House

Revolution: catastrophe inevitable?

- Did the way the last Romanovs lived, how they believed, influenced their canonization?

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

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

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

What can be answered to such a statement: the tsar's sacrifice was absolutely necessary, and thanks to it Russia was redeemed?

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

- But they say that the feat of the New Martyrs meant a lot to Russia...

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

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

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

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

- Why?

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

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

Did Tsar Nicholas II and his family foresee this catastrophe?

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

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

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

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

What are these saints?

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

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

- Because of a certain fear?

Not only because of fear, but rather because of the stamps that were planted from childhood, which owned people. I knew many representatives of the older generation - among them priests and even one bishop - who still found Tsar Nicholas II during his lifetime. And I witnessed what they did not understand: why canonize him? what kind of saint is he? It was difficult for them to reconcile the image, which they perceived from childhood, with the criteria of holiness. This nightmare, which we now cannot truly imagine, when huge parts of the Russian Empire were occupied by the Germans, although the First World War promised to end victoriously for Russia; when terrible persecutions began, anarchy, Civil War; when the famine came in the Volga region, repressions unfolded, etc. - apparently, somehow it turned out to be linked in the young perception of the people of that time with the weakness of power, with the fact that there was no real leader among the people who could resist all this rampant evil . And some people remained under the influence of this idea until the end of their lives ...

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

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 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 process. Therefore, our Church has evaded the solution of this issue and left it open: it does not risk accepting what has not been sufficiently verified. There are fears that by taking one position or another, the Church will become vulnerable, because there is no sufficient basis for an unambiguous decision.

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

End crowns the work

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

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

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

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

Valeria POSASHKO

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

In 2000, the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II and his family were canonized by the Russian Church as holy martyrs. Their canonization in the West, in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, took place even earlier, in 1981. And although the holy princes in Orthodox tradition not uncommon, this canonization is still in some doubts. Why is the last Russian monarch glorified in the face of saints? Does his life and the life of his family speak in favor of canonization, and what were the arguments against it? The veneration of Nicholas II as the king-redeemer - an extreme or a pattern? We are talking about this with the secretary of the Synodal Commission for the canonization of saints, the rector of St. Tikhon Orthodox humanitarian university Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov

Death as an argument

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

– When in 2000 the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints discussed the issue of glorifying the royal family, it came to the conclusion that although the family of Tsar Nicholas II was deeply religious, ecclesiastical and pious, all of its members performed their daily prayer rule, regularly communed the Holy Mysteries of Christ and lived a highly moral life, observing the gospel commandments in everything, constantly performed works of mercy, during the war they worked diligently in the hospital, caring for wounded soldiers, they can be canonized as saints primarily for their Christianly perceived suffering and violent death caused by persecutors Orthodox faith with incredible cruelty. But still, it was necessary to clearly understand and clearly articulate why exactly the royal family was killed. Maybe it was just a political assassination? Then they cannot be called martyrs. However, both among the people and in the commission there was a consciousness and a sense of the holiness of their feat. Since the noble princes Boris and Gleb, called martyrs, were glorified as the first saints in Russia, and their murder was also not directly related to their faith, the idea arose to discuss the glorification of the family of Tsar Nicholas II in the same face.

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

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

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

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

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

- The Commission on Canonization worked on this issue for a very long time, very meticulously checked all the arguments "for" and "against". At that time there were many opponents of the canonization of the king. Someone said that this should not be done because Tsar Nicholas II was "bloody", he was charged with the events of January 9, 1905 - the shooting of a peaceful demonstration of workers. The commission carried out special work to clarify the circumstances of Bloody Sunday. And as a result of the study of archival materials, it turned out that the sovereign at that time was not in St. Petersburg at all, he was in no way involved in this execution and could not give such an order - he was not even aware of what was happening. Thus, this argument was dropped. All other "against" arguments were considered in a similar way, until it became clear that there were no weighty counter-arguments. The royal family was canonized not just because they were killed, but because they accepted the torment with humility, in a Christian way, without resistance. They could have taken advantage of those offers to flee abroad, which were made to him in advance. But they deliberately didn't want to.

Why can't their murder be called purely political?

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

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

Renunciation: Weakness or Hope?

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

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

The sovereign, transferring power to his brother, withdrew from his managerial duties not out of fear, but at the request of his subordinates (almost all front commanders were generals and admirals) and because he was a humble person, and the very idea of ​​\u200b\u200bstruggle for power was absolutely alien to him. He hoped that the transfer of the throne in favor of brother Michael (subject to his anointing to the throne) would calm the unrest and thereby benefit Russia. This example of refusal to fight for power in the name of the well-being of one's country, one's people is very instructive for the modern world.

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

- Yes, but it is evident from his very actions. He could have sought to emigrate, to go to a safe place, to organize a reliable guard, to secure his family. But he did not take any measures, he wanted to act not according to his own will, not according to his own understanding, he was afraid to insist on his own. In 1906, during the Kronstadt rebellion, the sovereign, after the report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said the following: “If you see me so calm, it is because I have an unshakable faith that the fate of Russia, my own fate and the fate of my family are in the hands of the Lord. Whatever happens, I bow to His will." Already shortly before his suffering, the sovereign said: “I would not want to leave Russia. I love her too much, I'd rather go to the farthest end of Siberia. At the end of April 1918, already in Yekaterinburg, the Sovereign wrote: “Perhaps an expiatory sacrifice is needed to save Russia: I will be this sacrifice - may the will of God be done!”

“Many see renunciation as an ordinary weakness…

Yes, some people see this as a manifestation of weakness: a powerful man, strong in the usual sense of the word, would not abdicate. But for Emperor Nicholas II, strength was in something else: in faith, in humility, in the search for a grace-filled path according to the will of God. Therefore, he did not fight for power - and it was hardly possible to keep it. On the other hand, the holy humility with which he abdicated the throne and then accepted a martyr's death still contributes to the conversion of the whole people with repentance to God. Still, the vast majority of our people—after seventy years of atheism—consider themselves Orthodox. Unfortunately, the majority are not church-going people, but still they are not militant atheists. Grand Duchess Olga wrote from imprisonment in the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg: “Father asks me to tell all those who remained devoted to him, and those on whom they can influence, so that they do not avenge him - he has forgiven everyone and prays for everyone, and so that they remember that the evil that is now in the world will be even stronger, but that it is not evil that will overcome evil, but only love. And, perhaps, the image of a humble martyr tsar moved our people to repentance and faith to a greater extent than a strong and powerful politician could do.

Room of the Grand Duchesses in the Ipatiev House

Revolution: catastrophe inevitable?

- Did the way the last Romanovs lived, how they believed, influenced their canonization?

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

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

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

- What can be answered to such a statement: the tsar's sacrifice was absolutely necessary, and thanks to it Russia was redeemed?

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

“But they say that the feat of the New Martyrs meant a lot to Russia…

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

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

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

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

- Why?

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

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

Did Tsar Nicholas II and his family foresee this catastrophe?

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

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

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

What are these saints?

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

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

- Because of a certain fear?

- Not only because of fear, but rather because of the stamps that were planted from childhood, which owned people. I knew many representatives of the older generation - among them priests and even one bishop - who still found Tsar Nicholas II during his lifetime. And I witnessed what they did not understand: why canonize him? what kind of saint is he? It was difficult for them to reconcile the image, which they perceived from childhood, with the criteria of holiness. This nightmare, which we now cannot truly imagine, when huge parts of the Russian Empire were occupied by the Germans, although the First World War promised to end victoriously for Russia; when terrible persecution, anarchy, civil war began; when the famine came in the Volga region, repressions unfolded, etc. - apparently, somehow it turned out to be linked in the young perception of the people of that time with the weakness of power, with the fact that there was no real leader among the people who could resist all this rampant evil . And some people remained under the influence of this idea until the end of their lives ...

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

End crowns the work

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

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

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

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

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

Valeria Mikhailova (Posashko)