Orthodox against Nicholas II: for which the tsar was recognized as a saint. On the canonization of Nicholas II - why were many clergy opposed? king - bloody or saint

In Russia, many people at the end of the 19th century. believed that for a long time in the history of the country there was a simple principle (or, as they would say now, an algorithm): a good ruler was replaced by a bad one, but the next was good. Let's remember: Peter III was bad and very unpopular, Catherine II went down in history as the Great, Paul I was killed, Alexander I defeated Napoleon and was very popular, Nicholas I was feared, Alexander II carried out great reforms, and Alexander III - counter-reforms. Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894, at the age of 26, received a good education. He was expected to continue transformations, primarily the completion of political reforms.

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

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

He received a good education, made a good impression on others with his manners. Nikolai himself and many of his entourage believed that at the age of 26 he was "not ready to rule." He was strongly influenced by his relatives, his uncle, the dowager empress, the most influential finance minister S. Yu. Witte, who "inherited" the tsar from his father, prominent state dignitaries and the upper circles of the Russian aristocracy. "The tsar was a rag, without a single thought in his head, frail, despised by all," - described Nikolai Ernest Feterlein, admiral, head of the decryption service until 1917 in Russia, and after 1917 - in England.

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

“The people forgave him Khodynka; he was surprised, but did not grumble against the Japanese war, and at the beginning of the war with Germany treated him with touching confidence. But all this was imputed to nothing, and the interests of the Motherland were sacrificed to the shameful bacchanalia of rasputinism and the avoidance of family scenes by the power-hungry hysterics. The absence of a heart, which would tell him how cruelly and dishonestly he had brought Russia to the brink of destruction, is also reflected in the lack of self-esteem, thanks to which, amid the humiliation, abuse and misfortune of all those close to him, he continues to drag out his miserable life, unable to perish with honor in defending their historical rights or to yield to the country's legal requirements, ”wrote Anatoly Koni (1844-1927), a lawyer, writer, senator, member of the State Council, honorary academician of the Pushkin branch of fine literature of the Petersburg Academy of Sciences, in his declining years.

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

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

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

Curious what about activities the last Russian tsar, even committed media can write little about his personal contribution to solving the various problems of the country. Everything that is more or less reasonable, promising and important that appeared during the reign of Nicholas II (parliament, legalization of political parties and trade unions, shorter working hours, introduction of social insurance, development of cooperation, preparation for the introduction of universal primary education, etc.), is not was the result of his own position, and often happened in spite of his active resistance. “Remember one thing: never believe him, he is the most false person in the world,” said I. L. Goremykin, who twice served as chairman of the Council of Ministers under Nicholas II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the 1980s, voices began to be heard in Russia about the official canonization of at least shot children, whose innocence raises no doubts. Mention is made of icons painted without church blessing, in which only they were depicted, without their parents. In 1992, the sister of the Empress, Grand Duchess Elizaveta Fedorovna, was another victim of the Bolsheviks. Nevertheless, there were also many opponents of canonization.

Arguments against canonization

Canonization of the royal family

Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

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

ROC

Alexandra Fedorovna. Modern icon.

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

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

Key points of the report:

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

“Behind the many sufferings endured by the Royal Family in the last 17 months of their lives, which ended with the execution in the basement of the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House on the night of July 17, 1918, we see people sincerely striving to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the sufferings endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom, the light of Christ's faith conquering evil was revealed, just as it shone in the life and death of millions of Orthodox Christians who endured persecution for Christ in the 20th century. It is precisely in comprehending this feat of the Royal Family that the Commission, in complete unanimity and with the approval of the Holy Synod, finds it possible to glorify in the Cathedral the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the face of the Passion-Bearers of Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexander, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia.

From the "Acts on the Council glorification of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia in the XX century":

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

Arguments for canonization taken into account by the ROC

Refutation of the arguments of opponents of canonization

Aspects of Canonization

The question of the face of holiness

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

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

The position of the ROC proper regarding the canonization of servants is as follows: "Due to the fact that they voluntarily remained with the Royal Family and accepted a martyr's death, it would be legitimate to raise the question of their canonization."... In addition to the four who were shot in the basement, the Commission mentions that this list should have included those "killed" in various places and in different months of 1918 Adjutant General I. L. Tatishchev, Grand Marshal Prince V. A. Dolgorukov, "uncle" of the Heir K. G. Nagorny, children's footman I. D. Sednev, maid of honor of the Empress A. V. Gendrikov and goflektrissa E. A. Schneider. Nevertheless, the Commission concluded that “it is not possible for it to make a final decision on the existence of grounds for the canonization of this group of laity, who, according to the duty of their court service, accompanied the Royal Family,” since there is no information about the broad nominal prayer commemoration of these servants by believers, besides , there is no information about their religious life and personal piety. The final conclusion was this: "The commission came to the conclusion that the most appropriate form of honoring the Christian feat of the faithful servants of the Royal Family, who shared its tragic fate, today may be the perpetuation of this feat in the lives of the Royal Martyrs." .

Besides, there is another problem. While the royal family is canonized in the face of martyrs, it is not possible to classify the servants who have suffered, since, as one of the members of the Commission said in an interview, "the rite of martyrs has been used since antiquity only in relation to representatives of the grand ducal and royal families." ...

Society's reaction to canonization

Positive

Negative

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

  • Church on the Blood in honor of All Saints who shone in the Russian Land on the site of the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg.
  • A chapel-monument to the deceased Russian emigrants, Nicholas II and his august family, was erected at the cemetery in Zagreb (1935)
  • Chapel in memory of Emperor Nicholas II and Serbian King Alexander I in Harbin (1936)
  • Temple of the Royal Passion-Bearers at the entrance to Ryazan from Moscow.
  • Temple of the Royal Passion-Bearers in the Tver Nativity of Christ Monastery.
  • Temple of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers in Kursk
  • Temple of Tsarevich Alexy in the city of Sharya, Kostroma region
  • Church of st. the Tsar-Martyr and Sts. New Martyrs and Confessors in Vilmoisson, France (1980s)
  • Church of the Holy Royal Martyrs and All New Martyrs and Confessors of the XX century, Mogilev Belarus
  • Temple of the Sovereign Icon of the Mother of God, Zhukovsky
  • Church of st. Tsar Martyr Nicholas, Nikolskoe
  • Church of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers Nicholas and Alexandra, pos. Sertolovo
  • Church of the Royal Martyrs in the city of Mar del Plata (Argentina)
  • Monastery in honor of the Holy Royal Passion-bearers near Yekaterinburg.
  • Temple of the Royal Martyrs, Dnepropetrovsk (w / m Igren), Ukraine.
  • Temple in the name of the Holy Royal Passion-bearers, Saratov, Russia.
  • Temple in the name of the Holy Royal Martyrs, Dubki village, Saratov district, Saratov region, Russia.

Icons

Iconography

There is both a collective image of the whole family, and each of the members separately. Canonized servants join the Romanovs in the “foreign” icons. Passion-bearers can be depicted both in their contemporary clothing of the early twentieth century, and in robes stylized as Ancient Rus, in style reminiscent of the royal garments with Parsuns.

Figures of Saints Romanov are also found in the multi-figured icons “Cathedral of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia” and “Cathedral of the Patron Saint of Hunters and Fishermen”.

Relics

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

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

They are revered as relics of relics with a clearer origin, for example, Nikolai's hair, cut at the age of three.

Declared miracles of the royal martyrs

  • Descent of a wonderful fire. It is said that this miracle happened in the cathedral of the Holy Iberian Monastery in Odessa, when, during a divine service on February 15, 2000, a tongue of snow-white flame appeared on the altar of the temple. According to the testimony of Hieromonk Peter (Golubenkov):
When I finished communing people and entered the altar with the Holy Gifts, after the words: “Save, Lord, Thy people and bless Thy heritage,” a flash of fire appeared on the throne (on the diskos). At first I did not understand what it was, but then, when I saw this fire, it was impossible to describe the joy that seized my heart. At first I thought it was a piece of coal from a censer. But this little petal of fire was the size of a poplar leaf and was all white and white. Then I compared the white color of the snow - and it is impossible even to compare - the snow seems grayish. I thought that this demonic temptation does happen. And when he took the cup with the Holy Gifts to the altar, there was no one near the altar, and many parishioners saw how the petals of the Holy Fire scattered over the antimension, then gathered together and entered the altar lamp. The testimony of that miracle of the descent of the Holy Fire continued throughout the day ...

Skeptical perception of miracles

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

  • For ecclesiastical recognition of a miracle, the testimony of the ruling bishop is required. Only after it can we talk about the nature of this phenomenon - whether it is a divine miracle or a phenomenon of another order. For most of the described miracles associated with royal martyrs, there is no such evidence.
  • Declaring someone a saint without the blessing of the ruling bishop and a council decision is a non-canonical act, and therefore all references to the miracles of the royal martyrs prior to their canonization should be taken with skepticism.
  • The icon is an image of the ascetic canonized by the church, therefore miracles from the icons written to the official canonization are doubtful.

"Rite of repentance for the sins of the Russian people" and more

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

Among the Orthodox, the concept of the "Tsar-Redeemer" is circulating, according to which Nicholas II is revered as "the redeemer of the sin of the infidelity of his people"; critics call this concept the "royal heresy."

see also

  • Canonized ROCOR Martyrs of the Alapaevsk mine(Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, nun Varvara, Grand Dukes Sergei Mikhailovich, Igor Konstantinovich, John Konstantinovich, Konstantin Konstantinovich (junior), Prince Vladimir Paley).
  • Tsarevich Dmitry, who died in 1591, was canonized in 1606 - before the glorification of the Romanovs, he was chronologically the last representatives of the ruling dynasty, canonized.
  • Solomonia Saburova(Venerable Sophia of Suzdal) - the first wife of Vasily III, chronologically the penultimate of the canonized.

Notes (edit)

  1. Tsar Martyr
  2. Emperor Nicholas II and his family canonized
  3. Osipov A.I.On the canonization of the last Russian tsar
  4. A. Miracles of the royal martyrs... M. 1995.S. 49
  5. Blessed Tsar Nikolai Alexandrovich and his family on Orthodoxy.ru
  6. Grounds for the canonization of the royal family. From the report of Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna, Chairman of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints. www.pravoslavie.ru
  7. Chronicle of the veneration of the saints royal passion-sufferers in the Urals: history and modernity
  8. Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh. On the canonization of the royal family to the canon of saints // "Russian Thought", September 6, 1991 // Reprint: "Izvestia". August 14, 2000
  9. He had every reason to be embittered ... Deacon Andrei Kuraev's interview to Vslukh magazine. The journal "Orthodoxy and the World". Mon, 17 Jul 2006
  10. Russian Bulletin. Clarification on the canonization of the royal family
  11. From an interview with Met. Nizhny Novgorod Nikolay Kutepov (Nezavisimaya gazeta, section Figures and faces, 26.4.2001
  12. The rite of canonization of the newly glorified saints took place in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior Pravoslavie.Ru
  13. Metropolitan Yuvenaly: We have received 22,873 appeals in three years
  14. Emperor Nicholas II and the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. Part I // Orthodox newspaper... - Yekaterinburg, 2003. - No. 31.
  15. Emperor Nicholas II and the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. Part II // Orthodox newspaper... - Yekaterinburg, 2003. - No. 32.
  16. Protopresbyter Michael Polsky. New Russian Martyrs. Jordanville: T. I, 1943; T. II, 1957. (Abridged English edition of The new martyrs of Russia. Montreal, 1972.137 p.)
  17. Inok Vsevolod (Filipiev). The path of the saints of the fathers. Patrology. Jordanville, M., 2007, p. 535.
  18. "On Tsar Ivan the Terrible" (Appendix to the report of Metropolitan of Krutitsky and Kolomna Juvenaly, Chairman of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints
  19. Akathist to the Holy Redeemer Tsar Nicholas II
  20. Kuraev A. Temptation that comes "from the right". M .: Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2005.S. 67
  21. Voronezh diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate accused the members of the group of "popular repentance of the sin of regicide" of commercial aspirations
  22. The martyrdom of the emperor is the main reason for his canonization
  23. The canonization of the royal family eliminated one of the contradictions between the Russian and Russian Churches Abroad
  24. Prince Nikolai Romanov welcomes the decision to canonize the royal family
  25. The head of the House of Romanov will not come to the act of canonization of Nicholas II
  26. The miracle of the myrrh-streaming icon of the Royal Martyrs
  27. Great shrine of Orthodoxy
  28. Ten years later, conflicting data appeared about the fate of the icon of the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II, which was pacified in Moscow on November 7, 1998
  29. Patriarch Alexy: The attitude of the church towards the "Yekaterinburg remains" remains unchanged
  30. ZhMP. 1998, No. 4, p. 10. The decision of the Holy Synod also, among other things, said: “<…>In this regard, the Holy Synod speaks in favor of the immediate burial of these remains in a symbolic memorial grave. When all doubts about the “Yekaterinburg remains” are removed and the grounds for embarrassment and confrontation in society disappear, we should return to the final decision on the place of their burial. "
  31. REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN OF KRUTITSKY AND KOLOMENSKOYE JUVENALY, CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNODAL COMMISSION FOR THE CANONIZATION OF SAINTS, AT THE ARCHIEREAN JUBILEE CATHEDRAL

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

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

Acts of the Jubilee Bishops' Council about the conciliar glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia of the 20th century

1. To glorify for general church veneration in the face of saints the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia of the 20th century, known by name and hitherto not revealed to the world, but known to God.

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

2. Include in the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia the names of those who suffered for the faith, the testimonies of which were received:

from the Alma-Ata diocese:

  • Metropolitan Nicholas of Alma-Ata (Mogilev; 1877-1955)
  • Metropolitan Eugene of Gorky (Zernova; 1877-1937)
  • Archbishop of Voronezh Zakhariy (Lobova; 1865-1937)

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

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

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

Report on the work of the Commission of the Holy. Synod for the canonization of saints over the question of the martyrdom of the royal family

Being anointed to the Kingdom, endowed with full authority, Emperor Nicholas II was responsible for all the events that took place in his state, both before his people and before God. Therefore, a certain share of personal responsibility for historical mistakes, like the events of January 9, 1905 - and a special report adopted by the Commission was devoted to this topic - rests with the Emperor himself, although it cannot be measured by the degree of his participation, or rather, non-participation in these events.

Another example of the actions of the Emperor, which had disastrous consequences for the fate of Russia and the Tsar's Family itself, was his relationship with Rasputin - and this was shown in the study "The Tsar's Family and GE Rasputin." Indeed, how could it happen that such a figure as Rasputin could influence the Tsar's Family and the Russian state and political life of his time? The key to the Rasputin phenomenon lies in the illness of Tsarevich Alexy. Although it is known that the Tsar repeatedly tried to get rid of Rasputin, each time he retreated under the Empress's pressure because of the need to seek help from Rasputin to heal the Heir. It can be said that the Emperor was unable to resist Alexandra Feodorovna, tormented by grief due to her son's illness and was therefore under the influence of Rasputin.

Summing up the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian Emperor, the Commission did not find sufficient grounds for his canonization.

However, in the Orthodox Church there are known cases of canonizing even those Christians who led a sinful life after baptism. Their canonization was accomplished precisely because they atoned for their sins not only by repentance, but also by a special deed - martyrdom or asceticism.

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 glorification of the entire Royal Family took place. The act of conciliar glorification of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia of the twentieth century reads: “To glorify as martyrs and confessors of Russia the Tsar Family: Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia. In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his Family, we see people who sincerely sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the sufferings endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 4 (17), 1918, the conquering evil light of Christ's faith was revealed, just as it shone in the life and death of millions Orthodox Christians who endured persecution for Christ in the twentieth century. "

There are no grounds for revising the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), however, discussions in Russian society about whether to consider the last Emperor of the Russian Empire a saint continue to this day. Statements that, they say, the Russian Orthodox Church was “mistaken” in naming Nicholas II and his family as saints are far from uncommon. The arguments of the 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 about Nicholas II and the Tsar's Family are published, which are documented studies of professional historians, no matter how many documentaries and programs are shot, many for some reason remain true to the negative assessment of both the Tsar's personality and his state activities. Not heeding new scientific historical discoveries, such people stubbornly continue to ascribe to Nicholas II a "weak, weak-willed character" and an inability to lead the state, accuse him of the tragedy of Bloody Sunday and the executions of workers, of defeat in the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905. and the involvement of Russia in the First World War; It all ends with the accusation of the Church that she canonized the Royal Family and the threat that she, the Russian Orthodox Church, "will regret it again."

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

As for the Russian Orthodox Church, its leadership consists of people who are not only able to think logically, but also have deep humanitarian and natural science knowledge, including professional secular diplomas in various specialties, so there is no need to rush into statements about “delusions "ROC and to see in the Orthodox hierarchs some kind of religious fanatics," far from real life. "

This article provides 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 unwillingness to get acquainted with new research in modern science. After each myth, brief arguments are given for refutation, which it was decided, at the request of the editors, not to burden them with numerous cumbersome references to historical documents, since the volume of the article is very limited, and "Pravoslavny Vestnik", nevertheless, does not belong to historical and scientific publications; however, the interested reader himself can easily find indications of sources in any scientific work, especially since a huge number of such have been published recently.

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. They were pushed around by his wife Alexandra Fedorovna, a German by nationality, and since 1907. Elder Grigory Rasputin, who exerted unlimited influence on the tsar, dismissed and appointed ministers and military leaders.

If we read the memoirs of the contemporaries of Emperor Nicholas II, Russians and foreigners, of course, which were not published during the years of Soviet power and were not translated into Russian, then we come across a description of Nicholas II as a kind, magnanimous man, but far from weak. For example, the President of France Emile Loubet (1899-1806) believed that under the apparent timidity the tsar had a strong soul and a courageous heart, as well as always thought out plans in advance, the implementation of which he slowly achieved. Nicholas II possessed the strength of character necessary for the difficult tsarist service, besides, according to Metropolitan of Moscow (since 1943 - Patriarch) Sergius (1867-1944), through the anointing on the Russian throne, he was given an invisible power from above, acting to raise his royal of 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 was wearing."

Nicholas II received a real military upbringing and education, all his life he felt like a soldier, which affected his psychology and many things in his life. The sovereign, as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army, himself, without the influence of any "good geniuses", made absolutely all important decisions that contributed to the 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 pro forma, is completely unfounded, which is refuted by Alekseev's telegrams.

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

Myth 2

Unsuccessful state and church policy of the Emperor. In defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. it is the Emperor who is to blame for failing to ensure the efficiency and combat effectiveness of the Russian army and navy. By his stubborn unwillingness 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 the strongest destabilization of Russian society and the 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 state budget of the country grew 5.5 times, the gold reserve - 3.7 times, the Russian currency was one of the strongest in the world. At the same time, government revenues grew without the slightest increase in the tax burden. The overall growth of the Russian economy, even during the difficult years of the First World War, was 21.5%. Charles Sarolea, a professor at the University of Edinburgh 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 defenses, having learned the hard lessons of the Russo-Japanese war. One of his most significant deeds was the revival of the Russian fleet, which took place against the will of military officials, but saved the country at the beginning of the First World War. The most difficult and forgotten feat of Emperor Nicholas II was that in incredibly difficult conditions he brought Russia to the threshold of victory in the First World War, however, his opponents did not allow her to cross this threshold. General N.A. Lokhvitsky wrote: “It took Peter the Great nine years to convert the conquered Narva into the Poltava victors. The last Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Army, Emperor Nicholas II, did the same great work in a year and a half, but his work was appreciated by enemies, and between the Tsar and his Army, “there was a revolution”. The Tsar's military talents were fully revealed in the post of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Russia definitely began to win the war when the triumphant year of 1916 of the Brusilov breakthrough came, with the plan of which many military leaders did not agree, and on which it was the 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 "demons" for 12 years. Thanks to his personal efforts, a radical turning point was achieved in the course of the Russian-German confrontation. Already in captivity by the Bolsheviks, he refused to approve of the Brest Peace and thereby save his life. He lived with dignity and died with dignity.

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

Myth 3

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

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

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

The blame for the tragic events of Khodynka, Bloody Sunday and the Lena massacre, of course, cannot be placed directly on the Emperor. The reason for the crush on the Khodynskoye field was ... greed. A rumor spread in the crowd that the barmen were handing out gifts among "their own", and therefore there would not be enough gifts for everyone, as a result of which the people rushed to the temporary wooden buildings with such force that even 1,800 police officers specially detached to maintain order during the festivities did not were able to hold back the onslaught.

According to the latest research, the events of January 9, 1905 were a provocation organized by the Social Democrats in order to put certain political demands in the mouths of the workers and create the impression of a popular protest against the existing government. On January 9, workers from the Putilov factory with icons, banners and tsarist portraits marched in procession to Palace Square, overwhelmed with joy and singing prayer chants to meet with their Sovereign and bow to him. A meeting with him was promised to them by the organizers-socialists, although the latter knew perfectly well that the Tsar was not in St. Petersburg, in 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 Tsar did not appear, and tension and excitement began to grow among the people. Suddenly, the provocateurs began firing from the attics of houses, gateways and other shelters at the gendarmes. The gendarmes returned fire, panic and stampede broke out 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 Tsar was deeply shocked by the news of "Bloody Sunday". He ordered to allocate 50,000 rubles for benefits to the families of the victims, as well as to convene a commission to clarify the needs of the workers. Thus, the Tsar could not give an order to shoot civilians, as the Marxists accused him of, since he simply was not in St. Petersburg at that moment.

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

Now about the Lena execution: modern researchers associate 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 a strike in an attempt to prevent actual control over the mines by the government British company "Lena Goldfields". The working conditions of the miners of the Lensk 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 prospectors were allowed to search for nuggets. The reason for the strike was the “story with meat,” still ambiguously assessed by researchers, and the decision to open fire was made by the gendarme 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 delivering Russia into the hands of the Bolsheviks. Moreover, the renunciation of the anointed king from the throne should be regarded as an ecclesiastical canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the ecclesiastical hierarchy from the holy dignity.

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

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

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

Myth 5

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

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

In the "Acts on the Council glorification of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia in the twentieth century" it is written: "The Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often likened his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on the day of church memory which 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 murmur. It is this longsuffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor's life. " Most of the witnesses of the last period in the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk governor and Yekaterinburg Ipatiev houses as people who suffered and, despite all the abuse and insults, led a pious life. Their true greatness stemmed not from their royal dignity, but from that amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.

Those who wish to carefully and impartially familiarize themselves with the published materials about the life and political activities of Nicholas II, the investigation into the murder of the Tsar's Family, can see the following works in different publications:

Robert Wilton, The Last Days of the Romanovs, 1920;
Mikhail Dieterichs "The Murder of the Royal Family and Members of the House of Romanov in the Urals" 1922;
Nikolay Sokolov "Murder of the Tsar Family", 1925;
Pavel Paganuzzi, The Truth About the Murder of the Royal Family, 1981;
Nikolay Ross "The Death of the Royal Family" 1987;
Multatuli P.V. “Nicholas II. The road to Golgotha ​​". M., 2010;
Multatuli P.V. Testifying of Christ Even to Death, 2008;
Multatuli P.V. "The Lord bless my decision." Nicholas II and the conspiracy of the generals. "

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

In 2000, the last Russian emperor Nicholas II and his family were canonized by the Russian Church as holy martyrs. Their canonization in the West - in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - took place even earlier, in 1981. And although holy princes are not uncommon in the Orthodox tradition, this canonization still raises doubts among some. Why is the last Russian monarch glorified among the saints? Does his life and the life of his family speak in favor of canonization, and what were the arguments against it? Veneration of Nicholas II as Tsar-Redeemer - Extreme or Regularity? We are talking about this with the secretary of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, the rector of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University, Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov.

Death as an argument

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

- When in 2000 the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints discussed the issue of glorifying the royal family, it came to the conclusion: although the family of Tsar Nicholas II was deeply religious, ecclesiastical and pious, all its members performed their prayer rule every day, regularly received the Holy Mysteries of Christ and lived a highly moral life, observing the Gospel commandments in everything, constantly performed deeds of mercy, during the war they worked hard in the hospital, caring for the wounded soldiers, they can be numbered among the saints, first of all, for their Christian-perceived suffering and violent death caused by the persecutors Orthodox faith with incredible cruelty. But nevertheless, it was necessary to clearly understand and clearly formulate what exactly the royal family was killed for. Maybe it was just a political assassination? Then they cannot be called martyrs. However, both the people and the commission had 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 passion-bearers" do we mean only the family of the king? Relatives of the Romanovs, the Alapaevsk martyrs, who suffered at the hands of the revolutionaries, do not belong to this face of saints?

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

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

- Canonization generally takes place in the most obvious and edifying cases. Not all of the killed representatives of the royal family show us an image of holiness, and most of these murders were committed for political purposes or in a struggle for power. Their victims cannot be considered victims of faith. As for the family of Tsar Nicholas II, it was so incredibly slandered by both contemporaries and the Soviet regime 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 against the God-established order of life of the Orthodox people.

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

- The Commission on Canonization has been working on this issue for a very long time, very meticulously checking all the pros and cons. 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 blamed for the events of January 9, 1905 - the shooting of a peaceful demonstration of workers. The commission carried out special work to clarify the circumstances 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 arguments “against” were considered in a similar way, until it became obvious 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 take advantage of the offers of flight abroad that were made to them in advance. But they deliberately did not want this.

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

- The royal family personified the idea of ​​an Orthodox kingdom, and the Bolsheviks did not just want to destroy possible pretenders to the royal throne, they hated this symbol - the Orthodox tsar. By killing the royal family, they destroyed the very idea, the banner of the Orthodox state, which was the main defender of the entire world Orthodoxy. This becomes understandable in the context of the Byzantine interpretation of the royal power as the ministry of the “external bishop of the church”. And in the synodal period, in the "Fundamental Laws of the Empire" (Articles 43 and 44), published in 1832, it was said: "The Emperor, like the Christian Sovereign, is the supreme protector and keeper of the tenets of the dominant faith and the guardian of orthodoxy and every holy deanery in the Church. And in this sense, the emperor is called the Head of the Church in the act of succession (of April 5, 1797).

The sovereign and his family were ready to suffer for Orthodox Russia, for their faith, and this is how they understood their suffering. The Holy Righteous Father John of Kronstadt wrote back in 1905: "The Tsar is our 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 sovereign's abdication from the throne?

- Although the sovereign signed the abdication of the throne as a responsibility of governing the state, this does not mean yet his renunciation of the royal dignity. Until his successor was placed in the kingdom, in the minds of all the people he was still a king, and his family remained a royal family. This is how they perceived themselves, and the Bolsheviks perceived them the same way. If the sovereign, as a result of his abdication, would lose his royal dignity and become an ordinary person, then why and who would need to persecute and kill him? When, for example, a presidential term ends, who will persecute the former president? The tsar 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 over him was performed the liturgical rite of anointing with holy myrrh for the kingdom. From this anointing, which manifested God's blessing for the most difficult service to the Orthodox people and Orthodoxy in general, the pious Tsar Nicholas II could not refuse without having a successor, and everyone understood this perfectly.

The sovereign, transferring power to his brother, departed from fulfilling his managerial duties not out of fear, but at the request of his subordinates (practically all front commanders, 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 to the kingdom) would calm the excitement and thereby benefit Russia. This example of refusing to struggle 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 his diaries, letters?

- Yes, but it can be seen from his very actions. He could strive to emigrate, go to a safe place, organize reliable security, and keep his family safe. But he did not take any measures, he wanted to act against his own will, not according to his own understanding, he was afraid to insist on his own. In 1906, during the Kronstadt mutiny, the Emperor, after the report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said the following: the hands of the Lord. Whatever happens, I bow down 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 Tsar wrote: "Perhaps an atoning sacrifice is needed for the salvation of Russia: I will be this sacrifice - may the will of God be done!"

- Many see in renunciation an ordinary weakness ...

- Yes, some see this as a manifestation of weakness: a man of power, strong in the usual sense of the word would not abdicate the throne. But for Emperor Nicholas II, the 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 contributes even now to the conversion of the entire people to God in repentance. 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. The Grand Duchess Olga wrote from her imprisonment in the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg: “Father asks to convey to all those who remain loyal to him, and to those whom they can influence, so that they do not avenge him - he forgives everyone and prays for everyone, and to remember that the evil that is now in the world will be even stronger, but that not evil will triumph over 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 domineering politician could have done.

Room of the Grand Duchesses in the Ipatiev House

Revolution: Disaster Inevitable?

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

- Undoubtedly. A lot of books have been written about the royal family, many materials have survived that indicate a very high spiritual order of the sovereign himself and his family - diaries, letters, memoirs. Their faith is attested to by all who knew them and by their many deeds. It is known that Tsar 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 prison, they constantly prayed and, in a Christian way, prepared for their martyrdom, and three days before his death, the guards allowed the priest to perform the liturgy in the Ipatiev House, at which all members of the royal family received Holy Communion. In the same place, Grand Duchess Tatiana, in one of her books, emphasized the lines: “Those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ went to death like a holiday, facing inevitable death, they retained the same wonderful peace of mind that did not leave them for a minute. They walked calmly towards death because they hoped to enter into another, spiritual life, opening up to the person behind the grave. " And the Emperor wrote: “I firmly believe that the Lord will have mercy on Russia and will pacify passions in the end. May His Holy Will be done. " It is also well known what place in their lives was occupied by deeds of mercy, which were performed in the gospel spirit: the tsar's daughters themselves, together with the empress, looked after the wounded in the hospital during the First World War.

- A very different attitude towards Emperor Nicholas II today: from accusations of lack of will and political inconsistency to veneration as a king-redeemer. Can you find a middle ground?

- 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, in general to everything. Unfortunately, many are now in some kind of spiritual dormancy and are not able to accommodate any serious questions in their hearts, to seek 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, looking for something else, and internally striving for something.

- What can you answer to such a statement: the sacrifice of the tsar was absolutely necessary, and thanks to it Russia was redeemed?

- Such extremes sound from the lips of people who are theologically ignorant. Therefore, 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 and necessity.

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

—Only the feat of the new martyrs alone was able to withstand the rampant evil that Russia was subjected to. At the head of this martyr army were great people: 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 their greatness and their meaning will be.

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, then all the smaller ridges go beyond the horizon, but 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 indeed giants, heroes of 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 with their suffering.

In addition, a century later, it is clear that no most powerful leader, no Peter I, could with his human will restrain 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 cloudless. Our people received communion once a year, and it was a massive phenomenon. There were several dozen bishops throughout Russia, the patriarchate was abolished, and the Church did not have independence. The system of parish schools throughout Russia - a great merit of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K. F. Pobedonostsev - was created only towards the end of the 19th century. This is undoubtedly a great thing, the people began to learn to read and write precisely during the Church, but it happened too late.

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

- Did Tsar Nicholas II himself and his family anticipate this catastrophe?

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

- Do you mean to say that it is impossible to blame exclusively Nicholas II for the troubles that have befallen the country?

- Yes, that's right - he was destined to be born and reign at this time, he could no longer simply by exerting his will to change the situation, because it came from the depths of people's life. And in 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.

What kind of saints are they? ..

- 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 are still very strong. They say that Moses wandered in the wilderness for forty years with his people because the generation that lived in Egypt and was raised 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 cliches that have been implanted since childhood, which people possessed. 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 that 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 adopted from childhood with the criteria of holiness. This nightmare, which we now cannot imagine for ourselves, 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, anarchy, Civil War began; when famine came in the Volga region, repressions unfolded, etc. - apparently, he somehow became 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 withstand all this rampant evil ... And some people remained under the influence of this idea for the rest of their lives ...

And then, of course, it is very difficult to compare in your consciousness, for example, St. Nicholas of Myra, the great ascetics and martyrs of the first centuries with the saints of our time. I know an 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, he, of course, was a very good person, 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 “inhabitants of heaven,” 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.

End crowns the work

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

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

I think, if you take it seriously, you cannot help but feel, see the greatness of this feat and not be fascinated by these wonderful images - the sovereign, 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 great princesses! 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, willingness to serve, for their loving hearts and mercy. After all, they were very modest people, unassuming, never aspired to fame, lived as God set 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 showing any passionate character traits. On the contrary, a Christian heart was cultivated in them - a peaceful, chaste one. It is enough even just to look at the photographs of the royal family, they themselves already reveal an amazing internal appearance - of the sovereign, and the empress, and the grand duchesses, and Tsarevich Alexei. It is not only a matter of upbringing, but also of their very life, which corresponded to their faith and prayer. They were real Orthodox people: as they believed, they lived, as they thought, so they acted. But there is a saying: "The end crowns the deal." “In what I find, in that I judge” - says the Holy Scriptures 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 wonderful death. For their deathbed suffering, for the faith, meekness and obedience to the will of God they went into these sufferings - this is their unique greatness.

The interview is abbreviated. Read the full version in the special issue of the "Thomas" magazine "The Romanovs: 400 Years in History" (2013)

Valeria Mikhailova (Posashko)



© 2021 We know everything about foundations. Job. Materials. Choice. Documentation