Nicholas 2 saint or martyr. Grounds for canonization of the royal family

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

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

Key dates

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

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

Background

Execution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments against canonization

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

Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

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

ROC

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

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

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

Main points of the report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Circumstances of death- physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents.
• Widespread popular veneration the royal passion-bearers served as one of the main reasons for their glorification as saints.
• “appeals from individual clergy and laity, as well as groups of believers from different dioceses, supporting the canonization of the Royal Family. Some of them bear the signatures of several thousand people. Among the authors of such appeals are Russian emigrants, as well as clergy and laity of the fraternal Orthodox Churches. Many of those who contacted the Commission spoke out in favor of the speedy, urgent canonization of the Royal Martyrs. The idea of ​​the need for the speedy glorification of the Tsar and the Royal Martyrs was expressed by a number of church and public organizations.” Over three years, 22,873 requests were received for the glorification of the royal family, according to Metropolitan Juvenaly.
• « Testimonies of miracles and grace-filled help through prayers to the Royal Martyrs. They are talking about healings, uniting separated families, protecting church property from schismatics. There is especially abundant evidence of the streaming of myrrh from icons with images of Emperor Nicholas II and the Royal Martyrs, of the fragrance and the miraculous appearance of blood-colored stains on the icon faces of the Royal Martyrs.”
• Personal piety of the Sovereign: the Emperor paid great attention to the needs of the Orthodox Church, donated generously for the construction of new churches, including outside Russia. Their deep religiosity distinguished the Imperial couple from the representatives of the then aristocracy. All its members lived in accordance with the traditions of Orthodox piety. During the years of his reign, more saints were canonized than in the previous two centuries (in particular, Theodosius of Chernigov, Seraphim of Sarov, Anna Kashinskaya, Joasaph of Belgorod, Hermogenes of Moscow, Pitirim of Tambov, John of Tobolsk).
• “The Emperor’s church policy did not go beyond the traditional synodal system of governing the Church. However, it was during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II that the church hierarchy, which had until then been officially silent for two centuries on the issue of convening a Council, had the opportunity not only to widely discuss, but also to practically prepare for the convening of a Local Council.”
• The activities of the empress and led. princesses as sisters of mercy during the war.
• “Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often compared his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on whose church memorial day he was born. Having accepted his cross in the same way as the biblical righteous man, he endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of a murmur. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the last days of the Emperor’s life. From the moment of abdication, it is not so much external events as the internal spiritual state of the Sovereign that attracts our attention.” Most witnesses to the last period of the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk Governor's House and the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House as people who suffered and, despite all the mockery and insults, led a pious life. “Their true greatness stemmed not from their royal dignity, but from the amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.”

Refuting the arguments of opponents of canonization

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

Aspects of canonization

Question about the face of holiness

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

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

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

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

Canonization of servants

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

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

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

Society's reaction to canonization

Positive

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

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

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

Icons

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

Iconography

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

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

Relics

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

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

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

Announced miracles of the royal martyrs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skeptical perception of miracles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, there were many voices against canonization, especially of Nicholas II. The arguments given were his unsuccessful public policy, including the Khodynka tragedy, Bloody Sunday, Lena massacre, as well as contacts with Rasputin. In 1992, by definition of the Council of Bishops, the Synodal Commission was initiated, which was tasked with investigating

materials related to the martyrdom of the royal family. As a result political activity Nicholas II was separated by the Church from the period of spiritual and physical suffering that the last Russian emperor suffered at the end of his life. In the end the following conclusion was given: “In the suffering endured by the royal

family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom the light of Christ's faith conquering evil was revealed, just as it shone in

the lives and deaths of millions of Orthodox Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the 20th century.

It is in understanding this feat of the royal family that the commission, in complete unanimity and with the approval of the Holy Synod, finds it possible to glorify at the Council the new martyrs and confessors of Russia in the guise of the passion-bearers Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, the Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia.”

On August 14, 2000, at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church, the royal family was canonized as part of the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, revealed and unrevealed.

It was also of great importance for church leaders that Nicholas II led a decent and pious life: he paid great attention to the needs of the Orthodox Church and generously donated funds for the construction of churches. All members of the royal family, according to the Russian Orthodox Church, lived in accordance with the traditions of Orthodoxy.

One can have different attitudes towards the political activities of Nikolai Romanov, but in this case his personality is considered exclusively from the standpoint of a Christian worldview. With his martyrdom he atoned for all his sins.

Interview with Deacon Andrei Kuraev to the magazine “Aloud”

Olga Sevastyanova: Father Andrei, in your opinion, why was the canonization of the royal family so complicated and difficult?
O. Andrey Kuraev: The fact that it was complicated and difficult seems absolutely natural to me. The circumstances were too unusual recent years life of the Russian emperor. On the one hand, in the church understanding, the emperor is a church rank, he is the bishop of the external affairs of the church. And, of course, if a bishop himself resigns his rank, then this can hardly be called a worthy act. This was where the main difficulties were associated, primarily doubts.

O.S. That is, the fact that the tsar abdicated at one time, in modern terms, did not benefit his historical image?

A.K. Undoubtedly. And the fact that canonization did take place... The church’s position here was quite clear: it was not the image of the reign of Nicholas II that was canonized, but the image of his death, if you like, his departure from the political arena. After all, he had every reason to become embittered, frantic, in the last months of his life, while under arrest, seething with anger and blaming everyone and everything. But none of this happened. We have it personal diaries, diaries of his family members, memories of guards, servants, and we see that nowhere is there a shadow of a desire for revenge, they say, I’ll return to power and I’ll take you all down. In general, sometimes the greatness of a person is sometimes determined by the magnitude of the losses he has suffered.

Boris Pasternak had these lines about a great era, “about a life that was poor in appearance, but great under the sign of the losses suffered.” Imagine, on the street in a crowd we see an unfamiliar woman. I look - a woman is like a woman. And you tell me that she suffered a terrible grief: her three children died in a fire. And only this misfortune is capable of distinguishing her from the crowd, from all those similar to her, and elevating her above those around her. It’s exactly the same with the royal family. There was no other person in Russia who would have lost more than Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov in 1917. In fact, then he was already the ruler of the world, the master of the country that practically won the First World War. A royal Russia it undoubtedly won and became the number one power in the world, and the emperor had great plans, among which, by the way, was abdication of the throne, oddly enough. There is evidence that he told very trusted people that he would like to introduce a constitution, a parliamentary monarchy in Russia, and transfer power to his son Alexei, but in war conditions he simply did not have the right to do this. That's what he thought in '16. And then events unfolded somewhat differently. In any case, the image of the passion-bearer turns out to be very Christian. In addition, when it comes to our attitude towards the last emperor, we must take into account the symbolism of the church’s perception of the world.

O.S. What is the symbolism?

A.K. The 20th century was a terrible century for Russian Christianity. And you can’t leave it without drawing some conclusions. Since this was the age of martyrs, there were two ways to go about canonization: try to glorify all the new martyrs, in the words of Anna Akhmatova, “I would like to name everyone by name, but they took away the list and it’s impossible to recognize everyone.” Or canonize a certain Unknown Soldier, honor one innocently executed Cossack family, and with it millions of others. But this path for church consciousness would probably be too radical. Moreover, in Russia there has always been a certain “tsar-people” identity. Therefore, considering that the royal family could again say about themselves in the words of Anna Akhmatova:

No, and not under an alien sky,
And not under the protection of alien wings -
I was then with my people,
Where my people unfortunately were...

canonization of the passion-bearing king Nicholas II- this is the canonization of “Ivan the Hundred Thousand”. There is also a special overtone here. I'll try to explain this with an almost personal example.

Let's say I was visiting in another city. Visited with my father. Then we had a heated discussion with this priest: whose vodka is better - Moscow-made or local. We found a consensus only by agreeing to go through trial and error. We tried it, tasted it, agreed in the end that both were good, and then, before going to bed, I went for a walk in the city. Moreover, under the priest’s windows there was a city park. But the priest did not warn me that Satanists gather under the windows at night. And so in the evening I go out into the garden, and the Satanists look at me and think: our ruler sent us this well-fed calf as a sacrifice! And they kill me. And here’s the question: if something similar happened to me, and, I emphasize, I myself did not strive for martyrdom, I was not very spiritually ready, I tasted vodka and just like that I met my death, to determine my posthumous fate at God’s court, will it be does it matter what I was wearing that day? Secular reaction: what difference does it make what one wears, the main thing is what is in the heart, in the soul, and so on. But I believe that in this case it is much more important what clothes were worn. If I were in civilian clothes in this park, it would be “everyday life”. And if I walked in church clothes, then people whom I personally don’t know, who have no complaints against me personally, they splashed out on me the hatred that they have for the Church and for Christ. In this case, it turned out that I suffered for Christ. It's the same with the royal family. Let the lawyers argue among themselves whether Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov was a tsar in 1818 or just a private person, a retired colonel. But, in the eyes of those people who shot at him, he was certainly an emperor. And then all their lives they wrote memoirs and told the pioneers about how they killed the last Russian Tsar. Therefore, it is obvious to the Church that this man is a martyr for our faith, as is his family.

O.S. And family too?
A.K. Likewise. You can make some political claims to the ruler of Russia, Nicholas II, but what do children have to do with it? Moreover, in the 80s, voices were heard saying that, let’s at least canonize children, what are they guilty of?

O.S. What is the holiness of a martyr in the church understanding?

A.K. The holiness of a martyr is a special holiness. This is the holiness of one minute. In the history of the church there were people, for example, in ancient Rome, when a theatrical execution was staged in the arena, during which Christians were executed in all seriousness. They choose the filthiest jester and in the course of the action, another jester, dressed as a priest, baptizes him. And so when one jester baptizes another and pronounces these sacred words: “the servant of God is baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” And when, after the words of prayer, grace actually descended on the jester, who was portraying a Christian, and he began to repeat that he had seen God, that Christianity was true, the tribunes first laughed, and then, realizing that this was not a joke, they killed the jester. And he is revered as a martyr... Therefore, the holiness of a martyr is something different than the holiness of a saint. A reverend is a monk. And his whole life is taken into account. And for a martyr, this is a kind of photo finish.

O.S. How does the Church feel about the fact that different centuries did all sorts of false Anastasias arise?

A.K. For an Orthodox person, this is speculation on a shrine. But if this were proven, the Church would recognize it. There was a similar incident in the history of the Church, however, not connected with royal names. Any Orthodox person knows the story of the seven youths of Ephesus, who hid from the persecution of Emperor Julian in caves, where they fell into a lethargic state and woke up 150 years later. When they left the caves, from what they said, it became clear that these children were miraculous Thus we missed one and a half hundred years. It has never been a problem for the Church to accept among the living people who were considered dead. Moreover, not resurrected, but dead. Because there were cases of miraculous resurrection, and then a person disappeared, was considered dead, and after some time appeared again. But, in order for this to happen, the Church will wait for confirmation from secular science, secular examinations. Buddhists resolve such issues more easily. They believe that the soul of the deceased Dalai Lama is reincarnated into a child, a boy, children are shown toys, and if a two-year-old boy, instead of a shiny rattle, suddenly reaches for the old cup of the former Dalai Lama, then it is believed that he recognized his cup. So the Orthodox Church has more complex criteria.

O.S. That is, if a hundred-year-old woman appeared now and said that she was a princess, they would take a long time to make sure she was normal, but would they take such a statement seriously?

A.K. Undoubtedly. But I think that genetic testing would be enough
O.S. What do you think about the story of the “Ekaterinburg remains”?

A.K. Is this what is buried in the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg, the remains found in the Yekaterinburg region? From the point of view of the state commission, headed by Boris Nemtsov, these are the remains of the royal family. But the church examination did not confirm this. The church simply did not participate in this burial. Despite the fact that the Church itself does not have any remains, it does not recognize that those bones that were buried in the Peter and Paul Cathedral belonged to the royal family. The Church expressed its disagreement with state policy in this. Moreover, not the past, but the current one.
O.S. Is it true that before the royal family, no one was canonized in our country for a very long time?

A.K. No, I wouldn't say that. Since 1988, Andrei Rublev, Ksenia of Petersburg, Feofan the Recluse, Maxim the Greek, and Georgian poet Ilya Chavchavadze have been canonized.

O.S. Were there cases of canonization related to the Great Patriotic War and besieged Leningrad?
A.K. No, strangely enough, I haven’t seen anything like this yet. Still, a martyr is not someone who sacrificed himself, even if religiously motivated, died a terrible death, or suffered innocently. This is the one who faced a clear choice: faith or death. During the war, people in most cases did not have such a choice.

O.S. Did the king really have a radical choice?

A.K. This is one of the most difficult issues of canonization. Unfortunately, it is not completely known to what extent he was attracted, to what extent something depended on him. Another thing is that every minute he was able to choose whether to feed his soul with revenge or not. There is another aspect to this situation. Church thinking is precedent thinking. What happened once can serve as an example to follow. How can I explain this to people so that they don’t follow his example? It's really difficult. Imagine: an ordinary school headmistress. She converted to Orthodoxy and is trying to educate the children at her school accordingly. Turns excursions into Orthodox pilgrimages. Invites the priest to school holidays. Selects Orthodox teachers. This causes dissatisfaction among some students, parents, and teachers. And then the higher authorities. And then some deputy invites her to his place and says: “you know, there’s a complaint against you. You are violating the law on secular education by inviting a priest. Therefore, you know, in order to avoid a scandal now, write a letter of resignation now, don’t worry about the school, here is Sara Isaakovna, she understands perfectly how to raise Russian children, and how not to raise them. She will be appointed in your place, and you will sign a waiver of the position. What should this headmistress do? She is an Orthodox person, she cannot easily give up her beliefs. But, on the other hand, she remembers that there was a man who humbly gave up power. And the children will be taught by Sarah Isaakovna, who will raise them in the best case – in a secular version, in the worst case – simply in an anti-Christian one. Therefore, I think it is very important to explain here that in the case of the emperor this would be foolishness.

O.S. Like this?

A.K. A holy fool is a person who violates ecclesiastical and secular laws in order to fulfill the will of God. At that moment, obviously the will of God was that Russia should go through the way of the cross that it was supposed to go through. At the same time, each of us should not push Russia to take this step. Simply put, if there is the will of God, then one must be ready to fulfill it in the most unexpected way. And we must also remember that foolishness and orphanhood, in this case foolishness, do not abolish the law. The law is clear: the position of the emperor is that he is given a sword so that he can defend his people and his faith with the power of the state sword. And the emperor’s task is not to lay down the sword, but to be able to wield it well. In this case, Emperor Constantine XXII, the last Byzantine emperor, who, when the Turks had already broken through the walls of Constantinople in 1453, took off his royal regalia, remained in the clothes of a simple soldier and, with a sword, is much closer to me, in a churchly and masculine way, in this case. rushing into the very thick of the enemy, he found his death there. I understand this behavior much more clearly than renunciation or refusal. So the behavior of Emperor Constantine is the law, this is the norm. The behavior of Emperor Nicholas is foolishness.

O.S. Well, in Rus' there were many blessed people, but so...

A.K. They were beggars. And this is the king.

O.S. Does time mean anything to the church? After all, many years have passed, generations have changed...

A.K. This is what means a lot. Moreover, canonization cannot take place before 50 years to allow the memory to last.

O.S. And as for the canonization procedure itself, is it a big responsibility for the one who makes this decision?

A.K. The decision is made by the Council, that is, all the bishops. Not only Russia, but also Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Central Asia... There were discussions about canonization at the Council itself

O.S. This means that the royal family was simply included in some special lists or were there other procedures?

A.K. No, there was also a blessing of the icon, prayers... This is very important, because in the early 90s other prayers had already appeared, both literary and theologically completely illiterate.

O.S. I have heard the expression “unprayed icon.” Can an icon depicting the royal family be considered “prayed”? How do believers treat it?

A.K. Let’s say the church doesn’t know such an expression. And the icon has already become familiar in homes and churches. A variety of people turn to her. The canonization of the royal family is the canonization of the family, this is very good, because we have almost no holy families in our calendar. What is important here is that this is a large family about which we know a lot. Therefore, many people value precisely this nepotism.

O.S. Does the Church really believe that everything was smooth and correct in this family?

A.K. No matter how many opinions there were, no one seemed to accuse anyone of adultery.

Olga Sevastyanova spoke with Deacon Andrei Kuraev.

Several years ago, the Russian Orthodox Church declared Nicholas II a Holy Great Martyr. So who exactly was Nicholas II, and why did the Russian Orthodox Church canonize him as a great martyr? The remains of him and his family were solemnly buried in the royal tomb.

Of course, we must admit that the tragic death that befell the entire royal family evokes only regret and sympathy. And of course, indignation for such an inhumane destruction of women and young family members.

However, let's try to figure out who and why led the royal family to such a tragic outcome.

Already by his abdication of the throne, Nicholas II signed a sentence both for his family and for himself.

Let's see who had more power in the Russian Empire before the February Revolution, the Tsar or Lenin?

Nicholas II had full autocratic power, supported by hundreds of years of rule Russian tsars. The people themselves had in their blood and bone marrow reverence for the autocratic monarch, and the sacred confidence that it could not be any other way, and that this was the divinely established right of the tsars to rule the Russian peoples forever and ever.

And what kind of power and support of the people did Vladimir Lenin have before the February revolution? Not only before the start of the February revolution, but also after the October revolution, the complete power of the Bolsheviks over the country was very precarious, and their position improved only towards the end of the civil war.

But it all started much earlier.

Nicholas II received a brilliant aristocratic upbringing, the best in Europe, plus a magnificent military education, he finally graduated from the General Staff Academy.

And, I hope, no one will argue that the future monarch was taught all the necessary sciences, and was given everything necessary knowledge to manage a huge empire. And so, for some reason, such a highly educated and intelligent monarch begins to make constant gross miscalculations, both in terms of the situation within the country and in the foreign policy arena.

Nicholas II had the opportunity for eight years, before the war with Japan, to strengthen the country and rearm the army, improve and improve combat training. And he inherited a strong and prosperous country, although it required further reforms for stable growth.

Why, for example, are mediocre and worthless relatives of the king appointed to the main, key positions in the army and navy, or under the patronage of high officials and relatives?

Which is completely unacceptable in such a large empire. As a result, by 1904, the key positions in supplying the army and navy, combat training of the army and navy, and commanders of armies and navies were mostly irresponsible and worthless people.

It is natural that Russo-Japanese War The battle of 1904-1905 was shamefully lost due to the serious mistakes of the emperor himself.

I will not list here the huge number of sunk ships, tens of thousands of prisoners and a great many killed. I will only note that in Port Arthur, due to a lack of food and ammunition, the garrison of ten thousand surrendered, although its supply could have been organized by land through the territory of China. And a huge squadron of ships from the Baltic Fleet, which came to the rescue of the remnants of the fleet, locked partly in Vladivostok and partly in Port Arthur, under the leadership of the incompetent Admiral Rozhdestvensky, was defeated in two days, and two-thirds of the ships were sunk.

Tens of thousands killed, and tens of thousands wounded, their blood is on the conscience of the monarch!

50 thousand 688 people were killed, including those who died from wounds and illnesses, 146 thousand 032 people were wounded and shell-shocked, 74 thousand 369 people were captured.

And this despite the fact that the strength of the Japanese army was 283 thousand people, and the Russian army was more than 4 million people. About one in fourteen.

But the lack of intelligent commanders, commanders, supplies of ammunition and food, and combat training led to disaster, loss of territory, and loss of international authority and political influence. There were not even strong allies, despite family ties with possible allies.

For example, Stalin managed to find the strongest allies in the world, kept them until the end of the war, and even used them to his advantage as much as possible. Look how much the USSR gained politically after the Second World War, compared to before the war! He even took revenge for the war of 1904-1905 and returned the lost territories.

But what should a brilliantly educated monarch, standing at the head of a huge empire, do, even after such a deafening defeat?

Naturally, he had to analyze all the mistakes that led to defeat in the war, as well as all the shortcomings of political and economic life within the country that led to the revolution of 1905-1907.

And, after analyzing all these mistakes, exclude any and the slightest possibility of repeating them in the future.

However, nothing of the kind was done.

The same mediocre and criminally dangerous individuals were engaged in supplying the army and navy, and building new ships, and combat training of the army and navy, and rearmament of the army, that is, everything continued very badly.

One can even say that Nicholas II, with his own hands, with all his orders and actions, destroyed the great empire, and created the preconditions for the transfer of power to anyone who could take it.

And again, nine long years were spent in inaction, as well as in decisions that were criminal and detrimental to the future fate of the state. Of course, some actions were taken, some new weapons arrived, but all these half-measures did not have any specific impact on the combat readiness of the army, and its ability to fight.

As a result, by 1914, Russian army, not rearmed according to last word military equipment, with the same criminally dangerous people in key positions, entered a new war. And naturally, losses were not long in coming.

In the First World War On the part of the Russian Empire, soldiers died: 2 million 254 thousand 369, civilians died: 1 million 070 thousand 000, wounded: 3 million 749 thousand 000, captured: 3 million 342 thousand 900 people. The total number of dead is only 3 million 324 thousand 369 people, and the casualties (captured and wounded) are 7 million 091 thousand 900 people.

And these millions of dead brave Russian soldiers, officers and civilians are on the conscience of this worthless monarch.

Just like the millions of dead citizens of the Russian Empire during the revolution and the subsequent Civil War are also on the conscience of the mediocre autocrat, and the millions who died during the repressions also lie on the conscience of Nicholas II.

In the Civil War, 10 million 500 thousand people died on both sides, including civilians, and these were all citizens of the former Russian Empire, and through the fault of their crowned monarch.

In total, about 14 million citizens died during the World War and the Civil War, and this does not count the millions who died during the repressions. And who, having familiarized himself with these figures, will say that this is not on his conscience. Nicholas the Bloody - he received this nickname back in those years.

Nicholas II not only has his hands up to his elbows in blood, he himself is up to his neck in blood!

After all, if this spineless monarch, like his ancestors for three hundred years, had also boldly and intelligently ruled the empire and made it stronger, then there would not have been millions of deaths in these wars and repressions.

For example, after the Civil War and the death of Lenin, Stalin came to power. He inherited only a fragment of the former empire, ravaged by long wars and civil unrest. A poor, hungry country with primitive industry and backward agriculture. And what was done!

From the above analysis it is absolutely clear that Nicholas II does not deserve any sympathy, much less communion with the ranks of the holy great martyrs!

Because all the serious troubles that befell his head and his family were done by his own hands, with full awareness of what was happening.

No one ever considered Nikolai to be insane; on the contrary, he was very educated and clever man, who, simply by his softness and irresponsibility, consistently committed acts that ultimately destroyed a great empire.

And we can call Nicholas II the creator of the October Revolution to a much greater extent than Lenin or Trotsky. Nicholas II did almost all the work, so Lenin and Trotsky only had to pick up the ripe fruit.

Imagine the head of a city, who first educates and brutalizes a gang of bloody maniacs, and then resigns, and releases his pack on the city, where a bloody massacre begins, the whole city is drowned in blood, and they also kill former head and his family. One of the maniacs becomes the new head. A third of the city was cut out. Will we consider the former head guilty? And will we feel sorry for him and grieve for him? And how will the surviving residents of the ill-fated city themselves react to him after this?

Or imagine the head of a powerful financial or manufacturing empire that took many generations to build.

And now, finally, another scion of a great and revered family comes to rule the empire, and destroys the entire empire to smithereens, throwing away tens and hundreds of billions, conscientiously acquired by many generations, to the wind.

How will everyone around him react to such a person, a descendant of great financiers or businessmen? I can definitely answer: they will despise him, and not a single person from the families of other equally great financial or industrial empires will even shake hands with him.

Why should we treat Nicholas II, who squandered hundreds of billions of the royal treasury, in any currency, and destroyed the largest empire in the world by organizing internal strife that led to many millions of deaths, in any other way?

And this despite the fact that the Russian Empire was at least one of the five or six most developed and powerful states in the world!

The extent of the crimes of Nicholas II exceeds many times all the crimes committed by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and other revolutionaries, taken together because he gave birth to all these crimes.

Some unscrupulous journalists say that Nicholas II was simply an intelligent, gentle man who was born at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

Let me note that this is complete nonsense, since Nicholas II was prepared and taught to manage a great state from childhood, and any person who received such an education should have understood how difficult it is to manage and strengthen great empire.

At least, upon ascending the throne, Nicholas II did not at all have the idea of ​​handing over the reins of power to any of his brothers, and only when the empire was destroyed, involved in a heavy bloody war, and internal strife, did he suddenly abdicate in favor of his brother

Like, I steered, nothing worked out for me, I ruined everything, but please excuse me and try to fix it.

You can’t imagine anything more stupid and shameful in this act, and in what stands behind this act.

For example, let's see how the general used the acquired knowledge tsarist army Mannerheim. But he graduated from the same Academy of the General Staff as the mediocre autocrat.

Mannerheim managed to seriously organize the combat training of the small Finnish army, create a strip of powerful defensive fortifications named after him, organize clear interaction between all units and branches of the military, which as a result gave stunning results in the war with the Soviet Union.

Or, as after the disastrous Finnish War, and after the disastrous six months of the Patriotic War, Stalin managed to reorganize the army, combat training, interaction of units and formations, and strengthen morale. Remove factories and organize mass production of military, high-quality (for that time) equipment, which as a result made it possible Soviet Union produce more high-quality weapons than the rest of Europe, either occupied by Hitler or consisting of his allies.

After each small or large failure, a clear analysis followed, conclusions were drawn, and specific measures were taken, which ultimately led to success.

In any case, only the result is important, and, despite the mistakes of the leadership before the war and at the beginning of the war, and also, despite the mistakes throughout the war, it was honest, correct conclusions and clear, decisive actions that led to a stunning result.

There are also some inappropriate statements comparing the current Russian President Medvedev with Nicholas II. It is impossible to think of anything more irresponsible from a logical point of view.

Firstly, Nicholas II was emperor for life, and initially, naturally, the heir to the Russian throne. And if you compare him with anyone, then only with the same emperors, who were also raised as future heirs to the throne. Therefore, Nicholas II could well be compared with last emperor Austro-Hungarian Empire or Prussian Kaiser. As for complaints about the unfortunate fate of the most stupid of monarchs, an example of an unfortunate fate can only be the last Chinese emperor, who was deprived of the throne as a child, and naturally, he could not do anything to preserve and strengthen his empire.

Secondly, Nicholas II has already lived his worthless and shameful life, and his fate can only be compared with the fate of a man who has already ended his days. As one of them said ancient sages, Solon, a person cannot be called happy or unhappy until his life is over. For, each subsequent day can bring such a rapid revolution in our lives that everything will completely change. And only a person whose life has ended cannot experience any sudden changes or shocks.

Thirdly, this comparison does not stand up to any criticism because during Medvedev’s reign there were no lost wars with terrible and bloody consequences for the entire Russian people, no unmade conclusions after our own mistakes and miscalculations, no stupid decisions that brought Russia to collapse. In Medvedev’s fate there was no second Rasputin, who dictated to him the appointment of people to government posts.

All these comparisons between Medvedev and Nicholas II, sucked from a sore thumb, are nothing more than a figment of a sick imagination, or a special order aimed at causing a split in the ranks of the ruling tandem.

Back in the days Ancient Rome As long as the Republic existed, two consuls were always elected. Each of these consuls could lead a separate army, and Rome could fight a war on two fronts. If there was no agreement between the consuls, then the Roman Republic fell into chaos and unrest. Therefore, each politically significant consul chose either a like-minded person or a follower as his associates, which made it possible to carry out the necessary reforms and contributed to the prosperity of Rome.

In this case, of course, I do not undertake to say this directly, but we are observing something similar.

And with all responsibility we can say that if under Putin the prime minister had been the president, for example, Zyuganov, an ardent opponent of the ongoing reforms, then Russia, right up to the next elections, would have been marking time or would have rolled back with all speed.

It is clear that it would be unforgivable stupidity and irresponsibility on Putin’s part to allow it to be destroyed again strong Russia, after he had taken all measures for many years to make the country strong and independent.
Based on the above, it is completely clear that the ascribed similarity between President Medvedev and Nicholas II has absolutely no basis.

And the fact that positive changes in Russia are happening very slowly and with difficulty may have several different reasons.

Either Russia is a viscous, clumsy swamp, especially locally, which is very difficult to turn in the right, progressive direction.

Perhaps the entire Russian leadership, the president, the government, and legislators lack wisdom and determination, like, for example, the Chinese leadership.

Perhaps rapid progress is hampered by endemic corruption, in which people get stuck and the correct laws are not followed.

Moreover, laws are adopted ill-considered, leaving loopholes for abuse, non-compliance, or corruption. Or all these factors combined.

There may, of course, be other factors, but the lack of specific facts does not make it possible to conduct an accurate analysis and draw the right conclusions.

Sources:
. G.F. Krivosheev (edited). Russia and the USSR in the wars of the 20th century: Losses of the armed forces
. Vadim Erlikhman Population losses in the 20th century. Directory. - Moscow., 2004.

The other day, the US State Department’s demand for the Dominican Republic popped up in the news feeds, where the State Department stated that it considers the Dominican Republic’s recognition of North Ossetia and Abkhazia unacceptable and undesirable.

It’s interesting how one can evaluate such pressure and interference in the internal affairs of a free state, especially after all the slogans and cries about freedom and democracy. Any free country, as an object of international law, has the freedom to choose whether to recognize or not recognize any other newly formed state.

At first, in the same way, the United States ordered all its obedient allies to recognize the region of Kosovo, separated from Serbia, although these were originally Serbian lands, where Serbian shrines stand - churches and monasteries that are more than a thousand years old, and from where more than 300 thousand Serbs were expelled under the threat of extermination.

The refugees themselves from Albania were settled in this territory back in the times of Yugoslavia by Josip Broz Tito.

Now, the United States is trying to put pressure on all countries of the world to not recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, although these lands were never originally Georgian, but were, respectively, Abkhazian or Ossetian. The Abkhaz are a separate people, with their own language and Muslim faith, that is, a faith different from the faith of the Georgian peoples. South Ossetians are an ethnic community with North Ossetia, who have their own common language and are divided into North and South Ossetia only by mountains.

In international legislation defining the fundamental rights of states and peoples, there are two basic principles:1. Sovereignty and indivisible integrity of existing states.2. The right of nations to self-determination.

It has not yet been determined which of them is the main and primary one. Although, basically, everything international solutions are adopted on the basis of the sovereignty and integrity of states.

The forced separation of the Kosovo region from Serbia as a separate state was the first precedent in this area. Since the legal systems of the USA, Britain, Canada and others, when deciding various issues in court, use the earlier results of previous decisions of courts of various instances, that is, precedents. International law also uses this practice.

When a precedent was created for the forced separation of part of the state without the consent of the state itself, moreover, the territory belonging to it since ancient times, then, naturally, other peoples can demand the same.

For example: the same South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and besides them, the same Basques, some of whom live in Spain, and the other part in France, the same Kurds, who during the existence Ottoman Empire were a single autonomous unit, that is, a state within the empire. The same Corsicans (the movement for the freedom of Corsica, for example, organized 20 explosions in 2009) and many other peoples demand a separate state.

By the way, the ancestral territory of Serbia was forcibly taken away in violation of the UN resolution. Even before the secession of Kosovo, there was a UN resolution that recognized as legal territorial integrity Serbia.

However, having set a precedent with an unruly country, i.e. Having let the genie out of the bottle, the United States is now trying in every possible way to prevent similar decisions for its friends and allies.

I wonder why the Albanian people, by the way, who have their own separate state, are better than the Abkhazians, or the Corsicans, or the Ossetians, or the Kurds, or the Basques. The Basques are generally separate, amazing people, whose language is not similar to any of the languages ​​of the world, and is not similar to the languages ​​of its neighbors.

These peoples have exactly the same right to self-determination as the Albanians, or rather even more rights, because They do not have already created separate states, unlike the Albanians, and live on their original lands, and not on the territory where other peoples have lived since ancient times.

The law, both in the state and in international relations, must be the same for everyone! Direct, simple and transparent , otherwise the interpretation of this law will be ambiguous, in favor of the powerful.

Here, we see a completely opposite picture: the law is not one for everyone, but for each nation there is its own law, and it is established by the United States.

However, let's return to main news. I consider such pressure on independent and free countries from the United States to be a completely dictatorial and undemocratic way of solving international problems.

List of victims:

Seven family members Nikolai Alexandrovich, 50 years Alexandra Fedorovna, 46 years old Olga , 22 Tatiana , 21 years old Maria, 19 years Anastasia , 17 years Alexei , 13 years

And Evgeny Botkin, life physician Ivan Kharitonov, cook Alexey Troupe, valet Anna Demidova, housemaid

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

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

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

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

In 1981, the royal family was glorified by the decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad. This event increased attention to the issue of the holiness of the last Russian Tsar in the USSR, so underground literature was sent there and foreign broadcasting was carried out.

July 16, 1989. In the evening, people began to gather in the vacant lot where Ipatiev’s house once stood. For the first time, public prayers to the Royal Martyrs were openly heard. On August 18, 1990, the first wooden cross was installed on the site of the Ipatiev House, near which believers began to pray once or twice a week and read akathists.

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

Arguments against canonization

Canonization of the royal family

Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

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

Main points of the report:

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

“Behind the many sufferings endured by the Royal Family over the last 17 months of their lives, which ended with execution in the basement of the Ekaterinburg Ipatiev House on the night of July 17, 1918, we see people who sincerely sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom, the evil-conquering light of Christ's faith was revealed, just as it shone in the life and death of millions of Orthodox Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the 20th century.

It is in understanding this feat of the Royal Family that the Commission, in complete unanimity and with the approval of the Holy Synod, finds it possible to glorify in the Council the new martyrs and confessors of Russia in the guise of the passion-bearers Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia.”

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

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

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

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

Refuting the arguments of opponents of canonization

• The blame for the Events of 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 Winter Palace square was made not by the emperor, but by the government headed by the Minister of Internal Affairs P. D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. Minister Svyatopolk-Mirsky did not provide the emperor with sufficient information about the events taking place, and his messages were of a reassuring nature. The order for 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 turned against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions.” Nevertheless, Emperor Nicholas II did not see reprehensible actions in the actions of the commander in shooting demonstrations: he was neither convicted nor removed from office. But he saw guilt in the actions of Minister Svyatopolk-Mirsky and mayor I. A. Fullon, who were dismissed immediately after the January events.
• Nicholas’ guilt as an unsuccessful statesman should not be considered: “we must evaluate not this or that form of government, but the place that a specific person occupies in the state mechanism. The extent to which a person was able to embody Christian ideals in his activities is subject to assessment. It should be noted that Nicholas II treated the duties of a monarch as his sacred duty.”
• Abdication of the tsar's rank is not a crime against the church: “The desire, characteristic of some opponents of the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II, to present his abdication of the Throne as a church-canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the priesthood, cannot be recognized as having any serious grounds . The canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed to the Kingdom was not defined in the church canons. Therefore, attempts to discover the elements of a certain church-canonical crime in the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power seem untenable.” On the contrary, “The spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of internal peace in Russia, gives his action a truly moral character.”
• “there is no reason to see in the relations of the Royal Family with Rasputin signs of spiritual delusion, and even more so of insufficient church involvement.”

Aspects of canonization

Question about the face of holiness

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 works during life. The question of which saints the royal family should be ranked among causes a lot of controversy among various movements of the Orthodox Church, which have different assessments of the life and death of the family.

Canonization of servants

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

As a basis for such canonization, Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles (Sinkevich) argued “that these people, being devoted to the king, were baptized with their martyr’s blood, and they are thus worthy of being canonized along with the Family.”

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

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

Reaction to canonization

The canonization of the royal family eliminated one of the contradictions between the Russian and Russian Churches Abroad (which canonized them 20 years earlier), noted in 2000 the chairman of the department of external church relations, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad. The same point of view was expressed by Prince Nikolai Romanovich Romanov (chairman of the Association of the House of Romanov), who, however, refused to participate in the act of canonization in Moscow, citing that he was present at the canonization ceremony, which was held in 1981 in New York by the ROCOR.

I have no doubt about the holiness of the last tsar, Nicholas II. Critically assessing his activities as an emperor, I, being the father of two children (and he was the father of five!), cannot imagine how he could maintain such a firm and at the same time gentle state of mind in prison, when it became clear that they would all die. His behavior at this moment, this side of his personality evokes my deepest respect.

We glorified the royal family precisely as passion-bearers: the basis for this canonization was the innocent death accepted by Nicholas II with Christian humility, and not political activity, which was quite controversial. By the way, this cautious decision did not suit many, because some did not want this canonization at all, while others demanded the canonization of the sovereign as a great martyr, “ritually martyred by the Jews.”

Modern veneration of the royal family by believers

Churches

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

Relics

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

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.

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

Announced miracles of the royal martyrs

• The miraculous deliverance of hundreds of Cossacks. A story about this event appeared in 1947 in the Russian emigrant press. The story set out in it dates back to the time of the Civil War, when a detachment of White Cossacks, surrounded and driven by the Reds into impenetrable swamps, called for help to the not yet officially glorified Tsarevich Alexei, since, according to the regimental priest, Fr. Elijah, in trouble, one should have prayed to the prince, as to the ataman of the Cossack troops. To the soldiers’ objection that the royal family had not been officially glorified, the priest allegedly replied that the glorification was taking place by the will of “God’s people,” and swore to the others that their prayer would not remain unanswered, and indeed, the Cossacks managed to get out through the swamps that were considered impassable. The numbers of those saved by the intercession of the prince are called - “ 43 women, 14 children, 7 wounded, 11 old people and disabled people, 1 priest, 22 Cossacks, a total of 98 people and 31 horses».
• The miracle of dry branches. One of the latest miracles recognized by the official church authorities occurred on January 7, 2007 in the Church of the Transfiguration of the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery in Zvenigorod, which was once a place of pilgrimage for the last tsar and his family. Boys from the monastery orphanage, who came to the temple to rehearse the traditional Christmas performance, allegedly noticed that the long-withered branches lying under the glass of the icons of the royal martyrs had sprouted seven shoots (according to the number of faces depicted on the icon) and produced green flowers with a diameter of 1-2 cm resembling roses, and the flowers and the mother branch belonged to different plant species. According to publications referring to this event, the service during which the branches were placed on the icon was held on Pokrov, that is, three months earlier. The miraculously grown flowers, four in number, were placed in an icon case, where by the time of Easter “they had not changed at all,” but by the beginning of Holy Week of Great Lent, green shoots up to 3 cm long suddenly erupted. Another flower broke off and was planted in the ground , where it turned into a small plant. What happened to the other two is unknown. With the blessing of Fr. Savva, the icon was transferred to the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, to the Savvin chapel, where it apparently remains to this day.
• The descent of the miraculous fire. Allegedly, this miracle occurred in the Cathedral of the Holy Iveron Monastery in Odessa, when during a service on February 15, 2000, a tongue of snow-white flame appeared on the throne of the temple. According to the testimony of Hieromonk Peter (Golubenkov):

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

Skeptical perception of miracles

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

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

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

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

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

In 1993, “repentance for the sin of regicide on behalf of the entire Church” was brought by Patriarch Alexy II, who wrote: “We call to repentance all our people, all their children, regardless of their political views and views on history, regardless of their ethnic origin, religious affiliation, regardless of their attitude to the idea of ​​​​the monarchy and to the personality of the last Russian Emperor.”. In the 21st century, with the blessing of Metropolitan Vladimir of St. Petersburg and Ladoga, a penitential procession of the cross from St. Petersburg to Yekaterinburg to the place of the death of the family of Nicholas II began to be held annually. It symbolizes repentance for the sin of the Russian people’s deviation from the conciliar oath of 1613 to allegiance to the royal family of the Romanovs.

see also

• Canonized by 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, canonized in 1606 - before the glorification of the Romanovs, he was chronologically the last representative of the ruling dynasty to be canonized.
• Solomonia Saburova(Reverend Sofia of Suzdal) - first wife Vasily III, chronologically the penultimate of those canonized.

Notes

Sources

1. Tsar-Martyr
2. Emperor Nicholas II and his family are canonized
3. Osipov A. I. On canonization of the last Russian Tsar
4. Shargunov A. Miracles of the Royal Martyrs. M. 1995. P. 49