www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Tsar Martyr Nicholas II

Good Afternoon:

Slava Isusu Khrystu!

I am wondering if the good members of the Forum would be able to enlighten me about the Tsar Martyr Nicholas II. I am wondering if he is looked upon as a tyrant by Ukrainians. I am not sure. I know that he was a holy man and was very devoted to the faith and not known for doing bad things, however, I know that the Russian government did bad things to Ukraine. Please help?

Well I know from my family's point of view, the canonization of Tsar Nicholas II is pretty insulting. We're not Ukrainian, so I can't speak of that, but to say that an imbecile like him could be canonized is insulting. He is a martyr, yes, but not a saint.

He did almost nothing to prevent Russia's stagnation, he was more than useless at politics, governance, and military affairs. Maybe if he turned Russia around, prevented the Bolshevik Revolution, maybe he would be worthy of being called a saint. This is just my opinion, I've studied him for most of a semester at school in the history department, by all accounts, he seemed to be either just plain stupid, or to have something wrong with him.

What a pity the Tsar wasn't able to study politics, governance and military affairs for 'most of a semester'. Had he done so, he would have then been an expert on these matters and Russian history, by all accounts, would have taken a different course.

The benefits of a little education...

This part is certainly untrue. Russia was rapidly modernizing and industrializing in the decade prior to World War I. During that time, Russia' economic growth was among the fastest in Europe. There was considerable expansion in the railroad sector, as well as in steel production. The standard of living was rising, and a Russian middle class beginning to emerge. Of course, Russia started very far behind the first tier European states like Germany, Britain and France, but it was in better shape than Italy and the ramshackle Hapsburg Empire. The standard of living in 1914 was higher than it would be at any time prior to the 1950s.

The First World War was great human tragedy, nowhere more so than Russia, where it destroyed all of the progress that had been made since 1905, and ushered in the Bolshevik Revolution and all of its unmitigated evil.


A little bit of history is a dangerous thing, as your statements bear out. Nicholas was far from stupid. His principal problem was his underlying decency--if he had had the iron of his father or grandfather, he would have acted as the tyrant and autocrat he was accused of being. As it was, his liberalizing tendencies set loose forces he could not control. His one great mistake was becoming involved in World War I--but then, that was everyone's great mistake in 1914, so he can hardly be blamed for that.

I think Nicholas was a good man in a job he was ill-prepared to handle. The czars tended to live in splendid isolation, far removed from the outside world. I have thought that sounds suspiciously like some of our leaders. His relative, St. Elizabeth, Grand Duchess of Russia, testified to his character and goodness. Blessed Charles of Austria was another good man in a similar situation. I have an icon of Nicholas and his family and usually say a prayer when I walk by it.

Thank you for offering your historical expertise, which supports the royal holy Martyr, Nicholas and the sacred opinion of the Orthodox Church.

The spiritual and family life of the royal Holy Martyr and his family are inspirational, to say the least. I recommend the following book for a personal inside look:

http://www.amazon.com/An-Englishman-Court-Tsar-Spiritual/dp/1888212195

Holy Royal Martyr Nicholas, pray unto God for us!

As the old Russian Empire Anthem goes:

Bo�e Carja Chrani, sil'nyj der�avnyj
Carstvuj na slavu, na slavu nam.
Carstvuj na strach vragam, Car' pravoslavnyj,
Bo�e Carja, Carja Chrani!

A sermon delivered by Blessed Archbishop John Maximovich (then Bishop of Shanghai) on July 4/17, 1934, before a memorial service for the repose of the souls of Tsar Nicholas II and those killed with him.

In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Tomorrow the Holy Church celebrates the memory of St. Andrew, Bishop of Crete, the author of the Great Penitential Canon, and we have gathered here to pray for the repose of the souls of the Tsar Martyr and those killed with him. In Russia, the Russian people likewise gathered yearly in church on the day of St. Andrew of Crete, not, however, the one whose memory is celebrated tomorrow, but the monk-martyr Andrew who was martyred for confessing Christ and Christ's truth. On this day of Monk-martyr Andrew (Oct. 17), people in Russia joyfully gathered to thank the Lord for having miraculously saved the life of Emperor Alexander III at Borky on October 17/30, 1888. As he was traveling there Was a terrible train crash which demolished all the cars except the one carrying the Tsar and his Family.

And so, on the day commemorating Monk Andrew of Crete, martyred by the enemies of Christ and His Church, the Heir and future Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich was saved, while on the day of St. Andrew at Crete, the one whose days on earth ended peacefully, the Emperor was killed by godless traitors. On the feast of Monk-martyr Andrew, Russia also honored the memory of the prophet Hosea --commemorated that same day--who prophesied the Resurrection. Churches were built in honor of these saints and there the Russian people thanked God for saving their Emperor. Thirty years later, on the day of St. Andrew teacher of repentance, the Emperor was murdered before the eyes of the entire nation which did not even attempt to save him. This is all the more frightening and incomprehensible as the Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich embodied the finest qualities of all the Tsars who were known, loved and revered by the Russian people.

The Tsar-Martyr most resembled Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the Gentle One, but surpassed him in his unflagging meekness. Russia knew Alexander II, the Liberator, but Tsar Nicholas II freed even more people-our Slavic brothers. Russia knew Alexander III, the Peacemaker, but Emperor Nicholas II did not confine himself to working for peace during his own time, but took great strides to ensure that the peoples of Europe and the entire world would live peaceably an d resolve their misunderstandings in a peaceful manner. With this goal in mind, at his unselfish and noble personal initiative, the Hague Conference was convened.

Russia was enraptured by Alexander I and called him "blessed" because he freed Europe from the alien power of one man. Emperor Nicholas I I, in conditions far more difficult, rose against the same attempt by another man to extend his power over a Slavic people whose blood and faith were foreign to him. In their defense Emperor Nicholas displayed a steadfastness which knew no compromise, Russia had the great reformer Peter I, but if one recalls all the reforms undertaken by Nicholas II, then we do not know to whom is due greater honor, acknowledging furthermore that the latter carried out his reforms more carefully, more considerately and without harshness. Russia knew Ivan III and Ivan Kalita as the gatherers of Russia, but it was Tsar Nicholas II who brought their work to completion when in 1915 he returned to Russia, albeit for a brief time, all her sons. The Emperor of All-Russia, he was the first and only All-Russian Tsar, His inner spiritual and moral countenance was so exceptional that even the Bolsheviks, who attempted to defame him, could only reproach him for one thing--his devotion and piety.

It is known for certain that he always began and ended his day with prayer. On great Church feasts he always partook of the Sacraments, mingling with the faithful who were approaching the Great Mystery, as he did at the uncovering of St. Seraphim's relics. He was an example of purity and the head of an exemplary Orthodox family. He brought up his children so that they would be ready to serve the Russian people, strictly preparing them for impending toil and podvig. He was deeply attentive to the needs of his subjects and wanted clearly and intimately to understand their labors and service. All are aware of the incident when he walked alone for several miles in full soldier's accoutrement in order to better understand the conditions of military service. He walked alone, --which clearly refutes those slanderers who say that he feared for his life. If Peter I said: "Know of Peter that his life isn't dear as long as Russia lives," then one can truly say that Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich fulfilled these words. They say he was trustful. The great Father of the Church, St. Gregory the Great, said that the purer the heart, the more trustful it is.

What did Russia render her pure hearted Emperor, who loved her more than his life?

She repaid him with slander. He was highly moral--they began speaking of his "vices." He loved Russia--they began speaking of betrayal. Even people close to the Emperor repeated this slander, spreading rumors and gossip. Under the influence of both malicious and dissolute people these rumors spread, and love for the Tsar began to cool. Later they began speaking of the "danger" to Russia and discussed methods of getting rid of this nonexistent danger. In the name of so-called "saving" Russia they began to say that the Emperor must be removed. This calculated evil achieved its goal--it separated Russia from her Tsar. In a dreadful minute in Pskov he was left alone. His close ones were not near. There were loyal, dedicated people, but they were not permitted access to him. The frightful abandonment of the Tsar... But it was not he who abandoned Russia; Russia abandoned the one who loved her more than his own life. Seeing all this and in the hope that his self-abasement would restrain and subdue the raring passions of the people, the Tsar abdicated the throne. But passions never temper after attaining their desires--they burn even more intensely. The time of rejoicing had come for those who wanted the overthrow of the Tsar. The rest remained silent. The Tsar was arrested and the events which followed were inevitable. If a man is left in a cage with animals, sooner or later they will devour him. The Tsar was killed, and Russia remained silent, This terrible deed met with no indignation; no sound of protest was to be heard. And this silence is a great sin of the Russian people, committed on the day of St. Andrew of Crete, the author of the Great Penitential Canon which is read during Great Lent...

The Sovereign of Russia was killed under the vaults of the Ekaterinburg cellar, deprived of the royal crown by human insidiousness, but not--by God' s justice--deprived of holy anointing. All the regicides in Russia's history were committed by some clique, not by the people. When Paul I was murdered, the people were not even aware of it, and when they found out, they brought their condolences and prayers to his grave for many years afterward. Alexander II's murder unleashed a storm of indignation in Russia, which helped strengthen the moral fibre of the people, as became evident during the reign of Alexander III. The people were innocent of the Tsar-Liberator's blood. But here, the people, the entire Russian nation, is guilty of the spilled blood of their Tsar. Some partook in the murder, others, just as blame nothing to interfere. All are guilty and truly we must say: "His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matt. 27:25). Betrayal, treachery, the breaking of an oath of faithfulness to Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich and all his successors, passivity and cold-heartedness, insensitivity--these are the elements of which the Russian people wove the wreath with which they crowned their Tsar.

Today is a day of sorrow and penitence. Why, may we ask, did the Lord--Who saved that same Tsar on St. Andrew the Martyr's day--not save him on the day of the other St. Andrew, the one who taught penitence? We answer with great sorrow--yes, the Lord could have saved him this time as well, but the Russian people were not worthy of this.

Now the Emperor has received a martyr's crown. But this does not justify us, it does not lessen our guilt. In the same way Judas, Pilate, Caiapha, and those who demanded Christ's death were not justified but even more severely indicted by Christ's Resurrection.

It is a great sin to lift one's hand against God's anointed. When news of Saul's murder was brought to King David, he ordered the messenger to be killed, although the messenger did not take any part in the murder but only rushed to bring this news, thereby implicating himself in the king's death. The least involvement in such a sin is not left unpunished.

I have no idea who should or shouldn't be a saint. Looking at the history, I can't see how one could overlook what happened during his reign when just assessing the quality and morality of his political rule. There were massacres, executions and pogroms. Maybe these were not as a result of his direct desires or wishes, but they certainly happened as a result of the actions of the state and with official complicity.

In no way was that justification in my opinion for what happened to Nicholas, and obviously there is not justification one could make for what happened to his family and servants. What followed in Russia was clearly much worse and more brutal than what had preceded.

I will leave it to others to assess sanctity, but it seems much too complicated to me.

Well, by that standard, Constantine the Great, Louis IX of France, and a dozen other rules recognized as saints either in the West or the East or both would have to be excluded from the ranks of the holy. To be a ruler means having to make decisions for the good of the realm which endanger one's immortal soul, which is why we pray for our leaders.

I suppose a St. Vladimir Putin would not be surprising then. At least by that standard.

...or dare I say it *cough* St. Barack Obama *cough*. Yeah, I can already see where this standard can go.