St. Tsar Nicholas II And His Death?

[Orthodox Andrew]

The most common justification of the Tsar's Sainthood is to say his death was his martyrdom. However, I know very little about the Saint's finale moments. So could anybody tell me what happened that made him a martyr?

 

[Matrona]

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/nicholas_ii_e.htm
http://www.orthodox.net/russiannm/nicholas-ii-tsar-martyr-and-his-family.html

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Now I understand fully! Thanks a lot for those links.

 

[Matrona]

No problem. I have grown a deep affection for the Tsar-Martyr and his family since reading "the story behind the story". Something about looking at their icon... seeing that family gathered together, each holding a little cross symbolizing their martyrdom... it just tugs on my heart.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

No problem. I have grown a deep affection for the Tsar-Martyr and his family since reading "the story behind the story". Something about looking at their icon... seeing that family gathered together, each holding a little cross symbolizing their martyrdom... it just tugs on my heart.

It is quite beautiful. I know he is one of the more controversial Saint's we have seen in a long time. Whould you by any chance know the stance the Church has taken on Rasputin?

 

[Moros]

He wasn't really "martyred" and I'm not exactly sure why he's a saint.

Basically, here's the deal. There are a series of revolutions in Russia. The Bolshevists are setting up shop. They've got the Tsar. They don't want to keep the Tsar in Russia, naturally. That'd be like keeping Saddam in Iraq or a deposed Castro in Cuba. They appeal to western nations for help. Britain will not give the Tsar refuge. America refused the Tsar. Germany refused the Tsar. So they shot him.

Now, the way that the whole royal family was executed was brutal. The Communists were not below brutality. It's a shame about innocent children being gunned down by the reds.

Nonetheless, the point here is they DID try to exile Nicholas. Revolutions happen. Can't blame the west for not giving him asylum. It was unfortunate, but last ditch.

Nicholas was very incompetent. He was very draconian in his policies. He kept the populace backwards and the people poor. It was only a matter of time before a reactionary war happened. Unfortunately, The Soviets just amplified that when they took over.

Communism has claimed over 100 million lives worldwide. They're all martyrs.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

He wasn't really "martyred" and I'm not exactly sure why he's a saint.

Basically, here's the deal. There are a series of revolutions in Russia. The Bolshevists are setting up shop. They've got the Tsar. They don't want to keep the Tsar in Russia, naturally. That'd be like keeping Saddam in Iraq or a deposed Castro in Cuba. They appeal to western nations for help. Britain will not give the Tsar refuge. America refused the Tsar. Germany refused the Tsar. So they shot him.

Now, the way that the whole royal family was executed was brutal. The Communists were not below brutality. It's a shame about innocent children being gunned down by the reds.

Nonetheless, the point here is they DID try to exile Nicholas. Revolutions happen. Can't blame the west for not giving him asylum. It was unfortunate, but last ditch.

Nicholas was very incompetent. He was very draconian in his policies. He kept the populace backwards and the people poor. It was only a matter of time before a reactionary war happened. Unfortunately, The Soviets just amplified that when they took over.

Communism has claimed over 100 million lives worldwide. They're all martyrs.

You raise some interesting points, thanks.

 

[Moros]

That's uber-condensed version. Of course, there are other socio-political issues that go along with it, but it's not like they just took him out and shot him.

Fascinating history, Russia.

It's also interesting to note that when Lenin was exiled, which country harboured him? Germany. Which country sent Lenin back to Russia, in an armoured train? Germany.

The reason?

Bolshevists promised to draw armistace with the Germans.

 

[Matrona]

He wasn't really "martyred" and I'm not exactly sure why he's a saint.

I'd call Russia's tsarist government at least semi-theocratic since the tsars honestly believed themselves to be ordained by God to rule Russia. The replacement government was militantly atheistic. If this replacement government brutally slaughters the head of the old government and his family, you get martyrs.

Moreover, one of the icons of St. Nicholas the Tsar-Martyr has been known to weep myrrh. I believe this icon is currently located at Valaam monastery, but I could be mistaken.

The Russian Orthodox Church is fully aware of the seriousness of glorifying someone as a saint. I doubt very much that they would undertake such a process for someone they thought unworthy of such a distinction.

 

[MattMMMan17]

As someone mentioned earlier, I would also like to know more about Rasputin

 

[Matrona]

As someone mentioned earlier, I would also like to know more about Rasputin

http://www.rickross.com/reference/rs/rs38.html

This is exactly what I expected. I could never consider the idea that the Orthodox church would think very highly of Grigory Rasputin. His very name means "the debauched one" and from what I've read, he truly lived that out.

As for the people attempting to glorify Rasputin, that's simply insane. Why don't they glorify Nero while they're at it?!

 

[MattMMMan17]

Ahh thanks for the link. I just don't really know much about him so that helped.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Thanks, all.

 

[Maximus]

Osel: He wasn't really "martyred" and I'm not exactly sure why he's a saint.

Of course he was martyred. He was the legitimate Christian ruler of Russia who was foully murdered by a godless gang of Marxist cutthroats.

Nicholas is a saint because the Orthodox Church - "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15) - says he is. That should be good enough for anyone. The Church, after all, has the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven (Matt. 16:18).

Osel: Basically, here's the deal. There are a series of revolutions in Russia. The Bolshevists are setting up shop. They've got the Tsar. They don't want to keep the Tsar in Russia, naturally. That'd be like keeping Saddam in Iraq or a deposed Castro in Cuba. They appeal to western nations for help. Britain will not give the Tsar refuge. America refused the Tsar. Germany refused the Tsar. So they shot him.

Can you cite a source for the claim that the Reds went shopping for a place to send the Romanovs?

Frankly, I've never heard that before, and it sounds highly doubtful.

They shot the whole family because the whole family was dangerous to them. Political expediency was the rule for Bolsheviks, who were not restrained by any belief in God, by morality, or by simple kindness and mercy.

Osel: Now, the way that the whole royal family was executed was brutal. The Communists were not below brutality. It's a shame about innocent children being gunned down by the reds.

Nonetheless, the point here is they DID try to exile Nicholas. Revolutions happen. Can't blame the west for not giving him asylum. It was unfortunate, but last ditch.

The communists were below whale dung. They were not above brutality; in fact, brutality was something they specialized in.

I think the Reds succeeded in exiling the Romanovs: to the afterlife. Personally, I think that was the extent of their attempts to exile them.

Osel: Nicholas was very incompetent. He was very draconian in his policies. He kept the populace backwards and the people poor. It was only a matter of time before a reactionary war happened. Unfortunately, The Soviets just amplified that when they took over.

Communism has claimed over 100 million lives worldwide. They're all martyrs.

The fact is, although Nicholas II was certainly not a great leader, he was a kind, affable man and a Christian.

During his reign he abolished flogging and canceled farm debts dating back to the emancipation of the serfs. He tried to improve education and help Russian industries, but, sadly, it was too little too late.

It can be argued that had Nicholas II been a little less Christian and a lot more ruthless, like some of his predecessors, he would have had fewer problems and might have prevented the Bolshevik Revolution.

His rule was certainly not "draconian," especially by Russian standards.

Nicholas II was a devout Orthodox Christian and is in fact a saint.

 

[Reader Nilus]

From a Finnish view point St Nicholas was not very saintly, to put it bluntly. His Army wanted my grand parents dead, so I do not have a great deal of feeling for the guy. He lived in luxury while the masses were starving. I read his biography and he was a good man, a horrible ruler. If he would have spent more time doing his job, a great deal of the 20th Ct would have been different. I view him as a saint in the Russian Tradition of Sts Boris and Gleb.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Moros]

Of course he was martyred. He was the legitimate Christian ruler of Russia who was foully murdered by a godless gang of Marxist cutthroats.

He was a despot. He just happened to be Christian. Duch, head of Tuol Sleng during the Khmer Rouge years, turned Christian after the fact. If he was hung, would be be a martyr? It doesn't make any sense. Nicholas II was an incompetent ruler who oppressed his citizenry.

Nicholas is a saint because the Orthodox Church - "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15) - says he is. That should be good enough for anyone. The Church, after all, has the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven (Matt. 16:18).

Alright. Doesn't mean you can't question it. I'm sure it doesn't matter WHO was running Russia prior to the revolution - after 75 years of red terror - anyone would have been sainted after that.

I remember when the Soviet Union fell.

Can you cite a source for the claim that the Reds went shopping for a place to send the Romanovs?
Frankly, I've never heard that before, and it sounds highly doubtful.

Internet is a funny place. Doesn't matter how many history books you've read, everyone still wants a source.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWtsar.htm
In September 1915, Nicholas II assumed supreme command of the Russian Army fighting on the Eastern Front. This linked him to the country's military failures and during 1917 there was a strong decline support for the Tsar in Russia. On 13th July, 1917, the Russian Army High Command recommended that Nicholas abdicated. Two days later the Tsar renounced the throne.

The Tsar and his immediate family were arrested and negotiations began to find a place of overseas exile. P. N. Milyukov persuaded David Lloyd George, to offer the family political asylum in Britain. However, George V, who feared that the presence of Nicholas would endanger his own throne, forced Lloyd George to withdraw the offer.

Nicholas and his family were moved to the remote Siberian city of Ekaterinburg where he was held captive by a group of Bolsheviks. Nicholas and his family were executed in July 1918.

http://school.discovery.com/lessonplans/programs/revolution/qanda.rtf

They shot the whole family because the whole family was dangerous to them. Political expediency was the rule for Bolsheviks, who were not restrained by any belief in God, by morality, or by simple kindness and mercy.

Yep. Not before seeking to exile them, though.

The communists were below whale dung. They were not above brutality; in fact, brutality was something they specialized in.


I believe I stated this in my above post

The fact is, although Nicholas II was certainly not a great leader, he was a kind, affable man and a Christian.

So is the elderly woman at the Christian bookshop. I'm not going to revere her as a Saint after she passes. I doubt she could rule over a country, and Nicholas proved he couldn't.

It can be argued that had Nicholas II been a little less Christian and a lot more ruthless, like some of his predecessors, he would have had fewer problems and might have prevented the Bolshevik Revolution.

His policies were draconian.

His rule was certainly not "draconian," especially by Russian standards.

Apparently it was. 75 years of Bolshevism..

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Osel, Even though St. Tsar Nicholas II wasn't exactly the best guy from your view. Do you believe he's a Saint?

 

[Moros]

Sure, if the Church says he's a Saint - he's a Saint. I won't venerate him though.

I'm not a Russian, I don't really have any reason to venerate Nicholas II as a Saint. He was a terrible leader and was shot. Doesn't influence my faith much.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Sure, if the Church says he's a Saint - he's a Saint. I won't venerate him though.

That's one of the reasons I'm not R.C. If the unpope says this pile of dirt is a saint and a group of RC don't agree, it's excommunion.

I'm not a Russian, I don't really have any reason to venerate Nicholas II as a Saint. He was a terrible leader and was shot. Doesn't influence my faith much.

But if he's a Saint than he will see his wrongs. So if he's alive in Christ, then why not venerate who he is at this very moment?

 

[Moros]

Because I'm not entirely sure why he's a saint.

I can see why he would be sainted from the russian cultural point of view.