Czar Nicholas II

[Yeoman]

Given as this is the anniversary of his death, I’ll pose this question, or series of questions.

I understand that Czar Nicholas II is regarded as a saint by at least the Russian Orthodox. Do any other Orthodox branches recognize him as a saint, and what was the process and criteria for the recognition?

 

[trevor72694]

all of the canonical Orthodox Christian Churches cound the Czar and mis martyred Family as saints.

 

[Yeoman]

So then, is his sainthood in the Orthodox Church linked solely to his faith and link to martyrdom, or is there another element to it?

 

[trophybearer]

So then, is his sainthood in the Orthodox Church linked solely to his faith and link to martyrdom, or is there another element to it?

I believe he is actually considered a “passion bearer” (one of the faithful who faces their death in a Christ like manner, although not explicitly killed for their faith)as distinct from “martyr”.

 

[Yeoman]

I believe he is actually considered a “passion bearer” (one of the faithful who faces their death in a Christ like manner, although not explicitly killed for their faith)as distinct from “martyr”.

At least the Russian Orthodox Church regards him as a Saint, with the decision apparently coming in 2000.

I’m not sure if “canonization” would be the right word, as I’m not familiar enough with the Orthodox Churches to be sure how this is regarded in the Orthodox Churches.

 

[searn77]

At least the Russian Orthodox Church regards him as a Saint, with the decision apparently coming in 2000.

I’m not sure if “canonization” would be the right word, as I’m not familiar enough with the Orthodox Churches to be sure how this is regarded in the Orthodox Churches.

Just to clear things up, all canonical Orthodox churches recognize the Czar and his family as saints. They are considered “passion bearers” which is a type of saint that is distinct from a “martyr.”

 

[Yeoman]

Just to clear things up, all canonical Orthodox churches recognize the Czar and his family as saints. They are considered “passion bearers” which is a type of saint that is distinct from a “martyr.”

Can you elaborate on that status? How is that category of sainthood defined?

In the Orthodox tradition, is the attribution of a miracle to a person required for the categorization of that person as a saint?

 

[EphelDuath]

Excuse me if this post comes off as being ignorant, as I am not well-educated in Eastern Christianity; but I am well-educated in early 20th century history. He wasn’t killed for his faith in Christ, he and his family were killed because they were perceived as threats to the Bolsheviks’ rule. Even disregarding this, Nicholas’ role in the existence of the Russian pogroms and the beginning of the Great War seem unsaintly to me, so I am unsure why he would be considered an archetype of saintliness.

 

[malphono]

Excuse me if this post comes off as being ignorant, as I am not well-educated in Eastern Christianity; but I am well-educated in early 20th century history. He wasn’t killed for his faith in Christ, he and his family were killed because they were perceived as threats to the Bolsheviks’ rule. Even disregarding this, Nicholas’ role in the existence of the Russian pogroms and the beginning of the Great War seem unsaintly to me, so I am unsure why he would be considered an archetype of saintliness.

It might be worth having a look at this item from the orthodoxwiki.

 

[Yeoman]

Following the links on that article, I found the entry on King Harold Godwinson of England (England’s last Saxon King) to be a bit more surprising. I hadn’t thought of King Harold as really dying for his Faith, nor would I have really regarded him as a member of the Orthodox branch of Christianity.

Not trying to start a debate, just noting it’s interesting to see how sometimes we Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians view the world a bit differently, even though we mostly see it nearly the same way.

The article did help clear up for me the nature of the Czar Nicholas’ status. As I understand it, a passion bearer is a member of the Faithful who dies in a Christ like manner, never renouncing the Faith, but not actually dying for the Faith. I’m still a bit confused if this status equates with sainthood as Roman Catholics define it.

 

[StevieD]

Following the links on that article, I found the entry on King Harold Godwinson of England (England’s last Saxon King) to be a bit more surprising. I hadn’t thought of King Harold as really dying for his Faith, nor would I have really regarded him as a member of the Orthodox branch of Christianity.

I understand that the Orthodox regard all Catholics to have been Orthodox up to the date of the schism. Thus one RO bishop, at the first Orthodox ordination in the UK, in the 19th century said that it was the ‘first valid ordination’ in the UK since the schism!

 

[malphono]

I’m still a bit confused if this status equates with sainthood as Roman Catholics define it.

I don’t know why not. If we look at S Thomas Becket, or Ste Jeanne d’Arc, e.g., we see something similar: neither was expected or even asked to renounce the Faith, yet both were eliminated as a matter of political expediency.

 

[Yeoman]

I don’t know why not. If we look at S Thomas Becket, or Ste Jeanne d’Arc, e.g., we see something similar: neither was expected or even asked to renounce the Faith, yet both were eliminated as a matter of political expediency.

That’s true, but in the case of at least St. Joan d’Arc, it’s different as there are miracles associated with her. And the fact that she heard voices, was asked to renounce them, and ultimately did not, puts her in a different category.

I’m less familiar with Becket, but I suspect miracles, perhaps posthumously, are associated with him as well.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

I cannot provide documentation, but I studied briefly beneath an excellent historian on Russian Orthodoxy (Dr. Eve Levin), and she related to me that the Russian Church fought this canonization “tooth & nail,” but in the end the public outcry was too great and they succumbed to the pressure.

This might also be a difference in the way a saint is canonized between Roman Catholicism and Holy Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy, the criteria for canonization is really simply veneration which begins with the local churches and eventually spreads. By the time a saint is officially recognized as such by the hierarchy, the idea is that they are simply recognizing an already present reality. Icons have already been made and venerated, and the people are already earnestly seeking the saint’s intercessions, well before any official pronouncement. An example of this right now would be Fr. Seraphim of Platina here in the USA or Elder Paisios the Athonite in Greece and worldwide. We are already asking these saints for their prayers. Anything official is just a matter of time.

To return to this situation, as I recall the good doctor told me that essentially Moscow announced the canonization of St. Nicholas by saying that he represented suffering Russia, as well as the bygone era of pious czars. They worked with what they had, and now he’s one of our saints. Of course, keep in mind that this scholar is not Orthodox, nor even Christian, so I don’t think she has a stake either way, but her summary of the situation might not genuinely reflect the feelings of the Russian synod.

 

[Vico]

…

I’m less familiar with Becket, but I suspect miracles, perhaps posthumously, are associated with him as well.

Yes, St. Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, was hacked to death at the Altar by knights of Henry II in 1170. (Chancellor Becket was ordained a priest one day, and bishop the next day, in 1162.) Some miracles were said to occur at martyr Becket’s tomb and he was then canonized.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Hmm. I think things get even more dicier when some elements in the Russian Orthodox Church go on to argue that the man the late Last Czar Nikolas and the Czarina called a “Holy Man” - the mad monk Rasputin - be canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. The same movement in Russian Orthodoxy that supports the canonization of Rasputin in the Church I think also wants the ruthless Tsar Ivan the Terrible to be canonized as well. I don’t believe the Patriarch of Moscow will hear this one out. Kind of quite out, out, there.

p.s. I think this thread should have gone into the Non-Catholic religions subforum on CAF, not the Eastern Catholicism forum which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

 

[Yeoman]

Hmm. I think things get even more dicier when some elements in the Russian Orthodox Church go on to argue that the man the late Last Czar Nikolas and the Czarina called a “Holy Man” - the mad monk Rasputin - be canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. The same movement in Russian Orthodoxy that supports the canonization of Rasputin in the Church I think also wants the ruthless Tsar Ivan the Terrible to be canonized as well. I don’t believe the Patriarch of Moscow will hear this one out. Kind of quite out, out, there.

p.s. I think this thread should have gone into the Non-Catholic religions subforum on CAF, not the Eastern Catholicism forum which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Perhaps I should have posted it in the non Catholic forum, but I posted it here as this forum seems to draw so many questions on the Orthodox churches.

And, fwiw, I hardly ever check the non Catholic forum, as it seems to draw in some threads that I can’t quite figure out why a Catholic website hosts. Orthodox threads seem different to me, as we Catholics regard the Orthodox in a special category, and they presumably regard us that way.

Having said that, I get your point, and it must be a really odd thing for Eastern Rite members to see Orthodox threads in their area, as of course they already are subject to all sorts of confusion about who they are. I imagine that darned near every Eastern Rite Catholic has to explain to somebody at some point that no, they’re not Greek Orthodox or the like. My apologies.

Having started the thread in the improper place, however, allow me to ask a couple of followup questions. Is there a “canonization” process in the Orthodox church other than what has been described above?

Are there any instances of Orthodox saints receiving Roman recognition since the Schism?

 

[Vico]

…

Are there any instances of Orthodox saints receiving Roman recognition since the Schism?

Common to Catholic and Eastern Orthodox since 1054:

Edward the Confessor 1066
Euphrosyne of Polatsk 1173
Agnes 1253
Gregory Palamas 1359
Isaac Jogues 1646

 

[Yeoman]

Common to Catholic and Eastern Orthodox since 1054:

Edward the Confessor 1066
Euphrosyne of Polatsk 1173
Agnes 1253
Gregory Palamas 1359
Isaac Jogues 1646

St. Isaac Jogues is a real surprise on that list, given that he was a Jesuit whose mission was in North America. How did the Eastern Orthodox come to become aware of him?

 

[Nine_Two]

Hmm. I think things get even more dicier when some elements in the Russian Orthodox Church go on to argue that the man the late Last Czar Nikolas and the Czarina called a “Holy Man” - the mad monk Rasputin - be canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. The same movement in Russian Orthodoxy that supports the canonization of Rasputin in the Church I think also wants the ruthless Tsar Ivan the Terrible to be canonized as well. I don’t believe the Patriarch of Moscow will hear this one out. Kind of quite out, out, there.

p.s. I think this thread should have gone into the Non-Catholic religions subforum on CAF, not the Eastern Catholicism forum which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

That’s quite a small movement, and it is unlikely to grow much.