04 — The Question of Glorification
The interpretive heart of the collection. The imperial family was glorified twice, by two jurisdictions, under two different categories and two different rationales: by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in 1981, within the host of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, and by the Moscow Patriarchate in 2000, specifically as passion-bearers (страстотерпцы). This section’s flagship file inventories what each act did and did not claim, traces the decades of debate, and states the exact rules this compendium follows; its companion presents the case for and the case against canonization, each in its strongest form, adjudicating neither.
Tradition: Russian Orthodox / ROCOR
Files in This Section
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| Methodology | The both-sides flagship, modeled on the Xenia methodology file: the two glorifications as dated acts (ROCOR 1981 as martyrs; Moscow 2000 as passion-bearers); what each claimed and expressly did not claim; the decades of controversy inside and between the jurisdictions; and the rules this compendium uses to write about a doubly contested canonization. |
| The Arguments For and Against | The case made by proponents of the family’s canonization and the case made by opponents within the Church, each stated in its strongest form and its own terms, per METHODOLOGY §4. |
See Also
- The Theology of the Passion-Bearer — the category the 2000 act invoked
- What the Church Canonized — the precise content of the Moscow act
- The Tsar-Redeemer Heresy — the distortion the glorification debate had to guard against
- The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) — the jurisdiction of the 1981 act
References
- Report of Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna to the Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow, August 2000.
- Slater, Wendy. The Many Deaths of Tsar Nicholas II: Relics, Remains and the Romanovs. London: Routledge, 2007.