Was Ivan the Terrible excommunicated?

[Jacob]

I've heard some Russian Orthodox scholars praise Ivan IV--and I admit I am fascinated by him. But I've heard others say he was excommunicated. I couldn't find the documentation for that. Was Ivan IV excommunicated?

[Ryan]

I don't know if he was actually excommunicated, but he was certainly a murderer and responsible for the death of at least one saint (Metropolitan Philip II of Moscow). There are some attempts to canonize Ivan, from the same kinds of people who are trying to canonize Stalin and Rasputin.

[Eric Peterson]

I think he would have excommunicated himself through not only murder but marrying more than three times.

[Alice]

Do evil people who chose to sin really care about being excommunicated? It seems to me they have chosen their path and that path has already blasphemed against God and the Church.

[Father David Moser]

I think he would have excommunicated himself through not only murder but marrying more than three times.

I would just like to point out that while one can be responsible for one's own excommunication through one's actions (as suggested above) one cannot "excommunicate himself". Formal excommunication (being excluded from the Church) is a synodal act of applying the canons to a particular person or situation. Less formally a confessor may apply a penance for something given in confession or for an unrepented public sin which amounts to a limited excommunication (a person may not approach the chalice for the specified period of time). However a person cannot "excommunicate himself" simply by his sinful actions (in which case we'd all have been out of the Church a long time ago.) Also any excommunication can be eliminated by appropriate repentance.

Fr David Moser

[Cyprian (Humphrey)]

I remember hearing about some group trying to bring about his glorification. It was based on the idea that he lived his last years as a decidedly repentant monk, along the lines of St Moses the Ethiopian. So, they really weren't trying to deny any of the nasty stuff he did, but more focusing on his repentance.

Which, I guess, is possible, if history actually bore it out. Surprisingly to some, Ivan the Terrible did repent enough to renounce the throne and lived his last few years as a novice monk - that's true - but there is no evidence that he lived in notably remarkable asceticism, or repentance. History records that he died while playing chess with a nobleman friend of his.

Now, of course, we can't see into his heart to see whether he truly repented or not - that isn't up to us, but we can stand on the fact that God has not revealled Ivan the Terrible (or Ivan the repentant, or whatever one wants to call him) as a Saint.

If I remember correctly, the groups that were trying to have him glorified were the Russian equivalents of the BNP - fairly clearly Neo-Nazis. Keeping that in mind puts the movement for their glorification in proper context.

This is not a spiritual movement, but one that is highly political, violently aggresive, xenophobic, and thoroughly suspect. There might be a few misguided Orthodox that support this here and there, but they are not a large group and they are mostly misinformed about the movements true goals.

That's my two kopecks. And of course, I welcome correction from any who know the situation better than I do.

[Olga]

In the Vigil service for St Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow, Tsar Ivan is referred to as "a new Herod" and "a new Pharaoh". As for any possibility of his glorification as a saint, impossible. It would be wrong and nonsensical to canonise the perpetrator of murder when one of his victims of murder has, for centuries, been recognised as a saint. If Ivan is made a saint, then it would be necessary to "uncanonise" St Philip. Not much chance of that happening!

[Alice]

I remember hearing about some group trying to bring about his glorification. It was based on the idea that he lived his last years as a decidedly repentant monk, along the lines of St Moses the Ethiopian. So, they really weren't trying to deny any of the nasty stuff he did, but more focusing on his repentance.



I wouldn't pay too much attention to this. Apparently there are also nutty groups hoping for the glorification of Rasputin!!!

[Michael Stickles]

It would be wrong and nonsensical to canonise the perpetrator of murder when one of his victims of murder has, for centuries, been recognised as a saint. If Ivan is made a saint, then it would be necessary to "uncanonise" St Philip. Not much chance of that happening!

I don't know - while St. Paul may not technically have been the "perpetrator of murder" regarding St. Stephen, he was certainly an approving accomplice, and by his own words he "persecuted the followers of this Way to their death" (Acts 22:4). So, to me, the murder of a saint by itself wouldn't disqualify Ivan if the later part of his life clearly showed the marks of sainthood.

That, though, is the rub - there just doesn't seem to be nearly enough evidence to "convict him of sainthood", so to speak. Plus, the way the church already refers to him (in the quotes you gave from the Vigil service for St. Philip) seems to make a pretty clear statement.

On the other hand - and getting back to the original topic - I haven't seen any evidence that he was formally excommunicated, either (not that I've done extensive searching).

In Christ,
Michael

[Oleg Anishchenkov]

Nikolay Alekseievich Guryanov (May 26, 1909 - August 24, 2002)- Russian Orthodox Christian myrrha-bearing starets and priest, highly respected spiritual figure within our Orthodox Church of recent times. Numerous miracles and healings are asribed to him.
The thoughts of starets said in the times of conversations, became a sort of spiritual testament for many Russian Orthodox christians. In June 2002, a group of Orthodox priests and laity visited father Nikolai after his blessing. The conversation took place, in which father was given a question "Will we see the Orthodox Tsar?" Starets Nikolay having traced the sign of the cross, prayed and firmly said "Tsar is coming!"

The room of father Guryanov was filled with photos and images of Nicholas II. Guryanov also honoured tsar Ivan Grozny and Rasputin.

The weeping icon of fr. Nikolay Guryanov - http://www.rus-sky.com/miracles/images/58

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

I hesitate to say this. Rasputin has been regarded as an evil man by many in the Church, including (I believe) the highly regarded Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky. He may indeed have been as bad as his reputation. On the other hand, one needs to view his reputation in the proper light.

Much of what is believed bad about Rasputin came from the Ohkrana, the Russian imperial secret police. The Ohkrana served a government dominated by pro-war, Westernizing Anglophiles. Such people regarded people like Rasputin as both an embarrassment and a threat. Rasputin prophesized (correctly) that war with Germany and Austria would end disastrously for Russia, and he worked with some success through Czarina Alexandra to push Czar Nicholas and his government toward peace. Hawks in Russia viewed both Rasputin and Alexandra with suspicion. She was thought to harbor pro-German sentiments, on account of her German ancestry.

The war went badly for the Allies from the beginning. By 1916 it began to appear that they might have to accept a peace less than victory. To avoid a humiliating peace, the British pulled out all the stops to keep their allies in the war and to drag America in. They issued the Balfour Declaration, betraying their Arab allies in favor of their more powerful Jewish allies. They perpetrated various subterfuges to inflame American popular opinion. And, it is now believed, they arranged the assassination of Rasputin. A British agent is even believed to have delivered the coup de grave.

Now, Rasputin could have been both a victim of the British and an evil man, but my experience with government-sponsored propaganda and the many times I have seen such propaganda converted uncritically into official history makes me wonder . . . and withhold judgment.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Olga]

Nikolay Alekseievich Guryanov (May 26, 1909 - August 24, 2002)- The room of father Guryanov was filled with photos and images of Nicholas II. Guryanov also honoured tsar Ivan Grozny and Rasputin.


While, for some, there is still controversy about whether Rasputin is a saint or a villain, there is no such controversy in the eyes of the Russian Orthodox Church regarding Tsar Ivan Grozny. The Church has clearly spoken centuries ago as to her disapproval of him through nothing less than her liturgical deposit. Fr Nikolai may well be a good and holy man, but he was certainly in error in venerating Tsar Ivan. Being a priest, Fr Nikolai would have undoubtedly served the vigil for St Philip of Moscow - would he not have been aware of the references to the tsar contained there?

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

A British agent is even believed to have delivered the coup de grave.

Oops: coup de grace.

[Oleg Anishchenkov]

Moscow tsar Ivan, wanted to wash and burn away his own sins and those of his companions.

The most clearly spiritual action and monastic sobriety of tsar Ivan is revealed in his "Synodikon": shortly before his death by his orders there were compiled full lists of the people, including Saint Philip, murdered by him and his Oprichniki (secret police), which were then distributed throughout all the Russian monasteries. All his sins against the nation Ivan took upon himself and besought the holy monks to pray to God for the forgiveness of his tormented soul cherishing the assurance, that his cruel actions would rebound (if I may say so), with the help of holy prayers, to the welfare of Russia and the triumph of Orthodoxy.

One more thing to add… The English word “terrible” is usually used to translate the Russian word “grozny” in Ivan's nickname is not very happy, I think. The modern English usage of “terrible”, with a pejorative connotation of bad or evil, does not represent the intended meaning! Grozny's meaning in my mother tongue is closer to “formidable”. By the way, the capital of Chechnya is called Grozny as well. Initially this town was a fortress of Russian Cossacks (Orthodox warrior-peasants of chiefly East Slavonic descent who lived in communes). The word “Grozny” was used here in the sense of “impregnable” and “scaring enemies”.

The Grand Prince Ivan transformed a mere local medieval nation state to an empire and emerging regional power, became acknowledged as the first Tsar of a new more powerful Orthodox nation, became "Tsar of All Russia" from 1547.

P.S. Tsar Ivan and Gregory Efimovich Rasputin are not saints but, yes…, we can pray for them.

[Oleg Anishchenkov]

Fr Nikolai may well be a good and holy man, but he was certainly in error in venerating Tsar Ivan. Being a priest, Fr Nikolai would have undoubtedly served the vigil for St Philip of Moscow - would he not have been aware of the references to the tsar contained there?

If we were to say to a person “You cannot be part of the Church”—that would be sin... I think, dear Olga, that Fr Nikolai might have prayed at home at least, in his private prayer, for the souls of even worse sinners. And this shows that the Grace assisted him.

[Olga]

If we were to say to a person “You cannot be part of the Church”—that would be sin... I think, dear Olga, that Fr Nikolai might have prayed at home at least, in his private prayer, for the souls of even worse sinners. And this shows that the Grace assisted him.

My dear Oleg, there is quite a difference between praying for the salvation of the soul of Tsar Ivan, and praying to Tsar Ivan for him to intercede before God for our sake, as saints do. If Fr Nikolai did the former, then this is honourable and Christian. If he did the latter, then there is a problem.

[Oleg Anishchenkov]

Nikolay Alekseievich Guryanov (May 26, 1909 - August 24, 2002)- Guryanov also honoured tsar Ivan Grozny and Rasputin.


The verb "to hono(u)r" (please correct me if I am wrong) does not obligatory mean to glorify or worship.
For example, we regard or treat with honour our fathers and mothers (Honour thy father and thy mother. --Ex. xx. 12.) even if we know that they are far from becoming saints. IMHO it is also true for Tsar Ivan and Gregory Rasputin.

By saying in my previous post "it is also true for Tsar Ivan and Gregory Rasputin" I do not mean they're my dad and mom, of course. :)

[Brendan Kulp]

I found this on the OCA website:

"Ivan, with tears of repentance and wanting to be an esteemer of the holy ascetics, the teachers of repentance, he wanted to wash and burn away his own sins and those of his companions, cherishing the assurance that even his terribly cruel actions would prove to be for the welfare of Russia and the triumph of Orthodoxy. The most clearly spiritual action and monastic sobriety of Ivan the Terrible is revealed in his “Synodikon.” Shortly before his death, he ordered full lists compiled of the people murdered by him and his Oprichniki. These were then distributed to all the Russian monasteries. Ivan acknowledged all his sins against the nation, and besought the holy monks to pray to God for the forgiveness of his tormented soul."

Ive read quite a bit about Tsar Ivan IV over the the years, so Im familiar with the contemporary view of him as a blood thirsty, somewhat debauched tyrant. While the west seems to have always viewed him harshly, in Russia, they had a very different view of him. He seems to have been viewed in a way similar that of St Alexander Nevsky, as a folk/national hero. While there were of course some examples of him being depicted unfavorably in popular songs and poems, the majority Ive come across seem to hold him in high regard.

Metropolitan Ioann Snychev writes in his book "Autocracy of the soul" That "the entire life of Tsar Ivan IV had an ascetic character" and "The accounts of foreigners had a decisive influence on forming Russian-hating convictions in the historical sciences. Beginning with Karamzin, Russian historians reproduced in their works all that filth and vileness the foreign "guests" poured onto Russia. They made not even the smallest attempt to discern objectively and without prejudice where witnesses' accounts made in good faith were transformed into motivated and conscious lies."

I also wanted to point out that the vigil service to Metropolitan Philip is by no means the only thing the church has had to say regarding Ivan IV. He is mentioned first of all in the life of St Vasily(Basil), of Moscow, and also in the lives of his sons Dmitri and Feodor who were both glorified by the church. Also, there are at least 5 Icons Ive come across of him, all of which pre-date the revolution in Russia, and raise the possibility that he may have been at one time, commemorated by the church.
Please understand though, I'm not advocating that we begin to venerate him as a Saint. I don't have anything definitive to put forward regarding that.

But I do think it is important to keep in mind that most of what we know these days comes from secular, non-Orthodox sources.

[Olga]

Brendan, you wrote:



Also, there are at least 5 Icons Ive come across of him, all of which pre-date the revolution in Russia, and raise the possibility that he may have been at one time, commemorated by the church.



In the early centuries of Christianity, many saints were indeed proclaimed by popular acclamation, such as St Nicholas of Myra. A contemporary parallel would be that of St John of Shanghai and San Francisco, whose sanctity, even during his earthly lifetime, was obvious to many, clergy and laity alike.

However, for a person to be regarded as a saint, the Church must still speak, as it indeed did for even the obviously holy St John. This it does through official proclamations, the commissioning of the painting of icons, the appointment of a feast day on the calendar, and the writing of liturgical texts, the Vigil being the most important. While the Orthodox Church takes a more pastoral, less legalistic or formulaic approach than the Roman Catholic church to assess whether an individual may be glorified as a saint, there is still an examination of the life and attributes of that person before glorification is made.

The existence of an "icon" of the tsar does not necessarily mean that he was ever commemorated by the Church. For many centuries, Russians have painted images of people, complete with halos, often in an attempt to generate or perpetuate a cult of veneration (I use the word "cult" here in its formal, classical sense, not a derogatory one) for that person. In some cases, this gesture of popular piety has indeed led to these individuals to be proclaimed as saints. But not always. This is what has led to the images of Tsar Ivan, painted, for whatever reason. If he were ever venerated as a saint (which I highly doubt, given the glorification of St Philip of Moscow), then what was his feast day? Where in any calendar or menaion is he listed? What is the troparion and kontakion written for him?



While the west seems to have always viewed him harshly, in Russia, they had a very different view of him. He seems to have been viewed in a way similar that of St Alexander Nevsky, as a folk/national hero.


Such sentiments must be tempered with caution. The same words could, (and, indeed, have) been used to describe people such as Josef Stalin and Boris Yeltsin, to name but two. And yes, sadly, I have "icons" on file of both men. A saint may well also be a patriot, but being a patriot does not, in itself, make one a saint.

The Russian Chronicles, drawing from primary sources, refer to Ivan in positive and negative tones in equal measure.

[Alice]

I once read that Tsar Ivan was so 'terrible' that not only did he kill his enemies, but he also killed the friends and relatives of the enemies, so that each murdered enemy would not have any one to pray for his soul!

[Oleg Anishchenkov]

Metropolitan Ioann of St. Petersburg, who died in 1995, taught that the monarchy was the last bastion of the Orthodox Faith in a battle against the anti-Christian forces of Jews, Freemasons and Western Christian heretics, who he said led the Russian people to atheism and liberalism. His devotion to Tsar Ivan may have only been a respect he showed to the man who established the Russian monarchy.

[Brendan Kulp]

Dear Olga,

I mostly agree with everything you said in your last post. As I stated in my post, Im not advocating that anyone should begin to venerate him as a Saint since there just simply isnt enough information available to warrant that.
You wrote:
"If he were ever venerated as a saint (which I highly doubt, given the glorification of St Philip of Moscow), then what was his feast day? Where in any calendar or menaion is he listed? What is the troparion and kontakion written for him?"
While Im a little skeptical of this, I saw on a Russian web site, a photograph of very old church calender from the 18th century which(they claimed) listed Ivan amongst the other Saints.
Since I dont know Russian, I use translators like babelfish to read these sites, but since they cant translate a photograph, I cant verify what was shown there. If I can manage to track the article down again I'll post a link here for it.

Also, you had said earlier that the vigil service for St Philip compared Tsar Ivan, to Herod, and Pharaoh. I had heard of this before, however my Father looked it up in the service book tonight, and didn't see anything to that effect. Are you sure this was in the vigil service for him, and not somewhere else?

[Oleg Anishchenkov]

Since I dont know Russian, I use translators like babelfish to read these sites, but since they cant translate a photograph, I cant verify what was shown there. If I can manage to track the article down again I'll post a link here for it.


Dear Brendan,

If you post the link I shall translate key phrases, so that we could verify what is shown there.

[Olga]

While, for some, there is still controversy about whether Rasputin is a saint or a villain, there is no such controversy in the eyes of the Russian Orthodox Church regarding Tsar Ivan Grozny. The Church has clearly spoken centuries ago as to her disapproval of him through nothing less than her liturgical deposit. Fr Nikolai may well be a good and holy man, but he was certainly in error in venerating Tsar Ivan. Being a priest, Fr Nikolai would have undoubtedly served the vigil for St Philip of Moscow - would he not have been aware of the references to the tsar contained there?

The book A Lifelong Passion, compiled by Andrei Maylunas and Sergei Mironenko, is a 700+ page chronicle of the correspondence of the Russian imperial family, and close associates of the imperial court, from 1881 to 1918. While primarily concerned with the correspondence between Nicholas and Alexandra (which was, interestingly, conducted entirely in English), a large number of individuals are also featured.

The letters and excerpts from memoirs covering the period when Rasputin entered and became part of the imperial circle are quite instructive. One soon gets the impression that, as time went on, more and more people came to regard Rasputin with suspicion at best, and as a dangerous and malign influence at worst. Of particular interest is the repeated exhortations of the Tsarina's sister, the Grand Duchess Elizabeth (now known as St Elizabeth the New Martyr) to Alexandra to cut her ties with Rasputin. Yet even she could not persuade her sister. The accounts of Elizabeth's final attempt are on pp. 489-490.

[Alexander Zhdanov]

Dear friends, yesterday I watched a film "Tsar"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86VdfZ0MPyU by Pavel Lungin ("Ostrov"). This film just about an opposition of St. Phillip's to tsar John the Terrible. I would suggest you watch this film when it is available in English. I think that it is the best orthodox film of 2009. Peter Mamonov("Ostrov") plays tsar Johtn the Terrible, St.Philipp is played by Oleg Yankovsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Yankovsky, the great Russian actor, it is his last role in cinema before death.

Bye,

Alexander