30 Rate article: 12 1

“I express my heartfelt thanks to His Holiness Francis…”

From the speech of Patriarch Kirill at the meeting of relics

Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker

From the very beginning of his reign, the Jesuit Francis, calling not to focus on canonical norms and aspects of the dogma, began to actively seek "renewal" of the forms of priestly service, setting his own behavior as an example. Rejecting the traditional style of communication and forms of behavior, the pontiff began to allow himself the most extravagant acts and statements that confuse devout Catholics and shock unbelievers.

He visits priests who have left the ministry to start a family to demonstrate his "closeness and love" to them. He meets with same-sex couples, as he did during his trip to the US in September 2015, when he granted an audience to his former homosexual student and his "partner" and deliberately kissed them in the presence of the media (while dad himself called before visiting his student, expressing a desire to meet, and this meeting was clearly intended for the public and looked like a symbolic gesture). Just as openly, on camera, during his visit to Sicily, he entered the temple, holding the hand of the Italian priest Luigi Ciotti, a well-known fighter for the rights of perverts. In the presence of journalists, he kissed the hand of another ardent supporter of homosexuality - the priest Michele de Paolis, during the celebration of his anniversary in the House of St. Martha. The pontiff embraced him with the words "everything is possible", so that the hero of the day left, being extremely touched. De Paolis co-founded a gay organization called Agedo Foggia (2010), which opposes Catholic teaching on family and marriage. His approach to this issue is based on the usual assertions of perverts: homosexuality is not chosen, it is an orientation and part of personal identity, it is not a disease or perversion, so homosexuals can enter into close relationships. Since the fact of the meeting of the pontiff with such a figure aroused bewilderment among a certain part of the believers, they asked the head of the press service of the Vatican to clarify the meaning of what happened, but did not receive an answer.

Francis appoints as his advisors liberal archbishops who speak out in support of same-sex marriage. He makes increasingly radical statements in support of sodomites, as he did in June 2016 at a meeting with journalists, when, commenting on the words of Cardinal Marx that the church should apologize to the gay community, he said: “We have to apologize for many , not just in front of gays. But we should not just apologize, but ask for forgiveness.” Not surprisingly, the pope remained silent when, in August 2016, Cardinal Marx was heavily criticized for the publicizing of a case of sexual abuse in the diocese of Trier, which he ruled from 2001 to 2007.

His words and deeds so impressed the pervert community at the beginning of the pontificate that in 2013 four American magazines, known for their commitment to decadent libertarian culture, chose him as "Person of the Year". First it was the Italian edition of the American magazine Vanity fair, in which sodomite singer Elton John declared: “Francis is a marvel of humility in an era when vanity flourishes. I hope he gets his message across to people on the margins of society, such as homosexuals. This pope seems to want to bring the Church back to the ancient values ​​of Christ…” Another sodomite, the famous German couturier Karl Lagerfeld, also admitted in turn that he “loves the new pope very much, who has a wonderful look and a great sense of humor”, while admitting that he himself “does not need the Church” and “the concept of sin and hell." In December, "man of 2013" Francis proclaimed Time And The Advocate- the oldest publication in the United States, protecting the rights of homosexuals. It explained to its readers that the pontiff's proposals are "the most hopeful ever put forward against gays and lesbians" and that thanks to him "LGBT Catholics are now full of hope that the time has come for change." With the same title (“Pope Francis: Times Are Changing”), an article about the pontiff was published in the pop magazine rolling stone, with his photo on the cover.

So the destroyers of traditional values ​​made the pontiff a symbol of change, the embodiment of absolute openness towards the modern era, which became another insult to the dignity of devout Catholics. But "tolerant" bishops and priests felt much freer.

Against the background of such a deep interest in perverts, the indifference of the pontiff to the Liturgy and the neglect of liturgical norms and liturgical singing became especially provocative. He made changes in liturgical practice, refusing to take part, together with the Christian people, in the procession with the Most Holy Gifts during the celebration of the Body and Blood of Christ, and did not kneel during the entire service. But in the rite of washing the feet on Maundy Thursday, he began to allow not only male parishioners to participate, but also women, among whom was a transsexual. In fact, the pontiff took advantage of the priesthood in order to promote feminism. He shocked even long-suffering believers when, in 2016, he went to celebrate Maundy Thursday Mass at the Center for Migrants, many of whom were not Christians, but Muslims. Even Catholics accustomed to multicultural shows were struck by the spectacle of the pope celebrating mass on a makeshift altar in front of a crowd of onlookers who do not understand the essence of what is happening, chewing gum and listening to the player, crossing his legs and filming it on expensive smartphones.

Moreover, Francis made it clear that liturgical practice would be subject to further changes. Already in October 2013, the pontiff purged the Congregation for Divine Worship, surrounding its head, Cardinal Sarah, with his people and introducing into it, including Archbishop Piero Marini, who is a supporter of a radical modernization of the liturgy. Then, by order of Francis, a commission was created, the purpose of which is to destroy, as observers write, “one of the strongholds of resistance to the excesses of post-conciliar liturgists,” instructions Liturgiam authenticam 2001, which established criteria for the translation of liturgical texts from Latin into modern languages. Some believe that with the establishment of this commission, the most radical ideas for modernizing the liturgical language will meet with support, and the instruction itself will be destroyed, which will open the way for the revision of the document developed under Benedict XVI Summorum pontificum, who removed the restrictions on the celebration of the mass in the ancient rite.

The pope’s rude words cannot help but amaze the laity, such as, for example, about the parishioners, who, from his point of view, are present at the liturgy with insufficient joy: “What a disgusting thing - these Christians with distorted faces, sad Christians. Muck, muck, muck. Yes, they are not quite Christians. They consider themselves as such, but they are not in full measure”; or as about the spread of fake news in the media: "People have a morbid tendency to coprophagia."

The statements of Francis in sermons, interviews and conversations, his thoughts set forth in his books are imbued with moral and ideological relativism and even indifference, testifying to his rejection of the Catholic faith. Here are just a few of them.

With regard to atheists, he "has no proselytizing intentions," since "proselytism is pompous nonsense that makes no sense. We must be able to get to know each other, listen to each other and increase knowledge about the world that surrounds us.” “Every person has his own understanding of what is good and evil. Let him follow the good as he understands it ... This is enough to live in a better world. "People who do not believe in God will also be saved." “The Lord saved us all with the blood of Christ: everyone, not only Catholics. Everyone! “Father, and even atheists?” Yes, them too. Everyone!" “The Church is not against sex education. Personally, I think it should accompany the development of children, adapting at each stage. “I am not interested in whether the child is studying with Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox or Jews. I am interested in being educated and fed.”

Many were shocked by the sensational statement of Francis, sounded during a sermon about St. Peter, who baptized the Gentiles, regarding aliens: “St. Peter converted the barbarians to God's faith, despite the fact that they did not treat Christians very well. I fully support his act ... Imagine that Martians will fly to us tomorrow. They will be green and with big ears, like in children's drawings. And suddenly one of them will say: “I want to be baptized.” What are we to do then?" Declaring that the Bible does not discriminate against believers on any grounds, he continued: “When the Lord shows us the way, do we say, “No, God, this is unreasonable! We'll do it our way." Who are we to close our doors to anyone? . It seems that when Bergoglio's team reformulates the dogma of papal infallibility, the question "Who am I?" or "Who are we?" he won't have it again.

One of the characteristic features of the "teaching" of Francis was the blasphemy that he commits, absolutely arbitrarily interpreting the text of the Gospel. In one of his speeches, he stated: “When Jesus complained, 'My God! Why did you leave me?” - Did he blaspheme? This is the secret. Very often I listened to people who have experienced difficult, painful situations, who have lost so much or feel alone and abandoned, and who asked: “For what? For what?". They rebelled against God. And I answered them: "Keep praying like that, because this is also a prayer." Because when Jesus said to the Father, “Why did you leave me?” it was just a prayer.” That is, according to Francis, it turns out that Christ, turning to God with such a prayer, rebelled against God.

We see the same conjectures, which do not correspond to the traditional interpretations of Holy Scripture, in relation to the Mother of God. During one of his sermons, Francis stated that the Holy Virgin Mary experienced rebellious feelings at the foot of the Cross after His death and considered that the promises of the Angel during the Annunciation were false and that she was deceived. Here is what Francis says: “She was silent, but in her heart how many words she spoke to the Lord! You, on this day, told me that he would become great; you told me that you would give him the throne of David, his father, that he would reign forever, and now I see here! Virgo was human! And, probably, she wanted to say: Lie! I was deceived!

Francis loves to give free interpretations and personalities of Judas, about whom he spoke many times with sympathy and pity, in the spirit of the Gnostic " Gospels of Judas”, which has become popular since the time of Benedict XVI. In one of his sermons, he stated: “He was a bishop, one of the first bishops, right? Lost sheep. Poor thing! Poor brother Judas, as Don Mazzolari called him in his beautiful sermon: “Brother Judas, what is going on in your heart?” On another occasion, referring to the same Don Mazzolari, Francis, completely incorrectly explaining the significance of the sculptural image on the capital of the Basilica of St. Mary Magdalene in Vezelay (France), concludes: “On the one hand, Judas is depicted strangled ..., and on the other side of the capital, Jesus the Good Shepherd, Who carries him on his shoulders, carries him with Himself. It's a secret. But these people in the Middle Ages who taught the catechism with pictures, they understood the mystery of Judas. And Don Primo Mazzolari had a good speech... This priest... well understood the complexity of the logic of the Gospel. The one who got their hands dirty the most is Jesus. Jesus messed up the most. He was not “clean”, but he came out of the people, was among the people and accepted people as they were, and not as they should have been.

So, hiding behind the meaningful word "mystery", in this case referring to "poor Judas", Francis, passing off an unknown figure as Christ, casually committed blasphemy again. As one of the Catholic bloggers wrote, commenting on this “merciful” interpretation of the image of Judas, “we should not be surprised if sooner or later Bergoglio expresses doubts about the devil himself: he will tell us that in the end, the devil was good and God will forgive him, in accordance with the aspirations of Origen and the delusions of the Cainites.

When evaluating the statements and behavior of Francis, it is important to note that he understands very well what he is doing and why he is doing it. He is not an ignoramus or a superficial and mediocre intellectual with no experience in the performance of high official duties. As a Jesuit, he studied Catholic doctrine well, which is evident from the fact that all his heresies and false ideas are accompanied by the correct provisions of traditional teaching, which makes it difficult for an illiterate person to understand the essence of distortions. We are dealing with a cunning and insidious enemy of Christianity, whose words and actions are deliberately subversive and provocative and aimed at defiling Christianity and destroying those spiritual and moral principles that still remain in the life of orthodox Catholics.

Francis himself outlined his mission in the following way: “The Second Vatican Council ... decided to look into the future in the spirit of modernity and open up to modern culture. The Council Fathers knew that this openness to contemporary culture was synonymous with religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers. Since then, little has been done in this direction. I have a humble and ardent desire to do so.”

Indeed, we see that the "dialogue" led by Francis is effective only in relation to non-Christians and enemies of Christianity, while in relation to those who are trying to somehow resist the destructive processes in the Catholic Church, there is not even a hint of mercy. Francis is irritated by traditional morality, dogma, liturgy, which he perverts by resorting to his favorite methods - defilement, ridicule, scandal and profanity, plunge the faithful Catholics into despair. As researcher Miles Christie writes, “A person who blasphemes and commits blasphemy systematically, openly and skillfully, having deeply studied Catholic dogma, perfectly managing the media space, cynically using the moral influence that provides him with the enormous prestige of his religious power, such a person, I would said, can act only under the direct and voluntarily accepted influence of the prince of darkness, the prince of this world, the father of lies ... ".

Sooner or later, this connection between Francis and the father of lies was bound to come to light, which happened during his morning sermon on April 4, 2017 at the hotel of St. Martha. It is significant that in the message " Vatican Radio" about this speech, the most shocking statements were removed from it, but they are present in the presentation " L’ Osservatore Romano”, published on the Vatican website and translated “ Free Catholic newspaper". Speaking about the attitude of Christians to the cross and the sign of the cross, the pontiff correlated the words of Christ “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that it is I” (John 8, 28) with the first reading of the Mass (Numbers 21, 4-9), which tells the story of the bronze serpent made by Moses in the wilderness, so that those bitten by snakes, whom the Lord sent against the people of Israel as a punishment for their murmuring and unbelief, by looking at him, could receive healing. Explaining this parallel, Francis turned to that passage from the Second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, which says of Christ: sacrifice for sin, that in him we might become the righteous before God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). However, he used another translation of this phrase: "he who knew no sin he made sin." As a result, Francis used the expression “became a sin” seven times and, playing on the New Testament analogy of Christ’s “ascension” on the cross with Moses’ ascension of the copper serpent in the wilderness, declared that since the bronze serpent can be a symbol of the tempting serpent and the devil, then Christ, therefore, "took the form of the father of sin" and "became the devil."

Here is what he writes " L’ Osservatore Romano":" "The serpent," continues the pope, "is a symbol of evil, a symbol of the devil; he was the most insidious of animals in the earthly paradise.” Since "the serpent was one who was able to deceive by means of deceit," he is "the father of lies: and this is a mystery." But what does it mean that we “should look to the devil in order to be saved? The serpent is the father of sin, the one who caused mankind to sin.” In fact, "Jesus says, 'When I am lifted up, all will come to Me.' Obviously, this is the mystery of the cross.” “The bronze serpent healed,” says Francis, “but the bronze serpent was a twofold sign: a sign of the sin committed by the serpent, a sign of the seduction of the serpent, the deceit of the serpent; but he was also the sign of the cross of Christ, he was a prophecy.” And "therefore the Lord says to them, 'When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know who I am.' Thus, says the pope, we can say that "Jesus 'became a serpent', Jesus 'became sin' and took upon himself all the abominations of mankind, all the abominations of sin. And He “became sin,” He gave Himself to be lifted up so that all people would look at Him, people wounded by sin, ourselves. This is the mystery of sin, and this is what Paul says: “He became sin” and took the form of the father of sin, the treacherous serpent.” “Whoever did not look at the bronze serpent, being bitten by a snake in the wilderness,” the Pontiff explained, “died in sin, in the sin of murmuring against God and against Moses.” power of God, who became sin to heal us, will die in his own sin.” For “salvation comes only from the cross, but from that cross, which is God made flesh: there is no salvation in ideas, there is no salvation in good intentions, in the desire to become good” ... The cross - he says further - “for some is the hallmark of belonging : "Yes, I wear a cross so that it can be seen that I am a Christian." “That's not bad,” but “it's not only a badge, like a team emblem,” but “it's a memory of who became sin, who became the devil, the serpent, for us; degraded to complete self-abasement.”

Finally, Francis said something that expresses the very essence of his worldview, which is based on the gnostic teaching of Freemasonry, which equalizes good and evil, black and white. Under these words, the Theosophists would readily subscribe, considering the tempting serpent as their god. Their mentor E. Blavatsky also openly demonized Christ, passing Him off as Lucifer: “Demonest Deusinversus”, “Logos and Satan are one”, “Lucifer is the Logos in its highest aspect. The Word is the firstborn The Word is the reborn brother of Satan. In the best traditions of Gnosticism, Francis abundantly uses Christian concepts and plots, filling them with non-Christian content. Putting a veil of "mystery" on the gospel text and staying, as it were, in the aura of the initiate, he gives him his own, false and perverted interpretation, replacing with himself the entire patristic tradition. This is the expression werewolf religion, the final approval of which will lead to when, according to the theosophist E. Bailey, "there will be no differences between the only Universal Church, the Sacred Lodge of all Masons and a narrower circle of esoteric societies."

And Patriarch Kirill calls this werewolf "the most holy."

The Pope is ready to baptize aliens // http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1580065&cid=520

Rate comment:

Rate comment:

Rate comment:

Rate comment:

Rate comment:

Rate comment:

Rate comment:

His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' answered the questions of the Foma magazine:

— In the late 1930s, you and your parents made two pilgrimage trips to the Holy Transfiguration Valaam Monastery on Lake Ladoga, and these trips largely determined your spiritual path. What happened then?

— Yes, I visited Valaam for the first time as a child. The impression of what he saw forever remained in the memory. Later, I wrote letters to the monastery - and the most amazing thing is that the monks answered me, a child. These precious letters, full of wisdom and love, I have repeatedly read, keeping them as sacred. And, perhaps, for the first time, monasticism, its deep meaning, was revealed to me.

Your family was religious. Your father was a priest. And you yourself have lived a church life since childhood. What difficulties did the church person most often face in the 30s, 40s and 50s?

— My childhood was spent in pre-war Estonia, so the horrors of the persecution of the Church at that time did not touch me. There were other problems associated with the rejection of Russia and the Russian. In the Soviet Union, these difficult years were equally difficult for all people - the first five-year plans, the country just got on its feet, but then the war began, and then there were post-war works. Everyone survived hunger, and cold, and persecution of the faith of Christ, and the repressions of the Soviet government, and the cruelty of the occupiers. They were worried by the whole country - without distinction of rank, religion, nationality.

— At thirty-two, you took monastic vows. Among non-church people, there is a strong opinion that unfortunate people, crushed by grief, go to the monastery. Is it so? What prompted you to become a monk?

– Acceptance of monasticism is impossible without the special will of God, without the care of the Lord, without calling. Therefore, it is right to come to the monastery, and not “leave” there only from grief. Of course, there are cases when a personal tragedy reveals the will of God to a person in a special way, but even in these cases love is the driving force. For God is Love. So the Lord at one time led me to this path, which I chose with fear and trembling, but most importantly, with love for God and people.

— How fair is it to talk about the career of a clergyman?

- I think it's completely wrong. Unfortunate is the man who is ordained for career reasons. Everyday pastoral work, the service of the Divine Liturgy, the celebration of the Sacraments, the constant care of people without a special calling turn into a burdensome duty, which destroys the personality of such a clergyman.

— The Patriarchate in Rus' has a very tragic history. The first Patriarch Job was forcibly deposed, a hundred years later Peter I abolished the Patriarchate, and its restoration took place in the tragic revolutionary years for Russia. Why did the restoration nevertheless take place in the end, what function does the Patriarch perform in Orthodoxy?

- The history of the Patriarchate in Russia is inseparable from the history of the country, which has had everything - both tragedies and victories. Often the peaceful course of the life of the Church was interrupted by fierce disputes about her relationship with the state, about the "headship" of the priesthood or kingdom. But should body and soul argue about primacy?

Today, thank God, we do not see any interference in the affairs of the Church and, on the other hand, we feel the possible help of the secular authorities in many of our labors. I consider cooperation between the Church and the state to be normal and correct.

Patriarchal leadership has always been natural for the Russian Church. People wanted to have in the Patriarch a visible symbol of church unity, its guardian. That is why, as soon as it became possible after restrictions on the part of the authorities, the Patriarchate was restored - both in 1917 and in 1943.

– Why is it customary to call Patriarchs “Most Holy” or “Blessed”?

Not because they are saints. These are honorary titles that believers, according to centuries-old tradition, attribute to the mission of the Patriarchal service, to which a person is appointed by the Holy Spirit. And I attribute this honor to the entire Church, to her saints, to her God-given dignity, to the apostolic and hierarchal succession of her hierarchy.

— Your Patriarchal service coincided with the time of the restoration of spiritual life. Looking back, where do you see the undoubted success and where the failure of the last fifteen years of the life of the Russian Church?

— Over the past fifteen years, a lot has happened to the country and the Church. It is impossible not to rejoice at the numerous churches of God opened after a long break, the building of new churches, and restored monasteries. But there are also difficult questions. How to bring the people into the temples of God? How to help those who come to find the true faith, to become worthy builders of the Body of Christ? In the early nineties, many of us witnessed the so-called religious boom: the people assigned a very important role to the Church, they searched for the truth in the temple. I cannot say for sure that we were able to justify the hopes of society in each such case, some priests themselves were not ready for this. For example, much has been said and is being said about the problem of "young old age".

(Young old age is a phenomenon associated with the fact that some young priests, not having sufficient experience, take on an unacceptably high responsibility to decide harshly for their parishioners the issues of their spiritual life. This phenomenon is associated not with the age of the clergyman, but with his lack of a sober and wise approach to spiritual practice. On December 28, 1998, the Holy Synod adopted a definition condemning such practice - Ed.)

But the Church, like an ark guarded by the Lord Himself, floats in the raging sea of ​​life and will surely lead those who trusted in her to a good harbor.

- Many unbelievers and doubters are very embarrassed when they see how major statesmen, officials and businessmen stand during festive services with candles, they are baptized. Do you think this is serious or is it a tribute to fashion?

“Even if it’s fashion, fashion is good. Let it be fashionable in our life to go to Church, light candles, venerate holy things. I believe that then the Lord Himself will kindle in the hearts of those who come to Him the fire of living faith and love. This has already happened to many, many people. There are politicians, entrepreneurs, and officials among them.

— We heard from many bishops that communication with major statesmen is very difficult. They regard bishops as officials from the Church, and fellowship with them as an extension of politics. Do you share this point of view? What kind of attitude would you like to be treated by statesmen?

- In church-state relations, any clergyman is present in two roles: as a citizen and as a pastor. Many bishops and priests carry the work of a foreman, architect, economist, and so on. Such is the time! Another thing is that they should not forget about spiritual priorities.

— You meet with many international leaders. What is the meaning of these meetings, what do you talk about with them? What questions are you being asked?

- As a rule, we are talking about the role of religion and the Church in the life of society, about the interaction between the Church and the state. Often painful topics are also discussed: church schisms, difficulties in inter-church and inter-religious relations, proselytism - the conversion of believers from one Church to another. Often the leaders of states ask for assistance in resolving interethnic and political conflicts. Recently, the question of the role of religion in peacemaking has become the most important during such meetings.

— Which of the international leaders or politicians was the most interesting for you to communicate with and why?

— I remember very much the conversations with the President of Belarus Alexander Grigoryevich Lukashenko. A very strong, strong-willed and independent person, able to critically evaluate their actions. A good example for all CIS countries was the agreement between the Church and the state in Belarus, initiated by Alexander Grigorievich.

I was favorably impressed by the conversation with Ukrainian President Viktor Andreevich Yushchenko. I think this is a person who cares about the fate of the people, and he shares our pain, generated by the church schism in Ukraine. We wish him a wise reign so that he can help overcome this catastrophe, heal the division of the Ukrainian nation.

I would also like to mention Pier Ferdinando Casini, Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies of the Italian Parliament, with whom we met twice and came to a common opinion on the need to preserve and affirm Christian values ​​in the life of the peoples of Europe, in their right and public self-determination.

— A somewhat naive question, but very important for our readers: does the Patriarch confess?

— Yes, like any Orthodox Christian. After all, it is impossible to live without repentance, without the forgiveness of our sins, which the Lord Himself grants to those who confess. Each of us knows this - or can find out by resorting to the Sacrament of Penance. But we must remember that St. Alexis of Moscow said: “Only that is true repentance, after which former sins are despised.”

– In the context of a conversation about Catholicism and Orthodoxy, we encountered the fact that people do not understand the difference between the Pope of Rome and the Orthodox Patriarch.

– In Orthodoxy, the Patriarch is the Primate, the person who stands first before the holy throne and therefore bears special responsibility for the Church, for the people of God. But he should not even think about his "infallibility", infallibility, about being the sole center of the entire Church. This is probably the difference.

– Looking back at the past fifteen years of your Patriarchal service, can you answer this question: was there a moment during all this time that you constantly remember and which for you personally became an internal culmination?

“Only the Lord can judge what was the climax in the life of each individual person. I can only name moments that seem significant not only for me, but for the entire Russian Church. This is a church revival that began after the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus', and the Jubilee Bishops' Council in 2000. If in the first case we observed how the Church rises from the ruins, then at the Council it became clear that the Church is already acquiring its proper place in society, can authoritatively express its views on various issues of our time.

— Does the Patriarch watch movies, does he read secular literature, does he watch TV? In general, is it possible for the Patriarch to do all this? If possible, then why (need to keep abreast or just wondering)?

— I try to watch the news at least once a day to keep abreast of what is happening in the country and the world. I don't think it would be wise to ban it, just like the reading of fiction. Unfortunately, a modern person sometimes does not have time for books, and yet reading the classics is very useful for the spiritual development of a person. My attention has always been attracted by programs that talk about Russia's place in the modern world, about our youth. Like any Russian, I am concerned about the question: where are we going, what should our country become, what should we strive for? On the other hand, you always want to turn off the TV when you see scenes of violence, obscenity, you hear rude expressions. I do not think that this is capable of ennobling people and teaching them goodness.

There was a discussion in the church about the films The Last Temptation of Christ by Martin Scorsese and The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson. Have you watched these films? If not, why not? And if so, what are your personal impressions of them?

- I managed to watch the film by M. Gibson, and I saw only some fragments from the film by M. Scorsese. Despite the fact that in the film "The Passion of the Christ" not everything is in tune with Orthodox theology, the author of the picture, of course, was guided by a deep religious feeling. Unfortunately, we don't see any of this in the second film. On the contrary, the director tries to attribute his passions to the Person of Jesus Christ. Such methods not only offend the feelings of believers, but also distort historical reality.

- In Roman Catholicism, the point of view of the Pope is the point of view of the Church. In Orthodoxy, the Council of Bishops is the voice of the Church. Does it happen that the conciliar opinion and your personal one do not coincide? If that happens, whose vote wins?

— Yes, sometimes it happens. But this is precisely the essence of Orthodox catholicity - to give up one's opinion before the will of the Church. Naturally, every bishop has the right to express his point of view at the Council and not agree with the opinion of the majority. However, he is obliged to obey the will of the Council, including the Patriarch, who is the first of the bishops of the Local Church.

Have there been incidents in your life that you consider miraculous? Please tell us about the most memorable.

Miracles happen in every person's life. Each of us knows such cases and judges them in the inner peace of our hearts. But there are miracles that shock the whole world. One of these is the revival of Christianity in Rus' from the ashes: isn't this a miracle and a sign given by the Lord? After all, before 1985 no one could even dream of the full-blooded church life that we have today.

Is it more difficult for an Orthodox person who has become a Patriarch to be saved? How do you experience and deal with temptations?

– Even in the ancient patericons, special temptations that shepherds face are described. Indeed, in the Sacrament of the Priesthood, a person is given great power and responsibility: to shepherd the Church of the Living God. If we talk about the temptations of the shepherds - bishops, then they are even more complex. The patriarch is obliged to supervise the activities of the bishops, and this task is even more difficult. But the Lord never gives a cross beyond one's strength. I became convinced that it is possible to resist temptations, hoping for God's help and always remembering my unworthiness.

— The Church has come a long way in the last 15-20 years. There were victories and defeats. What are you dissatisfied with, what hopes and hopes do you have?

— By the grace of God, we have managed to do a lot in recent years. However, all this can in no way be compared with what has yet to be done for the glory of God. In my opinion, the process of churching our people is going slowly, and this is the fault of the pastors. I very much hope that with the change of generations fresh forces will come to the Church, capable of finding new means of preaching Orthodoxy.

Name of God Answers divine services School Video Library Sermons The mystery of St. John Poetry Photo Publicism Discussions Bible Story Photobooks Apostasy Evidence Icons Poems of Father Oleg Questions Lives of the Saints Guest book Confession Archive Site Map Prayers Father's word New Martyrs Contacts

Is there ecclesiastical truth in the so-called "Moscow Patriarchy"?

(from the letters of the catacomb bishop A. to F.M.)

Letter 2

God's grace be with you, my son!

I just wanted to explain to you my explanations about some of the current events in the Church of Christ, and now I also received a letter from you.

You again beg me to explain to you in detail: is there ecclesiastical truth in the so-called "Moscow Patriarchate", can it be recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church, can the so-called "Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy" be considered and honored as the spiritual leader of the Russian Orthodox people and, according to the rule of 34 Holy Apostles, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church.

My son, the fulfillment of this request of yours is very fraught with many sorrows. Many have already suffered for the word of truth about the "Moscow Patriarchate". Bishops and pastors who do not recognize the "Moscow Patriarchate" as an ecclesiastical canonical institution, as a rule, are not free, but remain in confinement, in bitter labors, in remote places. All those who speak out against the "Moscow Patriarchate" and denounce its leaders are subjected to cruel persecution. Now for us Orthodox, the words of the law "Freedom of Religion" can only be understood as the freedom of glorification of the "Moscow Patriarchate", "Patriarch Alexy" and his associates. And a word spoken against "patriarchy and patriarch" is considered a crime. And if you only knew how many people are suffering now just because their religious consciousness cannot recognize the "Moscow Patriarchate" as the embodiment of Orthodoxy in Rus'. Here I am, explaining to you the truth of the Church, I run the risk of falling into the host of these sufferers very soon.

You write that you have not heard of new heresies and new persecutions against the Church of Christ lately. For ecclesiastical reasoning, this statement must be considered the most harmful and dangerous. The most cunning, most cunning, most bitter warfare of Satan against the Church has not ceased since the time of its founding. If you turn to the Apocalypse, you will find out that the struggle of the devil with the Church in the last times should not decrease, but intensify to the most extreme cruel degree. The enemy is constantly fighting with growing fury against the Church of Christ. Heresies and lawless assemblies gathered by the enemy under the guise of the Church, of course, do not experience such temptations as the Church experiences. The so-called "Moscow Patriarchate" is especially prosperous today.

About 15 years ago, when Renovationism was raging, there still existed on Russian soil a certain tolerance for dissent in matters of faith. All those who did not recognize Renovationism could condemn it and have their own shepherds. Now even this semblance of religious tolerance has been taken away. Try to speak openly now with denunciations of the so-called. "Moscow Patriarchate". Try to get permission to open a church community that does not recognize the so-called. "Patriarch Alexy", this will be a great civil crime, and it is suppressed mercilessly. And alas, we must admit that such intolerance is increasing and progressing.

You write to me about the "Moscow Patriarchate" like this: "After all, this is some kind of half-truth, and can this half-truth be called the administration of the Russian Orthodox Church and be the leader of the spiritual and moral life of Orthodox Russian Christians?" I will answer directly, sincerely and clearly. Half-truth can never be true. The Church can never contain half-truth. But here is not even a half-truth, but a pure lie of the enemy, or rather, a cunning forgery by him of the truth, the assertion of which is based on our lack of taste for truth. I will also answer you directly and sincerely: "Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Rus'" cannot be recognized as canonical, that is, legally elected and appointed patriarch of the Russian Church.

You write that it is difficult to dispute the canonicity of the election of a patriarch, since he was elected by a council of the Russian Orthodox Church, and that council was attended by two Eastern patriarchs and representatives from others.

My dear. Recently, many different schismatics or schismatics have appeared on Russian Orthodox soil. And they all cite canons in their justification. Not so long ago, it was reported that one priest, one of the employees in the Moscow Patriarchate, exclaimed: "Although we sin, the canons are with us." If this is said out of naivety, then one can only feel sorry for this priest. What are the canons with them? Are the canons on the succession of the highest church authority with them? Are the canons about the disobedience of bishops in church affairs to atheists, especially those militant against the Church, etc., with them? Which of today's schismatics has not justified his activities with the canons?

Read any messages of the Renovationists, Gregorians and other apostates, they are all richly decorated with canons. Metropolitan Sergius also mentioned the canons in his defense. All those who sin against the Church have a desire not to obey the canons, but to force them to justify their untruths. And it often happens that even a non-theologian sees how the canons testify against them in the epistles of apostates.

For example, Metropolitan Sergius, in one of his epistles, cites the 8th canon of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea:

"Christians who molest the barbarians, attacking Christians together with them, are not accepted as penitents (hearers) until a special conciliar discussion about them."

Can't this rule be successfully applied to Metropolitan Sergius and to the Moscow Patriarchate? The same can be said about other canons used by Metropolitan Sergius, for example, the rules of Sts. Apostles 41, 34, Double Council 13, 14, 15.

All of them can be successfully used against those who use them.

Recall at least the history of the relationship between Metropolitan Sergius and the lawful Locum Tenens, Patriarchal Metropolitans Peter and Kirill, that you know. And they were rewarded by Metropolitan Sergius with judgment according to the "canons".

Dear my son. I am very bitter that the so-called. The Council of the Russian Orthodox Church with the participation of the Eastern Patriarchs has some kind of ecclesiastical value in your mind.

Who made this "cathedral"? Who elected the members of this "council"? Were Orthodox bishops really members of this? Is it true, as the rulers of this "sobor" assert, that the entire Orthodox episcopate of the Russian Church was present there? This is a blatant lie. Not a single Orthodox bishop, who truly loves the Church and lays down his life for Her, was present at this lawless council. You will say that at this council there were over 40 bishops and 126 representatives from the clergy and laity. But investigate carefully where these hierarchs and representatives from the laity came from, and then answer me, can they be considered members of the Russian Orthodox Local Council?

In order to see the real aims of the 1945 council, one must at least recall a little the history of our Church during the revolutionary period.

In the first years of the revolution, the enemies of the Church struck us down with fire and sword. Then they realized that these means were invalid, and decided to blow up the Church from the inside. They needed a church in which the episcopate would be obedient in everything to the authorities and servilely fulfill only its orders. With such an episcopate, anything could be done with the church. In order to create such a church, renovationism was fraudulently organized with the highest church administration and the episcopate, unprincipledly servile to the authorities.

If you remember the history of artificial renovationism, from which the Russian Church suffered so much, then you should know that in 1922, the so-called “renovation” also took place in Moscow. Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was attended by about 60-70 old Russian bishops, including Metropolitan Sergius. At this council, you know, great iniquities were committed: the canonicity of renovationism was approved and the great sufferer for the Church of Christ, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, who exposed the lie of renovationism, was condemned and deprived of his rank and monasticism. Then the Eastern Patriarchs also sent their greetings to this lawless council. Later this "council" was not recognized by anyone, and many of the bishops bitterly mourned their participation in it.

All Russian people saw that this cathedral was a Russian disgrace for our sins and lack of faith, that it was a gross desecration of the Holy Church committed by Her enemies, the mere memory of the 1922 cathedral should give deep reflection when assessing the 1945 cathedral.

In general, when discussing new church councils, it is also good to recall the judgment of a deeply Orthodox Russian theologian about them:

"There have been heretical councils, such as, for example, those at which a semi-Arian symbol was drawn; at which there were twice as many signatory bishops as at the Council of Nicaea, at which emperors accepted heresy, patriarchs proclaimed heresy, popes submitted to heresy. Why are these councils rejected The only reason is that their decisions were not recognized as the voice of the Church by the entire church people, that people and in that environment where in matters of faith there is no difference between a scholar and an ignoramus, a church man and a laity, a man and a woman, a sovereign and a subject, a slave owner and a slave, where, when it is necessary at the discretion of God, the youth receives the gift of knowledge, the word of wisdom is given to the infant, the heresy of the learned bishop is refuted by the illiterate shepherd, so that everything may be one in the free unity of living faith, which is the manifestation of the Spirit God" (A. S. Khomyakov, vol. II, p. 71, ed. 3rd).

After the Russian Orthodox people rejected Renovationism, the enemies of the Church, with the same goals, organized the so-called. Gregorianism. But he too suffered the same fate as Renovationism. Enemies have become more cunning. The adamant Metropolitan Peter, who became the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne after the death of Patriarch Tikhon, was removed and then destroyed. The authorities concluded an agreement with the malleable Metropolitan Sergius, according to which he was allowed to manage the Church, but instead of the word "govern", it would be more fair to put the word "destroy".

Indeed, from 1927 to 1941 (pre-war) the vast majority of churches were destroyed. All truthful clergy were expelled or went into hiding. The whole honest Russian episcopate, having an immutable faith, was partly tortured, partly imprisoned. 5-6 people remained free from the Russian episcopate, especially those who were servile to the authorities. Such were the fruits of Metropolitan Sergius' administration of the Russian Church, a administration, it must be said, completely canonically unfounded. Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov) of Kazan, appointed as the first Locum Tenens in the will of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, openly called Metropolitan Sergius in his letters a usurper of church power. During the reign of Church Metropolitan Sergius, the entire Orthodox episcopate, glorious in faith and good conscience, departed from him. The hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church did not desire the short-term sweetness of sin from the well-being of Metropolitan Sergius, but all went to the great Golgotha. Some of them even excommunicated Metropolitan Sergius from the Church. But the excommunicated from anyone did not want to recognize the judgment on himself. Having begun his administration of the church by recognizing godless joys as church joys, beginning with a pious desire to give what is Caesar's to Caesar, Metropolitan Sergius ended up giving to Caesar not only what is Caesar's, but also God's.

At the end of this administration, Metropolitan Sergius arbitrarily transferred himself from Deputy Locum Tenens to Locum Tenens, and then to All-Russian Patriarch.

You probably remember how it happened. In the autumn of 1943, Soviet newspapers widely announced the government's permission (or rather an order) for Metropolitan Sergius to urgently convene a Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church and elect a Patriarch of All Rus'. The task was difficult. The entire true Orthodox episcopate, which was to form the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, was in camps and prisons. Metropolitan Sergius had no one at hand, except for the 5-6 aforementioned bishops running after the chariot, and approximately the same number of bishops, consecrated by him in 1942-43, according to the instructions of state bodies; but they forced to assemble the cathedral, and Metropolitan Sergius was not timid. Two days after the permission for the council, we read in the newspapers that the council of the local Russian Orthodox Church had already taken place and at it, within an hour, Metropolitan Sergius was elected Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. At this council there were 19 bishops, i.e., the entire episcopate available, which was subordinate to Metropolitan Sergius and acquired by him in the most recent time. Such a miserable assembly, called a cathedral of the Church, has not yet been seen by the Russian people.

If the Renovationists tried to reinforce their artificial building with church canons, of course, interpreting them as they wanted, then Metropolitan Sergius, when arranging the cathedral in 1943, voluntarily and involuntarily did not find it necessary to reckon with canonical rules, as well as with the soul of the Russian Orthodox people. .

Incidentally, in 1944, a curious article about this cathedral was published in a magazine published by the Moscow Patriarchate. The author of this article, G. Georgievsky, complained that church-Orthodox circles abroad do not recognize the Council of the Russian Church of 1943, while this Council is recognized in our country "both by non-Orthodox and non-Orthodox organizations." It is difficult to think of a better description of this "cathedral".

Now consider who were the members of the cathedral in 1945. The reports about this council say that more than 40 bishops and 126 representatives from the clergy and laity participated there.

So little time passed from September 1943 to January 1945. Therefore, it is not clear where 41 bishops instead of 19 came from. In this respect, our curiosity is satisfied by the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate for 1944. Looking at it, we see that the 19 bishops who existed in 1943 had hastily given birth in 1944 to the rest who were members of the 1945 council.

From the "Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate" we learn that these hasty consecrations were carried out in the vast majority of the Renovationist archpriests.

At the end of 1943 and at the beginning of 1944, by magic, all the Renovationists suddenly repented before Metropolitan Sergius. Repentance was simplified, without imposing any penalties on those who had caused so much evil to the Holy Church. And after a very short time, the “repentant renovationists” received high dignity, places and ranks, contrary to the canons of the church and the regulation on the reception of renovationists from 1925. It is appropriate here to recall the words of St. Cyprian of Carthage. In a letter to Pope Stephen about the council, he writes: “Presbyters and deacons, who, either having been ordained at first in the Catholic Church, subsequently became traitors and rebels against the Church, or among heretics false bishops and antichrists, contrary to the disposition of Christ, by impious ordination were placed and contrary to the one and only on the side of the divine altar, they tried to bring false sacrilegious sacrifices on the side, which, when they are converted, must be accepted under the condition that they are admitted to communion as simple laymen. It is enough for them that they were enemies of the world, they accept the world; we should leave with them upon their return to us those instruments of ordination and honor with which they fought against us ... It is enough for such people to give one forgiveness during their communion, but it is by no means necessary to exalt treachery in the house of faith. from us and rebelled against the Church, then what shall we leave for the good and innocent who do not fall away from the Church" (works of Cyprian of Carthage, vol. I, p. 59).

Thus, at the beginning of 1944, the flock of Metropolitan Sergius was refreshed by renovationist streams and replenished with a large number of renovationist metropolitans, archbishops and bishops. If we add the testimonies of incorruptible eyewitnesses to the reports of the "Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate", then it can be established for sure that the new bishops, hastily consecrated for the new "sobor" in 1944, are Renovationist archpriests and clerics who survived the terrible persecution, that all of them were presented for consecration by the authorities, and that with such an episcopate it is possible to arrange any kind of council and pass on it any kind of anti-church resolutions.

As the "Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate" tells, the "episcopal" consecrations before the "sobor" of 1945 took place as follows: the archpriest, recommended (of course, by the civil authorities), almost always from the "reunited" Renovationists or Gregorians, was immediately tonsured into monasticism with a change of name and then through 2-3 days was placed in the "bishop of the Russian Church."

What are the great goals of monasticism and its meaning for these persons, what is the sanctity of hierarchy for them, if they receive it through the direct mediation of the atheists? Can such people be members of the Council of the Local Russian Church? Can they elect a Patriarch, the father of the Russian Orthodox people?

It can be recognized without a doubt that the overwhelming majority of the episcopate that was at this "council" received episcopal power, using worldly leaders for this. Such rule 30 Sts. He casts out the apostles and excommunicates them with all those who communicate with them. Even if they receive consecration from Orthodox bishops, they are unlikely to be actual bishops. According to the exact meaning of the rules of the Ecumenical Councils, all those who, although they received consecration, received it through machinations and contrary to church rules, cannot be called bishops. Thus, for example, Maximus Cynicus was ordained bishop by a council of Orthodox bishops, but since he attained the episcopal rank through illegal intrigues contrary to the apostolic and patristic rules, the Holy Ecumenical Council pronounced the following decree about him:

"Below Maximus was and is a bishop, placed below on any degree of clergy: and everything done for him and done by him is insignificant" (see 4 pr. of the II Ecumenical Council).

Another question arises: in addition to the majority of "bishops" created by magic specifically for the cathedral in 1943-44 from church renegades, there were several bishops present, allegedly of a fine, venerable appearance, who have been in the bishopric for quite some time. Are they really the same as the others?

My son. Believe me, believe the many who suffer for the Holy Church of Christ. There were no people at the council unnecessary for the atheists, and there could not be, for everyone who hinders them, everyone who fearlessly speaks about the truth of the Church, prudently was not allowed to this council. And who are you talking about as hierarchs of venerable appearance? Here is Archbishop Philip Stavitsky, who was present there. Back in 1922, at a trial, he betrayed his father, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, and publicly outraged a church shrine there.

Here is the newly-appeared "Metropolitan Nikolai" (Yarushevich), whom Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov) spoke of as the most zealous servant of the revolution.

Here is another member of the cathedral, who was in Renovationism for 22 years, Renovationist First Hierarch Archbishop Vitaly (Vvedensky). How much evil has brought the Church. And now he is called to the Orthodox "sobor" as an authoritative hierarch.

Here is the so-called. "Archbishop" Alexy (Sergeev), who received the episcopal rank at the request of the authorities, shed a lot of blood of the best sons of the church through betrayal and was called the "bishop of hell" by Metropolitan Sergei himself.

Let's keep silent about the rest, because it is impossible to say a good word about them. Can this assembly, authorized to the Council only by the enemies of the Church, replace the Orthodox Russian Council and elect a Patriarch for the Russian Church? What about the laity? And the clear?

You will say that the clergy and the laity were also present. But who chose them? Where did diocesan meetings take place? Who knows about it? Nobody. The laity who were at the cathedral were members of church councils appointed by bishops and rectors of churches, or rather, recommended by the authorities to be at the cathedral. They cannot be recognized as representatives of the Russian Orthodox people. Moreover, we know that, according to church canons, the laity and the clergy cannot do anything without a bishop (see 4 Ecumenical Council, rights 8; 6 Ecumenical Council, rights 64).

Now the presence of two eastern patriarchs and representatives from others at such a "council" raises a perplexing question.

On this occasion, it is very appropriate to recall what kind of relationship the patriarchs had with the Renovationists. Everyone remembers that the patriarchs at one time sent special letters to the Renovationists recognizing them as the canonical administration of the Russian Orthodox Church. Everyone remembers that the Renovationists photographed these letters and hung them in beautiful frames in prominent places in their churches. Where are these certificates now? Perhaps the patriarchs really did have a truly good desire to be present at the election of the present Patriarch of the Russian Church, but then it must be admitted that they were cunningly deceived.

Already in 1948, the eastern patriarchs, as well as the Greek Church, refused to participate in the meeting proposed by the "Moscow Patriarchy", and some of the patriarchs refused a new visit to Moscow and, according to some reports, understood the deception ... How can one explain the invitation of the patriarchs to the notorious " cathedral" in 1945 to a country where the Christian religion is considered "the most harmful and dark phenomenon of life"? Undoubtedly, the invitation of the patriarchs should be seen as a propaganda event to show the whole world the freedom of confession of faith in the USSR. The main purpose of such an invitation is concern for the authority and outward Orthodoxy of the Renovationist assembly, called by the rulers of the Moscow Patriarchate "the Orthodox Council of the Russian Church in 1945."

Of course, the bosses of the "Moscow Patriarchate" understood within themselves that they were creating not a Church Cathedral, but a fake of it. Of course, they were afraid that this forgery would be exposed.

Then, in full view, there was an embarrassing scandal with the so-called. "cathedral of 1943". So the patriarchs were now needed to support with their rank and significance the building of the great lie and deceit. Why the patriarchs were invited to Moscow for the "council" is understandable. But it is not entirely clear why the patriarchs accepted this invitation and came.

The most important thing to say about the presence of the patriarchs at the 1945 council is that they were only guests and did not participate in the decisions of the council. They can always say, as they have said before, that the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church are now difficult to understand.

But even if the eastern patriarchs had approved the resolutions of the 1945 council, how great would be the value of this assertion? Alas, we know from the history of the Church that some patriarchs, for the sake of political, material, and other reasons, sometimes asserted much that was anti-Church and then condemned by the entire Church.

On the thrones of the patriarchs, sometimes great lamps shone, and sometimes there were heretics condemned after the council. Who can say what reasons, for example, prompted the patriarchs to send the following decree to the Russian Emperor Peter I:

"To the most radiant and pious, the greatest in Christ, the Tsar of all great and small and white Russia, Sovereign Emperor Peter Alekseevich, is allowed to eat and partake of meat during all the good fasts of the whole summer" (see "The Complete Collection of the Laws of the Russian Empire", vol. 5, St. Petersburg 1830, No. 3020, p. 468).

We do not want here to belittle the authority of the patriarch. The eastern patriarchs themselves explained to us that in the Church of Christ neither the patriarchs nor the councils could ever introduce anything new, because the guardians of the faith in our country are the very body of the Church, i.e. the people itself (see "Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs" January 6, 1848). Here in this letter I have only one desire that the Russian people should understand the lawlessness of the so-called. "cathedral" in 1945.

This lawlessness and anti-canonicity depends on the following circumstances:

1. The members of the council were people set up by atheists who carried out their secret anti-Christian goals at this council; the vast majority of them were renovationists.
2. At this council, the Russian Orthodox episcopate suffering for the Church was completely absent, there was no great host of confessors who laid down their lives for the holy Orthodox Church (Canons of the 1st Ecumenical Council 5th and 6th 19th).

That is why all the resolutions of this council do not have any ecclesiastical significance, or they have the same price for us as the resolutions of the Renovationist Council of 1922.

Therefore, the very basis of the action of the Council of 1945, the election of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy (Simansky), has no ecclesiastical canonical and spiritual and moral significance. "If you go somewhere else, that thief is also a robber" (John 10, 1).

All this was done by atheists with political and other dark goals, which have nothing in common with church ideals. This council, as well as the election of a patriarch at it, must be considered by all Orthodox Christians as a cunning, malicious forgery of the enemy under churchness. It was not the Holy Spirit who directed the deeds of the lawless assembly called the "council" of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1945.

There we encounter only such a phenomenon as cunningly disguised lies and deceit and deviation from the truth, for the sake of goals hostile to the Church, and where lies and deviation from the truth, the father of lies, the devil, is already at work (John 8, 44; Epistle John 3 , 8).

We must be glad that many are now versed in this fake. The toys of the enemy did not seduce many.

With great sorrow, the Russian people told me how the “enthronement” took place, that is, the enthronement of “Patriarch Alexy”, elected by the “sobor” in 1945, to the throne.

No one has ever seen such pomposity, such luxury and splendor as they were during this “enthronement”. The bright light of many electric lamps, huge precious carpets; in the middle of January, magnificent bouquets of fresh flowers are everywhere; glitter from gold miters and diamonds on crosses, cameramen who shoot these pictures for propaganda and stupidity of the naive, dinner parties at the newly elected patriarch and at the chairman of the Council for the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars Karpov.

How much does all this need for Christ crucified in our country and for the Orthodox people?

What purpose did the founders of such "enthronement" give to this splendor, cod, splendor and wealth? Shouldn't all of this obscure, obscure, paint over the testaments of Christ and the true life of the Church?

“This is what we have achieved with our diplomacy, servility and betrayal,” the smiling and triumphant faces of the cathedral metropolitans, bishops and protopresbyters tell us, “why suffering, exhaustion, when everything can be achieved by our methods.”

Therefore, if the cathedral of 1945 is recognized as canonical, then it will be possible to say. that the Church of Christ does not need painful sufferings for the truth, does not need those hosts of martyrs and confessors, whom we now see in prisons and camps. Their wounds, their blood, their painful death are in vain. More right are those people who are distinguished by groveling before the atheists persecuting the Church, and who have sold their conscience and religious freedom to the new Cains and Pilates.

These are the conclusions we must come to if we recognize the council of 1945 and the patriarch elected at it as church property.

But it was not by God's grace, not assisting the grace of the Holy Spirit, that the "council" of 1945 was assembled and the "patriarch" was elected at it.

Other forces, another power, in everything opposite to the Church, made this "council" and "patriarch".

In peace for the fate of the Church of Christ, here it is possible to mention the words of St. Gregory the Dialogist: "Great is the power of the king. He can call a monkey a lion, but it is not in his power to turn it into a lion"...

In the next letter, I will try to clarify to you the ways of Russian church truth in our time, and now I am finishing and calling upon you the blessing of God, the Protection of the Queen of Heaven and the intercession of all the saints of the Russian land.

I often came across questions on the net on this topic, which, as I noticed, members of various NRMs, sects and atheists are especially fond of discussing.

Typical question:
“And why do we call the patriarch “His Holiness” - it turns out that he is holier than all the holy martyrs?”

Indeed, according to the logic of the Russian language, the superlative degree of the adjective denotes the quality inherent in the subject to the highest degree ...

But let's not forget that the meanings of the corresponding words in different languages ​​may differ, more precisely, they may not partially coincide.

If we represent the meaning (semantics) of a word as a field, where the main meaning (or the first - what is indicated under the number 1 in the dictionary) is the core, the rarest in use is the border, and the rest of the meanings are located between them in the order of use, then, comparing the word "saint" in different European languages, we will see that the composition and boundaries of semantic fields do not match.

In Russian, God, angels and saints recognized by the Church are called saints, and the appeal to the priest “holy father”, adopted in the countries of Catholic culture, will cause a smile.

The Greek language also knew a wider use of this word: for example, in the early Church, dead Christians were also called “saints” (for example, in St. Athanasius the Great: “In the very first psalm, David, for those who want to become blessed, added night to the day for teaching. For we said that here human life is some kind of confusion: therefore, we now have both day and night. But for those who have become saints, night will not fall "(Interpretation of Psalms. Ps. 118, 97)); all living Christians (for example, Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-bearer: “[The Lord] was truly crucified for us in the flesh under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch ... so that through the resurrection forever raise up a sign for his saints and faithful ...” (Epistle to the Smyrnians. Ch. 1 )); priests and bishops (see his own: “And you must not neglect the age of the bishop, but, according to the power of God the Father, show him all respect, as I noted in your holy presbyters ...” (Epistle to the Magnesians. Ch. 3)) .

As applied to bishops, “saint” quickly became a title, i.e. from a possible naming it turned into a practically obligatory one - in Byzantium all officials of the highest ranks, and bishops were equated with them, had a title. Words that had the meaning of titles were often put in a superlative degree, which in this case did not mean a superior quality of something, but simply emphasized the titularity of the epithet, its solemnity. The same thing happened with the title "most holy" - it does not mean that the hierarch who bears it is more holy than the canonized saints, but there is simply an episcopal title.

In the future, the title "most holy" was assigned precisely to the patriarchs. And the Russian Orthodox Church simply borrowed all the titles from Byzantium.

Thus, it turns out that the title “most holy” does not refer to a specific person, but to the position that he occupies in a canonical religious organization, including in the Russian Orthodox Church. And here, as the well-known proverb says, it is not the place that should beautify a person, but a person a place that presupposes that his way of life and thoughts correspond to such a majestic title - the Most Holy. And it owes a lot.

‹ Questions to the priest ‹ His Holiness Patriarch

His Holiness Patriarch

Date: 02/06/2011 at 16:47

Why is the Patriarch called the Most Holy?
Not a single saint called himself a saint, but considered himself a great sinner. Christ said that John the Baptist is the highest among those born of women, but the least in the Kingdom of God. John himself said that he was not worthy to untie the strap of Jesus' shoes. If the Patriarch calls himself His Holiness, then he places himself even higher than John. Doesn't he fall into delusion in this way? Orthodox do not like that the Pope considers himself a god on earth. Doesn't the Patriarch do the same when he calls himself His Holiness? Will he exchange treasures in Heaven for earthly rewards? As Christ said: "He already receives his reward."
What to strive for if you are already the Holy One?

Such a title, and it does not refer to a person, but to a dignity. No, you are already in charm. I think I explained everything that this refers to the rank, and therefore does not give the right to consider oneself a saint. Understand God!