Did Stalin establish the ROC MP? Why and what is the ROC MP heresy and a false church.
Approach any passer-by again and ask - what faith is ours, primordially Russian? From what moment does one primordially Russian faith turn into another?
Until 1917, there were practically no collisions in the Russian Church. She grew stronger, richer, lived peacefully with the people, and with the authorities, and with competing organizations. And the latter were enough before the revolution. It is enough to walk along the Nevsky and count the number of "non-Russian" churches. Everyone got along together - Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Uniates, Buddhists, and Muslims. In the period of 1917, the opposing sides had no time for the church - there was turmoil and a struggle for secular rather than spiritual power.
The Bolsheviks who came to power in one fell swoop separated the church from the state, and the school from the church. Here they, of course, did not think - Russia was a peasant country, the peasants believed in God, everyone without exception, and it would be much more convenient to govern the people who were left without a tsar-father with the help of the church than with the help of surplus appropriation. However, what happened happened. The Bolshevik government did not recognize the church, the church did not remain in debt, and with all Christian humility it cursed this government.
However, the family is not without its black sheep - among the Russian priests, a movement of Renovationism arose, advocating a radical change in the Russian Church in the light of the victory of the Bolsheviks, for close contact and cooperation with the new government. It is difficult to say whether an independent decision to sell out to the Bolsheviks really emerged among the clergy, or the agents of Dzerzhinsky, who had come to his senses in time, cleverly worked - but, nevertheless, the church split into two parts. The renovation part received a certain relaxation from the Bolsheviks, and the rest, quite naturally, began to be subjected to oppression and repression. However, this did not end there.
There were a number of clergymen who, in principle, did not accept any contacts with the already anathematized godless government, did not approve of the passive behavior of the "old" church, and at the same time did not want to go to the camps for the idea. These priests created their own, secret, church, adhering to all the canons of the Russian pre-revolutionary church. This church was later called the catacomb. This church includes the existing groups "True Orthodox Church", "True Orthodox Christians", "Jaonnites" and others.
During the same period, on the wave of emigration, most of the priests ended up abroad, where there were no obstacles to normal Orthodox church activity. Unlike the part of the priests who remained in Russia, the representatives of this church called themselves the “Russian Orthodox Church Abroad”. Despite the political difficulties, the foreign church maintained close relations with the Russian one, but ...
Since 1917, the Russian Orthodox Church has been headed by Patriarch Tikhon. He was an opponent of Renovationism, did not go to the catacombs and did not go abroad. Patiently enduring all the oppression of the new government, in 1922 he was put on trial for opposing the confiscation of church valuables, and in 1923 by the "renovationist" council he was deprived of dignity and monasticism. He was replaced by Sergiy Stargorodsky - a man who also suffered a lot from the Soviet regime, who was twice in prison and, as a result, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to cooperate with the Soviet government.
In 1927, Sergius enters into negotiations with the NKVD, formulates the position of the church's loyal attitude to the Soviet regime and calls on all clergy to be loyal citizens of the Soviet Union. For anyone who lived in Soviet times, this meant only one thing - voluntary consent to strict control by the NKVD-KGB.
The decision of Sergius finally split the Russian Church into three - the Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR), the Catacomb Church (officially banned in 1957) and the currently functioning Church that calls itself a True Orthodox Church (ROC MP).
For a long time, the secular authorities hesitated - is this very church really needed? After all, the slightest doubting part of the population is already sitting, and the rest are working together for a crust of bread and a ration of vodka. Therefore, the thirties, despite the fact that the church completely surrendered itself to the power of the Stalinist gang, passed under the sign of a big question about its existence on the territory of Russia. These fourteen years (from 1927 to 1941) were enough to replace the "old" priests with new ones - perhaps not very well versed in Greek and Latin, but sophisticated in political debates and able to write reports where necessary.
However, in 1941 what happened happened, and it turned out that you cannot go on the attack with the Stakhanov spirit alone. This is where the church came in handy. The spiritual influence of the church on the belligerent people was so great that in 1943 Stalin was even forced to recognize its importance for the country as a whole. After that, if not the best, then not the worst times came for the church. At least they stopped jailing and shooting priests. True, the KGB was not taken out of control either.
You can often hear that Stalin's permissive policy in relation to the Church is his awareness and support of the Church. Let's try to throw off the blinders of faith in this.
September 4, 1943 Stalin on the base "Sergian splinter" of the Orthodox Russian Church (PRTs) creates a large and powerful structure with new name "Russian Orthodox Church" - ROC MP (previously there was NO such organization) and with a change in the title of the primate ( instead of "all Russia" - "all Russia", which was especially stipulated by Stalin and Sergius) and appoints Sergius as chief chief.
How Stalin created the ROC MP
Evgeny Kiselev's program on the Ukrainian TV channel "Inter"
The real leader of the ROC-MP was Karpin, a KGB officer... This structure of special services was created to identify persons who collaborated with the Nazis in the parishes opened by Hitler (and there were no others), in the territories newly liberated from German troops. For the same purpose, in the following year, 1944, the AUECB was created as an assortment of various Protestants - as an intelligence unit of the KGB). So, as a division of the special services, the Moscow Patriarchate and the All-Russian Union of Economic Chechens and Bolsheviks existed until the end of the USSR.
After the August putsch, the Armed Forces commission opened the KGB archives and made public these data, in particular, the entire leadership of the ROC-MP turned out to be KGB agents. Including Ridiger (Alexy 2) - agent "Drozdov", Gundyaev (Kirill) - agent "Mikhailov", etc. And among the Protestants Karev, Zhidkov, Ponomarchuk, Andreev, Belykh, Radchuk, Kotyakov, Bondaruk, Sarkisyan ...
Among the documents discovered by the parliamentary Commission of the Supreme Soviet of Russia (Boris Perchatkin: Orthodox priest Gleb Yakunin, worked in the Commission of the Russian Armed Forces) investigating the causes and circumstances of the coup d'état (August 1991 coup), there are reports on the activities of the 4th section 5- go directorate of the KGB of the USSR. These reports represent a wealth of material for historians of the Russian Orthodox Church who study its fate during the Soviet period. They talk about the recruitment of clergymen for the state security service. According to archival data, the policy of recruiting the clergy actually began from the first years of Soviet power.
“... A number of other archival documents have been discovered and published, indicating that many hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate were simultaneously agents of the KGB, and some of the most promising state security agents were promoted to leading positions of the Moscow Patriarchate as its hierarchs.
These publications contain excerpts from the reports of the "church curators" to the leadership of the KGB, testifying to the extent of the introduction of state security bodies into the church environment. Here is just one entry for 1987:
“For the first time, as part of the Soviet delegation, an agent“ Adamant ”from among the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church took part in the general session of UNESCO ... Five personal and work cases for agents of territorial bodies recommended for promotion to the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church were considered. Head of the 4th department, Colonel Timoshevsky "(CA KGB p. 358 from the report of the 4th department of the 5th Directorate).
... Indeed, "cadres decide everything." It is noteworthy that the agent "Adamant", that is to say, Metropolitan Yuvenaly (Poyarkov), according to the discovered documents of the KGB, together with other hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate and leaders of other confessions in the former USSR, was awarded the diploma of the KGB of the USSR "for many years of cooperation and active assistance to the state security organs" "1985 g., l. 51. Prepared notes in the KGB of the USSR on the encouragement of the agent "Adamant". Shugai. V.I. Timoshevsky ".
The agent nickname of another prominent church agent of the KGB - "Abbot" has also been revealed. This nickname belongs to the Most Reverend Pitirim, Metropolitan of Volokolamsk and Yuryevsky.
In the weekly "Ogonyok" was exposed "Agent Antonov" - Metropolitan of Kiev Filaret (Denisenko) (now the Patriarch of Kiev and All Ukraine). Three articles were devoted to him. Their author, Alexander Nezhny (possibly wrote according to the order of organs), ends his last article “The Third Name” as follows: “At birth, His Beatitude was named Michael; the third name was given to him in the KGB ”. (editor - as you know from Gleb Yakunin Denisenko, the Patriarch of Kiev repented of ties with the KGB)
Let us ponder the meaning of this third name. A monk receives a third name only when he is tonsured into the great angelic image - the schema, and His Beatitude and his brothers in the Synod received this third name from the KGB during the "tonsure" into the agent service of the God-fighting evil empire (it should be noted that the "third name" is a future agent The KGB chose for itself and formally received it, putting its signature on the document on cooperation). Vladimir Zelinsky theologically develops this idea as follows: “Where nicknames or nicknames are hidden behind the names of the bishops of the church, she, that is, the church turns into an anti-church, which was required by the organizer of this performance.
Because the name, among other things, is also a particle of the liturgy. The name of God, like the name of man. When at the Great Entrance the names of the Patriarch, the ruling bishop, the ministering priest and “all those who come and pray,” are remembered, then at that moment - in a few words - the whole Church seems to gather and look around. Here she stands before the Father, who knows everyone by name. Under this name, He calls, remembers, leads, judges, saves us and - regardless of our faith or unbelief - sends us a Guardian Angel on our way.
"To him who has an ear (to hear), let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches: To him who overcomes I will give to eat the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone and a new name written on the stone, which no one knows except the one who receives" (Rev. 2:17) ... But even where the Church is parodied, willingly or unwillingly, a change of names also takes place. Potemkin, Gregory, Abbot, Adamant ...
I wonder why our episcopate so stubbornly does not repent of the cooperation of agents with the KGB? After all, Metropolitan Chrysostom did it, and nothing happened to him, no one fired him. Why are the others silent? I used to think it was out of fear of new revelations. You admit your work for the KGB, and membership in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union will also emerge. How will the Church Abroad react to this?
Yes, The top of the Patriarchate was in the CPSU, and this fact has been kept secret to this day. It is said that the first communist was Patriarch Pimen, a senior Red Army officer who joined the party at the front. And there could not be believing officers, not even non-party ones. Moreover, they were all obliged to fight religion. This means that the future patriarch renounced the faith.
High-ranking officials of the Central Committee of the CPSU, who disclosed this secret to me at one time as an intelligence officer, practiced such a rude joke. Having caught a man in episcopal vestments at a Kremlin reception or at a conference of fighters for peace, they clapped him on the shoulder and loudly asked: "Tell me, father, in what pocket of your robe do you carry your party card?" The bishop smiled embarrassedly, but did not mind: after all, there were everyone around him! ..
Yet they are silent for another reason. The famous KGB general Oleg Kalugin recently told me about it. In ninetieth, he became a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and was the first to expose agents in robes.
The Patriarchate was seriously alarmed. They were afraid not of individual revelations, but of the disclosure of the main secret. That the Patriarchy was deliberately created by Stalin so as to be a communicating vessel with the Lubyanka, like other Soviet institutions. It would never occur to anyone to identify KGB agents in our Foreign Ministry, where all the agents are. But if we admit that it is the same in the Patriarchate, then what is its holiness?
Soon General Kalugin was invited to a private dinner with the Patriarch, where Alexy II said:
- Well, why are you exaggerating this topic? Yes, we cooperated with the authorities, including me. But this was a struggle for peace, for disarmament! What's wrong with that? ..
To present snitching in the KGB as a struggle for peace - no one has thought of this before! And we didn’t have such a direction of work as the struggle for peace. These words are propaganda nonsense. On the contrary, we fought for the war! As a result of our activities, military conflicts flared up one after another - in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola. This led to an incredible swelling of the military-industrial complex, of which intelligence was a part. The country could not bear this burden, and the USSR collapsed.
Alexy II made it clear that he does not consider his snitching in the KGB something shameful and is not at all going to repent of it. On the contrary, he is proud of him, as Putin is now proud of his work in the KGB during the Soviet years. The absence of such repentance throws a bridge to the continuation of cooperation between the Patriarchate and the KGB in our days. And why is the well-born nobleman Ridiger so devoted to Soviet power? What tied them tightly?
In the now distant 1996, my journalistic destiny brought me to a communist rally in Novocherkassk. There were presidential elections in the country, and the head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Zyuganov, was a serious rival to Yeltsin. He came for support to this Cossack region, where his predecessors in the twenties carried out "decossackization" and mass executions. But now pro-communist sentiments are strong there.
An elderly priest of the local cathedral, Father Vladimir, also spoke at the meeting. He also called for voting for Zyuganov, which caused great surprise among foreign journalists. But Father Vladimir firmly stated:
- In order for us to study at the Theological Seminary, we were recalled from the front! We are still grateful to the Communist Party for this! And therefore, studying at the seminary was perceived as a front-line assignment. That's what we called ourselves all our lives - non-party communists!
And what department had the right to recall people from the front, and even in the critical year of the war, when even the sick and the infirm were rowing into the army? Only the NKVD. And to whom could he give this unheard of privilege, saving from death? Only reliable and proven agents.
Stalin created the Patriarchy with the hands of the Lubyanka! This department became her mother. The genetic link with the KGB is the same generic feature of the Moscow Patriarchate, as is the link with the White Movement in the Church Abroad.
Church of special purpose
The cooperation of the Patriarchate with the KGB, alas, is no longer a thing of the past, as many in the West believe, and even grows under Putin. The reason for this lies in the new type of social order that Putin has managed to create in Russia: the state of special services. The FSB is in charge of domestic policy and propaganda, and the SVR is in charge of foreign policy. All other departments are subordinate to them. By participating in today's Russian political life, it is simply impossible to avoid contacts with intelligence and counterintelligence. The patriarchy readily uses its Soviet experience in them.
For example, Putin's flirtations with the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il are kept in a terrible secret so that the Americans do not know about them, but the Patriarchy is admitted to them and takes a very active part in them.
In Pyongyang, the construction of the Patriarchate Church of the Holy Trinity is nearing completion, although religion is prohibited in that country and belief is considered a political crime. But Kim Jong Il made an exception for his Russian friend. The construction is carried out mainly with Russian money, but Kim Jong Il also kindly allocated about a million dollars from the budget of his impoverished country. This gave him the right to be called "the Builder of this temple."
- Let us pray to the Lord for the founder of this temple! - from now on, the Russian deacon will proclaim at every service. Making the North Korean dictator an object of religious worship - this has never been possible for any foreign president! The appearance of a Russian church in the DPRK capital, the first stone of which was laid in June 2003, is a sign of Kim Jong Il's enormous personal friendship with Putin, in opposition to the Americans.
Kim was so kind that on this occasion he even founded a new state institution - the Orthodox Committee of the DPRK, although not a single Orthodox believer has been in this country for more than half a century.
A delegation of this fake Committee recently traveled to Moscow. In the Patriarchate, she visited only one department, except for the external church. Which one do you think? For cooperation with the armed forces and law enforcement! I wonder what she needed there? It seems that Kim Jong-il considers the Patriarchate to be a paramilitary organization dedicated to special tasks.
The emergence of the Russian Church in Pyongyang creates a channel of secret contacts for both leaders, inaccessible to international control. After all, no one will know what messages the silent black-robed priests will bring to Pyongyang.
This channel is especially valuable because Americans can officially ask everyone else. For example, Bush will ask Putin at one of the meetings:
- Tell me, friend Vladimir, are you doing a backstage trick with Kim Jong Il? ..
And Putin will have to explain himself, because all this is being verified by intelligence. And when asked about church contacts, Putin can rightfully answer as follows:
- But this does not concern you, my friend! Faith is a sacred thing! ..
And Bush will have nothing to cover, because his government does not really interfere in the affairs of the church.
And now four students from the DPRK study at the Moscow Theological Academy. I wonder where they came from? After all, if they were real believers, they would be imprisoned. The answer suggests itself - only from the Ministry of State Security. Kim Jong Il is creating an Orthodox Church in his own country according to the Stalinist model, by the hands of the Chekists.
But all the officers of the friendly special services accredited in Russia are under the unobtrusive patronage of the Foreign Intelligence Service. They are invited to rest homes, private meetings, banquets. It is interesting, when leaving the Lavra for Moscow, do the North Korean seminarians say to their confessor: “Bless, father, for a trip to the SVR Reception House in Kolpachny Lane”?
The Patriarchate also "lit up" in the espionage scandal caused by the murder of the former Chechen leader Zelimkhan Yandarbiev in Qatar by Russian intelligence officers. In February of this year, they blew up the car in which Yandarbiev was getting out of the mosque, after which they were arrested.
One of them turned out to be a local GRU resident. Diplomatic immunity did not allow him to be in prison, and he was released. But the other two stayed there for a long time. They immediately confessed that they belonged to the GRU, becoming living evidence that Russia is engaged in international terrorism. Thus, with which she so ardently calls to fight. Putin was furious. He made a titanic effort to rescue the hapless terrorists, but in vain.
And then a stream of Russian representatives rushed to them. Many officials tried to break into the cell under various pretexts, but the Qatari authorities did not let anyone in for security reasons. And they did the right thing: after all, the killers are supposed to be eliminated! To do this, it is enough to spray in the chamber a tiny ampoule of a colorless substance hidden under the nail. And - no man, no problem, as Comrade Stalin said.
Desperate, Moscow decided to use its most reliable assistant for delicate assignments - the Patriarchate. Bishop Feofan of Stavropol and Vladikavkaz rushed into the camera. Allegedly, the officers languishing there are so deeply religious people that they do not feed them with bread, but let them listen to the admonition of the bishop. Moreover, it was Feofan, known for his contacts with intelligence. Prior to that, he served for many years in the Department of External Church Relations, where he was the closest assistant to Metropolitan Kirill, who is included in the KGB reports as an agent of "Mikhailov".
The Qataris did not let him in either. Perhaps they knew that the Patriarchate was being used for espionage. And the faith of our scouts raises great doubts! Indeed, in the car they had blown up, there was also Yandarbiev's young son. It is unlikely that a Christian believer will dare to kill an innocent child. Even the Social Revolutionary terrorists who blew up the Governor-General of Moscow, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich in 1905, at first refused the assassination attempt several times, seeing that he was traveling with children. And our would-be terrorists have gone through Chechnya before, where the GRU tortures and kills people. Since it was they who were appointed performers, it is reasonable to assume that they did all this with their own hands. In what happened to them, one can rather see the punishing hand of God. And Bishop Theophan would be better off entering the prisons of thousands of people innocently convicted in Russia!
The Moscow Patriarchate is surprisingly merciful to murderers who carry out the presidential mandate. Recently, Alexy II awarded the order of the Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir to colonel of the Belarusian special services Alexander Pavlichenko, a well-known organizer of death squads. They are eliminating political opponents of President Lukashenko. The Patriarchal Exarch in Belarus, Metropolitan Filaret, personally petitioned for the award, referring to the fact that a temple was built in the Pavlichenko garrison. This reason clearly did not correspond to the high status of the order.
Novaya Gazeta reported this in an article entitled “Church of Special Purpose” in August this year. “The awarding of Dmitry Pavlichenko with the Order of the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir defies any logical explanation. Because there is no need to go to Belarus to find churches built on the territory of military units and even prisons - this is more than enough in Russia itself. But for some reason, those who build churches throughout Russia are not awarded orders. Or maybe the patriarch and the metropolitan have decided that the one who sends people to God with his own hand deserves a high church award? " - the newspaper writes.
“No one in Europe any longer doubts the involvement of Pavlichenko, as well as Sheiman and Sivakov, the former secretary of the Security Council and the Minister of Internal Affairs, in organizing and executing the murders,” the newspaper continues. the post of Minister of Sports and was supposed to lead the Olympic delegation. The European Union made a special statement on this matter. And exactly three days later, the Russian Orthodox Church awards Pavlichenko the order. Accident? Or is it "our answer to Chamberlain" ?! "
Svetlana Zavadskaya, wife of the ORT cameraman Dmitry Zavadsky, who was kidnapped on July 7, 2000, said: “It is very sad that the Russian Orthodox Church is awarding the second most important order in Russia to Dmitry Pavlichenko, who is known in the civilized world as a person suspected of involvement in kidnappings and murders ... As a believer, it insults me very much. The Orthodox Church in Russia and Belarus is so politicized that it seems that for now it will be better for me to communicate with God without intermediaries. "
And here, in the Russian emigration, many, on the contrary, dream of merging with the Moscow Patriarchate. What for?
1. Second Judas and his "Apocalyptic harlot"
The publications on my site the site cause a lot of bewilderment to readers by their uniqueness and novelty of judgments. Many are asking for an explanation of the direction of Putin's activities and the essence of the Moscow Patriarchate - the ROC MP. It is clear that not everyone can easily find the necessary article that answers their question, or print the book "Beginning and End", so I decided to briefly explain the essence and origin of the Moscow Patriarchate in the proposed article. But since the object of research is very extensive, and time and health do not allow carrying out such work again, I came to the decision that I need to take the necessary chapter from my book "Beginning and End" as a basis, shorten it, adding the necessary so as not to repeat it. created, which I tried to do here.
One of my old regular parishioners, in response to my letter to her, wrote:
“Dear Vladyka Victor! It is always such a joy to receive your answer, especially on the day of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, that at last, in the person of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Orthodox Church, you, Vladyka, have cursed the leaders of the red-bloody force, listing everyone by name and the false patriarchs of the MP - this is so important! For a long time I struggled to understand why back in the 90s in Russia neither the Communist Party of the Soviet Union nor the bloody regime and terror of the Soviet regime were condemned - they were not even condemned! But Bukovsky begged on his knees that it was necessary to hold a trial over the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and that nothing would happen without repentance and without a ban on criminal organizations, publicly declaring: “If you do not conduct a kind of Nuremberg or its similitude, you will never finish this regime, that's all will drag on indefinitely. Moreover, the communists will come to life. It's like a wounded animal. If you do not finish it, it will rush to your throat. " What do we see after 25 years? Triumphant lies and all around one lie, not a drop of truth, not a drop of good - everyone is lying around: they lie at school, lie in the state, lie on television, lie in books, neighbors lie, friends lie, shepherds lie, lie everywhere - everything is perverted! And this is not just a lie, but a total lie, in all its depth, not containing a single drop of truth, perverting the whole human being. "
It would seem that there is even nothing to add to this. However, this topic can be talked about endlessly and yet there will be little. But our goal is not to overwhelm the world with a heap of truths, but to reveal the basic most salvific truth. Satan - « the big red dragon "(Rev. 12: 3), being overthrown from all levels of being, he was entrenched on the material level, having founded the kingdom, "The beast emerging from the sea with seven heads and ten horns", - by the rulers, called "kings". All these Prophecies absolutely coincide with the essence and deeds of the Red Bolsheviks with their seven leaders - General Secretaries: Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev. Further, it is also written about him: “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will come out of the abyss and go to destruction. And the beast, which was and which is not, is the eighth, and from among the seven ”(Rev.17, 8.11). Already by these brief strokes we see that there was Bolshevism and disappeared under Yeltsin, and now Putinism has arrived, which is in a hurry to return everything Bolshevik and KGB. The world will die from him.
But Satan is not a creator or an inventor. He copies all the works of God with a minus sign. If God the Father has the Son, by whom he creates the world, and the Holy Spirit, who perfect and sanctifies everything, then Satanic Bolshevism also has two auxiliary powers: the beast emerging from the earth, with which he created his plans - socialism, and the "wife" sitting on it - a false church, a harlot, Babylon the great, "a gathering of satanic", "sanctifying" all his bloody deeds. And their satanic essence, shown in the Prophecy, was fully realized in Stalinism and Sergianism. We have seen how socialism was built with forced collectivization, the nationalization of all the people's wealth under the dictate of the Bolsheviks, with a rationing system and an artificial famine. We also see the surviving apocalyptic harlot - MP. And, however, their satanic essence has not been revealed to this day by either scientific sociology or theology. Bolshevism is not condemned. They call it an affectionate word: "authoritarianism", they even deduce its similarity and origin from the previous monarchy. Smarter people call this regime ideocracy, and even smarter people call this regime satanocracy. But it is most correct to call the power of the Bolsheviks by the definition given in the Apocalypse: the Krasnodragon regime. But Bolshevism and socialism temporarily moved aside in 1991, and the "wife" who is sitting on the power of Bolshevism and now Putinism remains unrevealed. Therefore, our task is to show as briefly as possible for the convenience of printing and reading the true essence of the MP and its origin.
The devil usually does not commit his deeds all at once, but for this he prepares the ground for a long time. And he also prepares in advance his chosen one for his major deeds. The third power of his kingdom - the apocalyptic harlot, we see how he prepared both according to the prophecies (according to 2 and 3 chapters of Revelation), and in reality. He trained, first of all, the founder and leader of this devilish force - Met. Sergius (Stragorodsky). To show who he is and how he performed a truly devilish act is the purpose of this article. This is due to the fact that with the abundance of what is written about him and the "church" he created, they usually forget about the main thing - the essence and origin of the MP.
Of course, the downfalls are not always caused by the character of a person and his convictions, for it is known that false prophets will try to deceive, "if possible, and the elect." In those terrible conditions, under the heel of the red beast, even the elect could fall. However, some moments in the biography of Met. Sergius speaks of his original inclination to infidelity to the truth, to non-hostility to the enemies of Christ. This main feature of the "woman sitting on the scarlet beast" is called a compromise, in contrast to the holy confession, firm to self-sacrifice standing in fidelity to the truth, to God.
Still, being the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in the first years of his episcopacy in 1901-05, he timely warns a revolutionary student who was threatened with arrest for participating in riots against the Tsar and Orthodoxy. During these years, he presides over the "Religious and Philosophical Assemblies", which after the eleventh meeting were banned by the government for the revolutionary spirit; Later, the leaders of the revolutionary movement in the Church, in particular, Bp. Antonin (Granovsky), prot. Alexander Vvedensky and himself.
Mourning the sacrifices of January 9, 1905, Bishop Sergius (at that time) blames the government, but does not mention a word about the intrigues of hidden enemies who deceived the people to submit a "petition" to the Tsar, walking in a crowd of three hundred thousand people. And what would have happened if these people, led by the Bolsheviks and the Jewish party Bund, had been admitted to the palace square, and with such a petition, in which, after tears about their bitter fate, the demand begins: “Isn't it better for us to die for all the working people? Let the capitalists and officials live and enjoy. They immediately ordered to convene the representatives of the Russian land ... They ordered that the elections to the Constituent Assembly take place under the condition of universal secrecy and an equal vote, this is our most important and only plaster for our wounds. ". "Command and swear to fulfill them ... But if you do not command, you will not respond to our request, we will die here on this square in front of your palace.".
As you can see, in this "petition", despite the whiny tone, collected not requests to improve the life of the working people, but the demands of freedom to overthrow the government. Since when has the worker become "the main and only plaster ... for wounds" - the rule of elections?
But Bp. Sergius cries out about this, blaming the Tsar and his government for everything that happened on January 9, 1905, and not the intrigues of enemies.
At the time the Provisional Government came to power, the new chief prosecutor V. Lvov expelled from the Synod all members with monarchical convictions and left only Archbishop Sergius, taking into account his non-hostility to the revolution; he also instructs him to gather and head a new Synod. Now the future leaders of Renovationism also found themselves in the Synod. But the convictions of the builder of "flexible policy" were most clearly manifested in the years of the Renovationist turmoil, prepared and carried out by the intrigues of the reigning Bolsheviks.
The communists, seeing little success in their struggle against the kingdom of God - the Orthodox Church, decide to infiltrate their agents into it and seize power in it. To do this, they arrest Patriarch Tikhon, and just five days later, revolutionaries in robes prepared by the Bolshevik GPU come to him: Archpriests Alexander Vvedensky and Vladimir Krasnitsky, priests Alexander Boyarsky and Yevgeny Belkov and psalm-reader Stadnik. These "leaders" tried to accuse the Holy Patriarch of the collapse of the Church of "inability to get along with the authorities" and proposed to transfer the government to another hierarch, pledging on their part to mediate in the transfer of powers. The Patriarch gave them the keys to the chancellery so that they could hand them over to Met. Yaroslavl Agafangel (Preobrazhensky), whom he entrusted to take the post of Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal throne, not hoping to come out alive from the Bolshevik dungeons, like St. martyr Tsar Nicholas II Alexandrovich.
However, these persons found Bp. Antonina (Granovsky) and bishop. Leonid Vernensky, already known for their revolutionary views, and together with them announced the Higher Church Administration (VTsU). In a matter of days, quite a lot of like-minded people joined them, of whom they recruited 56 representatives to seize power on the ground. Christ had only one Judas out of 12, and the servants of Satan immediately find more than fifty such Judas. Among those who joined the VTsU, one of the first was Met. Sergius (Stragorodsky). At the sight of such revolutionary efficiency, he and Archbishop. Seraphim (Meshcheryakov) and Archbishop. Evdokim (Meshchersky) publishes the so-called "Memorandum of Three" - an appeal to all hierarchs to submit to the revolutionary VTsU - "the only canonical church authority" (June 16, 1922). Also and further, he called all his treacherous acts "the only canonical".
Troubles in the Church by this so-called. "Renovationist schism" produced a great one. In 1923 they assembled their "Sobor", at which they revolutionary deprived of patron. Tikhon of all dignities and positions, and even monasticism, developed many illegal rules in the form of a married episcopate, bigamy of priests, a new calendar style, Russian in divine services, and others. In conclusion, Tikhon received news one more gloomy than the other. He, seeing the catastrophic situation of the Church, decides to take upon himself the sin: he goes from himself, but not from the Church, for reconciliation with the Soviet regime. Of course, one should not despair and not go for it, but he made this sacrifice, finding it necessary to get the Church out of the impasse.
This gave him freedom on June 25, and at the very first divine service from the ambo, and then in the Epistle, he carried out a true judgment on the Renovationists. From that moment on, the enemy foundations began to crumble: the parishes of the Renovationists began to empty out and go over to the faithful Church; bishops and priests began to return with repentance, among whom was Metr. Sergius. Patriarch Tikhon, for some reason, accepted Met. Sergius in his existing rank. Everyone thinks this is his mistake. And this was revealed a year later in a new retreat of Sergius.
December 20, 1924, Met. Sergius writes his draft of the future Council and his view of the future church policy in a revolutionary spirit, even in a more open manner than in his future Declaration. And he gives it to E. Tuchkov, who was instructed by the GPU to deal with the "liquidation of religion." Why he submitted not to the Patriarch, not to the Synod, but to the GPU is not clear. But she clearly served to elect him three years later to the great traitors to the Church.
After this, Met. Sergius is waging a canonically unsubstantiated struggle for power with 10 bishops headed by bishop. Gregory (Yatskovsky) and wins, sending them all banned. Then he does the same in relation to Met. Agafangel, who returned from exile, and has full canonical right to rule the Church, which he received twice: by the testament of Patriarch Tikhon, and even earlier by order to take power when the Renovationists appeared. Further, for the full preparation of the highest Judas, the GPU took him to the Lubyanka, where they brought him up for several months.
In April 1927, Met. Sergius was released, and immediately it became clear to everyone that his stay under arrest was not useless ... for the enemies of the faith. He comes out with a complete "upbringing" and with a large load of rewards of as many as 30 pieces of silver - a number of privileges. He immediately received a "blessing" to move from Nizhny Novgorod to Moscow, received permission and the opportunity to create his own Synod, although he had no canonical right to do so. This provoked protests from many prominent bishops: Met. Cyril, Met. Joseph and others. Since the Synod is created by the Local Council, and not by one person, even if only by the legitimate First Hierarch.
Already this alarmed all the bishops. Everyone expected from Metropolitan Sergius his main criminal steps, and they soon followed. The first part of the payment from him for the "mercy" shown to him was the release of the notorious "Declaration", entitled "A Message to Shepherds and Flock" dated July 29, 1927... This day has every right to be considered the birthday of the MP, as a "harlot", "wife" sitting on a crimson beast, "a satanic gathering." Although, we must make a reservation that the first step of this Judaic act was the one about which he himself announces in his "message": the accusation of all the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) in anti-Bolshevik speeches. He writes: “To put an end to this, we demanded from the foreign clergy to give a written commitment of complete loyalty to the Soviet government in all their public activities. Those who have not given such an obligation or have violated it will be excluded from the clergy under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. "
And he did it! When the clergy of the ROCOR, one of its parts, ruled by the Synod in Sremski Karlovtsy (Serbia), headed by Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) refused such a subscription, being not under Soviet rule, it was banned, actually torn away, along with the flock, from church unity against their wishes and without their fault. The North American Diocese, headed by Met. Plato and Paris, ruled by Met. Eulogius, gave an evasive answer and were temporarily left by Sergius without a ban. But they were also "excommunicated" a few years later for participating in ecumenical memorial services for those killed by the Bolsheviks and for praying for those persecuted by them.
This, I must say, is terrible! For refusing to swear allegiance to the crimson beast - excommunication. It seems that this step could only be made by an unbeliever, or even a deviant person. Of course, by listing the canonical rules and moral norms that have been violated, one cannot fully express the very spirit of his betrayal.
The main thing, Met. Sergius, famous for his scholarship, is probably well aware or should have known that the Soviet government can in no way be a "Caesar", a legal state formation, since it received power not through succession from legitimate government, nor through free popular election, but through coup is a robbery seizure. In addition, since the declaration of militant atheism as its state religion and the introduction of the godless one-party system, it has shown itself not as Caesar, but as the Antichrist. Therefore, the declaration of their non-hostility to her is nothing more than the worship of the "crimson beast." Under the dictatorship of one party or one leader with a God-fighting orientation, loyalty on the part of the Church of Christ is a direct betrayal of Christ, the transition to the camp of Satan of all those who signed this. Further, not hostility to the one-party system with an anti-religious orientation is a voluntary renunciation of freedom of preaching, of fulfilling the Savior's covenant: "Go teach all the nations", because in this case one party speaks and teaches, moreover the theomachy, while the rest all listen and unquestioningly carry out its orders. The text of his declaration shows his recognition of the legality and simple citizenship of the Bolshevik regime, which he calls his own.
“It is all the more necessary for us now to show that we are church leaders, not with enemies our Soviet state and not with the insane instruments of their intrigues, but with our people and the government ... This is the first purpose of our message to testify. ”
Met. Sergius here forces us to recognize the Soviet Union not as a Bolshevik godless power, in which we found ourselves spiritually captives, but as our civil homeland, i.e. advises to put on blue glasses and believe that everything is painted not at all in devilish red, but in heavenly.
“We want to be Orthodox and at the same time recognize Sov. Union our civil homeland, whose joys and successes are our joys and successes, and failures are our failures».
Yes, indeed, it is difficult to combine: to be Orthodox and to have the joy of the success of the Antichrist kingdom in the world revolution, which the Bolsheviks dreamed of at that time, or in building the kingdom of Satan in power - communism.
This Judean "Declaration" and the subscription of all the clergy to it provoked a general protest. The most prominent hierarchs began to turn to Metropolitan Sergius with protests and exhortations to return to the legal Orthodox path. This question was addressed to him by the Hieromartyr Bishop. Damascene (Tsedrik), who in a letter begged him to repent and return to faithfulness to God:
“My two questions are:
1. Do you think, Your Eminence, that your decision is the voice of the conciliar hierarchical consciousness of the Russian Church?
2. Do you have grounds to consider your personal authority sufficient to oppose it to a host of venerable hierarchs who do not at all share your point of view?
You, Your Eminence, did not give me an answer, which led me then into extreme embarrassment. "
The answer to his questions is clear for every sane person: he had no right to make a "statement" on behalf of the whole Church: he did not have the consent of the entire episcopate either to his accession or to the implementation of his innovations, which went to the detriment of the whole Church and caused general disagreement. If, even for the nomination of a candidate for the episcopate, the consent of all the bishops of the "region" - the local Church, is required, then what can be said about the introduction of a new church policy? The conciliar mind of the Church is manifested even in the proclamation of "axios" (worthy) at ordination. Met. Sergius, however, completely trampled on the dogma of the conciliarity of the Church.
Innovations that were not coordinated with anyone also appear in divine services: He introduces his name along with the name of the Locum Tenens into commemoration, which was already unacceptable to many, especially after his seizure of power and the publication of the "Declaration." Then follows a decree abolishing the annual commemoration on January 25 / February 7 of all those tortured and killed by the communists, established by the Local Council in 1918. This provision could only be abolished by an equal Council. Further, he introduces a special petition into the litany: "We also pray for our God-protected country, its authorities and army, and let us live a quiet and serene life in all piety and purity." Every word is a poisonous lie!
The words "about our God-protected country" simply mock the feelings of the praying Russians. What is their "preservation" in those terrible days, when Russia was trampled by enemies of all truth, when blood flowed like a river, when everyone lived under the fear that they would be arrested on any night and taken away to no one knows where. I would like to answer this soothing lie with the words of the ancient judge Gideon: "If the Lord is with us, then why did all this calamity befall us?"(Judg. 6.3).
And what is the point in praying for the Bolshevik government, expressed in the words "for the authorities"? Did he wish the Bolsheviks a prosperous reign on the throne seized by a robbery and success in their bloodthirsty aspirations? Or success in the destruction of the Orthodox faith, because everyone saw at that time that this was the purpose of the accession of the "beast"? And he ordered their army to beg for nothing more than the conquest of world domination, for all the aspirations of the Bolsheviks at that time were to accomplish a world revolution.
In the same year, after the introduction of all the innovations, at the direction of the Bolsheviks, the dismissal of the exiled bishops and the transfer of bishops to other departments began, while the local authorities, on instructions from above, refused to register the newly sent one, and the objectionable bishop was left out of business.
All this, and even more so the "Declaration" with the obligatory signature under it, aroused protests from almost all the clergy. As Abbot of the MP John (Snychev) (later “Metropolitan of Leningrad”) writes in his master's work “Oppositions of Met. Sergius ”that out of 5,000 copies of the“ Declaration ”sent to dioceses and parishes, many returned back with negative responses and protests, while in some regions the percentage of returned“ Declarations ”reached 90%. Most of the bishops and priests, protesting against the compulsory signing of this Declaration, refused to commemorate Met. Sergius. The oldest and most worthy (legitimate candidates for the tenure) metropolitans separated from him: Cyril of Kazan, Agafangel of Yaroslavl and Joseph of Petrograd with their vicar bishops, also bishop. Victor (Ostrovidov), bishop Alexy (Bui), almost all exiled, sent to rest, languishing on Solovetsky Island (most of 26). The ratio of opponents and supporters of Met. Sergius is this: out of 150 bishops who were numbered in 1927, “more than 80 bishops are separated from him, 17 positions require clarification, although there is every reason to believe that they did not share the line of Met. Sergius, 8 bishops initially did not support the line of Met. Sergius, although over time they changed their minds "(" Pravoslavnaya Rus ", 14, 97). The rest either supported Met. Sergius, or there is no data about them.
So, Met. Sergius expressed an arrogantly open lie, calling his "Declaration" "a statement of the Church itself."
Sergius, instead of turning back, on the contrary, aggravated the evil: he began to apply repressive measures against opponents of his course. Now the persecution of those who disagreed with his new church policy began to be carried out both on his part and on the part of his patrons in the Kremlin: he banned his opponents, and the Bolsheviks distributed them to prisons and exile as enemies of Soviet power. So on April 11, 1928, Met. Sergius sends a ban for refusing to subscribe under the "Declaration" of Met. Joseph (Petrov) and Archbishop. Seraphim (Samoilovich). And by 1929 many more were already deprived of their freedom: Archbishop. Varlaam (Ryashentsev) and the bishops: Victor (Ostrovidov), Alexy (Bui), Dmitry (Lyubimov), Maxim (Zhizhilenko), Illarion (Belsky), Damaskin (Tsedrik), Sergius (Druzhinin), Pavel (Kratirov) and others. in camps and exiles previously convicted, disagreeing with Sergius, and if one of them was released after the expiration of the term, then only for a very short time. Hundreds of priests and thousands of laity followed to camps and prisons for the same "guilt." The words of Revelation ap. John were justified at the Sergian MP: “I saw that the wife was intoxicated with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses of Jesus, and when I saw her, I was amazed at great wonder” (Ot.17: 6).
The faithful people who remained at large were ruled by bishops Sergius (Druzhinin), Alexy (Buy), who were leaving the camps for a time, and sometimes directly by bishops who were in prison. From that moment on, the Church began to go into the catacombs, being ruled by secretly ordained priests.
Now, looking through the pages of the past, one has to puzzle over what Metr. Sergius by surrendering the spiritual positions of the Church? Why, even at the sight of the bloody step of the Bolsheviks, believed in their normality, hoped for normalization of relations with them and for a return to the peaceful life of the Church? Perhaps he did not want to see them as a "crimson beast", tried to convince himself and others that this was "Caesar" for fear of losing power, getting to Solovki, and being shot.
Met. Sergius hoped to get the prosperity of his church at a terrible cost, but the erroneousness of his hopes was quickly revealed: the Bolsheviks, having dealt with the unwanted under his cover and with his help, by inertia began to deal with those who remained crouched before them. These are the data given by Sergian
“The current ROC is not real, it was established by Stalin,” - this is one of the most popular anti-clerical formulations that sound today in the media space. Indeed, in 1943, the policy of the state towards the Church changed dramatically. Did the Church itself change?
Metropolitans Sergius (Stragorodsky), Alexy (Simansky), Nikolai (Yarushevich) surrounded by bishops at the Bishops' Council. 1943 g.
Unbreakable bond
Before answering this question, you should clarify the key concepts. When we talk about the Church, we can talk about both the divine-human organism, the Head of which is Christ Himself, and the earthly organization of believers, headed by the church hierarchy. It cannot be said that the Church-organism and the Church-organization are not related phenomena. But obviously they are not the same. As long as the church organization keeps the Orthodox faith and the canonical order pure, it is an earthly continuation of the divine-human organism of the Church, the Body of Christ. In the event of a loss of the purity of faith and damage to the foundations of the canonical system, this connection is broken, an example of which are various heretical and sectarian communities, which can be very strong organizationally (for example, Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses).
It is clear that Stalin was not involved in the Church-organism (except perhaps in childhood, when he was still raised as a believer and participated in Church Sacraments, but then he was still Dzhugashvili, not Stalin). No historical vicissitudes, no Stalinists can influence the Church as the Body of Christ. There is no need to prove this. Obviously, when they say “Stalin established the ROC MP,” they mean precisely the earthly church organization. Is it so? To understand what the Russian Orthodox Church is as an organization, you need a little historical excursion.
After the Baptism of Rus, our church organization took shape as a metropolitanate of the Church of Constantinople and existed in this form until the middle of the 15th century. Then, as a result of the falling away of (temporary) Constantinople from Orthodoxy in connection with the Florentine Union, the Russian Church becomes autocephalous. Like the Byzantine emperors, the supreme patrons of the Church were the Moscow grand dukes, and then the tsars. As a result of the reforms of Peter the Great, the church organization is being optimized in the spirit of that time. The Patriarchate is abolished, and the Holy Synod is established in its place. The reform is very significant and unprecedented in its own way, but it did not violate church self-identity: the Russian Orthodox Church remained the Russian Orthodox Church both under the Holy Synod and under the sovereign-emperor as its earthly head. It did not lose the purity of the Orthodox faith and did not damage the foundations of the canonical system (unlike the Catholic Church, which does not think of itself without the papacy, the Orthodox Church may well exist without the patriarchate), and therefore, as it was, it remained a continuation of the divine-human church organism in the Russian earth.
Illegal Church
The newest period in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church as an organization began in 1917. After the fall of the autocracy, the old synodal system could no longer be preserved. Meeting for the first time in more than two centuries, the Local Council restored the patriarchate and adopted a whole volume of definitions in accordance with which the further organizational life of the Russian Orthodox Church was to be built. In particular, in accordance with these definitions, all-Russian councils were to be held every three years, the patriarch was to govern the Church not alone, but at the head of collegial co-governing bodies - the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council. The ruling bishops were to be elected with the participation of the clergy and laity of the diocese, in the diocesan administration an important role was assigned to the elected diocesan councils, and in the parish, respectively, to the parish councils. These definitions assumed that the life of the Church would proceed in a more or less calm atmosphere, without outside interference.
The intervention, however, was not long in coming, and in the most aggressive form. Even during the Council's work, the new Soviet government and its local adherents launched an open persecution of the Church. This led, in particular, to the fact that the elected collegiate bodies of church administration soon ceased to exist, and after the death of His Holiness Tikhon in 1925, there was no way to elect a new patriarch either. The patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), stood at the head of the Russian Church, in accordance with the will of Patriarch Tikhon, and eight months later, after the arrest of the holy martyr Peter, in accordance with his will, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) became the deputy patriarchal locum tenens. It should be noted that the transfer of the highest ecclesiastical authority with the help of individual wills is not consistent with the canons, but in the extreme situation of those years, the ecclesiastical conscience calmly accepted this method of preserving church-organizational succession, especially since the Orthodox people looked at the authors of these wills as outstanding confessors.
At the same time, the church organization headed by the Moscow Patriarchate, and under Patriarch Tikhon, and under Metropolitan Peter, and at first under Metropolitan Sergius was illegal. This does not mean that it acted underground, but the Soviet government did not recognize it and in every possible way prevented the Orthodox hierarchy (as opposed to the renovationist hierarchy) from fulfilling its canonical duties. The desire to achieve elementary rights for the Orthodox church organization prompted Metropolitan Sergius in 1927 to accept the conditions of legalization proposed by the authorities. These conditions were very difficult. In fact, both external and internal church activities were placed under the control of the state security organs. At the same time, questions of purely doctrinal and canonical Soviet power did not bother, in them it did not interfere, did not demand, for example, to ordain bishops as presbyters, and even more so, to recognize in Christ two hypostases or something else of that kind.
A blow to the Church
The compromise with the authorities, which Metropolitan Sergius made, dealt a strong blow to the moral authority of the Moscow Patriarchate; many remarkable ascetics, such as, for example, the first, according to the testament of Patriarch Tikhon, the candidate for patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov), came into opposition to him. The imprisoned head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Peter, also considered the course of his deputy inappropriate and urged him to correct the mistake. The tragedy of the situation was aggravated by the fact that the policy of Metropolitan Sergius did not bring any relief to the Church, the persecution only intensified, reaching an unprecedented scale in history during the years of the “Great Terror” (1937-1938). By the beginning of World War II, the Church in Russia was organizationally almost completely destroyed, for the entire USSR there were only four bishops in the cathedra, including Metropolitan Sergius himself, and several hundred functioning churches.
However, for all its seductiveness, the policy of Metropolitan Sergius did not make the church organization headed by him without grace. The Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church are not the same thing, just as they are not the same Russia and the Council of People's Commissars. The Orthodox creed and the foundations of the canonical system were not damaged by the compromise of Metropolitan Sergius with the authorities, and the personal sins of hierarchs, even the highest ones, remain their personal sins, for which they are responsible before God Himself. Of course, there is nothing good when a clergyman does not have the proper authority among his flock, morally unworthy behavior can alienate people from him, but in itself this does not yet make the Sacraments performed through him without grace. This is the teaching of the Church, formulated even during the polemics with the Donatists in the 4th-5th centuries.
To this we must add that there is something good to say about Metropolitan Sergius. For example, he was a real monk, none of his opponents could throw him accusations of non-asceticism. He also had many merits as a church scientist and administrator (he did not deal with only political issues, being at the head of the Moscow Patriarchate, but tried, for example, to facilitate the ways of reuniting with the Old Believers). He made a compromise with the authorities proceeding from the interests of the Church, although they were understood in a rather specific way. He received the highest ecclesiastical power not from the hands of godless rulers, but was called to it by the patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Peter, who, although he recognized his policy as erroneous, did not announce the removal of him from the post of deputy locum tenens. After the martyrdom of Metropolitans Peter and Kirill in 1937, there were no other candidates for patriarchal locum tenens, except for Metropolitan Sergius. Finally, one cannot remain silent about the fact that the host of new martyrs and confessors of Russia to a large extent consists of those who did not separate from him, as from the head of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Rebirth under control
Now, finally, we come to 1943, when, according to some, “Stalin established the ROC MP”. What exactly happened then? For political reasons caused by the World War, Stalin realized that it was more profitable for him not to destroy the church organization, but to use it in his own interests. The outwardly strong Moscow Patriarchate responded to these interests, appearing before the whole world in support of the policy of the Soviet government. It was then that the Bishops' Council of 19 people was urgently convened (to those who survived the "great terror" at large, a dozen and a half bishops were added who were released from prison and ordained during the war years). Metropolitan Sergius was proclaimed patriarch, the Synod was reestablished, and the systematic replacement of the vacant bishops' chairs began. Following this, theological schools were revived, albeit in a limited number, which had been liquidated in the first years of Soviet power. Monasteries (with the exception of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, they were all located in the territories that had been under German occupation) received the right to exist. The military restoration of the organizational structure of the Russian Orthodox Church was mainly completed at the Local Council of 1945, which elected Patriarch Alexy I and adopted the "Regulations on the Administration of the ROC", which was in effect with amendments until 1988.
Of course, giving consent to the revival of the church organization, the Soviet government took care to ensure maximum control over it. A special Council for the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR was established. The Moscow Patriarchate had to coordinate all issues of interest to the authorities with the staff of this Council, and on the ground, the bishops had to reckon with the representatives of the Council, who were appointed in all regions where there were active churches. The very "Regulation on the management of the ROC" before it was adopted by the Council, was considered and approved by the Council of People's Commissars. Of course, this "Statute" was markedly different from the resolutions on church administration adopted by the Council of 1917-1918.
Flipped page
Does all this mean that "Stalin established the ROC MP"? Does not mean. Stalin did not put the future patriarchs Sergius and Alexy as bishops; they received their appointments even before the revolution (the consecration of Bishop Alexy in 1913, by the way, was headed by Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch). Some other bishops, participants in the Councils of 1943 and 1945, were placed in the patriarchate of His Holiness Tikhon - Saint Luke (Voino-Yasenetsky), for example. A considerable part of those who in 1920-1930 returned to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. was in opposition to Metropolitan Sergius (though not many of them had a chance to survive the Stalinist pre-war "Great Terror"). The most striking name among them is St. Athanasius (Sakharov). There were priests who were ordained underground before the war, after the war who went out to open ministry, for example, Fr. Sergiy Nikitin is the future Bishop Stephen. There were Russian bishops and priests from emigrants who also recognized the Moscow Patriarchate and reunited with it in the 1940s, for example, Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev). None of them was a Stalinist creature, like thousands of other ascetics who were and remained members of the Russian Orthodox Church, regardless of Stalin or other rulers of the world.
And the fact that the external forms of church organization were built in accordance with the requirements of the Soviet regime means not so much. These forms have always, in one way or another, adapted to the conditions of the existence of the Church. Other local Churches also did not avoid this kind of adjustment to the environment (one can write a lot of sad things about the Patriarchate of Constantinople on this topic - much more than about the Moscow Patriarchate). As soon as the Soviet power weakened, at the Local Council of 1988 a new "Statute on the Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church" was adopted, in the development of which (and the developer was Archbishop Kirill of Smolensk and Vyazemsk - our current Patriarch), the resolutions of the Council were also taken into account. 1917-1918 The Soviet page of history has been turned over, and if there were accomplices of the atheist power in the church ranks, then they were not at all the main heroes of the Russian Church of the 20th century, but the new martyrs and confessors of Russia. You can be sure that their solemn glorification was definitely not part of Stalin's plans. The connection between the Church-organization in Russia and the Church - the Body of Christ, the divine-human organism - has not been destroyed. The history of the Church during the period of communist persecution, of course, must be studied without closing one's eyes to its unpleasant pages, but they must be evaluated soberly and, moreover, not speculated with them.
Why and what is the MP heresy and false church?
Let's start with the most important thing - the name. The Russian Orthodox Church has never existed in history. Until 1917, there was the Russian Church (it was fully called the Greek-Russian Local Orthodox Eastern Church). About 100 (even more) years before the Revolution, there was no Patriarch in Russia. Tsar Nikolai Alexandrovich offered himself as Patriarch (and at the end of history it will be so that our Tsar will also be the Head of the Russian Church) - however, the then Churchmen (among them the future heresiarchs) refused to do this.
There are two main main heresies in the ROC MP:
1. Name
2. Sergianism. With the justification of the Soviet Power and the Tyrant-Stalin.
There are ecclesiological heresies (from the Greek word εκλεσσια - church, as a collection of Believers):
3. Violation of the dogma of the infallibility of the Church
4.ecumenism, mechanically connecting all heretical gatherings together
5.ecumenism, which divides the Church into various branches, which supposedly contains the fragmented truth and grace
6.Church Modernism and Renovationism
7. calendar heresy or new style (mainly for foreign parishes "MP")
8. The heresy of automatism, confessing that the grace of God passes through the hierarchs of the church automatically, regardless of their heresies, delusions, impiety and grave sins
9. The heresy of regalism, perverting the teaching of the Church about the ministry of the king
10. A heresy of kingship that ascribes to the king a non-existent atonement for his people
11. The heresy of the non-expectant, proclaiming the unity of Christians with the sons of the synagogue and borrowing some of the ideas of apostate Judaism
12. Heresy of Judaism, proclaiming Jews to be the culprits of all the troubles of the Russian people and professing zoological anti-Semitism
13. The heresy of Russian nationalism, which puts the nation higher and more important than the Church
14. The heresy of patriotism, placing the earthly fatherland and its interests above the Church and the heavenly Fatherland
15. Heresy of practical concelebration with heretics condemned by the Church and the "theological" justification of these concelebrations
There are private opinions and heresies of certain false bishops and false priests of this false church:
anti-apocalypticism, which assures that one should not read and think about the events of the end of this world, because there is still a lot of time before these events;
false apocalypse, asserting that the INN and barcodes are the seal of the beast and that it should zealously fight against these phenomena;
false conciliarity, which considers that the conciliarity of the Church is manifested in the meetings of bishops or hierarchy and laity;
the heresy of sophianism;
the heresy of the "archpriest" A. Me;
heresy of the MDA professor Osipov;
heresy of the "priest" G. Kochetkov;
different opinions of Protestant heretics, Gnostics, agnostics and other false teachers
The grave deeds of the "hierarchs" of the "MP" include:
cooperation with special agencies of the godless state and submission to them as agents;
sale of sacraments and rituals for money;
the sin of simony (ordination for a bribe) and ordination through the indication of godless authorities;
justification by some "bishops" and "blessing" of the activities of psychics and folk healers (ie sorcerers), such as, for example, John Snich;
young age and pseudo-old age;
the imposition of ritualism;
justification of the Old Believer split;
allowing Roman Catholics to receive communion in the churches of the MP, commemorating the Pope of Rome at services, allowing Catholic priests and other heretics to serve;
false canonization of unholy persons;
worship of demonic phenomena under the guise of massive myrrh streams of icons and photographs;
false exorcism;
incomplete baptismal immersion;
lack of proper preaching teaching repentance and salvation;
approval and distribution of heretical literature;
the hierarchs engage in mundane businesses, including vodka, tobacco, oil, real estate, diamonds, and jewelry;
trade in things in temples;
sodomy and ritual sodomy among bishops, in monasteries and among the white "clergy";
commemoration of the health and repose of Soviet and other godless leaders;
trampling on images of crosses and the use of false symbols in temples (pentagram, hexagram, etc.).
So, as we can see, the ROC-MP has a huge track record. There is a certain note to paragraphs 12-14, although in principle everything should be immediately clear here.
Istanbul has declared war on Moscow. The primate of Constantinople conceived an unheard-of audacity: to demote the Moscow Patriarchate to metropolitanate, while giving the Kiev throne the status of a "single Russian patriarchy." The meaning of this manipulation is to return the Phanar to its long-lost status as a universal Orthodox arbiter. But will this slippery business burn out for His Holiness Vladyka Bartholomew?
Having dispatched two exarchs to Kiev to prepare autocephaly - the proclamation in Ukraine of a single local church that does not correspond to the Moscow Patriarchate - Bartholomew did not seem to expect how harsh the reaction of the ROC would be. Not only was the ecumenical patriarch no longer remembered in prayers, that according to church canons, practically the bottom, behind which anathema looms, Moscow also announced a threat to the entire world Orthodoxy and an impasse in relations with the throne of Constantinople. Churchmen are not diplomats, and they choose expressions much more biased, trying to avoid harsh language as much as possible. And here the Synod makes a statement that is unparalleled in its harshness, and it is hard to believe that the point here is only in Ukrainian autocephaly.
Someone else's success as a reason for envy
In 1686, Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople recognized Moscow as a comprehensive right to Ukrainian lands. Thus, the reunification of Ukraine with Russia in 1654 was followed by the restoration of the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church. Today, as Vladislav Petrushko, a professor at the St. Tikhon Orthodox Humanitarian University, notes, “Constantinople disavows all documents of the 17th century, according to which the Kiev Metropolitanate was transferred under the wing of the Moscow Patriarchate,” at the same time questioning the high status of the Moscow Patriarchate, although the Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church was granted not by Constantinople, but all local churches. And, in addition, Patriarch Bartholomew, as Ukrainian political scientist Rostislav Ishchenko rightly noted, “invaded someone else's canonical territory, accusing the ROC of provoking the Ukrainian schism, in fact putting pseudo-patriarch Denisenko, Metropolitan Onuphry and Patriarch Kirill on a par.” What caused such a sharp demarche on the throne of Constantinople?
Among the exarchs of world Orthodoxy, Bartholomew is ranked first among equals. After all, the throne of Constantinople is the oldest in the world. It is believed that it was founded by the Apostle Andrew the First-Called. But “oldest” does not mean that he is the richest and most influential. Here Moscow will give odds to all Orthodox thrones. And this infuriates Bartholomew, especially after the Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016, when Patriarch Kirill was rightly indignant at the fact that the exarchs “did not sit down that way”. In his opinion, everyone should have sat down at a round table, without emphasizing at the same time someone's great importance. And in the end they sat down so that Bartholomew was at the head of the table. But the way they sat down was the first call, but not a reason. And the reason was the rapprochement between Rome and Moscow. For years Bartholomew tried to build a special relationship with Rome, discussing every little thing for a long time. And Moscow managed to establish contacts, count, once or twice. And now His Holiness Pope Francis and Patriarch Cyril meet in Havana, while the churches strike up a dialogue without even asking what Phanar thinks about this. It's a shame, right? It is even more offensive that the Moscow patriarch, despite the fact that the church in Russia is separated from the state, is always in the forefront of the presidential retinue. And this is being advertised in every possible way, not to mention the complete expanse for church business, since the days of the ever-memorable Sofrino. And who does Patriarch Bartholomew feel in Muslim Istanbul? For Recep Erdogan, all those who live in Turkey are Turks, which means that Bartholomew is also a Turk, for nothing is a Greek. But for a Greek there is no more offense than to call him a Turk. And not only does the Turkish president not call the patriarch to court, he also suspects secret relations with the hated opposition leader Gülen and with the US CIA. Of course, we are not talking about any material handouts, not to mention freedom for business or handouts from the state budget for the construction of temples and so on. And here's another little touch: although the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" is fixed in a number of international legal acts, Ankara does not recognize the "ecumenical" status of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but only recognizes the status of "the head of the Turkish Orthodox community." And envy, as you know, is a feeling of terrible destructive power.
Throne of Constantinople, poor but greedy
The incident with the “wrong sat down”, among other things, highlighted a circumstance that was very unpleasant for Bartholomew. With an open visor, only the Bulgarian Church rushed into battle for him. The rest of the thrones, at best, made lenten mines - they say, it's not our business who and how sat at the cathedral. Even loyal Greeks with Romanians. And the Serbs and the Georgians somehow looked at the universal ruler not kindly. Well, the Serbs are understandable. But why did the Georgians turn out to be “for Kirill”? They seem to be against Moscow in everything now? It turns out, not in everything. The Georgian church is one of the oldest. And the ROC recognizes it as the fifth most important, while the throne of Constantinople is only the eighth. Georgians, of course, are painfully proud of themselves. That's the whole explanation for you. In addition, you cannot ask the Ecumenical Patriarch for a loan - in his treasury the last church mouse died of hunger long ago. And in Moscow money is uncountable. And those who behave correctly - like the Ethiopians, for example - can always ask for help to open new parishes. They say, by the way, that behind the real Orthodox expansion in Africa in the last few years there are exclusively Moscow money, but this is a topic for a special conversation.
Literally until recently, the Greek Church “for Bartholomew” “drowned”. But the appointment of two exarchs of Constantinople to Ukraine unexpectedly changed the traditional alignment: Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythyra and Antikythera recognized Bartholomew's actions as a blow to church canons and expressed unanimity with Moscow's position. The Greek Orthodox community smelled of schism. Maslitsa adds to the fact that many Greeks (especially for some reason Pontic) consider Bartholomew a stranger, a “Turk”, and tend to focus on the church domes of Orthodox Moscow, and not on the minarets of mosques in Mohammedan Istanbul.
Such is the alignment today in Orthodoxy. One should not think that Moscow does not know about him and for Patriarch Kirill the actions of his colleague Bartholomew are a "treacherous attack" on the canonical lands of the Moscow throne. Rather, it is a good reason for a retaliatory demarche, after which Orthodoxy, if it splits, then not even into equal parts. At best, the Bulgarians and the Greeks will be behind Bartholomew (the latter, however, is not a fact, given the demarche of Metropolitan Seraphim and the obvious affection of sacred Athos for Moscow). But if you play for sure, having agreed on the little things with Ankara, there will be little room for Bartholomew in Istanbul. Then the Most Holy Vladyka looks at Kiev - with great hope.
Vladimir SHMALIY, former secretary of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission:
- Frankly, I did not believe that Constantinople would act as we see now. My mistake was to overestimate the religious factor in the motives of the Phanar, in particular, the fact that they take their role as the guardian of the unity of Orthodoxy seriously. Greek nationalists with open hatred treat any mention of the idea of the Third Rome, they see this as an attempt to undermine the idea of restoring the Second Rome - Constantinople, if not in the role of the capital of the Byzantine Empire, then at least in the role of a sort of "Orthodox Vatican". In the light of this nationalist strategy, Phanar's actions look completely logical. The Patriarchate of Constantinople attempted to destroy the Moscow Patriarchate, recognizing the Renovationist split. And now the Ukrainian conflict and Russia's difficult international position allow Constantinople to deliver a sharp and precise blow.
Kiev's "symbolic jurisdiction" over Russia
The situation in Ukraine is as follows. President Petro Poroshenko, fencing off Moscow in all directions, cherishes the dream of a local church. But to whom should the tomos of autocephaly be given? The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate does not ask for this. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate is anathematized schismatics, with whom the throne of Constantinople cannot deal with it. The Autocephalous Church is unrepresentative and inconspicuous. But for Bartholomew, such an alignment is just at hand. When forming a new local church, one can close our eyes to the fact that hierarchs from the UOC (KP) will move into it. Removing the anathema is troublesome, but who's stopping you from changing the sign over the brothel? But the new church, which the Ukrainian president will receive under personal control, will owe everything to the ecumenical patriarch. And, it is possible, will become his new throne. There is no way to go anywhere: you will oshuyu from Poroshenko, like Kirill from Putin. And the Ukrainians are a much more church-going people than the Russians. So mentally Bartholomew was already frozen a step away from the greatness that overtook him.
And then - more. There is an opinion that autocephaly fell to the Russian Saint Jonah in the 15th century, as they say, out of order. It was not Muscovite Rus that should receive it, but Lithuania. This opinion is not exactly popular, but in world Orthodoxy (in fairness, let's clarify - in Greek and Bulgarian) and it takes place. And if so, it makes sense to replay the situation: return Moscow the status of metropolitanate, and crown the new Russian patriarch on the throne in Kiev. Russian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate - how do you like it? There is little to do - to provoke an official split. What Bartholomew is doing today is not without success. “I won’t be surprised if the Patriarchate of Constantinople is hatching plans to transfer symbolic jurisdiction over Russia to the projected Ukrainian church structure,” notes theology candidate Volodymyr Shmaly. "Of course, if Bartholomew manages to provoke a long-term split." “The goal of the autocephalous Ukrainian campaign of Constantinople,” the expert continues, “is not Ukraine, but“ squeezing ”the Moscow Patriarchate out of the community of Orthodox local churches, in which Bartholomew wants to play the role of either the Byzantine emperor or the Eastern pope. In Phanar, they delivered an accurate and calculated blow. If Moscow resigns itself to the actions of Constantinople, then it will thereby recognize the whole theory and argumentation of the throne of Constantinople for the last 100 years. If the ROC (MP) breaks off communication with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, this will be presented as a split and actions will be taken to consolidate this status. "
Ukrainian autocephaly is profitable not momentarily, but with an eye on the centuries, says political scientist Lev Vershinin, “because it brings Phanar from the level of“ rudiment ”to the level of“ universal arbiter ”. In 10–20 years, which is not a time for the church, the jurisdiction of the Kiev Patriarchate over the Moscow Metropolitanate will become a fact - first "symbolically" and then real. It remains only to congratulate the current seminarians, who in their mature years will have to head the local autocephaly of Siberia, the Urals and the Far East. "
Renat KUZMIN, former deputy head of the Security Council of Ukraine:
- Poroshenko collected $ 25 million from Ukrainian businessmen to "grease" Bartholomew and speed up the provision of autocephaly. But of the collected 25 million, 15 disappeared somewhere - nothing sacred. In Istanbul, they found out about this, and Bartholomew did not come to Kiev to celebrate the 1030th anniversary of the baptism of Rus. But Poroshenko returned the money, at the same time arranging a meeting in July between the head of the American-Ukrainian diocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Dimitri, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Probably, some promises were given to Bartholomew personally - as you know, he dreams of moving from unfriendly Istanbul to Kiev. Thus, the prospect of bloodshed in Ukraine does not frighten Bartholomew at all.
Bartholomew "three percent"
So it goes. If Bartholomew is lucky, he will not sit in Istanbul, but in Kiev and lead the "universal Russian Orthodox Church" with the Moscow Metropolitan on the parcels. But if the Lord is merciful to Cyril, then everything will be the other way around, and if the Russian primate does not become "world-wide" in title, then he will certainly take his place at the head of the table at the next Pan-Orthodox Council. In Rome, they are already rubbing their hands, anticipating how the Orthodox mitres will crackle, and wondering who is more profitable to support in the dispute, Istanbul or Moscow. But, judging by the way the pope hurried to the meeting in Havana two years ago, having forgotten about all the separate agreements with the Primate of Constantinople, the choice is perhaps obvious. But how will the flock of the ROC (MP) perceive this choice?
And another question: how will the aggravation in the Orthodox world turn out for Ukraine? And without him, the situation there is critical: even if the Kiev defrocked Filaret will call for the seizure of the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate. And Moscow priests in Kiev, distinguished by their enviable humility when it comes to the Russian language, instantly lose their patience when it comes to church property. The Ukrainian flock is nervous, you won't have to call them twice. While the Moscow Patriarchate pretended to be far from politics, but against the background of the “divorce” from the throne of Constantinople and the prospect of the rise of Kiev, the attitude could radically change - right up to the formation of Orthodox people's guards. “For Ukraine, Bartholomew’s actions unambiguously mean a religious war, in which not streams, as before, but rivers of blood will flow,” states political scientist Rostislav Ishchenko. “As a result, the Ukrainian state will be destroyed, and the Phanar understands that they are provoking a terrible religious conflict, while acting on the side of schismatics and sectarians against the true Orthodox.”
No one can predict how the current confrontation in the Orthodox world will end. It would seem that Moscow should have acted more restrained - at least taking into account the prospects of what Ishchenko warns about above. But it seems that the Russian hierarchs have decided to go all the way - the prospect of "giving up" the throne of Constantinople once and for all is too tempting. “Bartholomew actually endowed himself with all the rights of the Pope, that is, he clearly proclaimed heresy and committed a deviation from the Orthodox faith,” proclaims Archpriest Andrei Novikov, a member of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate. “But the throne of Constantinople represents only 3% of the Orthodox land!” In general, the truth, as always, is ours. But how, in the end, God will be divided - is that so important?
