Press secretary of the patriarch: without spiritual healing, society will suffocate. Patriarchs and democracy

The end of August is golden time in Tashkent. It's still hot during the day; In some places, air conditioners are still humming, spitting out hot air onto the street. There is still plenty of fruit, and all the trash cans smell like sour watermelon. Full of melons: one is on the table, attracting wasps, the other is floating in a bucket or in the bathtub, cooling down. The question of what to serve for dessert does not arise. The gifts of nature alone can not only fill up a table, but fill up an entire room. But the heat has already subsided, the sky is as clear as water in a cooler, and the evenings are cool. Children play and finish playing last days: school is coming soon, notebooks, school rulers, white top - black bottom. And, of course, the approach of September 1st, Independence Day. Nightly rehearsals of the holiday: distant sounds of a phonogram, the sky illuminated by spotlights. The whole of Tashkent is covered in giant banners. Blocked roads, swearing drivers. In short, a holiday.

The beginning of autumn promised to be extremely successful for the president. Simply amazing. The country is calm, indicators are not bad, GDP is growing. In June, the Shanghai Seven met. The entire city center was licked and re-asphalted. Together with the Chinese, we opened a new railway line. The harvest of fruits and vegetables is not bad. So the Uzbek athletes made us happy, they brought gold and silver from Rio. But the main thing, of course, is the 25th anniversary. You don't even need to specify what. Everyone in Uzbekistan already knows. "To the 25th Anniversary of Independence." That's right, with a capital letter. “Mustakillik 25 yiligiga.” And flags, flags. Somewhat routine, but still jubilant.

Twenty-five years is no longer a joke, but a historical period. And all these twenty-five years he has been constantly leading the country... Well, yes, he is leading. And if we add two more years, when he was simply the first secretary, then twenty-seven. Age... Age, of course, made itself felt. Seventy-eight years is no joke either, especially when for a third of them you hold the cold and slippery helm of power.

It was officially announced on August 28, five days before the holiday. He is undergoing hospital treatment. Necessary. Complete. Medical. Examination. The city hung in anticipation. Outwardly everything is calm. The police are tense - but no more than usual. “Hello... What do you have in your bag?..” (This is before going down to the subway, as always). You open your bag as usual. “All the best...” (Police for last years became definitely polite).

The city froze, like it freezes computer program. Some functions are still being performed, the machine hums busily. But the picture on the monitor freezes and does not respond to the usual clicks. The “Holiday” program is switched off: rehearsals cease to be heard in the evenings, the usual fireworks do not thunder, and enthusiastic children do not scream. The sky remains empty, dark and not festive. ...Leave. Transfer all this leaden burden to young, fifty-year-olds. Did you want to steer? Steer... Finally, get some human rest. Stay at home, take a walk in the fresh air. Swim in the pool: one way, the other way... Watch Russian news. Re-watch “White Sun of the Desert.” Mentally sing along: “Your Honor, Lady Luck...” Play with grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Think about the soul. In recent years, he unexpectedly became more and more religious.

He had already thought about leaving more than once. In 2003, even a law was passed. The ex-president was provided with guarantees virtually equal to those of the current (future) one. Personal transport for yourself and family members, lifelong benefits. Country residence in the Kainarsay tract. Then he was about to leave several more times. Why didn’t he leave?.. Have you seen many presidents who left on their own, according to their personal, so to speak, desire? Among the former Soviets there is probably only one Boris. But there they put pressure on the man...

No, no one leaves the presidential chair of their own free will. There is only one elevator to it - the one up. And instead of the one down, there is an empty black shaft. And at the bottom there are no personal cars, no benefits, no Kainarsai dacha, but the dull concrete of ingratitude and oblivion. If this shaft even has a bottom.

Tashkent fell silent. Life has moved to social media. There, behind the dim light of the monitor, rumors were spread and refuted. Speculation was made and informed sources were cited. Loyal feelings and quite sincere sympathy were expressed. Older people, not familiar with networks, “Facebooked” live: in the kitchens, in transport, at work: “Have you heard?” - “Yes, he’s already dead!..” - “I hope the doctors there are good, they’ll cope somehow...” - “He’s a wise man, he probably foresaw everything for this case...” - “And here at home we’ve been discussing all morning: whether to leave - don’t leave...” The general tone is restrained concern. Confusion. On September 1, on the very holiday, the city turned ash-gray for several minutes. The streets and trees darkened, the glare on the statues went out. The eclipse lasted for several minutes. Then the sun came on again - still quite summer, the white sun of Tashkent. “Habit has been given to us from above, it is a substitute for happiness,” as the poet wrote, at whose school he once studied.

After twenty-seven years we got used to it. To the daily - morning and evening - blocking of streets while his motorcade was passing. To his clumsily photoshopped portraits on the front pages of newspapers. To his construction-monumental fantasies. To the endless “on the personal initiative of the president...”, “the president took the initiative...”, “thanks to the initiative he took...” And in recent years, these initiatives no longer caused formidable waves, as before. So, a small administrative ripple. It’s been a long time since anyone forced Russians to study Uzbek intensively. Business was no longer under pressure as in the late 1990s. The “bearded” (Islamists) were not caught en masse. The wounds healed after the Andijan riots. Over the course of twenty-seven years, several generations were born and raised who did not know another government, another yurtbashi. And for older people, almost a third of a century is also not a short period of time. The young ones turned grey. The elderly have become decrepit. The decrepit are gone, peace be upon them. Now it's his turn. Early in the morning, the third, the bell in the Assumption Cathedral began to ring heavily. Janaza, a funeral prayer, was read in mosques. A light cloudy scum was moving in the sky. A funeral procession moved through the center. People came out and walked on their own, there was no obligation. But there is no hint of a “walker”. Everything is quiet. Restrained. There are funerals on TV all day long. Farewell in Tashkent. Crowds, faces, flowers. Meeting in Samarkand. Crowds, Registan Square, red tigers on Sher Dor. Janaza. Three days of mourning were declared. Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" is heard through the open window. And a mournful announcer's voice muttering something. As one driver said today, for three days there is only a violin-pipe... At the markets, women sit right behind the counter, chopping yellow carrots. They come from organizations, buy, and buy more - for funeral pilaf.

School begins with the hour of remembrance. Children react sincerely - as children should react. “It turns out that Karimov really loved to dance...” “And he also gave us all a satchel and pens.” This is true. Each first-grader is given a colorful purple satchel and a pencil case - “a gift from the president.”

He left. Who was he? The dictator that some thought he was? Pragmatist and technocrat, as others wrote about him? A charming interlocutor, as others remember him? And one, and the other, and the third. And also fourth and fifth. Moderate, almost ascetic in everyday life. I tried to demand - especially at first - the same from others. Then he waved his hand. Fluent in Russian (I finished learning Uzbek at night in the early 1990s). He did not like flowery praises. Then he also loosened the reins a little: portraits began to be hung: he with children, he with young people, he with old people. And quotes, quotes. But things didn’t go further than that. Didn't approve. Not looking young. He did not resort to plastic surgery, which is popular among aging politicians. Very conservative in clothing. Possessed an excellent memory for faces. I remembered the numbers very well. I liked to examine my surroundings on this matter. Trying to personally control everything and everyone. So that everything agrees with him. From furniture design to portraits of Navoi, from the appointment of university rectors to tree planting. The system was choking from this micromanagement, but somehow it existed. Not alien to liberal gestures. Abolished preliminary censorship. Banned the death penalty. He did not touch or persecute many former oppositionists, opposition journalists - and they calmly continued to live in Uzbekistan. If they didn’t take it back to the old ways. He had a penchant for long monologues. At times he behaved harshly during negotiations. What he promised, as a rule, he kept. When he was in the mood, when he wanted, he could charm his interlocutor. Tell an anecdote, joke. There were others - scary, with a face distorted with anger... Who loved pompous buildings. With the obligatory dome and columns. Birches, Canadian spruces, pines. In recent years I have fallen in love with chestnut and tulip trees. But the plane tree (sycamore) was unlucky. Didn't approve. Which of these were his natural traits, and which developed under the influence of the almost absolute power that he possessed? Three days of mourning pass. They started to dig up Cosmonauts Square - they will probably turn it into Karimov Square. The chopping women disappeared - until the next wake. The city lives an ordinary life. During the day it is still hot, but you can breathe and work; the jacket no longer seems reinforced concrete, as in July. But at night it’s already cold under the sheets, and you’re looking for something warmer to pull on so as not to wake up in the morning squeezed into the fetal position.

Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, gave an interview to the Greek Internet portal “Romfea”.

— Vladyka, how would you comment on yesterday’s statement of the Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church?

— I admire the courage and unanimity of the hierarchs of the canonical Ukrainian Church, headed by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kyiv and All Ukraine. Despite the powerful pressure exerted on the one hand by the Ukrainian authorities, and on the other by the Patriarch of Constantinople, the episcopate is holding firm, defending its right to live according to church canons and maintain unity with the entirety of the Russian Orthodox Church, which found its existence on the Dnieper, in the baptismal font of the Kiev Grand Duke Vladimir 1030 years ago.

Over the past centuries, in the territory once called " Kievan Rus", political boundaries appeared and disappeared. But the unity of the Russian Church remained unchanged.

And today the episcopate of the Ukrainian Church has firmly stated that it “supports the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine,” that is, it respects the political structure of its state. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the statement emphasizes, “is present in all regions of Ukraine and unites both territories controlled and uncontrolled by the Ukrainian authorities, experiencing all the joys and sufferings together with its people.” Bishops, clergy, monastics and laity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are patriots of their country. They are not some foreigners who came from abroad and settled in Ukraine. The vast majority of them were born and raised in Ukraine. They love their homeland and do not want to be identified with other states.

That is why the Council of Bishops “opposes any attempts to change the name of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church” to Russian or any other. Is not Russian Church, but Ukrainian, completely independent in its management, not subordinate to Moscow either administratively, financially, or in any other way. Only the prayer connection is preserved - through the commemoration of the Patriarch and through the participation of Ukrainian bishops in the work of the Holy Synod common to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Let me note: neither in the Council of Bishops, nor in the Synod of the Ukrainian Church there is a single representative from Moscow. All decisions are made independently by the episcopate and the Synod of the Ukrainian Church. But the episcopate of the Ukrainian Church, through its representatives in the Synod of the Russian Church, can influence decisions made in the Russian Church. This is a unique situation that allows, on the one hand, to maintain complete independence and independence in decision-making, and, on the other, to maintain unity with the fullness of the Russian Church.

That is why the Council of Bishops decided: “The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is endowed with all the rights of independence and autonomy that are necessary today for fruitful service to God and the people of Ukraine.” Such a statement was already made in June, and has now been repeated. The Ukrainian Church has not asked and is not asking for any autocephaly. The process of granting autocephaly to the “Ukrainian people,” which was initiated by Constantinople, is assessed quite unambiguously: “The process of granting the so-called Tomos of autocephaly is artificial, imposed from the outside, does not reflect internal church necessity, will not bring real church unity, will deepen division and intensify conflicts among people of Ukraine. Under such conditions, we consider the participation of the episcopate, clergy and laity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in these processes impossible.”

What is happening today is the first time in the history of Orthodoxy that autocephaly is not asked for, but is imposed. Moreover, it is imposed by force and brute pressure. The bishops of the canonical Church are required to participate in some kind of “unification council,” the convening of which was initiated by schismatics in order to legitimize their structure. It is surprising and sad that the Patriarchate of Constantinople took the side of the schism instead of supporting the canonical Church, which unites millions of believers, includes 13 thousand parishes, more than 200 monasteries and is present throughout Ukraine, including in territories not controlled by the Ukrainian authorities.

I heard with my own ears how, at the Synaxis of the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches in Chambesy in January 2016, Patriarch Bartholomew publicly declared: “We welcome His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry as the only canonical head of the Orthodox believers of Ukraine, of course, with all the bishops subordinate to him.” What happened? Why suddenly the position of Patriarch Bartholomew changed to the opposite, and preference was given to the leaders of the schism, from whom they are now trying to put together some kind of new structure. We don't have an answer. But we cannot recognize this situation as normal. Therefore, they were forced to stop Eucharistic communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople as one who identified himself with the schism, and therefore fell into schism. The Russian Church announced this at the Synod held in Minsk on October 15.

Yesterday, a similar statement was made by the bishops of the Ukrainian Church: “The Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church believes that the decisions of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople dated October 11, 2018 regarding the Ukrainian church issue are invalid and have no canonical force. In particular, the decision to establish the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the territory of Ukraine is a consequence of a speculative interpretation church history. And the decision to lift the anathema and other church prohibitions from the leaders of the schism and recognize the validity of the pseudo-consecrations that they performed while in schism is a consequence of a distorted interpretation of the Orthodox canons. The history of the Orthodox Church does not know of cases of overcoming a schism through its simple legalization. Having adopted such anti-canonical decisions, recognizing the schismatics in their existing rank, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in accordance with church rules, itself took the path of schism. In this regard, the Eucharistic communion of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church with the Patriarchate of Constantinople is currently impossible and is being terminated.”

I would like to note that we are not alone in non-recognition of the anti-canonical acts of Constantinople. The other day, the Serbian Orthodox Church, through the mouth of the entirety of its episcopate, declared that “the Patriarchate of Constantinople made a decision, not based on the canons, to rehabilitate and recognize as bishops two leaders of schismatic groups in Ukraine - Filaret Denisenko and Makariy Maletic, together with their episcopate and clergy.” The decision of the Council of Bishops of the Serbian Church notes that the first of these persons was at one time canonically defrocked, and then excommunicated from church communion and anathematized, and the second was deprived of apostolic succession as spiritually belonging to the sect of the so-called self-saints, “due to which the Holy The Council of Bishops considers this decision of the Synod of Constantinople as non-binding for the Serbian Orthodox Church.” As noted in the published document, the Council of the Serbian Church does not recognize the mentioned individuals and their followers as Orthodox bishops and clergy and, therefore, does not accept liturgical and canonical communion with them and their supporters.

I hope that in other Local Churches voices will be heard calling on the Patriarchate of Constantinople to stop its actions supposedly aimed at healing the Ukrainian schism. In fact, these actions lead to a deepening of the schism in Ukraine and to the creation of a situation unprecedented for the Orthodox Church, when the entire body of world Orthodoxy may find itself split into pieces.

— What, in your opinion, are the prospects for convening a “unification council” and what can be expected from it?

— In my opinion, the prospects are quite vague. The date of this “council” has already been announced, but much enthusiasm around its convening is not visible either in the canonical Church or among schismatics. Various figures have been cited for the possible participation of canonical bishops in this banditry gathering - from 10 to 25. So far we see only two canonical bishops who did not agree with the general opinion of the episcopate of the canonical Church, expressed in the decision of the Council of its bishops. But will they go to the “unification council”? Is not a fact. The adventurous nature of this event is obvious to everyone.

And among schismatics there is no unity on this issue. Makaria’s group has repeatedly stated that it will not be part of the structure headed by Filaret Denisenko. True, Filaret now declares that he will not stand as a candidate. But at the same time, he continues to call himself a patriarch and hopes in the new structure to have the title of “Honorary Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus'-Ukraine”, to head its “synod” and have special privileges. He even proclaimed himself the holy archimandrite of the Kiev Pechersk and Pochaev Lavras.

However, all this is not included in the plans of Constantinople. They want a new person to lead the “autocephalous church” being created, and they want to send Filaret “to the dustbin of history” without any honors. After all, they recognized him not in the rank of patriarch, but simply in some kind of episcopal dignity - as “the former of Kyiv.” An agreement was reached between President Poroshenko and Patriarch Bartholomew that Filaret would be written off as scrap. But will the “bishoppat” subordinate to Philaret agree with this development of events? It's also not a fact.

— Nevertheless, if the “unification council” takes place, who can lead the new structure?

— Various candidates are being considered and discussed. They have already proposed that it be headed by Metropolitan Simeon of Vinnytsia: he is the only bishop who took part in the Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but refused to sign the statement of the Council.

For Constantinople, of course, it would be important for the structure to be headed by a canonical bishop, and not by one of the schismatics. This, in the opinion of Constantinople, will give greater legitimacy to the new structure. That is why it is extremely unlikely that the structure will be headed by anyone from Filaret’s “episcopate”. Rather, it may be headed by one of the two “exarchs” of Constantinople, Archbishop Daniel (Zelinsky) or Archbishop Job (Gecha), who in Lately increasingly active in the Ukrainian direction.

Archbishop Job showed himself very unsuccessfully in Paris, where he was for a short time at the head of the Archdiocese of Russian parishes of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As a result of the acute internal conflict that arose in this structure after his appointment, Constantinople was forced to recall him from there. Perhaps they now want to test him in another field.

— How do the Local Orthodox Churches react to what is happening, and what reaction do you expect if Ukraine is granted a Tomos of autocephaly?

— First of all, I would like to note that not a single Local Orthodox Church came out in support of the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew, despite the efforts made in this direction, including the tour of Orthodox Churches by his representatives. Now he acts completely alone and even emphasizes that he does not need the approval of other Local Churches. If earlier the Patriarch of Constantinople acted as a coordinator for the entire Orthodox Plenity, acting on behalf of the Local Churches, now we do not see anything like that. From the Phanar there are only statements about certain special prerogatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which supposedly allow him to make individual decisions.

Calls to Patriarch Bartholomew to abandon such a position were made by a number of Local Churches. Other Churches have taken a wait-and-see approach and are not making any announcements. Still others believe that the issue should be resolved in a dialogue between Constantinople and Moscow. However, there is no such dialogue today: there is a monologue from Constantinople.

It is obvious to us today: issues of such importance as the granting of autocephaly cannot be decided by Constantinople alone, even if similar precedents took place in the past. At the stage of preparation of the Pan-Orthodox Council, an agreement in principle was reached that from now on, in order to grant autocephaly, the consent of all Local Churches is required. Even though this agreement was not finalized and was not submitted to the Cretan Council, the very fact of inter-Orthodox agreement around this topic is obvious and beyond doubt.

A solid basis for autocephaly should be, in addition to pan-Orthodox consent, the firm unanimity of the episcopate, clergy and church people of a particular country around this topic. Today there is no such unanimity. There is a deep split that cannot be healed only by legitimizing it. This means the so-called autocephalous Church of Ukraine, even if it is created by the tomos of Patriarch Bartholomew, supported by the decree of President Poroshenko and the decree Verkhovna Rada, will be a house built not on a solid foundation, but on sand. And what the Savior spoke about will happen to her: “and the rain fell, and the rivers overflowed, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and he fell, and his fall was great” (Matthew 7:26).

As for the canonical Ukrainian Church, we believe that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). The Lord will reward its bishops, clergy and church people for their firm and courageous standing guard over the church canonical order. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church today is a confessing Church, waging “warfare not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in high places” (Eph. 6:12). She will undoubtedly emerge victorious from this battle.

These two events coincided in time and space: the celebration of the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg and the bringing of the relics of St. Andrew the First-Called. Historical memory has again made relevant the eternal Russian question of the relationship between church and state.

The beginning of a new era
In April 1682, the youngest son of Alexei Mikhailovich, 10-year-old Peter, was proclaimed tsar. The primacy in succession to the throne belonged to his brother Ivan, but Patriarch Jokim insisted that Peter become king. His reign will become real only 16 years later, in 1698, when he brutally deals with the Streltsy rebels, but for now he is still a child and everything is ahead of him.
Peter always remembered how cruelly the archers treated his family. He himself miraculously survived. The fear of the rebels remained with him forever. Fifty executed people seemed to him not enough. Having urgently returned from abroad, he ordered the execution of another 1,700 servicemen. He himself chopped off heads with an ax and did not shy away from executioner labor. Patriarch Adrian, who came with the icon of the Mother of God, was publicly insulted and kicked out. On the morning of the Streltsy execution in Russia, the era of Peter began.
Russia began the 18th century with the brilliance of military victories. A fleet, factories, fortresses, and cities were built. A city of unprecedented beauty and imperial splendor grew up on the Nevsky Marsh. The capital was moved from Moscow almost to the very border, to St. Petersburg.
It was only at first that the bells were melted down to make cannons. After the war, its own mining began and rapidly developed, which still feeds Russia today. Temples began to be built throughout the country. But the state did not want to put up with the independence of the church. A spiritual regulation was issued, where collegiality in matters of church governance was justified by state security. And the 12 collegiums created, in our life today called ministries, governed the entire country. In February 1721, the Holy Governing Synod was opened. Since that time, the Russian Orthodox Church, in fact, has become a state body.

Emperor of All Russia
In October of the same year, in the new capital, Peter accepted the title of emperor from the Senate and Synod. The dispute between Patriarch Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich, carried forward in time, was resolved by Peter - the state took the dominant position.
Peter never forgot about the dispute between the king and the patriarch. And I always remembered the tragic consequences this led to. The abolition of the patriarchate was quite logical and expected of the first Russian emperor. From 1721 to 1917, the Russian Orthodox Church lived according to spiritual regulations, a kind of constitution introduced by Peter I. This document was signed by Peter himself, 7 senators and 87 clergy. In essence, the document had the effect of a Council Act.

First reformer
And today there is no clear attitude towards Peter’s reforms. Many compare him with Mikhail Gorbachev, with the only exception that under Gorbachev there were no such mass repressions. At the very least, the rulers can be put on par in terms of the level of bureaucratization of church life and the restrictions introduced. Church passages and Epiphany water were prohibited, as were the construction of chapels at memorial sites and road intersections. They tried to eliminate foolishness from Russian life. But most of all, the emperor took up arms against monasticism. He needed bayonets and soldiers, not faith. It was forbidden to admit men under 30, and women under 60, into monasteries.
Many did not understand Peter's reforms and considered him the Antichrist. But the reason was different. Peter liked Protestant controllability. After all, at one time it was the Reformation that threw into the world the following slogan: “Whose power, his faith.” No matter how cynical it sounds, this is true...

Gallant Age
Catherine's gallant age was indifferent to religion. The main thing for the court were figs, frills, wigs, the pomp of palaces, and French etiquette. Many monastery lands were distributed or sold to favorites and favourites. More than half of the monasteries were closed. Western trends in Russia have taken on a grotesque character. Freemasonry became fashionable everywhere.
The Empress presented Metropolitan Platon Levshin of Moscow, the author of the first Russian church history, to foreign guests as a result of her educational activities. Once Diderot asked the bishop: “Do you know, holy father, that there is no God, as Descartes said.” “That’s what it was said before,” answered the Metropolitan. - Also the prophet David. And the fool said in his heart: There is no God.”
A passion for the occult and Khlysty reigned in society. Catherine's grandson Alexander I invited Quakers to Russia. Society was searching for a new Christianity. It almost became state policy. But the Napoleonic invasion put everything in its place. The court did not expect such treachery from Napoleon and, in love with everything French, did not understand why Bonaparte moved his troops not to St. Petersburg, but to Moscow. The cunning Corsican understood that the heart of Russia, its Orthodox soul was not in St. Petersburg, but in Moscow.
Gallomania in Russia was immediately forgotten, as horrible dream. Patriotism and religion united everyone.

Alexander II
The time of the founding of Optina Pustyn. They say that the repentant robber Opta atoned for his sins here. In the 18th century the monastery fell into complete desolation. But thanks to the efforts of many hierarchs, including Platon Levshin and Filaret Drozdov, it blossomed and became the spiritual center of Russia.
Saint Philaret lived until the reign of Alexander II. It was he who drafted the 1861 manifesto on the abolition of serfdom. Two months before his death, he told his friend, the rector of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, that he saw the past with amazing clarity. “What about the future?” - asked the abbot. “The future too,” answered the Metropolitan. "And what's in there?". “I see a terrible storm coming towards us from the West.”
When Alexander II was born, the Empress ordered to ask the then famous holy fool Fyodor what awaited her son. Fedor said: “He will be mighty, glorious and strong, he will become one of the outstanding sovereigns of the world. But he will die in red boots.” It is difficult to imagine that this prophecy will result in the bloody and crushed feet of the martyr king. The Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood will be erected at the site of his death.

John of Kronstadt
On December 10, 1855, a graduate of the theological seminary, Ivan Ilyich Sergeev, was ordained a priest. He was to serve in Kronstadt. His ancestors served the church for 350 years.
At that time, Kronstadt was a key Russian naval base and a place of exile for beggars and vagabonds from all over the country. The house where Father John lived, on the corner of Andreevskaya and Posadskaya, was known to the whole country. Thousands of letters arrived here every day. The Postal Service was even forced to increase the number of employees. Father John lived in this house for 53 years.
He lived at the turn of the century. The 19th century is the century of doubt, the 20th century is the century of God-fighting. John of Kronstadt embodied the image of Russian holiness. After the revolution, the Kronstadt St. Nicholas Cathedral, which he founded, was first a theater, then a cinema named after Gorky. Local residents called it “Maximka” for this reason.
The cathedral was founded in 1903 - for the 200th anniversary of the Russian fleet.
And it was built in 1913 - the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty. Nicholas II solemnly opened it. The overall architecture of this cathedral is reminiscent of the Sophia of Constantinople. “When the cathedral is erected under the dome, I will no longer be there,” said John. He founded this temple, but did not live to see its opening.

Accession without a patriarch

Unhappy people, the patriarch thought, watching how the bishops and boyars, frightened by the massacre, gathered in the Kremlin to bow to the little old man who was plunging the country into terrible disasters.

Ignatius was shocked by the atrocities and, moreover, had every reason to fear for his own fate. Indeed, the bishops and archimandrites who gathered the next day with the abbots of nearby monasteries could frighten even a more courageous person with their ferocious appearance. All of them had to earn the trust of the new government, which declared the previous reign to be preparation for the eradication of Orthodoxy, the dismemberment of the country and the seizure of power by foreigners. The foreign patriarch who aroused envy, who crowned the Pretender and then his foreign wife to the kingdom, Ignatius was doomed and did not even try to object to the absurd accusations that the members of the consecrated cathedral, red with tension, showered upon him, trying to out-shout each other.

Surrounded by hatred, the Greek did not find it funny that he was accused of treason against Boris Godunov and servility to the Pretender, with whom he allegedly won the patriarchal throne. Some people suggested declaring that Ignatius “was elevated to the throne of the Rostrig without sacred ordination,” and that he was not a patriarch at all, but the majority managed to understand that the clergy should not put themselves in such a stupid position.

In the end, it was considered sufficient to accuse Ignatius of a crime committed on the eve of the overthrow of False Dmitry. It was stated that this Latinizing heretic anointed the abominable father Marinka, without baptizing her in the Orthodox manner, and admitted her to the sacrament of communion and the sacrament of marriage. It was easier to forget that the bishops and archimandrites themselves participated in this ceremony than the fact that they ordained and submitted to this “lawless” archpastor for eleven months!

Ignatius did not delude himself about the significance of his overthrow. It is unlikely that it was particularly noticeable against the background of the regicide and extermination of non-believers in Moscow. True, they did not consider it possible to either kill him or send him away. Ignatius was left at hand in the Chudovsky Monastery, where he could thank the Lord that in his old age he was not subjected to new trials and temptations.

Some considered the fate of the overthrown patriarch worthy of pity, many angrily rejoiced at his fall. Ignatius himself soon recovered from his fright and regained his peace of mind. It was quite common for Greek hierarchs to end their lives in monastery repose, and it was not so rare for Russians to overthrow their archpastors. One thing bothered Ignatius: he was surprised to discover that being a bishop in Rus' was not in vain; his soul was struck by sympathy for the terrible fate of the ill-fated Russian people.

By the evening of May 17, Moscow plunged into dead silence. Among the conspirators, Shuisky's minions and Golitsyn's supporters began to look at each other angrily. The boyars gathered in the Kremlin began to think, “as if exile with the whole earth, and so that all sorts of people would come from the cities to Moscow, as if on the advice of electing a sovereign for the Moscow state, so that all people would be (loved).”

On May 19, the Boyar Duma and the clergy came out to Red Square and invited the worried crowd to elect a patriarch, in order, with the blessing of the Church, to send throughout Rus' for the electors of the entire land and, under the chairmanship of the archpastor, to orderly and peacefully determine who should hand over the reins of government. Russian state. But the idea of ​​saving the civil world failed among the rapists stained with innocent blood.

“The Tsar is more necessary than the Patriarch!” - “representatives of the people” screamed on Red Square. “We don’t want any advice, where Moscow is, the whole state is there! Shuisky as king! The cowardly boyars wavered, the brave ones were simply pushed away, and the crowd dragged Vasily Shuisky to the Assumption Cathedral, where Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod and the bishops wisely went, immediately blessing the murderer to the kingdom.

On June 1, 1606, the new sovereign Vasily Ivanovich was crowned king without any patriarch. Only on July 3, the patriarchal throne was occupied by Metropolitan Hermogenes, hastily summoned from Kazan; the clergy meekly carried out Shuisky's will. The choice was clear: Shuisky, who had outwitted everyone, wanted to rely on the toughest and most uncompromising bishop, who would keep the Church on the state course with a firm hand in the stormy sea of ​​internal and external war.

Hermogenes, as the embodiment of the militant Church, was cold-bloodedly chosen by Tsar Vasily Ivanovich as the banner of a new regime, capable of maintaining itself only on the constantly whipped-up fear of the omnipresent enemy.

Already in the letter dated May 20, announcing his accession to the throne, Vasily Shuisky declared that the apostate, heretic, disgrace, thief Otrepiev “deceived many people with demonic darkness, and frightened others with death... and desecrated the churches of God, and wanted the true Christian faith trample and destroy the Luthorian and Latin faith.” Then they talked about the treasonous correspondence of False Dmitry “with Poland and Lithuania about the ruin of the Moscow State,” and with Rome about the establishment of Catholicism in Russia. Shuisky reported even further that False Dmitry and the foreigners had prepared to exterminate all “the boyars, and Duma people, and great nobles, in order to distribute Russian cities and the remaining royal treasury to his wife’s relatives, and to “bring all the Orthodox to the Luthor and Latin faith.”

In a letter dated May 21, sent throughout the country in the name of Tsarina Martha Fedorovna, it was reported that the real Dmitry was villainously killed in Uglich on the orders of Boris Godunov, and False Dmitry’s envoys forced her to recognize the rastrig as her son. It was implied that the people did not remember that Vasily Shuisky had “cleared” Tsarevich Godunov of suspicions of murder, and Mikhail Vasilyevich Shuisky-Skopin was at the head of False Dmitry’s envoys to Martha!

On June 2, another, very extensive letter about the villainous plans of the devil “and dashing people who always want ruin and bloodshed for the Moscow state” flew across Russia. The “demonic intent” was born, of course, “on the advice of the Polish king” to cause “turmoil and ruin” in Russia, desecration of churches and murders.

Citing documents from the archives of False Dmitry, Shuisky argued that Russia was threatened with dismemberment. Novgorod and Pskov were given to the Mnisheks forever and Catholicism was established there. Yuri Mnishek “admitted” during interrogation that Smolensk and the Seversk land were to go to the Polish king along with the royal treasury, and all of Rus' was to be Catholicized. In a word, the villain “stood up against God and wanted to completely ruin the Christian state and bring the flock of Christ’s sheep to final destruction.”

Without false modesty, Shuisky calls himself the savior of Russia, having reigned “with the blessing of the patriarch” (although in the letter of May 20, listing the bishops, he did not mention the patriarch at all). Apparently, he has already decided who will take this post. He also decided to canonize the “innocently murdered” Tsarevich Dmitry: his remains were still traveling from Uglich to Moscow, and the Tsar, by his will, made the Tsarevich a holy and righteous martyr.

Guilty of recognizing the decree as the legitimate heir to the throne turned out to be... Queen Martha, whom we, Shuisky writes, since she acted under duress, “forgave in everything” and “begged” the consecrated cathedral to ask God for mercy, so that the Lord “from such a great sin... her soul freed." The letter was accompanied by a review of the correspondence of False Dmitry with the Pope and his legate, revealing the sinister conspiracy of the Pretender, the Pope and the Jesuits to exterminate Orthodoxy and Catholicize Russia.

In August, another letter was sent to the cities, in which poor Queen Martha tearfully apologized to everyone, starting with Shuisky, that she “tolerated the thief, an obvious scarlet heretic and warlock, and did not expose him for a long time; and a lot of blood was shed from that apostate and he wanted to destroy the peasant faith...”

This letter, as well as letters from the patriarch with the consecrated cathedral “and from all the lands of the Moscow state,” was addressed to Yelets - one of the cities where the terrible thing that threatened all of Russia and was unleashed by Shuisky had already begun: Civil War.

“And now I hear,” the queen allegedly wrote, “through the sin of the peasants, many evil turmoil planned by our enemies, the Lithuanian people. And you say that that thief was a direct prince, my son, and now he is alive. And how are you so unsteady? What do you believe in our enemies, the Lithuanian people, or in our traitors, dashing people who want the blood of the peasants and their own self-destructive interests?”

Frightening everyone with insidious and ruthless enemies, Shuisky cunningly created a state of external war. After the massacre in Moscow, not only the surviving nobles, but also the royal ambassadors were detained. Shuisky could not resist extorting money from Mnishek and his comrades (previously robbed), but announced that the foreigners were taken as political hostages.

They explained to the people that war was inevitable, it had already begun and thank God that many famous enemy warriors were already in captivity. This weakens the enemy; the nobles will be useful in negotiations for peace and the exchange of prisoners. Judging by the fact that the Poles were considered dangerous to keep in Moscow and were sent to the Volga cities, a war more terrible than the previous invasion of Stefan Batory was expected.

While the people were encouraged to patriotically rattle their sabers, praising their greatness and preparing for a deadly war, Shuisky began peace negotiations with the king. He could not do without intrigue and, as a cover, he chose Sigismund’s ambassadors in Moscow. The deceived ambassadors, who hoped as a result of the planned overthrow of False Dmitry to find an ally on the throne, and faced with the massacre of the Poles, were quite nervous.

Alexander Gonsevsky and his comrades resolutely emphasized that they do not regret the death of Dmitry, the authenticity of whose origin “the people of Moscow gave clear testimony to the whole world.” You yourself “gave undoubted news to all surrounding states that this is indeed your sovereign. Now you have forgotten the recently given certificate and oath and are speaking against yourself, blaming His Royal Majesty and our Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This guilt will remain with you!..

“We are also brought into great surprise,” continued the ambassadors with firmness, “and struck with great sorrow, that we were killed, tortured very big number respectable people of His Royal Majesty, who did not raise any dispute about this man, did not travel with him, did not guard him and did not even have news of his murder, because they remained calmly in their apartments. A lot of blood has been shed, a lot of property has been stolen, and you accuse us of destroying the world with you!”

Gonsevsky and his comrades hit the nail on the head, arguing that the story of False Dmitry is an internal affair of Russians, and all Russians at that. From this followed the unpleasant idea for Shuisky that the bloodshed he had begun would be an internal, civil war. Moreover, despite their own rage, the ambassadors clearly expressed the king’s reluctance to fight: “This shedding of the blood of our brothers, carried out by you, you can attribute to the crowd, and we hope that you will punish the guilty.”

The only demand of the ambassadors was that they themselves “and other people of His Royal Majesty who remained alive, along with their property,” be released to their homeland. Only the threatening conclusion of Gonsevsky’s speech allowed Shuisky to pretend that with patriotic fervor he longed for war with foreigners and people of other faiths who were responsible for Russian disasters.

“If you,” the ambassadors told the boyars, “contrary to the customs of all Christian and infidel states, detain us, then you will offend His Royal Majesty and our Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Then it will be difficult for you to place the blame on the mob. Then this shedding of the innocent blood of our brothers will fall on your newly elected sovereign. Then nothing good can happen between you and us, and if any evil comes out of you and me, then God sees that it will not come from us!”

Shuisky placed the ambassadors under guard at the Ambassadorial Court, giving them very meager food. And already on June 13, he sent envoy Grigory Konstantinovich Volkonsky (who received the nickname “Crooked” for his excessive cunning) to Sigismund with clerk Andrei Ivanov. Formally, they had to demand satisfaction for the bloodshed and theft of the royal treasury by the royal protege False Dmitry. In essence, they informed Sigismund that Shuisky was not going to violate the peace with Poland.

For appearances, the tsar and the king threatened each other with unrealistic promises: one was supposedly going to send Prince Gustav Vasa with an army to Livonia, the other was selling help to impostors in Russia that did not depend on him. But behind the backs of their subjects, the monarchs understood each other perfectly. Shuisky only wanted a reason to call the rebels agents of the king, and Sigismund was pleased that the most active nobles were going to take revenge on Rus', weakening internal resistance to royal power.

Forgetting about his old embassy, ​​which languished in Moscow under guard, suffered hunger and constant bullying from the mob incited by the tsar, Sigismund in October 1607 sent new ambassadors to the tsar, and in July 1608 concluded a four-year truce with Shuisky. Vasily Ivanovich no longer needed prisoners, and he released them along with the old ambassadors. By this time the civil war was already in full swing.