About life in the Church and about church life

“Letter to the Pastors of the Ufa Diocese” by Bishop Andrei (Ukhtomsky) was written regarding the brochure by Archimandrite Hilarion “There is no Christianity without the Church.” Agreeing with all the theological thoughts revealed in this work, Bishop Andrei condemns the work for being too “academic” and insufficiently vital. According to the bishop, this book will not convince anyone of the truth of the provisions set out in it. Convincing “religious loafers” of the truth of the Church of Christ is possible only through visible acts of goodness, and not through abstract reasoning about the “new creation.” Archimandrite Hilarion, in his response article “On Life in the Church and Church Life,” defends the idea that for a living and effective church existence, it is necessary, first of all, to have a dogmatically correct awareness of the Church and its purpose. Regarding the letter of His Grace Bishop Andrei to the pastors of the Ufa diocese In the previous, June-July, book “The Christian” (p. 400–407) the “Letter to the Pastors of the Ufa Diocese” by the Right Reverend Bishop Andrey was reprinted from the “Ufa Diocesan Gazette” (No. 11. P. 458–470). “The fight against sectarianism can only be sincere, without reticence,” is the title of this letter. Part of the letter was published in early June in the Exchange Gazette. In this letter, the right reverend author speaks about the mission among sectarians and in general about our church life, among other things touching on my book “There is no Christianity without the Church,” a book published by the Publishing Council of the Holy Synod. Back at the beginning of 1911, my article “Christianity and the Church” (Vol. 1, pp. 61–85, 282–306) was published in The Christian. The mentioned book, which attracted the attention of His Eminence Bishop Andrei, represents only a revision of this particular article. “I,” writes the Eminence Andrei, “of course, unconditionally share all the dogmatic thoughts of Father Hilarion.” For me it is quite enough, since I see the essence of my treatise in the theological thoughts that are revealed in it. This means that on the main thing, Eminence Andrei and I agree. But His Eminence Andrei seems to not want to attach any importance to all my theological reasonings. He expresses the wish that the reasoning of academic monks would be less academic and more vital. In another case, the Eminence author even expresses the idea that no brochures like mine, or even libraries, are needed, since they will not help the church’s cause. “The truths of the multiplication tables and all the similar ones no longer seem to need reminders.” I readily agree that in my brochure I discuss the chosen issue academically, but I absolutely cannot agree that the thoughts I have expressed are as generally accepted as the truths of the multiplication table, which really do not need reminding. I would be the first to be sincerely glad if this were so and if I did not need to convince or refute anyone. Unfortunately, the question of the relationship between the Church and Christianity is in dire need of academic discussion. The cause of Christ is often unconsciously misrepresented by many. Hardly many, when asked: what is the essence of Christ’s work, will answer: that He created the Church, created a new humanity in the incarnation. Even our school theology, which is studied in seminaries, is not very favorable to such an answer. There the essence of Christ’s work is indicated in suffering for the sins of others, for the sins of all mankind. And it is very difficult to move from the suffering of Christ to the Church as the Body of Christ. Involuntarily, our theology belittles the importance of the Church, relegates it, following the Catholics, to an earthly institution, an organization under the leadership of a hierarchy. The work of Christ in modern consciousness is somehow intellectualized. They talk about the teachings of Christ, as if Christ saved the human race through his teachings. They forget the symbolic confession according to which, for the sake of our salvation, the Son of God came down from Heaven, became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. There is not a word about the teaching in the Creed. But when Christ is looked at as a Teacher only, then the possibility opens up to separate Christianity from the Church, then we can talk about “true Christians” excommunicated from the Church. Then the Church can only be looked at as an organization that has only cultural and historical significance. Then one can divide between the individual and the Church and ascribe significance to the individual without any connection with the Church, therefore, admit the possibility of both a grace-filled life and salvation outside the Church. I dare to assure His Eminence Andrei that in serious theological books of our time I can indicate precisely such thoughts; I even met them in the writings of the hierarchs. Contrary to all such reasoning, in my book I decisively declare: “The urgent need of the present time can be considered an open confession of the immutable truth that Christ created the Church, and that it is completely absurd to separate Christianity from the Church and talk about some kind of Christianity besides the Holy Orthodox Church of Christ.” “There is no Christianity, no Christ, no grace, no truth, no life, no salvation - there is nothing without the Church, and all this exists only in the one Church!” I come to such conclusions by placing at the heart of the work of Christ the fact of the incarnation of God and the deification of creation, as it should be in Orthodox theology. The deification of human nature continues in the Church, and the Church is therefore not only an organization, but a real mystical, always living and breathing Body of Christ with the grace of the Holy Spirit. All these and similar thoughts can hardly be compared with the truths of the multiplication table. There is no arguing against the multiplication table, but I had to argue with very enlightened theologians about the main points of my book. I am very pleased to hear from Eminence Andrei sympathy for his thoughts, but not everyone thinks like this, and therefore I experienced a feeling of dissatisfaction when I saw that Eminence Andrei was talking with the pastors of the Ufa diocese about only side thoughts of my book, leaving aside its theological content, which is the only thing dear to me personally. I am relatively little familiar with our anti-sectarian polemics, but since I have become acquainted with it, I have drawn disappointing impressions from it. The controversy turned into a kind of sport, combined with the abuse of the words of the Holy Scriptures. Polemics with sectarians are often just some kind of skirmish with texts, and both the sectarians and the missionaries behind them end up on false and fruitless ground. Dispute “from Scripture” back in the 2nd century was recognized not only as useless, but even harmful. In my book I try to give a theological assessment of the most churchless understanding of Christianity. Eminence Andrei, apparently, is inclined to consider the shortcomings of church life to be the only source of sectarianism. “The entire source of the development of “evangelical Christianity” lies within us; Because of us, religious idleness has multiplied...” I can't agree with this completely. Sectarianism is nourished and fueled by the shortcomings of church life, but its source, I think, is deeper - precisely in the concept of churchless Christianity. After all, the shortcomings of church life, for example, the Right Reverend Andrei and I see incomparably more widely and more than sectarians, but we do not run into sectarianism. I hope that we equally confess, in accordance with the 34th and 37th Apostolic Canons, the need for conciliar government in the Church, which is completely suppressed in the Russian Church by the evil will of Peter I. However, we are not fleeing from the supposedly “dominant” Church, for example, to the schismatics, although their councils are still being held without hindrance. Why? But because we know and are convinced that falling away from the Church - whether into schism, heresy, or sectarianism - is complete destruction and spiritual death. For us there is no Christianity outside the Church. If Christ created the Church and the Church is His Body, then to be torn away from His Body means to die. We do not fall away because we have a churchly understanding of the essence of the work of Christ. Why are sectarians so tempted by church disorders and even by the shortcomings of individuals, by smoking and the gambling of priests, that they fall away from the Church? Not because they are supposedly “living people,” as Bishop Andrei said. Is it really true that anyone who remains in the Church during church disorders is no longer a living person? No, “sincerity” is not the reason here. The reason is the same: a false representation of the very work of Christ, according to which the work of Christ retains its significance even without the Church. A sectarian (sometimes an Orthodox person too!) thinks that the word of God is enough for him, which he certainly speaks about in some nasty sentimental tone. Again because for him Christ is only a Teacher, and not a Savior. So I want to inspire, reveal and prove to every reader of my book that with a true understanding of the work of Christ it is impossible to talk about Christianity without the Church, that every person can live spiritually and be saved only in the Church, and outside the Church a person, with all his apparent virtues, is nothing. This is precisely what St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Augustine reasoned in their struggle against the apostates of their time. In vain does His Eminence Andrei want to see in me a reticence or insincerity, and even extreme. I am only conducting a theological polemic against the false separation of Christianity from the Church. Isn’t Eminence Andrei himself being one-sided when he exclaims: “What is needed now is not brochures, not libraries, or anything like that—we need exploits of the spirit!” After all, the right reverend author writes immediately after this exclamation: “Convictions can only be broken by spiritual force - a force that is only more holy and stronger in its holiness, the power of opposing convictions.” But is it really possible that neither brochures nor even libraries are needed to develop convictions?! I just can’t agree, because I owe many of my beliefs to books and libraries. Is it in vain that the church authorities are concerned about the dissemination of healthy church reading? Is it not for this purpose that a special Publishing Council was established under the Holy Synod? Why then do our academies exist if books and libraries are not needed, at least for the fight against religious errors? No, thoughts live and bear fruit in human affairs. Personally, I greatly mourn the fact that we pay little attention to theology, as if it were something superfluous in church life. Our saints occupied themselves primarily with consistory papers, various resolutions and protocols. So it turned out that the theological school is dominated by a theology alien to the ancient Church, invented by medieval papists. In vain did His Eminence Andrei recommend to me the topic for the second book - “about ways to implement Christ’s covenants in church life.” Let me stay in the field of theology and academic reasoning! I have no church practice, but there are enough practical workers without me. At least academic monks should be in the service of the word, in the service of theology. In my book I mentioned modern church disunity. His Eminence Andrei writes about this: “This is what we need to talk about, this is what we need to shout about so that everyone can hear, but Father Hilarion only accidentally mentioned this.” No, not by chance. I begin with a characterization of church confusion and talk about it in the first ten pages of my book. Already on page 13 I write: “The situation is sad! It is this sad situation of our time that should prompt everyone who values ​​faith and eternal life to check the basic error of our contemporary prejudice, according to which one can separate Christianity from the Church.” I set myself a clear and definite goal: to disassemble and refute the ideological basis of church discord, that is, the very concept of churchless Christianity. I wanted to stay and stayed in the area of ​​theological reasoning, without moving into the area of ​​practical issues. I don’t regret at all that I stand on academic grounds. Will it be good if we all abandon this ground and write and talk only about practical issues? His Eminence Andrei seems to attach such value to practical issues alone. He even read my theological treatise only in order to “somehow apply new thoughts to the matter of revitalizing church and social life, to the matter of expanding the circle of church life, and beyond it, mission.” It is quite natural that the Reverend reader “experienced the most severe disappointment”, and attributes the most contradictory statements to me. On the one hand, I seem to “ardently” prove that “everything is fine in our church life, that only religious loafers and complete fools do not see church life.” On the other hand, Eminence Andrei asks the following question: “Will Father Hilarion not recognize the complete absence of our church life if he sends him straight to the monasteries to look for it, in advance, so to speak, giving up on the bishops and all the white clergy?” Of course, it is difficult for a normal person to express such contradictory judgments on two adjacent pages in one book. My thoughts are far from what Reverend Andrei reads in my book. I write: “Too often they now talk about the lack of life in the Church, about the “revitalization” of the Church. We find it difficult to understand all these speeches and are very inclined to recognize them as completely meaningless. Life in the Church can never dry up, for until the end of the age the Holy Spirit abides in it (John 14:16). And there is life in the Church. Only churchless people do not notice this life.” Am I saying that everything is fine with us? Do I also assert the opposite, that church life exists only in monasteries? Neither one nor the other. I protest against the very common reduction of the essence of church life to only external affairs, to various funds, societies, circles and the like. For example, we don’t have a parish as a legal entity – and suddenly we hear: “There is no life in the Church!” There can be no life without a parish organization!” Priests and priests of God are not involved in cooperation - again we are talking about the lack of life in the Church! There is no consumer shop in the parish - again the Church is to blame! From a dogmatic theological point of view, I am inclined to call all such speeches meaningless. I don’t have it in the book, but in the article there was even a special explanation why I call these speeches that way. “When they talk about the lack of life in the Church, they usually mention the shortcomings of church administration, thousands of consistory papers, etc. But for someone who truly understands church life, it is clear as daylight that all these consistories with their decrees hardly touch the depths of church life at all. The full-flowing river of grace-filled life flows continuously and will give water to anyone who wants to quench their spiritual thirst. This river cannot be dammed with paper...” I’ll ask the Reverend Andrey: is it really possible that without a parish as a legal entity, without parish organizations, the saving grace of God does not work in church people? Without cooperation, do people cease to receive grace-filled help in the sacred rites of the Church to fight sin, for their revival and renewal? With all the disorder in church administration, with the sad dominance of the bureaucracy, does the Church remain the Body of Christ, the fullness of “who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23)? We very often forget about all this when we talk about the lack of life in the Church. From a dogmatic theological point of view, one cannot speak of a lack of life in the Church. You can talk about the shortcomings of church life, about the shortcomings of church organization, church governance, but to talk about the lack of life in the Church means confusing the external and internal aspects of church life. Talk about the shortcomings of church life, church organization, but do not forget that in the life of the Church there are deeper layers of the grace-filled spirit of the Spirit! I assert dogmatically that life of grace in the Church does not dry up. This inner mysterious life is experienced and perceived. The movements of the Spirit are mysterious; they concern the matter of salvation and rebirth of the soul. “The Spirit breathes where it wills, and you hear its voice, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes: this is what happens to everyone born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). “The Kingdom of God is like if a man casts a seed into the ground, and sleeps and rises night and day; and how the seed sprouts and grows, he does not know, for the earth itself produces first greenery, then an ear, then small grains in an ear. When the fruit is ripe, he immediately uses the sickle, because the harvest has come” (Mark 4:26–29). And suddenly the Right Reverend Andrei demands: “Show us the current affairs of the church! Show something clear, undeniable, solid! The affairs of our zemstvo are obvious. The affairs of city governments are obvious. The affairs of other societies, other organizations are completely obvious and convincing to everyone by their obviousness.” And what, for example, matters of zemstvos or city governments are obvious? Highways, water pipes, schools, sewerage, etc. Well, such matters can be mentioned in church matters too! Look how many magnificent churches, thousand-pound bells, well-appointed monasteries and monastery farms! After all, it wasn’t zemstvos or city governments that created all this? But are all these and similar things really valuable for the life of the church? Add here parish organizations. Will this really add much to the life of the church? Actually, church affairs, the only ones valuable before eternity, are different, and by their nature they are not such as to be clear, indisputable and thorough. Everything here is essentially controversial. The struggle and victory over sin is a great church work for us, but for others it is an unnecessary activity based on outdated prejudices. “About the life of grace, clearly felt, human language can always speak only vaguely and darkly. Only those who have it know about church life, and for those who do not have it, it is almost unprovable.” But church people sometimes feel the grace-filled life of the Church as something undoubted. For some reason, Eminence Andrei attributed to me the idea that church life can only be seen in monasteries. “If anyone wants to see this church life, then let him take the trouble to go to our monasteries.” “Father Archimandrite Hilarion sent his co-questioner to look for church life in the monasteries... he sends it directly to the monasteries to look for it, in advance, so to speak, giving up on the bishops and all the white clergy.” And the Right Reverend Andrei rightly objects: “After all, it’s really strange to look for church life right in monasteries... And our bishops - aren’t they teachers of holy life? Isn't there anything we can learn from them? What about our clergy? Do they not have grace-filled gifts? Are they not a “new creation”? And is it really necessary to search for the truth by bypassing all these servants of the Church and heading, according to the advice of Father Archimandrite Hilarion, straight to the monasteries? Is there really no “breath of the Church” around these servants of the Holy Church, and is it only in monasteries? This is extremely strange. And yet this follows from the words of Father Hilarion.” Only all these arguments and exclamations do not concern the real father Hilarion, since he never thought of writing anything like that, and this does not follow from his words. The real Father Hilarion wrote this: “We, people of a spiritual mindset, are rarely given a sense of church life. Meanwhile, even now people, simple in heart and pious in life, constantly live by this feeling of grace-filled church life. You especially feel this church atmosphere, this church breath in monasteries.” And that's all! I do not send any co-questionnaire to the monasteries, and I am even less able to give up on the bishops and the entire white clergy. And how could I imagine the Church, the whole Church as the Body of Christ, if it were alive only in monasteries! I don’t understand at all how the Reverend Andrei, who, according to him, read my book three times in a row (an undeserved honor for it!), could find in it something that I never thought of writing! There is some kind of misunderstanding here. No, Your Eminence, I felt the breath of the Church in parish churches, even in our academic one, especially on those days when everyone present in the church begins Holy Communion. Some kind of spiritual fragrance fills the church, and the priest is surrounded by waves of grace. I can only affirm from personal experience that you especially (and not exclusively!) feel the breath of the Church in monasteries. This is my experience. Someone else may have a different experience. It is, in my opinion, extremely unhelpful for a monastery to argue with the world and to exalt itself above the world. We are all one Church, one Body of Christ. Why “strife in the body” (1 Cor. 12:25)?! I rejoice at the successes in piety of the laity and grieve if I see them running away from piety. The spirit breathes where it wants. The monastery walls are not an obstacle for Him. “God does not give the Spirit by measure” (John 3:34). I firmly hope that my lines will only serve to clarify the bewilderment of His Eminence Andrei and to eliminate non-existent contradictions. His Grace Andrei is heartbroken about the shortcomings of church life, about the abnormalities of church organization, about the abnormalities of the relationship between the Church and the state in Russia. He is not alone in mourning all this. We and many church people grieve with him. Civil law prohibits non-confessional behavior in our country and thereby, as it were, forces the Church to tolerate even its obvious enemies among its members. All this is a clear abnormality in relation to the Church and the state in Rus'. However, it seems to us that His Eminence Andrei places exaggerated hopes on various reforms and external events. His Eminence Andrei writes: “Before all events in church life, there is a need for reform of itself - that reform that was intended by the Pre-Conciliar presence and which had in mind general church revitalization. If the spirit of life is revived in church society, everything in church life will be corrected; if this spirit of life does not exist, but the office reigns, then living people will seek religious life in sectarian communities and will build up these communities and fall away from the Church.” I don’t believe that “the revival of the spirit of life in church society” was so closely connected with any kind of reforms. Reform is precisely a change of form, but an empty vessel, no matter what form you give it, will not be full from a change of form. Reform is a clerical matter, and the Reverend himself complains about the dominance of the office. Holy people lived and were saved without reforms and without decrees, but no matter how many decrees you write to a sinful man, he will remain the same. But true church life consists in victory over sin. We never had a shortage of decrees and all kinds of reform measures, but all clerical reforms passed by in life. On paper, in reports, all reforms are successful and all decrees affect life in the most real way. It turns out to be some kind of narcissism and self-gratification of the office. The central office will send decrees to local offices, they will respond with the most fantastic reports, from which one general report is compiled. And life goes on as usual. How much they fussed about parish guardianship! During the war, they ordered the establishment of boards of trustees. Judging by the numbers, there are a lot of these tips, but they don’t do much. There is a zealous shepherd in the parish; even without a decree, he would have organized assistance for widows and orphans on the widest scale. And another shepherd, in pursuance of the decree, will organize a council and will carefully send reports, although there will be very, very little help from his council. No, in church life everything comes down to the personality of the shepherd. Our bishops are overwhelmed by the vastness of their dioceses, which, it seems, are not enough for any individual, no matter how much she wants to work. A wide and grateful field lies before the parish pastors. There is full opportunity to work. Alas! At best, our shepherds are doing the same thing that the prophet Jonah was doing at the bottom of the ship when he fled from the face of the Lord to Tarshish (Jon. 1:1-3). Our clergy consider the Church to be some kind of property, a fiefdom, often hereditary. Completing a course in a seminary, even incomplete, according to everyday life, gives the right to receive a patrimonial parish for feeding. We can give the following everyday definition of the Church: The Church is an institution for the maintenance of the clergy. The clergy pays for their maintenance only by the minimal performance of divine services, which often goes beyond the limits of decency. It is more difficult for me, a natural reveler, to admit all this than for the Reverend Andrei, and yet I cannot help but see the surrounding reality. The Russian people, one has to believe, have some kind of brilliant religiosity and churchliness, if they are still faithful to holy Orthodoxy. Our church life is dysfunctional, but the root of this dysfunction is not a lack of reforms, but the fact that our clergy does not want to do anything at all and understands only their own class interests by church interests. Any reforms may turn out to be stillborn if the current figures remain the same. The growth of sectarianism over the past decade is a clear indicator of the sins of our shepherding, because, according to the word of Christ, the wolf steals the sheep only from the shepherd who neglects the sheep (John 10:12–13). Such a shepherd loses his sheep. Christ speaks about the shepherd, not about reforms. Sectarian wolves are now allowed by the government to join the Orthodox herd. Shepherds must drive away these wolves and protect the sheep. We are establishing special missions, and the number of missionaries is increasing every year. This is a new indicator of the sins of our shepherding, because missionaries take on the work that shepherds should do. And I had to hear from missionaries that they encountered only obstacles from the clergy, but no help. The clergy even tends to shift responsibility for the spread of sectarianism from themselves to missionaries. If there is a missionary in the diocese or in the district, you don’t have to worry or think about sectarianism: the master will come and judge. This is what we need to talk about without stopping - about the need for our shepherds to stand on spiritual guard around the flock, and not limit their activities only to those bodily movements that are inextricably and directly connected with shearing wool. I am afraid that His Eminence Andrei will declare me an opponent of church reforms, and therefore I hasten to make a reservation: I only disagree with the overestimation of the importance of any reforms in general. I believe more in the power of personality than in the power of paper, even if it is “numbered” and “with an official seal attached.” Reform is needed and necessary if the existing order constrains the good intentions of the individual in their implementation. When a person grows up, he sews himself a more spacious suit. But a little person will not grow up immediately, even if he puts on a giant’s costume. It is bad to hamper the good deed of an individual; the order must be changed, reform is needed. But no matter how much you expand the scope, an inactive person will not create miracles. At present, church leaders are constrained incomparably more at the top than at the bottom. Ordinary parish pastors are perhaps the most independent and independent people in Russia. They have very great freedom to do good. For them, speeches about reforms are often just an excuse for their reluctance to engage in the work of God. According to the liberal template, it is customary for us to shout about the powerless position of the white clergy, about the oppression and tyranny of the black clergy, that is, bishops. “The bishops are crushing us, extinguishing all our good deeds,” lament the liberal priests. I am deeply convinced that these lamentations are sheer deceit and hypocritical self-justification. Are bishops really capable of persecuting and persecuting a priest if he is sincerely pious, prays fervently himself, serves earnestly and soulfully, always preaches, monitors the spiritual life of his flock, conducts extra-liturgical conversations, carefully attends school, exhorts his parishioners always and everywhere to lead a pious life, instructs them in the truths of faith, enlightens himself, consoles the poor, persuades the rich to help the poor to a neighbor, to the charity of homeless orphans, etc.? Are the bishops really forbidding all this? Are our bishops really capable of reasoning something like this: “NN is a good priest, pious, zealous, has a good influence on the parishioners - let me transfer him to a worse parish for this or remove him from his place and demote him to a cleric!” And to listen to the liberal priests, almost all bishops literally reason and act this way. The picture that emerges is: priests are eager to work, to lead their parishes into the Kingdom of Heaven, but the bishops do not allow them to do this. This picture is false. I affirm that even now there is absolutely sufficient freedom for the real church activity of the parish priest; no one puts any artificial barriers to this activity. They just don’t want to do it in God’s field. There are no workers, although all priestly vacancies are filled. If the bishop himself is active and forces his priests to work to some extent, then the clergy of his diocese only wants one thing - that the “restless” bishop be transferred somewhere as soon as possible. The most suitable bishops for the clergy are those who are inactive. So, first of all, we need shepherds who lay down their souls for the church’s work. May the Lord bring laborers to His field! Let this be our fervent prayer! But can we really expect a special miracle: the creation of shepherds by the Lord God out of nothing? What is being done in our country to prepare shepherds? We don't have any church school. Our school is spiritual, that is, for children of the clergy. All elements of churchliness in theological school are mercilessly condemned in current liberal templates. Throw out any theological subject from a seminary or academic course - [it] will be met with approval, but God forbid you from encroaching on something secular! Seminarians have access to universities... Oh, my God, what joy, what happiness! It’s not just sad that this access is open, but it’s sad and bitter that there is an urgent need for this discovery. Therefore, the seminaries are connected with the Church only in their pockets. A hopeless situation is being created for seminaries that are obliged to serve two masters - the clergy and the Church, and the first master wants them to serve him exclusively. So we have to observe such a picture. In the provincial town there is a huge building with bright, spacious rooms, with electric lighting. The sign reads: “Theological Seminary.” Teachers receive from two to three thousand or more in salaries, five-year increases, and pensions. The building is filled with hundreds of young people, smartly dressed in jackets with clear buttons, and wearing boots or boots of the latest fashionable style. In the same city, somewhere in a monastery there is a poor wooden building, in which everything is squalid. Slightly older people, dressed in modest cassocks and cassocks, live and study there from hand to mouth. This is a pastoral school. Let me! What about this rich building? Yes, you see, they don’t become pastors, but become veterinarians, high school teachers, sworn attorneys, and the like. Church need forced the establishment of local church schools next to the official theological school. Is this something to be happy about? And for some reason the liberal template prescribes rejoicing when the son of a priest prefers the rank of titular councilor to the spiritual title of his father and grandfather. They will say: yes, the seminary is a secondary educational institution that should be general education! Great, but is a special school still needed? But higher school certainly should be special. But here, it seems, this is “undoubtedly” only for a few. Ten years ago, a project was even drawn up to transform academies into some kind of spiritual universities with the awarding of academic degrees in secular sciences. For some reason, the liberal template takes under its protection everything secular in theological academies: secular professors, secular students, their secular lifestyle, their secular clothing, and their reluctance to accept holy orders after graduating from a higher theological school. But if an academy student accepted monasticism, that is, gave himself entirely at the disposal of the Church, this is bad and sad! Well, it turns out that there are no academic priests in parishes and provincial towns, and there aren’t even enough teachers of the law in educational institutions. For example, if we do not count those who already studied at the academy as priests, 47 people graduated from the academic course. How many of them now, five years later, are spiritual? Six: four monks and two priests. That would be a little over 12%! But how many candidates of theology have found use for their theological education in the service of the control chambers and the excise department! Oh, of course, their service is incomparably more ideological than the service of a monk or priest! And we grieve about this, our souls ache, because we see how God’s field asks for workers. This is where - in the spiritual school - the most radical reforms are needed; The theological school needs to be transformed into a church school. Otherwise, where can we expect good shepherds if in theological seminaries secular teachers do not say a word about shepherding and direct the gaze of their students to the university doors? I myself remember how teachers did not advise me to go to the academy, where there was “scholasticism,” but pointed to supposedly living university sciences. I despised these advice then, did not repent and am happy, because I am a monk and a priest. In conclusion, a few words on a personal issue. His Eminence Andrei suggests that I called speeches about revitalizing the Church meaningless “just to please someone.” Due to my simplicity and ignorance of who wants or dislikes something, I would not have guessed who I could please with my reasoning if, before reading the letter of the Most Reverend Andrei, I had not had the pleasure of personally talking with the revered saint. I can reassure Eminence Andrei: his assumption is unnecessary simply because the phrase that confused him was written by me, as my archive says, in February 1911, that is, when there was still no one to please. And in general, when you write something, it is difficult to guess who you will please and who you will anger. Andrey, ep. Ufa and Menzelinsky (Ukhtomsky Alexander Alekseevich, prince). In 1907, he was consecrated Bishop of Mamadysh, vicar of the Kazan diocese and appointed head of the Kazan missionary courses. Since 1911 - Bishop of Sukhumi. Since the end of 1913 - Bishop of Ufa and Menzelinsky. Member of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917–1918. In 1918–1919, he ministered to the clergy of the 3rd Army of Admiral A.V. Kolchak, was arrested several times and given amnesty by the Soviet authorities. At the end of 1921, Patriarch Tikhon appointed Bishop of Tomsk. Arrested again. In 1923 - sentenced to 3 years of exile. In 1925 he joined the Old Believer schism. In 1925, he was banned from the priesthood by the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) of Krutitsky. In 1927–1937 he was repeatedly arrested and sentenced to various terms of exile. September 4, 1937 - shot in a prison in the city of Yaroslavl. Metropolitan Manuel (Lemeshevsky). Russian Orthodox hierarchs from 1893 to 1965. T.1. Erlangen, 1979. About the Archbishop. Andree see also: S.M. Zelinsky. The life and work of Archbishop Andrei (Prince Ukhtomsky). M., 1991. Terra-Terra. – Approx. ed. You might be interested in: