Заключение

Father John of Kronstadt represented a significant milestone in the religious history of Russia in modern times. Being a product of traditional ideas about holiness, he at the same time turned out to be a harbinger of new trends. His characteristic combination of radical social views, personal charisma, political conservatism and national fame continues to enrich Russian Orthodoxy and finds its parallels in religious phenomena in Europe in response to the challenges of modernization. Biography of Fr. Ioanna is in many respects typical of a church minister in the Russian Empire of the late 19th – early 20th centuries. His ancestors belonged to the rural clergy; he himself graduated from a parochial school, then a seminary and academy, and inherited the parish from his wife’s father. His work for the benefit of the disadvantaged, fervent sermons and prayerful zeal became the hallmarks of the ideal “modern” priest in Russia. In his public, priestly incarnation, he became the embodiment of a social approach focused on serving people. However, this turn to the outside world, although reminiscent of the early Christian era, ran counter to the prevailing idea of ​​holiness, which was associated with a monastic, ascetic lifestyle far from worldly vanity. Combining the traditional asceticism characteristic of the holy righteous - the vow of lifelong virginity and self-restraint in food - with a commitment to zealous service in the church and in the world, Fr. John forced his contemporaries to reconsider their ideas about holiness. Like Jean-Marie Viannet and Padre Pio in Catholic Europe, he created the type of "holy priest" in modern Orthodoxy. Father John was popularly recognized as a saint thanks to his gift of healing. For Russia in the 19th century. a living miracle worker was a new and unusual phenomenon, which aroused distrust and hostility among many contemporaries, including church hierarchs. However, it so happened that the priest almost single-handedly transferred the phenomenon of religious healing from the sphere of popular conspiracies back to the “legitimate” bosom of the Orthodox Church. Father John turned out to be the center of the intersection of spiritual and secular ideas about Orthodoxy. He combined the features of a priest and a prophet, possessing the charisma of both a private man and a clergyman. However, his independent behavior made church hierarchs take a closer look at his “originality.” The huge number of fans of Fr. also aroused great suspicion among them. John, who created an unhealthy stir around him. (The interpretation of women's religious feelings as ignorant, worthless "old wives' tales" was generally accepted in the Russian Orthodox Church. The radical press went even further in denouncing the backward nature of women's piety, and this suggests that such a disdainful attitude towards women's religiosity went beyond theological and even ideological boundaries.) The hierarchs' suspicious attitude towards Fr. John was also due to the fact that he became a real “celebrity” in the modern sense of the word. Mass pilgrimages to Kronstadt, open confessions, mass production of postcards, souvenir scarves and mugs with his images, and finally, large-circulation special newspapers and magazines for his admirers and brotherhood, operating throughout Russia - all this created wide popularity for him, and with methods inherent in the new, capitalist era. And the fact that he was invited to serve at the bedside of the dying Emperor Alexander III brought him not only all-Russian, but also international fame. Father John was sharply different from the ancient Russian saints, and his image formed the basis of a new standard, inextricably linked with the era of “modernity”. Why, in this case, did the church hierarchy still accept Fr. John? First of all, he respected the chain of command enough to win the favor of his superiors (this happened with his Western contemporary, the curé of Ars). Moreover, he encouraged the people to follow those Orthodox forms of piety (more frequent participation in the sacraments, charity), which the hierarchs themselves advocated. Finally, he had clergy, which means that a priori he instilled more confidence in the hierarchs than any layman. To more thoughtful bishops, he was a symbol of the vitality of Orthodoxy in the face of modern trends and of Orthodoxy's successful response to the changes that political reform, social change and industrialization brought with them to traditional society. In an era of rapid social change, Fr. John and Leo Tolstoy became antipodes, symbolizing the choice that Russian Orthodox Christians faced: either move towards a private, non-mystical, unsacramental neo-Protestantism and refuse to cooperate with the autocracy - this was Tolstoy's position - or revive Orthodoxy from within, striving for a Christianity with a more vibrant perception of the sacraments and more developed charity. Tolstoy and O. John pointed out the same social and moral ills - depravity, penchant for luxury and social inequality - and denounced them with almost the same words. Some excerpts from the diary of Fr. John seems to have been taken from the pages of “What is Art?” and "Kreutzer Sonata"; The views of the late Tolstoy almost coincide with the pastoral ones. However, despite the similarity of style and the coincidence of topics for criticism, it so happened that these two figures represented two poles in the Russian Empire of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. – “progressive” and “reactionary”. The reason for the rift between them lies not only in the nature of each's faith, but also in their political beliefs. After the assassination of Alexander II in 1881, and especially during the revolution of 1905, Fr. John unconditionally sided with the most extreme supporters of autocracy. He blessed such far-right organizations as the “Union of the Archangel Michael” and the “Union of the Russian People.” Despite the fact that he was not actually as involved in politics as many others, Fr. was targeted by the radical press. John, making him a symbol of reactionary forces in religion. Largely due to his political views, Fr. John became a problem and a stumbling block for both his contemporaries and his descendants, who inherited the task of determining the correct role of the Orthodox Church in Russian politics and society. Was monarchy really the only acceptable form of government for an Orthodox country? Is it possible to be both Orthodox and liberal, or even Orthodox and revolutionary? Political views of Fr. John was long overshadowed by other aspects of his personality, and this is not surprising, given the events that Russia experienced after his death in 1908. After the 1917 Revolution and the Civil War, opponents of the Bolsheviks began to extol him as a prophet who could save Russia from destruction. His image became even more politically acute than it was during his lifetime. In the eyes of both admirers and persecutors, Fr. John was associated with Nicholas II and “counter-revolutionary elements.” During the canonization of Fr. John in 1964. The Russian Orthodox Church abroad continued to politicize the image of the saint, using it to deny the revolution and support the monarchy in Russia. The Moscow Patriarchate chose to ignore the political views of Fr. John. At his canonization in 1990, on the contrary, he emphasized the social aspects that had the greatest resonance in the new Russia: his help to the families of the poor, his gift of healing and, finally, his very belonging to the Russian nation. But, despite all the efforts of the Church, the pastor’s political views still find their supporters in Russia. In this sense, Fr. John is only the first of many modern contenders for the “title” of saint - such as Patriarch Tikhon, Nicholas II and virtually all Russian martyrs and confessors of the modern era, whose canonization implies rejection of the revolution and its consequences. For better or worse, holiness in modern Russia after Fr. Joan began to have a political connotation, and perhaps this will continue for many years. However, in the broadest sense, the phenomenon of Fr. Ioanna is neither strictly Russian nor strictly Orthodox - rather, it is a universal embodiment of traditional religiosity colliding with modernity and popular culture. In some respects Fr. John has much in common with the phenomena that took place in contemporary Catholic Europe. Like the visions of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Germany, France and Portugal and the glory of the curé of Ars, the success of Fr. John indicates that the church hierarchy ultimately sought to dress in modern garb to achieve their own goals. Faced with the challenges posed by modernization in all its forms—such as industrialization, revolutionary political movements, widespread literacy—both the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches decided to embrace the emotional, personal, and frankly supernatural forms of piety that they had rejected in the 18th century. Thanks to Fr. John and his European analogues, piety has acquired a national scale in the modern world, in addition to the traditionally existing local forms - local tombs, parishes, saints, holidays. In Russia at the end of the empire, as in France, Germany and Spain at that time, holiness itself began to be associated with national virtues in the face of “faceless” modernity. Like other modern phenomena of holiness, Fr. John of Kronstadt is still in dialectical contact with society. He tried to transform society, and it responded in kind - redrawing his image in its own way, appealing to him in the hope of finding help in its own needs and circumstances. Despite all the specifics of the New Age, the fundamental property of holiness remains the same. Although the saints are found in eternal unearthly settlements, their posthumous attractiveness on earth is based on the sympathy and recognition that their mortal heirs continue to receive from them.