Глава 2. Литургические нововведения

Asceticism, for all its colossal role in the religious self-determination of Fr. John, turned out to be just one of the directions of his spiritual growth. The guidelines characteristic of the initial stage of his pastoral ministry - limiting physical needs and turning to desert fathers and hermits as models of holiness - were gradually supplemented by new ones, in particular, special zeal in performing church services and charity. The pastor's steps towards the world were partly caused by the hostility with which those around him perceived his ascetic aspirations, which irritated not only his loved ones, but also his parishioners and clergy. Father’s intention to perform unceasing prayer, for example, led to him walking absentmindedly through the streets of Kronstadt, crossing his arms over his chest and not recognizing anyone around him. Despite the fact that this manner of behavior was directly borrowed by him from the practice of the Studite monastery in Constantinople, the charter of which is St. Theodosius of Pechersk introduced it into the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, people often found it suspicious for the same reason that they distrusted the desire of Fr. John to give the beggar his last penny and even his own shoes. Foolishness was not approved and was considered a violation of synodal regulations 133. The pastor's colleagues found such behavior incompatible with his clergy, and perhaps saw here a hidden reproach to their own indifference. After the church authorities Fr. John decided to transfer the priest's salary directly to his wife, in order to remind him of his financial responsibility to his family, the pastor began teaching at a local school in order to have money for charity 134. That part of the local society that perceived Kronstadt as a “suburb of St. Petersburg” and, moreover, was accustomed to “elegant” priests, also did not like Fr.’s “excessively” modest appearance and harsh, emotional manner of serving. John; therefore, she rejected him as a “rural priest” 135. To a certain extent, it was the reluctance of those around him to the ascetic ideals of Fr. John encouraged him to cultivate other religious virtues, the most important of which was the mutual responsibility of Christians. This idea itself was not new to Russian Orthodox thought. A. S. Khomyakov’s desire to revive the conciliar worldview and F. M. Dostoevsky’s firm conviction that “everyone is responsible for everyone” are typical examples that clearly demonstrate the importance of the Russian communal spirit, especially in comparison with the “super-individualistic” West. However, if the Slavophiles and Dostoevsky believed that conciliarity and mutual responsibility are the original national characteristics and virtues manifested in public life, then Fr. John viewed them as spiritual qualities of a person that require special pastoral care 136. The main meaning of mutual responsibility was to put into practice the commandment “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:39). This gospel commandment can also be understood as the inadmissibility of caring about one’s own salvation at the expense of others. The potential conflict between both ways of striving for the salvation of the soul manifested itself in a situation where Fr. John lent someone one of his favorite books, and received it back damaged. He was sad and angry, but ultimately came to the following conclusion: “If someone borrows a book from you and returns it dirty, don’t get angry or say, I won’t give it back. In this way you will be freed from your attachment to things and surfaces. Isn't your brother's spiritual benefit more important than your book? If he benefited from it, the book had served its purpose. Give your soul-saving books to everyone who asks. If your books only stand on your shelf, they will condemn you like gold and silver in the chests of a rich man." 137 This sense of responsibility for others and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of one’s neighbor prompted Fr. John to the realization of the enduring value of the society of other people in itself. The exclusive role assigned by the pastor to communication was noticeably at odds with the famous words of St. Seraphim of Sarov: “Save yourself, and thousands around you will be saved” 138. Father John was one of the first Russian religious figures who not only recognized the need for communication with others, but also attached special importance to it in the matter of spiritual ascent. In essence, the priest conceived the idea of ​​cultivating a kind of secular analogue of the communal monastic ideal. The benefits of monastic life, which includes both the spiritual mutual enrichment of community members and the advice of a spiritual mentor, were appreciated back in the 3rd century. Abba Pachomius, calling this path the most appropriate and salutary for the majority of those who want spiritual guidance. Basil the Great also emphasized the similarities between the cenobitic monastery and the early Christian apostolic community 139 . However, even after thousands of years of practice of monastic community, the opinion persisted that only through seclusion is it possible to achieve the height of holiness. Elders such as Theophan the Recluse often advised women to seek salvation in serving their neighbors, while they themselves tried to choose solitude and truly considered seclusion the highest level of spiritual life 140. According to this point of view, community is a useful intermediate stage on the path to the Almighty, while only alone with God, the angels and himself can a person achieve the greatest heights. Father John, on the contrary, like, incidentally, some other priests of his time, began to view communication as an exclusively effective means of salvation; Moreover, it is not necessarily just a lower stage through which a Christian must go in conquering spiritual peaks, but his faithful companion throughout his entire life’s journey. Awareness of the value of communication came through family life and inevitable close contacts with loved ones. For Father John, who strove for solitude, reading and thinking about the salvation of the soul (that is, as a rule, about himself and his relationships with his flock), it was not easy for him to become sociable. At first, this required serious effort, as can be seen from his self-exhortations, for example, in his notes in 1872: “One should not neglect visiting guests: with this visit, it is revealed how obliging we are to each other and whether we respect each other cordially; Don’t forget communication, it is said; also, the inclinations and disposition of our hearts, our passions are revealed... in general, our virtues or passions are recognized in serving our neighbors, whoever” 141. Awareness of the exclusive role of neighbors in one’s spiritual development changed Fr.’s lifestyle. John. He began to spend more time among people, inviting them to his place and visiting himself. According to the recollections of those who knew the priest in the 1870s, he was a frequent and welcome guest in many homes 142. However, the importance he attached to communication was not limited to simply spending time together; the shepherd, in fact, included it in his philosophy of salvation. Viewing the sense of brotherhood and the need for fellowship as ways to deepen religious experience, he used similar language to glorify the communal way of life of the Desert Fathers: “That’s why it’s good to visit because it is a matter of Christian sociability. Observing others, we appropriate each other's good qualities, noticing and collecting spiritual treasures: for in ourselves we are poor and weak and unskilled not only in Christian, but also in universal human life. Nothing is more conducive to virtue than good, living examples” 143. However, discussions about the value of communication were not just an abstract rhetorical and didactic device. Father John was clearly aware of its incredible consoling power. Considering himself too withdrawn and gloomy, he wrote in his diary: “Force yourself to be talkative: the word drives away the despondency of the soul, calms, expands the depths of the soul, enlightens, enlivens its word. The word is a golden connection, a chain of intelligent beings. The devil often plunges us into despondency through speechlessness, not allowing us to think, feel and speak freely” 144. With insight that would be almost impossible for a person living in solitude, he especially highly appreciated the benefits of communication outside the home for reducing intra-family disagreements: “You need to have communication with people, go to visit: and your family who are at odds for some reason will become closer, become friends, become softer, more frank; when visiting both his wife and his family, everyone is kind and accommodating” 145. At the same time, Fr. John considered relationships with others to be one of his direct responsibilities as a clergyman. In the 1870s. he vowed to pray “for others as fervently... as for himself, like Moses, Samuel, Daniel, Elijah, Elisha, the divine Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul the Apostle, Peter, John... Sergius [of Radonezh], Dmitry, Chrysostom of Rostov, St. Tikhon, the newly glorified wonderworker" 146. Personalities mentioned by Fr. John - not ascetic hermits or wanderers, extolled by him in the first years of his pastoral ministry, but people who performed godly deeds in the world in the name of the Lord and for the good of people. For Fr. John's twelve apostles of Christ are, first of all, a metaphor for ideal closeness to God and His people, a kind of ideal form of mediation between them. Reading the diaries of Fr. John, one can feel that he identified his destiny with their mission - a parallel that was missing in his description of the ascetic Desert Fathers. However, he was most impressed by that aspect of the apostles' ministry that is least amenable to imitation: their ability to perform miracles. Commenting in the first months after his ordination on Matthew 10:7–8, he wrote: ““Heal the sick...” etc. In these words the Apostle saw God in the flesh, the Creator of everything, to whom it is enough to say that there is a known deed, or a known object - for this to actually come true. Can a person talk about it like that? Let you tell me: heal the sick. And I would tell you: give me a means, for example, medicine, advice that I could convey to the patient for his benefit, etc. I myself am not able, I cannot: how can I restore order in the patient’s body when I don’t know well what kind of disorder has happened to him and how to help order emerge from the disorder. How will this wonderful machine listen to me? How can I not spoil it” 147. It would seem that such a pragmatic approach should have cast doubt on the very possibility of a miracle, but with its help Fr. John became increasingly convinced of God's omnipotence. His own inability to perform such feats only shaded the miraculous capabilities of the apostles; Their extraordinary closeness to God allowed them to work miracles: “And if you told me “raise the dead,” I would consider you crazy in your mind and would not consider it necessary to talk to you for a long time. I would only tell you that God alone is able to raise us from the dead, and people without the extraordinary gift of God cannot do this. And when you said “drive out the demons,” I would say to you: are you stronger than the demons; since in order to drive these out, one must certainly be stronger than them. But since they are disembodied spirits, although the spirits of darkness were once angels, the strongest in strength, then, without a doubt, they are stronger than you, the carnal one. If you overpower them, then either God is with you, or you yourself are God” 148. Here the literalness of perception characteristic of Fr. John, be it the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures or one’s own dreams. Even being amazed at the abyss that separates the apostolic era and the gift bestowed upon the disciples of Christ from his time and opportunities, he perceives this distance to a greater extent as spiritual than historical. The apostolic gift could, after all, be passed on to others. If miracles were performed before, then why is it impossible to perform them now? Unlike his secular - and even some in the rank - contemporaries, Fr. John did not believe that the miracles of the apostolic period were a distinctive feature of early Christianity, since then irretrievably lost 149. He believed that the apostles embody and preserve the ideal harmony between heavenly and earthly things. Their path is the most perfect, for they combined love and service to the Lord with love and service to people in the name of the Lord. Despite the fact that in his diaries the shepherd repeatedly emphasized that in order to achieve God’s grace a feat of asceticism was necessary, he did not exclude the possibility of carrying out an apostolic mission in the world. For example, on May 9, 1856, Fr. John enthusiastically wrote: “Grant to me, Lord, ignorance, sorrow, poverty and boldness towards the world of your apostles, so that I too may have their fame, their joy, their wealth, their possession of everything necessary for my happiness, temporary and eternal salvation” 150. In his opinion, now the most consonant with the mission of the apostle is the priestly ministry. This idea is dissonant with the traditional idea that it is the bishops, as the closest vicars of the apostles, who are the successors of their grace. In both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the apostolic succession of bishops is affirmed both at the theological and canonical levels. So, for example, in the kontakion of St. To Tikhon of Zadonsk, an indication of such succession is simply included in the doxology: “Successor of the Apostles, adornment of the bishops of God, teacher of the Orthodox Church.” In the early Christian church, the elder was required to “serve together with the other elders and lead the people of God with a pure heart.” However, the presbyteral (priestly) rank itself did not imply any special liturgical duties; the bishop, according to Pope Gregory X, had “an absolute monopoly on the performance of divine services and sacraments as the highest priest of the single “priestly” body of the church” 151. However, according to another early Christian tradition, the roles of bishop and priest in administering the sacraments were distributed differently. In 115 St. Ignatius pointed out the differences between the bishop and the elders. He called the first “heir to the throne of God,” and the latter “heirs to the throne of the college of the apostles” 152. The initially unmanifested ability of the priest to perform the sacraments, as hinted at by Ignatius, became a daily practice in the 4th century. under Emperor Constantine, when the Church not only turned into a stable and legal institution, but also turned out to be an integral part of the Byzantine model of church-state relations - a symphony of authorities. In these new conditions, the flock rapidly increased, and it became increasingly difficult for bishops to remain the only executors of the sacraments. Therefore, presbyters also began to perform liturgical, or truly “priestly,” duties 153. Exaltation of Fr. John's priestly mission was a consequence of his conviction that the administration of the sacraments is an integral function of the priest. The fact that he identified the priest, and not the bishop, with the person intended to perform the sacraments - the key duty of the apostolic ministry - inevitably followed from the realities of Russia at that time. The bishop was so burdened with managing his subordinates and playing the unique role of mediator between the Church and the state that he was a practically inaccessible figure not only for parishioners, but even for the lower clergy. So, according to Fr. John, there was clearly not enough time left to accurately fulfill the two main tasks of pastoral ministry - to perform prayerful intercession and perform the sacraments. Therefore, it is not surprising that the apostle-shepherd living among people was more likely associated with Fr. John with a priest, rather than with a bishop and his office 154. Father's interpretation of the pastoral mission was imbued with his passionate zeal for the salvation of the world. Actually, it was in the salvation of perishing humanity that he saw the main goal of the priest. O. John wrote in his autobiography: “Reflecting on the wonderful, loving economy of God in the salvation of the human race, I shed abundant and hot tears, burning with the desire to contribute to the salvation of perishing humanity. And the Lord fulfilled my desire. Soon, after graduating from high school, I was elevated to the heights of the priestly rank" 155. For him, this truly was a true pinnacle. Priest, wrote Fr. John, in the spiritual essay “My Life in Christ,” is “a mediator between God and people; he is the closest helper of the Lord. It is as if he himself is like God for people, filled with the power to forgive their sins, to make them partakers of the terrible and life-giving Mysteries of Christ, and through this to abide with the Savior himself and to lead others to him” 156. The opportunity to perform the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, elevates the priest above those who are deprived of the priesthood, no matter what heights of holiness they may achieve in themselves: “Through the priesthood, God performs great and redemptive acts for humanity: He cleanses and sanctifies people, animals and all His creatures; He delivers people from the evil tricks of the devil; It restores and gives strength; He turns bread and wine into the purest Body and Blood of the Lord Himself; He worthily crowns His sons and daughters and cleanses their marriage beds from sin; He forgives sins, heals illnesses, transforms earth into heaven, unites heavenly with earthly, and people - His created creatures - with Himself; He unites angels with people in one host... how can people who do not know the priesthood have at least some prosperity! They are deprived of salvation. It is not for nothing that the Lord, the Creator of our Salvation, is called the High Priest” 157. Exclaiming “the priest is an angel, not a man,” Fr. John conceptualized the priesthood in terms of monasticism and angelic life. He insisted on the a priori, impersonal superiority of the priest over anyone with a zeal for holiness. For example, a nun, although she can and should pray for the world, the effectiveness of her prayer depends on her personal spiritual qualities. Another thing is a priest; he has access to a constant flow of grace coming directly from the Most High through the sacraments. It is the sacraments, as a source of absolute and true grace, that allow him to serve as a mediator between God and people and convey their prayers to the Lord: “The priest is elevated by performing church services and especially the sacraments: then he is endowed by the Lord with the greatest power, becomes omnipotent, capable of begging the whole world from God” 158. Precisely because the source of a priest’s virtue is in no way his merit, but the grace of God, Fr. John equated the priesthood with holiness, and the priest with saints, as vessels through which the Divine flows into the human. The mediation of the priest, through which people meet the Creator, occurs in different ways. Immediately after the ordination of Fr. John was overwhelmed with joy from the realization that he had finally acquired the rank for which he had so strived. He, turning to the images and style of the psalmist, perceived his upcoming service to the Lord primarily as glorifying Him: “I will go down to the altar of God, to God who rejoices my youth: we confess to you on the harp - God, my God! I have the happiness of often approaching the altar of God and confessing to it - not with the harp, but with my own voice and the voice of those singing and reading. Glory to You and thanksgiving for the fact that You have given me David’s happiness, even greater than his.” 159 For Father John, the main thing in the priestly path was service to the world, to his parishioners. If the priest, like the medieval king, existed in two forms - private and public, prescribed by the rite - there is no doubt which of them was more important for him. It is not enough for a priest to strive for the salvation of his soul; he must also constantly remember the salvation of the flock, for which he is responsible. The priest declared: “It is sinful for a priest to pray only for himself; prayer for the flock must always follow him.” Selfishness and absorption in one’s own problems are the most serious possible offenses of a priest, who simply has no moral right to private life. In the diaries of Fr. John reproached the priests for reading, but not applying the lessons learned from reading in communication with their flock: “So, shepherds of Christ’s flock, read - but also speak yourselves, write yourselves, be like bees. Your life should be devoted to the good of your flock, just as the life of parents is devoted to the good of their children." 160 The right to perform the sacraments was for the priest the surest means of stirring up the hearts of his flock and drawing them onto the path of salvation. The most important of them and central to the entire spiritual life of Fr. The Eucharist appeared to John. He constantly mentions this sacrament in his diaries, enthusiastically testifying to the strength and joy that he receives from receiving the Holy Mysteries. For him, the Eucharist was life itself, and daily communion meant an unprecedented intensity of spiritual life and communion with God: “Oh, the greatest bliss of St. Secrets! Oh, life-giving saints. Secrets! Oh, unspoken love, divine Mysteries! 161 Father attributed his physical and spiritual health exclusively to the Eucharist 162. If before he was amazed by the miracle performed by Christ on the loaves and fish (Gospel of John 21:11), now he was worried about how the mysterious transformation of particles became possible. “What is surprising that the Lord offers you His Body and Blood for food and drink?.. Just as before in infancy you fed on your mother and lived on her, her milk, so now, having grown up and become a sinful person, you feed on the blood of your Life-Giver, so that through this you would be alive and grow spiritually into a man of God, a saint, in short: so that, as then you were the son of your mother, so now you would be a child of God, raised, nourished by His Flesh and Blood, and even more so by His Spirit (for His flesh and blood are spirit and life)” 163. However, the assertion that ordinary bread and wine during the Liturgy of the faithful become literally the Body and Blood of Christ is to such an extent beyond ordinary logic that the sacrament of the Eucharist requires from the communicant a real breakthrough in his faith. Therefore, for some, this sacrament becomes a temptation and plunges them into doubt, while for others, on the contrary, it encourages them to believe 164. Attitude o. John to the Eucharist was a constant feat of faith. Thus, in 1860, on Great and Holy Thursday (the Thursday of Holy Week, when Orthodox Christians remember the Last Supper, which marked the beginning of the sacrament of the Eucharist), he questioned the absolute presence of God in every particle of the sacrament; however, his prayers to overcome doubt were answered. Statements such as “I believe and confess that the least bit of the lamb and the least drop of wine is His blood” should be understood as a response to other doubts that arise and as a way to overcome them. The statement turned into a sermon: “No matter how many particles there are, but they are all spirit and life or the whole Christ, and they are all from one bread... so Christians, no matter how many there are, are one Body of Christ” 165. However, doubts of this kind arose only in the first years of Fr. John. Subsequently, he came to the conclusion that there was no rational explanation for the transformation of bread and wine into Flesh and Blood, and, freed from empty scholastic speculation about the nature of this miracle, he simply began to pay more attention to the state of the communicant during the sacrament of the Eucharist. His subsequent writings on the sacrament are dominated by descriptions of practical ways to overcome possible doubts on this score. For example, he wrote: “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him.” It is tangible and experience confirms this. Blessed is the person who, with faith, receives Holy Communion, is filled with life. Tain, with heartfelt repentance for sins. This truth is tangible, it is clear from the contrary. When, without sincere repentance for sins and with doubt, you approach St. More often than not, then Satan enters you and remains in you, killing your soul, and this can be extremely noticeable” 166. The last phrase speaks simultaneously of fear and threat - the fear of receiving communion, being unworthy - which was supposed to be transmitted to his flock, who trusted him with their religious problems. Over the years, the shepherd began to adhere even more firmly to this point of view. O. John stated: “Whoever comes to St. More often than not, with some passion in his heart, that Judas comes to flatteringly kiss the Son of Man” 167. He did not write this way to intimidate his parishioners; he himself felt like a traitor in the event of an “unworthy” communion and suffered painfully for several days. But how, in this case, could he, having overcome his fear, approach the cup? He invented methods that allowed him to take the sacrament. One of them referred to the words of Yahweh, solemnly spoken to Moses: “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14). It sounded like this: “In order to partake with undoubted faith of the Life-giving Mysteries and defeat all the machinations of the enemy, all slander, imagine that what you receive from the Chalice is “the One,” that is, the One Existing. When you have such a disposition of thoughts and heart, then from accepting St. Mystery, you will suddenly calm down, rejoice and become enlivened, you will know in your heart that the Lord truly and essentially abides in you, and you are in the Lord. – Experience" 168 . The capacious term “experience” demonstrates the desire of Fr. John to use his own spiritual trials as evidence of God's presence. It was precisely for this appeal to experience, and not for theological research, that the Protestants of his time fell in love with the shepherd 169 . Having ceased to waste energy on logical proof of what required a powerful spiritual breakthrough, he now cited the miracle of the Eucharist as an example - and, in fact, as proof - of the existence of other phenomena of religious life, incomprehensible to the human mind: “From the constant miracle of the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of Christ, united with His Divinity and Soul, I see the miracle of the constant revival of man by the divine breath and his creation into a living soul. “And it came to pass,” it is said, “man lives in soul,” and on St. At the meal, bread and wine, after transubstantiation, become not only a living soul, but also “a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45; Gen. 2:7). And this is all before my eyes; and I experience it with my soul and body, I feel it vividly. My God! What terrible Mysteries You perform! What unspoken Mysteries You have made me a spectator and participant. Glory to Thee, my Creator! Glory to Thee, Creator of the Body and Blood of Christ!” 170 The very fact of the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ was so miraculous that other miracles either simply faded against its background, or even flowed from it: if a person is able to believe that bread and wine are the Divine Flesh and Blood, then he will be able to perceive other phenomena that are incomprehensible to the mind. Attitude o. John's approach to miracles was based precisely on the initial belief in the miracle of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the basis of the Christian rite; it is incomprehensible to the human mind and refutes all natural laws. This is by definition a multiple, regularly repeating miracle. Christians must be constantly prepared for a miracle, especially at the moment of Holy Communion, which connects a person with God in the shortest way. Father John described the miraculous power of the sacrament in a very realistic manner: “It is good for me to pray for people when I receive communion worthily: then the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, my God is in me, and I have great boldness before Him. The king is then in me, as in a monastery: ask for whatever you want. "Let us come to him and make our abode with him. Whatever you want, ask, and it will be done for you" (John 14:23; 15:7)" 171 An inner sense of the presence of God later gave Fr. John has “boldness” to pray for the fulfillment of the requests of the laity and to feel confident that they will be fulfilled. Moreover, he felt that his mission as a priest was to ignite his flock, at least in part, with his religious zeal. Less than five years after his ordination, he already considered responsibility for the spiritual formation of his parishioners an integral part of his life, so much so that he longed for them to share in his own achievements on the path to the Lord. Thus, in 1866, the priest wrote in his diary: “Today I united with the Lord in mysterious communion at the early liturgy and there was the fullness of Him who fulfills all things in everyone. Oh, if only this were always possible!.. that is, to fill everyone - all hearts" 172. An inextricable connection with his flock and joint participation in the Holy Mysteries became the essence of his public pastoral hypostasis. In his desire to fully share the spiritual fruits of Orthodox worship with the parishioners, Fr. John radically changed the prevailing perception in Russia of both the service itself and the priest. Typical for the mid-19th century. the desire to make the liturgy closer to the flock found its most ardent supporter in the priest. Love for Holy Communion, combined with a sense of responsibility to his flock, pushed him to a deeper penetration into the Eucharistic canon and to transfer his own spiritual experience to everyone present in the church. The pastor's efforts in this field were a great success and literally became a revelation both for the laity and for the church clergy themselves, who were familiar with the manner of his ministry. This manner was very different from the traditional liturgical practice of most of the clergy. Future priests and readers were instructed both in seminaries and at the initial stage of their independent practice to eliminate the personal element as much as possible during the celebration of the liturgy or reading of canonical texts. They were required to convey the content of what they were reading as accurately as possible, walking at a measured pace and without highlighting any part of the phrase. Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) expressed this very accurately in his time: “Measured reading, performance of spiritual chants, reverent bows in accordance with the established order, correct and leisurely application of the sign of the cross - all this in itself lifts the soul from the earthly and elevates it to the heavenly... On the other hand, any manifestation of self-will even by a pious priest during common prayer inevitably plunges into delusion, that is, into spiritual self-deception; this, in turn, pushes the priest to the next temptation, when the parishioners begin to revere not the service, but his own person; and the shepherd turns from an organizer of general prayer into an actor” 173. Against the background of such an established attitude of church hierarchs, the deeply personal approach of Fr. John for the church service could not help but be amazed. He strove to involve everyone present in the church into the spiritual depths of worship. While the Orthodox charter (as well as the charter of the Roman Catholic Church until Vatican II) ordered the priest and deacon to read prayers facing the altar and with their backs to the parishioners, Fr. John often turned his face to those praying during such prayer appeals as “Let us be good,” “We have sorrow in our hearts,” and “Give thanks to the Lord.” Whenever the flock was mentioned in prayers, the priest either pointed with a gesture at some of the parishioners, or waved his hand over everyone. Previously, it was quite easy for a parishioner to remain only a spectator of the liturgy, abstracting himself from both the service itself and those around him. Now, suddenly meeting the gaze of Fr. John before the start of the Eucharist and hearing him address directly to you and those standing next to you, “Drink from it, all of you,” the worshipers felt that from each of them the priest expected genuine participation in the feast of the reception of the Holy Mysteries of Christ 174 . The difference between the pastor and other priests was manifested not only in the fact that he addressed directly to each parishioner. Instead of the usual mournful tenor of the priest, who deliberately read the prayers dispassionately, he cried, exclaimed and shouted the words of matins and the liturgy, smiled beatifically at the mention of the Mother of God and the saints, and angrily shook his missal, uttering the words “Satan” or “devil” 175. His zeal was transmitted to those around him, thanks to which the flock was shaken up and stopped looking indifferently at the divine service. Poet-publicist Konstantin Fofanov, who once stood at the altar during the service of Fr. John, wrote: “And he pronounced the words sharply, abruptly, as if he was convincing, as if he was ordering, or rather, he insisted on his request. "My power! You are my light!" he exclaimed, raising his hands with tears in his voice, and suddenly, his precious miter shimmering, he fell on his face." 176 One synod official, who was present at the priest’s liturgy, later recalled: “Suddenly, during the performance of the hymn about the incarnation of Christ - “The Only Begotten Son and Word of God” - he quickly grabbed the cross from the throne and kissed it, tremblingly squeezing the cross with both hands and looking at it tenderly and at the same time excitedly; then kissed him again three or four times in a row, pressing him to his forehead” 177. Many perceived such liturgical improvisations by Fr. John with bewilderment and prejudice. Thus, the famous lawyer Anatoly Koni does not hide his rejection of the priest’s manner: “When he began to read the Gospel, his voice took on a sharp and commanding tone, and the sacred words began to be repeated with some kind of hysterical cry: “If your brother asks for bread,” he exclaimed, “and you will give him a stone ... you will give him a stone!.. A stone! And he will ask for a fish, and you will give him a snake ... you will give him a snake! it was not reverence that aroused, but some strange uneasiness, some anxious feeling that was communicated from one to the other” 178 . Despite the fact that people reacted differently to such an extraordinary manner of worship, Fr. John broke the established stereotype of how a parish priest is perceived. The priest turned into a kind of lightning rod, capable of charging those present with his own zeal. Even the skeptics who came to his service invariably felt that the source of such expressive originality of Fr. John - in diligent prayer and spiritual self-discipline, which completely excludes any manifestation of theatricality. In 1897 Fr. Mikhail Paozersky recalled the words of guidance for church pastors, looking at the face of Fr. John, frozen in complete internal concentration before the start of the Cherubic song: “One could read on it, as in a book: “Let no one touched by carnal passions and voluptuousness dare to approach.” 179 A deeply individual interpretation of the liturgy, characteristic of Fr. John, extended not only to the manner of his worship. He also freely reinterpreted canonical texts, which plunged the clergy who served him into even greater bewilderment. To understand how shocking such a practice could be, it should be remembered that, unlike the Protestants, who emphasized the “gift of tongues” and prayer in their own words, the Orthodox Church followed a strict charter and canon, where every litany, every swing of the censer was clearly spelled out in the missal, carefully studied by every deacon and priest. Some elements of the service reached an almost baroque level of complexity, forcing the clergy to turn to the Typikon, where all the service rites and combinations of canonical texts for any day are outlined. Therefore, the skill of a priest or deacon was often assessed not by the manner of their service, but by their ability to promptly find the text required at one time or another 180. And against such a background, Fr. John allowed himself unheard of liberties. He inserted his own phrases and even entire prayers into the texts of the services. For example, before the beginning of the Creed, after the prayer invocation “Let us love one another,” when the clergy in the altar should embrace with the words “Christ is in our midst,” he added: “both is and will be” (or “alive and active”). A student parishioner who later became a priest wrote about his shock at these words: “I stood rooted to the spot and stunned by these words and suddenly thought: yes, indeed Christ the Savior is here, among us, and not somewhere far away, not dead, not pushed to an unattainable height by some abstract teaching and not just a familiar historical character, but alive, “alive and active.” He is among us. And even “acting”. From this realization I was seized with fear and horror, my soul began to tremble and tremble. I was ready to prostrate myself before the throne" 181. The shepherd allowed himself more extensive insertions. Perhaps due to the fact that Fr. John grew up in areas where a significant number of Old Believers lived from time immemorial; he was always concerned about guiding the infidels into the fold of the Orthodox Church. The desire to serve people and concern for their salvation, which underlie his missionary aspirations, were also reflected in the prayer composed by the priest, read during the Creed: “Unite in this faith all the great Christian societies that have sadly fallen away from the unity of St. the Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is Thy body and its Head, Thou art the Savior of the body - overthrow the pride and opposition of their teachers and those who follow them, grant them with their hearts to understand the truth and salvific nature of Thy Church and to unite with it without laziness; unite Your holy Church and those who suffer from ignorance, delusion and stubbornness of schism... Draw all the languages ​​inhabiting the earth to this faith, so that with one heart and one mouth all the languages ​​glorify You, the only God and benefactor of all” 182. Despite the fact that these additions were not part of any canonical text, they were nevertheless absolutely consistent with the spirit of the Orthodox canon. The use of Church Slavonic instead of colloquial Russian (for example, “living” and “acting” instead of “living” and “acting”) only strengthened the feeling that Father’s interpolations fit perfectly and even became an organic and integral part of the canonical text. Praying for those who are outside the bosom of the Church during the service was unusual, although in itself not unique: just remember the prayers from prayer services that are not part of the liturgy, and the rite of baptism. However, often Fr. John used expressions that not only had a distinctly modern sound, but perhaps also Protestant overtones. For example, immediately after communion he could say: “The Lord is in me personally, God and man, hypostatically, essentially, immutably, purifying, sanctifying, victorious, renewing, deifying, miraculous, which is what I feel in myself” 183. Despite the retention of such Orthodox theological concepts as “hypostasis” and “essence,” the emphasis on individual impression and individual experience (even as applied to God rather than to Father John), combined with colloquial Russian to enhance the immediacy of perception, clearly ran counter to the mechanistic manner of speaking characteristic of other Orthodox priests. Paradoxically, when the pastor prayed for the sectarians as those who had fallen away from the true Church and hoped for their conversion to the true faith, he resorted to language that resembled their language. Of course, due to the fact that Protestant and Roman Catholic communities were active in St. Petersburg, Fr. John was familiar firsthand with their practice of confession of faith. So, in 1873 Fr. John recalls a conversation with an Anglican pastor who criticized some aspects of Orthodoxy, comparing it with Protestantism: “A conversation with an Anglican pastor. His review of wanderers as fanatics and monks as egoists living only for themselves; about icons as idols." However, although Fr. John knew about “Protestant criticism” and could discuss it with the non-Orthodox clergy; his consistent criticism of the Lutherans and Anglicans was based precisely on the condemnation of conscious rivalry 184. A more likely source of his prayers is the tradition of composing one's own prayers for special purposes. Not only saints, but also ordinary mortals resorted to prayers, very similar to spells, for purposes such as guaranteeing marital fidelity, a good harvest, or winning someone's favor 185. The pre-Christian origin of the spells is obvious, and at the same time, there is a sufficient number of non-canonical prayers that are Orthodox in spirit to suggest that they could have prompted Fr. John to the compilation of prayer appeals 186. Of course, there was a difference between prayers for every day and prayers included in the divine service. Prayers for every day, in fact, could be anything, and liturgical prayers had to strictly fit into church canons. If all priests allowed themselves such free treatment of canonical texts, the result would be a threat not only to the integrity, but even to the very existence of Orthodoxy 187 . It’s simply amazing how the priest managed to improvise during services without hindrance. Probably the answer lies in the fact that he simply “did not let” his improvisations beyond the limits prescribed by the dogmas and sacraments of the Orthodox Church. He believed that God could only be known “objectively” through the sacraments of the Orthodox Church; the elevation to a living perception of the Lord by the parishioners and other priests who served the liturgy with him constituted for him the very essence of the sacraments. Therefore, with all his desire for a more in-depth and frequent introduction of the flock to the sacraments of Fr. John never rejected the sacraments themselves, as the Protestant sects of that time did. However, he could and did change the rules of initiation into the sacraments, simplifying the complex, multi-stage procedure accompanying each sacrament. For example, before the Eucharist, parishioners had to fast from three days to a week, and those of them who knew how to read were to read the Follow-up to Holy Communion 188. Women could not receive communion during uncleanness, even if all other requirements were fulfilled; Moreover, this prohibition also extended to such customs not directly related to the liturgy as the veneration of icons and kissing the cross 189 . The Orthodox clergy of that time (as well as modern ones) appealed to the concept of purity, characteristic of Judaism, Islam and early Christianity, as an indispensable condition for receiving the sacrament. In fact, this was one of the reasons why Russians rarely took communion: in order to fast “as it should be,” it would require spending more time and effort than was possible 190 . Father John sought to overcome the atmosphere of fear that reigned around the sacrament. In his sermons, he drew a parallel between spiritual health and the acceptance of the Holy Mysteries 191. He went against tradition and contemporary practice, in some cases allowing women to approach the cup during times of uncleanness and allowing parishioners whom he knew well to receive communion with little or no preparation. However, taking into account the centuries-old traditions of Fr. John had to exercise considerable caution in this matter. He could not deviate so much from the Orthodox charter as to leave the parishioners to decide for themselves the issue of communion. He still had the last word; Thus, he did not allow obvious and unrepentant drunkards and adulterers to receive communion, as well as young people who came to church unkempt 192 . Maybe innovations about. John, who made the sacrament more accessible, do not seem so radical today, but this is the first such example in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moreover, by the time the priest began his pastoral ministry, the order of Vespers, Matins and Liturgy had not undergone changes for more than two centuries, and against this background, any change was a breakthrough. Even those whom Fr. John considered them ready to accept his innovations; they were perceived as an unprecedented relaxation of the rules 193. However, convincing the flock to receive communion more often was not an easy task. The superficial attitude of the parishioners towards their “obligations” caused Fr. John’s deep inner anxiety: “How poorly you receive communion,” he exclaimed on the pages of his diary, “but how necessary it is to receive communion more often! After all, your soul is languishing with spiritual hunger and thirst. Hunger and thirst for grace. Think about the Samaritan woman and the Savior - know how to seek the living water of grace" 194. He did not tolerate well when his own perception of the sacraments did not coincide with that of his fellow priests and parishioners. This righteous anger (which later prompted the priest to engage in political activity), the feeling that only he and the Lord alone are confronting the insensitive world, appears in Fr. John from the very beginning of his pastoral ministry: “What if You, Lord, my God, Jesus Christ, would shine the light of Your Divinity from Your Most Pure Mysteries, when they rest on St. the throne - on the paten during the liturgy, or in the tabernacle, or monstrance, when your priest carries them on his chest, going to or from the sick! From this light, everyone who met them or looked at them from their homes would have fallen to the ground in fear, for the Angels are also covered with fear of Your unapproachable glory! And yet how indifferently others treat these heavenly Mysteries! How others indifferently perform the terrible sacred rite of St. Tain! 195 The shepherd’s reverence for all things God and his desire to introduce everyone to this feeling prompted the priest to take care of the most diverse aspects of the divine service. So, almost the same close attention as to the sacraments, Fr. John devoted singing to the church choir and other members of the clergy, for it was this that created the proper prayerful atmosphere. In a short autobiographical note written for the magazine “North” in 1888, he especially emphasized that from childhood he loved prayer and church services, especially good singing 196 . Fr. will continue to pay attention to the level of church music. John and in later years. His diaries contain numerous statements about singing, in particular: “I served the liturgy with a feeling of tenderness and repentant silence in my soul, when suddenly, during the Cherubic song, the enemy tore me out of this state, causing irritation with the singers, the nuns of the Leushinsky monastery, who performed Lvov’s motive for the words “Like the Cherubim secretly form,” which seemed false to me. I was tempted and cried out to the Lord to grant me peace and meekness - Thy sinful, self-willed and wayward servant." 197 Of course, many shared the commitment of Fr. John to a high level of church singing. Laymen of all classes were sometimes more willing to serve in a monastery or nunnery than in their parish church, simply because they sang better there, and other Old Believers returned to the fold of the Orthodox Church only because of the “sweet-voiced singing” 198 . Western researchers also come to a similar conclusion: music, and especially singing, was highly valued by Russian peasants 199 . However, the attention of Fr. John's approach to the text and music of the service had a somewhat unusual character. One eyewitness wrote: “We started singing stichera on the “stichovna.” Father John at this time was almost dressed to serve the liturgy. The only thing he was missing was his robe. Quickly, swiftly, he ran out rather than out, he went from the altar to the choir, joined the singers and began to sing with them. He sang with enthusiasm, deep faith in every word, regenting himself, again emphasizing individual words and slowing down the tempo where it was necessary according to the logical meaning and content of the chant. The singers instinctively guessed these words, this tempo and beat, and echoed it with considerable skill and animation. The singing, not entirely harmonious at first, quickly became harmonious, strong, sonorous, powerful, inspiring, flowing throughout the entire church, filling the entire soul of the worshiper. How touching it was to look at the singers at this time. It was as if one early Christian family with their father at the head sang, sang their victorious, sacred, great hymns” 200. In other words, Fr. John wanted the faithful to experience a liturgical experience that was complete in every way. A deeper experience of the sacrament was inevitably associated with repentance, and the pastor also made changes to the sacrament of confession. This circumstance should be discussed in particular detail. Since preaching was still rare in the mid-nineteenth century, despite the efforts of the clergy, confession was in many cases the only way to receive spiritual instruction, and parishioners highly valued the priest's ability to listen carefully to their repentance. Here about. John was at his best. He put himself in the place of the confessor, noting that “repentance must be sincere and completely free, without any coercion by time, custom or the person of the confessor himself” 202. He tried to make confession as fruitful as possible, and conducted it in a special room with a gate located in the church wall (later such rooms became an organic element of church architecture). The priest was also lenient about violating the existing rules of preparation for confession - preparatory weekly prayer, attending church and observing fasting 203. This position of the pastor demonstrates his conviction that full-fledged, effective confession is the fruit of “co-creation” between the priest and the parishioner. When the confessor was brief or indifferent, the priest’s task became noticeably more complicated: “Woe when dryness meets dryness—when a priest in confession, wounded by an enemy, meets a spiritual child who is not at all prepared. And there are so many of them!” 204 At first, immediately after being ordained, Fr. John tried to confess to everyone for as long as possible. One of his parishioners recalled: “He was not content with a simple formal confession, but undertook a comprehensive study and testing of the spiritual feelings and religious knowledge of the repentant. Sometimes he spent hours with him and, postponing absolution, forced him to say repentance again and again. Over the years, the number of people confessing to the priest has increased unusually” 205. Over time, the selfless zeal of Fr. John's performance of the sacraments bore fruit. A circle of people began to form around the priest, regularly confessing and receiving communion; gradually this community expanded beyond the borders of Kronstadt and St. Petersburg. Despite the fact that he did not seem to particularly single out girls and women in his priestly mission, among the parishioners who received the sacraments (and wrote to the pastor about their spiritual experiences), there were much more of them than men, as in the practice of Jean-Marie Viannet, a French curé from Ars, a contemporary of Fr. John 206. The phenomenon of mass pilgrimage to Kronstadt for the sole purpose of regularly confessing and receiving communion from a pastor affected exclusively women. Their devotion to Fr. John was amazing: one woman wrote that she was lucky enough to live “in such grace”—that is, to regularly receive communion from a shepherd—for seventeen years 207 . Particular attention to the sacraments of the Eucharist and confession, as well as to the personality of the confessor himself, was not a characteristic phenomenon in Russian church practice. Although many elders and elders endowed with God's gift had followers, they came to their mentors primarily for advice, and not for communion, on the exceptional importance of which Fr. John. Like the curé of Ars, he sought to ensure that any visit, spiritual instruction, prayer, or even healing of a parishioner was connected with his communion 208 . The selfless celebration of the Eucharist was directly related to the personal charisma and energy of Fr. John; one woman named Varvara wrote to him: “I received Holy Communion twice. The Mysteries of Christ in order to get closer to you spiritually." Father was so invested in the Eucharist and brought into its celebration a spark of God of such power that it did not go out even after the death of the shepherd 209 . Perhaps more regular and thoughtful communion was Fr.'s most significant contribution. John into the tradition of Russian piety. Both the change in generally accepted standards of “appropriate” behavior, which previously did not imply frequent communion (after all, it was believed that it could discredit the sacrament), and the revival of Eucharistic theology in Russian Orthodoxy, which remains in it to this day, became striking signs of this “quiet revolution” 210. Father John so fervently wanted parishioners to come to him to confess that he met them, especially in the first years of his pastoral ministry, with open arms, expressing no dissatisfaction with either the time they chose for confession or the enormous number of those who wanted him to repent. In 1859, the priest wrote: “Wonderful thing! Yesterday I went to confession from 4 to 11 o’clock, and although I was a little tired, I went to bed at 12 o’clock and got up at 4 1/2 o’clock, and I felt vigorous and healthy! What a good work for the Lord! How He reinforces is marvelous!” 211 However, even with all the zeal of Fr. John, his inspired approach to the sacraments was such a success that it became simply physically impossible to properly listen to the confession of everyone who wanted to. In 1882, just when his fame began to spread beyond Kronstadt, he thanked the Lord “for the grace of St. Communion, giving me the strength to confess to 243 people (standing) from 3 to 10 1/4" 212. In practice, this meant that each confessor was given an average of less than two minutes. Three years later, the situation is even more tense: “Four hundred people at communion today. God bless!" When the number of confessors began to be measured in thousands and Fr. John had to listen to confession all night until the morning; he resorted to an unprecedented innovation - he began to conduct general confession 213. By the end of the 1890s. Confession in St. Andrew's Cathedral in Kronstadt at the most tense moments was a spectacle unprecedented in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church - thousands of people gathered together and shouted out their sins. That is, from a deeply personal sacrament (essentially, not even dependent on the personality of the confessor, limited only to memorized questions to the parishioners), confession turned into a kind of public rite, based primarily on the charisma of the confessor. In other words, the very nature of the sacrament has changed almost beyond recognition. One can only be surprised that there were no particular disagreements among church hierarchs regarding the admissibility of such an innovation. There were several reasons for this. The era of the Great Reforms shook the entire empire, including the Church. Against this background, a wide variety of initiatives began to emerge aimed at somewhat reviving “synodal” Orthodoxy. Moreover, in the first centuries of Christianity, confession already had a similar form: sinners had to admit their sins publicly, in front of the entire flock, in order to once again become part of a single church community, jointly celebrating the Eucharist 214. However, there was also an original Russian and a later - although not church in form - version of such a confession. Dostoevsky repeatedly drew the reader’s attention (the most obvious examples are the conversation between Sonya and Raskolnikov in “Crime and Punishment”, Zosima and Alyosha in “The Brothers Karamazov”) on the need of the Russian person to repent and ask for forgiveness publicly, “before Mother Earth,” if there are no people around, and thereby confirmed the very widespread belief that true repentance should be in public. Throughout the Orthodox world, on Forgiveness Sunday before Lent, it was customary to bow to the ground and ask for forgiveness in front of the entire family at home and in front of the entire parish in church 215. Moreover, there is numerous literature devoted to the once widespread rite of repentance before Mother Earth, references to which are also found in the service itself 216. Public repentance was highly valued not only in a purely religious context: for example, the punishment for a crime against a rural community was halved if the offender confessed and asked for forgiveness 217. In some areas of Russia, it was believed that a married couple who experienced difficulties in having children should ask forgiveness from the women living in their neighborhood 218 . Thus, it can be assumed that Fr. John introduced elements of archaic pre-Christian practice into the Orthodox liturgy. Nevertheless, there were several features that distinguished the priest’s general confession from other forms of public repentance. In cases where a sinner repented before his neighbors in the community, he did it alone. At the pastor's confessions the situation was the opposite. Despite the fact that each parishioner still confessed his sins on his own, he heard his own voice, which was drowned in the general repentant choir, and experienced completely different sensations. Involuntarily, the person ceased to be ashamed of his own sins, which was noted and especially harshly criticized by other clergy - this is discussed below. Then Fr. John began to deliberately neglect the external attributes of a priest serving the liturgy - full vestments, chasuble, miter; this made the parishioners think twice. Going out to serve only in a cassock and stole (as priests usually dressed for confession), he wanted to remind the parishioners that repentance is still a purely personal matter for everyone, despite the fact that it is pronounced almost in chorus. According to one pious parishioner, Fr. John began the service “without our usual “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”” 219. The absence of this obligatory and unchanging prayer formula enhanced the spontaneity of perception, going beyond the usual framework of a church service. The sectarians of that time also abandoned this formula 220. Despite the fact that the approach of Fr. John, purely outwardly, seemed to have similar features with Protestant views, the final result - the sacrament of the liturgy performed by the priest - remained completely different. The pastor immediately addressed the parishioners with the words “men and women, sinners like me,” thereby emphasizing the connection between the priest and the laity rather than the difference in their religious status. In addition, Fr. John himself read prayers before confession - an action usually performed by a reader or even a layman - with great feeling and with numerous inclusions of his own. Thus, the shepherd helped to overcome the slightest sense of formality of what was happening and conveyed to those present his feeling of connection with God. As thousands of people listened to his intermittent voice, the intensity of their feelings increased. The mood of the parishioners, in turn, was transmitted to Fr. John. The interaction between priest and congregation, in which both parties energized each other, created an atmosphere of ecstatic spiritual liberation. An eyewitness wrote: “He covered his face with his hands, but from under them large tears dripped onto the cold church floor... Father John wept, uniting his tears with the tears of the people, like a true shepherd of the flock of Christ, he grieved and rejoiced in his soul for his flock. And these lost, sinful sheep, seeing tears on the face of their beloved shepherd and understanding the state of his soul in these moments, were ashamed even more of themselves and burst into even greater sobs, cries, groans, and a pure river of tears of repentance flowed even more abundantly to the throne of God, washing polluted souls in their streams. The huge cathedral was filled with groans, screams and sobs; it seemed that the whole church was shaking from the amazing screams of the people” 221. The positive or negative perception by others of these transformations of the sacrament of confession equally depended not only on any ideas about compliance with the canons, but also on different attitudes towards collective experience. The consistory resisted the introduction of general confession, seeing in it a dangerous resemblance to the rampages of the self-mutilating sect of the Khlysty 222. Others liked the abandonment of their own “I” and merger with the collective. To describe the power and attractiveness of general confession, ardent supporters of Fr. John drew attention to universal unity and overcoming social barriers between people: “At these moments, in front of us there was no longer a mass of individual people, but, as it were, one person, a single body, one living organism, moving back and forth. Everything merged and united in this mass. There are no more divisions. Rich and poor, noble and ignorant, learned and unlearned, man and woman - everyone was together, everyone had one soul and one heart at those moments, like the first Christians." 223 While bringing unprecedented relief to many believers, such moments dampened and alienated more skeptical eyewitnesses. Alien to religiosity, A. Serebrov noted with disgust: “...at the sight of him the crowd went into a frenzy; everyone made their way forward, closer to the pulpit. They pushed each other, climbed onto the benches, onto the steps, almost trampled the shroud in order to better see the elder. Thousands of hands reached out to meet him, thousands of mouths shouted his name... ...the deacon blew out the burning candles. Darkness fell from the dome of the church and crushed people to the ground. And that’s when the terrible thing began. You can’t see in the dark, everything is permitted in the dark. In the darkness, people's tongues were loosened. The abomination of the human soul poured out. The holy fools began to wail, howl, and sing. The seizures hit the ground. The darkness was filled with screams, moans, and sobs. And everyone who was in the church suddenly turned out to be criminals: “Father, have mercy, I’m sleeping with my father-in-law!” Someone was already tearing their dress - the chintz was cracking: - The little baby... the little baby was poisoned! Someone already felt like they were in hell: – Save... fiery Gehenna... Hell! Hell! Hell! The elegant lady poked her palm with a hatpin: - Rubbish... rubbish... slut! My neighbor, a tradesman, was bleeding from his mouth - he knocked out his teeth. If these crazy people had knives, they would cut themselves senseless." 224 The impression of the general confession was strikingly similar among the most diverse parishioners. The descriptions of both her supporters and opponents coincide both in detail and in the recognition of the magnetic power of Fr. John above the crowd. For example, the testimony of a pious clergyman differs little from the story of A. Serebrov: “There was a terrible, unimaginable noise. Some cried, some sobbed loudly, some fell to the floor, some stood in silent stupor... “Repent, repent,” Father John repeated from time to time. Sometimes he turned his gaze to any one part of the church and everyone there felt his gaze on them. Immediately in this place voices began to be heard louder, standing out noticeably in the general chorus of voices and infecting the crowd even more... How powerfully he controlled this entire mass of people, he was like some kind of magician or sorcerer. Tell about. John to the people, so that they would follow him in these moments, and he would follow his shepherd everywhere..." 225 The connection between the charisma of Fr. John and the redemptive power of the sacrament itself is shown with exceptional accuracy. People came to the shepherd in streams, and in at least one case, when more than eight thousand pilgrims arrived in Kronstadt for confession, more than two thousand were forced to leave (it was impossible to prepare so many Holy Gifts) 226 . Of course, there was an obvious temptation to abuse public confession in order to avoid the more responsible, frank and perhaps more embarrassing private confession. For example, St. Boris Nikolaev accused parishioners that many of them preferred general confession precisely because it freed them from the obligation to confess their misdeeds alone with the priest. Other members of the clergy believed that the state of catharsis into which parishioners fall, in the absence of personal responsibility, can only worsen their behavior after confession 227. It was precisely these features of general confession, which became widespread in the Soviet era, that aroused the greatest criticism. In 1926, Prot. Valentin Sventitsky considered it necessary to give a series of lectures on the dangers of general confession, in which he explained that “general confession” is absolutely contrary to Orthodox canons and must be excluded from Orthodox practice at all costs. Then a reasonable question arose as to why this was allowed. John? The whole point is that possessing the gift of clairvoyance, Fr. John was not like other priests. Warning possible imitators, Fr. Valentin, and after him many other emigrant clergy, especially emphasized its uniqueness: “The necessary condition for individual confession—the confessor’s duty to know the sins of the person confessing—was fulfilled by Father John with God-given clairvoyance. Father John...could see sin in a person’s soul; he knew this, even if he did not question him... The general confession of Father John of Kronstadt was a unique, unprecedented phenomenon. This is essentially unavailable to us as an example to follow." 228 Another priest echoed him - he said that at the general confession, Fr. John achieved greater results than he could after half an hour of individual conversations - he also felt that Fr. John was given extraordinary grace 229. (On the other hand, as Bishop Alexander (Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky) noted, if Fr. John was a true righteous man, the priests should have taken him as an example 230.) Since in the diaries of Fr. John does not have any discussion about general confession; it is difficult to decide whether it was simply a forced measure in the circumstances that prevailed at that time, or whether he attributed to it independent spiritual value. In any case, it can be assumed that general confession became the optimal solution in a situation where the number of penitents exceeded the number of minutes in a day, so it would hardly have been possible to avoid mass participation here. However, a different example is given to us by Jean-Marie Viannet, a French Roman Catholic curé, a contemporary of Fr. John. Just like Fr. John, Vianney was the parish priest who gathered the largest number of pilgrims in France in the mid-19th century. and became, as it is said in his life, the “quintessence” of a clergyman. Just like Fr. John, curé of Ars, became famous for his gift of healing and for insisting on more frequent communion. However, unlike Fr. John, Vianney abandoned active apostolic mission and essentially imprisoned himself in his confessional, where he spent fifteen hours a day all year round. While Fr. John spent most of the day traveling, performing various services that were supposed to be served by a Russian priest (especially prayer services), Viannet limited his pastoral duties to only conducting confession and communion 231 . This testifies both to the wider range of duties of an Orthodox priest compared to a Catholic priest, and to the active nature of Fr. John, who would hardly agree to reduce his mission only to the Eucharist. It can also be assumed that the priest was unable to change the established habits of the laity in accordance with his desires. The aspiration of Fr. John, so that his parishioners and all Orthodox Christians would receive communion more often, was in practice hampered by the fact that general confession was not performed daily or even weekly, but only during fasting, when the Russian people traditionally went to church to confess and receive communion. The hope of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) that this custom could be changed by more rationally distributing confession and communion throughout the annual cycle was only partially justified in Kronstadt. The habit of the laity, who associated confession, fasting and communion with traditional church holidays, turned out to be stronger than the official statement of the hierarch or the personal charisma of the priest. In addition to the liturgy, Father John served many individual and “custom” prayers - thanksgiving, for healing or for help. To give some idea of ​​the place they occupied in his activities, we note that Fr. John served the liturgy in the morning (from 5 to approximately 11 a.m., depending on the number of people receiving communion), and for the rest of the day until midnight he traveled to various houses and institutions, meeting with people, including pilgrims who came to Kronstadt. Father John did not resist this service that went beyond the limits of the liturgy and did not perceive it as something far from true faith and piety - even when because of it it was necessary to reduce the time allotted for confession and communion. It was during prayer services and other private services that people expressed their deepest and most powerful desires. Both the shepherd and his children valued prayer services too highly and did not even allow the thought of abandoning them. Mikhail (Semyonov), hieromonk. Father John of Kronstadt. Full biography with illustrations. St. Petersburg, 1903. pp. 37–38. On the Synod’s condemnation of foolishness, see: RGIA. F. 834. Op. 2, No. 1701. Fol. 2. I am grateful to Eve Levin for mentioning this source. Michael. Father John of Kronstadt... P. 52. See: Nikitin D.V. (Fokagitov). On the shore and at sea. San Francisco, 1937. pp. 7–13. See Khomyakov's letters to Palmer in the book: Russia and the English Church During the Last Fifty Years / Ed. by Birkbeck W. J. L., 1895. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 19 vol. Seraphim (Chichagov), archimandrite. Chronicle of the Seraphim-Diveevsky Monastery / 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1903. P. 360. Basile. Grandes Regies // Amand D. D. L’Ascèse Monastique de Saint Basile, Essai Historique. Maredsous, 1948, pp. 118–128. See: Feofan (Govorov). Letters to various persons on various subjects of faith and life. 2nd ed. M., 1892. P. 271. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 13. See memoirs: Levitsky P. P. Prot. John Ilyich Sergiev of Kronstadt: Some features from his life. Pg., 1916. P. 4–7. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 43 vol. Right there. D. 1. L. 16 rev.–17. Here about. John foresees some of the miracles later attributed to him. The fact that miracles had not been performed since early Christianity amazed so many that Bishop Innocent devoted a separate sermon to this topic. See his sermon “A Sermon on Why the Holy Spirit Doesn’t Work Miracles Nowadays?” in the book: Samples of Russian church preaching of the 19th century / Comp. priest M. A. Potorzhinsky. Kiev, 1882. pp. 185–198. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 28 rev. Dix D. G. The Shape of the Liturgy. L., 1975. P. 33. Ignatius. Epistle to the Magnesians // The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch/Ed. by Kleist J. A. L., 1962. P. 70–71, 128. Cm.: Pomazansky M., Protopresbyter. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition. Platina, 1984, pp. 246–254. As he wrote in his diary, bishops now fight with ink, pen and paper, and not with living word or example. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 74. V. M. Two days in Kronstadt. P. 385. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky A. Father John of Kronstadt. New York, 1955. P. 53. Sergiev I.I., prot. My life in Christ, or Minutes of spiritual sobriety and contemplation, reverent feelings, spiritual correction and peace in God. Extracts from the diary: In 2 vols. M., 1894; repr. Utica, N.Y., 1957. Vol. 1. P. 33. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 53. Right there. D. 3. L. 132, 86 vol. Right there. D. 3. L. 97 vol., 102; further in the book: Sergiev I.I. My life in Christ. T. 2. pp. 25–26. Sergiev I.I. My life in Christ. T. 2. P. 25. Right there. T. 2. pp. 311–312. Here we find another example of how Fr. John assimilated Scripture: the last phrase is taken from the Gospel of John, 6:63. Wed. the image of the wound of Christ as a breast giving milk, in K. Bynum in the book: Bynum C. W. Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1987, pp. 25–27. On Eucharistic miracles, see: Bynum C. W. Holy Feast and Holy Fast. P. 50–51, 63–64. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 65 vol., 58, 84. It is interesting that in order to get rid of Eucharistic doubts, Fr. John prayed not to the Savior, but to the Mother of God, whom he later thanked warmly. Sergiev I.I. My life in Christ. T. 2. P. 275. This passage comments on the verse of the Gospel of John, 6:56. Right there. Vol. 1. P. 175. The Greek abbreviation of this phrase is depicted on the icons on the halo of Christ to show the connection of Christ with the One who appeared to Moses from the fiery bush. For a more detailed discussion of the figurative symbolism associated with Jesus Christ, see the book: Ouspensky L., Lossky V. The Meaning of Icons. Crestwood, N.Y., 1983, pp. 69–72. See enthusiastic comments in the book: Whyte A. Father John of the Greek Church: An Appreciation. N.Y., 1898. P. 38–40. Sergiev I.I. My life in Christ. T. 1. pp. 168–169. Father John paraphrases 1 Corinthians 15:45. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 14. L. 26. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. Teaching about the Shepherd, Shepherding and Confession. New York, 1966. P. 289. See also: Gardner J. von. Liturgical singing of the Russian Orthodox Church: System, essence, history: In 2 volumes. Jordanville, N.Y., 1980–1982. T. 1. pp. 58–72. Glizhinsky K. From the embrace of a dying bursa into the crucible of life. Essays on the last days of the bursa and the modern collapse of church and parish life. Ekaterinburg, 1919. P. 68. Popov Ya., prot. To the unforgettable memory of dear Father Fr. John of Kronstadt. St. Petersburg, 1909. P. 29. Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (hereinafter RGALI). F. 525. Op. 1. D. 414. L. 10 (memoirs of Konstantin Fofanov). Makharoblidze E. O. John of Kronstadt, as a celebrant of the Divine Liturgy // Fiftieth anniversary of the repose of the ever-memorable Father John of Kronstadt. N.Y., 1958. P. 89. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 72. L. 2. Other ill-wishers described Fr. John as an "actor of the imperial church." See: V. G. Korolenko in the memoirs of his contemporaries. M., 1962. P. 136. Paozersky M. Impressions of the first concelebration of Fr. John of Sergius (Kronstadt) at the Divine Liturgy // St. Petersburg Spiritual Messenger. No. 32. August 8, 1897. P. 620. See: Typikon, there is an image of the church rite, also called the Charter. M., 1885. V. M. Two days in Kronstadt. P. 48. Right there. P. 56; italics mine. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 13. L. 4 vol. For discussions of that time about Protestantism and its influence on Russia, see: N. Leskov. The High Society Schism: Lord Radstock, his teaching and preaching: an essay on the modern religious movement in St. Petersburg society. M., 1877. About the non-Orthodox churches of St. Petersburg, see: Antonov V.V., Kobak A.V. Shrines of St. Petersburg. Historical and church encyclopedia in three volumes. St. Petersburg, 1996. T. 3. pp. 215–276. Critical statements about. John about Protestants, see: GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 12. D. 14. L. 19 vol. For examples of such compilations, see the book: Almazov A. Ya. Apocryphal prayers, spells and conspiracies. Odessa, 1901. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 132. See the negative reaction of priest M. Paozersky to the fact that Fr. John did not wear a belt - he saw this as a desire to stand out, but later repented when he saw how at the end of the service someone was wrapping up the shepherd’s undershirt and shirt to wash: they were thoroughly wet, as if they had just come out of the water. Paozersky M. Impressions. P. 621. For example, abstinence from meat, dairy products, sex life and alcoholic beverages. See: Heretz L. The Practice and Significance of Fasting in Russian Peasant Culture at the Turn of the Century // Food in Russian History and Culture / Ed. by Giants M., Toomre J. Bloomington, 1997. P. 67–80. See canonical commentaries, especially Dionysius, in the book: Rules of the Holy Fathers with interpretations. M., 1884. pp. 14–17; Levin E. Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900–1700. Ithaca, 1989. P. 101–122, about female impurity in the Slavic historical environment; Warner M. Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary. N.Y., 1983. Ch. 3, about the evolution of this taboo in the Catholic West. See the confessions of Fr. John, confirming this idea, in the work: Kizenko N. The Making of a Modern Saint: Ioann of Kronstadt and the Russian People, 1855–1917. Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1995, pp. 189–254. Glizhinsky K. From the embrace of a dying bursa into the crucible of life. P. 69. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 1a ob.; Makushinsky A. Memories of the former singer of the Kronstadt St. Andrew’s Cathedral // Fiftieth anniversary of the repose of the ever-memorable Father John of Kronstadt. P. 43. See the memoirs of Maria Makeeva: RGIA. F. 834. Op. 4. Unit hr. 1668. L. 7–7 vol.; Shustin O.V. Record about Fr. John of Kronstadt and about the Optina elders, from personal memories. White Church, 1929. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 14. L. 72. Sergiev I.I. My life in Christ. T. 1. pp. 230–231. Soloviev Vs. S. Father John // North. No. 49. 1888. pp. 14–15. Sergiev I.I. [John of Kronstadt]. Unpublished diary. Memoirs of Bishop Arseny about Father John of Kronstadt. M., 1992. P. 52. See the testimony of the miraculous healing power of the sacrament in the book: Lebedev V. E. My memory of the trip to Fr. John to Kronstadt // Pskov Diocesan Gazette. No. 21. November 1, 1896. pp. 370–371. Letter from a nun, see: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 12b, part 11. L. 146. V. M. Two days in Kronstadt. P. 45. N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov examines the influence of the method of confession on the attitude of the flock to the priest in the book: Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. From the Experience: Autobiographical Memoirs: In 2 vols. M., 1886–1887. pp. 168–169. See also: The Good Shepherd: a biography of Fr. John of Kronstadt, letters to the priest and memories of him. St. Petersburg, 1994. pp. 12–13. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 4. Right there. D. 4. L. 1a vol. For churches that adopted this feature, see: Sultanov N. Description of the new court church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, in New Peterhof. St. Petersburg, 1905. pp. 12–13. Alexander; Bishop [Aleksandr Semenoff-Tian-Shanskii]. Father John of Kronstadt: A Life. Crestwood, N.Y., 1979. P. 39. Viannet was appointed patron of all French priests in 1905 and “all priests of the world” in 1929. Boutry P., Cinquin M. Deux Pelerinages aux XIXe Siecle, Ars et Paray-le-Monial. P., 1980. P. 146–150. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 40. L. 42. Makharoblidze E. O. John of Kronstadt. C. 87. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 40. L. 30; italics mine. See also the memoirs of Maria Makeeva: RGIA. F. 834. Op. 4. Unit hr. 1668. L. 4–5 vol., about the connection between the adoration of the Eucharist and Fr. John. See: Schmeman A., protopresbyter. Eucharist: The Sacrament of the Kingdom. R., 1984, especially p. 15–19. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1.D. 4. L. 41. On the new emphasis on preaching, followed by changes in ritual and architecture, see Dixon S. The Church's Social Role in St. Petersburg, 1880–1914 // Church, Nation and State in Russia and Ukraine / Ed. by Hosking G. L., 1991. P. 180; on early Christian practice, see: Dix D. G. Shape of the Liturgy. P. 437. See, among others, descriptions in the State Museum of Ethnography (hereinafter GME): Manuscript Department. F. 7 (Tenishev). Op. 1. D. 1439. L. 11; D. 1436. L. 40. See also in the book: Gromyko M. The World of Russian Village. M., 1991. pp. 126–129. See: Smirnov S. Ya. Ancient Russian confessor: A study on the history of church life. M., 1913. P. 255–283. (Chapter “Confession to the Earth”). See also the prayers read at Vespers on the feast of Trinity, which contain the following words: “And before you, Mother Earth, I am sinful in soul and body.” In the book: Golubinsky E. History of the Russian Church: In 4 vols. M., 1880–1907. T. 2. pp. 399–400. GME. F. 7. Op. 1. D. 1739. L. 9; D. 1101. L. 1. Gromyko M. The World of Russian Village. P. 126. V. M. Two days in Kronstadt. P. 61. However, it is also obvious to what extent such Orthodox formulas were known to the people and were unconsciously perceived by them as their own (cf. the use of the word “our”). Compare: Heier E. Religious Schism in the Russian Aristocracy, 1860–1900. The Hague, 1970. pp. 12–14. B. M. Two days in Kronstadt. C. 70. Rozhnov V. Prophets and miracle workers: studies on mysticism. M., 1977. P. 88. V. M. Two days in Kronstadt. P. 60. Serebrov A. Time and people: memories. 1898–1905. M., 1960. P. 33. V. M. Two days in Kronstadt. pp. 69–70. Levitsky P. P. Prot. John Ilyich Sergiev of Kronstadt. P. 23. Archive of oral history of the Russian State University for the Humanities, Pskov Expedition Fund. L. 6. Max Weber put forward a similar argument when considering the high intensity of emotions that accompanies liturgy or other mystical action and does not translate into personal moral responsibility. See: Weber M. The Sociology of Religion. Boston, 1964. P. 152. Sventitsky V., Archpriest. Six Lectures on the History of the Mystery of Repentance: Against General Confession. Jordanville, N.Y., 1996. P. 46. Popov I. To the unforgettable memory of dear father Fr. John of Kronstadt. St. Petersburg, 1909. P. 31. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky A. // John of Kronstadt. M., 1992. P. 292. Boutry P., Cinquin M. Deux Pelerinages. P. 147.