What the Monk Seraphim did not say. On the issue of pseudo-church myth-making

Recently, collections of prophetic sayings by ascetics of piety, in particular the great Elder of Sarov, St. Seraphim, have appeared in a number of publications. The flow of such prophecies especially overwhelmed readers on the eve of the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the canonization of Father Seraphim. It is known that the Sarov Wonderworker possessed a great gift of prophecy. These prophecies relate both to the fate of the Diveyevo monastery and to the future destinies of Russia. Many of them are collected in the work of Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov) “Chronicle of the Seraphim-Diveyevo Monastery” (1896, 1903) and in the books of Sergei Aleksandrovich Nilus “Great in Small” (1903, 1905), “On the Bank of the River of God” (volume 2, San Francisco, 1969). However, new texts are also being found that significantly complement the collection of prophecies of the Rev. One of the latest finds were two documents found in the papers of priest Pavel Florensky. When examining them, it turned out that they ended up with Fr. Pavel, perhaps, not without the help of S.A. Nilus (1862–1929), who closely knew Elena Ivanovna Motovilova (†1910), the widow of “Serafimov’s servant,” Nikolai Aleksandrovich Motovilov (1808–1879), the benefactor of the Diveyevo monastery. N.A. Motovilov (a man, to put it mildly, not without oddities, is now widely known among the Orthodox as the interlocutor of the Reverend, who entrusted him with his innermost thoughts about the purpose of Christian life), left numerous notes in which he outlined the content of the conversations and statements of Elder Seraphim. Recently, Motovilov’s correspondence with Emperors Nicholas I and Alexander II was added to this corpus of texts (published by me in the book “Servant of the Mother of God and the Seraphim.” M., 1996). The correspondence also contains the Venerable’s predictions about future Russian and world events. Motovilov’s most close reader and, moreover, most authoritative publisher was S.A. Nilus. It was to him in 1902 that Elena Ivanovna handed over a box of manuscripts of her late husband for analysis. From this box he extracted and published the now famous conversation of the Venerable “On the Purpose of Christian Life” (first publication in the newspaper Moskovskie Vedomosti, May 1903). “The Great Diveyevo Secret” was in the papers of Sergei Alexandrovich, who made a long and difficult journey overseas, and was published for the first time in San Francisco in 1969 through the diligence of the niece of Nilus’s wife, Elena Yuryevna Kartsova. In the summer of 1990, I prepared for publication, and on September 21 of the same year, a note by N.A. was published in the newspaper “Moscow Literator”. Motovilov “Antichrist and Russia” (title given by the publisher), preserved in the archive of Fr. Pavel Florensky. This extremely dubious note circulated quite widely in pre-revolutionary times, and it was also read after the terrible October Revolution. So, according to the memoirs of Princess N.V. Urusova, she saw this note in 1918 from the remarkable historian of church art, Count Yu.A. Olsufiev, whom she met then in Sergiev Posad. From this note she remembered the Rev.’s prediction “about the horrors and disasters that will befall Russia, and I only remember what was said there about the pardon and salvation of Russia” (see the magazine “Russian Pilgrim” of the Valaam Society of America. 1990. No. 2. P. 94). Let us cite the true words of the Elder from that very note, now known under the title “Antichrist and Russia.” “Before the birth of the Antichrist, there will be a great and long war and a terrible revolution in Russia, in the exact words of Father Seraphim, exceeding any human imagination, for the bloodshed will be terrible: the riots of Razin, Pugachev, the French Revolution are nothing in comparison with what will happen to Russia. There will be the death of many people faithful to the Fatherland, the plunder of church property and monasteries, the desecration of the churches of the Lord; destruction and plunder of the wealth of good people, rivers of Russian blood will be shed. But the Lord will have mercy on Russia and lead it through suffering to great glory.” This prophecy of Saint Seraphim does not raise doubts about the authenticity of his words, for N.A. Motovilov noted: “according to the exact expression of Fr. Seraphim." But further in the same note follow Motovilov’s own reasoning about the all-Russian, all-Slavic kingdom of Gog and Magog, “before which all nations will be in awe,” about the redivision of the world and the unprecedented expansion of the Russian Empire, about the birth of the Antichrist “between St. Petersburg and Moscow, in that great city that will be called “Moscow-Petrograd,” about the convening of the Eighth Ecumenical Council “for the final curse of all Freemasonry and all similar parties,” the goal of which is “to subjugate the whole world to anti-Christianity, in the person of the autocratic king, the God-fighting king, alone over the whole world,” the Antichrist. Further in the note it is narrated that “Jews and Slavs are the two peoples of God’s destinies, His vessels and witnesses, indestructible arks, while all other nations are like saliva, which the Lord spews from His mouth.” These messianic peoples, according to Motovilov, are beloved before God, but in the time of the Antichrist only the Slavs “will be worthy of the great blessing of God” for not accepting the son of destruction. And the Russian “omnipotent language will reign on earth, and there will be no other kingdom more omnipotent, Russian-Slavic, on earth.” Let us emphasize once again that these “prophecies” have nothing to do with St. Seraphim! Reasoning by N.A. Motovilov on an eschatological theme are fully consistent with his state of mind in the 60s of the 19th century, when he created the “Great Diveyevo Mystery”, its addition and this note. There is no reason to attribute his thoughts about the “pan-Slavic kingdom of Gog and Magog” to St. Seraphim. Unfortunately, some parachurch publications do this, attributing to St. Seraphim words that he did not utter. Jerking of this kind is observed, for example, on the pages of the magazine “First and Last,” published under the editorship of V. G. Manyagin (the material was reprinted from the newspaper “Rus Pravoslavnaya,” 2003, No. 5–6). In issue 5 (9) for 2003, on page 6, after the same reasoning by Motovilov about the all-Russian, all-Slavic kingdom of Gog and Magog, we read: “With the united forces of Russia and other peoples, Constantinople and Jerusalem will be captured. With the division of Turkey, almost all of it will remain with Russia...” With one stroke of the pen, St. Seraphim is putting into his mouth what he did not utter. Pan-Slavism, as an ideological movement, dominated among Russian enlightened people mainly in the 60s of the 19th century, in the years when N.A. Motovilov recreated from memory the details of oral communication with the great Sarov seer, while straying into the statements of other devotees of piety. In the case of his note “Antichrist and Russia,” the eschatological reasoning of another person, perhaps Anthony of Voronezh, a great bishop and a man of subtle intellect, is clearly guessed. Motovilov himself hints at this, indicating the date of writing his note in 1834, the time of his trip to Voronezh, when his conversation with Bishop Anthony took place. Let us note the date: 1834, a time when Elder Seraphim was no longer alive (he died on January 1, 1833). So the Reverend did not express what was said in the last paragraph of N.A.’s note. Motovilov: “Jesus Christ, the true God-man, the Son of God by the influx of the Holy Spirit, was born in Israel. Spirit, and among the Slavs and Russians the true Antichrist will be born: a demon-man, the son of the harlot of Dan’s generation and the son of the devil through the artificial transmigration of male seed to her, with whom the spirit of darkness will move into her womb. But one of the Russians, having lived to see the birth of the Antichrist, like Simeon the God-Receiver, who blessed the Child Jesus and announced His birth to the world, will curse the born Antichrist and announce to the world that he is the real Antichrist.” This stylistic figure belongs entirely to Motovilov himself and no one else, for our spirit-bearers drew their conclusions on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, and if they added their own judgments on this or that issue, they did not in the least contradict the Orthodox sacred Tradition. By virtue of sacred Tradition, the Antichrist will not be born among the Slavic peoples, but will be installed by the Jews, who suppress the “mystery of lawlessness.” It must be said that the first person to warn against misunderstanding Motovilov’s note “Antichrist and Russia” was Mikhail Shumsky. Fresh on the heels of the publication of the document in the Moscow Literator, he immediately appeared in the same newspaper with his somewhat irritated, but essentially correct letter. If we consider the note by N.A. Motovilov’s “Antichrist and Russia” as a whole, then apart from the first paragraph quoted at the very beginning of this review, nothing else belongs to the great Elder of Sarov, including the idea of ​​convening the Eighth Ecumenical Council at the end of time “for the unification and reunification of the Holy Churches of God.” According to Orthodox Tradition and the statements of many devotees of piety, the so-called “Eighth Ecumenical Council” will be an ecumenical and renovationist council. So let's be vigilant. Let us note that in Motovilov’s letter to Emperor Alexander II the same thought was expressed (see: “Servant of the Mother of God and the Seraphim”). The Elder of Sarov especially persistently preached the disastrousness of the liberal ways of organizing Russian statehood. Discussions about the unity of the Slavic peoples raise great doubts about their belonging to the Monk Seraphim. Similarities with the same Motovilov note are also found in the publication of the magazine “Soulful Reading” for 1912 (part 2, p. 493). There, in particular, a certain journalist Potapov, from the words of Motovilov’s wife, wrote: “Everything that is called “Decembrists”, “reformers” and, in a word, belongs to the “life-improving party” is true anti-Christianity, which, as it develops, will lead to the destruction of Christianity on earth and partly Orthodoxy and will end with the reign of the Antichrist over all countries of the world, except Russia, which will merge into one with the other Slavic countries and constitute a huge ocean of people, before which the other tribes of the earth will be in fear. And this is as true as two and two are four.” However, this publication was again made on the basis of Motovilov’s notes, and it is impossible to attribute its authorship to the Monk Seraphim: in the time of the Monk the rebels were not called “Decembrists”; the term “Decembrists” came into use only several decades later! The greatest doubts are raised by some narrative, or in other words, oral sources. They are used especially often when it comes to the predictions of Saint Seraphim regarding the fate of the last Tsar Nicholas II. Here anonymous evidence, snatched from the book of the liberal historian S.P., is also used. Melgunov’s “The Last Autocrat”, published between February and October 1917, at a time of rampant defamation of the Sovereign Emperor and his family. The Reverend’s prediction regarding Tsar Nicholas II allegedly read: “At the beginning of the reign of this Monarch there will be misfortunes and troubles of the people. The war will be unsuccessful. Great turmoil will come within the state, father will rise up against son and brother against brother. But the second half of the reign will be bright and the Tsar’s life will be long-lasting.” Hints of a long-term second half of the reign of Nicholas II did not materialize! And this is not surprising: after all, the Monk Seraphim, if you believe Motovilov, spoke this way, implying the reign of Nicholas I, during his reign there was a noble rebellion, and the disastrous plague of 1830, and the unsuccessful Crimean War. This was discussed in N.A.’s letter. Motovilov to Alexander II. And Melgunov, having no document, relies on oral tradition. “The text of this prediction,” he explains in his book, “was allegedly written down by some general and placed in the archives of the Gendarmerie Corps for safety. They say that Alexander III searched in vain for this document - the prophecy concerned all reigns, but when they decided to contact the Police Department, the desired paper was found.” He writes correctly - the paper was found! Only it was found not during the reign of Alexander III, but in 1906. And they looked for her at the request of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, who wished to read the prophecies of the Reverend to the House of Romanov. After all, rumors persistently repeated about this prophecy; they even talked about a certain letter from Elder Seraphim, addressed personally to Nicholas II. The Empress's request came to the archivists, and they began to search. No personal letter from the Elder to Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, who glorified the “poor Seraphim,” was found, but those same letters from N.A. were found. Motovilov to Nicholas I and Alexander II, mentioned above. These letters were deposited in the archives of the Third Department of the Chancellery of His Imperial Majesty (according to Melgunov - in the archives of the Gendarmerie Corps). The letters contained underlined lines containing predictions for Emperor Nicholas I, but perhaps also of interest for the current reign. If all the underlined lines were collected, the result was a single text, which, if desired and with uncontrollable imagination, could be called a letter from St. Seraphim to Emperor Nicholas II. You can call it that if you really want to, but responsible historians love accuracy, and predictions made for another Emperor and for another reign cannot be arbitrarily transferred from era to era. The second half of his reign – a bright one – could also be that of Emperor Nicholas I. After all, he was truly a great ruler and a statesman of incomparable holiness. His devotion to Orthodoxy and Russian spiritual culture is beyond doubt. That is why it is not in vain that Orthodox people hope that this Emperor will be glorified as a saint. All the liberal dirt inflicted by the enemies of the Orthodox faith and the Fatherland on the bright face of this great and pious man has already disappeared. People are losing the habit of walking on a Masonic leash, and those who have already lost the habit honor their great Emperor. Of course, between the two Nicholas, between the two great Monarchs, there is a lot in common, just as there is a lot in common between their August spouses of the same name. And what the saint attributed to one of them can, if desired, be attributed to the other. But only “if desired,” and this is not at all enough for the accuracy of the meaning. St. Seraphim is sometimes credited with his supposed sympathy for the Old Believers. But there is not even any reason for this! After all, it is known that the great ascetic assigned a very modest place to the Old Believers in his contemporary world, comparing Orthodoxy to a ship, and the Old Believers - the self-proclaimed “Belokrinitsky hierarchy” and the non-priests - to just a fragile boat. And the fact that he fingered the lestovka in his hands is an argument in favor of the “zealots of ancient piety” is completely unconvincing, since at the time when the saint lived, the lestovka was ubiquitous in monastic life. Even more often during prayer, the Elder fingered his rosary; he himself made them very skillfully. The wooden rosary handmade by Saint Seraphim has survived to this day (on display in the St. Daniel Monastery). The Reverend did not express any special judgments in favor of the Old Believers; there is no written or oral reliable evidence for this. There are, however, a number of sharply negative statements by St. Seraphim regarding the Old Believers, such as: “two-fingered addition is contrary to the holy statutes” and much more. The truth is indivisible, and to preserve it as a whole within the bosom of the Russian Orthodox Church, to which Father Seraphim constantly called upon the Old Believers, is the duty of all sincere believers in our Savior and God. Yes, our life is complex, and at times very difficult, so it is not at all surprising that people are drawn to an unprecedented miracle. Sometimes just a rumor gets overgrown and embellished with stories, turning into a persistent myth. But they don’t argue with myths, they don’t review them for authenticity, they just get used to them. There are, let's say, many historical myths, very stable, although completely unsubstantiated and false. Here is the allegedly existing will of Peter I, and some falsified “prophecies” of the monk “seer” Abel, and the seemingly almost plausible legend about Fyodor Kuzmich - supposedly the former Sovereign Alexander I, and the blaming of the authorship of the famous “Protocols” on the Security Department, and his so-called “prophetic dream” invented after the death of St. John of Kronstadt, and many another pseudo-church mythology. Parachurch literature also cannot do without distortions and myths. Thus, the book “The Beginning and the End of Our Earthly World” was recently republished in two parts without specifying the location. Experience of revealing the prophecies of the Apocalypse." This rather voluminous work was published anonymously in the capital four times before the revolution, but now it is attributed to the holy righteous John of Kronstadt without any reason. An essay was attributed to him that he never wrote! Moreover, Father John admits in one of his diary entries: when he read the book “The Beginning and the End of Our Earthly World” that he accidentally came across, he liked it. And he even complained that he didn’t write this himself. That's it. Who created this work? Its creator was the hieromonk of the Optina Hermitage Panteleimon, a fairly well-known spiritual writer and no less eminent translator (translated the 3rd volume of the works of Simeon the New Theologian, his hymns). He published his experience of revealing the Apocalypse openly, indicating his full monastic name, as the only author. The book was published in Odessa by the publisher E.I. Fesenko in 1903. In conclusion, let us cite the wonderful words of St. Demetrius of Rostov: “Do not let me lie against a saint...” And let us remember that any myth-making and manipulation of church-historical and hagiographical facts is a grave sin that can only seduce believing souls and lead to disorder and schisms in the Orthodox Church.