Глава X. Отношения старцев русского Пантелеимоновского монастыря о. Макария и о. Иеронима к русским афонским скитам

In previous chapters we have repeatedly mentioned the lively participation of the elders of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, Fr. Macarius and Fr. Jerome in the affairs of the Athonite Greek monasteries (we mean the affairs of St. Paul, Xenoph and Simon-Peter with Xyropotamus), trying in every possible way to support the just cause and establish broken peace and brotherly love in these monasteries, although they themselves often, in gratitude for all this, received troubles, grief and even denunciations, as was the case in the last case from the Xyropotamian pro-abbot Fr. Procopy. The elders of Russik always preferred “a bad peace to a big quarrel.” But if they treated the Greek monastics this way, who were far from friendly towards the Russians, the sooner one could expect from them warm sympathy and great participation in the fate of their Russian compatriots, who one way or another needed their help, support with a kind word and experienced guidance. And indeed, the elders of the Panteleimon Monastery never abandoned the high role of “peacekeepers” and good advisers when their Russian brothers called them to do so. From the many facts of the sympathetic attitude of the elders, Fr. Macarius and Fr. Jerome to the affairs of our Russian monasteries on Athos, we note two especially outstanding ones: the confusion in the Elias monastery after the death of the abbot (dikei) Fr. Paisius II and great misunderstandings in St. Andrew's monastery between the rector Fr. Archimandrite Theodoret and the brethren of the monastery in 1878. Both of the facts we have indicated from the life of Russian monastics on Athos are very complex in the course of their development, curious in their everyday characteristic details, depicting the internal life of the monastic monastic life of Athonite in very vivid relief, and in themselves are full of living drama, which involuntarily attracts the attention of anyone who is interested in the fate of Russian monasticism on Athos. But we are far from the idea of ​​tracing, so to speak, step by step these events in the life of Russian monasteries, all the vicissitudes of those internal turmoil that occurred in the monasteries in both cases, although for this we have all the necessary materials. To do this at the present time, we consider, firstly, premature, since the persons who took an active part in both affairs and played a prominent role in them are, for the most part, still happily alive, secondly, we find it more fitting for all the details of these events to take a place in the history of these monasteries than in our present essay, and thirdly, for our present purpose, the main interest lies only in noting the facts that depict our elders in the role “peacemakers” and indicating the high authority that they enjoyed on Athos among their compatriots. From this side, we will present here both events we mentioned, touching on other phenomena to the extent necessary for a coherent story. In 1871, on September 5, the rector of the Russian Elijah monastery on Mount Athos, Fr. Paisiy II, originally Bulgarian. Being by nature a very intelligent person and strong in character, Fr. Paisius knew how to get along with the Greeks of the Pandocrator monastery, on which the Elias monastery is dependent, and firmly held the reins of government in his monastery, the inhabitants of which, as former Cossacks, often showed a tendency towards freedom and even disorder, which was not characteristic of their rank 232. With the death of Fr. Paisius, the unrest in the monastery resumed. The reason for this was disagreement over the election of a new abbot of the monastery. According to the will of Fr. Paisius, the abbot should be elected from among the monks who did not belong to the brotherhood of the monastery, since he did not find any of the available fathers worthy to occupy this place. A minority of the brethren, headed by the intelligent and energetic Fr. Innocent, who held the position of housekeeper at the monastery for 26 years, wanted to fulfill the will of the late abbot. But the majority, led by Fr. Hieromonk Andrey, wanted to elect a successor to Fr. Paisiya considered someone from his circle a worthy candidate for the position of rector of the named Fr. Andrey. The pandocrator did not approve the election of the majority, which caused extreme discontent on the part of the monastery brethren against himself and even open indignation. The full complement of members of the protate, who appeared to persuade the indignant, was not allowed into the monastery fence and left with nothing, extremely offended. The minority turned for help to the Russian Consul of Thessaloniki, K. Leontyev, who was then living on Athos, asking him to take measures within his power to calm the indignant. But the consul, considering himself incompetent in this matter, did not decide to take part until after intense requests from the protate and the fathers of the Pandocrator monastery. Thanks to the intervention of K. Leontyev, the disturbance was stopped, and Fr. Paisia ​​was elected Fr. Gervasius, the bishop’s prayer of permission was read to everyone and, apparently, peace was restored to the monastery. The dissatisfied, who were outside the walls of the monastery, were not inactive and were only waiting for an opportunity to renew the unrest, which began immediately after the Russian consul left the monastery. Unsearchable o. Gervasius, in view of these unrest, abandoned his abbotship, even left the brethren of the monastery, in which anarchy had reigned again, and spent the rest of his life in retirement in the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, accepting the schema with the name Gabriel. Taking advantage of this circumstance, Fr. Andrei managed to convince the Pandocrator proestos of the futility of further resistance to his assumption of the post of dike of the skete, since this is the only way, according to him, to pacify the brethren of the monastery, and he did not fail, as is the custom of the cenobitic monasteries of the Holy Mountain of the present time, to promise them valuable gifts for his confirmation. If you believe the letter of the Odessa merchant Mr. Gladkov, a trusted Russian monastery of Elias on Mount Athos, then Fr. For his confirmation as dikei of the monastery, Andrei paid the Pandocratorian proestos 500 Turkish liras and henceforth promised to pay 100 liras annually 233. Be that as it may, but oh. Andrei achieved his goal, and the place of dike in the Russian Ilyinsky monastery remained with him. With the transfer of power into the hands of Fr. Andrew and his supporters in the monastery, everything quickly changed. The positions of authority were distributed to those closest to Fr. Andrew, and the former leaders were dismissed from their positions and had to either give up their place to new people and descend to the position of ordinary ordinary monks of the monastery, or even leave the monastery brethren altogether, which is what some did, such as Fr. Pachomius and Fr. Rafail. The most difficult thing for such an outstanding figure as Fr. Innocent, 26 years old, was the leader in the role of housekeeper and enjoyed such great influence among the brethren that if he wished, he could easily and without difficulty take the place of the skete's steward. The arrogant attitude of the new rector, Fr. Andrei made their life together in the monastery impossible, and Fr. Innocent decided to overthrow the established order and elect a new abbot for the monastery. In his intentions and plans, he relied on his previous influence among the monastic brethren, many of whom were his “spiritual children,” on friendly relations with the trusted monastery in Taganrog, Fr. Philaret, and mainly for the support of the strong epitrope of the monastery, the Odessa merchant Mikhail Romanovich Gladkov, who was very disliked towards the new rector, Fr. Andrey. The sympathy of these two persons was important to Fr. Innocent in the sense that large sums of money from the monastery were concentrated in their hands, which the new abbot of the monastery was in great need of, and the plan of Fr. Innocent was to put Fr. Andrei and his brethren are in financial difficulties, which explains, among other things, his personal refusal to hand over the monastery treasury, which had hitherto been in his hands, to the new abbot. Fr. Innocent calculated, based on his previous relationship with Fr. Macarius and Fr. Jerome, to win over their sympathy in this case. But his calculations were not justified in almost all respects. With the death of Fr. Paisius and after the unrest experienced in the monastery before the election of Fr. Gervasia and after the meaning of Fr. Innocent and his influence on the course of affairs in the monastery were greatly shaken, moreover, his actions in this case were not distinguished by consistency and courage, 234 while the dexterous and intelligent Fr. Andrei, relying on the majority, managed to win a strong position in the monastery through his decisive orders and actions. It is not surprising, therefore, that, despite the efforts of Fr. Innokenty to find like-minded people and supporters among “the best of the brethren” and “more attached to him,” he listened to their evasive answer regarding the coup he had planned, that they “although they sincerely wish, but they would not dare to vote for it or sign up for it” 235. The cautious Fr. hesitated and waited for circumstances. Filaret to take one side or the other. Only the proud and wayward epitrope of the monastery, M.R., spoke out openly and energetically against the established order of things. Gladkov, for 14 years, had become accustomed to interfering in the affairs of the monastery and categorically disposing of them, always relying on his material strength, which consisted of large amounts of donations passing through his hands. “With God’s help,” Gladkov informs Fr. Innocent, - began to act to rid the holy monastery of ignorant and bad people, such as: remove Andrei from the abbess and his comrades... and install as abbot a person who can do good for the monastery and put it at the level at which it lived; namely, I appoint (!?) Father Anthony the dean of Serai to be abbot” 236, etc. In a letter to the elders, Russika Gladkov asks to “assist” him in this or in the second election to the post of dean of Fr. Gervasia 237. The trustees of the monastery, who came to Gladkov with a letter from the new dike, Fr. Andrei, who demanded money from the monastery, he directly announced: “while the rector is Fr. Andrei, I will not allow you to take money from the bank,” and immediately threatened that if the brotherhood does not respect his desire to overthrow Fr. Andrew, then “I will act through our envoy in Constantinople and the Holy Synod and will not allow the monastery to be ruined” 238. O. Macarius and Fr. Jerome, who had hitherto avoided any interference in the affairs of the Elias monastery and resolutely avoided correspondence 239 with Fr. Innocent, advised the latter to prefer personal conversation “mouth to mouth” over any kind of correspondence with them. Now that they had received a letter of assistance from Gladkov, they decided to give detailed and thoughtful advice to both Mr. Gladkov himself and Fr. Innocent. “Your desire,” the fathers wrote to Gladkov, “regarding the change of the current abbot is an impossible thing, no matter from which side we look at this subject. Where and for what reason to start this business? And who will start it? The brethren of the monastery do not want their abbot to change, the abbot himself does not think about it, the monastery in charge of the monastery itself does not find any reason or reason to make any changes in it. So, who and for what reasons will remove the current abbot of the Elias monastery from his position? If two or three of the monastery brethren want a change in the abbot, then their voice in this case cannot have significant weight; All electoral matters are decided by a majority vote, and the majority of votes always has an advantage over the minority, as you know. And the very persons you indicate as abbots of the Ilyinsky monastery instead of the current one, that is, Fathers Gervasius and Anthony, will in no way dare to ascend to this shaky throne. Father Gervasiy has not yet forgotten and remembers well the confusion and anxiety he experienced while he was in the monastery and, of course, does not want to be subjected to these worries again. He remained resolute in the monastery only out of respect for our entreaties about this. Fr. Anthony will not go, because they supported the career of Fr. Andrei, and simply out of reluctance to engage in this kind of business. And even then it must be said that Little Russians and Great Russians will not get along. No, if at least some kind of peace has now settled there, then let it remain; If the worries there have now subsided, then there is no need to raise them. This is our view on the subject that occupies you regarding the change of the current abbot of the Elias monastery. This is our opinion on this subject. We know and understand, and we very well, that this matter really requires changes in its composition. But it is dangerous to start this change, because instead of a simple change, we will probably confuse everything, break it and crush it. That's it! 240. M.R. Gladkov did not like this truthful and frank letter from the elders of the Panteleimon Monastery, who directly called it “unpleasant.” Not paying any attention to the quite reasonable arguments of the elders and not wanting to rest on their prudent advice, but instead imbued with a passionate desire to force the elders to act in accordance with his plans and desires, Mr. Gladkov allowed himself to write a rather harsh and threatening letter to the elders of Russik. “If fate pushed me,” he wrote to the elders in response to a previous letter, “to be a participant at the holy Elias monastery, to work for about 14 years, then I will not allow people who had no idea what a monk without the Christian faith means, through various fraudulent means and bribery with monastic money, to become, for the sake of their devilish ambition, the rulers and destroyers of the monastery - I cannot allow it and I ask you, since you Holy Mount Athos is considered the first Russian monastery and has influence on other monasteries, therefore you can and even must take on the duty of Christianity and save the holy church from ruin. Otherwise, I will be forced to describe to the Russian government and the Holy Synod all the squabbles and everything that is being done with the donations of poor widows and orphans who are sent from Russia to Athos, and I will be forced to reveal this written collection of money, which is done by the Athonite monks in Russia, and then it will turn out badly for everyone” 241. To these very harsh words and even threats of offended but powerless pride, Fathers Macarius and Jerome respond at length and in a conciliatory tone with a detailed explanation of why they do not interfere in the affairs of the Elias monastery. “We,” write the elders, “repeat again that it is now untimely to start anything against the established order of any kind in the Elias Skete. You know that here on the Holy Mountain each of the monasteries enjoys such independence that interference in the internal orders and management of any other monastery and even the Prototus himself is unthinkable and is not allowed in practice. Consequently, participation in this matter by our influence on the monastery will not bring any results. The Ilyinsky monastery is run by the monastery of Pandocrator, which we absolutely cannot influence, due to the well-known dislike of the Greeks towards Russians in general, and in particular because they will not act on anyone’s instructions. In addition, the preservation of the present order of things is desirable for the Pandocrator simply because you mention in your letter, i.e., that this is their material interest. It follows from this that as soon as they find out about. Andrew and the brethren, his followers, about our efforts in the sense of changing their abbot, will certainly turn to their monastery, that is, to Pandocrator, and testify with their signatures that both the abbot and the brethren are happy with him (they have already done this). Without a doubt, the monastery will submit this mutual testimony to the Protat and then from this main point they will be ensured, and any such undertaking will certainly be carried across Athos, like the insidious machinations of Russik and Fr. Innocent. No, most God-loving Mikhail Romanovich, it is not because we do not want to take an active part in this matter that we look indifferently at the plight of the monastery, or are indifferent to its administrative disorders and miserable embarrassments, no, but the experienced consciousness of the current state of local affairs forces us to do so, with all our spiritual sympathy for your good intentions and zeal for the glory of God, His Holy One. churches and St. the monastery for which you worked so hard. We repeat that we sincerely sympathize with you in all this and regret with regret that your good intentions regarding the change of abbot cannot now be carried out. For your spiritual consolation, let us say that the Lord, who said that even for the given cup of water a reward will be given, will all the more not despise your diligent fourteen years of labor for the benefit of the holy monastery and for the glory of His holy name; of course, the reward is not material, but spiritual, observed for you in heaven. Regarding your statement to the government of Athonite written relations, you know well that both the Holy Synod and the government are aware of our written relations with our relatives and our benefactors, and also that the only way to exist and fulfill the vital needs of the Athonite inhabitants is through God-loving gifts from Russia. Any person, even one less possessed of moral strength than you, can easily inflict temptation, but then what? Good done is praised by everyone. If the skete fathers did not do well, then what is the reason for the other hundreds of people who can suffer trouble and therefore grieve and lose their daily bread? If it pleases you, accept our advice such that you need to become more familiar with the present state of our affairs, and for this, if the Lord pleases and we are alive, you need to come here. So, with God’s help, having spent the winter, after Easter or before Easter, come to us on the Holy Mountain. Of course, in this case you will secure something from our embassy in Constantinople and then, perhaps, something can be arranged. We do not deny that all the followers of the late elder will happily agree to the change, but if we act untimely, then all the burden and responsibility in this matter will fall on them, and they have already endured many sorrows, and the rumor and talk about a change about. Andrei has already caused them a lot of grief again, which Fr. has probably already told you about. Innocent. We consider it not superfluous to note that Fr. completely agrees with our opinion. Innocent. In addition, the slightest attempt to shake the established peace of the monastery will respond unfavorably to its material property, for on the part of Fr. Andrei and others, this will be recognized as an attempt on their power, and they will begin to defend and defend it, of course, paying whoever is appropriate for its support” 242. Pleasing the strong epitrope, who was in every possible way touched to the quick, ready for the sake of his pride not to spare the entire Mount Athos, proving to him the futility and untimeliness of any changes in the Elias monastery, in view of the usual course of monastic life established in it, the elders of Russik did not forget about that person who suffered more than others and completely undeservedly and could not now come to terms with the established the order of life in it. Appreciating the merits of Fr. Innocent for the Ilinsky monastery and well understanding that until this person is satisfied and calmed down, one cannot vouch for the strength of the current order and for the peace in the monastery, Fr. Jerome, at the first opportunity, through one of the monks of the monastery, gave advice to Fr. Andrey to reconcile with Fr. Innocent and, if possible, return to him the position in the monastery that he honorably occupied for 21 years. Fr. Andrei lovingly accepted the advice of the wise elder and hastened to make him the judge of those misunderstandings that occurred in the monastery between Fr. Innocent and them. “Your fatherly and loving care,” wrote Fr. Andrey K. Jerome, - is pleased to show caution in our inexperience, and even more so to limit peace and harmony in the monastery, in order to place Fr. Innocent, etc. and thus we must preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, but we humbly ask your favor to accept your measures for consideration and evaluate their fidelity to the holy monastery through these correspondences, filled with wisdom 243; and besides, the reasons for their removal from office are not from me alone, but from the general consent of the entire brotherhood, not deigning him to any position because of his opposition and by general order. For this reason, we offer these correspondences to your spiritual reasoning - to accept this blessed work and give us advice on your fatherly consideration, and we will wait with humble devotion to your reverence for your answer, accepting the duty of obedience, if it serves equally to the entire consent of the brotherhood, to accept the elder’s favor with a kiss” 244. To this call from the fathers of the Elias monastery, Fr. Jerome was not slow to give an answer, in which he thoroughly and frankly expressed his view on the events that had taken place and on the personality of Fr. Innocent. “We are by chance,” wrote Fr. Jerome, - those involved in the affairs of your monastery, suffered a lot and undeservedly, and for the fact that we truly wished well for the monastery of St. Prophet Elijah and with all our might, even now after the death of the elder, we wished you peace and love with Fr. Innocent. And who knows? Perhaps, if you heard our advice, you would be reconciled with Fr. Innocent, and then the order that you achieved through terrible sorrows and mental turmoil could have been established. But the Lord, apparently, wanted you to go through the crucible of sorrows. It is fair that the correspondence of Fr. Innocentia should seem wrong and difficult for you, but put yourself on point o. Innocent. I don’t want to defend him (rather, I could use the time, judging humanly, to repay Fr. Innocent for some opposition to the monastery at some time), but, in my conscience, I will tell you: you and your entire monastery should not forget the activities and twenty-six years of work of Fr. Innocent for the benefit of the monastery. Take his moral side: after all, one word of his consent could have made him a hieromonk, abbot of your monastery even under the elder, for this was what the elder, the monastery and Archimandrite Clement wanted, but he resisted this, recognizing himself as unworthy. Therefore, the dignity of a person must be assessed. Now, after all, he wants to participate in your labors, as with the late elder. I’ll tell you frankly, with his prudence and ingenuity, you will find a lot of useful things for the monastery, and, of course, based on your trust and disposition towards him, he would never want to conduct his correspondence. As a person, he feels insulted, offended and despised, and the latter, due to human weakness, forced him to carry out this. This is what made me tell your monk to calm down Fr. Innocent, so that by such an act you and the whole society can be calm, or, as can be seen from the copy of the letters, that he wants to have his cell outside the monastery 245 to calm down, give it to him - as long as your order is not disturbed. As for the letter from Fr. Macarius, then calm down: our letters to Gladkov are nothing more than a request so that the now established order does not collapse, and a request for its continuation. Fr. himself Innokenty testifies in one of his letters to Gladkov that we will no longer enter into the affairs of your monastery, and truly we do not find time to carry out our affairs properly, and not just talk about outsiders. We also confirm to you that I expressed myself somewhat in favor of Fr. Innocent, then this is nothing more than the desire for the longed-for peace in your monastery, for which we ask and pray to the Lord and His Most Pure Mother” 246. The final reconciliation of Fr. Andrey with Fr. Innocent, however, did not take place, and Fr. Innocent was not reinstated in his position, as Fr. Andrei elders of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery. This circumstance forced Fr. Innocent leave the monastery of St. Prophet Elijah and go to Russia, where he died in Kyiv in 1878. However, Fr. himself did not sit for long “on the shaky throne” of the dike of the Russian Ilyinsky monastery. Andrei, after seven years of his turbulent reign, ceded it to his successor Fr. Tobias, elected rector on September 8, 1879. Father Andrei, having abandoned his abbotship, completely left the brethren of the monastery and retired to silence in one of the desert cells, where he lives happily to this day. On the site of a small cell or “seraya” (palace) of the Patriarch of Constantinople, known in Russia under the name Athanasius of Lubensky, on the land of the Vatopedi monastery, the Russian St. Andrew’s monastery was founded in 1849, known on Athos more under the former name “Seraya” 248. Through the efforts and labors of his ever-memorable patrons, Fr. Vissarion and Fr. Barsanuphius, and mainly the late Archimandrite Fr. Theodoret’s monastery brought this monastery into a flourishing state and complete improvement. Through the wise foresight of the last monastery of St. Apostle Andrew is so financially secure that his existence with his brethren of about 200 people is now beyond any chance, thanks to the capital collected by the efforts of Archimandrite Theodoret and deposited in the bank “for eternity” with the right to use interest from it for the maintenance of the monastery. For his many years of useful activity 249, natural intelligence and extremely sympathetic gentle character of Fr. Theodoret enjoyed respect and universal love on Athos; He was valued and respected by the Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimus, as an exception, who elevated the Russian St. Andrew's monastery to the level of stauropegial or patriarchal and confirmed him personally with the rank of archimandrite, which was granted to him by the kyriarchal (heading) Vatopedi monastery shortly before with a special charter. For the complete well-being of the monastery, according to Fr. Theodoret and his closest advisers and collaborators, complete unanimity and peace among the brethren, violated by some of the representative elders in the skete, who did not put up with the established order in the skete and the prominent position of some people close to the abbot. To my deepest regret, complacent Fr. Theodoret, not without the influence of these confidants, chose an inconvenient and even harsh measure to achieve his desire. The removal of dissatisfied persons from the monastery, which was ordered by the great Protestant Church, seemed to everyone to be a very difficult measure and gave rise to unrest among the monastery brethren. Hostile elements in the monastery took advantage of these unrest and directed all efforts to wrest power from the hands of Fr. Theodoret and remove his closest advisers from the monastery. Was requested from Fr. Theodoret immediately gave a full account of the expenditures of the monastic sums; since an alleged defect of 790 Turkish liras was discovered in them, Fr. Theodoret was taken out of the abbot's cell, all the keys were taken from him and he was asked to “refuse the abbess.” At the cell of Fr. Theodorite “stood” day and night as a guard, who prevented him from taking “one step beyond the porta (outside the gates of the monastery) and from having meetings with anyone or writing anywhere.” In these difficult circumstances that befell Fr. Theodoret unexpectedly, he was completely at a loss and did not know what to do to calm the agitated brethren and restore at least the previous order to the monastery. Therefore, complaining openly in his letters to Fr. Macarius to his difficult situation in the monastery at this time and calling himself, not without bitter irony, “hegumen in retirement without peace,” Fr. Theodoret, in response to the official question in the kinot: “Is he really cramped, limited and does not have the freedom to leave the monastery or go wherever he wants?” - gave a very evasive answer: “Before, the port of the monastery was actually locked, at the request of the entire brotherhood, and therefore not only I was limited, but also the whole brotherhood. But we are inside the skete,” said Fr. Theodoret, - were free, went to church, to meals, and so on. By the way, we had a guard, but this was only so that as a result of some misunderstanding in conversations among ourselves, irritation and confusion would not result. But I don’t have any complaints about the brotherhood.” This answer did not satisfy either the kaymakam, in whose presence Fr. Theodoret, neither the members of the protate, nor even those closest to him and now suffering with him. Of the latter, some even tried to change this form of answer about. Theodoret, but it seems to be unsuccessful. Russian antiprosop o. Nathanael, reporting on March 24, 1878 to Fr. Macarius about the strange behavior during the interrogation of Fr. Theodorit, in explanation, adds that “from many days of embarrassment and displeasure, his sensitive organs were very weakened.” 250 But the strangeness of this behavior should most likely be explained precisely by the fact that, frightened by the turn that the course of events had taken in the monastery, Father Theodorit was now afraid, lest with his complaints he would complicate matters and irritate those dissatisfied against himself even more. Here in this peacefulness of Father Theodorit and in the deep grief about the unrest within the monastery that was beloved and built by his labors and cares, it is necessary to look for reasons to explain his other more important actions. So, when “by common fraternal desire and consent” on April 6, 1878, hieromonk Anthony was elected to the monastery of the monastery, then Fr. Theodoret, as the Serai epitropes wrote to Fr. “I was very pleased with his election to this high degree,” but “he was the first to confirm his consent to this with a handwritten signature to the act drawn up by the brotherhood on this subject.” In a letter dated April 17, 1878 on the occasion of Easter, signed by his and the newly elected rector, Fr. Theodoret “considers it not superfluous to fraternally inform that he, due to the weakness of his health, arbitrarily transferred the position of abbot and the management of the monastery to his disciple Hieromonk Anthony, and he himself remains in retirement at the monastery and will be engaged exclusively in the spiritual leadership of the brethren, that is, to be a spiritual father.” In reality, the position of Fr. Theodoret's situation in his monastery was unbearably difficult, from which he absolutely did not know how to get out. His only hope was in the elders of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, Fr. Macarius and Fr. Jerome, and he turned to them for help. “Your three lines and one word to Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev - and I have risen, I will remain in my place, the holy monastery has been preserved and all the brethren will calm down,” Fr. Theodorite. - Oh, most honest fathers! I tearfully beg you, in this time of trial, to help and protect both the monastery and my merits with advice and petition from our common benefactor N.P. Ignatiev. Your word and his - and I am saved.” And the fathers of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, appreciating the high qualities of the mind and heart of Fr. Theodoret and his services to the skete deeply mourned the unrest taking place in the skete and tried in every possible way to express their sympathies to the unfortunate sufferer. They did not stop remembering Fr. Theodoret with the brethren at all church services, on the day of his angel, March 10, through the archikunakchey (i.e. head of the house of Russian antiprosop on Karei) Fr. They sent Savva a prosphora and a written greeting on his name day, officially, through their antiprosop, expressed their condolences regarding the unfortunate events in the monastery, forwarded his correspondence, supplied the necessary money at his request to the persons indicated by him, and generally provided all kinds of services and favors. And in the end, when they did not foresee any other outcome from the events that played out, they gave him advice to voluntarily resign as abbot, which Fr. himself was inclined to do. Theodorite. “To advise you,” the Russikov elders wrote, “what we assumed, the grace of God enlightened your fatherly heart - you have already done on the day of resurrection, and it is good for you. May the Risen One arrange everything for the benefit of you and your well-maintained skete and your brethren. From this it will be clear to everyone that you are the Father of your children, the guardian of order and the keeper of the place acquired with so much labor and placed before the face of the whole world. This is the only way to save the monastery from destruction - your voluntary abandonment of its management and forgiveness of the brotherhood for embarrassment. Time and circumstances will show the inexperienced the error. But this requires a lot of humility and patience. And since the test was allowed by the will of God’s providence, it is for spiritual benefit. And how you are enlightened by grace and have made true evangelical self-sacrifice, which [not only] all spiritual people will praise, but also your spiritual children will, over time, all appreciate your exemplary act, for everything you have done is for the benefit of your neighbor, that is, your children, who will not hesitate to repent, and we remain sympathizing and praying for the improvement of your holy monastery and for the gift to you complacency." Father Theodoret, highly valued by his kyriarchic monastery (knr...arcoj mon") for the above-mentioned virtues of mind and heart, from the very beginning of the unrest that took place in St. Andrew's monastery, he found strong support and protection for himself in the monastery. The Vatopedi monastery, through its antiprosop, directed all its efforts towards making a “simvivyazm” (sumbibasmoj), that is, an amicable agreement about. Theodoret with the brethren of the monastery, and leave it in its place. In these circumstances, the fathers of the Vatopedi monastery did not give their consent to the election of a new abbot in the monastery, saying to the dissatisfied: “It is impossible for you and us to change this abbot. We installed it. He gathered almost all of you and set up a monastery, and as you can see, we cannot do anything bad to him after such labors. And from now on we hope that he will not ruin the monastery; it is dangerous to entrust it in any other way.” Therefore, when the Ecumenical Patriarch, with his letter of January 2, 1879, demanded that Fr. Theodoret was still the abbot of the monastery, and invited the Vatopedi and Russian Panteleimon monasteries to assist him in this, the kyriarchic monastery began to act with greater courage and determination. To speed up reconciliation Fr. Theodoret, with the brethren who had offended him and were now averse to reconciliation with him for fear of bad consequences in the future, advice was given to Fr. Theodorit. so that he would calm the “weak” with a “special act of reconciliation.” The kind and peace-loving elder did not hesitate to follow the good advice of his well-wishers and immediately issued a letter of permission for all the brethren, written with his own hand. This letter, full of fatherly love, monastic humility and all-forgiving condescension to human weaknesses, reads like this: “To the glory of the Most Holy Trinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, I, the Russian elder on Athos of the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called monastery, Archimandrite Theodoret, with the help of God and common prayers and desires, do this act of reconciliation with my fathers and brothers and my spiritual children in Christ in the fact that by God’s permission the temptation and disorder that occurred in our monastery caused the elders and the community Our great harm is internal and external, spiritual and material. And although the reason for this temptation was initially quickly destroyed, the consequences of the disorder of the brethren, unfortunately, have taken on large proportions and continue to this day, finding no way out of their upset situation, and thus create an obstacle to spiritual salvation, which requires peace in spiritual life, especially in the community. The ongoing confusion also does a lot of harm to the external material well-being of the monastery, which depends on the improvement of our community. The difficult experience of the year-long confusion and disorder of our skete weighed down many of the brethren to the point that they, not foreseeing a good outcome from the present upset situation, began to express their desires to return to the perfect order of community life, based by God on obedience to the elders. But only some are prevented from doing this by one doubt in my forgiveness: that if I, upon accepting the leadership, would take revenge on them and drive them out or force them out of the monastery, then to destroy this doubt, as an assurance of my senile forgiveness, they expressed a desire to henceforth receive from me a conciliatory act with due approval, as and where it should be. I accept this desire of the fathers and brethren and of my spiritual children in the Lord as a saving remedy indicated to us by God Himself for our God-loving peace. Although during the period of this temptation and repeatedly, for the benefit of my society, I neglected my pride and made self-sacrifice, and now, in order to renew and establish common love and a saving peace between us, all the more I must trample on my pride and make self-sacrifice a holy promise on the paper desired by the brethren of the God-inspired act of reconciliation. So, my fathers and brothers, in accordance with your desire, inspired in you by God, as an assurance I give you this paper signed and with a general affirmation, and I solemnly give my elder promise of forgiveness, based on the Gospel words of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who said to us: “If you forgive the sins of your brethren from your hearts, your heavenly Father will forgive you your sins. “You will not forgive from your hearts the trespasses of your brothers, and your heavenly Father will not forgive you your trespasses.” Therefore, in the name of God, to all the fathers and brothers who took part in the former embarrassment, I solemnly promise to consign it to complete oblivion, and from my heart I forgive and allow, and forget, everyone in it (who participated), and I promise not to take revenge on anyone for it in any way: neither secretly, nor openly, nor on the side, below the word, and in no way to displace, not to expel anyone from the monastery. So, before the face of God and in His name, I give you, my fathers and brothers, my senile forgiveness for all your sins that you committed against me during the former embarrassment. I wish and pray that the Lord Himself may grant you this all-forgiveness. With His help, strive to return to a God-loving, well-ordered, perfect community, so that, according to the word of Holy Scripture, “let us glorify God both in our souls and in our bodies, which are the essence of God.” At the same time, I invite you, my fathers and brothers, to do the same, and you, for your part, give me your promise before God so that you will no longer complain about me for my accidental mistake, which gave rise to embarrassment. Consign it to oblivion, so that it will serve as a spiritual experience in the future, according to the word of Holy Scripture, that “all things will work out for good to those who love God.” So, may the God of peace pacify us all for his glory, for the prayers of the Most Holy Theotokos and all the saints. Amen". The brethren of the Russian St. Andrew's skete, tired of a year of unrest and troubles, after receiving an act of forgiveness from their former beloved abbot, had no choice but to immediately confess to the Vatopedi monastery and seek its forgiveness and restoration of the previous order of things in the skete. “We are the undersigned brotherhood of the Russian hostel St. Apostle Andrew of the Vatopedi monastery “Seraya,” wrote the fathers of the monastery on January 12, 1879, “with this document of ours we declare to our sacred and most honest kyriarchal monastery that since, by the grace of God, the disagreement known to the monastery that happened between us and our venerable dike, Archimandrite Mr. Theodoret, has ceased, When complete reconciliation was restored between us, then, by common opinion and agreement, we decided and agreed that the most reverend father, Archimandrite Mr. Theodoret, would continue to be the dike of our sacred monastery, but assisted in the economic management of it by a four-part economic epitropy compiled for this purpose and would consult with the most elected fathers, as did his eminence Fr. Theodoret accepts. And the most reverend fathers, hieromonks Dorotheos and Anthony, leave the monastery. Having brought this to the attention of our sacred and most honest kyriarchical monastery, we ask you to forgive us Christ-imitating the fact that we have disturbed it with our disagreements, and consign this to oblivion, and again recognize the most reverend Archimandrite Fr. Theodorite dikeim of the sacred monastery. Therefore, we have the honor to be honored by the brethren of the sacred Russian monastery “Seraya” with the respect due to our kyriarchic monastery.” (Captions follow.) The Vatopedi monastery was very happy about this “guilty confession” of the Seraevsk hermits, since they willingly and voluntarily expressed the very desires and intentions that were completely consistent with the desires of the kyriarchic monastery. After the removal of the “guilty” fathers from the monastery, with a remuneration of 150 Turkish liras at a time and with the obligation to provide them with kuban, that is, everything necessary for life while they were on the Holy Mountain, the restoration of Fr. Theodorit in his former rank. The Proestos Fathers Daniel, Cyril, Melchizedek and the grammarian (secretary) of the monastery who arrived from the monastery did not, however, begin to restore Fr. Theodoret, how a new canonism of the monastery was developed, by general consent, which seemed to be brought to life by the desire of the brotherhood, so that Fr. Theodoret was “assisted by the fourfold economic epitropy and would consult with the chosen fathers.” Developed by the Vatopedi monastery “at multiple meetings of epitropes and proestos, the sacred council of its constituents,” the new “canonism” of the monastery did not make a good impression on the elders of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery 251 and was accepted, not without restrictions, by Fr. Theodoret 252. The first did not like the attempt in the new “canonism” to limit the abbot, introduce cathedral management of the monasteries of idiorhythms and destroy the strictly cenobial structure of the monastery, and the dike of St. Andrew’s monastery seemed to have some points of the new “canonism” “disagreeing with local and church rules.” But after “some changes” and comprehensive discussions, which gave ill-intentioned people a reason, among other things, to spread a false rumor that “the elder does not agree to the acceptance of canonism,” Fr. Theodoret agreed to accept the new canonism and on February 14, during the liturgy, he was restored to the rank of abbot. The brethren made him the throwing (bow) prescribed for this occasion and handed him the keys of the monastery. After the liturgy and festive meal, a “gerontia” was elected, consisting of 12 skete elders, and an epitropia, which included Fathers Barnabas, Nikon, Vitaly and Theoclitus. About such a joyful event, Fr. Theodoret hastened to notify the elders of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, who treated him so sincerely and compassionately throughout the unrest that was taking place in the monastery. He thanked Fr. Archimandrite Macarius for his “spiritual guidance and in general for all the wise actions that he could manage in the person of the trustee of the holy monastery, his most honest Fr. Nathanael,” and announced that the monastery’s business was over and “led the brotherhood to general peace.” The postscript expressed “sincere gratitude” “in particular” to Fr. confessor Jerome for his “sincere advice and participation in the difficult affairs of the humble monastery. The elders of the Panteleimon monastery immediately expressed Fr. Theodoret expressed “inexplicable joy” over the fact that “the ship received its real helmsman, and they wished for him that the “God-given world” would “assimilate the grace of God to the holy monastery and renew the spirit of the holy community and eldership established by the God-bearing fathers.” The wishes of the elders of the monastery of St. Panteleimon was not in vain. Peace did not “assimilate” to the monastery and was disrupted in it earlier than could have been expected. “Unexpectedly, a new confusion occurred in the monastery,” write the dikei and epitropes of the skete in Vatopedi on April 15, 1879, “caused by the elders of the monastery’s brethren, who are trying to change some of the members of the epitropy in opposition to the recently drawn up, signed and sealed solemn mutual document, and that these fathers dared to lock the epitropic room, where the cash desk and seal of the monastery are located, and also installed four guards guard the epitropium and prevent the dikei and the epitropes from approaching there and performing the duties of their office.” This new incident or “this state of affairs, completely disorderly,” seemed “downright offensive” to the Vatopedi monastery, which “worked for almost a whole year to restore peace and order to the Serai monastery.” The monastery demanded to immediately “remove the lock placed on the cash desk of the epitropia,” “to also accept the guards guarding the epitropicon, and leave the epitropes, let them freely enter it and practice freely, like epitropes,” and ordered that “all 12 members of the gerontia and three of the epitropes must certainly appear tomorrow at the sacred monastery all together.” Father Theodoret was not invited to the monastery due to illness. The purpose of this challenge to gerontius and epitropy was to “invent means to put an end to the present confusion and confusion” 253. Although, contrary to the order, not all those summoned came to the monastery: seven members of the gerontia were not present, Vatopedi, however, did not find it possible to postpone the meeting and immediately began an investigation into the causes of the unrest in the monastery and “inventing means to stop them.” “Both from the verbal explanations of all these (who were in the monastery) fathers, and from the meaning of the letter” sent from the monastery to the monastery about the unrest that had arisen, “it became clear and obvious” that among the gerontia there are some members who want to overthrow the new order in the monastery, established by a solemn mutual document that was recently established and received the force of law, and that these members are driven by the spirit of the party, vindictiveness and obvious enmity against the Dikei and the epitropes of the monastery, whom they maliciously accuse in their letter to our sacred monastery, that they allegedly make great expenses and so on, and finally, instead of proving these abuses in practice, they begin, so to speak, again the old song, attacking only one of the epitropes, the monk Nikon, and wanting to replace him, as if he alone is the cause of all evils, intending through this to gain the right to replace them then gradually without any important cause and other members of the epitropy, and if possible, then the dikey himself, and thus achieve his secret goals. As a result of all this, not wanting in any way to allow order and tranquility to be disturbed in the skete and serve as a playground for several of these self-proclaimed geronts, we approve and decide,” wrote the Vatopedi Monastery on April 17, 1879, after a comprehensive discussion of the current state of affairs in the skete, “1) that the measure by which those of its members who are outside the skete are replaced in the gerontium should be immediately abolished antiprosops (correcting the position), from now on the gerontia should consist only of those members of it who are personally in the monastery; 2) as a result of this, deputies for the six members sent outside the monastery should be immediately installed, i.e., the Most Reverend Dionysius, Myron, Savva, Andronik, Hilarion and Thaddeus; 3) since, in addition to two members of gerontia, i.e. Hieromonk Barsanuphius and monk Anastasius, the other ten members of it dared to put a lock on the epitropic cash register and place guards at it, therefore, they should immediately be dismissed from among the members of the gerontia: of them, Moses, Blasius, Spiridon and Tikhon, let them retire to their cells (rooms), and in their place, let four others be appointed from the monastery brethren - quiet, peace-loving, respectable and having required age and merit. These four together with those two, i.e. Hieromonk Barsanuphius and Monk Anastasius, will constitute gerontia until the end of this year. From among the six deputies being dismissed, let the most venerable Dionysius, Savva and Andronik also retire to their cells, and let the most venerable Myron and Hilarion be sent to a metoch (farm) in Kuzla, in order to fulfill their canon (punishment) there for two months, as restless troublemakers. And Thaddeus, as a troublemaker more than others and from the very beginning did not recognize the new order of things and did not sign either the solemn document or the election of the monastery, must be immediately removed from the monastery after he is given a sum of money for his maintenance in the amount that will be determined for him by the brotherhood of the monastery. Thus, - the fathers of the Vatopedi monastery conclude their definition, - we are convinced that the disturbed peace, tranquility and order will be restored between the affairs of the monastery, for which we have worked so hard and for which we will take all possible measures in order to establish it, and this is for the glory and benefit of the monastery, the fathers of which have a positive need for inviolable calm and order. They undertake to henceforth honor their superior, Archimandrite Theodorit the Diceus, and the epitropes, submitting to them in everything, and willingly fulfilling their orders and obediences that will be assigned to them” 254. The execution of “literally everything that is approved and decided in this letter” was entrusted to special commissioners sent from the Vatopedi monastery to the monastery, to the proestos Fr. Jacob and the elder Fr. Feodosia. But the longed-for peace and brotherly love, which the monastery now sought and for which the Vatopedi monastery was diligently trying, directing “all possible measures” towards this, left the Russian St. Andrew’s monastery on Athos for a long time, if only not forever. That complete trust of the brethren in their abbot, that sincerity and cordiality of the relationship between them that existed before, did not exist in the monastery, and both sides, ruling and governed, stood at a respectful distance from each other. Monastic discipline was greatly weakened, and self-will made itself felt at every step. The kindest and most peaceful Fr. could not be indifferent to these abnormalities. Theodoret, who devoted all his strength and labor to his beloved brainchild, nurtured by his cares. Sacrificing everything for the benefit of the monastery he created, the unforgettable Fr. Theodoret, in order to calm his brethren, to establish peace and brotherly love in him, decided on an unprecedented voluntary sacrifice, which he himself personally made. Believing that with his removal from the monastery, the previous peaceful order would be restored by itself and the desired peace would descend into the monastery, he condemned himself to voluntary exile. The helm of the board, which Fr. Theodoret honestly and competently held for many years, he handed over epitropy and gerontia and, under the pretext of organizing the necessary skete affairs, on May 6, 1879, he left Athos for St. Petersburg, where he lived until November 16, 1880. Returning back to his native monastery, he felt even more useless in the monastery, where during this time the new order of internal government imposed by the Vatopedi monastery, “republican”, as the late Fr. Jerome, or the monasteries of Athonite idiorhythms, and therefore decided to finally free his dear and dear monastery from his person. Under the pretext of treating his health, which had really deteriorated from intense and prolonged work and the worries he had experienced, Fr. Theodoret went to the city of Odessa and lived his last days in the monastery courtyard there, having almost no influence on the affairs of the monastery. The name of Father Theodorit still appeared on all the papers of the monastery and the title “abbot” was added to it, but this was nothing more or less than a desire with this well-known name in our fatherland to cover up the “obscurity” of those names that ran the affairs of the monastery. Here in Odessa, on August 10, 1887, Fr. Theodoret, buried far from dear Athos and his beloved monastery, to which he gave 45 years of his life, in the local city cemetery... The facts we have told about the life of the Russian Athonite monasteries did not pass without leaving a mark on the future fate of these monasteries. The intervention of the kyriarchical monasteries in the internal life of our monasteries, caused by the events we have described, after this became a phenomenon, one might say, permanent and led to frequent clashes and misunderstandings between one and the other, which are very difficult to resolve. In particular, the consequence of the events of 1871 in the St. Elias skete are the current constant clashes with the Pandocrator Monastery, which greatly interfere with the internal improvement of our skete, and the consequence of the events in the St. Andrew's skete is a new canonism imposed on the skete by the Vatopedi Monastery and once and for all deprived it of a strictly cenovic order, in its place the struggle of parties and the pursuit of personal interests were installed in the skete. All this was revealed with particular clarity here, during the election of the late Fr. confessor Hilarion, better known in Russia under the name Fr. Archimandrite Joseph, former synodal sacristan. These phenomena, however, are natural in the life of our monasteries on Athos and are understandable to us, but we can hardly explain to ourselves the current coldness, even, one might say, the tension of relations between the Russian Panteleimon Monastery and our monasteries on Athos, which sharply strikes the eyes of even a superficial observer and visitor to Athos. The facts we have described about the sympathetic attitude of the elders of the Russian monastery to the events within the walls of our monasteries, apparently, should have led to different results - to a closer rapprochement between them. Russian monks should not for a minute forget the advice of the prophet David: “Behold, whatever is good, or whatever is good, but let the brethren live together” (Psalm 133:1). The complete unanimity of all Russians on Athos is the key to their success and the strength of their power. As for the growing rivalry in all respects between our monasteries and the Panteleimon Monastery, which sometimes manifests itself quite sharply and strangely, for us personally this sad phenomenon is already a positive mystery, and we refuse to even imagine what it could lead our Russian Athonite monasticism in the future. Even the official brochure speaks about these uncommendable qualities of the Ilyinsky hermitages, although very restrainedly: “The Russian Cenobitic Skete of St. Prophet Elijah on Mount Athos”, published for the second time in Odessa in 1889 at the expense of the monastery for distribution to Russian fans. pp. 27–32. Letter from Gladkov to the elders of Russik dated October 27, 1873 “I don’t know what to do and how to act in order to overthrow the worthless owners,” Fr. frankly admitted. Innokenty in a letter to Gladkov. “At the same time, I’m afraid that all the trouble will fall on me for disturbing the current peace, although only external and, it seems, short-lived” (Letter dated September 15, 1873). Letter dated September 15, 1873. Letter dated August 24, 1873. Letter from Mr. Gladkov to the elders dated September 1 and 5, 1873. Letter from Mr. Gladkov to Fr. Innocent, October 16, 1873. Letter about. Macarius, October 30, 1873; Wed letter about. Innocent dated October 27 of the same year. Letter from the elders to Gladkov dated September 22, 1873. Letter dated October 27, 1873. Letter dated December 15, 1873. Here about. Andrey understands the secret correspondence of Fr. Innocent, captured from the latter in his cell. This correspondence in copies of Fr. Andrey sent this letter to Fr. Jerome. It consisted of 8 letters from Fr. Innocent, 5 letters from Gladkov and one letter from Fr. Macaria. Letter about. Andrey to Fr. To Jerome, December 7, 1873. Innokenty expressed this desire to build a special cell in a letter dated July 3, 1873 to Fr. Philaret, from whom he asked for 800 rubles for this need. silver We know this letter in draft form and without the exact date of its dispatch to its destination. During this reign Fr. Andrew, a miracle took place in the Ilyinsky monastery, certified by the handwritten signatures of the abbot and his most important elders, witnesses of the miraculous phenomenon. This act, which has not yet been published anywhere, is inscribed as follows: “The legend of the sign revealed from the icon of the Mother of God of Tikhvin, located in the Russian cenobitic Elias monastery on Mount Athos, which is the measure and likeness of the miraculous icon in the Tikhvin monastery” and reads verbatim as follows. Detailed information about the monastery can be gleaned from the following brochures: Serai, the new Russian monastery of St. Apostle Andrew the First-Called on Mount Athos. St. Petersburg, 1858; The communal Russian monastery of St. Apostle Andrew the First-Called. Odessa, 1875; The origin and foundation of the communal monastery in the name of St. Apostle Andrew the First-Called on Holy Mount Athos. Odessa, 1885; A brief historical sketch of the Russian St. Andrew's cenobitic monastery on Mount Athos, with the appendix of a narrative about miracles from the icon of the Mother of God belonging to this monastery, “Consolation in Sorrows and Sorrows.” Odessa, 1890. The many-sided and fruitful activities of Fr. Theodorite is described in detail in the “Brief Historical Sketch of the Russian St. Andrew’s Cenobitic Skete on Mount Athos.” pp. 18–24. From the report of antiprosop Fr. Nathanael to Fr. Macarius dated March 28, 1878. The late Fr. Mina will preserve for us very interesting comments on some paragraphs of the Serai canonism developed at that time by the Vatopedi monastery. These remarks belong to the champion of strict cenovic principles and ancient monastic eldership, the late confessor of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, Fr. Jerome. Here are these comments on some paragraphs. “For the last advice given to me - to retain spiritual leadership and eldership,” wrote Fr. on February 5, 1879. Theodoret to the elders of Russik, - I previously stated in the fraternal council, when three times they invited me and asked me to accept the leadership. Everyone agreed to my statement, and I agreed to recognize the established board with some changes, which I considered to be inconsistent with local and church rules." All this information is borrowed from the paper of the Vatopedi Monastery in St. Andrew's Skete dated April 15, 1879, No. 136. Letter from the Vatopedi Monastery to St. Andrew’s Skete dated April 17, 1878, No. 138. You might be interested in: