[Rec. on:] Arseny [Stadnitsky], archbishop. Novgorod. On the spiritual battle: Words and speeches

The book represents that characteristic phenomenon in our literature of this kind, that the eminent author appears in it not so much as a teacher of the abstract truths of dogmatics and morality, but rather as a public figure in the sphere of church and politics, as a tirelessly active archpastor and member of the State Council. Wherever he spoke with his words, the main motive for him was the sad phenomenon he observed everywhere - the ineffectiveness of Orthodoxy as the basis of life. “The lack of knowledge of God is - according to the author - one of the greatest misfortunes of our time. Our Orthodox Christians know little about their faith, and many of those who belong to the Christian rank do not consider it necessary for themselves to know, as they should, the teachings of their faith, the laws and regulations of the church to which they belong... and this must be said not only about the simpletons, but also about those who consider themselves educated, who, being versed in various sciences, reveal amazing ignorance in the matter of faith” 2. This main motive also determines the main idea of ​​his preaching and oratorical activity - faith as the basis of life" 3. He always calls his listeners, so to speak, to active Christianity: to religious and church self-education by attending church interviews and studying religious literature, inspires the need for self-examination, the importance of night prayer; calls on the clergy and laity to united action in the fight against unbelief and sectarianism; to the fight against established anti-church customs (attending performances on the eve of holidays), and, in particular, the widespread disease of drunkenness, which threatens the positive degeneration of the Russian heroic people. The author pronounces his words and speeches mainly about events that have ecclesiastical and practical significance, for example. at the annual meetings of the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood, the opening and consecration of the Diocesan House, which he himself established, at anti-alcohol congresses in Moscow and Novgorod, and everywhere his voice calling to action is heard: “it’s time for us to rise from sleep!...” Quite willingly, the author chooses political topics for church sermons - highly solemn and state anniversary ones, such as: the three hundredth anniversary of the House of Romanov, the liberation of the peasants, the Japanese War, the opening of the State Duma, etc. Particularly noteworthy, in our opinion, are the speeches delivered by the author in the State Council during the discussion of bills on Old Believer communities and on the transition from one religion to another. The author expresses in them his negative attitude towards general bills and builds his theory of the state’s attitude towards the church and outside denominations and other religions. He bases his negative attitude towards both projects: firstly, on the fact that they are essentially based on the principle of separation of state and church, which is absolutely unacceptable from the point of view of our entire national structure, and secondly, on the fact that they are in contradiction with the Highest Manifesto of April 17. 1906 “April Manifesto - Gov. he - about freedom of conscience - appeared in the eyes of many as a herald of the final separation of church and state, as a purely legal institution, alien to any interests of the confession. The exercise of freedom of conscience, many in the Duma and the press said, requires this separation... and our Russian state, in this opinion, must take the path of a Western European, or so-called new state. It, having separated itself from the church under the banner of freedom of conscience, declared complete freedom for everyone to profess their faith, complete freedom for religious propaganda, complete freedom for everyone to be outside any confession, in a word - freedom of atheism.” “But,” the author notes, “despite the fact that these principles, even in their homeland, have not yet been fully implemented into state codes, and where they have been implemented, such as in France, this implementation has led to the opposite results, i.e. to the humiliation of freedom of conscience and to “enlightened persecution of the church.” To our Legislation by the Highest Authority April 17. 1905 and 17 Oct. 1906 the task is predetermined: to combine freedom of conscience with great exaltation of our common mother - the Orthodox Church. We were brought up to think that one of two things is possible: either freedom or the church; from the height of the throne, both freedom and the church are foreshadowed” 4 . Referring to Russian history, the author proves that this combination is not only possible, but also the only acceptable one, so far Russia-Russia. What is the essence of this union of the Russian state with the Orthodox Church? This essence does not lie in anything provided to the church by the state, but in the fact that the state draws from the church its eternal guiding religious and moral principles and is guided by them. The state can either accept them - then it is in union with the church, or not accept them - then there is no union. When the state is guided in its religious policy by the teachings and instructions of the church, then naturally it patronizes it, giving it honor and means to fulfill its mission. But if, suppose, the state had no money and it not only did not give anything to the Church, but even took from it, this would not destroy the union between them. If, on the contrary, the state showers the church with gold and surrounds its ministers with the most honorable position, but acts in moral and religious matters not according to its teaching and advice, then in this case there is no union” 5 . “Now another question: under the principle of a state church, is freedom of conscience, exalted by the April Decree, possible? Our history again answers this question. It shows that we have had all possible forms of religion since ancient times. But the Russian land, the Russian State, in comparison with Western Europe, has primacy in the implementation of the principle of religious tolerance "... 6 "So, we see that the principle of the ruling church is not at all accompanied by the persecution of other faiths and violation of freedom of conscience. It stems from the awareness of the need for the state to have a unity of moral and spiritual basis and criterion in the field of religion. Such a basis is our Orthodox Church and there is only one of it, because the state can introduce into its legal order only one church, and not two. If we brought into the legal order only one church, and not ten and not two. If we introduced at least two churches into the legal order, then this would be equivalent to the fact that we have none. The state needs the existence of an independent norm of morality, not prescribed by it, but self-sufficient: for only such a norm can increase its strength. Otherwise, the state will have to become higher than these churches, to be the judge of their norms, without any benefit to its goal” 7. Starting from these general principles of principle to resolve the particular issue of Old Believer communities, the author says: We see that the schismatics are seeking recognition of their illegal hierarchy by the state, which should assign the name to their hierarchical persons “clergy according to the Old Believers.” This name undoubtedly contrasts them with “clergy according to Orthodoxy” or, in Old Believer terminology, “according to Nikonianism.” Thus, if the state agrees, it will introduce two churches with their hierarchies into its legal order - which is an insult to the Orthodox Church. Moreover, what exactly does this state recognition of the Old Believer hierarchy have to do with freedom of conscience? Will the dignity of the hierarchical officials of the Old Believer Church be enhanced by the fact that the state, in the language of one writer, attaches a “state stamp”? does this have anything to do with freedom of conscience?” 8 Discussing the second particular issue – the right to change from one religion to another – the author says: “When designing this law, the following three provisions were undoubtedly implied: 1) that religion is a complete, individual matter, and therefore it depends on the will of each person to remain in a given religion, or to move to another, or to be completely without any religion, 2, that all religions are equal in dignity in the eyes of the state and therefore for the state it does not matter which religion its subject belongs to and, 3, that if all religions are equal, if there is no true religion, then the state can do without without a state religion, to remain neutral and indifferent towards religion, i.e. irreligious. But the Law, built on such principles, marks the separation of church and state.” “Thinking about our religious policy, we come to very sad results: we see here religious unprincipledness, the absence of any clear commitment in the state’s attitude to the Orthodox faith and other faiths. This relationship is not illuminated by any specific thought - hence the accumulation of contradictions in this relationship. One thing is clear that our consciousness of positive and negative, truth and error in the matter of religion has dimmed. In those few cases when a well-known creed affects any visible, material interests of public life, when, for example, a skopchestvo appears, or a creed that denies civil or military service, we then understand that this creed is harmful and that it needs to be opposed. But we do not pay attention to whether a certain belief in the consciousness of the population is true or false, whether it has a harmful or beneficial effect on the minds and conscience of people. Why? Perhaps because the consciousness of the truth of anything has disappeared in us, due to a lack of understanding that in general there is objective, real truth in the world, and not sophistical, consisting in the invention of this or that subject. Since the state has confidence in the certainty of the truth contained in this church, of course, it cannot be indifferent to it, it will defend it, use all means to ensure that the goals of the church are realized. After all, we, for example, do not allow the treatment of healers and sorcerers and, in cases of greatest tolerance, subject them to the supervision of doctors. We do not allow freedom, either in the economic or political spheres, as the only measure of permissible actions. In these areas the state sometimes shows great intolerance. But with regard to philosophical and religious truth, we have become tolerant to the point of complete indifference. Obviously, we have become poor at believing in the real meaning of any truth... We are constantly told that laws educate peoples. For more than 900 years, our laws educated only the people in Orthodoxy. Now they want to pass a law promoting apostasy from Orthodoxy; Perhaps I said too much, or rather, granting the right to deviate from Orthodoxy. But doesn’t this mean a retreat from the very people raised in the Orthodox faith? Doesn't this mean re-educating her in a different, opposite, non-Orthodox direction? We must not forget the corrupting moral impression that this law will make, for it is clear to everyone that this bill profanes the Orthodox religion. The late Chairman of the Council of Ministers I.A. also warned against this profanation. Stolypin, who in his speech in the State Duma pointed out and warned against this, saying that reforms should not cause damage to the soul of the people, which has united and is uniting millions of Russians, that the people seeking consolation in prayer will understand, of course, that the law does not punish for the faith, for the prayer of everyone, but that the same people do not understand the law of a purely highest nature, which is to proclaim that Orthodox Christianity is equal to paganism, Jewry, Mohammedanism." “These are the words to which all the attention of legislators should be directed... This is why I believe that this bill should be rejected, because Article 185, which punishes falling away from Christianity into non-Christianity, was repealed on December 14, 1906, and therefore there is no reason to issue a new law, which is so characteristically called a sign law, a declarative law” 9 . The characteristic aspects of the speeches of the eminent speaker should include their style: strict, pure and definite, and so clear that it is not difficult for the common man to understand, even if the speech sometimes touched on such complex issues as church-political ones. It serves as a true reflection of the personality of the speaker, who has no difference between word and deed and who, while calling his listeners to vigilance and Christian activity, himself lives in tireless and varied activity, or, in the words of his book, “in spiritual suffering.” This volume contains the words and speeches delivered by the eminent speaker in the State Council, in the Educational Committee of the SV. Synod, Pre-Conciliar Presence, in academic churches of the Moscow and Kazan Theological Academies and in places of episcopal service in the Pskov and Novgorod dioceses. Four speeches made in the State Council on January 13-February 7 of this year during the discussion of the bill on amending and supplementing certain regulations related to the sale of strong drinks are directed against the duality of government measures in the fight against drunkenness. “Our government,” he says, “cannot be denied thoughts and concerns about this struggle... but it never lacks the determination to complete both measures. And that this is so, I will refer to historical impartial examples... in 1652, a church council chaired by Patriarch Nikon. This is what was decided at this council: “one glass should be sold to each person, and no more than that specified glass should be sold to one person, and in the circle courtyards the pets (presumably “drinking or drinking”) should not sit and be given drink.” But a little time passed and, probably, under the influence of a decrease in drinking income in 1659, therefore, seven years later, the royal letter again ordered: “try to make the Great Sovereign executed for profit and not drive away the drinkers from the circle yards.” Such duality in the fight against drunkenness continues until recently. I don’t want to tire your attention, since many examples of the government’s similar attitude to the issue of drinking income are in the printed materials sent out to you... Suffice it to say that such a great saint as Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow was reprimanded from above for his sermon against tax farming and he was ordered to redo the sermon 11 . As for the present bill, in the discussion of which I also participated in the commission you formed, I must, unfortunately, say that I disagree with it in many respects. My sympathies are with the Duma bill: it’s true that there are many shortcomings, but it is still more or less consistent, and here they are trying to keep the wolves fed and the sheep safe.”12 The speaker ends his speech about the fight against alcoholism through school: “perhaps for such rigorism in my speech I risk being adorned with the title of Savonarola, whose name was disturbed by one of our fellow members... But I prefer to be adorned with this title rather than the title of the high priest Eli, punished by the court of God for negligence in raising his sons” 13. The central and largest part of this volume is occupied by speeches delivered by the author as chairman of the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod, chairman of the V Department of the Pre-Conciliar Presence and then as the immediate head of the higher and secondary theological school and diocesan head of the Pskov and Novgorod dioceses. The author had to speak here as a theorist and practitioner of religious education and upbringing. This circumstance informs his speeches of deep exaggeration to say that none of the existing Russian hierarchs had to so comprehensively study and experience from personal experience various aspects of our church-school issue during the period of difficult trials of the theological school as he did. In his chairman's speeches one can hear everywhere his ardent love for the theological school, grief over the hardships to which it was subjected in its historical past, its sad state experienced during the period of the liberation movement and is being experienced at the present time. Calling on its employees to exert all their strength to restore its dignity and transform it, aimed at achieving its high church goals and personal energetic activity. “Theological school is dear to us, we owe everything to it, it is our mother. And we love our mother even with her shortcomings... But maybe we, called to be healers of the school, ourselves have fallen behind the life that is moving uncontrollably forward. In this case, how not to bring harm unknowingly by living in the area of ​​outdated views. Each of us will evaluate our own path before the great work that lies ahead of us. Remember that its severity is felt not here, but most of all there, on the ground. Of course, we are not afraid of work, inspired by the desire to help our school. But I am afraid of Sisyphean work, I am afraid of its futility, of historical responsibility. History is riddled with both blessings and curses. Let us bring all our strength to the work ahead of us, while keeping one goal in mind - the Church, and let us organize the school so that it serves the Church." 14 The most complex and difficult issue for the Pre-Conciliar Presence was the question of establishing a secondary theological school - a theological seminary or a theological gymnasium. “The starting point for the department’s services on the reform of theological educational institutions is: the sad present reality of their decay... Disadvantages of the theological school: duality of tasks, confusion of general education with special education. The combination of class in a theological school with its professional purpose led to isolation and enslavement of both the theological school itself and the entire clergy: therefore, class interest in the theological school should not be organically connected with the structure of theological institutions. The confusion of general education with special education led to a decline in both. Everyone agrees that the range of scientific knowledge that the theological school now uses is insufficient both for continuing education in higher educational institutions and for enlightened pastoral work. It is necessary to separate general education from special education so that the latter is based on the former, receiving its strength from it” 15. But how to solve this problem? There was extreme disagreement in this regard among the members of the presence. Our author had to work quite a bit on it in order to come to a solution that, if not uniting those who disagree, then at least clearly and definitely expresses the complete idea of ​​church and school reform that resolves the tasks at hand. The author expressed this “nurtured” idea in the following words: “The previous two meetings of the general presence were devoted to the question of the reform of the theological school, that is, the issue that was discussed by the V Department of this presence. Then I was silent, because I had enough time to speak out on this issue in the Department, and then I wanted to listen to the speeches of other members who were not present at the meetings of the V Department. And indeed, many speeches were said here: I had to hear a lot of idyllic memories about the theological school of the past and stories about sad phenomena from the life of the modern theological school. From all these speeches I gained the conviction of how dear the theological school is to everyone, how everyone is trying to come to its aid; but, obviously, a saving medicine has not yet been found, we have not come to a common result, and I don’t know whether we will come... I would like to say something new here, at least for me in the sense that I have changed my mind, felt it, experienced it, everyone who spoke about the reform of the theological school concerned the phenomena, and not the substance of the matter. Perhaps I will not touch upon the essence, because it is difficult to lag behind the views in which I had to be brought up. We need to find out what the essence of evil is. Perhaps our theological school has outlived the forms in which it was embodied. What is a spiritual school? What are its tasks? The task of a theological school, as defined by Metropolitan Philaret, is the gradual preparation of spiritually mature people, so that as a result they can devote themselves to spiritual service in the church. And one of our fellow members, N.P. Aksakov, indicates three goals for the theological school: 1) to be a conductor of Christian religious and moral education in society; 2) prepare future shepherds for their ministry; and 3) come to the aid of the clergy in raising their children. Without touching on the last goal of theological school, I focus on the first two. Both of these goals are not reflected in contradiction with one another, but on the contrary, the first complements the second, because pastoral education must be based on general education. But the implementation of these two tasks through one general educational institution has a detrimental effect on one or the other task. Proof of this is our theological seminaries, which are at least two-sided and, as a result, weakened in the very foundations of their structure. Two such important elements of education, when combined, cannot receive their characteristic development, mutually constraining and interfering with each other in revealing their dignity. This is evidenced by the extremely sad state of our theological seminaries. Almost unanimously, both the Eminences and the seminary and school boards come to the conclusion that the two indicated goals should be separated: general education should be separated from pastoral education. If we do not separate them, then we will not achieve any result. In this case, I am not alone. When analyzing the charter of 1867, the rector of the Kyiv Academy Filaret and the inspector of the Moscow Academy Archimandrite Mikhail spoke in this sense. I also mean reviews of foreign schools. Archpriest Maltsev, in his detailed report to the V Department about foreign schools, pointed out, among other things, that pastoral education there is preceded by general education. I also allow myself to read here an excerpt from a letter from Bishop Nikodim (Milash) to Professor I.S. Palmov dated March 30 of this year about religious educational institutions in Austria-Hungary: “The religious educational institutions of the Austro-Hungarian Orthodox are structured in the image of similar Western institutions and correspond quite well to the purpose. In Serbia and Bulgaria it is not at all the same as in Greece, because in these lands preliminary classical education in gymnasiums is not required from candidates for parish clergy, and this is no longer good, because it lowers the importance of the Orthodox clergy compared to the Roman Catholic and Protestant ones, which, by the way, thanks to this very classical preliminary education, stands quite high in knowledge, meanwhile, the desire of our hierarchy in Austria-Hungary is aimed at ensuring that the Orthodox the clergy stood on a level with the Roman Catholics in scientific terms, and, thanks to this, our hierarchy, just like our parish clergy, are on a par in education and science with the hierarchy and parish clergy of the Roman Catholics. And I think Russia should now keep this in mind, especially in relation to its parish clergy.” “So, both the experience of other countries and the very essence of the matter show that you need to look reality in the eyes clearly, accurately and definitely. That is why I speak out for pastoral school, which should be the completion of general education. I personally am against the normal type of vocational school. We have experience of such a school. Ardon Seminary, which did not last long in its original form. Once we awaken the thirst for knowledge, we have no right to refuse to quench it. Otherwise there will be forced enslavement. I also look at the types of sixth-grade or seven-grade schools projected by other reformers, since I am convinced that these schools will not achieve the desired goal and will suffer from some kind of half-hearted education. In addition to everything from a practical point of view, the designed 6-grade or 7-grade gymnasium will present many inconveniences regarding the transfer to another school. They say: “go to the gymnasium, cadet corps, if there is no calling to pastoral service.” But firstly, there cannot be a question about vocation here, and secondly, everyone knows what it means to move from one school to another. That is why I am in favor of a separate pastoral school, which should serve as the completion of secondary education. I'll say even more. Let those who graduate from a comprehensive theological school go to universities or other higher educational institutions: I have nothing against this. Let the pastoral school even be united with the academy. I think it would be better to unite the seminary and schools together and give them a way out into academies with pastoral schools. These general education schools with an 8-year course can retain either the previous name of seminaries, or theological gymnasiums, or something else. But they should not be an exact copy of gymnasiums, especially since the type of secular secondary school has not yet been established - just as I do not mean reforming them according to the charter of 1867.” 16 The idea of a theological high school expressed here, which is the fruit of comprehensively studied pedagogical material and the personal experiences of the Right Reverend teacher, who combines the depth of seriousness with ardent love for Christian youth, represents such a valuable contribution to the rather extensive and motley literature of spiritual and educational reform projects that the deep attention of all those truly devoted to our Orthodox Church and those who are sick at heart about the ill-fated fate should be focused on it spiritual youth, striving for the light and ideal service to the homeland, but embittered no less than Jewish children by the unfriendly attitude of secular society and secular schools and forcibly squeezed into the camps of the semi-monastic rigorism of the Bursak school, which fosters only disgust from the life path of their fathers and leaves such an imprint on the spiritual and moral physiognomy of their pupils, which is the highest Secular school and society consider “seminarism” to be something indecent. Consistent implementation of the idea of ​​the Eminence Arseny, on the one hand, would create in our state a school that, in parallel to the classical and real gymnasiums, would represent a special type of general education, no longer class-based, theological school, imbued with a religious and philosophical character, on the other hand, would prepare truly enlightened and loving church pastors, and not looking at it as a sad lot of heavy inheritance of social outcast. Arseny Archbishop of Novgorod: At spiritual suffering. Words and speeches. T.1. St. Petersburg. 1914. A special speech on this topic was given at the Novgorod Znamensky Cathedral. Page 51–58. The following is evidence. Page 98–390. Speech given on November 4, 1911 p. 304 God. West. No. 2 1914. Arseny Archbishop of Novgorod: At spiritual suffering. Words and Speeches. T. II. St. Petersburg, 1914. Speech at the meeting of the Department of the Pre-Conciliar Presence. Page 49–50. You might be interested in: