About the needs of church life of the present time

Contents Preface Concerning rumors about a council of the Orthodox Church Autonomy of the Church The needs of provincial church life Securing the white clergy The Church question of Transcaucasia Annunciation ruin The extremes of centralization of church government Anathema at discretion The principle of religious freedom - a canonical principle Opposition to religious freedom The disease of youth How to treat the student intelligentsia of the Orthodox clergy State and non-confessional The proposed collection was prompted by the statement of persons familiar to the author (clerical and secular) of the desire to have at hand in a separate publication articles on the church needs of the present time, published during 1908 in the newspaper “Voice of Moscow”. Regarding rumors about a council of the Orthodox Church. Sad messages continue to appear from St. Petersburg about the postponement of the convening of a church council. The last message is especially characteristic in this regard: “At the meeting of the Holy Synod, the editorial commission for developing reports for the council came to the conclusion that the convocation expected in the spring of this year, in view of the current situation in the country, cannot be realized, and that it will be possible only with the complete calm of the country.” (“Gol. Moscow”, No. 14). Particularly characteristic in this message is the idea of ​​“complete calm of the country” as a necessary condition for convening the council. She involuntarily raises questions: what is the complete calm of such a vast country as Russia? Is it ever possible? And on the other hand, there are the following questions: what is a church council, which is feasible and beneficial only if this strange condition is present? Isn’t this just a magnificent church celebration, requiring silence, order and substantial financial expenses, not needed for anything else, except, perhaps, for entertainment from boredom, or as the fulfillment of canonical duty, which without any damage to the benefit of the service can be completely abolished? If the underlying spheres think this way, then there is little joy for the once dominant Orthodox Russian Church. The humiliation that has come to replace this domination has no end in sight, but something even sadder is foreseen... Yes, not long ago there was a time of its dominance not only in Russia, but also far beyond its borders. We do not mean its official position in the state, as a “department,” but rather as a “Christian church” - a moral one. We mean the era of 40–70 years. Then there were shepherds in it - bishops and presbyters, who enjoyed deep respect in the advanced circles of the Russian intelligentsia and the common people, whose names were well known in Western and Southern Europe and in America. There were laymen in it, Khomyakovs, Aksakovs and not only Slavophiles, but also Westerners... Yes, in the best minds of Russia, “Orthodoxy” was considered the only religion in the world that best realized Christianity, a vital and life-giving religion, alien to the extremes of Catholicism with its tyranny of the free Christian spirit and Protestantism with its soulless teacher-religious pedantry. Theological sciences and literature, which flourished in this era, awakened a hitherto unprecedented interest in Russian Orthodoxy among theologians in Germany, England, France, Italy and the southern Slavs. Old Catholics, Anglicans, South Slavs, Romanians, and Greeks began to engage with the Russian Church with deep interest. All this happened, and so recently. Now what? The Orthodox Russian Church, stubbornly shrinking in the grip of bureaucracy, with the surrounding upsurge of life, falls asleep and becomes shallow. The dam, supported by the bureaucracy, is not able to cope with the detours by which its members leave because of this dam, go into Catholicism, Protestantism, Mohammedanism, paganism or unbelief. Last summer we saw such a vivid picture in the village: “at the miller’s dam the water leaked.” The mill was old, not good; For a long time it required major repairs, but, relying on “maybe”, the miller did not think of bothering himself with major repairs, and so, little by little, he repaired his dam from year to year with patches and at cheap prices. And then a flood came, unexpected in its severity (it was autumn, just to get on with the work); - the water leaked through the dam... but the dam would have been good, but it found workarounds on both sides of the dam - along the sandy banks. The miller managed to strengthen the dam, but two free branches formed on both sides of it, and the water dammed by it flowed away along them. And now there is a dry, hard dam, and behind it, in a “bucket,” there is muddy and shallow water, of course, powerless to turn the mill wheels. This situation is seen in the future of our Orthodox Church, if the adoption of energetic and effective measures to improve its governance - central and local - is not accelerated. Its living water will leave the dam, turn into sects, into unbelief, and it will only have a dry dam left in the form of institutions that exist for themselves. A church council is not a whim, but the only measure and means of truly satisfying the urgent needs of the church. Waiting for the country to calm down is unforgivable negligence and insane advice. A church council, on the contrary, is one of the radical and powerful means of calming the country, or, better said, healing the country. The true Church of Christ has as its calling precisely the healing of every country, be it a pagan, Mohammedan or Christian country, whether it enjoys political peace, or experiences the horrors of revolution, or the disasters of an external unfortunate war. Apart from this mission, she does not know, or at least should not know, any other. But the worst thing is if it falls into apathy, plunges into a sweet sleep, waiting for the suffering and restless country to be completely calmed by the genius of political figures. Both the path and the means to achieve this recovery are identical and unchanged. This is a pastoral influence on individual and social conscience. Influencing the political activity and life of the country, if it is its task, is the most distant one. With us now, just the opposite is happening. While all the infidels and sectarians of Russia, taking advantage of the manifesto of October 17, 1905, set about organizing their internal affairs with commendable enthusiasm and zeal, the Old Believers began to build again, restore, and decorate their houses of worship and churches, gather together to discuss measures of organization and the best use of the Highest Manifesto, the Mohammedans began to be discharged from the Orthodox department, to take care about improving the journey of their pilgrims to Mecca, Catholics and Protestants - about strengthening propaganda in our fatherland; Only Orthodox Christians almost completely turned away from their church life and plunged into politics. Well, is this really the normal state and attitude of the Orthodox Church towards the domestic turmoil? The main sphere of activity of the church is moral, not political, and in this sphere, pastors must act the more energetically, the less calm the country is, act only with moral measures, leaving all others to other figures. Their only banner is the church banner, and their motto is “we are all children of the One Father and brothers to each other.” This should be the sole leader of all endeavors and activities of the Orthodox pastor. What should be presented to his eyes is not social and political turmoil, but, first of all, a more dangerous one - moral turmoil, which is now observed in the minds and hearts of Russian citizens. “Where to go? Who to believe? What to hope for? What to love? Is there a God? Is there eternal life? Are there holiness and sins? Is there marriage and debauchery? etc., etc. To all these questions, which primarily concern each individual human unit, neither science, nor art, nor literature will currently give a categorical, clear and firm answer. Only the church will answer them - best of all, the Orthodox Church - with its divine service, which is a concrete and, therefore, understandable image for everyone of its Divine teaching, which has stood firmly for another thousand years, despite all the raging and raging storms. “Or you don’t know,” teaches St. John Chrysostom - that God built churches in cities, like piers on the sea, so that people could escape from the storms of life and enjoy the greatest silence here." A church council is an act of the church: there should be no spirit of politics in it, any political flourishes should be removed from it. Here only one moral element must live and act. It is clear that if we take this, the only correct point of view in resolving the issue of the significance of the council, then any statements about the untimeliness of convening the council are pure absurdity, even from a political point of view. From the rostrum of the people's representatives on March 22, there was unanimously expressed sympathy for the experienced and ongoing unfairly difficult situation of the Orthodox Church in the Russian state and a sincere desire was expressed for its speedy change for the better. Estimate of St. Synod approved almost without objection; the amount requested for expenses for the Orthodox Church is 29,739,152 rubles. did not cause any remark from the high assembly, which in general treats “people’s money” extremely carefully. Moreover: “when considering individual items of the estimate, assumptions arose about the need for further and larger increases” (speech by Mr. Kovalevsky). Such a favorable attitude towards the Orthodox Church on the part of the disproportionate majority of the people's representatives is all the more precious because it did not appear as the result of a momentary mood caused by some random motive (for example, the brilliant speech of some speaker), no, it was the result of a deeply created conviction, derived from a careful consideration of the articles of the estimate and serious, albeit very strict criticism of it. Yes, the budget commission criticized the Synod's estimates very severely, but fairly and to the point. It is positively surprising that the commission was able to cope with its difficult task so skillfully in a relatively short period of time. The shortcomings of reporting and the entire financial economy in the “department of the Orthodox confession” were captured by the commission absolutely correctly, expressed and presented convincingly and clearly; their reasons are also explained. And with what delicacy in relation to the Orthodox Church they are explained! “The financial economy of the Synod,” said the speaker, “represents a number of historical layers, which are very difficult to understand. But... “this happened not through the fault of the church, but from the general policy of the state in relation to church property, starting with Peter I.” How true, truthful and accurate the criticism of management and reporting in the department of the Orthodox confession was, can be judged already because its most prominent representatives - Chief Prosecutor St. The Synod and Bishop Eulogius in their speeches could not object to it in essence. But, recognizing as proven that “the financial economy of the spiritual department is subject to radical reforms,” representatives of the Orthodox Church correctly pointed out the weak point in the commission’s report, which consisted in its demand: 1) to subordinate the church economy to general state control, and 2) to recommend a new order for the use of specifically church revenues of monasteries, farmsteads and parishes. The incorrectness of this path to streamlining the church economy lies, on the one hand, in the decisive enslavement of the church to the state, on the other, it constitutes a gross invasion of the latter into the sphere of purely church property. Revealing this idea in his speech, Chief Prosecutor of St. The Synod, of necessity, had to highlight a fundamental issue of high importance - the question of the autonomy of the Orthodox Church in the Russian state. It is this question, which occupied all the attention of the people’s representatives and made them, as it were, temporarily forget the question of the estimate itself, as a less important question, and gives exceptional importance to the Duma day of March 22. “For the Church, this question,” said the Chief Prosecutor, “is of enormous importance, since in one way or another its resolution will reveal the very relationship of the state to the church. Do we want to follow the path of subordinating the church to the state or will we decisively take the point of view of the internal independence of the church, living next to the state, a special life, in alliance with the state, but not in subordination to it?” It is highly remarkable that such a turn of the debate did not surprise anyone, did not seem unexpected to anyone, like a sensational novelty, but was picked up by universal sympathy and evoked statements in favor of the Orthodox Church, sincere, thoughtful, which can only be caused by a long-overdue, pressing issue. “The internal autonomy of the church,” Rodzianko said, “should acquire more and more recognition from the state over time. This recognition should be based on the state’s awareness that the church is strong in its moral power, its spirit and does not need the influence of the state to carry out its sacred duties, which are undoubtedly useful and necessary for the state.” “The subordination of the church to the state should not take place.” (Karaulov). “Return to the church its self-government, its conciliarity, then there will be no voices for state intervention in the economic affairs of the revived free Orthodox Church.” (Efremov 2nd). To the extent that these and similar statements express the mood of our society, “our laity” at the moment, one cannot fail to recognize its high importance in the life of the Orthodox Church. The time has come to convene a local church council. He is as necessary for the renewal of the Orthodox Church as the State Duma is for the renewal of the Russian state. Any delay is only a continuation of her trial, her suffering, and from this point of view, a grave sin before Her Head - Christ, before her supreme patron, the Sovereign, and before all the many millions of Orthodox people. The needs of provincial church life In the Most Highly established pre-conciliar presence, two questions that were very important for our provincial church life were put forward and debated with great animation - the question of suffragan bishops and parishes. The essence of the debate on the first of these questions resulted in a clearly recognized and precisely formulated conviction of the unsatisfactory nature of this institution as it exists. Meanwhile, in principle, this is a very important institution. It would be most useful if suffragan bishops were transformed into district bishops with a certain degree of independence in ordination and supervision in the district area, but, of course, in canonical dependence on the diocesan or provincial bishop. The benefit of such a modification is obvious if we take into account even just the following considerations: 1) our dioceses are so vast that not a single diocesan bishop has the physical opportunity to survey all the parishes of his diocese, not only in three years - as required by the current law - but even during the entire period of his bishopric. In every diocese we have parishes in which not a single bishop has ever been; 2) the district bishop would have the opportunity not only to survey all the parishes of the district, but also to know them, he could even ordain the clergy of these parishes to sacred degrees in some rural parish churches: what a great holiday this event would be for the rural parish - there is no need to explain. But what is especially important is that with the introduction of district bishops, our simple Orthodox people would finally know what an Orthodox bishop is. The metropolitan reader may say in surprise: don’t our common people know what an Orthodox bishop is? Don’t be surprised if I, who am well acquainted with provincial life, tell you that he really doesn’t know. Here's a fact: I had to be in class at a parochial school. With the kind permission of the teacher of the law, I asked one smart boy a question: do you know what a bishop is? - “I know that the boss who condemned Jesus Christ.” -What was his name? - “One is Annas, the other is Caiaphas.” -Do we now have a bishop? - "No". Here is a fact that took place not in some provincial province, but in one of the central and more cultural ones - Yaroslavl. I think that the teacher of the law, after my visit, corrected this deficiency in the knowledge of his students, who were obviously well, comparatively, familiar with the Gospel, but I believe that it cost him very much effort. Meanwhile, one bishop's liturgy listened to by this little boy would, without any effort, give him a clear idea of ​​what an Orthodox bishop is But the establishment of district bishops is a measure that is impossible without a Council, and when there will be a Council, and whether it will ever happen, only God knows. Is it not possible, however, for the time being to somehow use the ministry of real vicar bishops to inform our dark Orthodox people of such elementary foundations of church structure, such as, for example, the trinity of the hierarchy? It seems to us that even without the Council, the Holy Synod could have introduced the following measures: 1) make it an indispensable rule to perform the rites of naming and consecration of a vicar bishop in the district city whose name appears in the title of the ordained one, 2) make it an indispensable duty for the vicar bishop to annually review all the parishes of his district. The first of these measures has already been applied several times by St. Synod, but for some reason it was abandoned. And, meanwhile, it is extremely necessary, necessary, first of all, to give vitality to these rites themselves. These rites are very edifying and are capable of producing the impression not of “spectacles,” but of a deeply effective sacred rite, precisely among those praying flock for whom the archpastor is ordained and “ordained” or “ordained.” In fact, how much is lost, for example, in the rite of naming the Bishop of Kineshma in the Moscow Synodal Office in the presence of only a small group of selected public and the very rite of his consecration in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, at which perhaps not a single Kineshma resident is present! Both of these rites would have had a completely different meaning if they had been performed in the Kineshma Cathedral... The benefit of the second measure, apparently, does not require explanation at all. In view of the established fact of frequent apostasy from Orthodoxy, increased visits by archpastors to their flocks is an urgent need of provincial church life, more urgent than visits by missionaries. No less urgent is another provincial church need—improving parish life. But about her at another time. Securing white clergy The question of providing for the White Russian clergy is very difficult, complex and, at the same time, urgent. Satisfactory provision for the white clergy is a need, to say the least, a glaring one, it is a screaming need. This impression is made by direct observation of his life; the same impression was solemnly expressed from the rostrum of the State Duma on May 20 by representatives of the Orthodox Church. Under the influence of this impression, the Duma decided to allocate 400 thousand to increase the maintenance of the Orthodox clergy. Welcoming this fair, humane, wise decision of the State Duma, we consider it an opportune moment to express our thoughts on this subject, relevant to some of the speeches made at this meeting. First of all, in our opinion, it is impossible not to note and capture in memory the fundamental position, directly and indirectly expressed from the rostrum of the people's representatives on May 20, that the salary of the white clergy in the norm established by the law of 1893 is only a subsidy from the state to those local church sources that have hitherto provided the Orthodox clergy, and, by no means, a means of provision that abolishes or closes these sources. That these local church sources should not only be left to the clergy and with a state subsidy normalized by the law of 1893, but should also remain forever the main provision fund is clear, in our opinion, from the following considerations: a) The highest subsidiary rate of support according to the law of 1893 is determined in the following figures: a priest receives 600 rubles, a deacon 300 rubles, a psalm-reader 200 rubles. Such provision is very meager: a peasant (without leaving his land), a tradesman (without leaving his craft) with a lower education, but hardly anyone else will agree to take up the designated church positions for such a reward; for it is more profitable for the latter to become a constable or even a guard. We judge humanly: for the chosen one of God will agree, of course, to occupy these positions not only for such a reward, but also without any reward. We do not reject the possibility of these extraordinary cases, but we firmly remember the rule that when establishing a norm, the extraordinary is not mistaken for the ordinary. b) And by the very essence of things, state salaries, as a means of support, are subject to greater chance and fluctuations than local church sources. It is possible, for example, that the composition of the members of the future State Duma will not be so inclined towards the clergy and will reduce the subsidy; it is also possible for the state to have such disastrous circumstances as war, famine, unrest, etc., in which the clergy themselves will not dare to ask the state for a subsidy. But all this is not important; What is more important is that church sources of support, such as church land and altar income (the so-called required corrections), are sources that not only have a centuries-old Russian historical record, but are also sanctified and sanctioned by the Universal Church: this is an axiom of canon law not only of the Orthodox Eastern Church, but an axiom of law of the Christian Universal Church. This is how this axiom is expressed: 1. “The Law of God decreed that those who serve the Altar should eat from the Altar” (Apostle 41). 2. “If anyone, a bishop or abbot, finds that any of the lands belonging to a bishopric or monastery has been sold into the hands of the authorities, or given to another person: let this giving not be permanent, according to the rule of the Apostle Saints, who says: let the bishop have care for all church things, and let them dispose of them, as God oversees them: but it is not permissible for him to appropriate any of them, or give to your relatives what belongs to God: if they are poor, let him give it to them as if they were poor, but under this pretext, let him not sell what belongs to the church. cleric, or farmer: then in this case the sale will be invalid, and what was sold will be returned to the bishopric or monastery: and the bishop or abbot who does this will be expelled: the bishop from the bishopric, and the abbot from the monastery, as they are evilly wasting what they did not collect “(VII Ecumenical Sob. Rights. 12). This means, according to the meaning of the rule, “the alienation of church land is sacrilege.” But this is not enough. Local church sources should be considered the main ones (the main, inviolable fund), even according to the general theoretical consideration that the service of the clergy is, first of all, a church-public service (and then a state one). Even such a newspaper as the St. Petersburg Kolokol admits that the clergy performs “pastoral service to the church and the people” (No. 673, May 21. Editorial). But what kind of church would it be - a society if it were not able, or would not be able to provide for the maintenance of its ministers?!! From this point of view, Deputy Kropotov was absolutely right when he declared on behalf of the peasants (oh, horror!) that “the communities must support the clergy.” Yes, this is also an axiom, and we are firmly convinced that if our parish communities were richer materially and more devoted to the church, they would provide for their clergy so much that the latter themselves would refuse state subsidies. In the meantime, the majority of them are very poor and not as devoted to the church as would be desirable - a state subsidy is necessary and Deputy Kropotov is completely wrong in refusing them this subsidy. So, what policy on the issue of providing for the clergy should our church authorities, the clergy itself, the people and the government follow in the future? This policy can, in our opinion, be briefly formulated as follows: we must strive to ensure that our Orthodox communities or parishes are so rich and devoted to the church that they do not need state subsidies at all. – But this is a platonic, naive, illusory policy! - the reader will exclaim. No, we answer: this is a real and quite simple policy. In the speech of the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, the following data were presented for reference: “in Austrian Bukovina, a priest receives, in addition to a land allotment, in addition to payment for services, an allowance of 420 to 600 rubles, a deacon receives about 400 rubles, in addition to rent money, special allowances are arranged for priests with large families. In another Austrian province - Dalmatia - a priest receives, in addition to fees for services, from 400 to 720 rubles. and five-year increases." After reading these lines, you naturally ask: why did the Orthodox Serbs, Romanians, Slovaks - subjects of Austria-Hungary - manage to provide for their clergy so well? Is it really because they are richer and more devoted to the church of the great Russian people? I’m afraid not only to answer the last question in the affirmative, but even to pose it, because I’m afraid that this question will offend the Russian people and the Russian Orthodox Church. But why then? The reason is simple - precisely because their parish-community organization is incomparably better than ours. Now, if our leaders on the issue of parish revival took the parish structure of these Orthodox churches as an example to follow, then we can hope that our crying need for the insecurity of the white clergy would be fully satisfied, even without state subsidies. The Church Question of Transcaucasia The martyrdom of the Exarch of Georgia, the Most Reverend Nikon, naturally raises a fatal question among the Russian hierarchs: which of them will have the lot to occupy the chair of the martyr? At the same time, another, more complex question arises - how to generally organize church relations in the Caucasus in order to pacify them, to eliminate at the root the causes of the religious hostility that has long reigned there. Each of the predecessors of the martyred exarch, of course, during the entire period of his service there, felt as if in a crucible of trials and, almost every one, even upon leaving this crucible, having received the highest episcopal post in his native country as a reward for his feat, was not crowned with slander, slander, slander in local circles, and even in the Russian press. Yes, which of the Russian hierarchs who occupied the exarch department of Georgia was not crowned with this crown of thorns? And, meanwhile, these were all, without exception, outstanding bishops of the Russian Church. Where is the reason for this strange phenomenon and is this martyrdom necessary? The reason is rooted in the political task that his rank imposes on the exarch. Having assumed this rank, the Exarch of Georgia must, first of all, if not only, remember that he must devote all his strength to the Russification of Georgians on religious grounds. And the exarch must carry out this political (at the same time completely anti-church) task by crude means of prohibition, suppression, suppression, etc., in alliance with statesmen and, of course, at their discretion. Is this task possible? A hundred years of experience (since the abolition of Georgian autocephaly) has irrefutably proven that it is impossible. And in essence, that’s what it is. Is it possible to turn a Georgian living in Georgia into a Russian? The correct and clear answer will be given by the counter question: is it possible to make a Russian person, for example, a Yaroslavl or a Muscovite, a Georgian? That it is impossible to make such a violent transformation by violent measures - no explanation is required. But it is entirely possible that the Georgians themselves will feel such sympathy for the Russians and everything Russian that, without any coercion, of their own free will, they will begin to assimilate whatever Russian they like. Now, if the policy of Russification had been set up like this, then the miraculous transformation would have taken place and, in this case, most easily on church or religious grounds. But what is the essence of this miraculous church policy? I admit that, recognizing myself as least of all a politician and having nevertheless posed this purely political question, I feel considerable fear of appearing naive in my political considerations. And, if I, however, dare to do this, it is because I decide not to express my political considerations, but to recall only the church-political practice and precepts of our ancient, deep antiquity, our ancient teachers of church politics - the ancient Greek patriarchs. The question arises, how did it happen that natural Russian people, without compromising their language, their national rights, their views, sometimes completely pagan, and, for centuries, under the rule of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, were and remained such Grecophiles that in the profession of faith, observance of customs and church canons they surpassed the Greeks themselves (more precisely, the Byzantines)? After all, what enormous efforts did it cost Peter and his successors to weaken this Grecophilism of ours in church affairs! How did the Patriarchs of Constantinople attract the Russians and were so successful in the matter of Hellenization that sometimes they even felt bad when they received suggestions from their students regarding the devout performance of church services? Here, in a nutshell, are their political tactics: a) Not only did they not try to spread the Greek language in worship and schools of ancient Rus', but they took care of the invention of the Slavic script, Slavic literacy and the creation of the Russian literary language. And if this literary language and script turned out to be essentially semi-Greek, then this happened not because they wanted to Hellenize the Russians and Slavs, but simply because, not being Russians and Slavs themselves, they could not overcome this philological task with great success. In fact, it turned out the other way around: the Russian sovereigns and saints themselves tried by all means to attract learned Greeks so that they would teach the Russians the Greek language, Greek service, and Greek orders. b) The Greek patriarchs did not at all impose Greeks as Russian metropolitans and diocesan bishops, but left the election of candidates to “the prince and the people”; they themselves only “appointed”, i.e. ordained a Russian metropolitan, and, of course, charged significant fees for the ordination. From here the famous dogmas of ancient Russian canon law were developed, for example: 1) “it is not righteous to jump up to the holy throne (i.e., to achieve the episcopal see on your own initiative, through intrigues of various kinds), but the prince and his people will admire him,” “the people of our land will not choose him”; 2) “there is nothing in the law for bishops to “ordain,” that is, to ordain, a metropolitan; the patriarch appoints him “(Words of Nifont, Bishop of Novgorod. Compare 28 Ave. IV Ecumenical Council). c) The Patriarch of Constantinople did not interfere at all in the affairs of the Russian Church on his own initiative, and, if he ever allowed it, it was not otherwise than at the request of the representatives of the Russian Church themselves, or the Grand Dukes of Rus'. In such cases, he responded with his letter, and sometimes sent his exarch to directly familiarize himself with the matter. This letter sounded in an authoritative tone, but in an authoritative-ecclesiastical tone, and not in an orderly-bureaucratic tone, for example: “Noble and honorable boyars, men of Pskov, my son mayor, and thousand, and Sotsky, and all my children and other people named after Christ in the Russian city of Pskov and its borders, children in the Lord beloved of our humility... We write and inform you, fathers, as our children, as the participation of the church, as the very head of Christ all churches, cease from strife and divisions," etc. 1 d) But the main difference between the church policy of the Patriarch of Constantinople and his pupils, the ancient Russian metropolitans and bishops, was that they were completely alien to state politics and did not interfere in state affairs on their own initiative. They lived exclusively in church life, church interests, and if they often bothered the state with their requests and “sadness,” then, in this case, they still did not move a step from their church position. And, if, despite such alienation from state policy, examples of their very significant influence on this policy are not rare, this is explained by the fact that the rulers themselves turned to them for advice, and by the fact that some of the ancient Russian saints actually possessed political tact. But even in such cases, our saints spoke completely freely, maintaining their point of view, without caring whether their speeches would be pleasant or unpleasant to those who asked them. One could say about them what our poet says about the Magi (in their words): "The Magi are not afraid of mighty lords And they don’t need a princely gift.” And the Russian princes and government institutions were not demanding in this regard: if they liked the political advice of a saint or abbot, they would accept it, but if they didn’t like it, they would listen patiently and act in their own way. Such was our ancient Russian church policy. It is so natural, simple and expedient that it involuntarily attracts attention even in these days of the severe crisis experienced by the Russian Orthodox Church. And, apparently, nothing complicates this critical situation more than the imposition of various, purely political tasks on our hierarchy and clergy, among which not least the task of Russifying Transcaucasia through purely repressive measures. To the north-west of the Sergius Lavra, 3 versts behind the forest and deep ravines - “dry valleys”, the village of Blagoveshchenskoye (20 courtyards) with the ancient wooden Church of the Annunciation Ave. is located on an elevated area. Our Lady and the newly built and opened parochial school. Not many Lavra pilgrims and tourists - lovers of Russian antiquity - know this now run-down village: their gaze from the Lavra is directed to the east, and the west with its surroundings remains unnoticed. Meanwhile, the village and, in particular, the ancient Church of the Annunciation are worthy of attention. There is some reason to believe that this village was born shortly after the founding of the monastery of St. Sergius and for some time was called the “Princely Village”, granted to the abbess of Pr. Nikon Monastery Ave. Sergius by the appanage Radonezh prince Andrei Vladimirovich, for his good deeds to the monastery, who are still honored by it. The church was built at the same time. But to what time the one that has survived to this day dates back to the 18th or 17th century can only be judged by a specialist architect who is well acquainted with ancient Russian church building: the few surviving documents do not answer this question. Scribe books say briefly: “a church-monastery building”... The church impresses not with the beauty of its style and artistic decoration, but, on the contrary, with its amazing simplicity. It is oblong, consists of three square compartments, as if attached to one another, an altar and a “belfry”. The first square is the main church with the altar, then the refectory and the vestibule. These three square compartments are connected by wide single-leaf, thick, strong doors with massive “interior” locks. Everything in it, not to mention the iconostasis, icons (some dated 1702), utensils (painted vestments, tin vessels, round banners of the 16th century style), even windows with strong iron crutches (instead of bars), door locks are a valuable asset of the museum and, at the same time, everything can perfectly serve its sacred purpose. The church smells of good pine and cypress. “There are probably several cypress crowns inserted into the walls,” one expert on the structure of ancient Russian churches spoke about this. Until 1776, the village of Blagoveshchenskoye with 5 villages was an independent parish. But this year, following the confiscation of the monastery estates, the Annunciation Church lost its parish independence and was assigned to the Elias Church in Sergiev Posad, and the villages that made up the Annunciation parish were also assigned here. In 1803, four villages were assigned to the parishes of nearby villages (Zakharyin and Deulin), and the village of Blagoveshchenskoye and the village of Golkovo were left behind the Ilyinskaya Church. The clergy of the Elias Church currently uses 28 dessiatines of church land. 1200 sq. fathoms This devastation that befell the Annunciation parish sadly affected the people's shrine itself - the Church of the Annunciation and its parishioners. The plank roof of the church rotted in many places, a leak appeared in the church, the brick floor began to shake in places, as some of the oak pillars on which it was built were rotten, and some of the crowns in the bell tower were rotten. With bitter tears, the elder, peasant V.N. Ushakov told us about this humiliation and neglect of the church of God, completely not knowing how to even begin to support the falling church. But then, in 1890, a benefactor appeared completely unexpectedly in the person of the Moscow merchant P. S. Kaptelin, who, at his own expense, perfectly restored the church: covered it with a new iron roof, repaired the bell tower, installed a new wooden floor inside and decorated some icons with vestments and frames. He had the intention of ensuring the deterioration of the maintenance of an independent clergy and restoring the Annunciation parish, but his death prevented this good intention from being realized. The destruction of the Annunciation parish had an even more serious impact on its parishioners. “It’s hard for us,” they say, “to carry our dead past our church to the village for the funeral service, and from there again to the village and bury them at the church - without singing. It’s hard to carry the bride and groom past our church to the village for the wedding. It’s hard to walk past our church on Easter Day, on Christmas, Palm Sunday, Trinity Day and other great holidays and Sundays. services in the suburbs, leaving the elderly, sick and small children without services. We have gone completely wild." Concluding our sad story about the ruin of the Annunciation parish, we allow ourselves to express the hope that the pious pilgrim of the Lavra, or a lover of folk Russian antiquity, a tourist who reads this, will not remain deaf to the crying parish need of one of the outskirts of the Lavra, which once flourished under the protection of the monastery of the great sad man of the Russian land, but is now impoverished, and, following the example of the good Peter Sergeevich Kaptelina, will help you recover from ruin. The extremes of centralization of church government One of the reasons for the lethargy of our church life, which has a very strong effect, is centralization, which is extremely developed in the organization of our church administration. The essence of this shortcoming is the following: with us, every act of church life, no matter how remote the outback it may take place, no matter how small and insignificant it may seem from the highest central (for the church) point of observation, can, however, be accomplished only “by decree.” There arises, for example, an urgent need to fix the roof of the church, the cross and the dome, which were demolished by a storm, to restore the damaged floor in the church, or the ceiling that threatens to fall plaster - all this can be corrected only by waiting for a decree. Each marriage ceremony must take place according to a decree, the ringing for the all-night vigil or liturgy must certainly be according to a decree, the bread pan cannot bake prosphora without a decree... This is in current ordinary affairs. And, as for those that are out of the ordinary, or more or less complex, then in these cases nothing can be done or accomplished on the spot, not only without a decree, but also without the most detailed instructions and guidance from above and without the strict supervision of the closest superiors. Who directs and directs our church life down to such details? Officially - the Sovereign, and de facto - St. Synod, chief prosecutor, diocesan and vicar bishops, consistories, deans. And in recent years, some governors and influential members of the union of the Russian people have begun to indicate much on church affairs to the bishops themselves. On their own initiative, neither the parishioners nor the priest can take a step without the decree of any of these actual leaders. Of course, if all our churches, parishes, monasteries, or, as our official language puts it, “places” of the diocesan department, were connected by a continuous network of telegraphs and telephones, then such a management system would perhaps represent a model of perfection; but the trouble is that there is none of this, and the decrees are sent in the form of government packages, usually by mail to the Dean, and the latter are sent to the parishes through deliberate walkers or on occasion, and these decrees are prepared very, very slowly. For example, a decree on permission to repair the roof of a church is sometimes obtained 8 months later, after submitting a request for permission; decrees on confirmation of a church warden - 6 months after election. But such matters as, for example, the construction of a school or a new church chapel, wait for a decree for whole years. The result of this order of management is that in the “places” involved, time passes in languid anticipation of the decree, and in the central institutions there is an endless work of bureaucratic pens and typewriters. In the “places” there is sleep and sluggish, automatic movements, and in the central institutions the work of writing is in full swing; It's boring there, but here it's unbearably hard. In the pre-conciliar presence this shortcoming of our church government was exposed. Measures to eliminate it were also proposed, for example, about the “unloading” of St. the Synod from many cases with the provision of their final resolution in the dioceses; on the division of the entire Orthodox Church into metropolitan districts, on increasing the number of dioceses, on placing responsibility on the diocesan institutions themselves for their activities without the authority of the bishop approving their every act, on the self-government of parishes, etc. But, alas! – these instructions did not receive due attention and must die on the pages of the attendance records. As can be seen from the activities of St. following the end of the meeting of the pre-conciliar presence. Synod, its policy is aimed only at strengthening the power of bishops, that is, at the further development of church centralization. And so, the life of the church society, the “Living Body of the Church,” falls asleep, falls asleep... Bishops and officials work, painfully hard... And, meanwhile, in religious societies “standing outside the church,” an extraordinary upsurge and excitement is noticeable. There, all members of societies, men and women are themselves initiators of the cause; there they gather and confer freely and easily; at meetings, every thought is heard, no matter who it belongs to, layman or clergy, no matter what political party he belongs to. A mature decision is quickly carried out by the executive activity of those who discussed and decided on it. This significance of the social element, this importance of a living voice in public affairs of faith, is the reason for the vital activity and growth of heterodoxy, heterodoxy and sects, which often do not withstand the most elementary criticism in theological, moral and social terms. Not so in the Orthodox Church. Here the monopoly of activity firmly holds power, and those who accidentally adjoin it and are only pleasing to it. Yet the rest of the church society, despite the various talents, interests and desire for active participation in the life of the church, is doomed to the position of minor children who can do anything for the church only by decree. That is why it is either completely indifferent to the church, or in the person of a few it acts as an observer of the actions of the church authorities. The missionary congress, by the way, decided: “Ask St. Synod on the proposal to diocesan eminences to organize Charity in parishes on a wide scale." (“Bell”, No. 722). Well? We will wait for the decree, and then we will at least engage in charitable activities. Yes, with such a slowly turning rudder, it is difficult for a church ship to compete in activity with the fast boats of Gentiles and sectarians. “The Bell” reports something unlikely in No. 721 (in the section: From Church Life). Here's the message in its entirety: Excommunication. In 1906, one of the priests of the Volyn diocese reported that several of his parishioners had fallen away to Latinism. The Eminence Anthony put forward the following resolution: “The priest should be invited, at his discretion, to announce the anathematization of the apostate in the church, or only by himself.” Since the priest, despite his efforts, could not find an opportunity to see the apostates, he decided to pronounce the excommunication in a church meeting publicly. On June 15, at the end of the liturgy, the priest, having read the decree of the consistory, pronounced a church anathema in the following terms: "In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Our truly teaching and savingly believing Orthodox Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, with the sorrow of a mother who is sick for her children, through my lips, her unworthy servant, informs her faithful children that last summer, from R. Chr. 1906, the inhabitants of the village of Burtina, Novograd- Volyn district, Volyn diocese (names follow), separated from the true Church of God and joined its enemies. Having excommunicated themselves, these marks of the Church of Christ Apostolic, successively, mutually accepting, from Christ our Savior Himself, received by the authority of our bishop, Archbishop Anthony, may they truly be excommunicated from the Holy Orthodox Church, unworthy and deprived of sanctifying Grace, with which they were in vain spiritually assisted in her saving sacred rites, and so may they be cut off from the Orthodox flock and from the Church of God until they come to their senses and with a contrite heart and unfeigned repentance for the immeasurable sin of renouncing the Orthodox confession of their Savior and Lord will return to her saving fence. But you, faithful and Orthodox children of our Holy Church, always remember that according to the first and second admonition of the apostates who trampled upon the Son of God and insulted the Spirit of Grace, you must beware in every possible way and move away, like publicans and pagans, and remove them from your midst, for, according to the warning of the holy Apostle, a little leaven leavens the whole dough. All named persons are excommunicated from the Lord Jesus Christ and His eternal life, and are anathematized. Amen." The singers sang three times: “anathema.” After this, a prayer service was served “for the lost,” and at the end of the prayer service it was explained that those who had fallen away from Orthodoxy did not convert to Catholicism because they fully understood this faith and found superiority in it, but solely because of the slander of their neighbors and Catholic relatives, who confused them with false stories and dreams about their Poland and their faith, and that anathema is not a church curse, as many people think, but it is only the last and decisive means on the part of the Holy Church to admonish and guide some of its members, and she can again accept them into her bosom if they realize their guilt, error and the ruin of their ways, which is what she prays for - for the conversion of such. This news raises a number of sad bewilderments. Firstly, it is completely unclear what kind of church act was committed on June 15 in one of the Orthodox churches of the Volyn diocese - was it excommunication in its most severe form, or was it just a visual representation of that act, which is called anathema, for the purpose of intimidation and admonition? At the beginning of the correspondence, the first one comes out, and at the end - the second one. At first, those who fell away were excommunicated from the Lord Jesus Christ and His eternal life by the authority and judicial sentence of the Volyn Archbishop, carried out publicly in the church by the archbishop’s delegate, a local priest; and at the end of the correspondence, the entire procedure of anathema ended with a prayer service for those who had fallen away, who, therefore, were not cursed, were not excommunicated from the Lord Jesus Christ and were not removed from the midst of the Orthodox Church. What is this combination of anathema and prayer? Is it possible to profane Orthodox worship in this way?! Secondly, it arouses bewilderment - how did the Orthodox archpastor and his delegate decide, alone, sitting in his office, with the handwriting of a pen, without investigating the case, and the other, publicly and in the absence of the defendants, to excommunicate several persons from our Lord Jesus Christ because, by agreement of their relatives, they converted to “Latinism,” i.e. to the Catholic Church? But did they, by converting to Catholicism, stop believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and renounce Him? Finally, even more sad bewilderment is aroused by this frivolous profanation of the Orthodox rite for its purpose - to incite religious brotherly hatred between the two most important Christian faiths: what food will be given in this way to the enemies of Christianity, what a temptation to those who waver in Christianity! How could the chairman of the missionary congress lose sight of this missionary consideration, ordering his priests to declare anathema at their discretion?! It would be highly desirable to receive clarification of these confusions. The principle of religious freedom is a canonical principle The implementation of the principle of freedom of conscience and religious freedom into our legislation appears to be in great danger from the extreme right members of the Duma, supported by the majority of members of the 4th Missionary Congress. An undesirable precedent has emerged for the upcoming session of the State Duma. If the Orthodox clergy and representatives of the church government follow in the Duma sharp and energetic opposition to the ministerial bills and the majority of members of the religious commission, then it is possible that the implementation of the principle of religious freedom will slow down, at least for a while, and the opposition will triumph. We are positively horrified, however, by this possible victory, horrified because it threatens a great misfortune... not to the principle of religious freedom, but, on the contrary, to the entire Orthodox Church and, in particular, its hierarchy and clergy, i.e. temporary winners. We are not in a time when the great principle of individual freedom (in all respects) is yielding to any force, internal or external. The entire human race is seized, so to speak, by the fascination of the beauty of this principle. The poorest, racially and culturally inferior tribes strive for freedom, strive actively, not sparing their economic strength, their lives. And the state policy of the strong advanced nations has already realized, as an axiom, the position that the power of the state power itself, at the present time, is based not on the suppression of the individual, but on ensuring a guarantee of his freedom. A politically strong state is one that consists of free citizens, and not of slave subjects. Love for the fatherland, patriotism - in the country where this policy operates. It seems that since this axiom is recognized by our government and the majority of our Duma, it is very difficult for our minority to oppose it. This simple consideration alone should cool the oppositional fervor of our right-wing Orthodox members of the Duma: what kind of future are they preparing for our statehood, our national position among cultural nations?! But what concerns us is not the future of the state, but the future of the church, namely, the Orthodox Church. What will be the result of a possible opposition victory? The whole world will see, so to speak, the fact that only the Orthodox Church is afraid of religious freedom; yet other creeds, sects and religions covet it. Moreover, within the church itself, its most enlightened lay members are not afraid of religious freedom; Only a very small number of fanatical missionaries and the church government are afraid of it. Will not this fact, further, be an obvious witness to the fact that in the opposition of the clergy and the hierarchy the strongest motive is not the interest of the Orthodox Church, as a society that values ​​​​a certain cult of Christ, but a narrower and baser, clerical interest? Apparently so. And, once this fact is revealed, the troubles for the Orthodox Church are innumerable... But perhaps a small amount of oppositionists, i.e. the right priests of the Duma, the majority of missionaries and those who have taken power, the hierarchs, constitute the core of Orthodoxy, its true representatives? Maybe behind them lies the truth, purity and fidelity of the Orthodox church consciousness? No and no!.. They cannot be denied zeal for faith and according to faith, but this zeal is of low dignity and has no support for itself in the basic codes of Orthodoxy. To prove this, I will not refer to the New Testament, which is the common property of all Christian denominations. I will refer only to the following words of the specifically Orthodox canonical code: “Let not the rules of the Father be transgressed, let not the arrogance of worldly authorities creep in under the guise of sacred rites; and may we not lose, little by little, the freedom that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, gave us through His blood” (3 Ecumenical Coll., right. 8). These, truly, are the golden words of the specifically Orthodox canonical code, defining the spirit and ultimate goal of church law, the canonical hierarchy, administration, court and the entire canonical system. The whole point of church law is to guarantee the freedom to confess faith in Christ, purchased by His holy blood for all mankind. You are positively perplexed as to how modern adherents of Orthodoxy do not notice these precepts?! In the same canonical, specifically Orthodox code, the following brief note was preserved, noting a long-standing historical fact, but edifying for the 20th century: “at this time (the beginning of the 5th century), a law was published, so that by free will everyone will accept the feat of Christianity.” (Karf. sob., rights 122). These are the laws that zealots of Orthodoxy should petition for the publication of kings and peoples. The Orthodox hierarchy and clergy must act as fighters for the principle of religious freedom and freedom of conscience precisely in the interests of nurturing true religious consciousness and pure religious feeling and fight only against the abuse of these great principles, no matter who these abuses come from: from non-believers or some unworthy members of the church itself, even its hierarchy. This is the spirit of church law and legislation. Opposition to religious freedom The principle of religious freedom, proclaimed to the world by Christianity, was as amazing news in the political and religious spheres as in natural science was the discovery that the sun does not move around the earth, but vice versa. If Galileo “moved the world,” then the Gospel, with its teaching about the Creator of the world as a Father close to every person, was truly the sun, illuminating and warming the cold moonlit night in which humanity wandered, looking for God here and there, and all in vain. But, no matter how strange Galileo’s discovery seemed, nevertheless, humanity relatively soon began to get used to the idea that our native mother earth was not a ponderously lying mass, but an airship rushing in the heavenly ocean with such dizzying speed that the fastest car would envy... It was far from easy for the human thought to come to terms with the teachings of Christ, that one can worship the Father in spirit and truth everywhere, that this is His lofty gift to every person, even one as dark in theology and lightweight in moral behavior as the Samaritan’s wife (John 4:21). It is unnecessary to go back into the depths of past centuries for evidence. The current moment provides clear evidence that even today the great Christian principle still does not fit comfortably into some of our political and even theological minds. We are little interested in political minds; We are struck with acute pain by the tenacity of theological thinkers in the fight against this principle, or better to say, against this Christian shrine, on which, as one of the foundations, the canonical organization of the Orthodox Church itself is based. What insurmountable obstacles in their minds prevent them from openly professing and being faithful to this principle, since they are Orthodox Christians? If we are not mistaken, these theological thinkers base their opposition on the following data: 1) Our Siberian foreigners only adhere to Orthodoxy because all other faiths are prohibited: as soon as it is announced to them that such a prohibition has been lifted, they will all turn to Buddhism, Mohammedanism, etc. Lamas and mullahs will not fail to take advantage of the infant minds of these semi-savages in their own interests. 2) With the announcement of the law on freedom of religion, massive deviations from Orthodoxy to Catholicism and Mohammedanism followed; Old Believers, sectarians, and heresies intensified. 3) At the same time, among the intelligentsia, unbelief raised its head, declared itself through blasphemy, mockery of Orthodoxy, penetrated into the masses of dark people, especially factory workers, the result of which was an unprecedented savagery of morals. Freedom did all this; it is necessary, therefore, to curb it. And so, in thinking minds, apparently, the following petition takes shape: “Sovereign! Command all your subjects to be as Orthodox as we are; Otherwise everything will perish: Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality, and it will be like in France." How strong the premises are and how witty the conclusion is - we will not consider for the simple reason that if we took up this matter, we would fill the columns of the Voice of Moscow with such boredom that it would take away all its readers. In this kind of thinking, what is of interest is not the logical technique itself, but the psychological subsoil that gave rise to this technique; this underlying feeling of fear: it paralyzed memory and the ability to navigate in a somewhat unusual position. That the revolution (and by no means the Highest Manifesto on Freedom of Religion) hit the church ship with its waves and continues to hit - this, it seems, cannot be doubted. But hasn't our church ship experienced similar storms? Is he so bad that he can only swim in still water? For an Orthodox Christian such cowardice, such cowardice, such confusion and tactlessness should be shameful! Firstly, overcome the feeling of fear, even if necessary with medical help; secondly, to warmly welcome the Sovereign for his native, and not alien to the church, gift of freedom; thirdly, to direct all the energy of calm, normal thought to the use of this high gift to adapt the church ship to a new situation, with the goal that it would not be afraid of the waves, but would boldly and cheerfully go everywhere, saving those who were perishing in the stormy sea. How should the Orthodox clergy treat the student intelligentsia One of the serious ailments of our social structure, generated by the past revolution, is the indifference of society to the difficult struggle for physical and spiritual life, which is waged by the majority of our youth of both sexes, working in higher educational institutions for men and women. Most of these youth are poor. Please note that these are, in the majority, types in their moral mood. These are young men and women who left their homes, dear to the hearts of the poor, like themselves, who abandoned all urges for a cheerful pastime of time, to which their blessed age calls them, who voluntarily refused for the sake of one high goal - to develop their God-given talents to the fullest, to be honest and useful to society and their homeland as people in various fields of service, and as a reward for this, hoping to receive in the future only the law and the states a certain provision that they still have share with their neighbors. The ascetic lifestyle these young men lead is well known to the inhabitants of the capitals; Quite a lot has been written about this. Recently, after the revolution, the plight of our student youth has especially increased and is, at times, full of real tragedy. By their participation in the so-called liberation movement, by their strikes, university and student youth significantly armed society against themselves; the former benefactors also recoiled from him; earnings, through lessons and rehearsals, fell and decreased in value. And so, the flower of our nation, the salt of our land, our youth must add moral torment to the physical suffering of cold and hunger, patiently endure the nickname of rebels, enemies of the fatherland... Yes, this is tragic. Who should come to the aid of these spiritual ascetics of knowledge and honor? Of course, first of all, the state. But in Rus' we also have another institution to which the difficult fate of spiritual workers should be especially close. This institution is the Orthodox Church in its entirety – i.e. shepherds and their flock... But, after all, students and coursewomen, as they often say, are atheists, liberals, Nietzscheans, socialists, anarchists, enemies of the church? How can a church minister do good to them? The answer to this should be the following: firstly, they are not all like that: there are people among them - deeply religiously minded, straightforward, pious; secondly, and regarding those who present themselves as atheists, socialists, etc., even flaunting these nicknames, one should not lose sight of, first of all, their age, and the moment of spiritual development they are experiencing. This is a moment of high rise of intellectual and moral forces, a moment of their intense work, characterized by doubt in everything, testing everything, distrust of anything except one’s own strengths, one’s self, infinitely strong, capable of defeating all obstacles... How this rise of spiritual energy of its bearer will end, where it will lead, is completely unknown to anyone. Do not rush to classify him as an atheist, socialist, etc., even on the basis of his own and sincere testimony. It is quite natural that he will go through different stages, radically opposite, one excluding each other, spheres of worldviews, before he comes to final conclusions and completes his process of spiritual fermentation. After all, in the spring, all rivers and streams are swift, muddy, and uncertain in the color and taste of their waters: in the summer and autumn they become clean, clear, calm, and definite. So it is here. Give for a while freedom and convenience to the internal spiritual, perhaps very violent process of fermentation; in relation to the person experiencing it, cultivate in yourself one mood of love and expectation that during autumn he will give you the pure living water of his knowledge, his honesty, his love. For an Orthodox pastor, intelligent youth should be especially valuable in two respects. Firstly, these are people who have conquered, in church language, the flesh and the spirit. Secondly, these are children of Christian parents, perhaps priests, disadvantaged by poverty, large families, or orphans. The first feature is dear to the Orthodox pastor because by his title he is a trustee and doctor of souls; He prays most of all for the salvation of souls at every service; for them he must lay down his life. But they are atheists! Yes, at least that's it. - He himself, in this case, must be motionless, like a rock, firm in the confession of his faith, earnest in the performance of every rite; but he must be motionless in disinterested Christian love, even for those who are erring, or only those young men who are wavering in their faith and morals. Doesn’t a Christian mother often see atheists in her children, but does this stop her from seeing her children in them? Likewise, the love of a shepherd for Christian children should be inexhaustible, like a mother’s love. The second trait, poverty, especially orphanhood, positively obliges the shepherd to actively participate, obliges him to be sophisticated in the means of inventing help for him. The primary canonical code, the so-called apostolic decrees, devotes an entire book to clarifying this pastoral duty. “You who are shepherds take the greatest care of the orphans, so that they may lack nothing; take care of them like parents” (Apostle Decree, book 5). But how, in fact, externally, can a shepherd currently reveal his active love for the needy intelligentsia? The answer is not difficult. He has his own, purely spiritual, so to speak, priestly means to awaken the hearts of his wealthy flock, to encourage them to help the needy youth by arranging cheaper apartments, canteens, and opening long-term credit. We can fully guarantee that these are reliable debtors, although at the time of their debt they have nothing to provide as security for the debt other than their word of honor. The reader may think that I am offering something very original and fantastic. Not at all. In saying this, I mean a ready-made example: for more than 25 years at the Moscow Theological Academy there has been a brotherhood of St. Sergius, patronizing the insufficient students of the Academy and, in general, its former students in all the above ways. Its members, honorary, lifelong, and active, include bishops, archimandrites, abbots, abbesses, priests, deacons, laity, rich and poor. It is through their generous sacrifices, collected primarily through Moscow priests and deans, that the brotherhood stands and operates. What motivates these kind people to give generously? Without a doubt, pure, selfless, Christian love... for the youth of the academy. But do students, workers and workers of other higher educational institutions deserve less sympathy? Let this not happen. Why, therefore, should not a brotherhood of torment arise, on the initiative of Moscow priests? Tatiana, to help the distressed student intelligentsia of the capital? Unselfish Christian love for Christian youth is the only motto on the banner under which the Orthodox clergy should act in this spiritual environment. State and non-confessional The question of non-believers, or, more precisely, “non-confessionals” (confessionslose) represents a very difficult task for our internal policy in the matter of introducing into legislation the great principle of freedom of conscience and religion. Its difficulty is characteristically expressed in the following concessionary period of the ministerial project: “... although the need for complete freedom of religious beliefs is usually considered a position that does not require proof; but, as soon as this question moves from a purely abstract to a practical basis, its position changes completely and its solution often comes down to recognizing the impossibility, or at least the untimeliness, of implementing a logically generally accepted principle in our lives.” (Ministerial Draft No. 1473, February 20, 1907). “Abstract logic” thus comes into decisive conflict with the logic of life. Which one should I give preference to? The project gives preference to the latter. The project categorically states that providing the opportunity to profess a chosen (freely) religion and move from one faith to another cannot at all entail the permission of the formation of a class of people “non-confessional”, i.e., who have left any religion and have not joined any other." We recognize this categorical solution to the question as unconditionally correct, but, recognizing the full force of the motives on which it rests, we have no doubt that among the people’s representatives there will be those who will with great success object to this decision and the grounds on which it rests. The weak, easily vulnerable side of the motivation is that the decision follows not from the principle of freedom of conscience, but from utilitarian considerations, not from the requirements of “logic” - rational, but from the requirements of life. It even appears that the conditions of a low degree of culture must overcome, albeit temporarily, the demands of wisdom. In view of this, it seems far from unnecessary to ask: who is sinning against reason here: the logic of theory, or the logic of life? In our opinion, it is the first who sins, but not the last. The thinking of theorists who demand state recognition of the right to non-religion or non-confessionalism contains a completely incorrect premise, as if conscience requires absolute freedom. Absolute freedom is something essentially impossible for a person, even if he managed to isolate himself so much from his own kind that he would find himself completely alone (a monk) in the middle of the desert. The human soul is not a tabula rasa, which can be covered with dogmas and moral rules at will. On the contrary, it was “conscience” itself that would first and most strongly bind his will, even alone and so strong in spirit that he would be able to overcome some of the demands of his physical, animal nature. The Stoics also noted that “there is someone inside us who prescribes laws for us that we have no strength to resist.” This most persistent enemy of absolute freedom, this inner despot of ours, is none other than “conscience.” Secondly, fans of absolute freedom of conscience often confuse the concepts: “religion”, “faith”, “creed”, “religious belief”, in short, they confuse the concepts of “objective religion” and “subjective religion”. Meanwhile, these concepts are very different. For example, the confessors of the Orthodox faith (more precisely, the church) represent a religious union of, say, 60 million individuals. The common cement that binds them into a whole is: faith in Christ, cult, organization, discipline, morality. This connected whole is religion in the objective sense. But then, each of the individuals that make up this whole, within itself, is subjectively associated with this whole and its elements in a completely different way: one has purer and deeper ideas and concepts about all these elements, the other has less, one is more religious, i.e. takes every commandment of the church deeply to heart, the other is so “petrified in heart” that he is only nominally or formally a son of the church, but de facto is worse than a pagan and a tax collector. This "subjective faith" or religion is the complete property of the individual; here the only master is his own conscience. No human power, neither church nor state, can force a person to change his subjective faith in any way, because it is powerless to even know it until he himself discovers it, one way or another. The recognition of this dominance of individual conscience is the essence of the principle of freedom of conscience. The principle of religious freedom is a different matter. He means, precisely, objective religion, as an organized religious union (of people with God). Its essence is that the state guarantees the freedom of each religion to act by its own means, in order to influence its fellow members, to protect its status quo, externally and internally, and even to act aggressively, to grow, to increase in number (self-defense and proselytism). No matter how different these two principles are, they do not exclude each other, but are included in a harmonious combination. For it is nothing other than individual conscience that most strongly motivates a person to join one or another religious union: one cannot live in the matter of religion alone, just as a person cannot live outside of any state. Further, the same conscience forces a person not only to formally join one or another religious union, but also to voluntarily submit to the norms generally accepted in this union. This is the correct logic of the principle of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Now it’s easy to solve the question: what will happen with the so-called “non-confessional” ones when this principle is introduced into legislation? They will find themselves in a hopeless, isolated and helpless position if they begin to somehow declare their atheism: confessors of all religions will be against them, and no one will be for them. But maybe the government will take them under its protection? But it cannot do this either, because it will be in contradiction with itself, since it has undertaken to guarantee freedom of religion. Thus, the correct implementation of the principle of freedom of conscience and religious freedom into legislation will not lead to a weakening of religiosity, but to strengthening, not to an increase in godlessness, but to its destruction. It may be objected that in Western Europe the implementation of this principle coincided with the growth of non-confessionalism. But in this fairly widespread opinion, there is a small misunderstanding: the class of non-confessionals was born there not as a result of the introduction of the principle of freedom of conscience into legislation, but from completely different reasons, namely: from deep religious hostility within Christianity itself (Reformation) and the so-called cultural struggle. The implementation of the principle of freedom of conscience there was too late, and it was far from being done impeccably, for example, France offended Catholicism, Austria-Hungary is pushing back the Orthodox Slavs. There were no such phenomena in our state; As a result, our people, or, better to say, our peoples are incomparably more religious than Western ones, have not yet been “damaged in faith,” and the implementation of the principle of freedom of conscience in our country has not yet been late, but has come in time. Certificate from the village of Nile in Pskov. Around 1882