№ 29 - 2006

The Editorial Board is glad to inform our Readers that this issue of “FIDELITY” has articles in French, English, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian Languages.

С удовлетворением сообщаем, что в этом номере журнала “ВЕРНОСТЬ” помещены статьи на английском, французском, испанском, португальском и русском языках.

                         Contents -  Оглавление 

 1.  "A PUZZLING QUESTION ABOUT METROPOLITAN LAURUS' POSITION".

 2.  "ON THE LAW OF GOD", METROPOLITAN PHILARET (VOSKRESENSKY)

 3.  "СВЯТОРУССКИЕ УРОКИ КРЕСТА ГОСПОДНЯ". Е.Ю. Королёв

 4.  "LA GRACIA DE DIOS", Protopresbitero Miguel Pomazansky

 5.  "O MUNDO ESPIRITUAL", Protopresbitero Michael Pomazansky

 6.  "СВОЕ ОТСТУПЛЕНИЕ ПЫТАЮТСЯ ПРИКРЫТЬ ИМЕНЕМ СВЯТИТЕЛЯ". Иеромонах Савва

 7.  "ОТКРЫТОЕ ПИСЬМО ПАСТЯРЯМ РПЦЗ РЕШИВШИМ В УЙТИ НА ПОКОЙ В МАЕ".  П. БОНДАРЕНКО

 8.  "NONTRE ARCHIPEL ECCLÉSIAL AGITÉ  PAR LES VAGUES". P. Bondarenko

 9.  "THE WILL OF GOD OR THE WILL OF MAN?" D. Gontscharow

10. "ТАЙНА ЛИЧНОСТИ ЦАРЯ". Свящ. Кирилл Зайцев (Архим. Константин)

* * *

ВЫСОКОПРЕОСВЯЩЕННЕЙШИМ  ВЛАДЫКАМ  РУССКОЙ ЦЕРКВИ,  ДУХОВЕНСТВУ,  МИРЯНАМ,  ВСЕМ ЧИТАТЕЛЯМ  И  ЖЕРТОВАТЕЛЯМ НА РОДИНЕ И В ЗАРУБЕЖНОЙ РУСИ, ОСНОВАТЕЛИ И  ПРАВЛЕНИЕ  "Общества Ревнителей Памяти Блаженнейшего Митрополита Антония" И  РЕДАКЦИЯ  “ВЕРНОСТЬ” С ДУХОВНОЙ РАДОСТЬЮ ВОЗВЕЩАЕТ:

«ХРИСТОС РАЖДАЕТСЯ, СЛАВИТЕ!»

В этих трех словах для христианина заключается весь жизненный путь и указание как проводить не только сам великий праздник Рождества Христова, но и всю свою жизнь на земле, предвкушая жизнь вечную в Царствии Небесном. Великое славословие Спасителя нашего является высшей формой богообщения христианина. Поэтому в наших храмах по всему миру поется: «Слава в вышних Богу,  и на земли мир в человецех  благоволение!»

В эти светлые и святые дни воспоем с Церковью Христовой: «Величай, душе моя, Триипостасного и Нераздельного Божества державу.. » «Величай, душе моя, от Девы Бога, плотию рождшагося!..»

Всех наших дорогих читателей просим принять наши сердечные поздравления с великим праздником Рождества Христова. Надеемся, что в эти рождественские дни свет Вифлиемской звезды удостоит наполнить сердца у нас всех! Пусть Дивный новорожденный Младенец коснется каждого из нас Своей любовью, миром, радостью и надеждой на вечное блаженство с Ним. А в Новом 2006 году искренно желаем всем полного здравия, во всем благого поспешения, и великих милостей от Господа нашего!

Многие годы в эмиграции и на Родине мы жили верой в то, что многострадальная Русь освободится от ига богоборческой власти. Мы помним, что все наши великие патриоты были глубоко верующими. Мы знаем и помним, что наши деды и прадеды любили свою Церковь, любили свою Веру, берегли и хранили их. Они, во славу Божию, возводили храмы и  строили часовни по всей нашей необъятной Святой Руси,  где столетиями отливались золотом купола церквей,  разливался звон колоколов, а в монастырях, скитах и кельях день и нощь усердно возносились молитвы угодников Божиих. То была Русь наших дедов, прадедов. Россияне православные всегда вставали на защиту Отчизны своей – в  России,  на Украине, в Белоруссии и в Червонной Руси.

Теперь полагаясь на великую милость Божию, по молитвам многотысячных святых Новомучеников и Исповедников Российских, мы надеемся на то, что Российский народ, претерпевший уже столько испытаний, отвергнет новые, страшнейшие искушения века сего и, принесши покаяние, вернется к спасительной и неизвращенной Вере Православной – Вере отцов, к Ее исконным обрядам и обычаям. В этой Вере – мудрая сила, оправданная надежда, нелицетворная любовь и залог вечного спасения для каждого верующего в отдельности, как и для всего Православного Российского народа в целом.

Мы также молитвенно надеемся, что и в новом 2006 году Господь Бог подаст добрых сил и мудрости сотрудникам журнала «Верность» бескомпромиссно стоять на стражи и отстаивать нашу Святую Веру от всех пагубных нововведений, ведя Россиян в рассеянии сущих, как и в нашей вечной Российской Отчизне, к взаимной христианской любви, миру и согласию.

* * *

     A puzzling question about Metropolitan Laurus' position.          

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

The most recent Epistle of the First Hierarch Metropolitan Laurus (dd. December 9, 2005) is a curious document that proposes an 'alternative view' of ROCOR history.  For example, I am unaware of the Soviet Church ever having been viewed by our late Hierarchs of blessed memory as "the Mother Church", "the Sister Church", or even "part of the Russian Church" as stated by Vladyka Laurus below, in the 85 year legacy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.  As a convert, I have always been taught that the other "part of the Russian Church" was and continues to be, the Russian Catacomb Church -- the glorious New Martyrs and Confessors, as well as the faithful lay people, priests, and bishops that continue to be persecuted by "the official church" -- even to this very day.  Notably, Vladyka Laurus states in his most recent Epistle,

"I wish to remind everyone that at this moment, we are not talking about "unification," "merging" or "union" with the Moscow Patriarchate, but of reconciliation of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church."

I can think of no other way to decipher this statement, apart from an understanding of the literary device the great George Orwell described in his discourse on the English language, as "Newspeak".  In a nutshell, "Newspeak" is an attempt to rewrite history through the distortion of language.  To illustrate this point, compare the above statements with that of Blessed Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) +1985 concerning this matter:

"When Metropolitan Sergius promulgated his criminal Declaration, then the faithful children of the Church immediately separated themselves from the Soviet church, and thus the Catacomb Church was formed.  And she, in turn, has anathematized the official church for its betrayal of Christ."   Metropolitan Philaret, Letter Concerning Father Dmitri Dudko, 1980.

These two statements represent two very different ecclesiological views on the Synod's stand in regard to the Soviet church.  In fact, they are diametrically opposed.  The former is something of a newcomer to the scene -- a strictly political philosophy that is being slickly marketed to the faithful to be 'in step with the times'; while the latter is steeped in the tradition of ROCOR - 'the mind of the fathers'.  Vladyka Laurus continues with a description of the ecclesiastical arrangements that will follow the proposed forthcoming union in May 2006:

"...one Chalice, that is, joint services, but two entirely separate ecclesiastical administrations. In short, our Church will preserve its independence in all administrative, property, educational and pastoral matters, and we will remain what we were before reconciliation—a self-governing part of the Russian Church.

To this I might be so bold as to ask -- What would be the point of this fraternal arrangement?  Either the Synod will be in communion with Moscow, or She will not be.  To give an illusion of autonomy to the Synod faithful, (such as currently exists between "the MP" and its KGB-created offshoot known as "the OCA") is a distortion of reality at best, and a blasphemy against the unity of the Church of Christ at worst.  His Eminence continues,

"No one can meddle in the internal workings of our beloved Church, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia will continue to appoint bishops to their sees, and our ruling bishops will appoint priests to their parishes."

Are we to believe that "the internal workings of our beloved church" have not already been meddled with?  Given the massive amount of documented KGB penetration into the Moscow Patriarchate, it seems necessary at this juncture to come to terms with the degree to which our own Synod has already been compromised.  Instead, we are exhorted in the Epistle below to cooperate with the Unionists: "...it is necessary for us on our part", "the process...we must not shy away from"; and to shut our eyes to the further dismantling of our Synod:  "this should be of no concern at all".

Finally, it seems the author of this Epistle has been practicing the currently fashionable ecumenical diatribe with great diligence, as the Epistle is peppered with WCC-inspired prose such as, "the process of coming to know each other", "through constructive cooperation and fraternal meetings", "embark upon this road of peacemaking through dialog", "being conducted in a frank and constructive spirit", "receptive to the idea of reconciliation and of spiritual unity with the Church in Russia."  What a far cry from the First Hierarch we stood confidently behind only three short years go when the same Metropolitan Laurus gave his blessing to print the following concerning the state of The Russian Church Abroad in 2002: 

"Many people still remain under the influence of hierarchs who for some reason refuse to reject the legacy of the Moscow Patriarchate... If Saint John (Maximovitch) in 1960 wrote that "The church authority in Russia (i.e., the Moscow Patriarchate) is an image of captivity and spiritual powerlessness:  neither is there freedom of will, nor action," then surely his words apply in our days.  Now one can say that the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate are held captive only by their own incorrect way of reasoning.  The fruits of such captivity are participation in the ecumenical movement (which has as its secret agenda the creation of a "universal church" for the coming antichrist), and the willingness to serve any civil government - under the present circumstances, the spiritually antichristian "New World Order."   (Rassaphor-monk Vsevlod, Commentary on the Contemporary State of Church Life).

Metropolitan Laurus is the inheritor of the great spiritual succession of First Hierarchs that spans the greater part of a century.  However, it is clear that this most recent Epistle signed with the name of "Metropolitan Laurus" is not a part of the tradition of Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.  Whether the mind of the First Hierarch has been darkened, or whether these are not really  Vladyka's words at all but those of an imposter, is perhaps not for us to know.  Let us not forget the 'Official Declarations' attributed to Saint Patriarch Tikhon giving validity to the Living Church, that he in fact, never issued.  It is not for us to judge our brothers and sisters, much less our own hierarchs, as only God knows what they have endured and been subject to.  Rather, it is imperative that we pray for them and forgive them, as each one of us is capable of becoming a Judas.  As servants of the one true God - may we not lose heart when all seems lost, but find the strength to fight against these God-hating philosophies dressed up in sheep's clothing and passed off as an "Epistle from the First Hierarch".  God is infinitely just and merciful in His wisdom - may His will be done.

in Christ,

John

* * *

On the Law of God

by Metropolitan Philaret (Voskresensky)

Translated by Hieromonk Varlaam Novakshonoff

Foreword

For many years now, during the era of our "youth cult," it has been popular to use the expression, "the future of our Church is our youth."

Few people seem to have paused to reflect on the meaninglessness of such a statement. For, the future of the Church, just as Her past and Her present, is Christ. The Holy Church is totally fulfilled and She offers this fullness to us. We, on the other hand, have absolutely nothing to bring to the Church except our sins. It is really correct to say that the future of our youth is the Church. With this in mind, and with a deep, sincere and unhypocritical love, Metropolitan Philaret has written this book for the benefit and guidance of our youth.

The Law of God was written primarily as a church-school text for intermediate students, but its value far exceeds that. Popadija Anna Krosnjar, a dedicated and outstanding church-school educator, has enhanced the value of this text by providing church-school lessons at the end of each chapter. This is of great assistance not only to local church-school teachers, but to parents who wish to use this book in the home.

We thank our Savior that He had given us such a holy and loving archpastor as Metropolitan Philaret to guide us along the dark and twisted path of these last days.

The translation and publication of this work is reverently dedicated to the memory of

The Blessed Memory Metropolitan Philaret of New York.

Conscience and Moral Responsibility

Of all the creatures on earth, only man has an understanding or morality. Every person is aware that his or her actions are either good or bad, kind or evil, morally positive or morally negative (immoral). By these concepts of morality, man differs immeasurably from all animals. Animals behave according to their natural characteristics or else, if they have been trained, in the way they have been taught. They have, however, no concept of morality-immorality, and so their behavior cannot be examined from the point of view of moral awareness.

By what means does one distinguish between the morally good and the morally bad? This differentiation is made by means of a special moral law given to man by God. This moral law, this voice of God in man's soul is felt in the depth of our consciousness: it is called conscience. This conscience is the basis of the morality common to man. A person who does not listen to his conscience but stifles it, suppresses its voice with falseness and the darkness of stubborn sin, is often called "unconscionable." The Holy Scripture refers to such stubborn sinners as people with a "seared" conscience. Their spiritual condition is extremely dangerous and ruinous for the soul.

When one listens to the voice of one's conscience, one sees that this conscience speaks in him first of all as a judge - strict and incorruptible, evaluating all one's actions and experiences. Often, it happens that some given action appears advantageous to a person, or has drawn approval from others, but in the depths of the soul this person hears the voice of conscience, "This is not good, this is a sin."

In a tight bond with this action of judging, the conscience also acts in one's soul as a legislator. All those moral demands which confront a person's soul in all his conscious actions (for example, be just, do not steal, etc), are norms, demands, prescriptions of this very conscience. Its voice teaches us how one must and must not behave. Finally, the conscience also acts in man as a rewarder. This happens when we, having acted well, experience peace and calm in the soul or, on the other hand, when we experience reproaches of the conscience after having sinned. These reproaches of the conscience sometimes pass over into terrible mental pain and torment. They can lead a person to despair or a loss of mental balance if one does not restore peace and calmness in the soul through deep and sincere repentance.

It is self-evident that man bears a moral responsibility only for those actions which he commits, in a conscious condition, being free in the carrying out of the actions. Only then can moral imputation be applied to these actions, and then they impute to the person either guilt, praise or judgment.

People who, on the other hand, are incapable of recognizing the character of their actions (babies, those deprived of reason, etc). or those who are forced against their will to commit such actions, do not bear responsibility for them. In the first epoch of persecution against Christianity, the pagan tormentors often placed incense in the hands of martyrs and then held their hands over the flame burning on their altar. The torturers supposed that the martyrs would jerk their hands back, dropping the incense into the fire. In fact, these confessors of the faith were usually so firm in spirit that they preferred to burn their hands and not drop the incense; but even had they dropped it, who would charge that they had brought sacrifice to the idols?

That the moral law must be acknowledged as innate to mankind, that is, fixed in the very nature of man, is indisputable. This is clearly seen from the fact that a concept of morality is universal in mankind. Of course, only the most basic moral requirements are innate - a sort of moral instinct - but not so with revealed and clear moral understandings and concepts. For, clear moral understandings and concepts developed in man in part through upbringing and influence from preceding generations, most of all on the basis of religious awareness. Therefore, coarse groups of people have moral norms lower, coarser, more malformed than Orthodox Christians who know and believe in the True God Who placed the moral law into man's soul and Who, through this law, guides all of his life and activities.

The Nature of Sin

All Orthodox Christians know from the Holy Scripture, and believe, that God created man in His own image and likeness. Therefore, in the creation man received a sinless nature, but not even the first man, Adam, remained sinless. He lost his original purity in the first fall into sin in paradise. The toxin of this sinfulness contaminated the entire human race, which descended from its forbears who had sinned - just as poison water flows from a poisoned spring. Acting upon the inclination to sin inherited from our ancestors, each person commits their own personal sins, as the Scriptural indictment says, "There is no one who will live for a single day and not sin." Only our Lord Jesus Christ is absolutely free from sin. Even the righteous, God's saints, bore sin within themselves and, although with God's help they struggled with it, yet they humbly acknowledged themselves to be sinners. So, without exception, all people are sinners, tainted with sin.

Sin is a spiritual leprosy, an illness and an ulcer which has stricken all mankind, both in his soul and his body. Sin has damaged all three of the basic abilities and powers of the soul; the mind, the heart and the will. Man's mind became darkened and inclined toward error, thus, man constantly errs - in science, in philosophy and in his practical activity.

What is even more harmed by sin is man's heart - the center of his experience of good and evil, as well as feelings of sorrow and joy. We see that our heart has been bound in the mire of sin; it has lost the ability to be pure, spiritual and Christian, to possess truly elevated feelings. Instead of this, it has become inclined toward pleasures of sensuality and earthly attachments. It is tainted with vainglory and often startles one with a complete absence of love and of the desire to do good toward one's neighbor.

What is harmed most of all, however, is the capability of our will to effect our intentions. Man proves to be without strength of will particularly when it is necessary to practice true Christian good - even though he might desire this good. The holy apostle Paul speaks of this weakness of will when he says: "For I fail to practice the good deeds I desire to do, but the evil deeds which I do not desire to do are what I am always doing." That is why Christ the Savior said of man the sinner, "Whoever practices sin is the slave of sin," although to the sinner, alas, serving sin often seems to be freedom while struggling to escape its net appears to be slavery.

How does a sin develop in one's soul? The holy fathers, strugglers of Christian asceticism and piety, knowing the sinful human soul, explain it far better than all the learned psychiatrists. They distinguish the following stages in sin: The first moment in sin is the suggestion, when some temptation becomes identified in a person's conscience - a sinful impression, an unclean thought or some other temptation. If, in this first moment, a person decisively and at once rejects the sin, he does not sin, but defeats sin and his soul will experience progress rather than degeneration. It is in the suggestion stage of sin that it is easiest of all to remove it. If the suggestion is not rejected, it passes over first into an ill-defined striving and then into a clear, conscious desire to sin. At this point, one already begins to be inclined to sin of a given type. Even at this point, however, without an especially difficult struggle, one can avoid giving in to sin and refrain from sinning. One will be helped by the clear voice of conscience and by God's aid if one will only turn to it.

Beyond this point, one has fallen into sin. The reproaches of the conscience sound loudly and clearly, eliciting a revulsion to the sin. The former self-assurance disappears and the man is humbled (compare Apostle Peter before and after his denial of Christ). But even at this point, defeat of sin is not entirely difficult. This is shown by numerous examples, as in the lives of Peter, the holy prophet-king David and other repentant sinners.

It is more difficult to struggle with a sin when, through frequent repetition, it becomes a habit in one. After acquiring any kind of habit, the habitual actions are performed by the person very easily, almost unnoticed by himself, spontaneously. Thus, the struggle with sin which has become a habit for a person is very difficult since it is not only difficult to overcome, but is even difficult to detect in its approach and process.

An even more dangerous stage of sin is vice. In this condition, sin so rules a person that it forges his will in chains. Here, one is almost powerless to struggle against it. He is a slave to sin even though he may acknowledge its danger and, in lucid intervals, perhaps even hates it with all his soul (such is the vice of alcoholism, narcotic addiction, etc.). In this condition, one cannot deal with oneself without special mercy and help from God and one is in need of prayer and the spiritual support of others. One must bear in mind that even a seemingly minor sin such as gossiping, love of attire, empty diversions, etc. can become a vice in man if it possesses him entirely and fills his soul.

The lowest stage of sin, in which sin completely enslaves one to itself, is the passion of one or another type. In this condition, man can no longer hate his sin as he can with a vice (and this is the difference between them). Rather he submits to sin in all his experiences, actions and moods, as did Judas Iscariot. At this stage, one literally and directly lets Satan into his heart (as it is said of Judas in the Gospel) and in this condition, nothing will help him except Grace-filled Church prayers and other such actions.

There is yet another special, most terrible and destructive type of sin. This is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. Even the prayers of the Church cannot help one who is found in this condition. The Apostle John the Theologian speaks of this directly when he entreats us to pray for a brother who has sinned, but points out the uselessness of prayer for the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself says that this sin - the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit - is not forgiven and will not be forgiven either in this age or in the future. He pronounced these terrible words against the Pharisees who, though they clearly saw that he worked everything according to the will of God and by God's power, nevertheless distorted the truth. They perished in their own blasphemy and their example is instructive and urgent for all those who would sin mortal sin: by an obdurate and conscious adversity to the undoubted Truth and thereby blaspheming the Spirit of truth - God's Holy Spirit.

We must note that even blasphemy against the Lord Jesus Christ can be forgiven man (according to His own words) since it can be committed in ignorance or temporary blindness. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could be forgiven, says St Athanasios the Great, only if a man ceased from it and became repentant. But the very nature of the sin is such that it makes it virtually impossible for a man to return to the truth. One who is blind can regain his sight and love the one who revealed the truth to him and one who is soiled with vices and passions can be cleansed by repentance and become a confessor of the Truth, but who and what can change a blasphemer who has seen and known the Truth and who has stubbornly refused and hated it? This horrible condition is similar to the condition of the devil himself who believes in God and trembles but who nevertheless hates Him, blasphemes Him and is in adversity to Him.

When a seduction, a temptation to sin, appears in man, it usually comes from three sources: from man's own flesh, from the world and from Satan.

Concerning man's flesh, there is absolutely no doubt that in many respects it is a den and source of anti-moral predisposition's, strivings and inclinations. The ancestral sin - this inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors and our own personal sinful experiences: all this added up and each (experience) strengthening one another, creates in our flesh a source of temptations, sinful moods and acts.

More often, though, the source of seduction for us is the world around us which, according to the Apostle John the Theologian, "is under the power of the Evil-One" and friendship with which, according to another Apostle, is enmity with God. The milieu around us seduces us, the people around us do likewise (especially the willful, conscious seducers and corrupters of youth about whom the Lord said: "Whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble and sin, it were better for that man that a millstone be tied around his neck and he be cast into the sea."

The enticers are also external goods, riches, comforts, immoral dances, dirty literature, shameless attire, etc. - all of this is undoubtedly a fetid source of sin and seduction.

But the main and root source of sin is, of course, the devil, as the Apostle John the Theologian says, "He who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning." In struggling with God and His Truth, the devil struggles with people, striving to destroy each of us. He struggles most intensely and with the most malice with the saints as we see in the Gospel and in the lives of the saints. We, sick and infirm, are specially defended by Christ against those fierce temptations to which God's saints, strong in spirit, are subjected. Nevertheless, Satan does not ignore us, acting through the enticements of the world and the flesh, making them stronger and more deceptive, and also tempting us by sinful suggestions of all kinds. It is because of this, that the Apostle Peter compares Satan with a "raging lion which stalks about seeking whom he might devour."

Virtue

The complete opposite of sin is virtue. Its rudiments are found in every person, as remnants of that natural good which was placed into the nature of man by his Creator. It is found in a pure and complete form only in True Christianity, for Christ the Savior said: "Without Me ye can do nothing."

Christianity teaches us that man's earthly life is a time of moral struggle, a time of preparation for the future, eternal life. Consequently, the tasks of man's earthly life consist of correctly preparing for future eternity. The earthly life is brief and it does not repeat itself, for man lives but once on earth. Therefore, in this earthly life, one must work at virtue if one does not wish to destroy one's soul. For this is precisely what God's truth demands of one on the threshold of eternity.

Each Christian, with God's help, shapes his own earthly life, in the sense that he or she directs its course toward virtue. In order to be virtuous, however, one must not only do good for others, but work on oneself, struggling with his insufficiencies and vices, developing in himself a good, Christian-valued foundation. This work on oneself, this struggle toward moral perfection of man's earthly life is indispensable for every Christian. The Lord Himself said: "the kingdom of heaven has endured violent assault and violent men seize it by force" (Mt.11:12).

The moral character and features of each person are worked out in such a life-struggle. A Christian must, of course, be a Christian before all else, a person with an established, solid moral character and he must aim for the building of such a character. In other words, he must strive for progress in himself toward moral perfection.

Thus, from a Christian point of view, life is a moral struggle, a path of constant striving toward good and perfection. There can be no pause on this path, according to the law of the spiritual life. A man who stops working on himself will not remain the same as he was, but will inevitably become worse - like a stone which is thrown upwards and stops rising, it will not remain suspended in the air, but will fall downward.

We already know that our sins generally originate from three sources: from the devil, from the world around us lying in evil, and from our own sinful flesh. Since sin is the main enemy and obstacle of virtue, it is evident that a Christian who is striving towards virtue must, through God's mercy and help, struggle against sin in all its aspects. It is especially needful at this point to recall the Savior's words to the Apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Keep vigil and pray lest you fall into temptation." The words are directed not only at the Apostles but to all of us, indicating that the struggle with sinful temptations is possible only for one who is vigilant and who prays, standing on guard for his survival.

God's Law

The task of man's earthly life is preparing himself for eternal salvation and beatitude. To attain this, a man must live in a holy and pure manner - that is, according to God's will.

How can one recognize this will of God? First of all, in one's conscience, which for this reason, is called God's voice in the soul of man. If the fall had not darkened the human soul, man would be able unerringly and firmly to direct the path of his life according to the dictates of his conscience, in which the inner moral law is expressed. We know, however, that in a sinful man, not only are the mind, heart and will damaged, but the conscience is also darkened and its judgment and voice have lost their firm clearness and strength. It is not without reason that some people are called unconscionable.

Therefore, conscience alone - the inner voice - became insufficient for man to live and act according to God's will. The need arose for an external guide, for a God-revealed law. Such a law was given by God to people in two aspects: first, the preparatory - the Old Testament law of Moses - then the full and perfect Gospel law.

There are two distinguishable parts in Moses' law: the religious-moral and the national-ceremonial which was closely tied with the history and way of life of the Jewish nation. The second aspect is gone into the past for Christians, that is, the national-ceremonial rules and laws, but the religious-moral laws preserve their force in Christianity. Therefore, all the ten commandments in the law of Moses are obligatory for Christians. Christianity has not altered them. On the contrary, Christianity has taught people to understand these commandments, not externally - literalistically, in the manner of blind, slavish obedience, and external fulfillment, but it has revealed the full spirit and taught the perfect and full understanding and fulfillment of them. For Christians, however, Moses' law has significance only because its central commandments (the ten which deal with love of God and neighbors) are accepted and shown forth by Christianity. We are guided in our life not by this preparatory and temporary law of Moses, but by the perfect and eternal law of Christ. St Basil the Great says, "If one who lights a lamp before himself in broad daylight seems strange, then how much stranger is one who remains in the shadow of the law of the Old Testament when the Gospel is being preached." The main distinction of the New Testament law from that of the Old Testament consists in that the Old Testament law looked at the exterior actions of man, while the New Testament law looks at the heart of man, at his inner motives. Under the Old Testament law, man submitted himself to God as a slave to his master, but under the New Testament, he strives toward submitting to Him as a son submits to a beloved father.

There is a tendency to regard the Old Testament law incorrectly. Some see no good in it, but only seek out features of coarseness and cruelty. This is a mistaken view. It is necessary to take into consideration the low level of spiritual development at which man then stood thousands of years ago. Under the conditions of the times, with truly coarse and cruel morals, those rules and norms of Moses' law which now seem cruel to us (e.g., "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," etc.) in reality were not such. They did not, of course, destroy human cruelty and vengeance (only the Gospel could do this), but they did restrain it and establish firm and strict limits upon it. Moreover, it must be remembered that those commandments about love toward God and neighbors, which the Lord indicated as the most important, are taken directly from the law of Moses (Mk. 12:29-31). The Holy Apostle Paul says of this law, "The law, therefore, is holy and each commandment is holy, just and good" (Rom. 7:12).

* * *

* * *

O MUNDO ESPIRITUAL

Protopresbitero Michael Pomazansky

Tradutor para o português: José Valério Lopes dos Santos Júnior

A Ligação Espiritual dos Membros da Igreja

A ORAÇÃO É a manifestação da vida da Igreja e do vínculo espiritual de seus membros com Deus na Santíssima Trindade e, de todos entre si. É tão inseparável da fé que pode ser chamada de atmosfera da Igreja ou de sua respiração. As orações são os filamentos da fábrica viva do corpo da Igreja, e vão a todas as direções. O vínculo da oração penetra todo o corpo da Igreja, direcionando cada parte na vida comum de seu corpo, animando cada componente e ajudando, pela nutrição, limpeza e através de outras formas de ajuda (Efe. 4:16). Ela une cada membro da Igreja com o Pai Celestial, os membros da Igreja terrestre entre si, e os membros terrenos com os membros celestiais. Não cessa, mas aumenta mais ainda e é exaltada no Reino Celestial.

Por toda o Novo Testamento das Sagradas Escrituras aparece o mandamento da oração incessante "Orai sem parar" (1 Tess. 5:17); "com orações e súplicas de toda a sorte, orai em todo tempo, no Espírito" (Efe. 6:18); "Contou-lhes ainda uma parábola para mostrar a necessidade de orar sempre, sem jamais esmorecer" (Lucas 18:1).

O exemplo perfeito de oração pessoal nos foi dado por Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Ele deixou como exemplo a oração "Pai-Nosso — a oração do Senhor. A oração é (a) forma da vida da Igreja, (b) um instrumento ou meio de sua atividade, e (c) sua força de superação.

A oração é de dois tipos: pública e privada. Existe a oração de palavras feita em particular e existe a oração mental, isto é, oração interior, ou a oração da mente no coração. O conteúdo da oração é: (a) louvor ou glória; (b) agradecimento, (c) arrependimento; (d) súplicas pela piedade de Deus, pelo perdão dos pecados, pelo provimento das coisas boas da alma e do corpo, tanto divinas quanto terrenas. Algumas vezes, o arrependimento perante Deus tem a forma de uma conversa com sua própria alma, como, por exemplo, acontece freqüentemente nos cânones.

A oração pode ser para si próprio ou para outros. A oração para outra pessoa expressa o amor mútuo entre os membros da Igreja. Assim, de acordo com os Apóstolos, o amor nunca falha (1 Cor. 13:8), os membros terrenos da Igreja não só rezam uns para os outros, mas também, de acordo com a lei do amor cristão, rezam para aqueles que partiram (os membros celestiais); e, igualmente, os membros celestiais rezam para aqueles na terra, assim como para o descanso de seus irmãos que estão necessitados da ajuda da oração. Finalmente, nós mesmos apelamos para aqueles no céu com a súplica para rezar por nós e para nossos irmãos. Acima deste vínculo do celestial com o mundano encontra-se a preocupação dos anjos para conosco e nossas orações para eles.

A força da oração para os outros é constantemente afirmada pela palavra de Deus. O Salvador disse ao Apóstolo Pedro: "Eu, porém, orei por ti, afim de que tua fé não desfaleça" (Lucas 22:32). O santo Apóstolo Paulo freqüentemente roga aos cristãos que rezem por ele: "Graças às vossas orações, espero que vos serei restituído" (Fil. 22). "Irmãos, orai por nós, para que a palavra do Senhor continue o seu caminho, e seja glorificado, como aconteceu entre vós" (2 Tess. 3:1). O Apóstolo participa com seus irmãos espirituais na oração comum mesmo estando bem longe. "Contudo, eu vos peço, irmãos, por nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo, e pelo amor do Espírito, que luteis comigo, nas orações que fazeis a Deus por mim" (Rom. 15. 30). O Apóstolo Tiago instrui: "orai uns pelos outros, para que sejais curados. A oração fervorosa do justo tem grande poder" (Tiago, 5, 16). São João, o Teólogo, viu em revelação como vinte e quatro anciãos no paraíso, perante o trono de Deus, caíram diante do Cordeiro, e todos tinham cítaras e taças cheias de incenso, "que são as orações dos santos" (Ap. 5, 8); isto é, eles levantaram as orações dos santos da terra para o Trono Celestial.

Oração para os Mortos

"Orai uns pelos outros" (Tiago 5: 16)

"Portanto, quer vivamos, quer morramos, pertencemos ao Senhor" (Rom. 14: 8).

"O amor nunca falha" (1 Cor. 13: 8).

"E o que pedirdes em meu nome, eu o farei a fim de que o Pai seja glorificado no Filho" (João 14, 13).

EM DEUS, TUDO ESTÁ VIVO. A vida da Igreja é impregnada de uma consciência e sentimento de que nossos mortos continuam a viver depois da morte, mas numa forma diferente daquela na terra, e que eles não estão privados da proximidade espiritual com os que permanecem na terra.

Portanto, o vínculo da oração com eles por parte da Igreja peregrina (na terra) não cessa. "Pois estou convencido de que nem a morte nem a vida, nem os anjos nem os principados, nem o presente nem o futuro... poderá nos separar do amor de Deus manifestado em Cristo Jesus, nosso Senhor" (Rom. 8: 38). Os mortos necessitam somente de um tipo de ajuda dos seus irmãos: oração e súplica pela remissão dos seus pecados.

"Esta é a confiança que temos em Deus: se lhe pedimos alguma coisa segundo a Sua vontade, ele nos ouve. E, se sabemos que Ele nos ouve em tudo o que Lhe pedimos, sabemos que possuímos o que havíamos pedido. Se alguém vê que seu irmão cometeu um pecado que não conduz à morte, que ele ore e Deus dará a vida a este irmão, se, de fato, o pecado cometido não conduz à morte. Existe um pecado que conduz à morte, mas não é a respeito desse que digo que se ore" (1 João 5: 14-16).

Correspondendo a esta instrução do Apóstolo, a Igreja reza por todas as crianças que morreram com arrependimento verdadeiro. A Igreja segue as palavras do Apóstolo rezando para eles e para aqueles que estão vivos; "Se vivemos, é para o Senhor que vivemos; se morremos, é para o Senhor que morremos. Quer vivamos, quer morramos, pertencemos ao Senhor. Cristo morreu e voltou à vida para ser o Senhor dos vivos e dos mortos" (Rom. 14: 8-9). Aqueles, entretanto, que morreram sem se arrepender dos pecados, fora da comunhão com a Igreja, não são nem dignos de orações, como segue das palavras acima mencionadas do Apóstolo João: "Eu não digo que ele deva rezar para isso," porque essas orações não teriam propósito. Na Igreja do Antigo Testamento também existe o hábito de se rezar pelos mortos. Há o testemunho da história sagrada sobre isso. Assim, nos dias do líder piedoso dos Judeus, Judas Macabeus, quando após uma inspeção daqueles que caíram no campo de batalha, foi encontrado em seus vestuários objetos consagrados aos ídolos, todos os judeus "tendo bendito o modo de proceder do Senhor, justo Juiz que torna manifestas as coisas escondidas, puseram-se em oração para pedir que o pecado cometido fosse completamente cancelado." O próprio Judas Macabeus foi enviado à Jerusalém "a fim de que se oferecesse um sacrifício pelo pecado: agiu assim absolutamente bem e nobremente, com pensamento na ressurreição" (2 Mac. 12:39-46).

Que a remissão dos pecados daqueles que não haviam pecado na morte possa ser dada na presente vida e depois da morte é concluída naturalmente das palavras do próprio Senhor: "Se alguém disser uma palavra contra o Filho do Homem, ser-lhe-á perdoado, mas se disser contra o Espírito Santo, não lhe será perdoado, nem neste mundo, nem no vindouro" (Mateus 12:32). Igualmente, da palavra de Deus, sabemos que o Senhor Jesus tem "as chaves da Morte e do Hades (Inferno)" (Apo. 1:18); e, conseqüentemente, Ele tem poder para abrir as portas do inferno pelas orações da Igreja e pelo poder do Sacrifício sem derramamento de sangue conciliatório que é oferecido aos mortos.

Todas as liturgias antigas da Igreja Cristã, ambas do Oriente e do Ocidente, testificam sobre a lembrança da Igreja, em orações, dos mortos. Tais liturgias são conhecidas pelos nomes dos: Santo Apóstolo Tiago, o irmão do Senhor; São Basílio Magno; São João Crisóstomos e São Gregório, o Dialogista. Referências similares são encontradas nas liturgias romana, espanhola, francesa, e finalmente, nas liturgias antigas dos grupos que se separaram da Ortodoxia: os Jacobitas, Coptas, Etiopianos, Siríacos, e outros. Por todas elas, não existe uma única destas liturgias onde não haja oração para os mortos. O testemunho dos Padres e Mestres da Igreja fala da mesma coisa.

Sobre o bom efeito da comunhão piedosa em nome do Senhor Jesus Cristo entre aqueles que vivem na terra e os mortos, Efrein, o Sírio, por exemplo, assim fundamenta: "para os mortos, a lembrança conduzida pelos santos durante sua vida é benéfica. Vemos um exemplo disso em um grande número dos atos de Deus. Por exemplo, num vinhedo há as uvas amadurecidas no campo, e o vinho já espremido dentro dos recipientes; quando as uvas amadurecem na videira, então o vinho que está intacto na casa começa a espumar e a se agitar, como se quisesse escapar. A mesma coisa acontece, aparentemente, com outra planta, a cebola; porque assim que a cebola que foi plantada na terra começa a amadurecer, a cebola que está na casa também começa a dar broto. Então, se mesmo coisas que crescem têm entre si tal sentimento-associativo, não serão as petições de orações mais sentidas pelos mortos? E quando você concordar sensivelmente que isto ocorre de acordo com a natureza das criaturas, então apenas imagine que você é a primeira das criaturas de Deus."

Rezando para os mortos, a Igreja intercede por eles assim como para os vivos, não em seu próprio nome, mas em nome do Senhor Jesus Cristo (João 14: 13-14), e pelo poder de Seu Sacrifício na Cruz, que foi oferecido pela salvação de todos. Essas orações fervorosas ajudam as sementes da nova vida que nossos mortos levaram consigo - se essas sementes não foram capazes de se abrir suficientemente aqui na terra - para abrirem-se gradualmente e desenvolverem-se sob a influência das orações e com a piedade de Deus, assim como uma semente boa se desenvolve na terra sob os raios vitais da luz do sol, com o clima favorável. Mas não pode receber sementes podres as quais perderam o verdadeiro princípio da vida vegetativa. Similarmente, as orações não teriam poder para os mortos que morreram na impiedade e sem arrependimento, que secaram em si o Espírito de Cristo (1 Tess. 5:19). É precisamente relativo a tais pecadores que se deve lembrar as palavras do Salvador na parábola do homem rico e de Lázaro: que não há libertação para eles das profundezas do inferno, e nem transferência deles para junto de Abraão (Lucas 16: 26). E, de fato, normalmente, tais pessoas não deixam para trás na terra outros que possam rezar sinceramente para Deus por elas, e do mesmo modo, não adquiriram para si amigos nos céus entre os santos, os quais, quando eles caírem (quer dizer, morrerem), possam recebê-los nas habitações eternas — isto é, que possam rezar por eles (Lucas 16: 9).

Obviamente, não se sabe após a morte por qual sina cada um foi sujeitado na terra. Mas a oração do amor nunca é sem proveito. Se nossos mortos, que nos são queridos, foram dignos do Reino dos Céus, eles respondem à oração feita para eles com uma oração em resposta por nós. E se nossas orações não tem poder para ajudá-los, em qualquer caso elas não são prejudiciais a nós, de acordo com a palavra do Salmista: "minha oração voltará para meu peito" (Salmos 35 (34): 13), e, de acordo, com a palavra do Salvador: "volte a vós a vossa paz" (Mateus 10: 13). Mas, certamente, são úteis para nós. São João Damasceno observa: "Se alguém deseja ungir um homem doente com mirra ou outro óleo sagrado, primeiro ele deve tomar-se parte da unção e, então, ungir o doente. E também, qualquer um que batalhe para a salvação de seu próximo, primeiro que ele receba benefício, e depois então, ofereça a seu próximo; porque Deus não é injusto para esquecer as obras, de acordo com as palavras do Apóstolo Divino."

A Comunhão com os Santos

A Igreja reza por todos que morreram em fé, e pede pelo perdão de seus pecados, porque não há nenhum homem sem pecado, "Se ele já viveu apenas um único dia na terra" (Jô 14:5, Septuagint). "Se dissermos: ´não temos pecado’, enganamo-nos a nós mesmos e a Verdade não está em nós" (1 João 1: 8). Assim, não importa quão justo seja um homem, quando ele parte deste mundo, a Igreja acompanha sua partida com orações por ele para o Senhor. "Orai por nós, irmãos," o Santo Apóstolo Paulo pede de seus filhos espirituais (1 Tess. 5:25).

Ao mesmo tempo, quando a voz comum da Igreja testemunha sobre a integridade da pessoa repousada, os cristãos, além da oração por ele, são ensinados pelo bom exemplo de sua vida e colocam-no como um exemplo a ser imitado.

E quando, mais adiante, a convicção comum da santidade da pessoa repousada é confirmada pelo testemunho especial tal como martírio, confissão sem medo, auto-sacrifício servindo a Igreja, o dom da cura, e especialmente quando o Senhor confirma a santidade da pessoa repousada por milagres após sua morte quando ele é lembrado em orações, então a Igreja o santifica de uma maneira especial. Como que a Igreja não glorificaria aqueles que o próprio Senhor chama de Seus "amigos"? "Vós sois meus amigos... eu vos chamo amigos" (João 15:14-15), aqueles que ele recebeu em suas mansões celestiais no cumprimento das palavras "onde eu estiver, estejais vós também" (João 14:3). Quando isso acontece, orações para o perdão dos pecados dos que partiram e para o seu descanso cessam, eles cedem lugar para outras formas de comunhão da Igreja com ele, chamados: primeiro, o louvor pela sua luta em Cristo, "nem se acende uma lâmpada e se coloca debaixo do alqueire, mas no candelabro, e assim ela brilha para todos os que estão em casa" (Mateus 5:15); segundo, súplicas a ele para que reze por nós, para a remissão de nossos pecados, e para nosso desenvolvimento moral, e que ele possa ajudar-nos em nossas necessidades espirituais e em nossas aflições.

É dito: "Bendito os mortos, os que desde agora morrem no Senhor" (Apo. 14: 13) e nós realmente os bendizemos. É dito: "eu lhes dei a glória que me deste" (João 17: 22), e nós realmente damos a eles esta glória de acordo com o mandamento do Salvador.

Do mesmo modo o Salvador disse: "Quem recebe um profeta na qualidade de profeta, receberá uma recompensa de profeta. E quem recebe um justo na qualidade de justo, receberá uma recompensa de justo" (Mateus 10:41). "Porque aquele que fizer a vontade de meu Pai que está nos Céus, esse é meu irmão, irmã e mãe" (Mateus 12:50). Portanto, nós também devemos receber os justos como justos. Se ele é um irmão para o Senhor, então ele também tem que ser para nós. Os santos são nossos irmãos espirituais, irmãs, mães, pais, e nosso amor para com eles é expresso pela comunhão em oração com eles.

O Apóstolo João escreve aos seus irmãos cristãos: "O que vimos e ouvimos vo-lo anunciaremos para que estejais também em comunhão conosco. E a nossa comunhão é com o Pai e com o seu Filho Jesus Cristo" (1 João 1:3). E dentro da Igreja, essa comunhão com os Apóstolos não é interrompida; atravessa para dentro do outro domínio de suas existências, o domínio celestial.

A proximidade dos santos do Trono do Cordeiro e a elevação deles das orações para a Igreja na terra é representada no livro do Apocalipse de São João, o Teólogo: "em minha visão, ouvi ainda o clamor de uma multidão de anjos que circundavam o trono, os Seres vivos e dos Anciãos — seu número era de milhões de milhões e milhares de milhares," que louvaram o Senhor (ver 5:11).

A comunhão em oração com os santos é a realização em fato efetivo do vínculo entre os cristãos na terra e os da Igreja Celestial da qual o Apóstolo fala: "mas vós vos aproximastes do monte Sião e da Cidade do Deus vivo, a Jerusalém Celestial, e de milhões de anjos reunidos em festa, e da assembléia dos primogênitos cujos nomes estão inscritos nos céus, e de Deus, o Juiz de todos, e dos espíritos dos justos que chegaram à perfeição" (Hebreus 12: 22-23).

As Sagradas Escrituras apresentam inúmeros exemplos do fato de, enquanto ainda vivos na terra, os justos poderem ver, ouvir e saber muito do que é inacessível à compreensão comum. Cada vez mais esses dons estão presentes com eles, quando eles deixam o corpo e vão para os céus. O santo Apóstolo Pedro viu no coração de Ananias, de acordo com o livros dos Atos (5: 3). Foi revelado para Eliseu o ato ilegal do servo Giezi (2 Reis 4), e o que é mais notável é que foi revelado à ele todas as intenções secretas da corte siríaca, as quais ele comunicou ao rei de Israel (2 Reis 6:12). Enquanto em vida, os santos penetraram em espírito no mundo de cima; alguns deles viram coros de anjos, outros foram dignos de ver a imagem de Deus (Isaias e Ezequiel), e outros ainda foram levados ao Terceiro Céu e ouviram lá as palavras místicas, indizíveis. Quão mais permanecerem nos céus, mais eles serão capazes de saber o que está acontecendo na terra e de ouvir aqueles que chamam por eles porque os santos nos céus são semelhantes aos anjos (Lucas 20:36).

Sabemos, da parábola do Senhor sobre o homem rico e Lázaro (Lucas 16:19-31), que Abraão, estando no céu, pôde ouvir o grito do rico que estava sofrendo no inferno, apesar do "grande abismo" que os separavam. As palavras de Abraão para os irmãos do homem rico, "Eles têm Moisés e os profetas; que os ouçam!" (Lucas 16:29), claramente indica que Abraão sabe sobre a vida do povo hebreu que ocorreu depois de sua morte; ele sabe sobre Moisés e as Leis, sobre os profetas e seus escritos. A visão espiritual das almas dos justos no céu, sem qualquer dúvida, é maior do que era quando na terra. O Apóstolo escreve: "E agora vemos em espelho e de maneira confusa, mas, depois, veremos face a face. Agora o meu conhecimento é limitado, mas, depois, conhecerei como sou conhecido" (1 Cor. 13:12).

A Santa Igreja sempre guardou os ensinamentos de invocação dos santos, estando plenamente convencida de que eles intercedem por nós perante Deus no céu. Vemos isso nas liturgias antigas. Na liturgia do Santo Apóstolo Tiago é dito: "especialmente celebramos a memória da Santa, Gloriosa e Sempre Virgem Senhora Abençoada Mãe de Deus (Theotokos). Lembre-se Dela, Ó Senhor Deus, e por suas puras e santas orações tenha compaixão e tende piedade de nós." São Círilo de Jerusalém, explicando a Liturgia da Igreja de Jerusalém, observa: "então nós também comemoramos (oferecendo os Sacrifícios incruentos) aqueles que partiram antes de nós: primeiramente de todos patriarcas, profetas, apóstolos, mártires que por suas orações e intercessões junto a Deus recebam nossas petições."

Numerosos são os testemunhos dos Padres e Mestres da Igreja, especialmente do século IV e após, sobre a veneração dos santos pela Igreja. Mas já desde o começo do século II, há indicações diretas da literatura cristã antiga sobre a fé nas orações dos santos nos céus por seus irmãos terrenos. O testemunho da morte em martírio de São Inácio, o Defensor de Deus (no começo do século II) diz: "Tendo retornado a suas casas em lágrimas, tivemos uma noite completa de vigília... Então, depois de dormir um pouco, alguns de nós viram repentinamente o abençoado Inácio de pé e abraçando-nos, e outros também viram ele rezando para nós." Registros semelhantes mencionando as orações e intercessões dos mártires por nós são encontradas em outros relatos da época das perseguições contra os cristãos.

* * *

СВОЕ ОТСТУПЛЕНИЕ ПЫТАЮТСЯ ПРИКРЫТЬ ИМЕНЕМ СВЯТИТЕЛЯ

ИЕРОМОНАХ САВВА (БОГДАН) Иерусалим

В 1963 году верные духовные чада Святителя Иоанна стали на защиту своего пастыря от наносимой его честному имени клеветы. Но и в наше время находятся такие, которые свое отступление от Правой Веры стараются прикрыть именем Святителя. Поэтому перед тем, как предоставить Вашему вниманию свидетельство стояния в Истине Святителя Иоанна, необходимо сказать несколько слов и о нынешнем времени.

Часто можно слышать, что многое изменилось в отношении старого времени и надо действовать и мыслить по новому. Но тем, кому дорого святоотеческое наследие, чужд голос проповедующих измену заветам. Попробуем вспомнить то, что нам завешали наши Первоиерархи. Митрополит Антоний (Храповицкий) призывал всех верных на борьбу с безбожной властью. Митрополит Анастасий (Грибановский) завещал не иметь даже бытовых отношений с МП.   Митрополит Филарет (Вознесенский) также проповедывал верность чистоте Православия.

Святитель Иоанн (Максимович) так учит: ╚Духовно Русская Церковь неразделима: она всегда одна и та же Русская Церковь, где бы мы ни были. Будучи частью Русской Церкви, мы не можем общаться с церковной властью, подчиненной и порабощенной властью Церкви враждебной. Быть в состоянии такой подчиненности и зависимости -состояние душевно болезненное /.../ и те, кто находятся в такой зависимости, не могут не ощущать и не сознавать болезненности такого состояния : одни, у кого совесть жива, мучаются, - другие, со сожженой совестью, принимают такое положение.╩ (╚Слова иже во святых отца нашего Иоанна, Архиепископа Шанхайского и Сан Францисского╩, С.Ф. 1994 г., стр. 247).

Говорят, что советской власти больше нет, что сейчас все по другому, но те, кто не хотят закрывать глаза, ясно видят, что нынешний режим еще лукавее борется с Православием. ╚Что общего у Христа с велиаром?╩, говорит апостол Павел. Самая страшная болезнь нашего времени - смешение грешного с праведным. Мы видим противоестественные попытки одухотворить советское прошлое, например выставляют спасителем народа такого урода как Сталин. Как можно назвать верующим президента, который возвращает русскому городу советское название ╚Сталинград╩? Можно еще привести множество примеров подобного извращения. Но если сказать коротко, то нынешний режим почитает красную звезду как святыню, - так где здесь место Христу? (На современном гербе Москвы рядом со св. Георгием Победоносцем - красная звезда, от которой никто не собирается отказываться).

Если раньше иерархи в России шли на компромисс с безбожной властью с душевным мучением, боясь за свою жизнь, - то большинство нынешних не видят ничего плохого в заигрывании с властями. Но разве это не есть дух Антихристов, о котором нас предупреждает Святитель Иоанн? ╚Он (Антихрист) будет делать всем приятное при условии признания его верховной власти. Он предоставит возможность жизни Церкви, будет разрешать Ей богослужения, обещать постройку прекрасных храмов /.../. Будет массовое отпадение от веры, причем изменят вере многие епископы и в оправдание будут указывать на блестящее положение Церкви. Искание компромисса будет характерным настроением людей.   Прямота исповедания исчезнет.   Люди будут изощренно оправдывать свое падение и ласковое зло будет поддерживать такое общее настроение, и в людях будет навык отступления от правды и сладость компромисса и греха╩ (там же, стр. 84). Пусть сии слова Святителя будут для верных чад РПЦЗ звуком набатного колокола, который предупреждает о том мировом пожаре, который в 1917 году разожгли в России,  ≈ наивно думать, что он потух. Он, как вулкан, лишь притих на время. Не дай Бог адская магма затопит и наши приходы с монастырями. Молимся Святителю Иоанну, да поможет нам устоять в Истине, и поучимся из его жизни, како подобает исповедать Православие.

Наша Страна № 2783

* * *

ОТКРЫТОЕ ПИСЬМО ПАСТЯРЯМ РПЦЗ РЕШИВШИМ В УЙТИ НА ПОКОЙ В МАЕ 

П. БОНДАРЕНКО

Дорогие о Господе отцы, благословите!

     Каждый из вас сейчас задает себе вопрос: "Что я сделаю когда в мае следуюшего года мой епископ подпишет унию с сергианами?" Большинство из, вас, конечно, не готовы лобызаться с сергианами у Престола. Но что же вам делать? Понятно, что всех противников позорной унии лишат сана, прихода, дома, пенсии и еще обязательно обольют грязью и клеветой. Да и быть может большинство прихожан не заступятся открыто за вас, а скорее промолчат, стыдливо смотря в сторону. А потом, наедине, будут выражать вам сожаление или даже возмущение. Возможно, что и семья будет вас упрекать, что ваша  "упрямая непримиримость" ставит под удар материальное благополучие ваших близких.

     И поэтому многие из вас сейчас думают просто и тихо в мае уйти на покой.

     Но подумайте: кто внушает вам эту мысль? Ваша православная совесть, или лукавый?

     Вспомним тут слова Древнего Патерика: "всегда имей Бога пред своими очами и что бы ты ни делал, имей на это основание в Божественном Писании". Есть ли в Божественном Писании основание для ухода на покой перед надвигающейся унии? Или в Житиях Святых? Есть ли хоть один тропарь в одном каноне, который такой поступок оправдал бы? Не говорит ли Спаситель, совсем наоборот, что "пастырь добрый душу свою полагает за овцы"?

     Если вы уйдете на покой, что будет с овцами, которыx Вам поручил Господь Бог?! Ведь Он сказал "паси агнцы моя", и "паси овцы моя". Этим точно указав, что поручает вам лишь на время его стадо и что вам вовсе непозволительно бросать ваших пасомых на съедение волкам.

     Вспомните молитву, которую при вашем принятии сана архиерей читал держа руку на вашей главе: "Яко и сей зретив  во втором пришествии Великого Бога и Спаса нашего Иисуса Христа, Единородного Твоего Сына, приимет мзду благого икономства своего чина, во множестве благости Твоея". Какую мзду воздаст вам Христос Бог, если вы сейчас уйдете на покой оставляя ваших пасомых в руках униатских лже-пастырей? Имеете ли вы право как Пилат умыть те руки, которые вам многими годами с уважением и любовью лобызали ваши прихожане?

     Да, возможно большинство ваших собратьев вас не поддержат и что за вас заступятся только единицы. Однако несомненно останется то "малое стадо", которому Спаситель сказал: "ищите Царствия Божьего и вся приложится вам".

     Ради этого малого стада вам нужно остаться "на передовой", не отступая ни на шаг, ни в чем, ни перед кем.

     Наоборот, вам надо будет вашим примером вдохновлять храбрость и исповеднический дух в ваших пасомых и вам необходимо будет вывести их из беды, как офицер на войне выводит своих солдат из вражеского окружения.

     И только передав их в руки других добрых пастырей под омофором истинно-православного епископа, вы сможете со спокойной душой наконец уйти на покой.

     Мы годами молились Новомученикам Российским, читали их жития, ценили их память и восхваляли их подвиг. Но это все было как бы подготовкой для нынешнего часа. Наступило время следовать их примеру. Ведь нам не грозят пытки в чекистском подвале или пуля в затылок. А скорее всего - лишь потеря материального комфорта. Давайте решительно ответим проводникам унии словами Великого Повечерья: "И аще совет совещеваете, раязорит Господ. И  страха вашего не убоимся, ниже смутимся, яко с нами Бог!" 

Наша Страна № 2783

* * *

Notre archipel ecclésial agité par les vagues 

P. Bondarenko

La majoritй des paroisses de l'Eglise Hors-Frontiиres (EORHF) sont opposйes а l'union avec le Patriarcat de Moscou. Toute l'Amйrique du Sud est contre, une йcrasante majoritй en Australie et au Canada est йgalement contre. En Russie, c'est naturel, tout le monde est contre. Il n'y a guиre que dans les diocиses d'Amйrique Orientale et de Chicago que la majoritй serait, semble-t-il, favorable. Et puis encore dans les diocиses de Mgrs Mark et Ambroise la majoritй est йgalement pour. Mais il convient encore de prйciser que sur la cфte occidentale des USA ce sont essentiellement les recteurs des paroisses, et non l'ensemble du clergй, qui sont favorables а l'union. Quant а l'ancien diocиse d'Europe Occidentale de l'EORHF, il n'en reste que des lambeaux du fait qu'une large partie de ce diocиse n'avait jamais acceptй la nomination de l'йvкque Ambroise (Cantacuzиne) et qu'une grande partie des paroisses a depuis longtemps quittй le Synode de Mgr Lavr.

Rien de cela n'est ignorй tant а Souzdal qu'а Mansonville, tout comme chacun est conscient du fait que les adversaires de l'union n'ont pas de leader incontestй. Par consйquent, а l'issue du “Grand-Concile Hors-Frontiиres” de mai 2006 а San-Francisco de nombreux prкtres et fidиles seront en plein dйsarroi, ne sachant que faire, ni oщ aller. Et voilа qu'а Souzdal (Eglise Orthodoxe Russe Autonome) et а Mansonville (EORHF/V) commence а poindre l'idйe : “Comment faire pour rйcupйrer le plus grand nombre de ces paroisses?”.

Mais dans l'un comme dans l'autre cas, la situation n'est guиre heureuse. Les zйlateurs de la puretй de l'Orthodoxie se comportent entre eux avec une extrкme animositй, s'accusant mutuellement “d'anticanonicitй”. Les Souzdaliens se sont tous querellйs entre eux. Tandis qu'а Mansonville, l'entourage de notre dernier Primat lйgitime, le Mйtropolite Vitaly, a commencй par retrancher les “cyprianites”, puis les “lazarites” et enfin les “varnavites, le tout sans le moindre examen conciliaire. Viendra bientфt le temps oщ “les coupeurs de tкtes”, l'йvкque Vladimir et le pиre Benjamin Joukov, essaieront de s'йliminer l'un l'autre en s'accusant mutuellement d'avoir trahi la vйritй.

Si certains pensent que j'exagиre, je les invite а lire les articles que ces personnes ont signйs et mis sur Internet. Et en prime, qu'ils lisent les opus de “l'йvкque” Victor Pivovarov et se posent la question : le Mйtropolite Philarиte, l'Archevкque Antony de Genиve, Mgr Averky, le pиre Lev Lebedev ou tout autre pasteur de l'EORHF auraient-ils pu s'exprimer avec tant de grossiйretй ? Pour ne parler que de certaines expressions de Victor Pivovarov comme : “menteur pseudoйpiscopal lazarite” ou “judйodйmon”. En outre, cet “йvкque”, йlevй а l'йpiscopat par les bons soins du p. Benjamin Joukov, dйclare publiquement que quiconque n'appartient pas а son groupuscule n'est rien d'autre qu'un “bвtisseur de la synagogue de satan”.

Et lа il convient de souligner le contraste frappant d'une terminologie pareille avec le ton des йcrits de l'йvкque de l'Eglise Orthodoxe Russe Vйritable (des Catacombes), Mgr Dionissy (Alferov). Prenons par exemple son article “Seule la consolidation en un front uni de tous les adversaires “du nouveau cours”est а mкme de garantir l'avenir de l'Eglise” (in Nasha Strana, N°2776), dans lequel il йcrit notamment : “Notre Synode du dйfunt Archevкque Lazare est prкt au dialogue avec tous les groupes ecclйsiaux, ne s'autorisant aucun comportement hostile et ne prйtendant а aucune exclusivitй”. Nous retrouvons le mкme esprit d'amour chrйtien vйritable dans la rйcente Encyclique du Chef de cette Eglise, l'Archevкque Tikhone.

De mкme la lettre du Mйtropolite Vitaly, а l'occasion du dйcиs de l'Archevкque Lazare, respire-t-elle l'amour et la bontй contrairement а tous ces flots de condamnations habituellement dйversйs de Mansonville.

Et inйvitablement la question se pose : comment se fait-il que les documents йmis par le Synode de Mansonville tranchent а ce point par leur ton avec les documents йcrits de la propre main du Mйtropolite Vitaly ? La rйponse est toute simple et elle a йtй exposйe par le Juge new-yorkais chargй des demandes de poursuites lancйes par le Synode de Mgr Lavr contre Mansonville : “Il est tout а fait йvident qu'il (le Mйtropolite Vitaly) se trouve кtre le pion d'un conflit interne а l'Eglise”. Il est hors de doute que du fait du grand-вge et de la faiblesse du starets-Mйtropolite, son entourage а Mansonville se sert de lui.

Dans l'article mentionnй, Mgr Dionissy parle de la possibilitй йventuelle d'avoir а l'avenir “un dialogue au niveau йpiscopal”. Mais avec qui ? Certainement pas avec le Synode de Souzdal qui, depuis longtemps, bien avant son йlйvation а l'йpiscopat, le taxe de “crypto-њcumйniste lazarito-cyprianiste”. Pas plus qu'avec le Synode de Mansonville dans son ensemble qui refuse toute forme de dialogue. Eventuellement avec certains йvкques de ces deux Synodes qui ne partagent pas l'extrйmisme de leurs confrиres ? Tels, par exemple, l'йvкque EORHF(V) Serge /Kindiakov/ ? Il convient encore de souligner que toutes les errances qui ont aujourd'hui cours dans tous les Synodes – exceptй celui prйsidй par l'Archevкque Tikhone, unique Synode restй en tout fidиle aux traditions de notre Eglise – sont parfaitement йtrangиres aux simples fidиles qui en relиvent. J'en connais personnellement beaucoup qui se trouvent dans le Synode de Mansonville non par ce qu'ils en partagent l'extrйmisme, mais par fidйlitй personnelle au Mйtropolite Vitaly. Et de telles personnes qui n'approuvent pas le comportement du Synode EORHF(V) sont en rйalitй l'йcrasante majoritй.

D'ailleurs, il en est de mкme dans l'EORHF(L) : une large majoritй de prкtres et de fidиles ne partagent pas les aspirations pernicieuses de leurs йvкques.

C'est en cela que rйside la grande tragйdie de l'Eglise Hors-Frontiиres : tous ces schismes ont йtй initiйs d'en haut par les йvкques et une poignйe de prкtres d'inspiration soviйtisante.Sans oublier, йvidemment, les Services de Renseignements de la Fйdйration de Russie -

Quant а nous, simples fidиles, nous devons rйpondre а l'appel de Mgr Dionissy et devons tous ensemble essayer de trouver une issue а la crise.

Note du traducteur :

EORHF(V) : Eglise Orthodoxe Russe Hors-Frontiиres prйsidйe par le Mйtropolite Vitaly, rйsidant а Mansonville (Canada)

EORHF(L) : Eglise Orthodoxe Russe Hors-Frontiиres prйsidйe par le Mйtropolite Lavr, rйsidant а New-York

L'auteur cite certaines dйnominations appliquйes de faзon pйjorative et qu'il convient d'interprйter ainsi :“cyprianites” : partisans du Synode Grec vieux-calendariste prйsidй par le Mйtropolite Cyprien.

“lazarites” : partisans du Synode de l'Eglise Orthodoxe Russe Vйritable (Catacombes) dont le premier prйsident fut l'Archevкque Lazare, aujourd'hui prйsidй par l'Archevкque Tikhone.

“varnavites” : prкtres et fidиles sous l'omophore de l'Archevкque Varnava de Cannes et d'Europe Occidentale.

Traduit du russe par le protodiacre Germain Ivanoff-Trinadtzaty

* * *

The Will of God or the Will of Man?

by Dimitri Gontscharow

The bishops, clergy, joint commissions and others insist all issues preventing the union of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) and the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) have been resolved to a great degree.  When confronted with troubling facts, alarming statements made by the Moscow clergy, dire predictions for the future, one response has been to divert attention instead to the failings of the Russian Church Abroad in a desire to intimidate and stifle the misgivings of its faithful.  When pushed further, the pro-union clergy falls back on the ever-popular answer: “it’s Providential.”  It is the “Will of God” that is orchestrating the union of the two churches and healing the rift.  One is to take it upon faith that despite all the evidence to the contrary, this is a good thing in the long run.  That pretty much stops the discussion and makes it hard to argue further, when the  shrewd clergy wrap themselves in the intangibles of religious faith.

Though a handy way out, and perhaps true on some level, it is hard to believe when the hand of God is not so discernible and the hand of man, in the form of some of our clergy, is quite visible.  It is they who initiated private meetings with the MP without the Synod’s blessing.  It is they who have pushed this agenda along, despite all the objections.  It would be nice to think our clergy is worthy of divine intercession as in the old days, but these are different times.  It would be far more prudent to model ourselves after the words of Ronald Reagan, who said, “Trust, but verify.”  Reagan carefully maintained close and productive dialogue with the Soviet Union, but he remained true to his convictions and principles.  In that way, he played a significant role in the fall of the Soviet Union.  Truth defeated the lies and deceits of that regime. 

Some of our clergy and their supporters would like us to trust the MP, the hierarchy of which was born and bred in the Soviet system.  A hierarchy that recently praised the virtues of the Soviet period, adding that not only was that period more moral, but that the precepts of the communist state were similar to religious precepts in nature and intent.  It is this hierarchy that not so long ago, spoke of the ROCOR church with contempt, calling us “karlovtsy,” “sektanty” and avoided any contact with our church.  Then when Putin, a KGB colonel, came to power and solidified the KGB’s or FSB’s control over the country and its national and regional governments, suddenly everything changed.  Suddenly, Putin met with our bishops in New York City, who looked in his eyes and found a Russian soul.  Might it be more correct to say that Putin’s attention may have an ulterior motive?  That the prospect of suddenly having hundreds of churches throughout the world at his disposal to act as listening posts and centers of espionage greatly interests Putin and the KGB masters.

As if assigned a task, the MP hierarchy then suddenly approached us with open arms, welcoming home their brethren.  Our bishops were feted during official visits to Russia, but there was little substance to discern among their attentions.  Our church has brought the relics of the Holy Martyrs Elizaveta Fedorovna and Varvara for veneration throughout Russia.  It brought our precious Kursk Mother of God icon to the MP church in New York City.  We have acceded to their wishes, bending our principles to suit them, accepting their views on the issues that divided us for so long, and what have we gotten in return?  In all of the published interviews and documents, where is the recognition of our heritage overseas, of our efforts to preserve the Church, of our role in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church?  Where are the invaluable icons and relics in Russia that could be visiting our parishes?  Where is the reciprocity that marks a genuine union and would give one the feeling that this is indeed the Will of God?  Instead we get Soviet-style, paramilitary goons occupying our church property in the Holy Land and Bari, Italy.

Yet our clergy continues to insist we trust the MP.  We are told Sergianism, the subservience of the church to the government, has been repudiated by the MP.  Then we see during the last elections in Russia, the Patriarch allowing voting booths to be erected in monasteries and promising the clergy vote to Putin; the Patriarch congratulating the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on Victory Day, the commemoration of their defeat of the American forces; an announcement that the MP will build a church in North Korea, where there are almost no Orthodox faithful.  In recent years, the MP has regularly met with Muslim clerics from Iran.  The theme of one of their conferences was “Battling American Globalism.”  Interesting how all these actions coincide with Putin’s foreign policy, the desire to re-establish Russia as a Soviet-style world power.  Are these the activities of a church independent of the state? 

Have any of our parishioners considered what membership in a church that is allied with such a religious body might mean for them?  Many of them work for the governments or the military of whatever country they live in.  Have they forgotten how our older generation was treated with great suspicion in earlier decades, when they sought work in the government?  How they were kept apart from other employees and were not given security clearances?  The power of guilt by association is great.  How will they answer the polygraph examiner when he asks if they are a member of any foreign organization?  If international affairs heat up, will we be tarred with the same brush, if we belong to a church that supports America’s enemies?  Has anyone thought ahead, instead of getting misty-eyed as we look towards Mother Russia?

Archives of the former Soviet Union have shown that Patriarch Alexy II cooperated with the KGB and even had a cover name, Drozdov. The Russian Church Abroad was started with the help of members of the White movement, who, along with others, battled the Soviet Union and communism for decades. Has anyone thought of the bitter irony of such a church commemorating a KGB agent, as it will have to once union is achieved?  The MP may canonize Metropolitan Sergey (Stragorodskiy) as a martyr (at a minimum) or possibly more.  Will the ROCOR parishes then honor the cleric who caused so much division in the Russian Orthodox Church and who was the antithesis of everything that ROCOR stood for?

Our clergy also says the issue of ecumenism has been resolved.  Yet on the very day that the documents of the joint commissions are released, the Patriarch meets in Moscow with the leaders of the World Council of Churches, the premier ecumenical organization.  You would think that at least for the sake of our church, the Patriarch would schedule the meeting on another day.  It just shows a complete, callous indifference and lack of respect for our church.  Those documents of the joint commissions also include an escape clause for the MP, in that it underlines the importance of remaining members in ecumenical organizations.  The Moscow Patriarchate will continue whatever behavior is politically expedient and some of our clergy will continue to find excuses for them.

“Trust, but verify.”  So far there has been little verification that this union is a natural, God-given thing.  There has been much evidence that we should bide our time, maintain friendly relations with the MP and wait for generations to pass.  We can maintain contacts with the faithful in Russia and work together to continue and strengthen the spiritual rebirth occurring there.  By remaining defenders of the truth, we can cause the renewal of the Russian Orthodox Church, just as Reagan’s convictions contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union.  Then the force of this reborn faith will wash away the traces of the Soviet Union and reveal God’s will and not that of man.

 * * *

ТАЙНА ЛИЧНОСТИ ЦАРЯ.

Священник Кирилл Зайцев (Архим. Константин)  Продолжение см. № 27-28

     Арбитром, на которого не может быть апелляции, продолжал считать себя Государь и во внутренней гражданской политике. Акт 3 июня 1907 г., которым была нарушена буква «конституции», но которым Россия была выведена из тупика думской неработоспособности, явился плодом именно такого умоначертания Царя. «От Господа Бога вручена нам власть царская над народом нашим, перед престолом Его мы дадим ответ за судьбы державы Российской», - читаем мы в манифесте 3 июня!

    На свою совесть брал иногда Царь и решения в вопросах церковных, и тут не считая себя формально связанным решением Св. Синода. Осведомленный Жевахов говорит, что Царь в течение своего царствования всего лишь три раза проявил свою самодержавную волю в отношении Синода. Первый раз это было в деле прославления св. Иоасафа Белгородского, в 1910 году. С нетерпением, ожидая назначения Синодом торжества прославления, Царь не счел себя, однако, вправе торопить Синод. Но когда состоялось мнение Синода о необходимости отложить это торжество, то Царь, не согласившись с доводами обер-прокурора и Синода, сам назначил срок его. Второй раз его воля была проявлена в деле прославления св. Иоанна, митрополита Тобольского. Наконец, третий случай связан с назначением митр. Питирима на петербургскую кафедру и с перемещением митрополита Владимира в Киев…

     Были, по-видимому, и другие аналогичные случаи, не отмеченные Жеваховым. Так, Гурко говорит об отмене Государем предписания Синода о перемещении иеромонаха Илиодора, каковое распоряжение Государя, по свидетельству Гурко, произвело очень тягостное впечатление на митр. Антония.

     Не будем касаться двух последних частных случаев, касающихся личностей – тут, как во всяких вопросах личных, всегда возможны разные мнения и противоречивые оценки. Что же касается роли Царя в деле прославления святых, то нельзя не признать, что Царь в этом вопросе шел, в духовном плане, впереди Синода, находившегося под известным влиянием века, с его равнодушием и скептицизмом в делах веры. В частности, отсрочку канонизации митр. Иоанна Синод мотивировал необходимостью учесть политические соображения – в них уже, во всяком случае, Царь мог считать себя более компетентным, чем Синод! В общей же форме значение личности Царя в деле канонизации святых, прославленных в его царствование, митр. Антоний (Киевский и Галицкий) характеризовал так в 1930 году:

     «Царствование Императора Николая II ознаменовалось открытием в России мощей святых  угодников и их прославлением. Насколько в России это дело в последнее время было трудным, видно из того, что после открытия мощей св. Тихона Задонского в 1861 г., сопровождавшегося народным энтузиазмом и многими чудесами, по России распространился слух, будто бы Император Александр II выразился, что это будет последний святой в России. Я не верю, чтобы Государь мог сказать такую фразу, но самый факт распространения такого слуха достаточно характеризует тогдашние общественные настроения. В царствование Государя Императора Николая II были открыты мощи св. Феодосия Черниговского (1896 г.), пр. Серафима Саровского (1903 г.), св. Иоасафа Белгородского (1911 г.), Иоанна Тобольского, Анны Кашинской, Питирима Тамбовского. Я помню, как в одном из заседаний Св. Синода один из Иерархов заметил, что нельзя же до бесконечности продолжать прославление святых. Взоры присутствовавших обратились на меня, и я ответил: «если мы верим в Бога, то мы должны быть рады прославлению св. угодников». Из этого видно, заканчивает Владыка, насколько велико было благочестие Государя, который почти первый решился на это дело».

     Приведенного нами материала достаточно для того, чтобы мы могли считать разъясненной природу разномыслия и разночувствия между Царем и обществом русским, поскольку тут дело было в различии понимания и оценки существа царской власти и ее прерогатив в России. Но этим мы еще не решили вопроса в целом. Самого существенного мы еще не сказали и даже на него не намекнули! Ведь, как мы знаем, разномыслие и разночувствие наблюдалось не только между Царем и людьми церковно-индифферентными (не говорим уже о людях враждебных и чуждых Церкви), а и между ним и людьми, и к Церкви близкими, и Царю преданными, - иногда до последней капли крови!

     Из вышесказанного понятно, почему не было общего языка у Царя с кадетами или хотя бы с Витте. Но был ли у Царя действительно общий язык со Столыпиным, которого Царь искренно и глубоко уважал и ценил и который со своей стороны делом и самой смертью своей доказал свою преданность Царю? Между Столыпиным и Царем, в более, конечно, слабой степени, но тоже ощущалось известное и очень существенное разномыслие и разночувствие.

     Тут мы подходим к загадке, которая находит себе разрешение только в событиях позднейших, для взора современников Царя в эпоху его царствования недоступных. Вместе с тем, мы подходим к явлениям, которые нередко люди, даже и не так уж далекие от Церкви, отметают, наклеивая на них ярлык «мистики», «мистических настроений» и т.д. Да, Царь, несомненно, был во власти таких «настроений». Другими словами, - он способен был знать и видеть то, чего не могли видеть и знать люди духовно менее одаренные и менее живущие духом. И именно та настроенность, которая у Государя зрела в его «мистическом надсознании», делала его относительно-равнодушным ко всему тому культурному, экономическому, политическому блеску, который так украшал его царствование и на пользу которого с таким увлечением, с таким подлинным пафосом работали его приближенные, его сотрудники – и впереди всех Столыпин.

     Нужно, впрочем, сказать, что и Столыпин, по свидетельству лиц, его знавших, не вполне чужд был «мистического» ощущения бездны, которая грозила поглотить Россию. Чувство это, в большей или меньшей степени, было свойственно чуть ли ни всем очень выдающимся русским консерваторам самого разного психологического и умственного уклада. Оно лежало в основе того недоверия к положительным результатам гражданского развития страны, которое с такой резкостью обнаруживалось у Победоносцева и Леонтьева. Оно, в разных дозах, присуще было и многим из тех, кто не склонен был идти за этими столпами «реакции», причем этот страх ощущался ими нередко совершенно инстинктивно, не поддаваясь уразумению и находясь иногда в полном противоречии с практически принятой ими политической позицией.

     Так это было и со Столыпиным. Он своей большой душой интуитивно иногда ощущал неблагополучие, веявшее над Россией, но как человек практического дела и борьбы, не задумался над этими «предчувствиями», и гнал их от себя и продолжал лихорадочно работать в плане политическом и только в нем. И здесь, конечно, он был не всецело с Государем…

     Позиция Столыпина была ясна. Россия зреет для величайшего благоденствия и славы – вернее, уже «дозревает» для окончательного  вступления в новую блистательнейшую фазу своего мирового существования. Что ей нужно для этого? Относительно небольшой срок времени, потребный для завершения ее политического перевоспитания. Это перевоспитание наглядно при Столыпине совершилось и завершалось. Россия, с одной стороны, делалась страной мелких собственников, избавляясь от проказы сельской общины и проникаясь здоровым сознанием индивидуализма, хозяйственного и правового. С другой стороны, Россия, в составе своих имущих классов, постепенно приспособлялась и приучалась к сознательной гражданской жизни, основанной на началах разумной свободы. Государственная Дума, при всех ее недочетах, в этом отношении служила, в глазах Столыпина, прекрасной школой, принося вместе с тем полезные плоды и как контрольный аппарат над бюрократией. Столыпин верил, что эксцессы, отравлявшие деятельность Думы, постепенно сгладятся, как проявление детской болезни. Он уже и видел положительный успех, в этом отношении достигнутый после акта 3 июня. Незадолго до смерти, он мечтал только о том, чтобы России Бог дал мир еще на несколько лет. Пишущему эти строки доводилось держать в руках письмо покойного премьера к Извольскому, которое проникнуто именно такими мыслями и настроениями.

     Эта программа Столыпина – в плане, свободном от «мистики»! – была абсолютно правильна и совершенно убедительна. Она увлекала его, поглощая всецело его силы. Она была тем идеалом, устремляясь к которому слагалась в России новая политическая идеология. На этой идеологии и вырастала некая новая «Столыпинская» Россия. Но какое-то уже новое место занимал в ней старый русский Царь!

     Формально Царь продолжал, правда, быть в центре всего. Не только никакой закон не мог воспринять силу без его утверждения, но весь правительственный аппарат оставался в его руках. Важнейшие отрасли народной жизни продолжали быть в его всецелом единоличном ведении, с устранением представительных учреждений: Церковь и армия жили так, как они жили до первой революции. Но внутренняя связь, соединявшая Царя с Россией, постепенно ослаблялась, сходила на нет. Россия наглядно выходила из-под власти Царя, она все больше тяготилась ею. И чем более осторожным и менее притязательным становилось воздействие на общество этой власти, тем раздражительнее относилось оно к проявлениям ее.

     Тут мы подходим еще к одной загадке, раскрытие которой вскрывает факт постыдный, тягостный. Пока Россия жила, сознанием своих исконных подневольных обязанностей, оставаясь крепко стянутой узлом служилой и крепостной неволи, она была внутренне-крепка. По мере же того, как она вкушала от плода гражданской свободы, неудержимо утрачивала она внутреннюю крепость и делалась жертвой своеволия, анархии, бунтарства. Великая вещь – гражданская свобода! Но она предполагает способность и готовность свободного подчинения. Русские Цари, от царствования к царствованию, богато одаряли Россию благами гражданской свободы. С необыкновенной последовательностью, настойчивостью и любовью, еще задолго до Александра II, властно насаждали они ее в своей стране – насильственно порою внедряли, опираясь на тот капитал верноподданнического послушания, который завещан, был Московской Русью Петербургской России. И они добились постепенно результатов грандиозных. Россия росла, как на дрожжах. Мы уже отмечали громадность ее гражданских успехов. Вот наступил момент, когда, наконец, последние остатки крепостничества в России были упразднены! Это и было делом знаменитой Столыпинской реформы, которая отнюдь не просто была агротехнической земельной реформой, а означала второе и подлинное освобождение крестьян от уз сословно-крепостной зависимости, с превращением их в равноправных граждан, живущих по общему гражданскому праву, как свободные собственники. Но в том то и была трагедия, что в глазах «свободной» России Царь не так уж казался нужен! Правда, он и раньше перестал быть нужен для той темной массы общинного крестьянства, которую, логике вопреки, продолжали держать, в составе граждански свободной России, на началах устаревшего общинно-передельческого крепостничества. Реформа Столыпина своей прямой задачей и имела создать нового крестьянина – собственника, способного занять место того общинника-передельщика, который с каким то экстатическим упрямством ждал от революции вожделенного черного передела, которого он не дождался и который он изверился получить от Царя. Но, повторяем, в том то и была беда, в том и был стыд и мрак, раскрывающийся в процессе раскрытия русской исторической загадки, что начало гражданской свободы не уживалось в русском быту с прежним церковно-православным и верноподданническим сознанием. В том-то и была русская трагедия, что гражданский расцвет России покупался ценой отхода русского человека от Царя и от Церкви. Свободная Великая Россия не хотела оставаться Святой Русью! Разумная свобода превращалась в мозгу и в душе русского человека в высвобождение от духовной дисциплины, в охлаждение к Церкви, в неуважению к Царю…

(Продолжение следует)

   *********************************************************************************************************************