In modern historical studies and publications, information is sometimes found that the parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate in Finland (the Pokrovskaya and Nikolskaya communities) at a certain time became a stumbling block in the relationship between the Russian and Finnish Orthodox Churches. In this article, a graduate student of the Moscow Theological Academy, Hieromonk Siluan (Nikitin), makes an attempt to clarify this issue on the basis of documents from the State Archives of the Russian Federation, focusing on the period from 1957 to 1988, and also to show how relations developed between the Helsinki parish of the Finnish Orthodox Church and parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate.
The introduction of a new style (paschalia) into the Finnish Orthodox Church in 1923 was the reason for the formation in Finland of two old calendar communities - Pokrovskaya and Nikolskaya - which still exist, being under the omophorion of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The initiative in creating the Intercession community was shown by a group of Orthodox residents of the city of Vyborg, headed by the nun Anna (in the world Anna Dmitrievna Pugina). This group, starting in 1925, began to secretly perform divine services at Pugina's home, and in 1926 a petition was submitted to the Finnish government to open a private community in Vyborg on the basis of the Charter developed by Archpriest Grigory Svetlovsky. The government approved the "Charter of a private Orthodox community in the city of Vyborg" and allowed the opening of a community in which divine services would be performed in the Slavonic language, and holidays would be celebrated according to the Julian calendar[i]. Metropolitan Evlogii (Georgievsky), who at that time managed a part of the Russian parishes abroad, received the community under his omophorion.
The emergence of a private old-style Nikolskaya community in the mountains. Helsinki took place in conditions largely similar to the circumstances of the birth and organization of the Intercession community. In 1927, the Ministry of Education of Finland gave permission to open a private Nikolsky parish, which until 1984 was called the "Sister Helsingfors community" and lived according to the charter of the Intercession community. In 1984, the Nikolskaya community seceded from the Pokrovskaya community and is now called the "Orthodox St. Nicholas Parish in Helsinki" and lives according to a new charter approved in the same year by the Finnish Ministry of Education.
Since 1931, both parishes, under the administration of Metropolitan Evlogii (Georgievsky), were under the temporary jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Metropolitan Grigory (Chukov) of Leningrad and Novgorod, who arrived in Finland in October 1945, reunited them with the Russian Orthodox Church. By the decision of the Holy Synod of October 24, 1945, No. 27, two communities of the city of Helsinki, subordinate to Metropolitan Evlogy, were accepted into the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. The management of the communities was entrusted to Metropolitan Grigory of Leningrad.
At the end of the 1950s The Pokrovsky and Nikolsky parishes, which are under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, united a small number of Russian emigrants living in Helsinki and in the immediate vicinity of the Finnish capital. So, in the Nikolskaya community there were 1200, and in Pokrovsky only about 400 parishioners, moreover, of this number, only about 30% of the parishioners took part in church life.
The parishes themselves could not cover the expenses for churches and for the maintenance of clergy, therefore, with the emergence of communities, they were organized in the Pokrovsky parish "Orthodox Brotherhood", in the Nikolsky parish "The Brotherhood of St. Nicholas", which annually held bazaars-lotteries, and the proceeds went to the needs of the temples. Since 1945, the Moscow Patriarchate paid a small subsidy for the maintenance of the clergy, but still the clergy, in comparison with the clergy of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Finnish Autonomous Orthodox Church, lived poorly and were often forced to combine pastoral service with secular work[v] .
The restoration in 1957 of prayer-canonical communion between the Russian and Finnish Orthodox Churches could not but affect the life of the Patriarchal parishes in Helsinki. Thus, analyzing the activities of the Patriarchal parishes, employees of the Soviet Embassy in Finland in 1958 noted that “the rectors of the parishes, who themselves are not supporters of rapprochement with the Finnish Orthodox Church, in their daily work do not explain to their parishioners the significance of the decisions of the Synod and do not stop conversations and attacks harming relations between the Russian and Finnish churches".
There is evidence that the decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church to restore communion with the Finnish Orthodox Church was received coldly by the clergy and parishioners of both parishes, and some even with resentment. The latter declared: “We survived great hardships and persecution, but retained the purity of faith and devotion to the Russian Church, but we may suffer the fate of the monks of the Valaam Monastery, whom the Moscow Patriarchate so easily handed over to the reformers.” Dean Archpriest Mikhail Slavnitsky also reported about the same to the hierarchy in 1960, saying that the clergy of the Patriarchal parishes “are very poorly disposed towards the official (Finnish) Orthodox Church and the matter of prayerful communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Finnish one.”
In 1962, the Soviet embassy pointed out to the new dean of the Patriarchal parishes, Archpriest Yevgeny Ambartsumov, that “the Patriarchal Parishes in their present form are not the conductors of the policy of the Russian Orthodox Church in strengthening and developing the restored prayer-canonical communion with the Finnish Orthodox Church, they do not strengthen our positions in circles local Russian emigration".
Both the change of rectors and the merging of two parishes into one were indicated as desirable transformations. But in fact, in order to improve relations, it was decided in the spring of 1960 to turn to the Archbishop of Karelia and Finland German (Aav) “with a fraternal request to instruct one of the bishops of the Finnish Orthodox Church to ordain the deacon of the Intercession community Nikolai Starostin to the rank of priest” [x] .
The primate of the Finnish Orthodox Church, Archbishop German, agreed to this request in May of the same year, the rector of the Intercession community, priest Boris Pavinsky, was appointed as the confessor of the protege, who on September 9 interrogated, confessed and took the oath of deacon Starostin, and handed over the questionnaire and the oath to the locum tenens of the archbishop - Bishop Alexander (Karpin) of Helsingfors.
Bishop Alexander announced in June Fr. Boris Pavinsky that Starostin’s consecration will take place not in the Church of the Intercession Community, as was supposed, but in the Assumption Cathedral in Helsinki, and also that due to the summer period and the holidays of “the necessary and necessary personnel, the consecration is postponed until August, and since August is expected the next Council of the Finnish Orthodox Church, then most likely the ordination will take place no earlier than September.
Despite this, in a letter from Metropolitan Nicholas to Archbishop Herman dated June 3, 1960, we read the following: “Having a spiritual need, dear Vladyka, accept Your Eminence from us heartfelt gratitude for your constant attention to our requests and for your and Your Grace hierarchs paternal attitude towards the clergy of our parishes in Helsinki”.
In the Assumption Cathedral on September 11, 1960, Bishop Alexander (Karpin) of Helsingfors, priest Boris Pavinsky was elevated to the rank of archpriest, and deacon Nikolai Starostin was ordained to the priesthood. This was the first of the few consecrations of a clergyman of the Russian Orthodox Church as a bishop of the Finnish Orthodox Church.
Joint services played an important role in bringing the Russian and Finnish Orthodox Churches closer together. Back in the late 1950s, the Finnish side remained somewhat wary of more active interaction with the Patriarchal parishes. So, at the suggestion of the Dean of the Patriarchal parishes in Helsinki, Fr. M. Slavnitsky about the joint worship in the Assumption Cathedral in Helsinki, Bishop Alexander (Karpin) replied: “Unfortunately, lately there has been a lot of talk not in favor of our unification, and mainly from your side. No measures are being taken to stop sharp attacks against our Church. In the near future, a delegation from you should come and, most likely, will be headed by a bishop, and then we will arrange a solemn service in our church.
The situation has seriously changed since the early 1960s: Finnish Orthodox clergy began to participate in services in the Church of the Intercession and St. Nicholas, and the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church were invited to services in the churches of the Finnish Orthodox Church. One of the first joint divine services consisted in the cathedral service of the Liturgy in the Church of the Intercession Community on December 24, 1961, when the priest of the Assumption Cathedral in Helsinki, Andrei (Arvi) Karpov, took part in it.
This good tradition was consolidated in 1964 by Archbishop Pavel (Olmari), who in 1960 replaced Herman (Aav), who had retired. On the patronal feast of the Intercession Community, Vladyka Pavel led the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in its church. Later on, both Archbishop Pavel and Metropolitan John (Rinne), who replaced Bishop Alexander at the See of Helsingfors in 1969, often celebrated services in the churches of the Patriarchal Communities.
The deans of the Patriarchal parishes and their clergy most often had to communicate with the clergy of the Helsinki parish of the Finnish Orthodox Church. During the period we are studying, especially warm relations developed with Archpriest Mikhail Kasanko, rector of the Assumption Cathedral, with the clergyman Archpriest Seraphim Filin, with Priest Mstislav Mogilyansky, Protodeacon Mikhail Krysin and others.
By the end of the 1960s. the rapprochement of the two churches on the example of the relationship between the Helsinki parish and the Patriarchal communities was evident. So, at the next joint dinner of the capital’s clergy of the Finnish Orthodox Church and the clergy of the St. Nicholas and Intercession communities, Archpriest Mikhail Kasanko said, “now that the issue of style has lost its relevance, it would seem that there is no great need for the existence of Old Calendar communities, but at the same time they existence at the present time plays a large positive role, since the services in them are performed in the Church Slavonic language, while in the official church services are increasingly forced to be performed in the Finnish language. It is also known that in 1966 Father Mikhail Kasanko and Protodeacon Olli Bergman turned to the Dean of the Patriarchal parishes, Fr. Ambartsumov with a request “say, once a month, to hold divine services in the Finnish language in the Intercession Church, since many Orthodox Finns live in that area.”
In 1968, the serious illness of Archpriest Georgy Pavinsky, rector of the Nikolsky community, and the advanced age of the rector of the Intercession community, Archpriest Boris Pavinsky, caused the issue of a temporary invitation of a priest either from the Finnish Orthodox Church or from the Soviet Union to help the aged rectors of the Patriarchal parishes. It is known that also during the celebration of patronal feasts in the churches of communities, because of the service of the clergy of one or another community in the church-birthday, priests of the Finnish Orthodox Church were invited to worship. It is known that Stefan Siili, a youth priest of the Helsinki parish, was invited to serve on Intercession in 1969 in St. Nicholas Church, and Archpriest Seraphim Filin sometimes replaced Father Boris.
The state authorities of Finland, represented by the Minister of Education, Pastor Gustav Bernstrand (and previous Ministers of Education), the Minister of the Interior, the head of the Office of the Ministry of Education, have constantly expressed the opinion that “the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church play a great role in the development of mutual understanding, good neighborly relations and friendship between the peoples of Finland and USSR and in the implementation of joint peacekeeping activities.
It also considered the role of the Patriarchal parishes and the leadership of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, noting the "positive role of the parishes in the implementation of theological, ecumenical and peacemaking activities between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Lutheran" .
However, there were also difficulties, primarily related to the status of the Patriarchal parishes. In May 1965, it became known that, perhaps, at the expected Church Council of the Finnish Orthodox Church, the question of "the abnormal situation of the two Patriarchal communities, which by right should be under the jurisdiction of the Finnish Church" will be raised. The dean of the Patriarchal parishes, Archpriest Yevgeny Ambartsumov, wrote the following to Moscow about this: “In any case, according to the Charter of our private communities, their position can only be changed by a joint resolution of the general meeting of both communities, so that it will be almost impossible for the Novostylists to take possession of our communities, even if the Patriarchate would make these concessions.
The fact that the leadership of the Finnish Orthodox Church was really worried about the status of the Intercession and St. Nicholas communities, we learn from the following event. In 1967, at a solemn act on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Patriarchal parishes in Finland, Archbishop Pavel said, “that the Finnish Church headed by him still remains a party that only receives the love of the Russian Church through two parishes, and he rejoices for those Russians in Finland, who can hear divine services in their native language, but his Church could also spiritually nourish their fellow tribesmen living on the territory of the Soviet Union. Bishop of Zaraisk (now Metropolitan of Krutitsy and Kolomna) Yuvenaly (Poyarkov), representing the Moscow Patriarchate at the celebrations, in response, noted the constant desire of the Russian Orthodox Church to always seek dialogue in resolving such issues, “which is evidenced by the presence of representative offices of the Local Orthodox Churches on its canonical territory.” To this, Archbishop Pavel replied that “he has to approach the issue of the Patriarchal parishes not from the point of view of the canons, but condescendingly out of love, bearing in mind that this situation is temporary,” and he has no specific proposals or requirements.
On the eve of the departure of the Moscow delegation from Finland, Bishop Yuvenaly met with an active parishioner of the Intercession community Andrey Saarlo, who expressed his opinion on the future of the Intercession and Nikolskaya communities, proposing for the further existence of these parishes:
Bishop Juvenaly made the following conclusion: “I have the impression that Saarlo is not only familiar with the thoughts of Archbishop Paul, but also represents local interests,” and Reverend Prot. Yevgeny Ambartsumov, supporting the idea of transforming the communities in the courtyard, informed the Administrator of the Parishes in Finland, Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod Nikodim (Rotov) the following: “Our parishes, following the example of the Finnish parishes, should be merged into one parish with one Church Council, common clergy and rector. If circumstances allow, it would be good if the rector was a priest from Russia, who would be able to develop ecumenical work.
In October 1969, during a trip to Finland, the new dean of the Patriarchal parishes, Fr. Igor Ranne heard from the cleric of the Intercession community, Hieromonk Longin (Talypin) (later Archbishop of Klin), the same wish about the need to change the charter of the communities. The next day, the Dean met with an active parishioner of the Pokrovskaya community Andrei Saarlo, and it turned out that a draft of a new Charter was already ready, in which the following paragraphs of the former one would be changed:
Such activity immediately aroused Father Igor's strong suspicion that, in view of the strong decrease in members in the Patriarchal parishes, Saarlo sought to "facilitate their transition to the jurisdiction of the Finnish Orthodox Church." Archpriest Ranne noted that he “had repeatedly heard about the desire of the Finnish Orthodox Church for our communities to first unite into one, and then be turned into a representative office of the Russian Orthodox Church, or, what is the same, into a Russian courtyard.” There were also talks about setting up a skete in the city of Helsinki in the Intercession community, moving the remaining Valaam monks into it, and from the St. Nicholas community to arrange a "Metochion of the Russian Orthodox Church." In particular, the supporter of this project was the priest of the Finnish Orthodox Church Olli (Oleg) Bergman.
Nevertheless, on October 22, 1969, Archpriest Igor Ranne held a meeting of the Church Council of the Nikolskaya community, at which "the issue of changing the name of the community and updating the charter was accepted by the council with great enthusiasm."
The meeting of the Church Council in the Pokrovskaya community on this issue was held on October 26, 1969 and, unlike the Nikolskaya community, the Council was very wary of the issue of updating the charter and changing some of its paragraphs and decided that “this issue requires careful preparation and discussion".
Alarming rumors that "the Moscow Patriarchate, having no more funds to maintain its parishes, is going to transfer them to the jurisdiction of the Finnish Orthodox Church" began to spread among the members of the communities in the autumn of 1972. In connection with this, an inventory of property was even made in the Pokrovskaya community.
Later, the rumors were confirmed. In 1973, on August 16, Metropolitan John of Helsingfors (Rinne) celebrated his 50th birthday. After the solemn Liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral, he accepted congratulations throughout the day. At the allotted time, both clergymen and selected parishioners of the Patriarchal parishes, led by Dean Archpriest Igor Ranne, arrived to congratulate Vladyka John. After many years were sung to the hero of the day, the metropolitan “thanked the guests for their good feelings and relations and immediately unexpectedly said that he would still like to see a single Orthodox Church in his diocese.” In the report of Archpriest Ranne to Metropolitan Nikodim dated September 8, 1973, we read that John (Rinne) did not directly express his desire, but only hinted that “the time has come for our communities to transfer to the jurisdiction of the Finnish Orthodox Church, and that he hopes that this is not at all would not affect good relations with the Russian Orthodox Church.
Metropolitan John shared this idea about the transition of the Patriarchal parishes under his omophorion to the press, which caused bewilderment even among the Lutherans. So, the head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, Archbishop Martti Simoekki, on August 24, 1973, in a conversation with Archpriest. Ranne noted that “he read the statements of Metropolitan John regarding our parishes in Helsinki, that he was extremely surprised in general and in particular by the fact that these statements were made on the day of the anniversary. The archbishop said that he did not believe that this issue had been previously agreed with Archbishop Pavel.
Metropolitan John himself refused to comment on his statements about the Patriarchal parishes, saying that he would return to this issue at the first meeting with Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod Nikodim (Rotov), Administrator of the Parishes. At the same time, he also refused an invitation to visit Leningrad on October 9 of the same year, since a trip to Greece was planned for that time.
John (Rinne) visited the Russian Orthodox Church in November 1973, but if before his trip to the Soviet Union, Metropolitan John repeatedly said that he wanted to discuss the issue of joining the Patriarchal parishes to the diocese of Helsingfors in a personal conversation with Metropolitan Nikodim, then at the meeting he For some reason, he backed off. During his stay in the Soviet Union, John (Rinne) returned to the issue of the status of the Patriarchal parishes only once - on November 24 in Leningrad at the apartment of Fr. Igor Ranne. “To the toast I raised about the expansion and deepening of church contacts, Metropolitan John jokingly remarked: “I am so “for” that I would even like to unite your parishes with our Church,” Father Igor wrote. John (Rinne) did not return to the problem of Patriarchal parishes during the period we are describing.
But Andrei Saarlo returned to her, and this concerned, first of all, the Intercession community. From the report of the Dean of the Patriarchal parishes, Archpriest Bogdan Soiko, to the chairman of the DECR, Metropolitan of Minsk and Belarus Filaret (Vakhromeev), dated October 29, 1985, we learn that he “intends to propose to Your Eminence to organize a courtyard, which would mean the nominal closure of parishes and the transfer of buildings to the balance of the Moscow Patriarchate » . However, the planned meeting was prevented by the sudden death of Andrei Saarlo on March 9, 1986.
At the meeting of the Church Council of the Intercession community on April 19, 1986, according to the agenda, it was planned to raise this issue and it was assumed that the overwhelming majority of votes would be in favor of the transition (it was noted that only two, at most three members out of eight were against). As a result of the meeting, the chairman of the Church Council, priest Mikhail Polyachenko, sent a report to Metropolitan Filaret (Vakhromeev), in which he reported that “the situation in the Pokrovskaya Community is greatly aggravated and difficult due to the ever-decreasing number of active individuals who could fully devote their time to work on favor of the Intercession Community. In addition, two unexpected deaths (of Saarlo and Archpriest Kilgast) are reflected in the state and strength of the members of the Church Council, most of whom are already in old age. The Church Council informs Your Eminence that he is forced to find concrete ways to solve the future of the Intercession Community, which is not indifferent to the members of the Church Council, as well as all parishioners of the Intercession Community.
When an untidy man in a dirty cassock walks down the street, this hardly helps the Church to improve its image in the eyes of the people. I understand perfectly well: among the priests there are people for whom our world is already completely uninteresting: they do not pay much attention to it, and therefore, let's say, do not look after their appearance and speak in a language incomprehensible to ordinary people. But it is precisely for them that Orthodoxy provides for the path of deep monastic seclusion, solitude one on one with God…
Reference: Archpriest Alexander Ranne was born in 1952 in Leningrad. Graduated from the Leningrad Theological Seminary and Academy. Trained at the Gregorian University of the Vatican. Associate Professor of the St. Petersburg Academy, Candidate of Theology.
Noisy obscurantists
- Father Alexander, for almost twenty years now there has been no official anti-church propaganda in our country, and yet, in the eyes of many people, the image of a believer remains the same, formed by the Soviet ideology: a dark, uneducated obscurantist. What is it connected with?Another thing is a different category of the near-church public - poorly educated, superstitious people, who often visit the temple infrequently. The fight against the TIN and all sorts of conspiracies worries them much more than prayer and communication with God. They have a very vague idea of what Christianity is, but they make a lot of noise and constantly shock the public, speaking on every corner in the name of the Church. It is not surprising that it is precisely such outcasts that form in people the idea of all Orthodox.
Alas, today few bother to delve deeper into this issue. Most people, in principle, do not want to learn anything about the Church. In the daily cycle of affairs, they simply do not have time for this, and subconsciously it is easier for them to live with old, well-established stereotypes than to figure out who the Orthodox really are.
- In your opinion, is this a problem - common to all of modern Russia?
I think yes. It is unlikely that Novgorod differs here from our capitals. The media and the Internet are the same everywhere, the information environment, respectively, is the same. Yes, and the population is not too different: there are educated people, there are not.
Of course, there is a certain spiritual inertia. But where is she not? For some reason, I can't believe that in our country there are heavenly places where people go to churches and libraries in droves, in a hurry to educate themselves en masse and raise their cultural level.
However, it is not necessary to dramatize the situation. This problem has always existed.
What then should the Church do? Should she deal with this situation somehow?
You don't have to fight anything. I personally don’t like the word “struggle” here at all, because it implies some kind of pressure, and, accordingly, a counter reaction of rejection.
And the Church should not press. She must preach. Calmly, with confidence in their rightness and at a fairly high educational level.
And for this, it seems to me, we should turn our main efforts to educating literate, intelligent priests, because in fact, it depends on them what the Church will be like and what kind of people will come to it.
Therefore, we are investing so much effort today in the diocesan theological school. And I consider it necessary to exert even more effort and still create a full-fledged theological seminary on its basis, because without it we really risk turning into a real provincial swamp over time. After all, an illiterate, uneducated clergy is the greatest evil for the Church. Under no circumstances should this be allowed.
However, this does not mean that every priest should speak in incomprehensible scientific language from the pulpit exclusively on complex theological topics. Of course, this is also important. There are such priests, and intelligent, highly educated parishioners, as a rule, gather around them. But one must be able to speak with ordinary people, whose level does not allow them to conduct a conversation in the language of doctors of philosophy.
See how the Gospel text is written. Christ speaks in very understandable, simple words, but at the same time these words have many levels, and over time a person begins to understand them deeper and deeper, although the meaning of what was said does not change.
So the priest should not boast of his education. In many ways, his work is similar to the work of a teacher who speaks to children in a language they can understand, but at the same time does not lower himself to their level of knowledge, and is ready, if necessary, to answer any more complex question on his subject.
The ability to communicate with people is an important virtue of a priest. Therefore, by the way, he must be attractive spiritually and morally, must be endearing and be able to find a common language with the laity.
When an untidy man in a dirty cassock walks down the street, this hardly helps the Church to improve its image in the eyes of the people. I understand perfectly well: among the priests there are people for whom our world is already completely uninteresting: they do not pay much attention to it, and therefore, let's say, do not look after their appearance and speak in a language incomprehensible to ordinary people. But after all, it is precisely for them that Orthodoxy provides for the path of deep monastic seclusion, solitude one on one with God... If a monk or a simple priest goes somewhere to preach, he must be ready to communicate with people, must be able to speak their language and not call disgust with their appearance.
Indecent ignorance
- Is it possible to believe at all, not backed by knowledge?A Christian must seek answers to questions all his life, because there will always be questions and doubts. Those who prefer to give up on them are simply spiritually lazy. After all, the Gospel tells us all: "Be perfect, even as our heavenly Father is perfect." Of course, people cannot become like God, but they must strive for this.
Brush off your own doubts with the words: “Ah, okay! The Church probably already knows the answer!” - it is impossible, if only because every Christian is a part of the Church. And he himself must know this answer.
The main thing to remember is that without the desire for knowledge you are not a Christian.
- This is very different from the idea of the Church as an opponent of unnecessary knowledge, and science in general...
In fact, Christianity declares freedom in the study of the material world, and leaves for religion a sphere that is beyond our reality, and simply cannot be comprehended by the rational forces of science.
The object of faith is Revelation. The church simply preserves what God gave people two thousand years ago. As for our reality, there is complete freedom here.
Please study! Just do not do inhuman experiments on living people. Here the Church intervenes, but not from a theological, but exclusively from a moral standpoint.
Christians need not be afraid of superfluous knowledge. Science cannot harm the Church; on the contrary, it can help. For example, in my personal spiritual development, it was science and study that played the most important role.
I am from a family of a priest. Therefore, my Orthodoxy was, as they say, absorbed with mother's milk. I remember how, as a child, I ran around our village, where my father served, but when I heard the sound of a bell, I immediately hurried home. Mom dressed me and my sister in everything clean, and we went to the temple. It was customary.
But then we moved to Leningrad, and my faith somehow gradually descended to the level of a simple performance of rituals. I remained Orthodox, even sang in the choir of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, but all this was somehow by inertia ...
It was here that education gave me a new impetus. For the first time, I was able to comprehend my own, so familiar, faith, to understand its meaning more deeply. I studied the Bible very thoughtfully, trying to penetrate as deeply as possible into what the ancient author wanted to tell us. With no less interest I read about biblical times in Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts. The discovery of new layers of Scripture so captured me that I still cannot tear myself away from this process. My only regret is that there is not enough time to study new books.
So I don’t even know how my relationship with the Church would have developed if it weren’t for science.
Educational plans
- Today, the Church is often accused of encroaching on secular education.I taught at school and I know what I'm talking about. If a priest comes to class and starts talking about Orthodoxy there, they will listen to him for a maximum of fifteen minutes, then the average student will get bored and switch off. Perhaps in the lower grades, children will still show interest in the priest, but in the older grades, the church preacher does not have the slightest chance.
I know that the study of the Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture has been introduced in central Russia, but I myself have not yet figured out how this subject is built, and how it can be introduced in our conditions in Novgorod, where neither students nor teachers are ready for it.
In my opinion, one should start with the development of a teaching methodology and program, with the search for an approach that can interest the student. It is necessary to train competent teachers, and this should be done jointly by the state and the Church, without whose participation teachers are unlikely to become qualified.
- And yet, do you think that religion should be taught at school?
You shouldn't be afraid of this. No information can make a person a believer or an unbeliever. Faith is something internal, it is connected with a revolution in the soul of a person, and not with the fact that he has learned some new knowledge in the lesson. Only a few can touch the soul of a student. No armies of propagandists or educators of the military-industrial complex, no matter how much new information they stuffed into a schoolchild, will still achieve this.
Yes, if everything was so simple, Christians would be trained in universities! But there were Christian universities, and nihilists came out of them. Jean-Jacques Rousseau still greatly exaggerated the role of pedagogy, and we too, following him.
Of course, the atheists are right: everything the Church does, she does for the sake of preaching. Otherwise, why would a priest go to teach at school at all? But I am going to a lesson with children not to agitate and not to lure, I just want to give them information, reflecting on which, they may or may not become believers. My task is to give them a choice, and I must do it, especially since in some areas of knowledge we have a catastrophic situation.
When I asked university students: “What is Easter?”, and the majority answered that it was Christmas, then the whole professorship was already clutching their heads, and not just me. This is not a church, not an Orthodox, but a social problem that needs to be understood and that needs to be addressed.
Today, people often complain that people have stopped going to museums. Why would they go there? Not knowing the biblical motives - not understanding the work of the Renaissance, not knowing the Hellenistic culture - not understanding the art of ancient Greece, and yet all these are the stages of history that shaped modern society.
- And how does your diocese interact with secular science?
- Here one could start complaining about some episodic conflicts and clashes, but, in my opinion, the fact that they exist is normal. It cannot be otherwise, they even have a certain benefit: we learn dialogue.
In general, everything is very good. There are many people here with whom our diocese is actively cooperating. For example, the International "Nikitsky Readings" organized by the Church and Novgorod University are held annually. Their theme is the influence of Orthodoxy on the tradition of Russian culture and education. Every year after the readings, we publish collections of scientific articles on this topic.
The diocese also participates in the conferences in memory of Dostoevsky, which are held in Staraya Russa, and also holds the annual conference for teachers "Znamensky Readings".
We also work with the university in terms of preparing students: we cooperate with the Faculty of Psychology and Education. In addition, I personally conduct a special course "Christian Ethics" at the Faculty of Philosophy.
In the future, I would like to create a secular theological department. This is extremely important, because our state needs specialists who understand church issues. These are journalists, and administrative workers who will have to contact with religious associations, and teachers in schools, who will also have to deal with the issue of religion one way or another.
- Sophia Cathedral, transferred to the diocese, continues to serve as a museum?
- Yes, between services, that is, somewhere from 12 to 18 hours, there are excursions in the cathedral, and, in my opinion, this is very good. The more people come there, the more they are told about the temple, the better. After all, what can one talk about in the Orthodox Church if not about Christ? Moreover, brilliant, well-educated guides work in St. Sophia Cathedral. I communicate with many of them - they are very well disposed towards the Church. Their story about the history of the cathedral, about the roots of ancient Russian art is also a kind of sermon.
You know, in some Catholic churches, tourists were forbidden to take pictures, and then they decided: why on earth? Let the images of Christian shrines disperse throughout the world! Let as many people as possible know about them!
Galina Orlova, Dean of the Faculty of Pedagogical Education,
Arts and Technology Novgorod State University
Crossing the chasm
Competent ideas about Orthodoxy are needed not only by the Orthodox. Alas, not everyone understands this today. Recently, a friend of mine from Moscow, an employee of the Institute of Philosophy, criticizing Orthodoxy, among other arguments, said: “Yes, they are all driving these priests in Mercedes!”. After all, the Institute of Philosophy is opposite the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, and there you can just see the parking lot from the window. In my opinion, such a claim to the world's largest religion on the part of a specialist in philosophy sounds a little strange.
What then to say about our students? But without elementary literacy in the matter of religion, the future teacher is professionally inferior.
Just imagine: after reading a book, a schoolboy asks a teacher of literature something about Christianity or asks a historian what the Synodal period is - how will they answer him? No way! Because they were not told anything about the history of the Church at the institute. The largest layer of our national culture just fell out and that's it.
It is terrible that people do not realize how significant this loss is. They think that all this is not necessary. They see our proposals for curricula and say with fatigue and irritation: “Well, what is there again? Spirituality again? But if you don't understand Orthodoxy, how will you understand, say, Dostoevsky? No way.
Today there is a lot of debate on the subject of "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture". And, in my opinion, we rather need not a separate subject, but some of its elements as part of literature, history, fine arts, and so on ... We just need to stop bypassing the obvious facts of the influence of Christianity on the relevant aspects of life and start talking about Orthodoxy as a significant factor influencing the entire culture. In my opinion, this approach is much better.
The main thing is not to be afraid that the “Law of God” will appear in a secular school, and the children will go to the temple in formation. It still won't happen!
In general, it is high time for science to get rid of such fears and overcome the gulf between itself and the Church. After all, this abyss is increasingly beginning to harm science itself, and not Orthodoxy.
A few years ago, our university began to establish contacts with the diocese, and it turned out that it was not so easy: we were too wary of each other. Then Father Alexander Ranne said, in my opinion, a wonderful phrase:
We should simply gather together: the priesthood and the intelligentsia. Just to drink tea, chat, get used to each other.
Indeed, we need this contact, we need to learn to communicate with each other, because there are enough joint problems, and the inability to understand each other is one of them.
I remember that we had several trial classes where the priests spoke to the students. Most people lost all interest almost immediately. But then, after the lecture, guys came up to me (which is interesting, mostly boys) and said in a whisper:
I have been thinking about all this for a long time, but I was afraid to go to church, I don’t know what to do there, how to behave ...
Now that the priest is regularly lecturing along with other teachers, it becomes easier. Nevertheless, if you see him regularly passing through the university corridor, then you begin to get used to the existence of the Church in your world.
Although, in my opinion, to engage in teaching is still not quite a priestly business. The same Father Alexander Ranne told me that he was not used to teaching, that his style was preaching. And here we need a scientific lecture.
My acquaintance with Archbishop Michael happened in the 70s, when I was already a pupil of the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary. He was known to me not only as a teacher of Basic Theology, a frequent co-servant with Metropolitan Nikodim, for whom I was a subdeacon, or a participant in many theological and ecumenical conferences, but also as a good friend of our family. Vladyka Michael visited us at home, and this always left an imprint of some significance of what was happening. He gave the impression of a man confident in the significance and authority of his knowledge.
The future archbishop decided to devote himself to serving the Church at a very difficult time. The unbridled anti-church propaganda made believers not so much regulars in prisons and camps as a disappearing group of outcasts. The children of priests did not enter the seminary - their families remembered too well the fate of their fathers and grandfathers. A series of public, high-profile renunciations of faith and the Church began, the apotheosis of which was the renunciation of the inspector of the seminary, Professor Archpriest Alexander Osipov. Vladyka Michael knew him well, and he even tried to dissuade him from the chosen path of serving the Church of Christ. The very fact of the decisive choice of this difficult path, special in those conditions, testifies to the deepest faith and courage of Archbishop Michael.
He was raised in a religious environment. For the rest of his life, he retained vivid impressions of the religious tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church even before the revolutionary period. Already in his old age, Vladyka told how, while still a boy, he spoiled himself along with his peers, standing on the pulpit of the church of the Georgian Exarchate's compound. The priest, probably an Ossetian with thick eyebrows and an aquiline nose, when he left the altar at the beginning of the Eucharistic canon, and saw this outrage, turned to them with indignation with words that were forever imprinted in his memory: “How can you behave like this, now the angels in heaven they cover their faces!”
In the twenties, already a young man, the future saint attended a religious circle in St. Petersburg. It is difficult to say what kind of circle it was, maybe Meyer's philosophical conversations, maybe something else. At that time, religious people were still trying to maintain their community, but it was there that he met his future wife, a girl of Lutheran origin, and it was on this occasion that he was arrested, and he ended up in “crosses”. For some reason, he was absolutely sure that Anna Akhmatova was also there at that time, although no evidence of this possible fact has yet been found. He did not stay in prison for long, a maximum of two or three months, and he was released because of his infancy, as he himself told about it. It was spring. He walked along the streets of Petrograd in torn shoes, through puddles and with tears, probably remembering the anti-religious agitation carried out with him in prison, thinking about the Church: how can she perish if Christ said that the gates of hell would not overcome her? And just then, the thought occurred to him that the Church is not confined within the borders of Russia, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and how and where the Lord will preserve it until the end of time is the work of God, and not of man.
Vladyka Michael was not only an outstanding theologian, but also an attentive and skillful teacher. He always answered in detail the questions put to him by the students, unless, of course, their stupidity or superficiality caused him sincere indignation. Everyone knows his attitude to the Russian language in the framework of worship. He was convinced that the main thing in worship is not euphony, but the transmission of meanings. And when they told him that there was no good enough translation into Russian, he declared that the synodal translation was quite sufficient for worship and, as you know, in his cathedral in Vologda the Holy Scripture was read in Russian.
I am present at the altar for worship, Vladyka always listened very attentively to the sermons of teachers and students. Once he also praised me for a sermon, and when I, not knowing from embarrassment what to answer, said on duty, but not very smart: “Thank you, Vladyka, for the compliment” - He answered with bewilderment, and perhaps with indignation, : “And this is not a compliment at all.” Then I had to clarify for a long time the meaning of the word that I used so senselessly. Although, if you look in the dictionary, this word means praise or a flattering remark for someone. It is clear that only a person who is well versed in the intricacies of the language could be indignant at the possible suspicion of the presence of a certain amount of flattery in the praise. The students of the Theological Schools of St. Petersburg were very proud when they heard rumors that Archbishop Michael in Finland, during a lecture, easily switched to German or read part of the lecture in Latin somewhere in Germany.
Archbishop Michael was a man who absolutely responsibly approached the justification of all his actions and words. His ecumenical activity was not just forced, like many still living professors, he was convinced that a true Christian not only cannot, but is also unable to remain in a closed environment, not conditioned by all sorts of influences. He was open and ready for the widest possible dialogue, and as an intelligent person he was incapable, did not like to throw mud at the criticism of his opponents from around the corner. At one of the conferences with Catholics in Munich, Archbishop Michael gave a report on Orthodox baptismal traditions, and the Catholics asked him the question: “How is it that the sacrament of chrismation does not exist in the Orthodox tradition as independently significant?” The answer was very simple: "This is a very ancient Orthodox tradition." But, what is most interesting, the argumentation was accepted by the Catholic side absolutely unquestioningly. This respect for a time-honored tradition is of great importance in Christian ecumenism.
Another fundamentally important answer from Vladyka to one of my questions, which sunk into my soul and over which I discussed for a long time. Who will be saved anyway? The answer was again instantaneous and at first glance very simple. Vladyka simply quoted for me a passage from the book of the Acts of the Apostles: “And it shall come to pass: everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21). This is the Apostle Peter, after the descent of the Holy Spirit, he quoted the texts of the prophet Joel to those gathered in Jerusalem. (2:31-32). In a more complete presentation, they sound like this: “The sun will turn into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. And it will come to pass: everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be salvation, as the Lord has said, and for the rest whom the Lord calls.” Of course, the question arises, who can call on the name of the Lord? Who are these chosen ones that the Lord will call? Who will be able to raise their hands to heaven and say: "Lord, save me!" The Church is a community of the called… And that is all that an Orthodox Christian can say. But again the question of the boundaries of the Church hangs in the air.
Vladyka Michael was an extremely sociable person, and in the professor's room during breaks he always actively talked with other teachers, sometimes played chess or played music on the piano.
In the last years of his life, he was very worried about his position as a person removed from church life. Although he never gave up. He traveled to Veliky Novgorod and Staraya Russa to read catechism lectures, gave interviews to journalists, learned to play the violin and began to study the Finnish language. And this is already quite at the end: three years before his death.
We can say that he was almost the last link of the epochs: he was born before the revolution - he died after perestroika. The Lord judged him to see the glory of the Church. Maybe it turned out to be not quite the one that was dreamed of in the twenties and thirties, after the war years, during the so-called stagnation, but history has not yet ended and the work of God in history is still ongoing. He, as a sincere worker in the field of the Lord, will remain in the memory of the Church as a bright and faithful servant of Her.
More recently, the information space was seething in connection with the Open Letter of the former student of the Russian Theological Seminary in Paris, A. Serebrich, in which the riots taking place in this educational institution were made public.
Orthodox believers were indignant: how so? What have we come to - Catholics teach in the Orthodox seminary! What kind of shepherds will come out of the walls of this school? Ugliness! Etc.
And another student of the same seminary, G. Arutyunov, posted on the Internet a video denouncing the heresy of ecumenism (see: http://video.yandex.ru/users/arutiounov/view/1/).
However, as it turned out, ecumenism is cultivated not only abroad, in an educational institution under the direct tutelage of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev). And here, in Russia, the quality of education in theological schools - colleges, seminaries and academies - to put it mildly, leaves much to be desired.
We bring to the attention of readers a letter from a graduate of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, originally published by the Inform-religion Internet agency (http://inform-relig.ru). This student, unlike A. Serebrich and G. Arutyunov, having endured the unrest that was happening at the academy, nevertheless managed to get an education.
The material is published with the hope that after reading the information provided, many Orthodox will understand: it is no longer possible to remain silent today - the situation in the Church is critical.
A lot can be said about the St. Petersburg Seminary and Academy. What is happening within its walls is worth special attention. I will name and briefly characterize only the brightest representatives of ecumenism.
This is Prot. Alexander Ranne, Archimandrite Augustine (Nikitin), Archimandrite Vladimir Sorokin, archim. Iannuary (Ivliev) and prot. Vladimir Mustafin. These are not all liberals, but I will talk about these in more detail.
First - Alexander Ranne- an outspoken ecumenist, a Nikodimian, trained at the Gregorian University of the Vatican, and then returned to the academy and seminary. This unfortunate theologian, in addition to teaching at the St. Petersburg Seminary, the Academy and the regency courses, is also the Vice-Rector of the Novgorod Seminary. So it poisons and confuses many minds that are not strong in Orthodoxy.
He taught us his course on Moral Theology on the basis of the teachings of Boris Vysheslavtsev... He repeatedly spoke out in support of ecumenism, considering it not a heresy or a delusion, but a kind of movement towards universal Christian unity. Like many ecumenists, he professes the "theology" of a "divided" and therefore defective Church; the testimony of the Holy Fathers who lived after the so-called. "separation of churches" in 1054 and condemning papism and Protestantism, Fr. Alexander does not accept, and treats the later Fathers, especially the New Martyrs and Confessors, extremely dismissively.
Archimandrite Augustine- former subdeacon, Met. Nikodim (Rotov), who entered the academy thanks to him, already having a higher secular education (a rarity for that time). In Soviet times, he was one of many international ecumenical gatherings and conferences. Great admirer of Mr. Nicodemus, his "theology" and deeds. In 2008, he published a rather thick book about his idol: “The Church Captured. Metropolitan Nikodim (1929-1978) and his era (in the memoirs of contemporaries).
|
Archimandrite Augustine (NIKITIN) |
Listening to his course of lectures on Catholicism and Protestantism, I did not understand where I was: in an Orthodox institution or at the Pontifical University! It is probably hard to believe, but for half a year we listened with our own ears first to an apology for Catholic "theology", then for Protestant one. To all the so-called. there were strong justifications for the inaccuracies of heretical faith. In the end, when it became unbearable, they simply stopped going to his lectures, so sometimes 3-4 students remained in the audience. By the way, he reacted to this very calmly, he acted with the "carrot method" - no pressure!
Prot. Vladimir Sorokin- former rector of the academy and seminary, now he is the rector of the Prince Vladimir Cathedral, in which there are very "attractive" orders. For example, the Lenten reading of the Canon of St. Andrew of Crete in Russian. Due to his age (71 years old), he has already lost his former liberal activity. But all the omissions due to senile infirmity are fully compensated by his son - the priest. Alexander Sorokin, in whose church this year the Easter Gospel was read by Catholic nuns. Thanks to the former rector of the academy, Bishop Konstantin, Alexander Sorokin stopped teaching at the academy.
|
Archimandrite Jannuary (IVLIEV) |
Archimandrite Jannuary (Ivliev) is a well-known liberal biblical scholar. The guys after his lectures doubted the authenticity of the messages of St. Apostle Paul and certain places of Holy Scripture. His approach to the Tradition of our Church is typically Protestant. It cost him nothing, referring to this or that theory, to insert into the text of Holy Scripture the “necessary”, “more correct” word and, on the contrary, cut out the “unnecessary”, supposedly found there “accidentally” or “at a later time”.
Finally, arch. Vladimir Mustafin, not being an outspoken ecumenist, is a philosopher to the core. But unlike Orthodox philosophers, he did not correlate his course of lectures in any way with the patristic heritage. Thanks to this, all philosophers looked very authoritative and deserving of the most careful study, which is what we did for three whole years of study. It would be possible to suffer, but the whole horror is that philosophy far surpassed all other subjects in terms of hours, and prot. V. Mustafin was the most strict and demanding teacher.
In addition to the seminary, the academic philosophy course lasted three years, divided into three different subjects (ancient, modern and modern) and was read almost daily. By comparison, the New Testament course lasts just a year, and such an important and complex subject as there is no canon law in the academic course at all.
In this regard, the question arises: who benefits from having priests and theologians who do not really know church tradition and are drugged, overfed with philosophical theories, and they are innumerable?
In addition to the direct harm received from such an education, students also receive the skill of cheating and dishonest receiving grades, polished to virtuosity, without which, under these conditions, it is almost impossible for an Orthodox believer and thinking student to save his soul. However, deception remains deception, and it turns into a habit, becomes a habit.
So they thought, which of the evils is the lesser: to deceive the priest-teacher and write off some nonsense, or remember, memorize it and poison your soul with this?
If we talk about students (I don’t presume to judge all of them, because I talked mainly with academicians), then there is a much more encouraging picture - the people were all different, who came from different seminaries, and the liberals have not yet won everywhere. But there was also a misfortune - almost universal indifference. Seeing the very low quality of education at the academy, almost everyone buried their heads in laptops, and when they were banned from using them at lectures, then they turned into books and their own affairs.
The liberal statements of the professors, cutting at first hearing, gradually became habitual, and they were already treated as a matter of course. Over time, even Orthodox-minded students stopped paying attention to them. Among the academicians, I knew only 4-5 students who did not reconcile themselves to liberalism and understood what was what. The rest either did not see or were indifferent. So there was no one to build opposition with. And there were attempts to confront the teachers. But they quickly stopped. The conversation is short: who wants to get a "2" on an exam or a "fail" and not move on to the next course? - So I had to endure for the sake of receiving a theological education and the right to continue teaching Orthodox, and not liberal science.
Regarding the role of the rector, I would like to recall with a kind word Bishop Konstantin, the former rector of the academy. Despite personal shortcomings, bias, etc., he did a lot to preserve Orthodoxy within the walls of theological schools, and this helped to endure both his errors and the not always fair policy of the academic system. Under him, the liberals behaved much more modestly, although they snapped at the first opportunity.
As I was told, in the fall of 2008, for the next memory of Met. Nikodim, the chicks of Nikodimov's nest flocked to the St. Petersburg Academy, including Met. Kirill (Gundyaev), Met. Yuvenaly (Poyarkov), Met. Filaret (Vakhromeev) ... However, the reception was not as warm as the synodals expected. In addition, there were few students at the conference dedicated to Nicodemus, and during the report of Met. Juvenaly was knocked with a jackhammer (the academy was undergoing a major overhaul at that time). Here the patience of our hierarchs came to an end. There was a reason to remove the rector, who was objectionable and had long been an eyesore, which was soon done. He was "exiled" to the Kurgan diocese.
Shortly thereafter, Patriarch Alexy II died. According to the stories of my friends (by that time I had already finished my studies), this even more influenced the situation inside the school. The ecumenists felt tacit support, became more courageous and categorical.
The new rector, the young Bishop Ambrose, who, according to my observations, is an ordinary soldier who fulfills the will of the hierarchy, as they say, determines almost nothing in the current situation. He seems to have tried to improve the quality of food, student service, and finally, new toilets and showers appeared. But the quality of education and the state of Orthodoxy, I know from the stories of those who are still studying at the academy, continue to wish for the best!
Dear editors! I apologize for the verbosity and the time taken from you. But it is very hard to see what is, and even harder - complete indifference to what is happening. Perhaps what I have described will be of some use to someone.
Good afternoon!
Sincerely,
Admission Committee of the Theological Academy
.jpg)
