The unforgivable sins of the Russian Orthodox Church are news of obscurantism. The church mafia is plunging Russia into a fetid, black swamp of religious obscurantism

Gifted to priests? Why be surprised? The fact that Mr. Nobody named Poltavchenko, appointed for the post of Mayor of St. Petersburg, unilaterally made the decision give to priests St. Isaac's Cathedral (which never was not the property of the Russian Orthodox Church!) - a completely expected milestone in the aggressive planting [at the instigation of the state] of religious obscurantism into the towers of our fellow citizens...

No, I, of course, understand the state’s concern for filling the gaping void (left by the evaporated ideals of socialism and the other moral code of the builders of communism) in the souls of people, but I not only cannot approve of the state course towards the rapid immersion of Russia in the swamp of black religious obscurantism - I resolutely against this!

Still, it was an interesting historical experiment: after centuries of unbearable pressure from religious obscurantism, in 1917 the people of Russia (considered pious and even “God-bearing”), for some reason with pleasure began to completely burn and rob churches and hang fat priests! Well, yes - they were a wild people, dark and uneducated, but it seems to me that the priests were also not sugar, but slightly sick, since the God-bearing people, without a command, purposefully trampled them and chopped down icons with axes...

But! The leaders of the USSR were not idiots - they understood that the void in the souls of papillation (formed in place of the disavowed cult of the Russian Orthodox Church!) needed to be filled with something, for which they came up with a creative state quasi-religion - communist, which quite organically replaced the destructive religion implanted by the Russian Orthodox Church slave! Relying on the creative quasi-religion of communism, the USSR in a historically short time turned into a Great Power, won the most destructive and bloody war in the history of mankind, conquered space, and built the first social state in history, and this became one of the most significant achievements of human civilization !

And when the people of the USSR, having gone crazy, destroyed the great power and the communist quasi-religion died, then a void formed in the souls of the people again, what? That's right - the state has decided to fill this void again!

But! Unlike the USSR, the state of the times of the nitty Yeltsin was weak and schmuck, so this thieves’ state, understandably, did not master the project of a new quasi-religion, and the new “ideology of profit” had no bearing on religion. Therefore, they filled the souls of “dear Russians” with what was within walking distance and literally lying under their feet - with that pathetic garbage that was eaten up in the trash for 70 years in shit and piss, but did not die completely - Russian Orthodox Church! They lifted them up, shook them off, washed them, fed them, rewarded them, apologized for the past, and declared the Russian Orthodox Church a “spiritual anchor” and a “support-pillar of the state”...

Unfortunately, in Russia we don’t have balanced, well-thought-out decisions - only maximum hardcore!

And shit started flowing through the pipes: duty-free trade in tobacco products and alcohol, massive seizures of real estate for the “return” of it to the Russian Orthodox Church, golden rain pouring on the priests from the state’s bins, etc. Next - the “Gundyaev apartment nanodust”, the blatant “seizures” by the Russian Orthodox Church of park areas of large cities for the construction of their religious buildings, etc., etc.

Just 15 years ago, the propaganda of religion and the Russian Orthodox Church caused bewilderment and laughter, but now those who are especially actively “perplexed and laughing” can be imprisoned for this very “bewilderment” in a zone under the new article of the Russian Federation for “insulting the feelings of believers,” and the President on church services are taken for granted! Criticism of the Russian Orthodox Church is almost completely prohibited, and we hear terrible, disgusting PR and shameless propaganda of the importance of the Russian Orthodox Church from every iron!

What is especially disgusting and dangerous is that the Russian Orthodox Church methodically, persistently and consistently sticks its black dab into schools, which is very cunning and prudent - you need to prepare your own herd for “hilling” from a young age. If possible. And, this possibility is becoming more and more realistic!

Well, what about the citizens... And what about the citizens? Russian citizens are thirsty Miracle!

Well, here it is: Citizens believed in Miracle : "Only the Russian Orthodox Church will save Russia and make it prosperous!" The other side of the MIRACLE, which opened the people's chakras, is also not bad: “Whoever is not a fan of the Russian Orthodox Church is an enemy of Russia!”

And off it went Miracle, t.s., to the masses:

Millions of communists, who just yesterday denounced, branded with shame, voluptuously trampled on those who dared to subject their children to the rite of baptism, today suddenly en masse passionately and fanatically believed in Jesus and, with a devilish fire in their eyes, frantically rushed to defend even the most vile movements of their newfound “spiritual father.” " - ROC! And now these “new crusaders,” religious fanatics and “adherents of the faith,” pointing their fingers at those dissatisfied with their obscurantist goodies, shout with schizoid pleasure: “LET’S CRUCIFY THEM!!!”

On the one hand, all this, of course, is funny, but on the other, it’s really disgusting, because obscurantism is always disgusting, and mass obscurantism is dangerous both for its bearers and for the state...

In general, the constitutional declaration: "The church in Russia is separated from the state" at the current political moment, it has turned into meaningless letters on paper, since in fact Russia, having abandoned the course towards enlightenment and education, is rapidly plunging into the fetid, black swamp of state religious obscurantism of the lowest sort, and this is very sad.

I return to the “gift”. The fact that someone (I don’t believe that Poltavchenko made such a decision on his own, without instructions from above) donated St. Isaac’s Cathedral to the priests is just another milestone, and there will be many more of these. Well, then, perhaps, the new year of 1917 will break out, which in this situation is very likely, gygygygy!

This is how we get ouroboros!...

Continuation:

Some time has passed since then, and I realized that not everything is as bad as I thought - after all, in Russia there are many educated, intelligent people who openly opposed the obscurantism of the Russian Orthodox Church in general and the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral to the monks in particular:

in St. Petersburg, thousands of people held rallies against the transfer of the Council to greedy priests,

a petition against the transfer of the cathedral to the priests collected more than 200,000 signatures,

Scientists and art critics opposed the transfer,

But, of course, the obscurantists never sleep! The bastards have launched an unprecedented campaign to smear all those who oppose the unjustified preferences of the Russian Orthodox Church (the main slogan of the obscurantists: "Whoever is against the transfer of IP to the Russian Orthodox Church is against Russia, and is a liberal working for the State Department!" ), and also began to write slanderous libels, in which they throw shit at the workers of the “Museum of St. Isaac's Cathedral” - they claim that the museum workers are saboteurs, plunderers, thieves and criminals. True, I do not understand how to logically link these “revelations” with the “necessity” of transferring the IP of the cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church. Well, just remember that the priests of the Russian Orthodox Church have always been a model of selflessness, lack of money, virtue and service to the flock and the Fatherland. Just don’t make a face!

Here is a typical example of such a libel, which was copied and posted (this uneducated, tongue-tied Baba Yaga cannot even write two words without errors on her own!) long ago and irrevocably crazy Parishioner, simply a classic:

Why do you think the religious obscurantists jumped up and down at the command of the Russian Orthodox Church? and shook with a petty demon in hatred of educated people? It's simple - because a campaign was launched to justify the transfer of state property to thieving priests - the priests realized that society was not yet ready to lie under obscurantists in robes! Well, everything is clear here - the business of priests is like this, they cut money for their money!

But I want to say a special “thank you” to the morel named “Parishioner”:

Listen, black grandmother, “investigations and denunciations” regarding theft by employees of the St. Isaac’s Museum are just as schizophrenic as everything that religious fanatics are trying to prove. Because normal people don't really care about questions huge salary (55 thousand rubles) for museum workers and whether the director of this museum steals or not!

What concerns us is this: state property is what belongs to all citizens of the Russian Federation(including religious idiots), but when the real estate is owned by the greedy priests of the Russian Orthodox Church, then this is only THEIR sphere of business, and normal people are denied access there, despite all the assurances of the priests that “nothing will change for ordinary people” ! Yes, of course it won’t change, we all understand: Gundyaev needs a new watch - the current one, he already bought it for 320,000 bucks, the nanodust damaged it, gygygyy!

The most interesting paradox is that after the transfer of the IP to the Russian Orthodox Church, All the cash flows will flow into the pockets of the “deeply honest” priests, and even such a stupid “investigation” will be completely impossible. What do you think, grandma, can you find out and publish how much money the priests “working” in the IP will earn for their salary? It’s clear - you won’t answer, but I know the answer, gygygygy!

Summary. No, I do not have vain hopes - the decision to transfer the Council was clearly not made at the level of zero-Poltavchenko, and the victorious march of obscurantism will continue.

But there is also a positive thing - there are many of us, normal, educated people, and we need to resist religious obscurantism at all levels. We especially need to concentrate on keeping priests out of schools. If we miss this moment, then it will be a complete disaster!

PS. By the way. Are you aware that the Parishioner “...consults with her CONFESSIONAL on issues of maintaining her blog, including who to ban!” (c) How do you like this manual control? From my point of view - nutcase in its purest form and complete control of the “spiritual fathers” of the Russian Orthodox Church over such nutcases, which gives very broad prospects...

P.P.S. The Crimean and Simferopol diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church asked to transfer to them for free use 24 objects of the Tauric Chersonesos museum-reserve, which are located in Sevastopol. The application was submitted to the Federal Property Management Agency back in November last year (this became known only now), but the department rejected it “due to incompleteness of the documents.” Now representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church are going to submit another application.

That's how things are, little ones...

More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone who wakes up and is interested...

In some circles, it has become commonplace to assert that today Russia is experiencing a surge of obscurantism and onionist Black Hundreds. The country smells like incense: clericalization is overtaking archaization. They're about to burn you for atheism. The pathos is not new and not very interesting. Users discussing this unimportant topic tend to make a number of inaccuracies, which, in turn, are important.

The Russian state, for all its obviousness, which is often mistaken for stupidity or sluggishness, is read quite ambiguously. It seems that there is an object whose sides are equally equal for all observers, but the results of these observations are contradictory, and radically contradictory. For radical Russian nationalists, the Russian Federation is an anti-Russian state, destroying the Russian people and pandering to non-Russians, but in communities of non-Russian nationalists, Russia is already perceived as an oppressor, strangling Kumyr freedom with its furry chauvinistic paw. For liberals, the Russian state is completely Soviet, but for Soviet people, the state is ruled by liberals who ruined everything. The opinions are so contradictory that a compromise cannot be found even in the middle - this would threaten schizophrenia. The answer should be sought in the plane from which they are trying to interpret Russia, in the field of beliefs of very different colors, which have in common the fact that they are equally neurotic. Their neuroticism lies in the fact that stereotypes shared by an individual or a group of individuals are transferred to an entire nation or an entire state. Hence the mutually exclusive conclusions: well, the state cannot be both Russophobic and ultra-Russian, Soviet and liberal, but it cannot be, then the problem is not in the state, but in you.

Nevertheless, it seems that there are objective grounds for the clericalization of Russian society. These are Orthodox activists, and the growing role of the “ROC” in society, and the law on the protection of the feelings of believers, and scandals with a religious flavor, and the attack of faith on education, and religion in general, in particular Christianity and its representatives, is now quite a noticeable part of public life. life. Another “milestone” was the scandal surrounding the film “Matilda”. The editor-in-chief of the Carnegie Center even remarked on this matter: “In just a few days, Russia has crossed an important line that it has been approaching for a long time: Orthodox extremists have committed two real attempts at terrorist attacks. One in Yekaterinburg crashed into a cinema window in a car loaded with gas cylinders; others burned cars near Konstantin Dobrynin’s office – all for Matilda.

Alas, the stereotype trap has worked. He led the Carnegie Center to an article by Andrei Arkhangelsky, where the publicist guessed that the state, having finally punished the persecutors of “Matilda,” seemed to demonstrate to the liberals: we are still the only European here protecting you, Westerners, from a dashing person. An attempt at analysis again stumbled over the beliefs that determined the following prophecy of Arkhangelsky: “However, from now on we live in a post-Matilda space, where every word and every gesture is capable of shaking the foundations. And this is not a story about a film or a sect, but about the fact that society is too fragile and does not have any internal bonds - the louder they shout about them, the more they fall out of the skin with a crash.”

Is it so?

November 1997. Ostankino. Orthodox protesters are protesting against the showing of Martin Scorsese's film "The Last Temptation of Christ" on NTV. The minimum limit of participants is one and a half thousand, the maximum is ten. More than ever opposed the Matildas. The film was withdrawn from the broadcast network twice, and NTV received a letter from the Pamyat society, which (if the film was shown) did not guarantee the safety of the company’s employees. The situation is mirrored, only its scale is greater, and the result is brighter. The State Duma discussed the topic of “Anti-Christian action of the NTV television company.” Unlike Matilda, the head of the Patriarchal Church, Alexy II, spoke out against the film, although the current head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Kirill, maintains a reserved silence. As a result, the film, as originally planned, was not shown on Easter Eve. Does this mean that since 1997 we have been living in a post-“Last Temptations of Christ”, where the Orthodox caliphate has risen from the ruins of secular culture? Of course not. Because you don't need to use your beliefs as evidence.

A careful study of Russian “Orthodox fundamentalism” indicates a completely different reality - earlier, before V. Putin, society was more radical, evil and fragile, and Christian fanatics did not rip off “blasphemous” T-shirts, but killed cops and planned to build a theocratic monarchy by armed means.

In 1999, on the eve of Easter, Orthodox fanatics Alexander Sysoev and Yevgeny Kharlamov tried to raise a popular uprising against the Sanhedrin in Vyshny Volochyok. As a result, they killed three cops and seriously wounded one. For a minute, this is the most “effective” single action of Russian radicals against the System. And it was not carried out by the Primorsky Partisans, but by men who went to work with icons. If today some person who considers himself Orthodox killed three policemen in the name of the Orthodox State, the next day the newspapers would be full of headlines that “The game is over” and “It has begun.” Few people articulate this, but the peak of “Orthodox obscurantism” was precisely in the late eighties, nineties and early 2000s - this is “RNE” (with all the reservations), with which it is a shame to compare “Forty Sorokov”, this is the “Memory” society, this is literature Ioann Snychev, and these are militants like the mentioned Alexander Sysoev. In recent years, there has only been one real terrorist attack in Russia based on Christian fundamentalism, and this was by no means the case of a mentally ill man from Yekaterinburg.

What is fundamentalism anyway? This is thinking, in all its apologetic completeness, standing guard over some idea. Fundamentalism is not only characteristic of religion - there is liberal or left fundamentalism. Modern Orthodox fundamentalism in Russia has gone through several stages. But, unlike Protestant fundamentalism, Russia had one important feature - a seventy-year-old atheistic state. A time gap has formed between the religious past and the post-Soviet present. This gap had to be filled, and it began to be filled not only with a newly constructed continuity, but also with a complex of inevitable myths. These are myths about the pre-revolutionary church, about monarchism, about the tsar, about the spirituality of the previous society, about which Christian institution or non-institution is true. The gap was never bridged. He predetermined the path of development of Orthodox fundamentalism, which initially branched out from the “Memory” society. This is, so to speak, informal fundamentalism, which has broken up into many patriotic, nationalist and sectarian organizations. Another root reaches to the “ROC”, where it is called “traditionalist”. It was the “traditionalist” wing that actively supported the new federal law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations” of 1997. The preamble of this law contains the wording that the Federation recognizes “the special role of Orthodoxy in the history of Russia, in the formation and development of its spirituality and culture.” The previous version of the law did not include such important language. Then, in the late nineties, the future Patriarch Kirill corrected his previous line and began delivering anti-liberal sermons.

Without going into details of the internal polemics of the “ROC” and without listing numerous informal Christian organizations, we can generalize that the so-called. The “clericalization” of Russian society proceeded in two directions – vertical, institutionalized and horizontal, informal, partly marginal. These were not parallel lines: they intersected when the interests of informal fundamentalists coincided with the interests of church traditionalists. As in the protests against NTV, Gusinsky and Scorsese, where “Memory” and Alexy II “united” on one topic. This leads to a very important feature: Orthodox fundamentalism in modern Russia achieved something only if the main Orthodox institution showed solidarity with its position. And vice versa. If temporary travel did not work out, informal fundamentalists continued to eke out a boring existence in their tiny organizations and on the pages of their small-circulation press.

Under V. Putin, vertical “fundamentalism” has strengthened significantly. Suffice it to say that the head of the patriarchal church was Kirill, a man who eventually turned to anti-Western and anti-liberal views. Having strengthened, the “ROC” continued its previous policy, the first serious fruit of which was the adoption of the federal law of 1997. At the same time, the institution curbed its most radical “traditionalists” such as the notorious Dmitry Smirnov. But informal fundamentalism was fading. The thousands of movements of the past were falling apart, fragmenting, and for new noticeable nationalist organizations the issue of religion was secondary to political and national self-determination. If organized “traditionalism” received a certain legitimation, then the heap of horizontal organizations was successfully marginalized. To the point of hostility towards, in fact, the “ROC”. Thus, Alexander Barkashov took monastic vows in the True Orthodox Church organization and regularly accuses the Russian Orthodox Church of deviating from faith and truth. Of course, the “ROC” could no longer somehow identify itself with its former fellow travelers. Yes, she didn’t need these marginalized people. But the scandal with Pussy Riot showed that there is no mass and organized youth lay movement around the Russian Orthodox Church capable of resisting on the street those who encroach on non-street institutional values. And then everything that they talk about today appeared - “Forty Sorokov”, “Holy Rus'” and other communities. “God’s will” was raised on the same topic.

Let us remember that informal fundamentalism in modern Russia achieved limited success when the “ROC” agreed with it on something. The Patriarchal Church, although it has very different views, was quite pleased that rallies, stands and peaceful actions were being held in its defense. But the consent or tacit approval of the “ROC” inevitably led to the radicalization of its informal supporters, such as the events in Torfyanka Park or the “pogrom” of Vadim Sidur’s exhibition. At the same time, the highest hierarchs of the “ROC” never justified violence against their opponents, although they did not speak harshly against those who allowed this violence (very insignificant). That is, the successful activities of “Soroka Sorokov” are primarily associated with the goodwill of the “ROC”. Without this goodwill, such organizations would, as always, remain marginal.

The communications revolution and the postmodern state have left their mark on informal fundamentalism. This is frivolity, playfulness, eccentricity, entertainment, shockingness, formalism. The same Dmitry Enteo came out of a typical new-age. This is funny even in modern times - a user who makes sacrifices to Ganesha then becomes a defender of the Orthodox faith. Yes, a break with a past unrighteous life is a classic hagiographic plot, but still, it’s not something that is enthusiastically talked about on YouTube. The attention paid to such characters and their antics, and even the analysis that they are subjected to for some reason, is similar to the analysis of wrestling. It looks like someone is jumping, the ring is shaking and the audience is roaring, but everyone understands that this is a production. Same with the “Christian State”. An informal organization of several people, that is, in fact, something that does not even exist, thanks to a couple of loud statements and allegedly burning cars, grows into a fundamentalist moloch similar to the “Islamic State”. But in reality - no mass organization, no numerous supporters, no serious actions. Again a fiction, the weight of which was given by a stereotype from the outside.

But the matter does not end there with vertical and horizontal fundamentalism, the latter of which has also split into post-modern buffoonery. Numerous radical texts written over a quarter of a century have not disappeared anywhere and have had their influence. In December 2015, two young people were detained in St. Petersburg, accused of attempting to kill police officers. During interrogation, the guys announced that they considered government bodies to be the product of the Antichrist, who had established himself in the world.

Anton Golovyrtsev and Nikolai Motovilov, who were not even thirty, were supporters of the priestless agreements of the Old Believers. The guys were not parishioners of any St. Petersburg communities, but they sympathized with the radical wings of the Old Believers, especially the runners. Hence the lack of communication with the communities - the one who in the 18th century made pilgrims by consent, the monk Euthymius, baptized himself, thereby breaking with the rest of the non-priesthood. Following Euthymius, the guys believed that a spiritual Antichrist had established itself in the world, which meant that everything was poisoned - churches, authorities, hierarchies, money. So the young people took the armed path. According to investigators, they twice tried to blow up traffic police posts using artillery mines. One of the alleged terrorists, Anton Golovyrtsev, fought for the DPR. Moreover, he was not photographed at checkpoints, but spent the summer-autumn of 2014 in the infantry. Both Anton Golovyrtsev and Nikolai Motovil face life imprisonment. That is, this is no longer a joke. This is not breaking a plate and giving a winning interview. Actually, this is the only terrorist attack involving Orthodox fundamentalism in Russia over the past years.

Moreover, it was allegedly committed by people who are not associated either with the Russian Orthodox Church, or with other “Nikonian” groups, or with the Russian state. For them these are enemies. Antichrist. There was an important rejection of the concepts that worried the previous informal fundamentalism (even the one that was negatively disposed towards the “ROC”) - this is a rejection of the tsar, the monarchy, Russia, the church, as a hierarchy, etc. What is described does not fit into any of the stereotypes, that neither the “liberal” nor the “fundamentalist” press simply writes about what happened. And this, of course, is a new way of developing informal fundamentalism - networked, independent, non-canonical, solitary, sectarian, but, most importantly, not appealing to the “ROC”, empire, monarchy and tsars. The spiritual Antichrist has triumphed in the world and that’s it. Almost for the first time in modern Russia, the fuel for informal fundamentalism stemmed not from the conventional Shafarevich, but from the Old Believer literature of the 17th-18th centuries.

However, these are isolated cases. They are unlikely to happen again soon. Even despite the war in Ukraine, which attracted a fair number of religious fanatics, even despite the patriarchal church, expressing more and more conservative ideas, despite the communication hysteria supported right up to the State Duma deputy - a religious response to all these matters and initiative remains extremely low. Whoever hyped up “Matilda” and how many times they didn’t scam users whose feelings were excited by the unwatched film, but the whole result of the massive, months-long hype was threats, two burned cars and the ramming of a cinema by a madman. Well, even during the early screenings, someone will spray a gas canister in the hall, and they will also talk a lot about this.

Neither Sysoev nor Golovyrtsev. Just made-up nonsense. But this nonsense is indicative. Somehow, imperceptibly and somehow suddenly, Russia approached its most significant anniversary - the centenary of the October Revolution. In a year when society had to conflict, swear, argue, fight with each other because of the most ambiguous, tragic, great, bloody event in its history, which changed the lives of tens, hundreds of millions of people, users enthusiastically argue about a film that even did not see.

What is this - stupidity or madness?

Why not? It’s just that the Russian state, in which all sides are equal and which is still considered so ambiguous, is not at all engaged in the clericalization of society. It freezes him. It chills him. So that it doesn't hurt. So that it doesn't bleed. Historical stability, national reconciliation. Now even in May it snows.

There remains only a vague hope that someday a dashing person will step on the numb gum.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the collapse of socialist society, the Church entered a new phase of its development - it not only restored its position in the country, but significantly exceeded it. In fact, along with secular power, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has today become the second power in Russia. Despite the fact that, according to our Constitution, the Church is separated from the state, it, as in the tsarist period, receives full support for its interests at all levels of government - from the smallest official to the president of the country. Moreover, the current position of the Russian Orthodox Church compares favorably with its status before 1917, when it had no independence and was subordinate to the highest secular leader of the state - the Tsar. Having gained strength in a short time, she became so bold that for the first time in the history of the Russian state, she announced at her council the possibility of her disobedience to state power (“Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church”).

Today the Russian Orthodox Church presents itself as the main spiritual force of our state. For their part, officials and deputies who support the Church in its desire to play a leading role in the spiritual life of society are confident that it can raise its morality and, above all, the morality of the younger generation. Due to the fact that officials and deputies do not know the history of the Russian Orthodox Church well, they should know that the moral character of the Russian Orthodox Church itself is very far from perfect and therefore trusting it with the care of our citizens and especially the education of our children would be a big mistake.

Considering itself the most perfect religious organization not only among all the Churches of the world, but also among the heterodox Churches, the Russian Orthodox Church found neither time nor reason to admit that in its history there were not only mistakes, but also crimes that it should regard as sins , and grave sins. And sins, as follows from Christian doctrine, should be acknowledged, repented of and atone for. And ask for forgiveness. And not so much from God (better not only from Christ, but from the entire Holy Trinity), but from the peoples of Russia. Unfortunately, the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church and, above all, its Patriarch Alexy II, in their pride, does not see any sins behind them and does not want to repent for them. But in vain...

Pope John Paul II

Meanwhile, at one time, the head of the first largest Christian Church - the Catholic Church, uniting more than one billion believers, the “vicar of God on earth” Pope John Paul II was able to critically approach the actions of the Christian Church and recognize the Church as sinful, admit the mistakes of its leadership (including including the mistakes of the Popes) and ask for forgiveness for them. Among the past sins, the Pope named the acts of the Inquisition, the waging of religious wars, discrimination against women in the Church and the passivity of Catholic priests in relation to protection from persecution of Jews, especially during the Nazi era. The Pope also condemned the Church's tolerance of slavery in past times and for the fact that monasteries and local Churches enriched themselves through the exploitation of slaves. In the Apostolic Letter of the Pope on the occasion of the 2000th anniversary “Tertio millenio adveniente”, for the first time in history, Christians were spoken of as responsible for the evil that is happening today.

In May 2001, during a visit to Greece, in a conversation with the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, Christodoulos, the Pope asked for forgiveness not only from Orthodox Greeks, but also from Orthodox believers around the world. Following the Catholic Church, some Protestant organizations have also made public statements that they repent for the harm that Christians (Protestant Christians) have caused to Jews and Judaism.

Russian Orthodox Church and sins

What about the Orthodox Churches, how do they feel about the commendable initiative of the Catholic Church? Very restrained, even disapproving and almost without comment. Since the Russian Orthodox Church pretends that the sins of the Catholic part of the Church do not concern it, its hierarchs should be reminded that the past of their Church was not at all pure and cloudless. And she has something to repent of both before the heterodox Churches and before the believers of other monotheistic Churches, the so-called. pagans and unbelievers. Chronicles testify to how Christianity was implanted in Rus', which cannot be suspected of a desire to denigrate the Russian Orthodox Church, because they were written by Christians.

Ancient Rus'

The inhabitants of ancient Kyiv were simply driven into the Dnieper and had to be baptized for fear of reprisals. Knowing that the Novgorodians were against the adoption of Christianity, troops were sent to baptize them together with Bishop Joachim Korsunyanin - the Kiev squad led by the thousand of Prince Vladimir - Putyata. The city was taken by storm, and the princely squad committed an act of blasphemy against the faith of the Novgorodians - images of their gods - statues were defeated (burnt, broken or drowned). Since there were few people willing to renounce their original faith, the faith of their fathers and grandfathers, and accept someone else’s faith, the princely squad forced them to accept it on pain of death. Those who did not accept Christianity suffered reprisals. This whole procedure gave the Novgorodians the basis to declare that “Putyata baptized with the sword, and Dobrynya (the Novgorod governor) - with fire.” The introduction of Christianity in Rus' was not a one-time act; it continued for many centuries - almost until the twentieth century. And often with fire and sword.

The leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church did not hesitate to destroy entire peoples who did not want to accept Christianity. The letter of 1452 from Metropolitan Jonah to the Vyatka clergy eloquently testifies to how Christianity was implanted among non-Russian peoples. The priests tortured many people, starved them to death, threw them into the water, burned men, elders and small children in huts, burned out their eyes, impaled babies on stakes and killed them. At the same time, the Metropolitan did not condemn the clergy for the brutal massacre, but only warned that such bloody terror could arouse hatred of the clergy and cause damage to the Church. According to a letter from the Novgorod Bishop Macarius to the Vodskaya Pyatina, dated 1534, Macarius sent Orthodox icons and a consecrated cross to the Vodsk lands, ordering his assistant to “destroy the nasty prayer houses, and punish Christians and teach them the true Orthodox faith.” So the leaders accepted Christianity.

Rus' in the Middle Ages

In the 17th century, the forced baptism of the peoples of the Volga region and Siberia took place. In Siberia, the Siberian Metropolitan Philotheus Leshchinsky acted with fire and sword. He destroyed non-Christian cemeteries, chopped down and burned temples, erecting chapels in their place. Forced baptism of non-Russian peoples continued even in the 19th century. The black page in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church is the establishment of the patriarchate in Rus'. The Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II, who arrived for money in June 1588, was not at all concerned with the establishment of the patriarchate in Rus'. Moreover, he actively did not want it. Metropolitan Hierotheos of Monemvasia, who was with Jeremiah, was forced to sign the charter establishing the patriarchate in Rus' only under the threat of drowning in the river! The illegality of the creation of the Moscow Patriarchate also lay in the fact that only the Ecumenical Synod had the power to make this decision, as was the case with all existing patriarchates.

The state Orthodox Church cracked down not only on pagans, but also on heretics (i.e., dissidents). According to the cathedral code of 1649, criticism of the Church and its dogmas was punishable by burning at the stake. Conversion to another faith was also punishable. Dissidents and those who converted to another faith (more often those who returned to their former faith) were considered enemies of the Church. These enemies of the Church were impaled, carried outside the city gates and burned, and the ashes were covered with earth.

Old Believers

After Nikon's reforms, terrible persecution of Old Believers began. It was the Russian Orthodox Church that initiated the publication during the reign of Princess Sophia of “12 articles on schismatics” (1685), which stated that even if some “especially dangerous” Old Believers join the mainstream Church, confess and receive communion from the official priest, then they still need to be “executed by death without any mercy.” And to execute by burning. The author of this document was Patriarch Joachim. At the insistence of the spiritual authorities, the villages where the schismatics lived, their monasteries and monasteries were destroyed. According to the testimony of foreigners, just before Easter 1685, Patriarch Joachim burned about 90 “church opponents” in log houses. One of the consequences of the bloody terror against the schismatics was their self-immolation, which took on large proportions in the 17th - 18th centuries. The most massive self-immolation occurred in the Olonets region in 1687. - schismatic peasants who rebelled against the oppressive priests after desperate resistance to the military detachment decided to burn themselves. 2,700 people died in the fire! As a result of the brutal reprisal of the spiritual department against schismatics during the 18th century, 1,733 people were burned, and 10,567 people self-immolated!

Inquisition in Rus'

Like the Catholic Church, the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church persecuted dissidents (“heretics”) with the help of its “holy inquisition.” The Russian Orthodox Church carried out its inquisitorial activities through the judicial authorities, which were at the disposal of the diocesan bishops, through the patriarchal court and church councils. It also had special bodies created to investigate cases against religion and the Church - the Order of Spiritual Affairs, the Order of Inquisitorial Affairs, the Raskolnichesky and New Epiphany offices, etc. Already in the 11th century, the Russian Orthodox Church dealt harshly with its opponents and demanded the same from the secular authorities. The Laurentian Chronicle of 1069 tells about the atrocities of the Rostov Bishop Fyodor: “People suffered a lot from him... cutting their heads... and burning out their eyes and cutting off their tongues.” The Novgorod bishop Luka Zhidyata, who lived in the 11th century, is called “beast-eating” by the Christian chronicler. “This tormentor,” says the chronicler, “cut off heads and beards, burned out eyes, cut off the tongue, crucified others and subjected them to torture.” Church opponents were burned at the stake and boiled in their “own juice” in red-hot iron cauldrons.

Foma Ivanov, who spoke out against religious dogmatism, was brought to church in chains and anathematized. After this, he was tortured and imprisoned in the Chudov Monastery, and on December 30, 1714, a log house was built in Moscow on Red Square, where Ivanov was placed, after which the log house was burned. The burning of heretics took place in Rus' from 1504 to 1743, and quite regularly. Heretics were also punished in other ways, for example, by drowning.

Already in the 11th century, witchcraft processes took place in Rus'. Chronicles note that in 1024, wise men and “dashing women” were captured in the Suzdal land. Both were put to death by burning. They were accused of being the culprits of the crop failure that befell the Suzdal land. In 1411 (almost a hundred years before the start of the witch hunt in Europe), twelve “prophetic wives” sent a plague to Pskov, for which they paid with their lives at the stake. The last time a Russian witch was sent to the stake was in 1682. It was Marfushka Yakovleva, who was convicted of hexing Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich himself. Following the example of its Catholic comrades, the Orthodox Inquisition developed in the 13th century methods for recognizing witches and sorcerers by fire, cold water, hanging, etc. Supporting faith in the devil and his power, the Russian Orthodox Church declared any doubt about the reality of the devil to be heretical. The victims of Orthodox inquisitors were mainly women. According to church beliefs, women were the easiest to enter into intercourse with the devil. Women were accused of ruining the crops, the weather, and that they were to blame for crop failures and famine.

Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian people

Separately, it should be said about the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church towards the Russian people and state. Contrary to the increasingly popular idea today about the special love of the Russian Orthodox Church for the Russian people, its leadership did not always stand on their side. Thus, when, from the second third of the 12th century, centrifugal tendencies began to strengthen in Kievan Rus, when the interests of numerous appanage princes prevailed over considerations of national unity, the Church not only did not oppose them, but often supported them. There have been periods in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church when it took the side of the enemy. Thus, in the middle of the 13th century, clergy called for people to come to terms with the Tatar yoke and treat it as a well-deserved punishment from God.

During the period of the liberation struggle of Rus' against the Golden Horde yoke (XIV - XV centuries), although some hierarchs stood up to fight the enemy, for example, the abbot of the Trinity Monastery Sergius of Radonezh, most of the clergy, based on their own interests, collaborated with the invaders and called on parishioners to humility and humility. And the Rostov Bishop Tarasius, together with the prince, brought the predatory hordes of Duden into Rus', plundering and destroying Vladimir, Suzdal, Moscow and a number of other Russian cities. Numerous sources indicate that during this period the clergy was in an incomparably better position than the people. The priests of the Russian Orthodox Church under the rule of the Horde quickly adapted - many themselves hastened to go into service with the Tatars and called on the people to submit. The head of the Church, Metropolitan Joseph, fled, leaving the department. The bishops of Ryazan and Rostov, Galicia and Przemysl also fled. The Mongols not only did not oppress, but also provided the Orthodox clergy with all kinds of benefits and concessions. Thanks to these benefits, the Orthodox clergy did not experience even a hundredth of the burdens that fell on the Russian people. In particular, monasteries and clergy were completely exempt from paying tribute. For faithful service to the conquerors, the Orthodox clergy were given special labels (letters of grant) from the khans.

When in 1601 - 1603 The country was struck by famine, during which “a third of the kingdom of Moscow” died out; bishops and monasteries (contrary to the decree of Boris Godunov) did not share their bread with the people. “The patriarch himself,” wrote a witness to the events, “having a large supply of bread, announced that he did not want to sell the grain, for which they would have to give even more money.”

ROC and Soviet power

The leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church should not forget that 140 years ago, serfdom in Russia was recognized as godly, and the sale of one person to another on the basis of “baptized property” was also recognized as such. Liberation from serfdom in Russia occurred a hundred years later than in the West, largely due to the resistance of the clergy. The Russian Orthodox Church actively defended the unlimited power of the tsar: “Every thought about some kind of constitution,” stated Bishop Nikon, “about some kind of agreement between the tsar and the people is blasphemy, an unforgivable insult not only to the tsar, but also to God” (Voice of the Church, 1912 , No. 10, p. 47).

And in the outbreak of the civil war of 1917 - 1921. Much of the blame lies with the Russian Orthodox Church. After all, the initiators of the clash with the Bolsheviks were the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church. When the Bolsheviks issued their manifesto on the land (the second after the decree on peace), the ministers of the Church fiercely opposed them. Of course - after all, their land was taken away from them, which brought them huge incomes! After the Tsar, the Russian Orthodox Church was the largest landowner. They immediately forgot the words of Christ that to the one who takes your shirt, “...give your outer garment also” (Matthew 5:40) and his call “Love your enemies.” Patriarch Tikhon (Belavin) declared an anathema (i.e., a church curse) on the Soviet government and began to call on the people to rise to civil war.
To protect your property and your well-fed life!

When our champions of Christianity say that the Russian Orthodox Church is the custodian of ancient Russian culture, they are knowingly telling a lie. After all, the entire truly ancient Russian, Slavic culture of the pre-Christian era (VI-X centuries) was destroyed. And it was destroyed by Christians. Destroyed to the ground! All the early works of ancient Russian architecture perished - ancient Russian temples, sanctuaries and temples, sacred groves, all sculpture, all ancient church utensils, all works of applied art. All ancient Russian fairy tales, legends, and epics were destroyed. Due to the fault of Christians, Russian people call their children not Russian, but Jewish and Greek names. In this regard, the paradox of the Russian peasant arose: the symbol of the Russian peasant is a Russian man with the purely Jewish name Yokhanaan (“gift of the gods”), converted into Ivan. Another paradox is that the culture that supporters of Christianity call Old Russian is basically alien to the Russian people, borrowed from the Greeks and Jews. Only gradually, over the centuries, did a partial Russification of this alien Christian (more precisely, Judeo-Christian) culture occur. Through the efforts of Christian “enlighteners”, the ancient writing of the Russian people was also destroyed. There is nothing left of her today. From the chronicle it is only known that such writing existed and that treaties with Byzantium were drawn up on it.

ROC and science

Another grave sin of the Russian Orthodox Church is its centuries-long struggle against science and enlightenment, in which it was little inferior to its more powerful sister, the Catholic Church. The attacks of the Russian Orthodox Church on science forced the great Russian scientist M.V. Lomonosov to write in the “Regulations” of the academic university (1748): “The clergy should not become attached to teachings that show physical truth for benefit and enlightenment, and especially not criticize science in sermons.” It was not by chance that Mikhail Vasilyevich demanded “not to get attached,” because the clergy, still unofficially, expressed dissatisfaction with secular education. Like the Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church actively fought against the teachings of Copernicus and Giordano Bruno and hindered the development of astronomy. Its clergy considered the heliocentric system “against the Orthodox faith.” M.V. Lomonosov had to include in his famous “Letter on the benefits of glass... written in 1752” a sharp rebuke to the “fierce ignoramuses” who have been striving for centuries to destroy scientific astronomy. And on December 21, 1756, the spiritual department presented Empress Catherine II with a detailed report on the harmfulness of heliocentric views for Orthodoxy. The Synod asked for a personal decree, according to which it was necessary to “take away everywhere and send to the Synod” the publication of the book of the French writer and scientist Bernard Fontenelle, who propagated the teachings of Copernicus (1740), and the numbers of the academic “Monthly Works” of 1755 and 1756, and also strictly prohibit “so that no one would dare to write or publish anything, both about the multitude of worlds and about everything else that is contrary to the holy faith and does not agree with honest morals, under the most severe punishment for a crime.”

The Orthodox clergy created many obstacles to the development of medicine. At Orthodox church councils of the 14th - 17th centuries, indices of prohibited books were considered and approved. In 1743, the synodal authorities demanded that the astronomical calendar published by the Academy of Sciences be withdrawn from sale (which was done): they found in it information “prone to tempting the people” “regarding the Moon and other planets.” It also objected to the publication of Russian chronicles undertaken by the Academy of Sciences (!).

In the 60s of the 19th century, the Russian Orthodox Church banned the publication of J. Verne’s novel “Journey to the Center of the Earth”, because spiritual censors found that this novel could develop anti-religious ideas and destroy confidence in the Holy Scriptures and the clergy. The Russian church authorities prohibited the publication of many works by prominent French writers - Flaubert, Anatole France, Emile Zola, etc.

At the insistence of the Synod, the book-dissertation of the prominent philosopher and mathematician D.S. Anichkov, “Reflections from natural theology on the beginning and origin of natural worship among various, especially ignorant peoples,” published in 1769, was publicly burned on the Execution Place in Moscow. is devoted to questions of the origin of religion. In the 19th century, works on geology, biology, botany, physiology, history, philosophy, and the works of Diderot, Holbach, Hobs, and Feuerbach were subject to censorship and other persecution of the clergy. Reading the works of Charles Darwin was prohibited, and his books were destroyed.

Only after the abolition of serfdom in 1861, the Church began to gradually abandon open and crude attacks on science. However, after the collapse of the socialist system in Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church again began to openly criticize science. In particular, today she again attacks the teaching of evolution, declaring it a lie (V. Trostnikov Darwinism: the collapse of the world. Orthodox conversation, 1991, No. 2: 41-43). Instead, she persistently and aggressively invites the younger generation (preschool children, schoolchildren and students) to believe in an antediluvian fairy tale called “creationism” - about God’s creation of the Universe, consisting only of the planet Earth, two luminaries and the firmament of heaven with nailed to this firmament asterisks.

"The Saints"

The leadership and clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church have something to repent of in connection with the canonization of saints. The Russian Orthodox Church took upon itself a great sin by declaring saints not just anyone, but a murderer - Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, who participated in the fratricidal war, killed the Polotsk prince Rogvolod and forcibly took his daughter Rogneda as his wife. All his “holiness” consists in the fact that he imposed on the Russian people a Judeo-Christian religion that was alien to them, but so desired by the priests. The heads of the Russian Orthodox Church (starting with Peter I, the nominal head of the Russian Orthodox Church until 1917 was the tsar (queen)) not only often behaved inappropriately, but some of them were simply oathbreakers. So, when Empress Elizaveta Petrovna was still crown princess, she hatched a conspiracy against the ruler Anna Leopoldovna and her son, the young Emperor John Antonovich. When the plot became known to Anna Leopoldovna and she demanded an explanation, Elizabeth burst into tears and threw herself into the ruler’s arms and, swearing to her that she was not plotting anything, convinced her that she was innocent. And she believed her! And on the night of November 24-25, 1741, Elizabeth, having led the conspiracy, overthrew Anna and her son and became empress.

Emperor Nicholas II, once again revered today by the Russian Orthodox Church, was also an oathbreaker, popularly nicknamed “the bloody” in connection with the shooting in January 1905 of a peaceful demonstration on the palace square in St. Petersburg. Since Alexander III considered Nicholas II incapable of ruling the country, he wanted to transfer the throne to his youngest son Mikhail. But when Alexander III died, Mikhail had not yet reached adulthood and could not accept the crown. Before his death, Alexander III took an oath from Nicholas II that he would renounce the throne as soon as Mikhail turned 21. “You yourself know that you will not save Russia,” the dying man said prophetically. “Take care of her until Mikhail comes of age.” When the revolution broke out and Nicholas II finally abdicated in favor of Michael, it was already too late.

Russian Orthodox Church and the Third Reich

The sinfulness of the Russian Orthodox Church in matters of morality is simply enormous! The moral inferiority of Orthodox morality can be judged, for example, by the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to wars and, in particular, by the explanation of why the Christian God killed (or allowed the murder of) civilians during the Great Patriotic War. During this war, the Church did not dare to declare that God punished people for their sins with war and destruction. This would be blasphemous, for the whole people are not and cannot be guilty before God. Moreover, women, old people and children do not have it.

During the war, it was impossible to use the second explanation common among the Church: God condones the suffering of people in order to mark them with his attention. The hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church understood then that such an explanation would not be understood by the people, because it is not only blasphemous, but also sounds mocking. Thus, both of these common explanations in this case would be not only immoral, but also shameful for the Russian Orthodox Church.

However, more than half a century after the end of this terrible war and after the rights of the Church were fully restored and it again, as under the tsarist autocracy, felt its strength, the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church returned to medieval moral standards. Today they not only do not condemn the war, but also blasphemously express the traditional point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church that war is... good for people. Archpriest Vasily Preobrazhensky teaches: “We certainly believe: the outcome of all events - both small and great - is predetermined by God...” Think, reader, about the following mocking words of this servant of God: “... war is one of the ways through which Providence leads the human race to peace and salvation... War was established by God (allowed by him) primarily for the sake of public and universal admonition. ..”. This means that a person must believe that they are beating him, mocking him and his loved ones, killing him for... his own good!!!

The leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church can also repent of its attitude towards Jews. In the Catholic Church, the prayer for the “treacherous Jews” was removed from the Good Friday service. In some Orthodox countries, similar reforms are also beginning to be carried out, but not in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Here, of course, not all the mistakes and crimes of the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church are given. But even those mentioned are quite enough to humbly lower your head and, following the Pope and the heads of some Protestant Churches (unfortunately, not all of them have banished pride) to bring words of repentance to their people. Maybe our long-suffering people will listen to them and forgive them. If he believes in the sincerity of repentance...

About true faith, obscurantists and « pop » – Andrey Muzolf, teacher at Kyiv Theological Seminary.

Photo: © Natalya Goroshkova/Orthodox Life

– There is a certain negative background around Orthodoxy in society. Orthodoxy says unpleasant things: it points out sin, talks about punishment for violations, that is, it acts as a moral censor. This role irritates society. But in fact, Orthodoxy does not set itself such tasks. Please comment and explain what are the global goals and objectives of Orthodoxy?

– To say that Orthodoxy creates some kind of negative background around itself is the same as saying that hospitals and other medical institutions are a breeding ground for illness and death, because it is in them that, for the most part, people get sick and die. But such a statement is absurd!

Orthodoxy does not create negativity around itself. It only testifies to the fact that humanity is sick with sin and warns what consequences such a disease can lead to. If a doctor tells us that we have health problems, we will not blame him for telling us something unpleasant. Yes, it is unpleasant for us to hear about our diseases, but otherwise, if we do not know about them, we will not be able to cure them.

Orthodoxy is a testimony that a person is sick, but has received hope for healing from the disease that he contracted in heaven, at the dawn of his existence. Having succumbed to the temptation of the devil - “a murderer from the beginning,” as the holy apostle and evangelist John the Theologian calls him, man fell away from God as the source of Eternal life and, as a result, began to die. According to St. Gregory Palamas, the primordial man died twice: the first time - spiritually - at the moment of committing a sin, and only after many years of life away from God, the person died a second time - physically. But despite the fact that man himself, by his own free will, left the Creator, God still comes to meet him. The Lord shows mercy and immeasurable love for the human race: He Himself becomes one of us in order to save humanity from the power of sin and death.

Based on this, the main task of Orthodoxy, according to one modern Christian writer, is for every Christian to become a “little Christ”, to be able to embody in his life the ideal to which Adam was called from the moment of his creation - to become not only an image , but also in the likeness of God. And this is only possible if a person remains in the Church of Christ, because only there is real reunion with God possible, that is, deification.

– People are happy to find something to reproach Orthodoxy for. They point to the “spots” and say, look at yourself, and then learn. How to be here? After all, Orthodoxy is about both holy and unholy people.

– Let’s give an ordinary life example: if a person does not trust this or that doctor, he will not reject the importance of all medicine entirely. A similar approach can be transferred to the church sphere: if we do not like this or that priest, this is not at all a reason to reject the importance of the Church and question the necessity of Its existence.
Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh once said the following words about himself: “I am not a good person, but what I say about God is true.” If a person sincerely seeks the Lord, he will definitely find Him. If a person comes to the Church to find the Truth within its walls, the Truth will be revealed to him, because the Truth is Christ Himself. If a person tries to catch the Church and its ministers in something bad, then this means that this is his main goal, and not at all a spiritual quest.

A person’s external behavior is a kind of litmus test that reveals his inner world. And therefore, the abundance of gossip and slander addressed to the Church is, first of all, evidence that it is lies that fill the human heart, because, according to the Holy Scriptures, “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34). For an Orthodox Christian, slander has never been something terrifying. One ascetic once said: “It doesn’t matter to me what other people think about me; All that matters to me is what my God thinks of me.”

And regarding the idea that the Church, which preaches the high ideal of holiness, itself should consist only of holy people, while avoiding everything unclean and vicious, the famous Orthodox theologian L. Uspensky noted: “The Orthodox Church has never equated holiness and infallibility." The Church is holy not because its members are holy, but because its Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, is holy. An interesting description of the Church was given by the Christian ascetic of the 4th century, St. Ephraim the Syrian: “The whole Church is the Church of the penitent... all of it is the Church of the perishing...”

Unlike sectarians, the Orthodox never claimed that they were holy, so to speak, a priori, only because they became a member of the Church, and therefore “automatically” chosen by God for Eternity. Eternity is not given to a person just like a “club card”: it must be earned, and this is not an easy matter, because “the kingdom of heaven is taken by force, and those who use force take it by force” (Matthew 11:12). And only the Church can show a person the path that will lead us to eternal life in Christ.

– Why is Orthodoxy not fashionable? Why doesn't it keep up with the times? Protestants, for example, go door to door, campaign, invite people to cafes, throw parties... This is fashionable and fun. Why can’t Orthodoxy become a little “pop”, because then the people will flock?

– The famous English writer of the last century, G. K. Chesterton, wrote: “The Church always seems to be behind the times, when in fact it is timeless.” And the main reason why the Church has always been and will be timeless is that the Gospel - that Good News about the salvation of fallen man by God, which the Church reveals to each of us - has no boundaries, either temporal or spatial. The Gospel is intended for every person, regardless of his place of birth, material or social status.

If we want to change something in the Church, if we don’t like something about it, we must think about one elementary thing: the Church has existed for almost two thousand years and in its history it has already seen more than one hundred similar “reformers”, who tried to free her from something, to somehow “improve” her, to make her more accessible to the public. We should remember the words of the great teacher of the Church, St. John Chrysostom, who in one of his sermons said: “A person comes to the Church not to bring something into it; a person comes to the Church to take away with him nothing else and no one else but Christ Himself.”

Based on this, the main task of the Church is to sanctify man, and through man, the entire visible created world with the grace of the Holy Spirit. This is the mission of the Orthodox Church, this is its salt. And, in the words of Christ, “If the salt loses its strength, then with what will you make it salty? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out for people to trample underfoot” (Matthew 5:13).

- “The Orthodox are obscurantists, ignoramuses, aliens from the 10th century, generally backward people in all respects.” How can you comment on such statements addressed to Orthodox believers and priests?

– Despite such statements, the Orthodox Church has never encouraged ignorance. Saint Philaret of Moscow said: “The faith of Christ is not in enmity with true knowledge, because it is not in alliance with ignorance.” We all know well that most great scientists, such as Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Leibniz, Descartes, Newton and many, many others, have always positioned themselves as deeply religious people. For example, the founder of quantum physics, the German physicist of the last century M. Planck wrote: “Wherever and no matter how far we look, we do not find any contradictions between religion and natural science... Religion and natural science are not mutually exclusive... these two areas complement each other and are dependent on each other.”

Another question: what exactly does modern society mean by the concept of “obscurantism” of the Orthodox? By the “obscurantism” of believers, we mean, first of all, that the Orthodox do not want to make concessions to the modern secular world. What concessions? First of all, recognize sin as the norm of human life.

Today, almost all the media extol what was considered something shameful and unnatural just half a century ago. Even the holy Apostle John the Theologian wrote that all the values ​​of the world come down to three main factors: the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life (see 1 John 2:16). That is why, in the words of another apostle, “friendship with the world is enmity with God” (James 4:4).
Consequently, the modern world and the Church point a person to completely opposite values: if the world demands to take everything from this life, to strive for ambition and vice, then the Church, on the contrary, calls its children to humility, meekness and piety. And it is in such piety that modern society, unfortunately, sees “obscurantism.”

– They say: “Orthodoxy is difficult to understand. Everything about it is complex and incomprehensible to modern man. None of this is relevant today.” Please tell me, is Orthodox teaching accessible to the average person? How can he comprehend the incomprehensible truth that philosophers and theologians have comprehended throughout their lives?

– It is impossible to understand Orthodoxy, if only because it is not a philosophical concept at all. Orthodoxy can only be experienced on oneself, or rather, in oneself. Orthodoxy is not a theory, it is not a sum of some knowledge or philosophical conclusions. Orthodoxy is, first of all, life in Christ. And therefore His relevance does not depend on certain chronological boundaries. Orthodoxy will always be relevant as long as this world still exists and until man reaches his highest goal - the general resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgment of Christ.
Unlike the comprehension of a particular philosophical system, which requires some preliminary intellectual preparation, the general educational level is not important for the perception of Orthodoxy, because God does not look at a person’s intellect, but at his heart: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8).
Philosophers of the pagan world tried to comprehend the truth of existence, neglecting the Creator of this existence. And it is quite understandable why they could never achieve their desired goal. Not a single philosophical system could give a person what he was able to receive in the Church, namely, God Himself. That is why the English writer G. K. Chesterton, whom we have already mentioned above, says that if such lights of ancient philosophy as Plato, Pythagoras or Aristotle had stood for even a minute in the light that comes from Christ, they would have understood that the light of their own teachings - twilight.

Interviewed by Natalya Goroshkova

In a region where schoolchildren are required to study “Orthodox Culture,” the number of infections with sexually transmitted diseases among children and adolescents has sharply increased

"In the Belgorod region over the past seven years number only Teenagers with syphilis increased 14 times, children under 12 years old - 35 times. According to the regional dermatovenous dispensary, the main source of infection is unprotected sexual contact, reports the correspondent of “Portal-Credo.Ru” with reference to the Belgorod news agency Bel.Ru.”

According to a poll “15% of girls and 22% of boys noted the presence of sexual contacts in their lives. Moreover, 50% of them indicated that their first sexual intercourse was committed before the age of 15...” As a preventive measure Doctors talk about the need for sex education for children and adolescents in the family and school with the participation of specialists (venereologists, urologists) and psychologists, the use of condoms.

What is preventing us from stopping this African squalor - syphilis in teenagers!? Here's what:

In 2006, defense and industrial complex became a compulsory subject for study in schools in the Belgorod region from grades 2 to 11 (in the regional version it is called "Orthodox culture"). At the beginning of 2010, the ruling bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church MP, Archbishop Ioann (Popov), set the task for priests to check the quality of teaching of the military-industrial complex, which is conducted by secular teachers.

The Russian Orthodox Church MP considers sex education for schoolchildren and more broadly - the whole range of measures called “Family Planning” - "Western invention", the main purpose of which is to destroy the foundations of Russian family tradition.

"Many Orthodox Christians are concerned conversations about the possibility of introducing sex education for schoolchildren and juvenile justice (the Western juvenile justice system) in Russia, said Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill at a meeting with the Secretary of the Presidium of the General Council of the United Russia party Vyacheslav Volodin and his deputy Andrei Isaev on Wednesday in Moscow"
...
“United Russia assured the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church that they will defend Russian traditions in the field of raising children and protecting their rights. Volodin and Isaev promised to counteract understanding such an interpretation of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, which would push Russia to introduce sex education and juvenile justice."