Priest georgiy maximov about family. "Orange revolution" in the Church, or what does priest Georgy Maximov call for? What's left behind the scenes of this story
In the footsteps of Valuy history
Editorial. The scandal in the Valuisky diocese with outright extortion of money from the rector of the village church was actively covered in the church and near-church media. The RNL played an important role in publicizing the situation. We also published a comment by the candidate of philosophical sciences O, which caused a great resonance. Another of our regular contributors, Deacon Peter Pakhomov, stood up for the bishop and his secretary in the publication.
And now we have received an article from Margarita Lisova, who offers her own view on the problem. The text of the article shows that the author is trying to defend Bishop Savva (Nikiforov) and his secretary, Priest Vadim Lebedev. However, unlike Fr. Peter, who simply does not see the catastrophe in the situation, M. Lisova undertook to give her own interpretation of the events, arguing that everything that happened in Valuyki was a provocation against the Church. However, the author's arguments are not credible. M. Lisova writes about certain forces that organized this provocation, and the purpose of these forces is not only to discredit Bishop Savva, but also to inflict an information blow on the entire Russian Church. However, these mysterious powerful forces, which the courageous Bishop Savva challenged, are not named in any way. Who and for what purpose blackmailed Vladyka with this recording? Unclear. Meanwhile, the author of the article undertakes to teach Fr. George Maksimov, how to cover this kind of stories, which looks quite clumsy.
However, in order not to be accused of bias, we decided to publish this article, expressing our attitude in this sidebar. Moreover, the facts that the author presses on need to be verified and investigated.
Here is another scandal that shook the Russian Orthodox Church and went far beyond its borders. It would seem that everything is simple and clear in this story. A record was posted on the Internet https://vimeo.com/264560876 called "Church Racket", where everything is clear without unnecessary comments, and the very fact of what happened is not denied.
Yes, it is clear and simple, but only at first glance!
“In general, the story resembles a police series. How simple good guys forced difficult and bad guys to give themselves away. But the series is a performance. That's why it doesn't leave a vague suspicion somewhere - but isn't all this a provocation? Maybe the bishop became objectionable to someone - so they organized a set-up, creatively applying modern criminal-bureaucratic technologies to the church environment? - this thought O.A. Efremov, expressed by him here at the RNL, only gave rise to even more questions and thoughts. And I wanted to take a closer look at this problem of “church scandals” using the example of this case. Perhaps it will be possible to understand why these stories connected with the Russian Orthodox Church have become more and more lately?
I will say right away that this article is addressed to those to whom the Church is the Mother, and everything that happens in it is not indifferent to them, but responds with pain in their hearts. The purpose of this article is an attempt to understand what is behind such high-profile scandals that are so professionally untwisted in the open spaces of the network space. Attempts to justify or accuse someone are not the subject of this article, so I ask you not to replace one with the other if someone suddenly wants to do this and divert the conversation from the goal.
So, short story Valuy history according toInternet versions and main characters.
The case takes place in the Valuisky diocese, created in June 2012. It was separated from the Belgorod diocese. Since November 2015 it has been managed by Bishop Savva (Nikoforov) . To avoid innuendo, I will mention that I have known Bishop Savva for a long time: he served in our city for several years, where he is remembered with great warmth and love. Hegumen Savva was always simple and open in communication, the clergy and parishioners treated him with great respect, and no one ever saw him angry. His words were balanced and did not differ from the Gospel, he himself was simple and non-possessive. So he left Voronezh.
Rural Father Archpriest Igor Rybalkin - according to many bloggers and concerned citizens, he is a positive hero and a victim. Serves about. Igor in the parish with. Samarino, Krasnogvardeisky district. Well, he serves... on the Facebook page of Priest Georgy Maksimov, in the comments under his next "report" on the course of this story, users write that there are questions for Archpriest Igor: he does not want to serve in his parish on Sundays.
Bishop's secretary-referent Priest Vadim Lebedev. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the position of Fr. Vadim is precisely the assistant secretary, and not the diocesan secretary, as the missionary Fr. Georgy Maksimov. The diocesan secretary of the Valuisky diocese is Archpriest Mikhail Chaika. So oh. Vadim Lebedev was appointed by the same Internet community as a racketeer and extortionist. And also on "you" and louse. He came to the Valuisky diocese from Moscow six months ago, has 10 years of experience as a deacon, and extensive experience in social work. He graduated from the seminary, then the theological academy.
Anti-Orthodox blogger Kalakazo (kalakazo)- first posted on the network a recording of a conversation between Fr. Igor and Priest Vadim Lebedev. It is kalakazo, not himself about. Igor, according to the same Georgy Maximov.
Priest George Maximov - a public missionary of the Russian Orthodox Church, maintains his own blog on youtube, an active user of social networks, has his own website. He played a key role in promoting and, as he himself claims, bringing this story to the maximum publicity on the Internet. But the information provided by George, as it turned out, is one-sided, with distorted facts and unverified data. Taking advantage of the popularity of the youtube channel, taking on the role of an independent public informant and a servant of justice, he forms a false idea about this incident among tens of thousands of people, labels and imposes his own opinion, calls on priests to take dubious actions that contradict the spirit of the Gospel and church canons.
On April 13, an audio recording of a conversation about. Igor with Priest Vadim Lebedev, from which it can be concluded that the bishop's secretary tried to extort money from the poor rural priest, but the latter rebelled against such arbitrariness, posted a record exposing the secretary on the Internet and, like in a fairy tale, justice prevailed! Priest Vadim Lebedev was removed from the post of dean, assistant secretary and member of the revision commission of the Valui diocese, and to help Fr. Igor is collecting money for personal bank card. A good instructive example for others: both secretaries and offended priests!
But personally I am sickened by the position of Fr. Georgy Maksimov, that the right way is to raise such questions concerning the internal administrative and managerial structure of the Church for public discussion, to pass verdicts on the net and to judge contrary to the Holy Gospel and church canons.
This is what prompted me to try to understand this story.
What's left behind the scenes of this story
So what is not included in official version promoted on the Internet.
On March 31, Bishop Savva served in the parish of Archpriest Igor Rybalkin, and on April 1, indeed, he sent his secretary-referent, Priest Vadim Lebedev, to Fr. Igor, only the purpose of the visit was completely different. Vladyka needed to make sure that Priest Igor Rybalkin was ready to serve in Holy Week and that there were Lambs to serve the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. There were no lambs on the throne, which once again confirmed the fact that Fr. Igor is not going to serve in Holy Week. Earlier about. Igor was noticed in the fact that he does not perform All-Night Vigils in his parish on Sundays. Bishop Savva repeatedly pointed out Fr. Igor on the need for these services. As a bishop, he can demand this from his cleric. But, despite this, Archpriest Igor Rybalkin did not serve in his parish on Sundays, although he reported to the bishop that services were being performed. Thus, o. Igor was repeatedly convicted of lying about his ministry in the parish. This is precisely the reason for Bishop Savva's close attention to the arrival of Father Igor and checking his readiness for Holy Week. Since there were no Lambs, the Bishop’s order followed on the service of Father Igor Rybalkin in cathedral Valuyki.
Father Vadim came to Fr. Igor to the parish, following the order of the bishop, and along the way decided to find out the "incident" that arose after the bishop's service. Father Vadim, as it turns out, was “waited for a long time” and they even knew what it would be about. I won't go into that speech itself, which we've all heard. Hearing this was painful and unpleasant, and, of course, this should not be. But for a more complete understanding, it must be said that this conversation did not arise from scratch.
Now I want to digress for a while and offer a brief background information that I consider necessary for a full understanding of the situation. The very “envelopes” the existence of which is so reluctantly and casually mentioned by the missionary Fr. Georgy Maksimov, there is nothing other than the implementation of the principles of self-financing and self-sufficiency of the ROC. In accordance with Ch. XX of the Charter of the ROC, the funds of the ROC and its canonical divisions can be formed, among other things, from deductions from synodal institutions, dioceses, diocesan institutions, missions, farmsteads, representative offices, parishes, monasteries, fraternities, sisterhoods and their institutions and organizations. Self-sufficiency and self-financing in the ROC has existed since 1918 and means that everything that is necessary for the life of the Church is provided by the Church itself. Church utensils and decoration of parishes, their reconstruction and Maintenance, payment of utilities in full, maintenance of priests and members of their families, including housing, maintenance of spiritual educational institutions, including the payment of scholarships and salaries to teachers - for all this the money must be found by the Church itself. And since there is a strong differentiation of income between parishes in the ROC, an internal tool was created for the redistribution of funds - the so-called system of "remuneration for service." The redistributed funds are accumulated in the diocese, which distributes the budget according to needs, requirements and obligations.
It seems that on the basis of the above, Fr. Vadim tried to appeal to the justice and conscience of Fr. Igor. Those same 6,000 rubles are certainly important, because subdeacons also need to receive wages to support families. The ruling bishop needs to provide financial assistance to churches, the situation of which is much worse than in the parish of Archpriest Igor Rybalkin. A heartbreaking photograph of a shabby wall presented to us by Fr. Georgy Maximov in his video reflects only part of reality. In fact, a “warm floor” system was installed in the altar of the temple, a new iconostasis was installed; the walls were plastered last year, a few square meters of the narthex wall remained unfinished; new plastic windows and doors installed. All this can be seen from the full photo report on the official website of the Valui diocese. It seems that in this state of affairs in the parish, 6,000 rubles is not the amount due to which it would be worth inflating the scandal. It is possible that the reason why Fr. Igor reduced the amount of remuneration, is it not at all in the poverty of the parish?
On April 2, the day after the incident, moving away from emotions, Father Vadim Lebedev called Father Igor and repeatedly asked for forgiveness, admitting his guilt, as befits a Christian, otherwise how can one serve and approach the Cup of Christ? Father Igor fraternally forgave. It seemed that this was the end of the story that arose between the two priests face to face. But it turned out that not everything is so simple ...
This version of the conversation fully confirms that it was Fr. Igor, who, nevertheless, declared at the diocesan council that he had nothing to do with this record. Even about. Georgy Maksimov, acting as a defender of Fr. Igor, does not hide the fact that the recording was made by Fr. Igor.
One can even omit the logically arising question, why Fr. Igor made this record? The question is different: if the conflict is settled, Fr. Vadim Lebedev apologized, Fr. Igor Rybalkin accepted and forgave the apology, then why and for what purpose should this record be transferred to third parties who have absolutely nothing to do with either the Russian Orthodox Church or its members?
All of the above suggests that we are dealing with a carefully planned campaign. However, Vladyka Savva did not agree to any “deals”. The result of this was the distribution of a scandalous record on the network. She got into the net not because the bishop "overlooked", but because he consciously took this step, thereby cutting off any possibility of pressure and manipulation not by him personally, but by the power given to him by God. But that's not the end of the story...
Information attack on the Russian Orthodox Church
The recording was made on April 1, and it appeared on the network on April 13, when the time for “thinking” allotted by the blackmailers expired.
April 13 is another starting point in a big information war which has been waged against the Orthodox Church for a long time. It became very interesting, but how exactly did this information get thrown onto the Internet? Millions of records are posted on the network, and among them you can find a record about. Igor Rybalkin, I think, is not an easy task. After all, who knew him before this story? And here we see how in a few days this recording became the object of church criticism and discussion among the broad masses. How is this possible? And who is behind these information streams that we often consume without even realizing that our minds are someone's target?
And here the question arises: what does a simple rural father, Father Igor Rybalkin, have in common with this man? Or are there much stronger players behind Father Igor, who are trying to move the pieces on the chessboard of the Valuyskaya diocese?
If we take into account the growing attempts of the Kyiv schismatics for autocephaly and the separation of the parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate from Moscow and their subordination to the Ukrainian false church, then the question arises: maybe this scandal had completely different goals? For example, to “remove” Bishop Savva, who is pursuing a policy of strengthening the position of the Russian Orthodox Church in his diocese, bordering Ukraine and being the object of attempts to strengthen the influence of the Kyiv Patriarchate? It is known that on the territory of the Valuisko-Alekseevskaya diocese there is a bishop appointed here by Filaret Denisenko. During the 2.5 years that Vladyka has been managing the diocese entrusted to him, he traveled to all 88 of its parishes to get to know the parishioners, to see what condition the parishes are in and how his flock lives. Such close attention on his part was not to the liking of many. Vladyka did not establish extortions, as they are now trying to promote on the network. Moreover, he himself often helps many priests in difficult life situations, and on their birthdays - including material rewards. Under the diocese there is a fund for helping widows and priests, and many other good deeds of real material assistance are being done. The conclusion suggests itself that someone who knows the inner workings of church life was professionally trying to play this card, omitting this expenditure side, but deliberately focusing on the revenue side.
It is clear that Vadim's father is not main goal in this information war. And not even Bishop Savva. The main goal is the Russian Orthodox Church. To weaken its position, any means are good, and Vladyka Savva in this case is the person representing and exercising the power of the Church in this diocese.
Separately, I would like to say about the anonymous, unsigned “Open Address of Representatives of the Business Community to Bishop Savva of Valuysky and Alekseevsky”, which is also part of the campaign to discredit Bishop Savva and the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as a direct threat to its bishops. The letter, among other things, is also replete with outright slander. Thus, the authors of the letter, addressing Bishop Savva, accuse him of purchasing a vintage car and building a personal home. The retro car actually turns out to be just an old Volga purchased for 177,000 rubles as the property of the diocese, and the personal home is also a building under construction owned by the diocese.
It would seem that the letter is anonymous, you can certainly ignore it, but the words “we hope that this open letter will serve as a“ first call ”not only to you, but also to other bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, including Bishop Sophrony of Gubkinsky and Grayvoronsky” - this is a kind of "black mark" to Vladyka Sofroniy. A hint, they say, you will not be accommodating, expect trouble. Blackmail and pressure on the bishops is evident. All this indicates that what is happening in the Belgorod region is a well-orchestrated provocation.
The money that is now so actively collected and transferred to the "victim" Fr. Igor Rybalkin on a personal bank card, don’t “30 pieces of silver” remind him, and reconciliation with his father Vadim on Holy Week is “Kiss of Judas”? Forgive - "forgave", but the record was transferred to the "right hands". And Father Georgy Maksimov calls us to follow this act from his pages on social networks!
What does the priest Georgy Maximov call for?
Father George played one of the most significant roles in inflating this story. The entry was posted by an anti-Orthodox blogger whose readers are alien and even hostile people of the Church. He was supported by Deacon Andrei Kuraev, whose readership is not much different from Kalakazov's, and who does not enjoy great authority among the priesthood and Orthodox people. Later they were joined by Fr. Georgy Maksimov. It was he who brought this scandal to a wide Orthodox audience, which was part of the plan, but the purpose of this “stuffing” was to make the scandal loud and discussed precisely in the church environment, as a result of which sanctions would be applied to the lord, and to do it all by the hands of the Orthodox themselves .
Without understanding the essence of this story, without talking personally with its participants, Fr. George took the position of a lawyer Fr. Igor.
In the wake of protecting the "victim" Fr. Without noticing Igor himself (or doing it on purpose), he created a myth about children with whom there is no one to sit with during the service of Fr. Igor in the cathedral. The public is indignant, the effect has been achieved. But if o. George bothered to find out the age of the children, he would have discovered that the eldest daughter of Fr. Igor is 23 years old, the middle son is 16 years old, and the youngest is 9 years old.
The same applies to "penance" in the form of service in the cathedral. Vladyka Savva really ordered the service of Fr. Igor 1-2 times a week in the cathedral. Since the diocese does not have enough clerics to serve in the cathedral, Vladyka Savva is forced to attract priests from parishes, and Fr. Igor is not the only one. In addition, this implies additional income for serving priests. The definition of "penance" in relation to such service was first given by Fr. Georgy Maksimov. The reason for this apparently was the myth created by him about young children of Fr. Igor and the long road to the cathedral. The myth of young children has been dispelled. As for the road, many Russians have to overcome the distance of 75 km from home to work every day. Having a personal car (certainly no worse than Bishop Savva's "retro" car), Fr. Igor nevertheless considered serving in the cathedral a punishment. It's about. Igor, and not Bishop Savva, as the indignant public claimed, asking: “How can one punish with service?”
So, taking the case under personal control, Fr. George came to a direct public condemnation of a brother in Christ. The more I listened and read Father George, the more his position caused rejection as contrary to the spirit of the Gospel and the teachings of the Holy Fathers. Starting with "righteous anger" and the search for justice, Fr. George went so far as to call on priests and seminarians to do the same as Fr. Igor Rybalkin, namely: record it on a dictaphone, collect facts and post it all on the Internet, giving wide publicity, ignoring the appeal to the ruling bishop and the patriarchate. According to Fr. George, voiced by him in his video "About the shocking record from the Valuyskaya diocese" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOrDfbeDGe4, neither the patriarchate nor the bishops are able to resolve this issue quickly and correctly.
According to spiritual rules, a priest who has something against another priest must decide this with the ruling bishop. If the issue cannot be resolved by the bishop, one can go further to the patriarchy. Finally, there is the ecclesiastical court. What does it say about Georgy Maximov in his videos? Here are his words: “Oh. Igor posted a record - this is a gesture of desperation! Where to complain: to the bishop, to the patriarchate? ... in general, I'm very worried about prot. Igor and I am convinced that the only way for this situation to somehow end normally, or even end fairly in a Christian way, is the widest possible publicity and church condemnation ... what would happen if every third priest acted like a . Igor? According to the logic of Father George, peace and order will then be established in the Church. And if you think about the call of Father George? Is this not a direct call for a revolution in the Church?
If we logically interpret the words of Father George, it turns out that he does not believe in the power of the Church and that Christ, the patriarch, the bishopric are capable of solving problems that have always been, because the Church is a living organism. In fact, he expresses distrust of the current Patriarch Kirill in his ability to manage the Church. If we follow this logic further, then we will soon come to the conclusion that it will not be the Patriarch who will appoint bishops, but the priesthood with the “Maidan in its head” will dictate its conditions to the hierarchy, using the technologies of color revolutions and information wars for this.
Let's think: if the priesthood and seminarians, on the call of Fr. George will go in search of justice by Fr. Igor, they will go to the altar with voice recorders and communicate with each other, what will this lead to? Which of the holy fathers called for "such" opposition? The Monk Barsanuphius of Optina said: "The revolution came out of the seminary." We have already walked this path!
And doesn't Father George contradict the Gospel with his call? The Savior says: “If your brother sins against you, go and reprove him between you and him alone; if he listens to you, then you have gained your brother; but if he does not listen, take one or two more with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the mouth of two or three witnesses; if he does not listen to them, tell the church; but if he does not listen to the church, then let him be to you, like a pagan and a publican.” (Matthew 18:15-17). Did Fr. Igor Rybalkin? If he was unjustly oppressed and saw lawlessness, then he had to decide this issue in the Church he serves. But he "went the other way"!
The Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians writes: “How dare anyone among you, dealing with another, sue the ungodly, and not the saints?” (1 Cor. 6:1). At that time, some Corinthian Christians applied to the state courts, whose judges could only be people professing a pagan religion, and the court took place according to pagan Roman laws. Therefore app. Paul also says that believing Christians should not be judged by ungodly pagans, but by saints, i.e. enlightened by the light of Christ's Truth, in other words, among their own - members of their community, and not according to the justice of this world, but according to the Truth of God. Is the Gospel outdated, and the epistles of St. Paul no longer relevant to some priesthood? Or are all means good to solve their problems in search of "justice"? Since when did the Jesuit motto “the end justifies the means” become the norm for some Orthodox priests?
Father Georgiy's call to give broad public publicity to church problems leads to the fact that "the name God's blasphemes at pagans » . The problems of the Church are discussed by people who have nothing to do with the Church. Moreover, tubs of dirt and untruth are being poured on our Mother Church. It is enough to go and read the comments on the posts of the above bloggers to understand that the problems of the Church THERE, with these people, cannot be solved. Yes, comments, if all the posts of the blogger Kalakazo about the situation in the Valuy diocese are directly titled: “We scoff further ...”! We do not follow, we do not discuss, but we scoff! And under the same motto, videos of father Georgy Maksimov are posted https://kalakazo.livejournal.com/2300106.html Unknowingly, Fr. George became an information mouthpiece in atheistic circles.
Any normal person is hurt and offended if his own mother or father is condemned, even if their sin is obvious to everyone. How then can Fr. George to consider it normal to condemn the vices of the members of the Church in these "information dumps" and, moreover, to call the priesthood to this? Since when did the sin of Ham, who laughed at his father, become a worthy example to follow?
No one says that the problems of the Church should be hushed up and pretend that they do not exist! Problems must be solved, but only the members of the Church themselves must do this in the spirit of catholicity and the Gospel. Have we seen many cases of public disclosure of problems among Jews or Islamists? But they are there too, they only solve them within their own community, without discrediting the whole organization in the form of individuals. Still, one must see the difference between silence and unwillingness to bring the problems of the Church to non-members of the Church.
Biased position about. Georgia Maksimova brought him to the point that, in search of the "truth", he began to administer the court in his own person and pass verdicts, which were just as unpleasant to hear as the scandalously discussed record. His words: “I believe that this person should not be a priest! ... and yet many, including listening to this recording, will say - this is the Church! What is this, this Lebedev Church? This Lebedev is not a Church! Here about. Igor, who is talking to him, is the Church, the parishioners of Fr. Igor is the Church, but this diocesan secretary is just a louse that has stuck to the body of the Church and sucks blood from it!”
I would like to ask Fr. George, by what right does he expel a person from the Church? Was it not for the sake of sinners that Christ came into this world and endured suffering on the Cross, so that we, sinning every minute with our lives, falling and rising, brought repentance to God? And if tomorrow o. George will be with Fr. Vadim in the same altar at the Divine Liturgy, how will he approach the same Chalice with him, seeing in front of him “a louse sucking blood”?
Rev. Justin Popovich said: “The Holy Gospel of the God-man does not allow a person to pronounce the supreme judgment about the sin of a brother against him or to commit revenge; all this belongs to God and the Church. The final judgment belongs to God, not to man. There is always a truly gospel message and commandment: "Judge not lest ye be judged"(Matthew 7:1) . For only God knows everything that preceded sin, caused sin and subjected the unfortunate brother to sin. The Church judges through the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers and through their holy sacramental heirs: bishops and priests.
I would like to believe that the misconceptions about. George Maksimov - not a conscious position in the information war against the Orthodox Church and that he will find in himself Christian courage, to which he calls on others to admit their mistakes publicly, for "woe to that person through whom the temptation comes" (Matt. 18:7) . After all, the call to fight against the vices of the Church among people alien and hostile to her, when the Church of God is blasphemed, is no less evil than those vices against which Fr. George. In this case, the words of A.S. Pushkin, a man who passionately loved his Fatherland, but condemned its shortcomings: “All this gets into his journal and is printed in Europe - this is disgusting. Of course, I despise my fatherland from head to toe - but I am annoyed if a foreigner shares this feeling with me.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the war against our state has never stopped. It is waged against all state-forming components: physical, mental and spiritual. And all emerging information campaigns against the Orthodox Church are aimed at the destruction of Russian statehood in the spiritual space. Anti-Orthodox blogs and websites are means of manipulating our consciousness. Our minds and the minds of our children are the direct target of our enemies. The only weapon they use to destroy us is information. Forgetting the gospel truths and moving away from Christ, our mind loses the ability to distinguish good from evil, we consume this poisoned food and do not notice how we ourselves begin to eat each other. And “a kingdom divided against itself will be desolate; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matthew 12:25). We need to learn in love to cover each other's infirmities and protect the greatest shrine left to us by our ancestors - the Orthodox faith. Without it, we have no future.
Organizations banned on the territory of the Russian Federation: "Islamic State" ("ISIS"); Jabhat al-Nusra (Victory Front); "Al-Qaeda" ("Base"); "Muslim Brotherhood" ("Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun"); "Movement Taliban"; "Holy War" ("Al-Jihad" or "Egyptian Islamic Jihad"); "Islamic group" ("Al-Gamaa al-Islamiya"); "Asbat al-Ansar"; Islamic Liberation Party (Hizbut-Tahrir al-Islami); "Imarat Kavkaz" ("Caucasian Emirate"); "Congress of the Peoples of Ichkeria and Dagestan"; "Islamic Party of Turkestan" (former "Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan"); "Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people"; International religious association "Tablighi Jamaat"; "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA); "Ukrainian National Assembly - Ukrainian People's Self-Defense" (UNA - UNSO); "Trident them. Stepan Bandera"; Ukrainian organization "Brotherhood"; Ukrainian organization "Right Sector"; International Religious Association "AUM Shinrikyo"; Jehovah witnesses; AUMShinrikyo (AumShinrikyo, AUM, Aleph); "National Bolshevik Party"; Movement "Slavic Union"; Movement "Russian National Unity"; "Movement against illegal immigration".
For a complete list of organizations banned on the territory of the Russian Federation, see the links.
What was before
When I was asked to comment on what happened, I had to sort things out and, in particular, get acquainted with the “creativity” of the murdered cartoonists. As it turned out, they devoted their lives to publicly mocking everything that is sacred to people living in the same country as them. Most of them "got" to Christianity. On their covers, they depicted outrageous blasphemy to such a disgusting degree that even professional fighters against religion in the USSR did not stoop. Islam also got a lot, and the mockery was so frank and outrageous that the sensational Danish cartoons of 2005 seem like a mere trifle against this background. For "Charlie Hebdo" there was nothing sacred - not only religious concepts and symbols were subjected to mockery, but also, for example, parental love, filial love, love between spouses. The magazine aired outright obscenities.
This does not mean that the terrorist attack directed against them should be approved or justified. But one must have the courage now, when "the whole progressive world" shouts: "I am Charlie" and looks menacingly at those who do not shout together, to admit that the tragedy that occurred in Paris is a consequence of the path that the editors of this magazine have chosen . If you choose to walk down the street and spit in the face of passers-by as your “artistic self-expression”, then it is not surprising if, sooner or later, one of the passers-by will beat you up. If your occupation is to mock something that is dear to someone, then sooner or later a person will appear who will tell you “enough!”, And maybe not only say, but also take revenge.
In 2011, the editorial office of the magazine already received a warning: Muslims organized an explosion near the entrance to the editorial office of Charlie Hebdo. The explosion was arranged in such a way that there were no casualties. In response, the editorial office acquired security guards and, with even greater enthusiasm, began to mock Islam. I will describe a couple of examples: one of the covers depicts a Muslim who unsuccessfully tries to protect himself from automatic fire with the Koran, bullets pierce the book through and through, and the wounded Muslim allegedly utters an obscene word about the Koran. On another cover, Muhammad is depicted, and his face, along with a turban, is given a resemblance to male genitalia.
As a Christian, I do not consider Muhammad a prophet. And, accordingly, I consider Islam a delusion that cannot give a person salvation. But I will never approve such a cynical and vulgar mockery of Muslims and their faith. And, by the way, father Daniil Sysoev at one time spoke out with a censure of Danish cartoons. I can understand the documented indication of real problems - as was the case with the European films "Fitna" and "Submission". But what they did at Charlie Hebdo was bullying for the sake of bullying, hatred for the sake of hatred. There should be no place for this in a civilized society. And not because of the fear that someone will come and kill, but because of the elementary norms of decency.
A society that considers normal conscious mockery of what is dear to other people is a sick society. And it is doomed to such events as the terrorist attack in Paris. In no way am I condoning those who kill people. And I sincerely wish the French intelligence services to effectively investigate and prevent such attacks. But you need to start from the beginning and have the courage to see the root of the problem.
All those populace who after January 7 came out with signs "I am Charlie" would act more honestly if instead they held the inscription: "I am the one who is guilty of shooting Charlie." And this is especially true for the readers of the weekly.
If in French society public blasphemy and mockery of other people were considered unacceptable and indecent, then Charlie Hebdo would have closed due to lack of demand, and its editor and other employees would have found themselves another occupation, perhaps more worthy. And would be alive now.
What happened after
As you know, the French society made quite different conclusions. It is set to show: “terrorists will not be able to intimidate us” and therefore, in addition to any marches with support, it is announced that the next issue of the weekly will be released in a million copies, and mockery of Islam will continue. This is the first, and the second - it is necessary to strengthen protection measures. In other words, French society is repeating exactly what the Charlie Hebdo editors did after the 2011 incident. We know the result of this path.
It seems that the French are big fans of stepping on the same rake again. I would like to say to all the crowds of thousands of people with pieces of paper “I am Charlie”: guys, remember for a minute - you have five million Muslims. Are you really sure that your desire to continue to mock what is dear to them is what will ensure peace and security for your country? That all these marches and processions of yours are something that will make them humble themselves and consider a cynical and obscene mockery of their faith as something normal and acceptable?
12 killed in the editorial office, and then 4 more in the store, for a total of 16 dead. Isn't the price too high for someone's desire to make fun of others? How many more lives are you willing to sacrifice to ensure this strange freedom - the freedom to mock and mock?
But let's leave the French alone. This is their country, their life, if they want to follow this path, it is their choice and their right.
But what happened in Paris also affected our society. And “ours” not only in the sense of “Russian”, but also “ours” in the sense of Orthodox. And this is what needs to be discussed in more detail.
On the same Christmas day, the Conference of Orthodox Bishops of France issued a statement condemning the attack against the editors of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Although it has already been published, I will quote it in full:
“The Orthodox Bishops of France firmly condemn the vile and barbaric attack carried out today on national territory, in the very heart of Paris. In addition, the attack was carried out against innocent people gathered in the framework of the editorial meeting of one of the media of national importance, which means that the target was the freedom of the press and expression, one of the fundamental freedoms of our Republic.
The heinous attack is intended to sow fear, doubt, division. It requires today from all socio-political and religious components of our country a loud declaration of commitment to national unity and cohesion in the face of barbarism, as well as confirmation, together with the civil authorities of our country, of the primacy of common life and observance of the republican order over any other considerations. We must be especially vigilant and jointly prevent all attempts to use religion for political or terrorist purposes. No religion can agree to the shedding of the blood of innocent people in such a vile way. The Orthodox Bishops of France express their deepest solidarity and sympathy to all the victims and to all who have been touched or affected by this attack, and to their families.”
That is, the Orthodox bishops of France express nothing less than the deepest solidarity with the blasphemers and blasphemers who mocked the Christian faith in disgust? And they call this mockery “one of the fundamental freedoms of our Republic”?
Bible words come to mind: Oh, if only you were silent! it would be imputed to you as wisdom(Job 13:5).
It is highly unlikely that the message that appeared so quickly was really discussed in detail and agreed upon by all ten bishops included in this Conference, especially since some of them live outside of France. Most likely, this text was hastily concocted in the office of Metropolitan Emmanuel (Church of Constantinople), who had previously used the Conference to carry out his initiatives. I would not be surprised if the majority of the members of the Meeting learned about this statement from the media. However, there were no rebuttals from anyone.
At first, I thought: probably, His Eminence Emmanuel and other people who participated in the compilation of this text, simply do not know what kind of magazine they are talking about. What exactly did he represent? But then I came across an article on a Russian Orthodox website by a well-known Orthodox figure from France, who, of course, speaking in defense of the murdered satirists, calmly reported that, it turns out, he is a regular reader of Charlie Hebdo. He admits that they have, they say, "corporal humor", but, they say, it's okay, these are the traditions of France, they supposedly meant something else, etc.
To be honest, it doesn't fit in my head. To be a church-going person and at the same time calmly read a magazine with outrageous blasphemy against the One to whom you pray, Whom you call your Savior and Creator? Apparently, some French Orthodox are more French than Orthodox.
And after that, I am no longer sure about those same "Orthodox bishops of France." Maybe they know perfectly well with whom and with what they express their deepest solidarity? Maybe they are among the subscribers of "Charlie Hebdo"?
I remember how much Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) was condemned for signing the infamous declaration. But he was at least threatened that otherwise many bishops would be killed. And what threatened the French bishops? Would they also be thrown into prison and shot if they kept silent now? Well, or, if you really want to say something, would you limit yourself to simple condolences in connection with the death of people, without expressing solidarity with blasphemy? They certainly wouldn't have been shot. Then why did they go to solidarity with blasphemy against Christ? Just for the sake of being "handshake"?
And then another message came about this ongoing orgy - on January 9, in the Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Nice, Archimandrite Alexander (Elisov) served a funeral litia for the dead members of the Charlie Hebdo editorial board. "With the saints, rest in peace" was sung to the obvious blasphemers of theomachists. There are not even words to comment on it. After such a lithium, it is just right to re-consecrate the cathedral.
And, I'm afraid, I now know what the French will answer the above question: “Do you really believe that you can make the Muslims living with you consider cynical and obscene mockery of their faith as something normal and acceptable?” Any Frenchman can bring me the facts mentioned above and say: “Well, you see, it worked out with the Orthodox.”
And not only with those living in France. There were also domestic "I-charlies", and brought tons of demagoguery in defense of their solidarity with blasphemers.
For example, they pressed on the fact that, they say, in the event of a murder, we should be on the side of the murdered, not the murderers. No matter what the dead were smeared with before, we need to be in solidarity with them, this is, they say, in a Christian way. Well, on January 9, the Muslim avengers themselves were killed - and what, it turns out, according to this logic, we now need to be on their side? But something is not heard from the “I-Charles” of regrets about the forcibly interrupted life of the Kouachi brothers - that is, after all, sometimes the murder is considered justified by the “progressive public”. Under certain circumstances, it turns out human life is no longer an absolute value. The only difference is under what circumstances and whom to deprive of life.
It is worth talking in more detail about the main pathos, which also comes through in the “statement of the meeting of bishops” - we must be in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo in order to defend freedom of expression. That is, this obscenity with deliberate mockery of what is dear to people - this, it turns out, is the very freedom of speech, around the protection of which we must all rally and which is supposedly an unshakable value.
But after all, the terrorist act of the Kouachi brothers can also, if desired, be written down as “freedom of expression”. They, too, defended freedom—the freedom to punish the blasphemer. Does your “freedom to publicly blaspheme” follow from international documents that are authoritative for you? And their "freedom to kill a blasphemer" is based on other documents, which, by the way, are authoritative for a fifth of the world's population.
Now in France we see two freedoms colliding - the freedom to mock and the freedom to kill. And we, the Orthodox, are offered to take one of these two sides. Yes, a plague on both your houses! And that evil, and that evil. And a Christian will not choose sides here, and will not determine which of two evils is the lesser - because choosing the lesser of two evils, you still choose evil.
The authors argue that one cannot hide behind religion in order to shed the blood of people. I agree. Is it really possible to hide behind freedom of speech in order to mock what is dear to other people and trample sacred things in the dirt? Isn't this an abuse of free speech?
To the question: “why do people kill?” any literate Orthodox will answer: because they abuse the gift of freedom that God gave them.
To the question: “why do people blaspheme?” any Orthodox will answer: because they abuse the gift of freedom that God gave them.
In this regard, there is no difference between what the Charlie Hebdo employees did and what the Kouachi brothers did. And an Orthodox Christian who is "deeply in solidarity" with the former chooses the side of evil no less than one who is in deep solidarity with the latter.
Late in the evening on November 19, 2009, priest Daniil Sysoev was killed in the Moscow church of the Apostle Thomas on Kantemirovskaya: an unknown person in a mask entered the church and shot him point-blank.
I knew Father Daniel for ten years - since October 1999. We met at a conference where we both spoke. He called me the day before, and on the very day of the speech, I saw a man in a cassock walking ahead of me, and I immediately realized that this was the very “Deacon Daniil Sysoev” with whom I spoke on the phone.
Shortly before his death, Father Daniel said in an interview: “We must walk before God, as the Lord said about Enoch: “Enoch walked before God, and God took him.” This walk with God is the root of mission.”
Father Daniel always "walked before God." And although this is, first of all, the state of the soul, wholly aspiring to God, it found its expression even literally - in his gait, speech, not to mention deeds and words.
He walked easily, like a man who knows where and why he is going, who is calm in the present and does not worry about the future, because he entrusted all his worries to the Lord, who is close to him as a Loving Father.
During these ten years, I heard many times from Father Daniel that he would like to die as a martyr. I'm afraid that now from my words it sounds completely different from what it sounded from his lips. There was neither gloomy solemnity nor painful exaltation in his speeches about martyrdom; he said it simply and joyfully, and when I heard it, I experienced the same feeling of awkwardness and bewilderment that I felt when I read in the epistles of the Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-bearer about his ardent desire to suffer for Christ. The same spirit was in both, and I did not understand either one or the other.
I remember how a couple of years ago in Macedonia, where we arrived together, I took Father Daniel to the amphitheater of the ancient city of Bitola. In the days of the Roman Empire, here, for the amusement of a crowd of pagans, people were fed to animals. On the sides of the amphitheater, two small rooms were preserved in which animals were kept before they were released into the arena, and in the center there was one closet in human height, from where the condemned to be torn to pieces came out. It is known for certain that in this amphitheater several martyrs of the early Church died for Christ in this way. And I said to Father Daniel: “Here, father, you can stand where the martyrs stood before going out on a feat.” And he entered this dark closet. I remember how he stood in it and looked from there into the sky.
He probably looked at his killer with the same concentrated calmness. Frankly, I was thinking about whether the priest got scared at the last moment? Because I would be scared. And so he asked the only eyewitness who saw the murder with his own eyes: what was Father Daniel doing when, coming out of the altar, he saw a man in a mask with a gun in his hands? And he heard: “He went to him. Right on him."
Priest Daniil Sysoev was born on January 12, 1974. He was baptized at the age of three. He was brought up in a church family. I remember he told me about dear childhood memories: how my mother used to read the lives of the saints to him at night.
He was a conscious believer from childhood, which was still under the godless communist regime. A story is known when an atheist teacher in a Soviet school put him in front of the whole class and began to say with a sneer: “Here, guys! Danila, it turns out, we believe in God. Maybe you also know prayers? And the boy answered firmly: “Yes, I believe in God! And I know the prayers!
Batiushka took faith seriously from a very young age. According to him, from the age of 12, even from his parents, if they presented him with any fundamental requirements, he asked for their biblical justification, and if he received it, he fulfilled it implicitly. This already then reflected his main desire - always and in everything to recognize the will of God and follow it. He preferred God to everything else, and the will of God to any other.
I know many good priests in Russia, but I have never met a person who would love God so strongly, ardently and selflessly as Father Daniel. Just shortly before his death, when I was at one of the batiushka’s public talks, I thought that only deeply loving person can not stop talking for two and a half hours about God and only about God, and speak in such a way that the audience listens for two and a half hours without moving.
Back in Soviet times, he sang on the kliros, and after graduating from school in 1991 he entered the Moscow Theological Seminary. He told me that he always wanted to be a priest, and did not imagine himself to be anyone else. This desire originated in childhood, when he experienced clinical death and saw an angel who returned his soul back to the body.
In 1995 Father Daniel got married, graduated from seminary and was ordained a deacon. From that moment began his extensive preaching and missionary activity. He taught the law of God in the senior classes of the Yasenevo Orthodox Gymnasium. I remember one of his stories about that time. He once gave the students a topic for the composition “What will remain after me? What will I take with me?" And some parents later came to him indignant: “Is it possible to give children such Topics? They don't need to be reminded of death." To which he replied: “What, is your child immortal?” Father Daniel was convinced that since none of us can avoid death, we need to properly prepare for it, and for this a Christian has everything necessary, and the sooner you start preparing, the better.
Since 1996, Father Daniel began to conduct missionary conversations at the Krutitsy Compound, was an associate of Father Anatoly (Berestov) in the Counseling Center named after the righteous John of Kronstadt, which he created. He met and talked with sectarians and occultists, preaching to them and converting them to Orthodoxy.
Apart from Father Daniel, I do not know another person who could boldly enter any audience and start a conversation with a person of any religious views - and at the same time he always had something to say on the merits. He was a true missionary and loved to tell people about Christ, he loved when from the lamp of his soul other souls were kindled with the fire of gospel joy.
Batiushka greatly revered his heavenly patron, the Prophet Daniel, and it was from him that he received a missionary aspiration, as he himself told me. Once, while reading the book of the prophet Daniel, the father drew attention to the words: “And the wise will shine like the lights in the firmament, and those who turn many to the truth - like stars, forever, forever” (Dan. 12: 3). “And I thought,” he said, “how cool it is: to shine like a star!”
I know that he used to say the Jesus Prayer, considered it very important to take communion often - properly prepared - and constantly read the Bible, which, it seems, he knew to a large extent by heart. Prayer, the Eucharist and the word of God - these were the three main foundations of the mission for him.
During his life he baptized more than 80 Muslims and converted about 500 Protestants to Orthodoxy.
Father Daniel went to Protestant meetings and preached about Orthodoxy on the basis of the Bible, participated in public disputes with the Old Believers, with neo-pagans, but he was best known as a missionary among Muslims and a polemicist with Islam.
He received threatening letters and calls from Muslims. A year and a half before the assassination, the Muslim journalist Kh. Khamidullina filed a complaint with the prosecutor's office against him with a demand to bring a lawsuit for inciting inter-religious and inter-ethnic hatred. The prosecutor's office refused to open a case, but a real campaign was launched in the Muslim media to denigrate Father Daniel - Orthodox people do not know about this, because, for obvious reasons, they are not familiar with the Muslim media.
Quite recently, just three days before the murder, Father Daniil drove me home in a car, and we recalled the times ten years ago with laughter. Father Daniel said that of all the religions, Islam was always the least interesting for him and he was not going to deal with it at all. I also recalled our old conversation when we were returning from the Krutitsy Compound, and he was glad to learn that I was writing apologetic articles, responding to Muslim criticism: “That’s good, so I don’t have to do this.” But the Lord, through one set of circumstances, then through another, arranged it so that he had to deal with Muslims or the topic of Islam, and Father Daniel went where the Lord indicated. This was the most important thing for him.
In 2000, he graduated from the Moscow Theological Academy and successfully defended his dissertation on the topic "Anthropology of Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists." It was later published as a separate book. He also wrote a number of other works. “Walking with a Protestant in an Orthodox Church” is a unique work that explains the structure and decoration of an Orthodox church and Orthodox worship based on the Bible. "The Chronicle of the Beginning" and "Who is like God?" In them, Father Daniel explains why an Orthodox Christian cannot adhere to the evolutionary theory.
"Marriage with a Muslim" is a book dedicated to one of the most painful issues of the coexistence of Christians and Muslims in our country. The impetus for its emergence was the fact that I opened the “Question to a Priest” section on the website “Orthodoxy and Islam”, where I could ask a question to Father Daniel. And I myself was struck by the abundance of letters from baptized women who were either going to marry Muslims and asked if this was permissible from the point of view of the Church, or had already entered into such a marriage and faced certain problems in the resolution of which they asked for advice. In addition, in pastoral practice, Father Daniel had to meet such Russian women who, under the influence of such marriages, renounced Christ and converted to Islam, and then, having suffered in a Muslim marriage and realizing their fall, with the help of the priest, came to repentance and return to the Church. . All this prompted Father Daniel to write a book in which he exhaustively considers this issue, recalling that, according to the rules of the Church, an Orthodox person is not allowed to marry or marry a non-Christian, and also giving specific advice regarding the problems that arise if such a marriage still closed. Batiushka also had another brochure with a similar theme – “Marry an unbeliever?”.
In addition, Father Daniel published the book “Why Haven’t You Been Baptized Yet?”, which deals with the most typical objections to baptism that can be heard from the lips of the most ordinary people. For those who are baptized but not churched, he wrote the pamphlet Why Go to Church Every Sunday? And for the church-going people - the book "On the Frequent Communion of Christ's Mysteries", which we wrote in collaboration with him.
Shortly before his death, he told me that the most dear and beloved of his books for him was the “Conversations on the Book of the Song of Songs”, compiled from records of biblical conversations that he had been conducting for many years, explaining the Holy Scripture on the basis of patristic interpretations.
Finally, his most recent book is "Instructions for Immortals, or What to do if you still died ...". It also contains the following words: “The best death for a Christian, of course, is martyrdom for Christ the Savior. This is the best death that is possible for a person in principle. Some sent condolences to Optina Hermitage after the murder of three monks; for a Christian, this is actually the greatest joy. In the ancient Church, condolences were never sent when someone, somewhere, was killed. All churches always sent congratulations immediately. Imagine congratulating them on having a new protector in Heaven! Martyrdom washes away all sins, except for heresy and schism…”
Quite a few, even among those who did not agree with him on any issues, were surprised and admired his courage. Quite recently, after the funeral, a familiar priest called me and told me how he saw footage where Father Daniel stands alone in an audience filled with Muslims, and from the pulpit joyfully tells them about Christ and that Islam, which rejects the God-man Christ, cannot be true religion. “It doesn’t fit in my head,” the interlocutor told me. “What a heart you need to have to go like this and stand among them and speak!”
The footage that my friend saw was taken at the first dispute with Muslims. Some Orthodox were dissatisfied with the fact that Father Daniel participated in these disputes, but the initiative did not belong to him: the Muslims publicly invited him. And how could a witness of Christ refuse to give an account of his hope? His refusal would be an argument for them in their propaganda of Islam.
Father Daniel told me later that he was sure that he would be killed immediately after the first dispute, and the day before he had experienced great fear and anxiety. And at night he had a vision. He saw himself standing in front of a labyrinth made of stones, such as are found in the north. And, passing through its circles, he came to the center, where there was an altar, on which lay a just tortured and killed victim. And he realized that this was the altar of Satan, to whom the sacrifice was made. Father Daniel was overcome with anger, and he overturned the altar with his foot. Immediately, Satan himself appeared in the form of the Joker in a jester's cap, as he is depicted on playing cards. There was wild hatred in his eyes, and he rushed at Father Daniel. The father began to pray: Holy Mother of God, protect! Saint Nicholas, help! and other saints. And then an invisible wall seemed to rise in front of Father Daniel, so that Satan rushed at him, but could not overcome it and bounced back time after time. Looking at this, the priest allowed conceited thoughts into himself, and at the same moment Satan broke through an invisible wall and grabbed him by the throat. Father Daniel prayed: “Most Holy Theotokos, forgive me, I have sinned, deliver me from him.” Then Satan disappeared, and Father Daniel was told about the upcoming dispute: "You will not lose, but you will not win either."
“So it happened,” Father Daniel told me. And he added that after this vision, he completely ceased to be afraid of Muslims and their threats, because, seeing Satan himself and his powerlessness before God, it is no longer possible to be impressed by any human malice, which is always inferior to Satanic malice.
And during the second debate, together with Father Oleg Stenyaev, I was among Father Daniel's assistants. It seems to me that the dispute went well (although, of course, it could have gone even better). It is noteworthy that after him some Muslims accepted Orthodoxy, who helped in organizing these disputes.
Being half-Tatar himself (on his mother's side), Father Daniel paid special attention to spreading and strengthening Orthodoxy among the Tatar people. He became the first and, it seems, the only priest who, with the blessing of the hierarchy, began to regularly serve prayers in the Tatar language (partially) for Orthodox Tatars, published a prayer book in Tatar for his money. Together with his assistants, he went with a sermon to Sabantuy (Tatar national holiday) and to the Tatar cultural center; in Egypt, he spent hours preaching to his Muslim guide, on television he argued about faith with muftis.
He gained scandalous fame among Muslims - she frightened and embarrassed some Orthodox, but not Father Daniel himself. He said that this fame helps him in his mission, and it was true. Because those Muslims who had at least a slight interest in Christianity found out in this way who they should go to - and they were not mistaken, because they could always be met by him with love and hear answers to all their questions. There were such Muslims who came to him to convert him to Islam, and as a result they themselves received baptism from him.
Among those who call themselves Orthodox, I have met such strange people who say that he should not have preached to Muslims, that they should be respectful of their religion, that there is no benefit from his preaching. But Father Daniel believed – like the Lord, and the apostles, and all the saints – that it is necessary to respect erring people, but not their errors. There is only one truth, and that which contradicts the truth and denies it is a lie, and respect for a lie is contempt for the truth. This simple thing cannot be understood by all those who are indifferent to the truth, therefore they did not understand Father Daniel either, although, perhaps, they owe him their lives. Batiushka was able to convert a number of Wahhabis to Christ, including one Pakistani who was going to become a "shahid", and one woman who was being prepared to become a "suicide bomber". And really, it would really be better if Father Daniel did not preach to these people, and they, remaining on the same path, would blow up an airplane, a house, or a train in the subway - perhaps just the one in which one of the critics of Father Daniel?
Even more successfully he preached to Protestants. When, with the blessing of Metropolitan Vladimir, he arrived with his missionaries in Kyrgyzstan and began attending meetings of Protestants there and converting them, so that even pastors were among those joined to Orthodoxy, the local heads of sects, not being able to oppose him in word, made a decision generally forbid their people to gather all the time while Father Daniel is in the country. So they tried to prevent him from coming to their meetings to preach by abolishing the meetings themselves.
Father Daniel was very concerned about the mission throughout the world. Together with him we traveled twice to Macedonia and preached to the schismatics there. Father Daniel investigated the question of how it is possible to preach to Catholics in Western Europe and in South America. In December 2009, he hoped to travel to Thailand to preach to northern tribes. Being himself a missionary, he was very fond of missionaries and tried to get acquainted with all those who preach Christ. He helped a lot of people. He gave money for the construction of a temple in Indonesia, donated to the upbringing of Orthodox children from poor families in Zimbabwe, hosted Orthodox Chinese, Orthodox Thais, even Orthodox Indians. With the blessing of Patriarch Alexy II, Father Daniel created a school of Orthodox missionaries. He also taught missiology at the Nikolo-Perervinskaya Theological Seminary.
And, surprisingly, his active missionary activity did not in the least interfere with his parish labors and duties. In 2001 he was ordained a priest. In 2006, the priest built a small wooden church in the name of the Apostle Thomas in the south of Moscow (of which he was rector) and eventually wanted to build a huge basilica church here in honor of his heavenly patron, the prophet Daniel. As he told me, this idea - to build exactly the basilica - came to his mind during a visit to the church of the Holy Great Martyr Demetrius in Thessaloniki.
In the temple, Father Daniel led biblical conversations every Thursday, explaining to the parishioners one chapter of the Old Testament and one chapter of the New in the light of patristic teaching, every Friday - catechumens, which every adult who wanted to be baptized had to listen to, and every Sunday - Sunday school for children . Wanting people to better understand the service, he published the texts of the All-Night Vigil and the Liturgy and charged the attendants on duty to distribute them to people in the church before each service. He also introduced popular singing. As a result, the parishioners thanked him for being able to finally understand the meaning of what is sung in the temple. Batiushka served with great concentration, especially in Last year and loved to preach. During the service he delivered two or three sermons.
One of my friends, an altar boy in Father Daniel’s church, confessed to me shortly before the father’s death that he was surprised how completely and without mercy he gave himself to other people, especially parishioners.
Indeed, he did not feel sorry for himself. I remember once he broke his leg, but the Reverend did not give him a replacement priest. And then Father Daniel, with his leg in plaster, went to the temple himself and served, overcoming pain. All parishioners and all acquaintances remember Father Daniel as a cheerful and cheerful person, but few people know how often he suffered from illnesses, especially from severe headaches and heartaches. But the priest did not show his suffering and was always attentive to the numerous parishioners, he listened to everyone and gave advice.
Of course, Father Daniel also had weaknesses, but even his shortcomings, so to speak, in some way came from his merits. As a Christian, he was open to all, and this had its reverse side some excessive gullibility, of which he sometimes fell victim when he happened to trust those people or books that, in my opinion, should not be trusted. As far as questions of faith are concerned, the priest was very thorough, but with regard to some other issues, such as history, he could trust just such sources. This is connected, for example, with his position in relation to the Second World War, which was formed under the influence of the books of V. Rezun. We discussed this issue with him more than once.
It must be said that Batiushka never dictatorially imposed his views on those who were close to him. He always listened carefully to objections, if they were to the point, and often corrected his views if he saw that they did not correspond to the truth. He often invited me and other people he trusted to discuss certain thoughts and ask if he was wrong. If he understood that he was wrong, then it was not a problem for him to admit it and give up erroneous thoughts, because he most of all valued the truth, and not his own thoughts, and respected every person who was nearby.
With Father Daniel it was easy to fulfill the rule of blessed Augustine; "In the main unity, in the secondary variety, in everything - love." The second point was possible with him precisely because for Father Daniel the first and third points of this maxim were an immutable reality.
Another feature that seemed to many to be his shortcoming and which came precisely from Father Daniel's fiery love for the truth was the categorical form of presenting thoughts. On every issue, the priest tried to get to the bottom of the truth, and if he managed to get to the bottom, he expressed this truth directly and definitely. In our politically correct world, such directness was like the sharpness of a beam piercing the darkness. Such honest sharpness attracted someone, and on the contrary, repulsed someone.
I myself did not always agree with the form of presentation of his thoughts. For example, the discussion about Ouranopolitism, initiated by him in the last year of his life. In principle, in essence, Father Daniel did not expound anything other than the teachings of the Church, saying that the heavenly is more important than the earthly, that belonging to the Church is more important than national belonging, because in her "there is neither Greek nor Jew ... but Christ is everything and in everything" (Col. 3:11) that all the saints “said of themselves that they were strangers and strangers on earth; for those who speak thus show that they are seeking a fatherland. And if they had in their thoughts the fatherland from which they came out, they would have had time to return; but they aspired to the best, that is, to the heavenly; therefore God is not ashamed of them, calling himself their God: for he has prepared a city for them” (Heb. 11:13-16). And that all of us, Christians, are also “strangers and strangers” on earth (1 Pet. 2:11) and “we do not have a permanent city here, but we are looking for the future” (Heb. 13:14), for “our residence is in heaven (Philippians 3:20). There was no mistake here. But I did not agree with Father Daniel about the need to introduce a special term, just as the term itself seemed dissonant to me, and the form of expression of this truth, I thought, could be softer.
Although, strictly speaking, those who fiercely argued with him on the Internet either did not agree on the merits, or were not at all interested in the essence of the issue. It is worth saying that after the death of the father, I learned that even in the term he was not an innovator: the word “ouranopolitis” (ouranopolitis) is found in many holy fathers, in particular, St. John Chrysostom uses it five times.
On the day of Father Daniel's funeral, one of his opponents confessed to me: "It was now that I began to understand everything that my father wrote about Ouranopolitism, because I really wanted to go where he had gone."
Father Daniel was a deeply decent and honest man. Batiushka was one of those about whom one could know in advance that if something was needed, one had only to apply, and he would not refuse. For me, he was a model priest. Everything he did, he dedicated to Christ, created in His name.
I have many personal memories. I remember how he visited me when I was in the hospital. I remember how I endured to show me my daughter Dorothea when she was only two or three days old. I remember teaching me how to drive.
I remember our travels, and especially the last one - to Serbia, from where we returned just a week before his martyrdom. During this trip, he confessed to me that when it becomes especially difficult for him or when life circumstances are unbearable, he always feels as if he is in a huge hand that leads him through all troubles.
The very last day of Father Daniel's earthly life began with the liturgy, which he celebrated and, naturally, took communion. Then he added to the Orthodox Church a woman who came from the Old Believers. Then he performed the baptism. A few hours later, he began, as usual, to conduct Bible talks, after which he talked late into the night with everyone who wanted to. Finally, when there was almost no one left in the church, he went to the altar to confess his spiritual child. At this time, a murderer broke into the temple, who started shooting and shouting: “Where is Sysoev?” Father Daniel fearlessly stepped out of the altar to meet him and accepted a martyr's death for Christ.
I remember that the priest spoke more than once about how not accidental all the gospel readings are read according to liturgical conceptions, as always they turn out to be surprisingly timely and relevant.
On the day of his death, an ordinary gospel reading contained the following words of the Lord: “I say to you, my friends: do not be afraid of those who kill the body and then are unable to do anything else ... I tell you: everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess before angels God's."
If you find an error or typo in the text of the page, please send us a message by clicking the button below.
If this page is not available in a proofread translation into your language, please use the button below.
Attention! Machine translation will be performed by the Google Translate service and may contain semantic errors. By default, the text is translated from the current language of the document to English, you can choose any other language in the service.Archpriest Simeon Lev
Angel Day - February 16th. Born on April 3, 1951 in the city of Khimki, Moscow Region. In 1974 he graduated from the Moscow Aviation Technological Institute with a degree in metallurgy and welding technology. In 1982–1983 performed the obedience of a reader in the church of St. Archangel Michael in Moscow, in 1985–1988 - Psalmist at St. Tsarevich Dmitry in the city of Uglich, Yaroslavl region. In 1988 he was ordained a deacon by Bishop Evgeniy of Tambov. From 1988 to 1989 served as a deacon in the church of Cosmas and Damian in the town of Kirsanov, Tambov region. In 1989 he was ordained a priest by Bishop Evgeniy of Tambov. From 1989 to 1995 was the rector of the Archangel Michael Church in the village of Novoyurievo, Staroyurievsky district, Tambov region. In 1993 he graduated from the Moscow Theological Seminary.
From 1995 to the present, he has been the rector of the church of St. Sergius of Radonezh in Businovo. Since 2005, she has been taking care of the prisoners of SIZO No. 5 in Moscow. Widower, father of three children. Awards: gaiter (1993), kamilavka (1995), pectoral cross (1995), rank of archpriest (1999), Order of Daniel of Moscow, 3rd class. (2001), Mace (2003), Order of Seraphim of Sarov, 3rd class. (2006), cross with decorations (2008), order of St. Sergius of Radonezh 3 step. (2014), miter (2016), medal of St. vmch. Anastasia the Patterner III degree (2019).
Priest Peter Ukrainians
Angel Day - July 12. Born February 9, 1981 in Moscow. In 2005 he graduated from the Sretensky Theological Seminary.
From August 2005, he performed the obedience of a reader in the church of St. Sergius of Radonezh in Businovo. In 2005 he was ordained a deacon by Bishop Savva of Krasnogorsk. Since December 2005, he served as a deacon in the church of St. Sergius of Radonezh in Businovo. In 2008 he was ordained a priest by Bishop Alexander of Dmitrovsky. From 2008 to the present - the priest of the church of St. Sergius of Radonezh in Businovo. In 2010 he graduated from the Orthodox Institute of St. John the Theologian, specializing in history teaching. Since 2010, he has been the head of the Youth Club at the temple. Married, has five children. Awards: gaiter (2009), kamilavka (2014).
Priest George Maximov
Day of the Angel - May 6th. Born in Moscow on April 2, 1979. In 2001 he graduated from the Russian Orthodox University. app. John_ Theologian with a degree in religious studies. In 2009 he defended his thesis at the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University, awarded the degree of Candidate of Theology. From 2002 to 2012 lecturer at the Moscow Theological Seminary, from 2009 to 2011 - Nikolo-Perervinskaya Seminary, from 2012 to the present teacher at the Sretensky Theological Seminary. From 2010 to the present, he has been a teacher at the Advanced Training Courses for Clerics in Moscow. Member of the Inter-Council Presence of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Head of the Sector of the Apologetic Mission of the Synodal Missionary Department. Responsible for the missionary and catechetical work of the Northern Vicariate of the Moscow Diocese. Author of more than 30 books and brochures, as well as about 200 articles.
Church cleric, Rev. Sergius of Radonezh in Businovo. On May 22, 2010, he was ordained a deacon by Archbishop Eugene of Vereya, and on January 6, 2015, he was ordained a priest by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. From 2014 to the present, she has been conducting Bible talks at the temple. Married, has two children. Awards: gaiter, kamilavka, pectoral cross (2015).
The tragedy that took place on Catholic Easter in Sri Lanka is striking in its cruelty and senselessness. On the tragedy of so many people, I would not like, as they say now, to hype. This is not the topic. But recently I saw a comment about. Georgy Maksimov, who, as I understand from his profile in Vkontakte, serves in the Philippines, i.e. he himself resides in non-canonical territory and is engaged in missionary work, but at the same time he did not hesitate to go through the comments not so much on Muslims as on Buddhists, and this made me sit down at the keyboard. I'll tell you straight away