Moscow - the third Rome (“Moscow is the third Rome”,)

political theory of the 16th century. in Russia, which substantiated the world-historical significance of the capital of the Russian state, Moscow, as a political and church center. Theory "M. - T. R.”, set out in a religious form characteristic of medieval thinking, argued that the historical successor of the Roman and Byzantine empires, which, according to the creators of this theory, fell due to deviation from the “true faith”, is Muscovite Rus' - the “third Rome" (“Two Romes have fallen, and the third stands, and the fourth will not exist”). Having begun to take shape in the mid-15th century, the theory of “M. - T.R.” was formulated at the beginning of the 16th century. in the letters of the Pskov monk Philotheus to the Moscow Grand Duke Vasily III Ivanovich (See Vasily III Ivanovich).

Theory "M. - T. R.” was prepared by the previous development of political thought in Rus', the growth of national self-awareness during the years of the reunification of Russian lands, the final liberation from Tatar-Mongol yoke and assertion of the independence of the Russian state. She played significant role in the formalization of the official ideology of the Russian centralized state and in the fight against the Vatican’s attempts to extend its influence to Russian lands; in the 16th-17th centuries. V Slavic countries Balkan Peninsula theory "M. - T. R.” served as a substantiation for the idea of ​​Slavic unity and had great value in the struggle of the southern Slavs against Turkish oppression. At the same time, the theory of “M. - T. R.” also contained reactionary features - “God’s chosenness” and national exclusivity.

Big Soviet encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969-1978 .

See what “Moscow is the third Rome” in other dictionaries:

ROME- Ruzaevsky Institute of Mechanical Engineering education and science Rome revolution and peace name RIM Regional Institute of Management Lugansk, education and science, Ukraine Rome ... Dictionary of abbreviations and abbreviations

1. (Roma) capital of Italy, political, financial. and cultural center, Italy's largest transport hub, international center. tourism. The Vatican State is located within the city limits. 2514.2 t. (1965). 1/3 of us. R. workers and artisans, many officials... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

Rome- ancient origin community in Dr. Italy, then the slave owner. mountains state (polis), which subjugated the entire Apennine Peninsula; subsequently slave owner Mediterranean power incl. Means. part of Europe, Northern coast. Africa, Egypt, M. Asia, Syria... Ancient world. Encyclopedic Dictionary

XXII Summer Olympic Games Organizer city Moscow, USSR Participating countries 80 Number of athletes 5179 (4064 men, 1115 women) Medals awarded 203 sets in 2 ... Wikipedia

Coordinates ... Wikipedia

Sylvester Shchedrin ... Wikipedia

Coordinates: 55°42′57″ N. w. 37°33′13″ E. d. / 55.715833° n. w. 37.553611° E. d... Wikipedia

Spartak Moscow General information Season 1991 Central Stadium. Lenina Coach ... Wikipedia

Coordinates: 41°56′01.99″ N. w. 12°27′17.23″ E. d. /  ... Wikipedia

Books

• Moscow 1941, Voronin Anatoly Borisovich. Many books have been written about the Battle of Moscow. Much has not been written yet. But this book is special. The life of a city that quickly turned into a front-line camp through the eyes of ordinary Muscovites, big...
• Moscow, fourth Rome. Stalinism, cosmopolitanism and the evolution of Soviet culture (1931-1941), Katherine Clark. In the 16th century, Philotheus, a monk of the Pskov Spaso-Eleazar Monastery, proclaimed Moscow the Third Rome. By the early 1930s, intellectuals and artists around the world saw Moscow as a source of new...

In the first half of the 16th century. It was associated with the philosophical concept of moving the “center of the world” to the capital of the Russian state. Its author is traditionally considered to be the monk of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery Philotheus. In letters of 1523-1524 to the clerk Mikhail Misyur-Munekhin and the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily III, he spoke about the role of “earthly Rome” that Moscow was supposed to take.

This idea, called in science translation imperii(from Latin “transition of empire”), first appeared in ancient sources and wandered from era to era. The “First” Rome, nicknamed by contemporaries caput mundi(from Latin “capital of the world”), was the center of civilization, the bearer of supreme power on earth. After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire as a result of the barbarian invasion, Constantinople became the new, “second” Rome. In the capital of the Byzantine Empire, which the inhabitants themselves called nothing less than the Eastern Roman Empire, this philosophy was supplemented with Christian meanings. The new center of the universe has become a place of pilgrimage for those eager to atone for their sins and receive forgiveness. But the “second” Rome was not destined to exist for long: in 1453, the Ottoman Turks captured the city, and it ceased to be the center of Christian power. The question arose again - who will become the guardian and support of the Christian faith on earth.

In the intellectual environment of Orthodox peoples, prototypes of a center began to emerge - the keeper of the covenants of Orthodoxy: the Serbs, for example, considered Belgrade to be the future “third Rome”, the Bulgarians - Veliko Tarnovo. However, in the second half of the 15th century, most of these territories were under the rule of Ottoman Empire. The only independent Orthodox kingdom remained Russian state. At that time, it threw off the yoke of the Mongol-Tatar yoke and gradually became a powerful centralized state.

According to the version of Philotheus’ message that has reached us, “The first two Romes perished, the third will not perish, and the fourth will not exist”. This thesis verbally cemented his status as the last leader of the Christian world. Despite the seeming absurdity of such self-proclamation, the formula “Moscow is the Third Rome” was accepted by many.

The strengthening Russian state had to gain a political foothold on the world stage. With the religious “transition of the empire” from Constantinople to Moscow, the need arose for political continuity from Byzantium. Legends arose about his descent from the brother of the Roman Caesar Augustus; about the Monomakh cap, supposedly presented to the Russian prince by the Byzantine emperor; about the white hood, which traces its history back to Constantine the Great. All this was reinforced by the last Byzantine emperor, Sophia Paleologus, by his adoption of the royal title and Byzantine coat of arms. The autocracy itself was built on the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome”: the sovereign of all Rus' was not only political leader, but also guaranteed the preservation of Orthodox church canons and purity of morals.

Also, the status of the Third Rome meant for Moscow a number of “ecumenical” responsibilities, which were also beneficial to the Western Christian world. Rus', as the defender of the Christian faith, became responsible for Christians who were subjects of the Ottoman Empire, and therefore had to actively participate in the fight against the Ottoman Turks, who conquered one after another territory of Europe.

Later, the ideas of the monk Philotheus fell into oblivion and were again in demand only in mid-19th century century. Then the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” began to be used by Slavophiles. They substantiated with it the historical, “third” path of Russia, which is different from the West and East.

On November 11, 2014, as part of the interactive exhibition-forum taking place in the Moscow Manege, the historical conference “Moscow - the Third Rome” took place. During the event, the historical background for the emergence of the idea of ​​the Muscovite kingdom as a successor to Byzantium and the concept of the Third Rome in the Russian Empire, as well as modern scientific approaches to the study of this issue, were discussed. The conference was attended by leading Russian scientists, public figures, politicians, representatives of the clergy: Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov), executive secretary of the Patriarchal Council for Culture, Konstantin Valerievich Malofeev, founder of the St. Basil the Great Foundation, Natalia Alekseevna Narochnitskaya, Doctor of History, President Historical Perspective Foundation, Leonid Petrovich Reshetnikov, PhD, Director of the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies, Sergey Pavlovich Karpov, Doctor of History, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dean of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Dmitry Mikhailovich Volodikhin, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, writer, Yuri Aleksandrovich Petrov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Director of the Institute Russian history RAS, Alexander Gelievich Dugin, Ph.D., Ph.D., philosopher, political scientist, sociologist.

The conference opened with a report President of the Historical Perspective Foundation Natalia Narochnitskaya“Moscow is the Third Rome.” Reflection in public thought. Myths. Interpretations." N. Narochnitskaya noted:

Today, the West constantly uses the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” as the ideological basis of Russian imperialism.

In fact, the development of Russian statehood from the Muscovite kingdom, and then to the empire, went inextricably along with the spiritual understanding of this very concept as service first of all. However, Western historiography of the 20th century is filled with clichés that Bolshevism follows from the nature of Russian history. Although the great conservative Oswald Spengler unequivocally wrote: “The spirit that is victorious in Russia does not come from Moscow. The birthplace of Bolshevism is Western Europe. Democracy of the 19th century is already Bolshevism.”

But liberal thought encourages us to look for the origins of revolutionary despotism precisely in the concept of the monk Philotheus, who allegedly calls for world domination. And today the myth of “philofeyism” as a program of “Russian and Soviet imperialism” is a cliche in liberal-Western literature, and even in post-Soviet Russia. So, K.S. Gadzhiev, in a very voluminous and generally very serious academic book, repeats the cliché that the “Moscow - Third Rome” doctrine served as the basis for the territorial formation of the Russian Empire. This approach reflects a misunderstanding of the teaching about Rome and the Kingdom, which belongs equally to both Eastern and Western Christianity.

This is one of the deepest teachings about the connection between the spiritual, universal and earthly history, which does not divide, but, on the contrary, confirms the eschatological unity of the East and West of the Christian ecumene.

Therefore, in the old days, the idea and the whole complex of concepts about the “world empire” belonged not to the secular, political, but religious worldview, and this reflects precisely the doctrine of salvation. The first writings and interpretation of the visions of the prophet Daniel and his interpretations of the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar about four kingdoms, the last of which is the kingdom of the Antichrist, the first beginnings of the teaching about Rome as the kingdom of Christian Truth are permeated not at all with the idea of ​​world domination, or triumph, or superiority, but of salvation and relate to eschatological literature.

A. Kartashev says that in the eschatological consciousness of Christians, “the Roman Empire becomes the frame, vessel, armor and shell of the eternal kingdom of Christ and therefore itself acquires some symbolic resemblance to this eternity in history.”

Along with its historiographical significance, Rome as an imperial and royal city, where the world-historical struggle of good and evil takes place, entered the symbolism of Christian artistic consciousness. And such an understanding is found not only in spiritual, but also in secular literature. Rome has become an allegory of the mystical center, the stronghold of the world-historical struggle between good and evil, on the construction of which the end of the world depends. Tarnovo is called Rome in Bulgarian chronicles, Chrétien de Troyes called France Rome, and in the poems of Tirso de Molina Toledo becomes “Rome, the imperial city.”

But Philotheus’s message relates exclusively to eschatological literature; it absolutely cannot be interpreted as a call for domination over some territory. Let us note that all commentators and interpreters of the doctrine of the Third Rome did not turn to the primary source - the message of the monk Philotheus. But it is surprisingly brief and concise, fits in 10-15 lines, and there is not a word in it about world hegemony or encouraging territorial expansion, not even the formula “Moscow is the Third Rome” itself. The Russian concept of the Third Rome was formulated in the writings of the epistolary genre of 1523-1524 and set out in an official document of 1589, when the Patriarchate was established in Rus'. There, the Third Rome was not even called Moscow, but great Russia generally, kingdom . This testifies to the connection of the concept with the events of church history, the inseparability of the destinies of the priesthood and the kingdom, and a purely religious understanding of this paradigm.

However, two clichés are especially widespread in journalism and historiography: the characterization of this idea as the official state doctrine of Russia and its replacement with the concept of a second Rome - that is, Constantinople: reducing this concept to the idea of ​​the Byzantine heritage.

The acquaintance of Western historiography with this concept of Russian journalism begins after Russian-Turkish War 1877-1878. It was then that assertions appeared in the West that after the collapse of Byzantium, Russia was claiming its role and dominance on its territory. However, for medieval thinkers to reduce the concept of Rome to Byzantium would be dangerous and ambiguous, and would mean repeating its sad fate. And Philotheus evokes the ghost of not only the second, but the first Rome, and thereby deepens the historical and spiritual retrospective and perspective, the national consciousness is not limited to Byzantine-centrism and involves the European and Eastern Mediterranean geographical and Christian time space in its perspective. However, there is no hint of preaching the arrogant subordination of others, while in the West the idea of ​​Rome already several centuries earlier justified an unambiguous desire for a geographically worldwide empire.

The complete indifference of the Russian tsars to the Byzantine heritage is beyond doubt. Ivan the Terrible never referred to his marriage with Sophia Paleologue. When all the descendants of the Palaiologos disappeared and our kings were reminded that, according to marriage law, they could be heirs, they showed complete indifference to this fact. Ivan the Terrible, whose personality in the West is interpreted as a symbol of unbridled expansion and anti-reform, most clearly expressed his attitude towards the creation of a great eastern empire under the auspices of the Russian Tsar. He said: “We in the present kingdom (earthly) do not want a state in the Universe, for this will be a creep toward sin.” And that Constantinople land, in his opinion, was the land of God.

The expansion of Muscovy aroused a jealous attitude towards it in Western Europe. After the Mongol invasion, after the labor of eight generations had not served national history, Rus' expanded and became powerful so quickly that amazed Europe could not survive this. Since then, the vilification of Russia as an aggressor begins. Our relations with Europe have always been accompanied by its jealousy towards us, and today we must consider this new round of jealousy as proof that we are becoming stronger spiritually, united, independent, that we amaze the world with our independence in choosing a historical path. After all, despite the fact that the West built its own paradise on earth, it never freed itself from the fear of Russian independence.

I noticed that today the word “empire” is often used in vain. The word empire implies both good and evil, depending on political preferences. But many things that are called empires, in fact, were not and could not be empires.

In the report “The Idea of ​​Empire. From Byzantium to Rus',” he emphasized:

I strongly object to any use of the concept "empire" in a negative sense. One dictionary even defines an empire as “a large state with extensive colonies.” But nothing more wrong, nothing more erroneous than such an interpretation can be imagined, because the concept of “empire” has a completely different meaning.

Considering the origins of Byzantine civilization, the speaker identified three - biblical, Hellenistic and Roman:

In their fusion, a great culture was born and a great idea was born. And this idea was transferred to three constants, three cornerstone ideas about the nature and essence of imperial power. They were: the doctrine of the Divine nature of this power, derived from biblical eschatology; about the universality and universal character of power, received from Hellenism, and about the legal principle of this power, minted by Roman law.

The source of the emperor’s power is the people: “whatever pleases the princeps has the force of law, since the people, through the royal law relating to his authority, have entrusted to him all their power and strength.” The word “imperium”, originally understood as “power, command”, gradually takes on the meaning of “sovereignty” and in this meaning is accepted by other countries and peoples, and above all by Russia.

Byzantine legislation speaks of the republic as a matter that does not contradict the empire. And the sovereign is conceived as a champion of general interests as opposed to private interests. The sovereign is the holder of sovereign rights, but these sovereign rights are not the rights of the owner of the empire, but the rights of the trustee.

The Orthodox tradition introduced something new into pagan thought. The pagan emperor was deified. Certainly, Byzantine emperor I could never and under no circumstances be a god. Such a blasphemous thought could never have occurred to him. But there was an idea about O life through mimesis, through imitation of God in the image and actions of the sovereign. The sovereign was depicted with a halo as a saint and was addressed as a holy sovereign. But this holy sovereign one day washed the feet of the last beggar in imitation of Christ, as a sign of his humility. If God was revered as a Pantocrator - the Almighty, then the emperor was revered as a cosmocrator - the ruler of the inhabited world. Theocratic concept state power implied that the sovereign is the executor of God's Providence.

The Byzantine system of power is, first of all, universalism. Universalism is understanding cosmic scale this power. Only one empire, the empire of the Romans, is the only legitimate ecumenical power. There can be no other. Losses of territory are temporary losses or given for sins. And therefore the idea of ​​power was not interfaced with the boundaries of the state, because in fact the power of the sovereign is power on a universal scale.

Another important postulate is the inextricable connection between the empire and the Church. The patriarch and the sovereign have one thing in common and the most important. This common and most important thing is the symphony, the consonance of this power.

Empire is always associated with missionary work. But missionary work is not only when a sovereign or patriarch sends a preacher to foreign lands; missionary work is when the state itself transmits the truth of faith, the truth of its very existence, its system to others through the system of “taxi” - the system of order.

Byzantium has always been rule of law. The idea that an autocratic state is illegitimate is wrong.

Conservative by nature and slowly changing, political ideology ideally strived for harmony between above and below, recognizing the imperfection of the existing world order and striving to follow the hierarchy of existence determined by God, in which the highest power is the radiation and reflection of the image of God.

Its connection with the law, with morality and morality is unambiguous. And it is precisely the transfer of this connection of law-morality-morality-missionary work from Byzantium to Rus' that is characterized by the replacement of the disparate system that existed in Rus' before Ivan III with a system that strengthens different peoples under a single scepter.

Leonid Reshetnikov, director Russian Institute strategic studies, reminded that today it is necessary to talk not about the state, but about civilization, which is what Byzantine Empire was not just an empire, but a civilization, an alternative to the Western civilization that had developed by that time.

And ours Russian Empire was also an alternative Eastern Orthodox civilization. It’s not just the large and strong state that caused and still causes irritation and a sense of danger in the West, but the feeling that we are different, that we are a special civilization,” the speaker emphasized.

Yuri Petrov, Director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, remembering those geopolitical shifts that became the basis of the theory of “Moscow - the Third Rome” (the reign of Ivan III was a decisive stage in the formation of the Russian state led by Moscow; the annexation of the Tver principality, the Novgorod Republic, a number of Verkhovsky principalities finally resolved the issue of Moscow’s leadership as center national association), noted:

In the West, it is very common to interpret the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” as allegedly justifying Russia’s geopolitical claims to world domination. One of the common judgments is the emphasis on foreign policy issues, the correlation of this concept with Russia’s policy in the Balkans, building a bridge from the concept of Philotheus to the “Greek project” of Catherine II. There is also an identification of this concept with a variety of doctrines, up to the formula “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality.” However, it has been documented that the concept of the “patrimony of Constantinople” of the Russian tsars was of non-Russian origin. In 1518, it was outlined in Moscow by the Prussian diplomat Dietrich Schonberg on behalf of the legate of Pope Leo X. And even earlier, this idea was expressed by the Venetian Senate. The concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” in the 16th century played the opposite role, namely: it was an integral part of the ideological justification for refusing to join the anti-Turkish coalition, since this did not correspond to the foreign policy plans of the Moscow princes at that time. Authors who bring later ideas closer to the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” artificially use this symbol to fill it with content that is not contained in it, for modernization and unlawful extrapolation to other historical eras.

Report Dmitry Volodikhin, professor of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, was dedicated to Moscow monasticism:

In the 16th century, the Russian kingdom developed three major ideas: Moscow as the Third Rome, Moscow as the second Jerusalem and Moscow as the Destiny of the Most Pure One. All these concepts were the work of one intellectual environment - the Moscow monastic community, that is, monastic scribes who either lived in large monasteries in Eastern Rus' - and first of all I mean the Joseph-Volotsky Monastery, or belonged to the Moscow Metropolitan Court.

It is a well-known fact: the idea of ​​Moscow as the Third Rome was expressed by the monk of the Pskov Spaso-Eleazarovsky Monastery Philotheus. However, the words expressed by the monk Philotheus did not have broad political significance; these were, first of all, fears, because Rus' and Moscow were given the role of the pillar of Eastern Christianity, the role of the force that should save Orthodoxy from complete destruction and death. And Philotheus is horrified: what kind of piety is needed to fulfill such a significant role in order to live up to it!

However, later, not in the time of Vasily III, when the monk Philotheus wrote, but many decades later, it was the Moscow monasticism that managed to give this idea a different sound - a political one. This happened already under Emperor Fyodor Ioannovich and is associated with the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchal See. It was then that the idea of ​​“Moscow - the Third Rome” first sounded as something belonging, if not to politics, then to ideology. And it is absolutely clear that this is the work of Moscow monasticism.

But when did this layer, remarkable in its intellectual power, appear in Rus' - monastic scribes? Southern Rus'- The Kiev region developed a monastic tradition in the 11th-12th centuries, and soon its own powerful monastic tradition appeared on the Novgorod land, and therefore on the Pskov land. The monk Philotheus himself belonged to it. The Vladimir-Suzdal land acquired this tradition somewhat later - in XII-XIII centuries. Muscovite Rus' neither in the XII, nor in the XIII, nor in XIV centuries was not the center of any significant monastic traditions. There were only a few unimportant monasteries here. And it was necessary to create a powerful layer of monasticism so that it would gradually, over many generations, grow into this intellectual force in order to raise the bulk of such significant historiosophical ideas that are still living in the Russian consciousness. When did this happen? In the middle - second half of the 14th century. And the birth of the Moscow monastic tradition is connected with the activities of two luminaries of our monasticism - St. Alexy, Metropolitan of Moscow, and St. Sergius of Radonezh. It was under Saint Alexy that the Miracle Monastery appeared, which became the intellectual center of Moscow monasticism. And from the monastery of Sergius of Radonezh, according to the figurative expression of one of our classics, his students and associates dispersed like rays, founding new monasteries throughout Moscow Rus' and beyond its borders - in the North. Then Moscow was decorated with many monasteries, which would later become extremely influential in spiritual life.

And of course, our monasticism had to go through the path of perception of the intellectual traditions of late Byzantium. Moscow monasticism actively absorbed everything that the Byzantine scribes could teach it. And Rus' of the 14th-15th centuries had a constant theological dialogue with late Byzantium. It is necessary to understand that Byzantine culture is not just one of the roots of Old Russian culture. This is one of the roots of the Old Moscow culture itself.

It was the Russian Orthodox Church and especially the Moscow monasticism that gave the Russian state the opportunity to think of itself in such high theologically based, historically funded categories as the Third Rome, the Second Jerusalem, and the Destiny of the Most Pure One.

Alexander Dugin, philosopher, political scientist, sociologist, in the report “The Third Rome as a National Idea” drew attention to religious significance the meaning of the empire, connecting it with the teaching about the fate of the earthly Church:

The Emperor is an eschatological figure from the very beginning, preventing the coming of the Antichrist. There is an empire - there is no Antichrist, there is no empire - there is an Antichrist. Empire is not just an earthly organization of life, it is a sacred mission, it is part of a fundamental ecclesiological period.

A. Dugin emphasized:

We became full-fledged heirs of the empire just at the culmination of the Rurik dynasty, under Ivan the Terrible. In this we see the fulfillment of the fate of the Russian people and Russian statehood. We were honored to become an empire in the 16th century. The anointing of Ivan IV to the throne and the holding of the Council of the Hundred Heads in 1551 - this, of course, was the entry into the rights of the empire.

The Empire is our religious Orthodox Russian home. How can we move in this direction to restore the fullness of Christian existence? We are given only one line. Only one line really connects us with original Christianity - this is the ascetic tradition, the tradition of eldership, the tradition of monasticism. And it is no coincidence that monasticism was the environment that recalled the need to transmit the idea, to transfer the empire to Moscow - the Third Rome.

Christians for many centuries can live in the wrong political state How the first Christians lived in pagan Rome. But living in a wrong political system that is contrary to Christian principle, Christians should never say “yes” to this. They must not recognize the underlying religious legitimacy of any political system other than the imperial one. Not imperialistic, not nationalistic, but spiritually imperial. Only the empire is the political homeland of the Christian. And today it is very important to withdraw legitimacy from liberal, democratic, secular and even nationalist political models. They can be, they are now. We can be and remain Christians within these systems, but they are an anomaly. What they lead to is shown to us by the God-damned West, which, having fallen away from this imperial ontology many centuries ago, has reached absolute perversions, to Conchita Wurst, to the legalization of all vices. And this is the path of all those who have embarked on the thorny road of negating the empire. This is punishment for the loss of the empire, for its distortion. Therefore, if we want to defend our Russian Orthodox values, we must withdraw trust in the legitimacy of what is not imperial policy. Yes, maybe we don’t deserve it, maybe we have to beg the king, maybe we deserve it, but this is our goal. It’s one thing when we say “yes” to democracy and actually recognize its legitimacy, as well as liberalism, Westernism, and another thing, even without being able to change it and not being able to build an empire, we must say “no” to it . And insist on our own political, religious, spiritual, historical ideal, which is, first of all, our idea of ​​Moscow - the Third Rome.

Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov), who spoke at the end of the conference, said:

We must not lose sight of the reasons why Elder Philotheus wrote his message. Firstly, we must remember that Elder Philotheus was a confessor. In those days it was not necessary to be a priest in order to confess. Main task The elder had one task - bringing people to God and fighting sin.

What did the elder say to Vasily III? “You are the sovereign of the Third Rome, and what is going on around you? What's going on in your court?" And the same thing happened, the expression of which is Conchita Wurst today. And this is reflected in the title of the message: “On the correction of the sign of the cross and on the fornication of Sodom.”

We must also remember about the heresy of the Judaizers, which spread at this time. This heresy was characterized by a rejection of faith in Christ and faith in the Church, but also by the spread of vice, then brought to Rus' from the West, as now. It was a terrible moral scourge. And this is precisely what motivated Elder Philotheus. What words does he find! “I write with tears and bitterly say that you will eradicate in your Orthodox kingdom this bitter weed, which even now is still evidenced by the sulfur flame of the burning fire in the squares of Sodom...”

We must remember that this is the 15th century - a special time for Western Europe, when the decline in morals was terrifying. It was then that superstitious aspirations about the end of the world after the seventh millennium from the creation of the world did not come true. And the people said: “Everything is permitted.” This infection began to spread to large quantities to Rus'. This problem has become huge among the elite.

At the same time, there were money-grubbers and non-money-grubbers. But there was no conflict between them. This was all invented in the 19th century and in subsequent Soviet historiography. What then was the meaning of the discussion between Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky? They thought about what to do with the heretics. Nil Sorsky, who did not particularly see heretics in his distant monastery, insisted that they should be treated quite leniently. And Joseph Volotsky, who saw all the evil that the heretics spread around them, called either to admonish those whose heresy was expressed only in the heresy of the mind, or to execute those heretics who spread the moral infection around themselves. This was the main issue on which the discussion took place.

“I apologize, but I don’t really understand the tragedy of this particular moment.
What was better than the policy of justification that lasted all this time?
cooperation of the MP with the atheistic regime and betrayal
New Martyrs? What was better speech Patriarch Alexy II at a meeting with
rabbis in New York in 1991 about belief in “one God - the Father of all...
your prophets are our prophets"? What was better about recognition of joint
Catholic sacraments? Why is everyone freaking out now because of the photo?
political meeting of two church leaders?Mikhail Viktorovich Nazarov

* * *

"Revolutionaries on the right" and church conservatives.

The website “Moscow the Third Rome” as a propagandist of church schism...

Passions continue to boil over the meeting of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis at Havana airport. I proposed my interpretation of these events on the Russian People's Line, for which I was subjected to fierce criticism from the zealots on the RNL forum. The discussion under the article continues to this day, but it is gratifying that most of my critics say that they do not intend to go into schism. This means there is still space for dialogue. However, this is the position of only a part of the zealots, those found on the RNL forum. The situation is completely different on the flagship site of Zealotry “Moscow the Third Rome” (MTR), which I had to look at the other day using the links sent to me. What's going on there, my God?! There is already open propaganda of a real church schism! The spirit of sectarianism, which was previously characteristic of the MTP site, has reached its apogee.

It seems that some forces decided to use the meeting in Havana and the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Council as a reason to incite church unrest. Unfortunately, some sincere people are also included in this campaign. I notice this not only from the RNL forum, but also from the “intelligible and accusatory letters” that come to the editor and to my address at email. Everything indicates the flaring up of turmoil. One of these letters from the Honored Artist of the Russian Federation Galina Simonova was published by the MTR website I have already mentioned. Several people sent me a link to this publication, which indicates attention to this topic. I received a letter from Ms. Simonova earlier via personal email, but did not have time to respond. Now that the author has made it “open”, we will have to answer publicly, although we personally, as far as I remember, are not acquainted. Galina Nikolaevna Shchepetnova (Simonova) is known in the church community, along with another Galina, director Galina Ivanovna Tsareva, since the time of “Diomidov’s epic " - as an active participant in the modern "Zealot movement", although she is better known to the general public as an actress and the wife of a member of the Moscow Helsinki Group, President of the Glasnost Defense Foundation Alexei Simonov (by the way, the Foundation, as I was informed, is recognized as a "non-profit organization performing the functions of a foreign agent "). From the first sentence of her letter to me, Galina Nikolaevna immediately “takes the bull by the horns” and begins to shame me that I “sold myself for thirty pieces of silver.” I am surprised at the primitive way of thinking of our zealots. They are completely incapable of perceiving the arguments of another person - they immediately make assumptions that the motive for his speech is corruption. Where does such morbid suspicion come from?! I can assume that this is a consequence of the “spirit of chosenness” that reigns among them. As for the substance of the arguments in Ms. Simonova’s letter, it is difficult to argue with her. The woman's letter is very emotional and completely meaningless, so there is nothing to object to. Well, there is no arguing with the quotes of the Holy Fathers about Catholicism and the Vatican, they are absolutely correct, but it is not clear what relation they have to the Havana meeting, unless, of course, you decide in advance that in Havana “the Patriarch betrayed Orthodoxy.” Although, against the background of other letters, I would like to note that the message from G.N. Simonova is even distinguished by some peacefulness, especially in its final part.

Galina Simonova invites me to familiarize myself with the works of priest Dmitry Nenarokov, so that I know the position of those who stand “for the Russian Orthodox faith.” Dear Galina Nikolaevna, I don’t need to read the articles of the supernumerary clergy of the Moscow diocese, Fr. Dmitry Nenarokov, in order to understand those who stand “for the Russian Orthodox faith,” I personally know such bishops and priests, thank God. I am not personally acquainted with this same priest, although I have already seen his publications, since they are actively distributed online by your like-minded people. I concluded that Father Dmitry is a very active and ardent person, but there is no reason to recognize him as a spiritual authority. And for some reason I don’t remember him in the field of jealousy for the purity of the Orthodox faith in former times, which does not add confidence to his figure.

But I know such a true zealot of Orthodoxy as the abbot of the Sretensky Monastery, Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov). And he holds a different opinion, and the position of the Lord is much more authoritative for me than the position of the newly minted zealots. Bishop Tikhon, in an interview with RIA Novosti, formulated the most important methodological basis for understanding the Joint Statement of the Russian Patriarch and the Pope signed in Havana. Bishop Tikhon says: “There is nothing better than peace. We are called to this and are sincerely ready for this. And it is precisely this path that His Holiness Patriarch Kirill follows. What about unification?<…>it is, of course, possible, but not at the expense of the truth, not at the expense of compromises in matters of our faith and confession of Orthodoxy. Therefore, as far as church unification is concerned, this question is not even raised.” Listen, gentlemen zealots! The question of unification with Catholics is not even raised!

Or listen to the assessment of the meeting in Havana by one of the most authoritative modern Orthodox elders, Archpriest John Mironov, with whom I specially met last Saturday. Father John directly called everyone who attacks the Patriarch slanderers. You should listen, gentlemen zealots! It's about you! And this is not said by some ordinary cleric, even an outstanding publicist. This is said by a man who has been standing at the Throne of God for several decades. Who has seen in his lifetime things that many zealots never dreamed of. Who is the spiritual father of dozens (if not hundreds) of Russian clergy Orthodox Church, a huge number of lay people. During the priest’s service in the Church of the Icon of the Mother of God “The Inexhaustible Chalice,” “there is nowhere for an apple to fall.”

The position of another genuine elder, Archpriest Valerian Krechetov, is important to me. And he, according to the testimony of his spiritual child, from whom I personally heard this, urged not to whip up hysteria. By the way, the priest expressed a very wise thought regarding the Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete: the status of the Council is assimilated by the ecclesiastical fullness of the assembly of bishops only after the fact. Therefore, now people who are completely illiterate and do not understand what they are talking about can make noise that the Eighth Ecumenical Council will be held in Crete.

I would advise all critics of the Patriarch to listen carefully to the brief speech of one of the authoritative modern confessors, Hieromonk Methodius (Zinkovsky), who was not afraid to expose some of those “who sit on Mount Athos” in unchurch thinking.

Meanwhile, Galina Simonova’s letter, published by the MTP website (in general, quite peaceful, as I already noted), is equipped with a completely boorish and deceitful preface by the editors. Presumably, the authorship of the site’s creator and editor-in-chief, Alexey Dobychin, who, however, for some reason always hides his authorship of the materials on this radical site, as well as the fact that he edits it. Apparently, he wants to pass all this off as “the creativity of the church people.” Mr. Dobychin openly and shamelessly lies, claiming that the “Russian People’s Line” was created and supported “on the initiative and with the money of the enemies of Rus' and the Orthodox faith.” That he personally knows “most of the leaders and curators of these projects.” I really know Mr. Dobychin, but very roughly, one might say “not at all”, but it would be interesting for me to see the curators of the “Russian People’s Line” invented by him with my own eyes. But it’s unlikely to succeed, since this is the fruit of Mr. Dobychin’s malicious imagination. The editorial preface clearly reveals the sectarian spirit of chosenness. Dobychin, you see, has the task of “bringing God-fighters out into the light of God” (this is about us!). And he does this with the goal of “protecting as many people as possible from the satanic poison of evil and heresy.” Well, the “messiah” appeared at the head of the MTP website! By the way, Dobychin is not ashamed of stealing our publications and passing them off as his own. It’s understandable, a person fights for high goals, why pay attention to such trifles.

I have already written about the position of Orthodox radicals from the MTR website in the article “Russian People’s Line” - this is “Moscow - the Third Rome.” The article from five years ago also talked about attacks against RNL miners, so this topic is not new for us. In that article, I noted that the creators of the MTP website are classic impostors. They have nothing to do with the idea of ​​a genuine "Third Rome". It would be more correct to call them “revolutionaries on the right.”

Here is their current main creation - “The apostate Patriarch Kirill entered into a union with Satan. Conversion of the Athonites." This is a real manifesto of split! The Patriarch MTR already puts the word in quotation marks, openly calling His Holiness the Patriarch “a servant of the Antichrist,” saying that now they cannot call him the Russian Patriarch (“The Lord has revealed to us that we can no longer name and recognize the conscious servant of the Antichrist as the Russian Patriarch,” - here so - neither more nor less - the Lord “revealed it to them”). The authors of the appeal call on Orthodox Christians not to go to churches of the Russian Orthodox Church. In this appeal, everything is turned upside down: it is stated, for example, that the joint statement of Patriarch Kirill and the Pope of Rome testifies that His Holiness the Patriarch “signed the union and recognized not only the heretical papal “church”, which has turned into the “church” of the Antichrist, he also recognized the supremacy of the Satanic Jesuit order over Orthodoxy, and recognized the supremacy of the Satanist Francis over the Orthodox Russian people.” Rave? Of course. But the trouble is that for the “revolutionaries on the right” nonsense is reality.

The “conversion of the Athonites” contains an open call for schism; they call believers to go to the catacombs. The position of the archpastors of the Russian Orthodox Church is described directly in the traditions of fantasy literature: they were “either intimidated by blackmail and death, or bewitched or zombified.” Zealots from the MTR website are calling for the gathering of a certain “council of bishops faithful to Orthodoxy,” which should “convict and depose the heretic and apostate, the servant of the Antichrist, Kirill Gundyaev and his followers.” A legitimate question arises: who will make up this “council of the faithful” when all the bishops are declared traitors? This is not stated directly in the appeal, but based on other publications one can guess who they are targeting as candidates for leader. The first is the former Patriarch of Jerusalem Irenaeus (Skopelitis), deposed and defrocked in 2005 (he is promoted as a “true patriarch” and a “true fighter for the faith”). The second is the former Bishop of Rasko-Prizren and Kosovo-Metohija Artemij (Radosavljevic), defrocked in 2010 (it was his portrait that illustrated the first Zealot appeal, signed by a certain “Orthodox Front”). The third is the former Bishop of Anadyr and Chukotka Diomede (Dzyuban), expelled from the priesthood in 2008 (there are already ideas to publish his first address as a manifesto of the current zealots). If we add here the schismatics from the ROCOR bishops who rejected Russian church unity and various catacomb structures, we get a real “schismatic international of fighters for the true faith.”

The “Appeal of the Athonites” is signed very pretentiously – “soldiers of Christ and servants of the Sovereign.” Apparently, they already have a “sovereign”, since they are his servants (according to rumors, however, one of the signatories of the appeal is vying for this role). Unfortunately, the “conversion of the Athonites”, among others, is signed with the name of the famous elder schema-monk Raphael (Berestov). When I told Archpriest Ioann Mironov that the name of Father Raphael was under the address, he commented very softly, but accurately: “Father Raphael is a good man.” Indeed, taking advantage of the elder’s kindness and gullibility, the newly-minted zealots are speculating on his name, using his name as a weapon to split the Russian Orthodox Church! When you listen to Father Raphael’s teachings on spiritual topics, you hear the voice of a real elder. When the zealots force the priest to speak on political or church-political topics, he begins to speak in the “language of a poster,” the language of propaganda from the MTR website.

The authors of the “conversion of the Athonites” draw an analogy between today’s events and the events of a hundred years ago, claiming, “then they betrayed and killed the King of the Earth,” and now, they say, “the King of Heaven is betrayed.” The phrase is beautiful, but completely empty, although the analogy with the situation in the country and the Church 100 years ago is very appropriate. If only you know what was happening in the country at the beginning of the 20th century, and not try to obscure the meaning of what is happening with propaganda.

When I read this “appeal of the Afonites” on the MTR website, I involuntarily recalled the publications of the organ of Russian monarchists, the newspaper “Russian Banner” on the eve of the 1917 revolution. The once authoritative publication had by that time turned into a marginal anti-Semitic leaflet, with which none of the normal patriots wanted to have anything in common. The newspaper not only discredited healthy conservative forces that were trying to resist the growing liberal-revolutionary sentiments, but also rocked the situation in the country. Unfortunately, some church conservatives and patriots on the eve of the 1917 revolution turned into real “revolutionaries on the right” who, together with revolutionaries on the left, destroyed the Church and the state.

This is very important for us all to understand! After all, even today these extremes converge: the “revolutionaries on the right” - the Dobyns and other “Orthodox front-line soldiers and front-line soldiers” are doing the same thing with the philo-Catholic liberals. Belkovsky can now rejoice: finally, forces have been found in the Russian Orthodox Church that can be his allies in shaking up the situation in Russia. It's important to understand: Dobychin = Belkovsky, because they do the same thing!

And we, church conservatives, need to follow the royal path! Viktor Saulkin wrote well about this in his article “The Tsar’s Way Instead of “Perestroikas” and Revolutions.” This path is difficult, as always, because it is narrow. Therefore, it is important not to stumble and slide into the muddy stream of false jealousy. Why do you need to remain sober and remember the lessons of history?

Jealousy beyond the understanding of the zealots of the early twentieth century, who believed that Tsar Nicholas II was showing weakness, was retreating from right-wing ideals, and therefore he needed to be corrected a little, led to the destruction of the country, to a national catastrophe. It's time to learn lessons from history!

Valery Pavlovich Filimonov is a famous writer-hagiographer, academician of the Petrovsky Academy of Sciences and Arts, specialist in the field of biocybernetics and control systems. For many years he has been active in the community popular movement“For the right to live without TIN, personal codes and microchips,” writes books and articles, makes radio broadcasts exposing the great lie of globalism and showing ways to confront this system of world evil. Valery Pavlovich also spoke on television, at round tables and Parliamentary hearings in State Duma, at many forums and conferences, gave lectures in a variety of audiences. In addition, he is the author of a number of books about the saints of the Russian Land, whose prayers, without a doubt, support him in all good endeavors and help him in difficult public service.

Naturally, workers like Valery Pavlovich and their active work in the field of educating people in the field of globalization processes evoke anger and envy among the enemy of the salvation of the human race and among those who have become a toy in his hands. Slander, slander, lies are their favorite methods. Often slanderers dress themselves in sheep's clothing in order to attract the gullible to their side. It happened this time too: Valery Pavlovich Filimonov is vilified by the authors of the “Orthodox” website “Moscow - the Third Rome”.

Many believers who read publications on this resource are perplexed: it would seem that if Orthodox people (writer V.P. Filimonov, lawyer O.A. Yakovleva and others) on the one hand and the M3R website on the other, do the same thing case, they are fighting against ecumenism and globalization, then why does the second side constantly attack the first, using unscrupulous methods, throwing mud at like-minded people? There are no answers.

And the latest publication seems to have crossed all possible boundaries. Yesterday “M3R” posted another “fried” note discrediting the good name of V.P. Filimonov, with a scandalous title: “BE CAREFUL AND CAREFUL! V.P. FILIMONOV - CRIMINAL STATUS - “THIEF”. After the “oohs” and “aahs” of unknown authors, a whole series of sensational “exposing evidence” was posted - scans from the databases “Anticriminal of the Russian Federation” and the RUOP of St. Petersburg, according to which V.P. Filimonov is identified as a criminal subject, who in the past was part of “a serious structural grouping."

Only in these “material evidence” there is one inconsistency: in the RUOP database, indeed, a criminal appears - Valery Pavlovich Filimonov, born on July 27, 1946, and the Orthodox writer Valery Pavlovich Filimonov was born in Kazanskaya on July 21, 1946.

As the anonymous author of the article states, they “did not make this information public for a long time, because... “We hoped that Valery Pavlovich would stop his destructive activities.” It turns out that during this “long” time the would-be detectives didn’t even bother to compare the dates of birth of the criminal and the writer and laid out the “irrefutable evidence” as is?!! No wonder they say: “A thief’s cap is on fire.” It's a funny parallel...

And here is the “material evidence”:

The Caucasian hermit, monk Constantine, recently expressed his attitude towards the scandalous website “Moscow - the Third Rome” as a yellow press, on behalf of the monastery brethren: “We do not recommend visiting the site “Moscow - the Third Rome”, since it abounds in such materials calculated, looks like people with an unstable psyche” (http://pustynnik.rf/o-prorochestvax/).

As for Valery Pavlovich’s good name, his authority among prudent people will only increase. And, undoubtedly, the Lord will invisibly strengthen this person worthy of respect, according to His word: “Blessed are you, when they revile you, and destroy you, and say all kinds of evil things against you who lie, for My sake: Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is many in heaven.” (Matt. 5:11).