Report by A.L. Beglova, Ph.D. n., at the VI International Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church on the topic “Life in Christ: Christian morality, the ascetic tradition of the Church and the challenges of the modern era.”

The Russian Church has been enriched by a large number of martyrs and confessors during the long-suffering twentieth century. Their feat, without a doubt, is worthy of becoming one of the central themes of theological understanding of modern religious and philosophical thought. The author of the report reflects on the possible directions of this vector of comprehension.

The twentieth century became a time of martyrdom and confessional feat of the Russian Church. The scale of the martyrdom - as many contemporaries noted - is comparable to the era of martyrdom in the first centuries of the Christian era. The image and experience of the martyrs of this period, the new martyrs and confessors of Russia should have become (but has not yet become) one of the central themes of theological understanding of today's Russian theological and religious-philosophical thought. In this report we want to offer some reflections from a historian about the direction in which this understanding might move.

1. “Victims” or “heroes”: understanding the feat of the new martyrs in modern literature

As we said, comparison Russian new martyrs and martyrs of the first centuries is quite common. Along with this, attention was drawn to the significant difference between these phenomena. The martyrs of the first centuries were and were preserved in church tradition as witnesses of faith and resurrection, who, being faced with a choice - faith in Christ and death or renunciation of Him and preserving life - chose faith and being with the Savior and thereby testified to the truth of His resurrection. In contrast, the martyrs of the twentieth century were often deprived of any possibility of choice. As representatives of groups subject to social segregation, they were doomed to be deprived of their civil rights and then their lives. In the overwhelming majority of cases, no one offered them to save their lives at the cost of renouncing their faith. They turned out to be not witnesses, but victims. In this regard, one can recall the aphorism of Varlam Shalamov, who said that in Stalin’s camps there are no heroes, but only victims.

If this is so, then what was the feat of the new martyrs? Do we really revere in their faces? only victims, like the innocent (and unconscious) Bethlehem infant martyrs, “who were killed only because God became man”? The literature suggested understanding the inevitable martyrdom of the Soviet period as evidence not of the resurrection, but of Golgotha, i.e. evidence of the human nature of Christ, which was reflected in His death, in contrast to the Divine nature, expressed in His resurrection, which was testified to by the early Christian martyrs. In this interpretation, the new martyrs turn out to be a small part of the innocent victims during the years of political repression, separated from this countless host, so to speak, on a confessional basis. Meanwhile, upon closer examination, such a reading of the feat of the new martyrs raises questions: by the beginning of the Soviet experiment, the entire country had been baptized, and why not then glorify, at least as passion-bearers, all the dispossessed and exiled peasants. Obviously the paradigm victims blurs the understanding of martyrdom.

On the other hand, there is a tendency in literature to understand the martyrdom of the Soviet period precisely as heroism like a feat resistance Soviet power. But in order to fill such an understanding of the martyrdom of the twentieth century. specific content, we have to make a certain intellectual and historical reduction. First of all, the focus of this interpretation is on church movements and personalities that quite clearly demonstrated their political opposition to the existing regime, primarily the so-called “catacomb” movements. If such opposition did not manifest itself clearly enough, church opposition to the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate was taken as a sign of resistance to the regime. In this interpretation of martyrdom, church phenomena are systematized within the framework of a binary opposition: resistance vs. collaborationism. Church oppositionists turned out to be heroes of resistance, and clergy and laity who remained faithful to the clergy, regardless of their position in life and death, found themselves under suspicion of pandering to the regime.

Meanwhile, the historical reality is more complex. Even the oppositionists were not always disloyal to the existing regime. In addition, adhering to this paradigm, we ignore the martyrdom of the rest, the non-opposition part of the Patriarchal Church, which numerically, in terms of the number of parishes, exceeded the opposition movements. Qualifying her position as collaborationism is about the same as accusing dispossessed peasants driven into collective farms of collaboration. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the conciliar decision of the Church, which, in glorifying the new martyrs, considered it right not to separate the martyrs who were faithful to the hierarchy and the moderate oppositionists who maintained prayerful unity with Metropolitan. Peter (Polyansky).

Thus, the paradigm of new martyrs as victims blurs the understanding of martyrdom, and the paradigm of martyrs as oppositionists, dissidents narrows, and most importantly distorts, our understanding of this phenomenon, overly emphasizing the church-political aspect of church history of the twentieth century. Both of these approaches cannot satisfy us. It seems that we can find the key to a different understanding of the phenomenon of the new martyrs by turning to the consideration of the features of Soviet repressive policy.

Mass repressions of the 1920s–1950s with their arrests, camps and executions, were only the tip of the iceberg of Soviet repressive policy, which was based on mass social segregation.

Segregation by class was the official policy of Soviet Russia from 1918 to 1936, enshrined in the first constitutions. Then entire categories of residents of the Soviet republic were deprived of civil rights, primarily passive and active suffrage. Among these categories were former nobles, former large property owners, clergy, representatives of the army and police of the old order, and from the beginning of the 1930s. - and dispossessed peasants. Deprivation of civil rights, inclusion in the category of “disenfranchised” for these people was only the beginning of the trials, since it was they who fell under the skating rink of increased taxation, it was they who were primarily subject to eviction from large cities during their “cleansings”, their children were deprived of the right to higher education, they were deprived of access to a centralized food supply during the existence of the rationing system, which actually meant doomed to starvation; they, in the end, were primarily among the politically unreliable and, therefore, candidates for political repression.

Since 1936, the category of deprived people was formally abolished, but social segregation actually continued to be the norm of Soviet policy in subsequent decades. Along with the openly declared class segregation, there was a secret, but generally known to all residents of the country, segregation on other grounds. Among them were: religious affiliation, membership in what was considered an unreliable national (Poles, Latvians, Germans, etc.) or local group (“Harbinites”), membership in socially marked and deviant groups (previously convicted, homeless, prostitutes...).

Moreover, all this was precisely social segregation, since a person was classified into one or another disadvantaged category not on the basis of his proven criminal acts, but on the basis of “registration” (profile) data or characteristic features his behavior (going to church, begging...). Only formal membership in one or another group of the population, which in this moment qualified as enemy, was sufficient grounds for execution during numerous “mass operations” of the OGPU-NKVD (kulak, officer, various national, etc.).

What can a look at Soviet repressive policies as a policy of mass social segregation give us to understand the feat of the new martyrs? Quite a lot, I think. Believers were one of the main categories of the population subjected to various oppressions. Of course, the main blow of the segregation policy of the Soviet government fell on the clergy and monastics, but ordinary believers also found themselves under constant pressure. An obvious church position was fraught with serious complications at work and at home, especially in communal apartments; it certainly turned into obstacles in career growth, believers could be subject to pressure from the Komsomol, social activists or other organizations engaged in anti-religious propaganda. Changes in the work schedule at production (five-day and ten-day) made it impossible to visit churches on Sundays. Ultimately, contacts with the clergy could become a reason for accusing ordinary believers of participating in “anti-Soviet organizations” and making them the target of repression.

In this situation, the continuation of ordinary, everyday religious life became a feat and meant that those who continued to live church life made a conscious and very difficult choice in those conditions. This choice meant making a small or more significant sacrifice, and - what is important - being ready for more greater sacrifice. If the clergy, monastics, and often members of the parish administration were doomed, then many ordinary parishioners really chose between faith, which promised danger, and silent, unspoken, but still renunciation. The everyday choice in favor of faith, made by the masses of believers, supported the clergy and hierarchy, gave life to the Church, and thanks to it, despite all the efforts of the authorities, the country continued to belong to Christian civilization.

In other words, if hundreds of thousands of hierarchs, priests and believers accepted death, then millions were ready to do so. Life in Christ became their main value. For the sake of its preservation, they were ready to endure minor and major oppression, to expose themselves to minor and significant dangers. Thereby, when comprehending the feat of the new martyrs, we must shift attention from execution and death to the circumstances of their lives, to that ordinary, everyday feat of them and their loved ones that preceded their arrest. The arrest in this case turned out to be the logical conclusion of their life.

The suffering and glorified new martyrs and confessors of Russia in this case turn out to be a kind of vanguard of many, many believers who, in their place and by virtue of their calling, remained faithful to the Church and the Savior in their daily lives. The life experience of the new martyrs turns out to be the quintessence of the experience of all the faithful of the Russian Church of this period. This means that by honoring the new martyrs, we honor the feat of all Russian Christians of the twentieth century, who were not afraid to continue to live in Christ in militantly anti-Christian conditions.

Moreover, such a view does not mean a new erosion of the understanding of martyrdom, as was the case with the “victim paradigm,” but it means finding new boundaries this phenomenon. These boundaries are determined by the discovery of real Christian practices in the life of the believer, whom we venerate in the guise of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia. His actions, preserved by documents and church tradition, distinguish him from the ranks of his contemporaries. In addition, in our reading of the phenomenon of new martyrdom, the perception of martyrdom as heroic behavior is preserved, only this heroism is not political at all, but ordinary, everyday.

Thus, understanding the feat of the new martyrs as a feat of continuing life in Christ, we must pay closer attention to the characteristics of this life, to its real circumstances. And it turns out that we find ourselves in front of a wide field in which there are the most diverse manifestations of everyday Christian achievement. It appears that these forms Christian life, characteristic of the era of new martyrdom, can be divided into three categories. Firstly, we can talk about new forms of social and church structure created by this era. Secondly, about the new life practices of Christians, updated by persecution. Finally, thirdly, about the intellectual response given by the generation of martyrs and confessors to the challenges of their time. All this can be understood as experience New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. Let us try to briefly characterize each of these categories in the light of the achievements of recent historiography.

3. Church and social activity

The turn of the 1910–1920s. became a time of rapid growth of church and public associations (brotherhoods, various circles and parish unions, unions of parishes). All this happened against the backdrop of an upsurge in parish life itself, intensified work with young people, charitable activities of parishes, etc. Moreover, this growth of church-social movements occurred in different levels: not only, for example, parish and inter-parish brotherhoods arose, but also unions of brotherhoods and parishes, which usually coordinated their activities within the city or diocese.

The reason for the emergence of such an unusual phenomenon in those conditions - as it seems at first glance -, as it seems to us, was a combination of three factors: the disappearance of bureaucratic control over church life with the fall of the synodal system, the beginning of persecution by the Soviet authorities, which caused a lively rebuff from the believers, who stood up to defend church property, support for this movement from below from the hierarchy and personally from Patriarch Tikhon. (Interestingly, the parish council legislation of 1917–1918 had virtually no influence on this process.)

The largest and fairly well described among such associations was in Petrograd, which arose in 1918 and existed in one form or another until the early 1930s. It began its activities with the protection of the Petrograd Lavra from attacks by new government, but soon expanded its activities to church education, to work with children and disadvantaged sections of the urban population, and to charitable activities. Several theological circles operated within it, and even two secret monastic communities formed within it. In Moscow at the beginning of 1918, on the initiative of the clergyman Roman Medved, the St. Alexeevsky Brotherhood arose, which set as its task the training of “preachers from among the laity” to protect “the faith and church shrines.” There were many others (in Petrograd alone by the early 1920s there were about 20 of them) in various parts of the country, most of whom we know only by name.

The activities of these associations are striking in their versatility: education, charity, preservation of ascetic tradition (monastic communities). A noticeable feature of this movement was not purely lay (although it was laymen who made up the majority of members and active figures of the fraternities), but its church character, since their main leaders and inspirers were representatives of both the white and monastic clergy. Many church and public associations maintained close contact with the hierarchy and large spiritual centers, not only the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, but also, for example, with the New Jerusalem Resurrection Monastery, with the elders of the St. Smolensk Zosimova Monastery, etc.

It seems that the mentioned church-public associations demonstrate a new nature of the combination of individualism and community. Their growth took place primarily in large cities, i.e. out of connection with the traditional rural community environment, which was at the same time a parish environment, and it was the rural community that was then the main “social base” of the Russian Church. Here church and social movements successfully and very intensively mastered the new social environment. And this happened - let us remind you - precisely in response to the persecution that had begun. Church and social movements at the turn of the 1910s–1920s. were the embryo of a new parish life, which was not destined to develop due to repression.

The experience of the life of the new martyrs in terms of church and social order is the experience of self-sacrifice for the sake of protecting church property, the experience of the broadest mutual assistance (both material and intellectual, expressed in circle self-education, etc.), the experience of this help going beyond the boundaries of their communities (in education and in working with vulnerable social groups).

4. Daily Life Practices

IN last years The life practices of Christians in the twentieth century have been studied quite intensively. And in the light of our understanding of the feat of the new martyrs, this line of research is extremely important. After all, it is the study of life practices that will help us answer the questions: what exactly was done to preserve church life, what was considered especially important in light of this, and what was less important?

However, we should make one significant caveat here. Before we begin to analyze the behavior and daily practices of the new martyrs, it is necessary to make sure that we are actually dealing with practices determined by religious, and not other social, economic or political motives. Historians of the Soviet period have made quite a lot of observations that resistance to Soviet power on the part of the peasants - either during the Civil War or during collectivization - acquired religious forms, or religious justifications. S. Fitzpatrick also pointed out that the close attention of collectivized peasants in the 30s. to celebrate even the smallest church holidays(of which in some localities there were up to 180 per year) “represented a form of resistance (sabotage of work) rather than a testimony of piety.” Therefore, each time it is necessary to examine a specific case of manifestation of religiosity, and only after research by historians will it be possible to give a theological qualification of this or that phenomenon. To avoid falling into such a trap, I will mention only those practices whose motivation has been sufficiently studied.

Using the example of several monastic and mixed (consisting of monks and laymen) communities (both faithful to the hierarchy of the Russian Church and moderately oppositional), we can identify the following behavioral strategies. First of all it should be mentioned household disguise own monasticism or even churchliness. It could include a wide variety of components: from avoiding some features in clothing (everything that would indicate monasticism, black scarves, too long skirts and so on) to the purposeful silence about everything that could indicate churchiness, or avoidance sign of the cross in public places.

One more important point was attitude towards secular(Soviet) work. Within the framework of this behavioral paradigm, mentors demanded from monastics or lay people an exceptionally thorough, conscientious attitude to their work. The motive for this attitude was either Christian conscientiousness itself, or the perception of Soviet work as monastic obedience(for monks), i.e. as work performed for God and for one’s monastic community.

In this choice of work itself and in general in any relationship with Soviet everyday life, there was a principle at work that we could designate as the principle ascetic pragmatism. According to him, what is permissible is what allows one to maintain the correct spiritual attitude or the purity of the Christian conscience. For example, one of the spiritual leaders of the 1930s, now glorified as a new martyr, advised his students to avoid working in factories or large enterprises, since the atmosphere there could harm the spiritual mood of his charges.

The consequence of this behavioral strategy was a paradoxical phenomenon. Its bearers faced favorable prospects for socialization in Soviet society. In fact, it was about inculturation, the entry of members of these communities into the surrounding social and cultural environment. Of course, this process - in addition to ascetic pragmatics - had other limitations. It is clear, for example, that Christians could not be members of the Communist Party or Komsomol, which limited their chances of a successful career. But this makes them own position in relation to the social environment did not change. It was possible to preserve spiritual life, life in Christ, only continuing to live and in conditions that were in no way intended for her. The noted strategies of everyday behavior worked to achieve this super task.

The strategy of inculturation of the new martyrs, entering into the social and cultural environment reveals to us another important feature of their experience. Wednesday Soviet city had too little in common with the traditional Orthodox way of life, so characteristic of pre-revolutionary Russia. However, as we have seen, this did not deter the new martyrs. They entered this non-Christian and churchless environment as if into a “cave burning with fire” and continued to remain Christians in it, transforming it from the inside. The forms of life receded into the background, and it was remembered that Christianity can remain alive and active in any form. This is another aspect of the feat of the new martyrs, showing that they were acutely versatility Good News. The Russian Church has been much accused of adhering to national forms of Christianity, but the experience of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia shows that for them it was the universality of Christianity that became extremely relevant.

Such a life position can be a model for today's Christians; the path of the new martyrs can be our path.

5. Intellectual heritage of the new martyrs

Finally, something must be said about the intellectual heritage of the new martyrs. The main source here is church samizdat, which has been extremely poorly studied. Let us note its diversity: the thematic range of church samizdat varies from ascetic collections to apologetic works and works on pastoral psychology. It is not possible to talk about all these works, so I will dwell on only one such monument.

A notable place among the heritage of church samizdat Soviet era occupies the book of prot. Gleb Kaleda’s “Home Church,” which appeared as a complete text in the 1970s. "Home Church" is essentially the first book on family asceticism, that is, according to spiritual life in marriage in the Russian Orthodox tradition. Traditionally, Orthodox ascetic writing was of a monastic nature, since the vast majority of authors followed the monastic path and were primarily interested in the laws and rules of the spiritual life of the monastic ascetic. And although many observations and recommendations of classical ascetic authors are universal in nature and relate to the spiritual life of any Christian - both monk and layman - at the same time, important specific issues of spiritual life in marriage either completely fell out of sight of ascetic writers, or were covered insufficiently, casually, sometimes exclusively from monastic positions.

In the book “Home Church” the author examined it from the point of view of their spiritual growth various aspects of the family life of Orthodox Christians. Moreover, this book was neither a collection of quotes from the Holy Fathers or spiritual writers, nor a scientific and theological work with a rationally constructed system of argumentation. It was expression deep author's experience- the head of the family, teacher, priest, experience, of course, personal, but rooted in Church Tradition, verified by him. In this sense, “Home Church” is in line with Orthodox ascetic writing, the best examples of which are an expression of the spiritual experience of their creators, the experience of meeting God and life in the Church. We can say that Father Gleb’s book is an expression of the experience of meeting God in a home church - in a family.

I would like to note one important feature of this work. Its author attaches exceptional importance home Christian upbringing and education, the transfer from parents to children of their values ​​and knowledge about their faith, which he refers to only as home apostle. As the author writes, everyone who has a family and children is called to such apostolic service for their loved ones. At the same time, he carefully developed issues related to home education: its principles, stages, content, methods, the problem of combining it with general education.

All this absorbed the experience of the author himself, who already in the 1960s. While still a layman, he conducted Christian educational classes with children at his home, the participants of which were his children and the children of his relatives. But besides this - the experience of many home circles - children's, youth and adults - pre- and post-war times. In fact, these recommendations summarized the experience of the new martyrs in the field of Christian education. This experience was characterized exclusively careful attitude to the everyday life that surrounded the believer, to the family and its organic - despite everything - development. And the high assessment of home Christian education as a home apostolate shows that the older contemporaries of the author of the “Home Church” and he himself understood the family as a field on which the modest everyday efforts of believing parents could defeat the full power of the soulless state machine.

6. Conclusions

The experience of the new martyrs testifies to life in Christ. It was perceived as the main, enduring value, for the sake of which it was worth sacrificing a lot. She created new forms of church associations that realized themselves in Christian mutual assistance and in the extension of this assistance beyond the boundaries of communities. Despite everything, it entered into contemporary culture, testifying to the universality of Christianity. She was the treasure that only needed to be passed on to her children through the “home apostolate.” It seems that such an axiology of the generation of Russian martyrs and confessors is their main testament to us, requiring our full attention and comprehension.

Exceptions to this rule include several examples of executions of clerics during the period Civil War and to the 1930s campaign to force clergy to make public declarations of defrocking in exchange for the restoration of civil rights and jobs. In both cases we are talking about exceptions to the general rule. Moreover, although it is now difficult to assess the scale of the renunciations of the 30s, it is known that very often the renunciations did not achieve their goal, because former priests continued to be discriminated against because they were “historically” classified as an unreliable category of citizens. This issue was even considered by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee commission on religious affairs. See, for example, the Draft Circular of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on distortions and violations of the legislation on cults. June 10, 1932 // Russian Orthodox Church and the communist state. 1917–1941. Documents and photographic materials. M., 1996. pp. 294–295.

Shmaina-Velikanova A.I.. About new martyrs // Pages: Theology. Culture. Education. 1998. T. 3. Issue. 4. pp. 504–509; Semenenko-Basin I.V.. Holiness in Russian Orthodox culture XX century. History of personification. M., 2010. pp. 214–217.

Alekseeva L. History of dissent in the USSR. New York, 1984; Vilnius, Moscow, 1992. Shkarovsky M.V.. Josephlanism: a movement in the Russian Orthodox Church. St. Petersburg, 1999, etc.

Harbin people– employees of China Eastern railway(CER), built before the revolution on territory leased by Russia from China. The city of Harbin was the center of this territory. After the USSR sold the Chinese Eastern Railway to Japan in 1935, many “Harbin residents” returned to their homeland, where they were assigned a place of residence in Siberia.

See, for example, Beglov A.,Chakovskaya L. Everyday heroism // Tatyana’s Day. Edition of the home church of St. mts. Tatiana at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov. October 1, 2010: http://www.taday.ru/text/651147.html.

Antonov V.V. Parish Orthodox brotherhoods in Petrograd (1920s) // The Past: Historical Almanac. Vol. 15. M.–SPb., 1993. pp. 424–445; Antonov V.V. and secret monastic communities in Petrograd // St. Petersburg Diocesan Gazette. 2000. Vol. 23. pp. 103–112; Shkarovsky M. V. 1918–1932. St. Petersburg, 2003; Beglov A.L. Church and social movements at the turn of the 1910s–1920s // XIX Annual Theological Conference of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University: Materials. T. 1; Zegzhda S.A. . St. Petersburg, 2009.

This suggests a direct parallel with the early Christian communities, which by the end of the 3rd century. took on the broadest social functions in the ancient polis - they buried the dead during epidemics, took care of widows (and not only those belonging to the Christian community), fed orphans, etc. Wed. Brown P. The World of Late Antiquity. Thames and Hudson, 1971.

Fitzpatrick Sh. Stalin's peasants. Social history Soviet Russia in the 30s: village. M., 2008. pp. 231–233.

Beglov A.L.. Church underground in the USSR in the 1920–1940s: strategies for survival // Odyssey. Man in history. 2003. M., 2003. S. 78–104; Beglov A.L.. In search of “sinless catacombs”. Church underground in the USSR. M., 2008. P. 78–85; Beglov A. Il monachesimo clandestino in URSS e il suo rapporto con la cultura secolare // La nuova Europa. Rivista internationale di cultura. 2010, Gennaio. No. 1. Pp. 136–145.

Beglov A.L.. Home education as an apostolic ministry. The concept of church education of Archpriest Gleb Kaleda // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2009. No. 11. P. 77–83; Beglov A.L.. Orthodox education underground: traditions and innovations. The experience of priest Gleb Kaleda // Menevskie readings. 2007. Scientific conference “Orthodox pedagogy”. Sergiev Posad, 2008. pp. 90–100; Beglov A.L.. Orthodox education in the underground: pages of history // Alpha and Omega. 2007. No. 3(50). pp. 153–172.

Another possible conclusion from our proposed understanding of the feat of the new martyrs as a continuation of life in Christ concerns the specific worship practices in this face of saints. It seems that when preparing materials for the canonization of the new martyrs, attention should be transferred from “documents about death,” that is, investigative files that today underlie the canonization process, to “documents about the life” of these people, first of all, to church tradition and other evidence about their position in life.

Dear conference participants! I am glad to warmly welcome all of you gathered in this hall of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. The 20th century was especially difficult and tragic for our Motherland, the entire people, and the Russian Orthodox Church. Russia has lost millions of its sons and daughters. Among those villainously killed and tortured during the years of persecution were an innumerable number of Orthodox Christians - laymen and monks, bishops and priests, clergy, scientists, intelligentsia, ordinary workers and peasants, whose only guilt was their firm faith in God. These were ordinary people, the same as we are, but they were distinguished by a special spirituality, kindness, responsiveness, cordiality, the breadth of the Russian soul, imbued with a thousand years of Christian history and culture, faith in God and loyalty to one's religious beliefs. They preferred to die than to live without God, without Christ. The new martyrs and confessors by their feat revealed the glory of God, the bearers of which were the martyrs and confessors throughout all centuries, starting from the first century of the existence of the Church. The feat of these saints remains in the memory of the Church, which is reborn thanks to their prayers. The rule of the Bolshevik Party in Russia, especially its first two decades, was marked by persecution of the Church on an unprecedented scale. The Bolshevik government not only wanted to build a new society according to new political principles, it did not tolerate any religion other than its belief in the “world revolution.” There was only one force that the Russian Orthodox Church could oppose to the insane malice of the persecutors. This is the power of faith and the holiness that flows from it. Faced with this great power, with this spiritual resistance, militant Soviet atheism, against its will, was forced to retreat. The new martyrs and confessors of Russia were not afraid to live according to the Gospel even in the darkest years of Lenin’s Bolshevik tyranny, to live as their Christian conscience told them, and were ready to die for it. The Lord accepted this great sacrifice and with His Providence directed the course of history during the Second World War in such a way that the Soviet leadership was forced to abandon plans for the brutal eradication of religion in the USSR. But no matter how the subsequent periods of Soviet history were called (“thaw”, “stagnation”), during the years of Soviet power (1940-1980s of the twentieth century), believers were subjected to repression for their religious views and loyalty to Christ. In the past century, the Church has encountered a colossal phenomenon, something it has never encountered before—the massive feat of martyrdom. The appearance of an incredible number of saints. Over the past years, the Russian Orthodox Church has collected numerous testimonies about Christians who suffered persecution for the faith of Christ in the 20th century. Extensive material has been accumulated that allows us to objectively assess the situation of that period. However, for a short time It is very difficult to comprehend such a huge amount of information. Careful and lengthy work will be required. Unfortunately, we know too little about the specific exploits of the new martyrs, their spiritual heritage. Listing their names, it is currently very difficult for us to say something about their life and righteous death. In this regard, there is a great need for accessible narrative literature. We now need not only historical research, but also fiction books, historical stories, poems, and so on. Today the Russian Orthodox Church is trying to popularize and make widely known the feat of the Russian new martyrs. In order to implement the Definition of the Council of Bishops on February 2-4, 2011 “On measures to preserve the memory of the new martyrs, confessors and all those who suffered innocently from the atheists during the years of persecution”, at the last meeting of the Holy Synod in December 2012, it was decided to create a Church-Public Council for perpetuating the memory of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia under the chairmanship of His Holiness the Patriarch. On November 6, 2012, as part of the exhibition-forum “Orthodox Rus'”, the Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Foundation for the Preservation of Spiritual and Moral Culture “Pokrov” held a presentation of a comprehensive targeted program for disseminating the veneration of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia “Lights of Russia of the 20th century”. This program is being implemented with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill and is aimed at creating information conditions and opportunities for church-wide veneration and glorification of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia, understanding and assimilating the greatness of their spiritual feat. In order for the memory of the new martyrs to be strengthened in our society as an example of the steadfastness of faith, it is necessary to intensify our work. Church and social events (conferences, forums, conventions) should be held; study the history of the feat of the new martyrs and confessors in educational institutions both theological (seminaries, schools) and general education (gymnasiums, schools); create documentaries and feature films, conduct television programs, publish literature dedicated to the feat of the new martyrs and confessors; to create diocesan centers for promoting the study of the feat of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia at the diocesan and parish level, which would collect relevant material, systematize it and study it. To summarize, we can say that the strength and unity of any people, its ability to respond to the challenges thrown at it, are determined, first of all, by its spiritual strength. The pinnacle of spiritual growth is holiness. The holy ascetics have united, are uniting and will unite the people of Russia. It is, of course, possible to gather people under the banner of false ideas, imbued with hatred. But such a human unification will not last, as we see vivid historical examples of. The feat of the new martyrs has eternal significance. The power of holiness demonstrated by them defeated the malice of the God-fighting Bolsheviks. The veneration of the new martyrs and confessors, before our eyes, united the Russian Church, outwardly, through the efforts of the same atheists, which was divided at the end of the 1920s. But without a return to true values, the ideal of which is holiness, our society will remain doomed. If the people of our country have a future, then only in following the Truth, the fidelity of which was demonstrated by our saints, the closest of whom to us are the new martyrs and confessors of Russia, led by the Royal Passion-Bearers. Daily online media “Orthodoxy and Peace”

In the history of Russia, the past twentieth century was marked by the brutal persecution of the Orthodox Church by Soviet authorities. Many clergy and ordinary believers were persecuted to the point of death by the atheist state for their religious beliefs. The feat of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia is the clearest example of fidelity to Christ and His Church. Despite this, their example still requires full reflection. A contribution to this process is an article by Metropolitan Clement of Kaluga and Borovsk.

Once our Lord Jesus Christ, turning to His disciples, said: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit...” (Matthew 28:19). The Church, heeding the call of the Savior, has been carrying out its apostolic ministry for two thousand years, but people have not always and everywhere accepted the teaching about the true God. For a society stricken by passions and vices, the Beatitudes and the teaching of love for God and neighbor became a serious irritant and caused indignation and rage, since they exposed the unrighteous way of life in which this society lived. When we are asked: “Who are the martyrs?”, we give a clear answer: “These are those who, for the sake of faith in Christ, accepted suffering and even death.” As an example, we cite the first martyr Archdeacon Stephen, the Bethlehem babies, those who in the first centuries of our Era, at the dawn of Christianity, suffered for Christ and, of course, the new martyrs and confessors of Russia in the 20th century. Almost a thousand years after the Baptism of Rus' with “water” under Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, our Fatherland was re-baptized with “blood”. What significance does their feat have for us today? Yes, there are almost two thousand more saints in our Church, but is that only it? To answer this question, it is necessary to better understand what martyrdom is.

Undoubtedly, martyrdom has always been recognized by the Church as a special type of holiness. Both in ancient times and in modern times, not everyone was able to testify “even to death” about their faith in God. The history of the Church has preserved a lot of evidence that even among the clergy there were individuals who, out of fear of death, and sometimes simply imprisonment, renounced Christ. There is also authentic evidence that from the very first centuries of Christianity, believers treated the remains of martyrs and their burial places with special reverence. Often in such places chapels and temples were erected, where the bloodless Sacrifice was offered, and the feat of the warrior of Christ buried here was glorified. Gradually this became a tradition and in 787 at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (II Nicaea) it was accepted as a generally binding rule that the temple must be consecrated on the relics of the martyr. One of the first teachers of the Church, Tertullian, wrote this: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of Christianity.” This is wonderful and amazing precise definition leads us to the conclusion that the true Church of Christ is based on the blood of martyrs, which is figuratively reflected in the 7th rule VII Ecumenical Cathedral. Therefore, when we remember the feat of the Russian new martyrs, we must remember that it was they who were the fruitful seed thanks to which the Russian Orthodox Church lives and flourishes today.

Speaking about confessing the Name of Christ, one cannot ignore one interesting question: were the new martyrs forced to renounce Christ, unlike the martyrs of the first centuries? Indeed, if we turn to the history of those years, we can find that no one demanded a direct renunciation of Christ on pain of death. Isolated exceptional cases can only confirm this. Why then did they suffer and were canonized as saints? Looking ahead a little, we note that the feat of the new Russian martyrs differed from the feat of the first martyrs.

In January 1918, the Soviet government proclaimed “freedom of conscience,” which formally indicated a loyal attitude to religion. The same position was officially voiced in the international community: the Soviet government is fighting not only against counter-revolution, but not against religion. It was under this pretext that the fight against the Russian Orthodox Church was carried out, and in the 30s, millions of people were arrested, detained or shot under Article 58 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, which read: “Any action aimed at overthrowing or undermining is recognized as counter-revolutionary.” or the weakening of the power of the Workers' and Peasants' Councils... also such an action, which, while not directly aimed at achieving the above goals, nevertheless, known to the one who committed it, contains an attempt on the main political or economic gains of the proletarian revolution.” The best result of prosecution under this article for the convicted person and all members of his family was “one hundred and first kilometer”, and the worst was death, since the death penalty was execution. In those years, the latter option was many times superior to the first. In this regard, some researchers believe that all those believers who were subject to criminal prosecution in the USSR suffered not for their religious beliefs, but for anti-Soviet political views. Let's see if this is actually true.

It is no secret that believers in those years did not feel sympathy for the Soviet government, since it took an atheistic, godless position. But being ill-disposed is one thing, and counter-revolutionary activity is another thing entirely.

Here are just some facts. At this time, the expression of Karl Marx became popular - “Religion is the opium of the people,” borrowed by him from the Anglican priest Charles Kingsley. It finds a second life thanks to a newspaper article by V.I. Lenin, an excerpt from which we present here:

“Religion is the opium of the people,” is the saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire worldview of Marxism on the question of religion. Marxism always views all modern religions and churches, all and any religious organizations as organs of bourgeois reaction, serving to defend the exploitation and intoxication of the working class... One must be able to fight religion... This struggle must be put in connection with the concrete practice of the class movement aimed at eliminating social the roots of religion... We must fight religion. This is the ABC of all materialism and, therefore, Marxism.”

It is noteworthy that this article was first published back in 1909, when there was no trace of Soviet power, but the fight against the Church had already been proclaimed. Expressions such as: “Religion is the opium of the people”, “Through godlessness - to communism”, “Religion is poison”, “The fight against religion is the fight for socialism”, etc., became the official slogans of the Soviet government. They are hung on banners in in public places, educational and government institutions to incite hostility towards the Church among the population. On February 9, 1918, the first Soviet satirical magazine, “The Red Devil,” was published, on the pages of which it was caricatured how the devil kicks, impales, kills, etc. clergy and religious citizens.

One of the distinctive features of the suffering path of the new martyrs was the complete emptiness of information that often accompanied their feat. When a person was taken away in the middle of the night by a “black funnel,” no one knew where he was taken, what would happen to him, or whether he was even alive. “Both old and young” understood this in those years, so no one even hoped that anyone would ever learn about his tragic fate. Apparently for this reason, in those years it was customary among believers to ask each other for forgiveness before going to bed: “Forgive me, for Christ’s sake!”, because every night could be the last.

In the first centuries everything was different. Society by its nature was religious and the persecution that was carried out against Christians, unlike the Soviet authorities, pursued a different goal - not to destroy people’s faith in God, but to change it to the “correct” one. The trial of a martyr was, as a rule, public. He was tortured, seduced, exhorted, thereby trying to achieve one single goal - for the martyr to renounce Christ and convert to another faith: paganism, Islam, etc. If the goal was achieved, then all persecution by the authorities stopped. “A fallen away” or “fallen away”, and this is exactly what a person who renounced his faith was considered to be, was accepted by society, but rejected by the Church. Often, especially when persecution ceased, many of those who fell away, having repented of their cowardice and renunciation of Christ, were accepted into the bosom of the Mother Church. But even on this score in the Church for a long time there was no unanimous opinion whether it was possible to accept those who had fallen away and how, as is well evidenced by the Novatian schism in the middle of the 3rd century. From the first 9 rules of the Ancyra Council it is clearly visible how severely those who fell away from the right faith were punished.

Returning to the feat of the new martyrs, it is worth noting that, as a rule, they were not required to renounce Christ, since the goal of the Soviet government was completely different - not to change the religious worldview of the individual, but to destroy religion along with the individual. Of course, there was also an ideological struggle at the initial stage, especially among young people, who from a very young age were taught that there is no God and everything connected with Him are “grandmother’s” fairy tales that hinder Soviet people on the path to a bright future. If a person remained true to his religious beliefs, then he was isolated from society under a political article. Moreover, the Soviet government did not look at the age, gender, or social status of the believer. For example, in SLON, two very young cabin boys, 12 and 14 years old, were shot for professing their faith in God. Many similar examples can be given, and the trial and execution of minors were carried out strictly within the framework of the law, which allowed children to be shot as early as 12 years old! To confirm our thoughts, we quote the appeal of V.I. Lenin in a letter marked “strictly secret” to members of the Politburo during an artificially created famine in the Volga region dated March 19, 1922:

“Please do not make copies under any circumstances, butto every member of the Politbureau (Comrade Kalinin too) to make his notes on the document itself...

It is now and only now, when people are being eaten in starved areas and hundreds, if not thousands of corpses are lying on the roads, that we can (and therefore must!) carry out the confiscation of church valuables with the most furious and merciless energy and without stopping at the suppression of any resistance... The more representatives of the reactionary clergy and the reactionary bourgeoisie can be shot on this occasion, the better.

To oversee the fastest and most successful implementation of these measures, appoint immediately at the congress, i.e. at its secret meeting, a special commission with the obligatory participation of Comrade Trotsky and Comrade Kalinin, without any publication about this commission and so that the subordination of all operations to it was ensured and carried out not on behalf of the commission, but in an all-Soviet and all-party manner.”

But we know that “there is nothing hidden that will not be made manifest, nor hidden that will not be made known and not revealed” (Luke 8:17), so today, having reliable data at our disposal, we can judge that the persecution by the Soviet authorities was carried out not against the counter-revolutionary clergy, but against the Church in general. Numerous facts can serve as eloquent evidence of this - from the company to open the relics, the creation of an anti-church commission and the public organization “Union of Militant Atheists” and ending with the execution of clergy who were already in old age, and sometimes even disabled people who were unable to walk. They were carried to the execution on stretchers. For example, Hieromartyr Seraphim Chichagov was 82 years old. On November 30, 1937, seriously ill, he was arrested in the village of Udelnaya, taken out of his house on a stretcher, taken to Taganskaya prison by ambulance, and shot on December 11.

Why is it important today to remember the feat of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia? Because in our time we are all witnessing the beginning of another persecution of the Church. As at the beginning of the 20th century, so now all this is again covered with lies, behind which stands the enemy of the human race, “for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). The desecration and desecration of shrines is presented as an act of political struggle, or even as art; the mass discreditation of prominent figures of the Russian Orthodox Church that has unfolded in the media and the Internet, aimed at forming a negative image of the entire Church as a whole in the minds of our compatriots, is called civil criticism and even the fight for the purity of Orthodox doctrine; and those terrible caricatures towards the Church that literally flood the Internet today are painfully reminiscent of the Soviet ones. We must not remain indifferent witnesses to this struggle, which the devil has been waging against humanity for thousands of years. The fight for the soul of man, for the soul of each of us. Using the example of the feat of the new martyrs, we must convey to each of our compatriots the light of Christ’s truth, which forms in the individual spiritual and moral principles and foundations, without which it is impossible to revive the mighty and glorious Russian state.

In this regard, a separate working group has been created in the Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church to deal with the issue of spreading the veneration of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia.

At the next meeting of the working group it was adopted next plan events aimed at spreading the veneration of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia:

1. Publication of thematic series of books about new martyrs, confessors and passion-bearers:

– royal martyrs and members of the royal family;

– primates, holy martyrs and holy confessors of the Russian Orthodox Church;

– lay people (women, military, theologians, doctors, etc.);

– new martyrs and confessors who suffered in certain dioceses, monasteries and parishes.

2. Publication of works, diaries and letters of new martyrs and confessors (with comments and photographs).

3. Compilation of services for new martyrs and confessors.

4. Publication of biographies of ascetics of faith and piety who suffered for Christ, the issue of canonization of whom is under study.

5. Publication of works of fiction about new martyrs and confessors, aimed at the mass reader.

6. Publication of a series for children and youth about new martyrs and confessors who suffered at a young age (working title “Heroes of the Spirit”).

7. Publication of a magazine or almanac (working title “Feat of Faith”), as well as a specialized Internet portal.

8. Creation of television and radio programs, as well as a series of television and radio programs about new martyrs and confessors.

9. Creation of a unified database about new martyrs and confessors based on the already existing database of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University.

10. Creation of a church-wide museum of new martyrs.

11. Create a study on modern history The Church in Russia, in which this or that period of persecution would be viewed through the prism of the feat of the lives of the new martyrs and confessors.

12. Conducting a church-wide competition for children and youth to write a story about the new martyrs and confessors. Best works publish in a magazine.

13. Publication of an annual specialized calendar.

As can be clearly seen from the plan, a huge and varied amount of work needs to be done. Some projects are already being successfully implemented, but many of them are waiting in the wings.

The veneration of the new martyrs should become the force that will help revive the Fatherland.

Appendix No. 1

JOINT DECISION OF THE CEC AND SNK OF THE USSR

On measures to combat juvenile crime

In order to quickly eliminate crime among minors, the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR decide:

1) Minors starting from the age of 12 who are convicted of committing thefts, causing violence, bodily harm, mutilation, murder or attempts to murder, should be brought to criminal court with the application of all criminal penalties.

2) Persons convicted of inciting or attracting minors to participate in various crimes, as well as forcing minors to engage in speculation, prostitution, begging, etc. - shall be punished with imprisonment of at least 5 years.

3) Cancel Art. 8 “Basic principles of criminal legislation of the USSR and Union Republics.”

4) To propose to the Governments of the Union Republics to bring the criminal legislation of the republics into compliance with this resolution.

Prev. USSR Central Executive Committee M. KALININ

Prev. Council of People's Commissars of the USSR V. MOLOTOV

Secretary of the USSR Central Executive Committee I. AKULOV

Moscow Kremlin

Appendix No. 2

Circular from the USSR Prosecutor's Office and the USSR Supreme Court to prosecutors and court chairmen on the procedure for applying capital punishment to minors

Store along with the cipher

№ 1/001537 - 30/002517

To all prosecutors of the union republics, regional, regional, military, transport, railway prosecutors, water basin prosecutors; prosecutors of special boards, prosecutor of Moscow. To all chairmen of the supreme courts, regional, regional courts, military tribunals, linear courts; courts of water basins, chairmen of special boards of regional, regional and supreme courts, chairman of the Moscow City Court.

In view of incoming requests, in connection with the resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated April 7 this year. “On measures to combat juvenile delinquency”, we explain:

1. Among the criminal penalties provided for in Art. 1 of the said resolution also applies to capital punishment (execution).

2. In accordance with this, the indication in the note to Art. 13 “Fundamental principles of the criminal legislation of the USSR and the union republics and the corresponding articles of the criminal codes of the union republics (Article 22 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR and the corresponding articles of the Criminal Code of other union republics), according to which execution is not applied to persons under 18 years of age.

3. In view of the fact that the use of capital punishment (execution) can only take place in exceptional cases and that the use of this measure in relation to minors must be placed under especially careful control, we invite all prosecutorial and judicial authorities to inform the Union Prosecutor and the Chairman of the Supreme Court in advance USSR on all cases of bringing juvenile offenders to criminal court, in respect of whom capital punishment may be applied.

4. When minors are brought before a criminal court under articles of the law providing for the application of capital punishment (execution), their cases are considered in the regional (regional) courts in the general manner.

Prosecutor of the USSR Vyshinsky

Chairman Supreme Court USSR Vinokurov

“For this reason, if any honorable churches are consecrated without the holy relics of the martyrs, we determine: let the placement of the relics be performed in them with the usual prayer. If from now on a certain bishop appears, consecrating a temple without holy relics: let him be deposed, as if he had transgressed church traditions” (7th pr. of the VII Ecumenical Council).

“101st kilometer” is an unofficial term that denoted restrictions on the rights of certain categories of citizens. The restriction consisted of a ban on settling and living within a 100-kilometer zone around Moscow, Leningrad, Kyiv, Minsk and a number of other large or “closed” cities.

“Sie ist das Opium des Volks” (Karl Marx: Einleitung zur Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie; in: Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher 1844, S. 71f, zitiert nach MEW, Bd. 1, S. 378-379).

On the attitude of the workers’ party to religion (May 13 (26), 1909) // Lenin V.I. Full composition of writings. - 5th ed. - M.: Publishing house of political literature, 1964-1981. - T. 17. - P. 416-418.

“Black Funnel” - a vehicle for transporting prisoners of those years. This favorite car of the NKVD during the mass repressions was painted only black, which is why it received such a nickname among the people.

Novatianism is a schismatic movement of the 3rd-7th centuries. Novatian, the founder of this schism, who denounced the practice of the Roman Bishop Cornelius of accepting into the Church those who had previously fallen away from it, demanded that they be rejected forever. He justified this as follows. If the Church is a society of saints, then all those who have committed mortal sins or renounced the faith must be cast out of it forever, otherwise the Church will become unclean and cease to be holy. They were often called Kafars (from καθαροί - pure). It is noteworthy that I Ecumenical Council recognized the legitimacy and correctness of the Navatian hierarchy, albeit schismatic.

GARF. F. 9401. Op. 12. D. 103. L. 35. Typographic copy. First officially published in Izvestia of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, No. 81 of April 8, 1935.

Report of the dean of the Rakityansky district
Archpriest Nikolai Germansky at the XV Stary Oskol Municipal Christmas Readings “1917-2017: Lessons of the Century”

On the eve of the 100th anniversary of the revolutionary coup of 1917 in Russia, this topic is being discussed more than ever, and in different circles different people, although living on the same land, see and read this phenomenon in completely different ways. But how important it is to understand this topic correctly, because not only how our children will grow up depends on its correct understanding, but how they and we, together with them, will understand what freedom, fraternity, equality, justice and, finally, really mean. , human happiness, which each of us strives for, but, alas, understands it in our own way.
Yes, of course, each person is individual and unique, and that’s wonderful. But if we accept the language of Holy Scripture, then we also accept that our common ancestor is Adam, and therefore we have not only uniqueness. What we have in common will surely outweigh all our differences.
Since about 80 percent of our compatriots today consider themselves Orthodox, it would be fair to rely on the Holy Scriptures in our conversation today about the feat of Russian saints.

He who is at war with Russia is at war with Christ and the Russian saints

It would seem at first glance, what could be the connection between revolution and holiness? It seems that in order to see this connection clearly, it is necessary to make at least a brief excursion into the history of mankind from its very origins. But first, it would be nice to remember that there was a prehistory when Adam was not yet on earth, and the essence of which is that first the Lord created angels, and one of them named Dennitsa, which means “radiant,” became proud of his own beauty and rebelled against God, while seducing, according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers, one third of the angels. Therefore, we quite rightly call him the first rebel and revolutionary. The word “revolution” is translated from Greek as “catastrophe.” The remarkable Russian philosopher and writer Ivan Ilyin called the revolution a catastrophe and madness. After all, isn’t it madness when a created being tries to raise a hand against its Creator?! Of course, it cannot win, but it can cause pain. Seeing the beautiful creation of the Triune Deity - a man not much different from an angel, the former Lucifer, and now a demon, out of envy seduces him, while slandering God. Oh, this wonderful and terrible gift of freedom! Once upon a time the demon also received it, but, having rebelled against God, he distorted his beautiful essence and became the prince of darkness. Adam also received this God-like gift, but, having disobeyed the Creator, he was expelled from Paradise and ceased to be like an angel, having lost a direct connection with Divine Love. We can say that in Paradise Adam was holy, but outside of Paradise his essence also changes. Being initially almost incorporeal, he dresses as written in Holy Scripture, in “robes of leather” (Gen. 3:12). His mournful path in human history begins, which was briefly and brilliantly expressed by the great Russian writer and thinker F.M. Dostoevsky: “Here the devil fights with God, and the battlefield is the human heart.”
Consequently, the entire history of mankind essentially lies in this bloody struggle between the devil and God for every human soul. One thing you need to understand is important thing: despite the fact that man neglects the infinite love of the Creator and goes in a roundabout way fortunately, God does not turn away from him, but remains always nearby, waiting for his return. But the devil is also always nearby, and, as always, he the main objective- to kill God in a person’s soul with his own hands. And the revolution, proclaiming a new faith, is one of the most powerful means for breeding a new type of person who would not recognize either God, or holiness, or shrines.
Remembering the revolutionary coup of 1917, let us ask ourselves why it broke out in such a bloody glow in Russia and had such a colossal impact on a huge part of humanity, infecting it with false ideas about moral values. I dare to say that it was in Russia that the enemy of the human race saw the greatest danger for himself. Being an outpost of Orthodoxy, at that time it was rapidly gaining both political and economic authority throughout the world and could have a huge influence on this entire world, professing genuine Divine values. And therefore he directed all his forces to deal a crushing blow to the ideals of Holy Rus'. By the way, not one of the existing peoples has yet called their state Holy, and this is probably because no one has revered the ideal of holiness and directed their thoughts towards Christ like the Russian people; no one has ever suffered so much for Him. , seeking the Kingdom of Heaven.
The outstanding representative of the Western European world, Otto von Bismarck, expressed his understanding of Russia absolutely wonderfully. Let us listen carefully to his statements: “Russia is dangerous because of the meagerness of its needs,” that is, Europe considers us almost ascetics and, it seems, another thought can be seen here: the philosophy of consumption and a well-fed and comfortable life does not quite suit us. He goes on to say: “Even the most successful outcome of the war will never lead to the disintegration of Russia, which rests on millions of Russian believers of the Greek denomination. These latter, even if they are separated as a result of international treaties, will reconnect with each other as quickly as separated droplets of mercury find their way to each other.” Here the Reich Chancellor of the German Empire guesses the spirit of conciliarity, which is one of main characteristics Church of Christ.
And finally, we read: “The Russians cannot be defeated, we have been convinced of this for hundreds of years. But Russians can be instilled with false values, and then they will defeat themselves.” Here the Western European and North American experience is clearly felt, which easily resorts to cynical lies and slander in the person of its godless leaders. And this is a direct consequence of the distortion of faith, followed by the distortion of the experience of all life, which, in fact, happened to the Catholic and Protestant world.
And now it wouldn’t hurt to listen to the revolutionaries themselves in order to feel the true spirit of the revolution and understand what kind and tribe these people were. Marx was very fond of telling his daughters at night, instead of good children's fairy tales, terrible stories he himself had invented about a man who sold his soul to the devil. Subsequently, both of Marx's daughters committed suicide.
Engels, Marx’s closest ally, wrote: “The fight against the Christian world order, in the end, is our only pressing business.”
And here are the words of the father of Russian anarchism, Mikhail Bakunin: “In this revolution we will have to awaken the devil in order to arouse the most terrible passions.”
Some of Lenin’s statements about F.M. Dostoevsky are not without interest: “I don’t have free time for this rubbish.” “I re-read the book and threw it aside” (he’s talking about “Demons”). “I started reading The Brothers Karamazov, but stopped: the scenes in the monastery made me sick.”
I cannot help but quote the prominent representative of modern democrat-reformists A. Chubais: “You know, I have been re-reading Dostoevsky in the last three months. And I feel almost physical hatred for this man. He is certainly a genius, but his vision of the Russians as a holy people, his cult of suffering and the false choices he offers make me want to tear him to pieces.”
In this case, it does not seem necessary to ask the question whether there is any connection between the revolutionaries and the democrats. Probably, what we heard is enough to understand what kind of spirit fed these people and inspired, as they believed, great achievements, the result of which, as a rule, were rivers of human blood and the suffering of millions of people.
To be fair, I will cite the statement of F.M. himself. Dostoevsky in order to understand the nature of the hatred of the above-mentioned persons towards this outstanding Russian man: “Is this, they say, such a lot for us, our poor, our rough land? Is it our destiny to express a new word in humanity? Well, am I talking about economic glory, about the glory of the sword or science? I’m only talking about the brotherhood of people and that the Russian heart, perhaps, of all peoples, is most destined for universal, all-human fraternal unity...”
A little later, another great Russian thinker will pronounce his weighty word about the Russian man and his main idea. And this word is striking in that it was said as if today: “If our generation has had the lot to live in the most difficult and dangerous era of Russian history, then this cannot and should not shake our understanding, our will and our service to Russia. The struggle of the Russian people for freedom and a decent life on earth continues. And now, more than ever, it is fitting for us to believe in Russia, to see her spiritual strength and originality, and to pronounce her creative idea for her, on her behalf and for her future generations.
What is the essence of this idea? The Russian idea is the idea of ​​the heart. She claims that the main thing in life is love, and that it is through love that life together on earth is built, for from love will be born faith and the entire culture of the spirit. The Russian-Slavic soul, from ancient times and organically predisposed to feeling, sympathy and kindness, historically accepted this idea from Christianity: it responded with its heart to God’s gospel, to the main commandment of God, and believed that “God is Love.”
So, love is the main spiritual and creative force of the Russian soul. Without love, a Russian person is a failed creature” (Ivan Ilyin).
And this fact is undeniable. And as soon as the faith of the Russian people weakened, and especially when this happened in the person of the Russian elite, the enemy took advantage of our oversight with lightning speed. And, it would seem, just yesterday the indestructible empire fell. One part of the Russian people burned icons and destroyed churches under the strict guidance of ideological revolutionaries, while the other suffered, shedding bitter tears. And then the brother went against his brother, and the son went against his father.
The dark forces rejoiced: power was in the hands of the atheists, and persecution began against those who thought and lived differently, trying to preserve the traditional way of life. And very soon the brutal fighters against God, feeling resistance, began the systematic destruction of shrines, and with them those who zealously revered them.
This was the time of the crucifixion of Rus'. On one side of the cross on which she, like Christ, was crucified, were her detractors, and on the other were those who, having no fear of man, but having the fear of God, were crucified with her. And those who withstood inhuman tests to the end and did not renounce native faith, are now revered by us as new martyrs and confessors of the Russian Church. And it was in the person of these best sons and daughters that Holy Rus' gave an extremely clear answer to both God and all humanity which path it had chosen. Russian saints showed that life without Christ and outside of Christ is meaningless for them. They preferred death for the Truth of Christ, which for them consisted in sacrificial love for God, people and their native Fatherland, to betraying the ideals of Holy Rus'.
So what kind of people were they and where did they get the strength for the feat? Every new martyr and confessor of the Russian Church is worthy of being told about him.
Let's turn to the image of the righteous man of our days, who, in fact, was our contemporary and for the last 20 years of his life labored in the then village of Rakitnoye. This is Archimandrite Seraphim (Tyapochkin), who served 15 years in Stalin’s camps and, together with his people, completely drank the cup of suffering. But his spirit was not broken. Returning from the camps, he became one of the most revered Russian elders, around whom hundreds and thousands of suffering people were nourished and saved in difficult times. When asked what nourished and strengthened Father Seraphim most of all, he once answered his close friend: “Oh, if I could convey even one tenth of the joy that I experience during the service of the Liturgy!” A Divine Liturgy for a believer, during which he partakes of the Body and Blood of Christ, there is highest point his communication with God.
And here are excerpts from Father Seraphim’s letter to his spiritual children:
“My dear daughter, unforgettable Mavro!
My soul grieves mortally. Remembering the Gethsemane feat of Christ the Savior, I find consolation for my grieving soul. I grieve heavily for my flock, for my spiritual children, for those who love me, remember me and are now awaiting my return. But what I prayed to the Lord for has happened: let this cup pass from me (Matthew 26:39).
Here is my sad story. In February I left Kansk for Balkhash. I did not have the opportunity to write to you, my faithful daughter. On Holy Thursday, my suffering feat ended.
I was burning with the desire to return to my native place, with the desire to see my relatives, dear ones and friends, but, alas, I received an appointment to Krasnoyarsk region. After a long and tiring journey, I reached a quiet refuge and the distant banks of the Yenisei.
I believe that the Lord is everywhere and always with me, His servant. I believe that He will not leave me. I hope that in Your love, which never fails, you will not forget me, your shepherd, who lays down his life for the sheep.
I most earnestly ask you for the prayers of the saints and forgiveness. Always yours, always your prayer book, your grieving shepherd, Father Dimitri.”
These words sound like an apostolic letter.
Now let’s listen to an excerpt from a sermon that Father Seraphim once delivered: “Peace of the soul - what happiness this is for a person. What could be more valuable in our life than this peace? You can have complete contentment in life, you can enjoy all the comforts of life, all the blessings of this world, you can consider yourself happy in your family and social life, but if there is no peace in your soul, then, alas, our happiness will be far from perfect. Can something that is temporary and transitory be called true happiness? Today we are in glory and honor, and tomorrow we may be in contempt and reproach, today we are in strength and health, and tomorrow in weakness and illness, today we live, and tomorrow the veil of death may cover our eyes, and the coffin will become our last asset here , on the ground. So illusory, so vain is what in the worldly understanding is usually called happiness. This is not the kind of happiness Christ calls us to. Seeking peace for the soul, exhausted, tormented and tired of life path Let's go to Christ. He will warm us with his love. He will comfort us and forgive all our sins before Him. He will forget all the insults that we so often inflict on Him. He will return His favor to us, and in the bosom of endless love we will find peace for our souls.”
Such words, and I have no doubt about this, could only come from a heart purified and filled with love. A rhetorical question involuntarily comes to mind: “Is it possible to break such a person?!”
Looking from today’s time, which has lost moral values, to that time of the great feat of the Russian saints, we are confident that, to a huge extent, thanks to them, the experience of holiness has been preserved in Orthodoxy, and a clear proof of this is what the so-called “enlightened world” has come to today, in which, with the distortion of doctrinal truths, experience, and therefore the way of life, was distorted. This world now does not understand what holiness is, and does not really need it, and therefore, especially in the person of its elite, does not like us and lies against us, since Russia today is the only obstacle on their path to the complete enslavement of humanity by the globalist philosophy of consumption .
So, the devil is still at war with God, and the battlefield is still the human heart. And it depends on each of us what kind of world we will live in tomorrow.
And if we do not stop honoring holiness and shrines and try to build our lives according to the Gospel, we have a future. And if we have it, then the whole world has it, to which the Russian heart is open. It’s not in vain that once F.M. Dostoevsky uttered stunning words: “I believe, not we, but the future future Russian people will understand every single one of what becoming a real Russian will mean: striving to bring reconciliation to European contradictions completely, to indicate the outcome of European melancholy in your Russian soul, all-human and reuniting, to accommodate all our brothers with fraternal love, and, in the end, perhaps, to utter the final word of great, general harmony, fraternal final agreement of all tribes according to Christ’s gospel law.”
And finally, I would like to make an offering to the Russian saints on behalf of all those present:
Oh, Holiness! If it were not for You, who dwells in this sinful world in the hearts of the righteous, then there would be no meaning in what I see around me.
Oh, Holiness! If it were not for You, who abides in the Churches of God with Your inhuman depth and beauty of Orthodoxy, wonderful heavenly faces, unearthly fragrance, then there would be no hope that the grief of the suffering world would end and that there would be “ new earth and a new Heaven." For why live if there is no hope?!
Oh, Holiness! If it were not for You, who captivated us with the bright face of Christ, trampled upon by the inhuman audacity of men, but inexplicably covering everyone without exception with His unearthly Love, then the beauty and smell of wildflowers would not be so regal, and the piercing blue sky would not attract us with its purity , and there would be no strength or desire to rejoice. For all strength and joy come from You.

Report by the deputy head of the Department of Contemporary History of the Russian Orthodox Church, priest Alexander Mazyrin, made on “The Unity of the Church and the People: Lessons of the Past and Problems of the Present,” dedicated to the Year of Russian History (May 18-19, 2012).

2012 is significant for many anniversaries in national history. The 400th anniversary of the expulsion of the Poles and traitors from Moscow and the overcoming of the Troubles of the 17th century, the 200th anniversary of the repulsion of the invasion of the “Gauls and the Twelve Languages.” These events are among the most glorious pages in the history of the Russian State, when the unity of the Orthodox people ensured great victories for them. At the same time, less round dates of events that cause grief occur in the same year. 775 years ago, the heavy Mongol-Tatar yoke began in Rus', when the Russian people, separated in their destinies, were unable to adequately repel the eastern conquerors. And, perhaps, the darkest events took place in Russia 75 years ago, which in 1937 became the apotheosis of a new yoke, when the ruling power unleashed the most severe terror on its people, the likes of which had never been seen in Russian history. According to NKVD statistics, there were about 700 thousand people alone who were executed under sentences during the “Great Terror” of 1937-1938. One can, of course, ask, why remember this in the Year of Russian History - the year of celebration of our great victories? The answer is simple, although perhaps unexpected for some: in the bloody year of 1937, we also had a great Victory in Russia.

An explanation for this can be seen in the words of one of those executed that year, Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh) of Petrograd: “The death of martyrs for the Church is a victory over violence, not a defeat.” Even earlier in the history of the Church, this idea was expressed by the Christian apologist Tertullian. “We win when we are killed,” he addressed Roman pagan rulers in the 3rd century. “The more you destroy us, the more we multiply; the blood of Christians is the seed” (“Apology”, ch. 50). Obviously, no one would think of calling the “Leninist guards” Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev or the “Stalinist people’s commissars” Yagoda and Yezhov the winners - the inspirers and conductors of the Bolshevik terror, who became its victims in the late 1930s. Broken and crushed by the system they themselves had built, humiliatingly repenting before “comrade” Stalin for deviating from the “general line of the party,” they disgusted both “their own” and “theirs.” The Christian martyrs, whose names constituted the eternal glory of the Church, are a different matter. Over the past 20 years or so, the Russian Church has glorified by name more than 1,700 new martyrs and confessors. And this is only a small part of those who suffered blamelessly for Christ during the period of Bolshevik persecution, the total number of which many times exceeded the number of ascetics of the era of Holy Rus'. We can say that spiritually, in terms of the number of revealed saints, the years of the “Great Terror” became the time of greatest prosperity for the Russian Church, and therefore for Russia. This gives grounds to talk about our Victory in 1937.

Outwardly, however, as a result of Stalin's persecution, the Russian Church was diminished as never before. By the beginning of World War II, only four bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church remained in the cathedra throughout the entire territory of the USSR: metropolitans and one vicar each. A decade earlier there were about two hundred of them, that is, 50 times more. Of the approximately 50 thousand churches that the Russian Orthodox Church had before the revolution, by the end of the 1930s several hundred remained open (officially - several thousand, but in most of them there were no services, since due to the terror there was no one to serve). “As a result of our operational measures,” Yezhov boasted to Stalin at the end of 1937, “the episcopate of the Orthodox Church was almost completely eliminated, which significantly weakened and disorganized the church.”

One of the “achievements” of the atheists was that as a result of their purposeful policies pursued since the early 1920s, the Russian Church underwent a number of divisions. Ukrainian “self-saints”, renovationists, Gregorians and a whole series of other less significant schisms fell away from church unity. In the Patriarchal Church itself, since the late 1920s, a strong “right-wing opposition” arose to the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), at the same time the administrative unity with the Moscow Patriarchate was interrupted. “You divided the entire people into hostile camps and plunged them into fratricide of unprecedented cruelty,” denounced the so-called “people’s commissars” in 1918. Divisions among the people were followed by divisions in the Church. The atheistic government understood that it was easier to destroy the Church piecemeal, so in every possible way it provoked internal disorder in it. Before the church consciousness, such a malicious policy of the authorities raised questions: how to preserve the unity of the Church and what should lie at the basis of this unity.

One of the few Russian foreign apologists of the Moscow Patriarchate at that time, Professor I.A. Stratonov put forward the following theory on this matter: “The unity of the Church is represented by a single church authority. Unity with the Church is protected only by obedience to this authority. In this regard, in order to avoid church anarchy, the conscience of a person, a member of the Church, is bound. No position in the Church of an individual frees him from the duty of subordination to church authority and only aggravates it.” The idea, in general, is understandable and captivating in its simplicity. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church has been building its ecclesiology on this principle—single ecclesiastical authority—for many centuries.

In 1931, Metropolitan Sergius published a small theological treatise, “The Church’s Attitude to Separated Societies,” in which he wrote, in particular: “The Renewal and Grigorievskaya and similar modern hierarchies undoubtedly originate from Orthodox bishops; The process of consecration itself does not raise any particular objections in most cases. However, after the ban imposed on the leaders of the new schism, we recognize these hierarchies as graceless and their sacraments invalid (except baptism). […] Foreign schisms are in the same situation, for example. Karlovatsky". Who Metropolitan Sergius included in the graceless “modern hierarchies” like the Renovationists and Grigorievites can be understood from the definition of his Synod, adopted in July 1929. In this definition, among the “schismatics” were mentioned “followers of the former Leningrad Metropolitan Joseph [Petrovykh], the former Gdov Bishop Dimitri [Lyubimov], the former Urazov Bishop Alexy [Buy],” that is, those who were then generally called “Josephites.” The imposition of a ban on them in the priesthood, according to Metropolitan Sergius, automatically made their sacred rites invalid (except for baptism), that is, it rejected them not only from administrative, but also from grace-filled church unity.

The problem, however, was that in the realities of that time, the highest church authority in the person of Metropolitan Sergius was far from free to impose canonical punishments. So, in December 1927, the head of the 6th department of the Secret Department of the OGPU (responsible for the fight against the “church counter-revolution”) E.A. Tuchkov asked to inform his Leningrad “comrades” (in top secret order, of course): “We will influence Sergius so that he bans some opposition bishops from serving.” And indeed, soon after this statement by Tuchkov, Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod imposed a ban on the priesthood on two opposition Leningrad bishops - Dimitri (Lyubimov) and Sergius (Druzhinin), followers of Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovs), after which, according to the teachings of Metropolitan Sergius, they were should have been considered graceless. It turned out, therefore, that the action of grace was directly dependent on the administrative acts of the Moscow Patriarchate, which itself was under the strong influence of the OGPU. That is, to put it simply, the security officer Tuchkov ended up being a kind of “distributor of grace.” If we remember that the task of the OGPU included the complete disintegration of the Church from within, its fragmentation into the maximum number of parts, it is not difficult to understand what the “disciplinary ecclesiology” of Metropolitan Sergius and his apologists turned out to be for church unity.

The theory and practice of Metropolitan Sergius, however, did not meet with support from the best representatives of Russian Orthodox hierarchy. Thus, the most authoritative hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church of that time - the first, according to the will of the Holy Patriarch Tikhon, candidate for the position of Patriarchal Locum Tenens, which the atheistic authorities did not give him to occupy - Hieromartyr Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov) wrote in 1929: “Church discipline is capable of preserving its effectiveness only as long as it is a valid reflection of the hierarchical conscience of the Catholic Church; Discipline can never replace this conscience. As soon as it presents its demands not by virtue of the instructions of this conscience, but by motives alien to the Church, insincere, the individual hierarchical conscience will certainly take the side of the conciliar-hierarchical principle of the existence of the Church, which is not at all the same thing with external unity no matter what. no matter what." That is, Metropolitan Kirill introduced a significant amendment to the “disciplinary ecclesiology” of Metropolitan Sergius for “hierarchical conscience.” Without taking into account the dictates of this conscience, church discipline could turn from a means of strengthening the unity of the Church into a means of destroying it.

Returning now to the theme of the feat of the new martyrs stated in the title of the report, it should be said that in those years they were people who tried to the last to adhere to the dictates of the Christian conscience, even when it might seem that in order to preserve the church organization it would be more correct to resort to a certain deceit. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church of that time - Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), whose deputy, in fact, was Metropolitan Sergius - year after year, starting from the end of 1925, spent time in solitary confinement and distant exile. He was offered freedom in exchange for secret cooperation with the OGPU. E.A. himself approached him with such a proposal. Tuchkov. Metropolitan Peter refused, explaining this to the chairman of the OGPU as follows: “Needless to say, this kind of activity is incompatible with my title and, moreover, is incompatible with my nature.” Metropolitan Peter preferred new prison torments, which ended with execution in 1937, to doing what was contrary to his conscience. Metropolitan Sergius, as far as one can judge, preferred to act differently. According to the testimony of Archbishop Pitirim (Krylov), the former manager of the affairs of the Synod, “Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorodsky himself instructed the bishops not only not to refuse secret cooperation with the NKVD, but even to seek this cooperation. This was done in the interests of the church, because Metropolitan Stragorodsky understood that a bishop who had secured the trust of the local NKVD body would be placed in more favorable conditions for managing the diocese under his jurisdiction, he would not have any particular troubles with registration, and in general some kind of guarantee would be created against the possibility of arrest. […] It goes without saying that the bishops understood Stragorodsky’s installations as a maneuver aimed at preserving the church in difficult conditions for it.”

However, the “maneuvers” of Metropolitan Sergius, as already mentioned, could not save the Church from physical destruction during the years of the “Great Terror.” Moreover, with their help it was impossible to maintain church unity. On the contrary, with his collaborationism, the Deputy Locum Tenens repelled Orthodox zealots from the Moscow Patriarchate. “The entire Church felt that Metropolitan Sergius had committed a crime, that he had surrendered control of the Church to the power of the atheists, and was acting, and would continue to act, under the dictation of the GPU,” wrote priest Mikhail Polsky, who fled Russia in 1931. Metropolitan Sergius’s policy towards the authorities went far beyond the concept of “loyalty”. One of the representatives of the domestic “right” church opposition explained this in 1930 to his foreign acquaintance, who tried to justify the Deputy: “The Church has been and will be loyal to the authorities, will not fight it, will obey, recognize, etc. But you they did not want to understand and see... the difference between the messages, letters and so on of Patriarch and Metropolitan Peter and the acts of Metropolitan Sergius. There was complete loyalty, recognition, submission, not formal, but essentially religious (power from God), but there was no service, there was no renunciation of church internal freedom and independence, there was no oblivion about the truth of God; there was a division between Caesar's and God's. The Patriarch, as you know, himself commemorated the authorities, but he never committed acts that disgraced the dignity of the Church or limited Her freedom. When appointing bishops, he did not ask anyone for the sanction of the GPU; he did not subject those disliked by the Government to church repression; on the contrary, contrary to the will of the Government, he insisted on commemorating the exiled bishops and retaining their sees. Peter did the same. And how many people were expelled by the GPU because of this. After all, there is a line, you won’t argue with these, where loyalty ends and service begins (to the detriment of the church’s cause), where servility and servility begin. Metropolitan Sergius crossed this line - it’s so clear that it’s obvious that you’re amazed that you don’t understand this.”

If we talk about which of the hierarchs did the most to preserve the internal unity of the Patriarchal Church in the 1920-1930s, then this is, without any doubt, the Hieromartyr Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky). For 12 years he headed the Russian Orthodox Church - the most difficult 12 years - from 1925 to 1937. Of these 12 years, he spent more than 11 years in prison, away from people. However, despite his isolation, the Patriarchal Locum Tenens continued to play a colossal role in the life of the Russian Church. It was a symbol of confessional standing, a symbol of spiritual non-enslavement to the atheistic authorities. And this standing in the truth united the entire Russian Church around his personality. And the “Sergians”, and the “Josephites”, and the “Karlovites” - they all continued to see Metropolitan Peter as the head of the Russian Church. And thus, despite external division and absurd accusations of “gracelessness,” internally the Russian Church remained united. To a large extent this was the result of the feat of Metropolitan Peter. He was repeatedly offered freedom in exchange for renouncing his title and locum tenens. But in the event of such a renunciation, the Russian Church would lose its Primate, recognized by all, and the discord within it would become even more painful. At the cost of his incredible suffering, Metropolitan Peter preserved the unity of the Russian Church.

“Ecclesiology of discipline” of Metropolitan Sergius, Metropolitan Peter, Metropolitan Kirill, Metropolitan Joseph and those who followed them preferred the “ecclesiology of confession.” They did not believe that in conditions of severe persecution it was necessary to “save” the Church with various kinds of dubious “maneuvers” (and Metropolitan Sergius declared just that: “I am saving the Church!”). Their faith was that the Lord Himself is able to save His Church, but they were required to remain faithful to Him, to stand in the Truth to the end. And indeed, as in the first centuries, the blood of the martyrs became the new seed of Christianity. Thanks to the feat of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia, the Russian Church did not disappear, but survived and was reborn. Thanks to them, the unity of the Russian Church, which was broken in the late 1920s, was restored. Wasting his “canonical” punishments, Metropolitan Sergius was able to keep few of those who disagreed with his policies in subjection. The division between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Foreign Synod of Bishops lasted for decades, and it was difficult to imagine that it would be possible to heal it. But the memory of the new martyrs lived in the minds of church people both in Russia and abroad. In 1981, the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors was canonized by the Russian Church Abroad. In 1989, when the agonizing communist regime was no longer able to restrain the religious revival in Russia, the head of the host of new martyrs and confessors, the holy Patriarch Tikhon, was glorified in Moscow. In 1997, the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Peter was canonized, who, as was said, was equally recognized as the head of the Russian Church both in the Fatherland and abroad. Finally, in 2000, the entire Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia was glorified by the Council of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate. Soon after this, a rapid rapprochement between the two parts of the Russian Church began, ending with the restoration of their canonical communion, the 5th anniversary of which we are solemnly celebrating these days. The reunification of the two parts of the Russian Church symbolically marked the end of the Civil War in Russia. Thus, National unity, destroyed by the revolution, was restored by the feat of the new martyrs.

To summarize, we can say that the strength and unity of any people, its ability to respond to the challenges thrown at it, are determined, first of all, by its spiritual strength. The pinnacle of spiritual growth is holiness. The holy ascetics have united, are uniting and will unite the people of Russia. It is, of course, possible to gather people under the banner of false ideas, imbued with hatred, such as, for example, communism or fascism. But such a human unification will not last, as we see vivid historical examples of. The feat of the new martyrs has eternal significance. The power of holiness demonstrated by them defeated the malice of the God-fighting Bolsheviks. The veneration of the new martyrs and confessors before our eyes united the Russian Church, outwardly, through the efforts of the same atheists, which divided it in the late 1920s. The 70-year-old atheistic captivity of Russia has shaken the spiritual foundations of public life to the limit. Without a return to true values, the ideal of which is holiness, our society will remain doomed. If the people of our country have a future, then only in following the Truth, the fidelity of which was demonstrated by our saints, the closest of whom to us are the new martyrs and confessors of Russia.

According to official data, in 1937, 353,074 people were sentenced to death, in 1938 - 328,618 (see: Mozokhin O.B. The right to repression. Extrajudicial powers of state security bodies. Statistical information on the activities of the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD- MGB (1918-1953): Monograph. 2nd ed., expanded and additional. M., 2011. P. 458, 462.

“I follow only Christ...”: Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh), 1930 / Publ., intro. and note. A.V. Mazyrina // Theological collection. 2002. Issue. 9. P. 405.

According to the official website of the Moscow Patriarchate for the years 1989-2011, 1866 ascetics of piety were canonized as saints of the Russian Orthodox Church, including 1776 new martyrs and confessors of Russia (see:

Quote by: Khaustov V., Samuelson L. Stalin, NKVD and repressions of 1936-1938. M., 2010. P. 408.

Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the highest church authority, 1917-1943 / Comp. M.E. Gubonin. M., 1994. P. 149.

Stratonov I. Documents of the All-Russian Patriarchal Church of recent times // Church Bulletin of the Western European Diocese. 1928. No. 14. P. 30.

Sergius (Stragorodsky), Metropolitan. The attitude of the Church towards separated societies // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1931. No. 3. P. 5.

Acts... P. 644.

“Owl. secret. Urgently. Personally. Comrade Tuchkov": Reports from Leningrad to Moscow, 1927-1928 / Publ., entry. and note. A. Mazyrina // Theological collection. 2002. Issue. 10. P. 369.

Acts... P. 636.

Right there. P. 883.

Central Election Commission of the FSB of the Russian Federation. D. R-49429. L. 151-152.

[Polish] Michael, priest. The position of the Church in Soviet Russia: An essay by a priest who fled from Russia. Jerusalem, 1931. P. 52.

Acts... P. 538. .