Is the countdown starting? (Priest Alexander Shumsky). Priest Alexander Shumsky: biography and topical sermons

September 9, the 20th anniversary tragic death Archpriest Alexander Men (1935-1990), Metropolitan of Krutitsky and Kolomna Yuvenaly performed the rite of the great consecration of the temple St. Sergius Radonezhsky in the village of Semkhoz near Sergiev Posad. The church was built not far from the house where Father Alexander Men lived, and in close proximity to the place where he was killed in the early morning of September 9, 1990, reports Sedmitsa.Ru.

Metropolitan Yuvenaly, in front of a large gathering of church people and guests, also celebrated the funeral Liturgy and litany for the murdered archpriest.
In the afternoon, Metropolitan Yuvenaly opened 5 Menevsky readings in Semkhoz, dedicated to the topic “Archpriest Alexander Men and his time.” For the first time at the beginning of the readings the words were spoken official greeting, which was sent to the participants by the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church. In the evening, after the meeting, the Metropolitan went to the village of Novaya Derevnya to pay tribute to the memory of Fr. Alexander Menu at his grave near the walls of the Sretensky Church.

The Apostolic Nuncio to Russia, Archbishop Antonio Mennini sent a greeting to the participants of the 5th Menev readings, which speaks with special respect of the significance of the personality and works of Fr. Alexandra Me for all Christians.
On September 13, the All-Russian State Library for Foreign Literature named after Rudomino hosted an international round table“Archpriest Alexander Men and the problems of new humanism” with the participation of Russian and foreign scientists, clergy, and spiritual children of Father Alexander Men.

The ever-remembered Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II wrote in one of his letters that “Father Alexander was a talented preacher of the Word of God, good shepherd Church, he had a generous soul and a heart devoted to the Lord.” At the same time His Holiness Patriarch noted that “not all of his judgments were shared by Orthodox theologians.” We present the opinions of those who have different views on the activities of Fr. What about me.

Insanity

About the “small people”, Archpriest Alexander Mena and his followers

Priest Alexander Shumsky

especially for the “Russian People's Line”

At one time, the outstanding Russian mathematician Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich introduced the concept of “small people” into science, in my opinion, in highest degree successful. Then dissident liberals attacked Shafarevich, accusing him of anti-Semitism, since, in their opinion, by “small people” Shafarevich meant exclusively Jews, although Igor Rostislavovich himself calmly and clearly explained that this concept could include people of various nationalities, including including Russians. He proved that what unites the “small people” is not blood, but a pathological desire to always be against the big people, against the order and traditions developed by these people over the centuries.

The attacks on Shafarevich only convincingly confirmed that the “small people” also included Jews. Today we observe that the “small people” are truly multinational. A variety of ethnic elements have become part of it and are trying to finally impose their will and lifestyle on the majority of our society.

Conflict between small and large nations always led to a brutal and bloody conflict. Hence the growing anxiety lately. “Small people”, although they are small, they are very active. With this activity he compensates for his small numbers. While the big people are leisurely rubbing their sleepy eyes, the small ones are already managing to “mark” their large territory everywhere.

There are representatives of the “small people” in the Church. I have already had to write about them several times. In particular, in the articles “Arrogance Kills Understanding”, “The Soviet Question and the Church Revolution”, etc. The brightest representative“small people” in the Church was Archpriest Alexander Men, who was brutally murdered in 1990. This undoubtedly talented man is certainly one of the main founding fathers of modern neo-renovationism.

For the first time I heard a sermon-lecture by Father Alexander at a club on Krasnaya Presnya, shortly before his death. This lecture made an unpleasant impression on me. Father Alexander was least of all similar in his manner to a priest. As soon as you closed your eyes, it seemed that it was not an Orthodox priest who was speaking, but a professional lecturer from the Knowledge Society, who had put on a cassock with a cross. One of the listeners after the lecture involuntarily asked the question: “Does he believe in God?”
Archpriest Alexander Men has two, at first glance, incompatible ideas. First, the Church includes everything that Father Alexander likes. Unless the witchcraft cult of voodoo did not enter there. And it turns out that our Lord Jesus Christ is completely “unnecessary” for salvation. The teaching of Father Alexander gravitates toward the Nestorian heresy, the essence of which lies in the dissolution of the Church in the elements of the world. The second idea is the double chosenness of the Jews, Old Testament and New Testament. From Father Alexander it turns out that Jews in the New Testament Church have special mission, i.e. they are not like all other Christians. So we get a paradox - on the one hand, the Church is deprived of its church fence and the garbage of the whole world is swept away by Menev’s broom to its altar, and on the other hand, the salt of the Church turns out to be exclusively the fellow tribesmen of Father Alexander. False universality and genuine parochialism in one bottle - this is the essence of the teachings of Archpriest Alexander Men. And it would not be worth analyzing his ideas if he were not an Orthodox priest. There is nothing new or interesting in the teachings of Father Alexander.

Something similar was preached by representatives of the “small people” at all times, starting with the Gnostics and ending silver age. For example, in the 19th century there lived Archpriest Gerasim Pavsky, one of the directors of the Bible Society, who believed that the Church embraces all confessions. He believed that Orthodox priest no different from a Lutheran pastor. Among the “advanced” Christians of that time, the idea of ​​​​creating a temple in Moscow with three departments - for Orthodox, Catholics and Lutherans - was also popular. Archpriest Alexander Men “creatively” developed and supplemented all these ideas. When they say that thanks to Father Alexander many lost intellectuals became churchgoers, I ask the question: is this good? What did this give the Church, besides an additional explosive called church dissidence? Yes, they entered the Church, but as soon as they got used to it, they immediately began to disparage the traditions of the large church people. It would be better if they didn’t join the church at all! The self-confidence of his followers is amazing. They, like all representatives of the “small people”, as representatives of the sectarian way of thinking, are absolutely insane. I had to talk to them. It turned out to be completely useless. For Menevites, neither the Gospel nor the Holy Fathers are an authority. They recognize only the books of their murdered teacher.

As for the terrible death of Archpriest Alexander Men, then, of course, it evokes sympathy; as they say, you wouldn’t wish such an end on your enemy. But, unfortunately, the deranged fans of the murdered priest did everything to poison our Christian sense of compassion. Literally the next day after the murder, they began to blame “Russian anti-Semitic extremists” for this. Later, the investigation not only did not confirm this most vile slander, but also came to the conclusion that the murder was purely criminal, not connected with any ideology. And at least someone would apologize! But why be surprised, since the insanity of the “small people” is always combined with its blatant impudence.

At the same time, I continue to sympathize with Father Alexander Menu. What an unenviable fate! Orthodox Jews consider him a traitor to his people, and most Orthodox Christians consider him an apostate from the Church of Christ. However, those who knew Father Alexander closely speak of his sincerity. He also showed undoubted courage at the time of the villainous murder. Therefore, let us pray for his immortal soul.

COMMENTARIES

Irina Kalina.

Thank you for the article, dear father. Very accurately about the “small people” and about its representatives among the laity and priests - alas, I had to deal with this several times dangerous phenomenon. Usually the “small people” betray satanic contempt for those around them; they do not recognize the sacrifice, the suffering of Russian priests and laity, thanks to which the Church was preserved... When such a priest confesses in our monastery, no one comes to him for confession - the people run away and hiding behind the columns...

Philip

I began my church life in a parish where the majority were followers of Fr. Me. The consequences were very disastrous for me; I had been getting rid of this “spirituality” for several years, and if it had not been for the meeting with Fr. John Krestyankin, I would hardly be in the Church now. And books and ideas about. Me and his followers are destructive and anti-church! Father Alexander is completely right in his assessments.

Elena

And here in Canada there are so many of them, however, they consider this country theirs. And on everyone Orthodox parishes everywhere they are, except, perhaps, the Moscow Patriarchate, because the spirit there is more Russian, and the priest does not curry favor with them. But in our temple the abbot is a half-breed, and preference is given to them. Several parishioners and I, a sinner, due to my service in the church, have to be on the front line. Everything is very close and understandable, oh. Alexander, and all of them, these “parishioners,” respect Me. God help us all!

O. Alexander! Read what was published on ruskline.ru today, September 10, 2010. How Metropolitan Yuvenaly honors the deceased among spiritual children, relatives and church bureaucracy. I can’t believe my eyes, everything is turned upside down: white is made black and vice versa. And with their authority they force you to believe in all this... It was the same with Yeltsin’s funeral service. It seems that in Russia there are fewer and fewer understanding Russian Orthodox Christians. How can you put up with such hypocrisy? Well, the Metropolitan wanted to console the widow and son, but why create PR... Well, everything is the same as in social life. What a pity for Russia...

Falcon
The respected priest Alexander Shumsky gave an impeccably accurate in meaning and minted in form formula of the religious symbol of faith of Father A. Men: “False universality and genuine parochialism in one bottle” - this is the essence of the teachings of Archpriest Alexander Men.”

In the very desire to dissolve Orthodoxy in evil infinity and simplify it to one-dimensionality, it is difficult not to notice the grin of the evil one...

+ + +

Deacon Vladimir Vasilik in the article "In memory of Archpriest Alexander Men", published on the Russian People's Line, in particular, notes:

“Unfortunately, Father Alexander was too broad and he did not set limits to the freedom of thought. But, unfortunately, he put them in one very important point for him - in the national point. Here he was very dogmatic and very rigoristic. He believed that the Jews retained their chosenness of God even after the crucifixion of Christ, despite the obvious statements: “Behold, your house is left empty” (Matthew 23:38). And, despite the fact that the Apostle Paul said that his compatriots “do not please God and oppose men, but the wrath of God is coming upon them.” The interpretation of well-known passages from the epistles to the Romans (these are chapters 9, 10, 11) by Father Alexander seems arbitrary. The Apostle Paul only says that the Jews have the same chances for salvation as other nations, and they are not completely rejected, but they are no longer especially chosen. “But even those, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again” (Rom. 11:23) in this case a Jewish Christian has no advantage over a non-Jewish Christian. Of course, he has more obstacles to overcome, so he is worthy of special respect, but not special advantages, much less power within the Church. What the Apostle Paul says about the final conversion of the Jews is a certain mystery that the apostle himself speaks about, and this mystery will happen in the extreme circumstances of the Second Coming. And for the sake of establishing special advantages Israeli people Father Alexander was ready to go not only against the Tradition of the Church, but also against the obvious historical facts. In particular, he was ready to decanonize Saint Eustratius, the venerable martyr of the Kiev Pechersk, who was crucified by a Jewish fanatic, only because he was a victim of a Jew. But excuse me, can’t there be fanatics among the Jews, just like among other nations? Weren’t it not Jewish fanatics who crucified Christ and stoned the holy first martyr Archdeacon Stephen? Then, it turns out, we need to decanonize Saint Archdeacon Stephen and Saint Aretha, along with five thousand of his companions and like-minded people, whom the fanatical Jewish ruler Dunaan ordered to execute in the city of Nagrani in 523. For the sake of one’s own people, one cannot trample on the truth of the Church and the sacred things of the Church.

And therefore we have to agree with very many statements from the famous letter of Bishop Anthony (Melnikov), Metropolitan of Leningrad, to Archpriest Alexander Menu. This letter is genuine, and much of what is expressed in it, unfortunately, corresponds to reality. It is no coincidence that many spiritual shepherds and elders treated the work of Father Alexander Men and his activities very warily, to say the least. It is characteristic that when the conversation about Father Alexander Mena came up in front of Father John (Krestyankin), he said: “You don’t need to go to him.” The author witnessed these words.

But on the anniversary of the death of a clergyman, it is inappropriate to engage only in his criticism. It is worth remembering that Father Alexander’s death was a martyr’s, and many suspect that he was killed on the instructions of the Israeli intelligence services. The fact is that at the end of the 1980s, mass emigration to Israel began, and the Israeli authorities were amazed to discover that at least 10% of immigrants do not want to have anything in common with Judaism and the official ideology of Israel - they eat pork, baptize their children, looking for where in the vicinity there is Orthodox churches. And not without reason, they saw that Father Alexander Men was largely to blame for this attitude. Obviously, they decided to liquidate him, and at the same time present the case as if he had become a victim of Russian nationalists. Naturally, presenting the matter as if he was killed by Russian nationalists is ridiculous, because that was not their style of work, such were not their capabilities. Rumor has it that the murder of Alexander's father was controlled by a special services officer, and this is largely why they could not help Father Alexander when he was still alive. One way or another, maybe we shouldn’t delve into conspiracy theories, although the investigation into the murder of Alexander Men’s father has not been completed and is unlikely to end, because, obviously, the threads connected with his death go too high and far.

He is a contradictory personality, but, nevertheless, our Lord, Who can turn even our mistakes, delusions and sins into good, gave him such a painful death. May the kingdom of heaven rest with him. However, while honoring the personality of Father Alexander Men, we cannot agree with his non-Orthodox views.”

+ + +

Mentioned by Deacon Vladimir Vasilik, “An Open Letter from Metropolitan Anthony (Melnikov) of Leningrad and Novgorod to Priest Alexander Menu” has circulated since the late 1970s in the Orthodox community in typewritten and tape recordings. Then it was published in the newspaper “Orthodox Book Review” on October 20, 1998, the magazine “Spiritual Interlocutor” (No. 1-2) in 1999, the newspaper “Spirit of a Christian” No. 14-16 in 2008, and also published as a brochure in publishing house "Primary Source" in 2007.

Therefore, we will not reprint the “Open Letter...”; those who wish can get acquainted with it on the Internet (see, for example, the RONS website http://www.rons.ru/melnikov-men.htm, and even the liberal portals Credo. ru http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=lib&id=2782, http://krotov.info/libr_min/from_1/0023.html and many others).
In order for readers to understand the spirit of Bishop Anthony’s letter, we will quote only his introduction:

“For a long time, Father Alexander, I have been observing your activities. You don’t know me, and I haven’t seen you until recently, although I’ve been hearing about you for many years. I knew that you are a baptized Jew and serve as an Orthodox priest. This combination does not confuse me at all, as it does any Orthodox person, because anti-Semitism is not in the very nature of Orthodoxy. But first by accident, and then, after specifically getting acquainted with your articles, large works and by your actions, I discovered in your words and deeds something that is in no way compatible either with your position in the Orthodox Church or with genuine love for to the Jewish people. I treat you with sincere fatherly care and would not have written this letter and taken care of its distribution if your activity had not ultimately forced me to do so.

March 16th of this year in the village at the Sologubovka railway station, which is Leningrad region, took place international Conference"Veneration of the Saints Royal Passion-Bearers and glorification of the Royal Servants in Russia and Abroad.” Dear Chief Editor“Russian People's Line” and my friend Anatoly Dmitrievich Stepanov once told me: “Father Alexander, I want to advise you in polemical materials to focus more attention not on specific personalities, but on their ideas. We must argue not with people, but with ideas.” I don’t consider this advice to be universal, since I agree more with the famous political figure who liked to repeat: “Every idea has a last name, a first name, and a patronymic.” But in relation to the past Tsar’s Conference, I am ready to use the polemical technique proposed by the editor-in-chief of the Russian People’s Line.

The organizers of the conference are talking about the centennial anniversary of the “forceful abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne.” Still, the Russian language is surprisingly rich... Judge for yourself: two almost identical words - “renunciation” and “renunciation”. But the understanding of one of the major events national history. I cannot agree with the words “forced renunciation”. Of course, Emperor Nicholas II was under enormous pressure from traitors, cowards and deceivers. But the emperor himself put his signature under the text on abdication of the throne himself, in his own hand. For me, as for so many others, there is not the slightest doubt about this. The huge books of some monarchists, in which attempts are made to substantiate the legal inconsistency of the royal signature, look completely unconvincing. The Passion-Bearer Tsar himself did not make a single attempt to disavow his own signature. Why did the conference organizers need this “forced resignation”? It gives nothing but another crack of division, already in the camp of the monarchists.

I have always taken the position that no special emphasis should be placed on the fact of the Tsar’s abdication. The main fact is that the ruling elite, a huge part of society (primarily the intelligentsia) and a very significant part of the common people have renounced the monarchy. And against the background of this fundamental fact, the royal signature on the renunciation of power looks like an important, but secondary event.

At the Royal Conference in Sologubovka it was proposed to establish an organizing committee to prepare for the 100th anniversary of the “Royal Golgotha”. And again I feel embarrassed: I read Royal Family. She is quite rightly glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church. But the words “Royal Golgotha”, written in capital letters, seem inappropriate to me, and in the long term - even dangerous. There is only one Royal Golgotha, and it relates exclusively to the King of Heaven - our Lord Jesus Christ. We must use such words carefully. In the 90s of the last century, a sect of “tsar-worshipers” appeared in our country, who introduced the words “Royal Golgotha” into use. Then they went even further and began to call Tsar Nicholas II “Tsar-Redeemer.” Here is an obvious attempt to replace our Lord Jesus Christ as the king of the earth. In this regard, I do not really understand the position of one respected ruler, who took part in the Sologubov conference via Skype and said literally the following: “That is, God delegated His power to the king of the earth, who must be listened to as God.” I am, of course, sure that the Bishop himself understands the fundamental difference between the Heavenly King and the earthly. He simply wants to highlight the idea of ​​​​the sacredness of royal power. But simpler people will literally understand his words. And then - as they say, everywhere... But I just can’t accept the respected bishop’s reasoning about our Soviet past: “We live with Soviet complexes, and are still far from universal repentance. Complexes are firmly entrenched in our people Soviet life- complexes of revolution, regicide and civil war. We must uproot these complexes from the soul and give place to the love of the unity of the Russian people with Christ and His Anointed One.” What “Soviet complexes” does the Bishop have in mind? If we talk about atheistic ideology, then yes, I completely agree with him. But Soviet ideology and Soviet living life They diverged very much. Despite official atheism, a moral foundation was preserved in the USSR, in contrast to the bourgeois West, where there seemed to be no official atheism. But morally, the West was qualitatively inferior to the USSR. That's the paradox Soviet period, that the Christian “enzyme” has been preserved in it. And in the West it has almost disappeared. In pre-revolutionary Russia, hundreds of official brothels operated, and the degree of debauchery was off the charts. The guarantee of this was, for example, the bacchanalia of drunken revelry in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities on New Year's Eve 1917. But there was a war with Germany... A lot of materials have been written about the moral catastrophe in pre-revolutionary Russia. For example, in the article by Alexander Gorbatov “What did the new year of 1917 promise?”, recently published on the Russian People's Line.

Soviet complexes of revolution, regicide and Civil War, about which the bishop speaks, belong to the very initial Bolshevik period. Already in the 30s, the Stalinist anti-revolutionary process began, and the Bolshevik destructive revolutionary ideology (Trotskyism) was replaced by the protective state Soviet ideology. And already in the nineties of the last century, the protective Soviet system was overthrown by the liberal revolution, that is, essentially the same thing happened as in February 1917. What other Soviet “complexes” should we abandon? Maybe from the “complexes” of justice or sacrifice, complexes of conscience and non-acquisitiveness, which were in great demand in Soviet times? And aren’t these Soviet “complexes” today the only antidote to the liberal infection that is corrupting Russian life? It is these Soviet “complexes” that the small liberal people hate most of all. And a catastrophe will happen if current monarchism coincides with liberalism in relation to the Soviet past and Soviet “complexes.”

Other leading organizers of the conference expressed thoughts similar to the bishop. For example, they argued that after the fall of the monarchy in 1917, Russia and the Russian people were under a curse and this curse lasted for four generations. Now, they say, the period of the curse has ended, and our people will be able to repent for the sin of regicide. All that remains is to shrug your shoulders! Which of the leading church authorities, especially the elders, spoke about this four-generation curse? I knew almost all the famous elders, talked with them, including about the Providence of God in history. I've never heard anything like it. True, one respected Moscow archpriest once wrote about the Antichrist in Moscow. But then, apparently realizing his mistake, he removed this topic.

At the same conference, one of the priests stated that since 1917 there is no longer legal law in Russia. state power, right up to the current presidential one. He respects Vladimir Putin and even “prays for him at the call of his heart.” At the same time, the priest, emphasizing the illegitimacy of the Kerensky government, proclaims the legitimacy Constituent Assembly, consisting mainly of Socialist Revolutionaries. What kind of logic is this? And what then to do with the Sovereign Icon of the Mother of God, revealed immediately after the fall of the monarchy? It turns out, according to the logic of the conference organizers, that Mother of God withdrawn from industry over Russia and the Russian people? Or did the Mother of God carry out all the hundred years after 1917 Divine Providence over the damned country and the damned people?! And what then to do with the Great Victory on May 9? Was it won by the damned leaders along with the damned people? And then who did they win this victory over? Over the uncursed “Atualf Hitler of Berlin,” or what? This is what you can agree on by following the linear logic of thinking. We must clearly understand that anti-Sovietism inevitably leads to fascism, liberal or monarchist (it doesn’t matter). And monarchists cannot escape the most obvious fact: the Lord God and the Mother of God stopped the monarchy in Russia. Isn't the mortal illness of the heir evidence of God's Providence for the monarchy in Russia? God did not allow the last Russian emperor to end the war victoriously and defeat the revolution. At the same time, Soviet Stalin And to the Soviet people God granted victory in the most terrible war in all history. This is what our noted monarchists should think about, who argue that God does not participate in history, but only people participate in it. It turns out that some villains came and brought down the monarchy. Well, isn't it stupid? And I want to add about Soviet complexes. We also have S-400 complexes, there are already samples of S-500, and these complexes were conceived back in the “damned” Soviet era. Maybe we should give up these complexes too?

Now a few words about nationwide repentance for the sin of regicide. Russian Orthodox Church, having glorified the Royal Family in the rank of passion-bearers, has already brought nationwide repentance. What else is needed? The current incomprehensible call for nationwide repentance can only scare people away from the Church, especially young people. I did not live in 1917 and did not participate in the sin of regicide; I have nothing to repent of here. There is no need to stir up unnecessary emotions. We honor the holy Royal Family. I fear that some of the trends that emerged at the conference may develop into a kind of monarchical National Bolshevism, which, instead of uniting Orthodox patriots, will lead to an irreparable split in their ranks. I’ll tell you frankly: after this conference it will be much more difficult for me to publicly call myself a monarchist, because I will have to explain for a long time how my monarchism differs from anti-Soviet monarchism, and there are a lot of people like me. I hope that the sensible organizers of the Sologubov Conference will take my concerns seriously and correct the situation.

P.S. According to VTsIOM, 80% of Russians prefer a republican system, and 68% are categorically against the return of the monarchy. Therefore, we must speak very carefully and judiciously on the monarchical topic. Otherwise, instead of strengthening unity Russian society We will receive a deepening of its schism, and sin will lie on us. The conference will certainly cause big Bang opinions, and it is important to make this explosion controlled and directed against liberalism, and not against Historical Russia.

Priest Alexander Shumsky, publicist

About the “small people”, Archpriest Alexander Mena and his followers...

At one time, the outstanding Russian mathematician Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich introduced the concept of “small people” into science, which, in my opinion, was extremely successful. Then dissident liberals attacked Shafarevich, accusing him of anti-Semitism, since, in their opinion, by “small people” Shafarevich meant exclusively Jews, although Igor Rostislavovich himself calmly and clearly explained that this concept could include people of various nationalities, including including Russians. He proved that what unites the “small people” is not blood, but a pathological desire to always be against the big people, against the order and traditions developed by these people over the centuries.

The attacks on Shafarevich only convincingly confirmed that the “small people” also included Jews. Today we observe that the “small people” are truly multinational. A variety of ethnic elements have become part of it and are trying to finally impose their will and lifestyle on the majority of our society.

The conflict between small and large nations has always led to a brutal and bloody clash. Hence the growing anxiety lately. “Small people”, although they are small, they are very active. With this activity he compensates for his small numbers. While the big people are leisurely rubbing their sleepy eyes, the small ones are already managing to “mark” their large territory everywhere.

There are representatives of the “small people” in the Church. I have already had to write about them several times. In particular, in the articles “Arrogance Kills Understanding”, “The Soviet Question and the Church Revolution”, etc. The brightest representative of the “small people” in the Church was Archpriest Alexander Men, who was brutally murdered in 1990. This undoubtedly talented man is certainly one of the main founding fathers of modern neo-renovationism.

For the first time I heard a sermon-lecture by Father Alexander at a club on Krasnaya Presnya, shortly before his death. This lecture made an unpleasant impression on me. Father Alexander was least of all similar in his manner to a priest. As soon as you closed your eyes, it seemed that it was not an Orthodox priest who was speaking, but a professional lecturer from the Knowledge Society, who had put on a cassock with a cross. One of the listeners after the lecture involuntarily asked the question: “Does he believe in God?”

Archpriest Alexander Men has two, at first glance, incompatible ideas. First, the Church includes everything that Father Alexander likes. Unless the witchcraft cult of voodoo did not enter there. And it turns out that our Lord Jesus Christ is completely “unnecessary” for salvation. The teaching of Father Alexander gravitates toward the Nestorian heresy, the essence of which lies in the dissolution of the Church in the elements of the world. The second idea is the double chosenness of the Jews, Old Testament and New Testament. From Father Alexander it turns out that Jews in the New Testament Church have a special mission, i.e. they are not like all other Christians. So a paradox arises - on the one hand, the Church is deprived of its church fence and the garbage of the whole world is swept away by Menev’s broom to its altar, and on the other hand, only the fellow tribesmen of Father Alexander turn out to be the salt of the Church. False universality and genuine parochialism in one bottle - this is the essence of the teachings of Archpriest Alexander Men. And it would not be worth analyzing his ideas if he were not an Orthodox priest. There is nothing new or interesting in the teachings of Father Alexander.

Something similar was preached by representatives of the “small people” at all times, from the Gnostics to the Silver Age. For example, in the 19th century there lived Archpriest Gerasim Pavsky, one of the directors of the Bible Society, who believed that the Church embraces all confessions. He believed that an Orthodox priest was no different from a Lutheran pastor. Among the “advanced” Christians of that time, the idea of ​​​​creating a temple in Moscow with three departments - for Orthodox, Catholics and Lutherans - was also popular. Archpriest Alexander Men “creatively” developed and supplemented all these ideas. When they say that thanks to Father Alexander many lost intellectuals became churchgoers, I ask the question: is this good? What did this give the Church, besides an additional explosive called church dissidence? Yes, they entered the Church, but as soon as they got used to it, they immediately began to disparage the traditions of the large church people. It would be better if they didn’t join the church at all! The self-confidence of his followers is amazing. They, like all representatives of the “small people”, as representatives of the sectarian way of thinking, are absolutely insane. I had to talk to them. It turned out to be completely useless. For Menevites, neither the Gospel nor the Holy Fathers are an authority. They recognize only the books of their murdered teacher.

As for the terrible death of Archpriest Alexander Men, then, of course, it evokes sympathy; as they say, you wouldn’t wish such an end on your enemy. But, unfortunately, the deranged fans of the murdered priest did everything to poison our Christian sense of compassion. Literally the next day after the murder, they began to blame “Russian anti-Semitic extremists” for this. Later, the investigation not only did not confirm this most vile slander, but also came to the conclusion that the murder was purely criminal, not connected with any ideology. And at least someone would apologize! But why be surprised, since the insanity of the “small people” is always combined with its blatant impudence.

At the same time, I continue to sympathize with Father Alexander Menu. What an unenviable fate! Orthodox Jews consider him a traitor to his people, and most Orthodox Christians consider him an apostate from the Church of Christ. However, those who knew Father Alexander closely speak of his sincerity. He also showed undoubted courage at the time of the villainous murder. Therefore, let us pray for his immortal soul.

The priest of the Church of St. Nicholas of Myra in Khamovniki, Alexander Shumsky, published on the website of the Information and Analytical Service “Russian People's Line” about “presumptuous liberals and a rein on them,” in which he insists that the “control walk” should have been dealt with like Stalin with the NEP that transvestites should be beaten by riot police. The priest calls gallery owner Marat Gelman a pervert, and Boris Akunin a false writer.

"Russian People's Line" is a site for a select contingent. But the priest’s publication nevertheless became readable. Bloggers drew attention to her thanks to a LiveJournal post by TV presenter Olga Bakushinskaya, to whom the text “this clergyman" seemed "so incredibly beautiful" that she copied it completely on her page.

The priest is sad that our “cunning liberals” “do not want to live like ordinary Russian people.” A simple walk along the streets of the capital, the smiles of the spring sun, a hundred in a glass shop with a slice of lard and a pickled cucumber does not suit them. They don’t like “harmony and peace,” give them “mess and uncleanness.”

And so “liberal sewage” poured “into Chistye Russian Ponds.”

According to the priest, “none of the representatives of the large population liked the idea of ​​a “control walk.” Not only were people prevented from working and resting, not only were all the nearby gateways, courtyards and entrances dirty, but they also mocked a defenseless animal, a cow , which was brought to Moscow by some liberal sadist especially for a “control walk”.

“The mockery of a cow” especially offended Priest Shumsky, since the cow “also has a sacred meaning,” for “it personifies the Russian village, the Russian rural world and peasant labor, in a word, the Russian land.”

Rhetorically asking why “the false writer Boris Akunin, who can only be compared with a craftsman who forges paintings by famous masters, suddenly came out of his hole,” Father Alexander answers himself, in order, supposedly, to remind himself of himself, since, in his opinion, interest in Akunin and his “literary forgeries are falling catastrophically.” Other participants in the “walk” also suffered. Writer Dmitry Bykov simultaneously reminds the priest of “a cloud in his pants” and Bulgakov’s Varenukha.” According to him, he “is only capable of composing cheap couplets about the president, which are performed by the drunken offspring of one great Russian actor.”

“There is nothing genuine in this liberal public,” the priest concludes: “even the pregnant woman who was hit by a riot policeman turned out to be not a woman at all, but a transvestite. So our riot policeman did the right thing.”

For priest Alexander Shumsky, it is obvious that “all these “control walks” from a spiritual point of view represent a demonic carnival in which they want to spin Russia.” Only, as the priest is convinced, this time nothing will work out for the liberals.

Why? But because, according to the priest, “de-Stalinization in Russia failed miserably, which means that very soon the authorities should fire a control shot at the hapless big-headed liberal head.”

To prove this thesis, Shumsky gives an example from an interactive vote in the Russia 1 channel program “Historical Process”, where in a duel dedicated to the Great Patriotic War, Dmitry Kisilev and Nikolai Svanidze came together. “All attempts by Nikolai Karlovich to belittle Stalin led to the opposite result,” the priest concludes with a feeling of deep satisfaction. - “Kiselev and his supporters won a complete victory over Svanidze and his henchmen.”

The historical example inspires the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church. “This already happened in our history, in the 20s of the last century, when the unruly Nepmen almost killed our country, and Stalin had to stop the control walk of the NEP with his control shot, thanks to which the Great Russian Victory was won in 1945,” - writes Shumsky.

From this follows a conclusion concerning the present: “I cannot agree with those authors who consider it unnecessary to use force in relation to liberal opposition, when she arranges parties, like the "control walk". Russia is not Europe, where dissatisfaction with the authorities, as a rule, does not go beyond certain boundaries. In Russia, everything is done to the maximum. And if the illegal actions of the liberal opposition are not strictly suppressed, then each time it will act more and more boldly until it breaks the neck of the authorities.”

The priest is convinced that “if liberals are not suppressed, then Russia will inevitably perish.” Father’s recipe is clear as day: if “reasonable violence is consistently used against liberals, then Russia still has a chance to save itself.” Only “you can’t give in,” “how it happened in pre-revolutionary Russia“, warns a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, while, however, noting that “in terms of their personal qualities, today’s liberals cannot be compared with the revolutionaries of the beginning of the last century and it is not difficult to scare them.”

It should be noted that in his statements, priest Alexander Shumsky speaks, to some extent, against official position ROC concerning the Soviet past.

Let us recall that not so long ago the head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate (DECR MP), Metropolitan Volokolamsk Hilarion, considered the second person in the current hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, gave a negative assessment to statements made among monasticism and the clergy with a positive assessment of Stalin’s role in history and condemnation of the intelligentsia.

“I think that history has already placed all the accents, and nostalgia for Stalinism, especially from the lips of a clergyman, sounds to me like some kind of blasphemy,” the Metropolitan said.

True, this statement, like many other similar assessments of Stalin’s rule given by official representatives of the Church, was made last October - before the events that took place in public life Russia, in the winter of last year and in the spring of this year.

In the comments to the article copied by O. Bakushinskaya on her page, one of the bloggers exclaimed indignantly speaking about Alexander Shumsky: “and this “highly spiritual” priest preaches about Christ’s love?”

A parishioner of the church where Priest Alexander serves noted that he was a deacon there for many years, and not so long ago he was ordained. According to her, Bishop Tikhon became rector two years ago (allegedly cousin patriarch). “I never thought that I would go to a church where such obscurantists serve,” the parishioner wrote, adding that in general, after the death of the former rector, Father Dmitry, changes for the worse took place in the church. “And this is not just my opinion,” she emphasized.

The reaction of one Orthodox colleague to the previous publication about Reshetnikov’s removal from office is curious. Her remark is quite direct: “ Reshetnikov is not a Russophobe or an anti-Soviet. He is an Orthodox patriot. ”

Well, my colleague is right: Reshetnikov really is not a patriot of Russia. But belonging to the glorious cohort of Orthodox Christians does not imply, fortunately, uniformity of opinions about patriotism. In the sense of patriotism for the Fatherland.

Let's turn to the article of a truly Orthodox (for a professional) person - a priest, and part-time publicist Alexander Shumsky. In it, he examines Reshetnikov’s rabid anti-Sovietism based on the results of a personal meeting with him.

It still turns out strange: an intelligence general, a major boss, director of the Institute of Strategic (!) research, was appointed by President Medvedev himself - and look: bloggers criticize him, priests and even... foreign agents They simply smash it to smithereens! ( On the latest episode, if anyone is not aware, there is a report in the publication “”. If the video was deleted, then .).

And, taking this opportunity, I would like to apologize to readers for the inaccuracy made in the previous publication regarding RISI and Reshetnikov.

Of course, RISI was created by Yeltsin’s decree, but Reshetnikov was actually appointed to the position of director of the institute by decree of President Medvedev.