Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov: In terms of attitude, I am a White Guard. Mitrofanov Georgy, archpriest, head. Department of Church History

Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov said in an interview with the Pravoslavie i Mir portal that our Church has become a false church based on the occult, that our priests carry out blasphemous events, and the laity engage in Eastern occult practices during divine services.

Modernists do not hide the fact that they are being persecuted for heresies

Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov's interview with Pravmir is so monstrous that some people's opinion involuntarily comes to mind that there are such citizens who, being priests and monks, deliberately harm the Church in order to destroy it. The most terrible accusation that this priest threw in the face of the Church through Pravmir is the accusation that it has already fallen away from the universal Church and has become a false church. “I am only concerned that we have lost Christ in the Church,” said Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov.

From the Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow it is known that Christ is the head of the universal Orthodox Church. If some local Church loses Christ, then it automatically falls away from the universal Church and becomes a false church.

The local Church can fall away from the universal if it distorts the teachings of Christ. But the ROC did not distort this teaching. Modernists who spread heresies are on the periphery of church life, and not at the head of the Church. They just yell very loudly, so you can hear them. Moreover, the modernists themselves sometimes say that the hierarchies beat them in the brain after their heretical speeches.

Here is what the same Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov and Chief Editor"Pravmira" Anna Danilova during a conversation in the "Open Library":

G. Mitrofanov: Anya won’t let me lie, so to speak: I’m just one of those priests who are ready to answer the most pressing questions directly, even sometimes creating problems for the Pravoslavie i Mir website.

A. Danilova: And to himself.

G. Mitrofano Q: And to myself.

In addition, there is abundant evidence that the ordinances of our Church are valid and effective, as well as evidence that demons fight people who work and serve in the Church. I personally could tell a lot of stories about these two points. And I know such stories about other people. All these facts serve as proof that the ROC has not fallen away from Christ. Otherwise, demons would not fight with us and there would be no result from our sacraments.

The terrible accusation of the Church in the occult

Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov also throws another monstrous accusation against the Russian Orthodox Church: that it is based on the occult (magism, in his terminology): “Christ greatly hinders us in church life, especially in one based on ritualism, magicism and numerous ideologies” .

This is a blatant lie. The Church, according to the Creed, is holy. Occultism and our Church are incompatible. The Church is at war with the occult, and the occult is at war with her. If there was magic in the ROC, then it would become a false church. Where did Archpriest Mitrofanov see astrology, numerology, divination, extrasensory perception and witchcraft in our Church? Or does he blasphemously call the prayers and sacraments given to us by Christ for the healing of the soul and body, magicism? Since Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, afraid of being accused of obvious lies and obvious slander, is silent about this, these questions hang in the air.

In addition, if our Church were based on ideologems and ritualism (in Mitrofanov's terminology), it would also become a false church. I don't even know what this person means by ritualism. Maybe he calls our prayer services so blasphemously, during which people are healed of incurable diseases, or the custom of consecrating Easter cakes on Easter, after eating which people are sanctified?

Archpriest discovered mass blasphemy

Against this background, the accusation by Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov of priests of organizing blasphemous events looks like a childish prank: “And that is why deliberately blasphemous and senseless events, for example, Jordans with swimming in an ice hole, are gaining such popularity.” According to the Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow, blasphemy is when sacred objects are turned into a joke or insult. This is a very terrible sin. I personally do not see any joke or reproach in Epiphany bathing. That is, this is another slander on the part of Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov.

Blaming the Laity for Conversations with Demons

According to the interviewee of Pravmir, the laity do not pray during worship, but meditate: “We live in a time when for many Orthodox Christians worship has become, at best, a form of psychological meditation, at worst, a formal obligation.”

Meditation is an occult technique by which seduced adherents of Eastern religions get in touch with demons. Before reading this vile interview, I had never heard of people, especially Orthodox, who would meditate during worship services.

And the fact that Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov adds the adjective “psychological” to the noun “meditation” does not change matters. Through this adjective, the interviewee only obscures his speech, as church modernists like to do - so that no one can unequivocally conclude that they are fighters with the Church. Modernists have a lot of texts where they make allusions or deliberately insert contradictions with the same goal - to prevent the reader from making an unambiguous conclusion that they are fighters against Orthodoxy. As Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) said, modernism, "acting against Orthodoxy, tries to speak in the name of Orthodoxy."

The attack of the archpriest on the processions

Completely unbelted, the interviewee pounces on religious processions: “And the fact that we regularly have mass religious processions is nothing more than creating in ourselves the illusion of religiosity. When a person has walked many kilometers in procession, he is no longer up to theological reasoning and moral torment, not up to reading Russian Christian literature. He should have a drink, a snack and rest for the glory of God.”

You might think that we have people in whole parishes every day after work go in processions through their cities, so they don’t have to read Orthodox books at night, nor prayer evening rule execute.

The Saints treated the processions in a completely different way than Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov treats them. Reverend Manefa of Gomel, who had the gift of clairvoyance, said that procession has great grace.

Hatred for the Church

In the struggle against Orthodoxy, Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov does not disdain even the methods of Soviet atheists. Namely: he, just like the theomachists from the atheistic propaganda publications of the 20s of the 20th century, vilifies the Church. It is unrealistic to transfer here all the insults from his interview, since there are a lot of them.

Here, for example, is one passage: “Reviving church life in the country, we almost did not focus on the educated strata of society, on thinking, young people. It suited us very well that the majority of parishioners were not parishioners, but parishioners, who are connected with the Church by the fulfillment of rites. It suited us that the faithful perceive the Liturgy as one of the requirements, and not the most important, but less significant than the consecration of an apartment, the celebration of a memorial service, a prayer service. It was not a liturgical production process focused on the true transformation of a person.

What kind of nonsense is this? How is it that the Church did not focus on the educated strata of society, if Orthodox publishing houses and the Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church have published so many interesting books that it is unrealistic to read them all? And if large Orthodox bookstores appeared in Russian cities? In addition, Orthodox institutes and universities were opened in our country - moreover, not only men, but also women can study theological subjects there.

Who was satisfied with the fact that someone there perceives the liturgy as one of the requirements, if priests constantly ask people to go to church for services, and if, by order of Patriarch Kirill, mandatory interviews before baptism were introduced all over the country to convey this thought to people by order of Patriarch Kirill?

Name-calling of priests

Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov also uses another favorite method of Soviet atheistic propaganda - the discrediting of priests. Here is what he says: “In the parishes that were opening, priests of little education often served, who themselves poorly understood what they were doing. Most importantly, they were unable to start a worldview conversation. But these are still flowers.

Here are the berries: “In the 1990s, when the need arose to fill the churches that were opening, we were literally overwhelmed by a wave of dense priests. Not only did they not have any theological education, even their cultural level was low. Alas, this is still happening."

I personally have not met dense priests.

But Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov not only met dense priests in huge numbers, he also saw enough of spoiled future priests: “I often think, looking at students (and I have been teaching at the Theological Academy for thirty years), why are they so spoiled, why are they nothing not interested?! On reflection, I recently realized that they are not spoiled at all, but simply not developed.

As they say, the magazine "Atheist at the Machine" is resting, the authors of "Anteri-Religious" nervously smoke on the sidelines.

Attack on the saints

But for Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, this is not enough. He is already threatening the fathers, on whose authority none of the true children of the Orthodox Church has ever encroached: nothing. Run from the world mired in sin to the monastery to be saved. As soon as you remain in the world, do not blame me, act according to circumstances. This belief in one form or another has existed for many centuries in our country. In other words, only those who leave the world can be Christians, and the world cannot be Christian.”

This is a very silly text. I don't even know how to unravel this tangled tangle of lies and truth. It's easier to write how things really are. Christ told His disciples that the world is something foreign to His followers: “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (Gospel of John, chapter 15). And the Apostle John the Theologian wrote in his First Epistle: “Do not love the world, nor what is in the world: whoever loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (chapter 2).

The monks disliked the world so much that they went to deserts and monasteries. The martyrs despised the world so much that when it happened by chance that they were Christians, they would not hesitate to turn away from earthly life and pass through suffering into the Kingdom of Heaven. All this is recorded in Christian books and in the texts of Orthodox services.

The Church has never forced anyone to become a monk. But people were told the truth: the one who will be attached to the earthly soul will suffer greatly from worldly storms and be in danger of being drowned in the abyss of sin. Anyone who wants to avoid all this was offered to either become a monk (if a person had a calling for that), or inwardly renounce worldly troubles and entertainment, but at the same time try to keep all the commandments.

Abbess Arsenia (Sebryakova) wrote: “All the actions of the Providence of God and His punitive allowances serve only in favor of a person when he strives to achieve unearthly goals. When depriving all earthly blessings, when inflicting and accepting a blow to all one’s feelings, when enduring dishonor and other things, where the strongest soul would be distressed, but setting some earthly good as the goal of its quest, there the God-loving soul receives strength, wisdom, freedom , and if something is lost in these ongoing sorrows, then it loses only that connection with the passions in which it was imprisoned and with which it could not break the connection on its own.

That is, the Church spoke the truth in this matter, she taught to live in such a way that people would not suffer any harm during their life, and Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov tells us that the Church was carrying some kind of nonsense. Meanwhile, the holy martyr Cyprian of Carthage said: "To whom the Church is not a mother, God is not a father."

Alla Tuchkova, journalist

Featured Posts from This Journal

• 
  Mysterious people

  I have a feeling that God is giving His great gifts to some mentally ill people. At least a few years ago I had...

• 
  Modernists seek the abolition of the sacrament of confession in the Russian Orthodox Church

  The portal "Orthodoxy and the World" again and again hammers at one point - it publishes articles about the need to separate the sacrament of repentance from ...

• 
  The devil is behind the spread of pseudo-Orthodoxy

  For three weeks I did not read the Pravmir article. All this time I received information only from Orthodox sources. When I'm fresh...

Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov.

In memory of the Patriarch...

Interview with Professor of the St. Petersburg Orthodox Theological Academy Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, dedicated to the anniversary of the death of the ever-memorable Patriarch Alexy II.

O. George

- Father George, have you been fortunate enough to personally communicate with the ever-memorable His Holiness Patriarch Alexy? If possible, a few words about its role, about its significance in your life path.

I knew His Holiness the Patriarch when I was still a student at the Theological Academy, when in 1986 he was appointed metropolitan here. He ordained me to the diaconate and priesthood in 1988. If we talk about some kind of mysticism of relationships, then it really took place. It so happened that I was ordained to the priesthood on the day of Sts. app. Peter and Paul in Gatchina, where I was baptized 30 years before. Metropolitan Alexy, of course, did not know about this. As I was told, when I was baptized as a baby, I laughed and, after three immersions in the font, demanded that I be immersed again, apparently rejoicing at the fact that Church life had opened up to me. And 30 years later, Metropolitan Alexy ordained me to the priesthood in the same church. The next meeting, which was very significant for me, took place a few years later, when we made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the mid-1990s. In 2004, at the assembly day of the St. Tikhon Orthodox Humanitarian University, Patriarch Alexy presented me with a master's degree in theology after my defense, which took place at this university. During the presentation of the diploma, I told him: “Your Holiness, if you remember, you ordained me to the holy order in 1988,” to which he answered me: “Grow spiritually and further.” It is difficult to say what was behind these words. But for me, the feeling of some kind of connection with him really took place.

- You can often hear the opinion that during the period of Patriarchate Alexy II, the Church became too close to the state. Is it really? And how, in your opinion, can one characterize the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the state during the period of Patriarch Alexy II? How can one characterize the internal church life during the period of the Patriarchate of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II?

First of all, I would like to correct your question: the main thing in the life of the Patriarch, like any Christian, was not relations with the authorities, but relations with God. And these relations did not stop even now, on the contrary, after the death of His Holiness the Patriarch, they acquired a special quality - he appeared before God face to face.

As a priest, as a church historian, I reflected on the fact that in the 20th century traditions (historical, spiritual) were lost in our country, ties were broken, the best representatives our people. And with the death of Patriarch Alexy, there was also a rupture of a very deep spiritual and historical connection between our modern society and our historical past, since in the personality of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy we had a person next to us who, throughout his life, personified an attempt to preserve historical Russia in conditions when she was not left with the opportunity to exist.

In many ways, His Holiness the Patriarch was unique. In the 1960s and 1970s, there were few, and even more so now, among our church hierarchs of people who spent their childhood and adolescence in that historical Russia which no longer existed on the territory of the Soviet Union. Indeed, after all, His Holiness the Patriarch was born into the family of a hereditary Russian nobleman who once studied here, in St. Petersburg, at the Imperial School of Law and was forced to emigrate from his native country to that very Russia in exile, about which we talk so much today and which no longer exists as such. . Indeed, until the age of fifteen, His Holiness the Patriarch lived in conditions that no longer existed in our country: he had a full-fledged intelligent Orthodox Russian family, he had a church upbringing, he had free spiritual development. His pilgrimages to the once Russian Pyukhtitsky Orthodox Monastery, located on the territory of Estonia and therefore preserved in the 30s, to the Russian Orthodox Valaam Monastery, located on the territory of Finland and therefore preserved in the 30s, symbolized the very Russia that the best part of our people took with her to emigrate. Of course, this kind life stage formed in him a Russian Orthodox person. Such a person who was not “broken” already in childhood, who did not learn to lie, as many Soviet teenagers lied.

He entered the church life naturally and organically. And when his little Estonia became integral part godless communist empire - where was this man's place?! Naturally - in the Church. Already realizing that, by entering the theological seminary, he was challenging the cruelest totalitarian system that came to his native Estonian land, he acted in a way that not every young man in his time could have done. Well, then there was his stay within the walls of the Leningrad theological schools, which had just been restored, where with great difficulty it was possible to gather only three of its former teachers who remained alive. Let's think about it: only three teachers of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy were able to stay alive in our city and teach there after its revival.

Then - acceptance priesthood, serving in a parish in Estonia, where, apparently, the attitude of the authorities towards the Church was somewhat milder than in the territory of the present Russian Federation but also very complex. And here I am thinking about, perhaps, the main paradox of the life of His Holiness the Patriarch: after all, this was indeed a man from that Russia, miraculously transferred to the Soviet Union, who found his place in the Church that continued to be persecuted. Yes, priests were no longer shot in the 50s, but churches were still closed and priests were arrested and sentenced to prison terms. And under these conditions, when Khrushchev set himself the task of the final elimination of religious life, when the Church was "squeezed" from all sides, the young priest accepts monasticism, becomes one of the youngest bishops in 1961, and his amazing church service begins as bishop.

At the same time, it must be remembered that one of the ways to “suffocate” church life under Khrushchev was the desire to prevent new episcopal consecrations in the hope that the aging episcopate would naturally “fade away” and the Church would be deprived of the opportunity to restore and replenish its clergy. Already in 1962, he occupied leading positions in church administration, in particular, becomes Deputy Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations, then in 1964 becomes the Manager of Affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate and has held this position for more than 20 years, which he will then supplement with the position of Chairman of the Educational Committee.

The threads of governing the Russian Orthodox Church are concentrated in his hands in conditions when the authorities did everything in their power to make the Church cease to exist. Of course, it required a huge amount of internal strength from him to bear this burden. Of course, he had to make compromises. For such compromises, which could spiritually, probably, “crush” many people, but he had the strength, making these compromises, to remember that he was serving the Church. Precisely because in the depths of his soul he remained a Russian Orthodox person, a Christian and at the same time a person who realized his church service as a service to historical Russia, which seemed to be nowhere, but which remained in the hearts of those who remembered it. In the end, he managed to save the little that could be saved, and, correctly, that it was impossible to save under those conditions.

It is very indicative for me that, in the conditions of the just beginning perestroika, when much was still unclear, becoming in 1986 no longer the Metropolitan of Tallinn, but the Metropolitan of Leningrad, he managed to do an enormous amount in a situation where the changes outlined in our country seemed to many another campaign, another propaganda camouflage. And this was a sign that he, like a few of our church hierarchs, was able to lead the Church in a situation where the changes really become profound, and he will help to ensure that these profound changes become irreversible.

- It is symbolic that His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II ascended the patriarchal throne on the eve of the "Time of Troubles" - the collapse of the greatest power that once existed on the globe. One involuntarily recalls the times of the patriarchate of the First Hierarchs of Moscow, the patriarchs-martyrs of Sts. Hermogenes and Tikhon. What, in your opinion, was the main merit of the Russian Orthodox Church and personally the Patriarch in this difficult socio-economic and ethno-political situation?

For the Church, there were "troubled times" in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. As for the end of the 1980s, how “troubled” were they when, after decades of persecution, the Church finally got the opportunity to freely carry out its activities? What were these "troubled times" when the Soviet Union, doomed to collapse, which distorted the historical destinies of so many peoples who then inhabited the Russian Empire, collapsed naturally. But the collapse of the Soviet Empire did not yet mean the destruction of the Church, although separatist tendencies manifested themselves quite tangibly in it.

And here I would like to note the most important thing: not a single normal Russian person could not but rejoice at the changes that began to occur at the turn of the 80-90s. Many of us had hopes that the Soviet Union, which we hated, which was a diabolical parody of historical Russia, would collapse. And in the course of this destruction, historical Russia will be reborn. That Russia, which many of us could not even dream of, in the sense of living to see its restoration. However, the Church remained, that same Church, which was the only institution that survived, despite attempts to destroy historical Russia in all its manifestations. And it seemed to many of us that it was the Church that would be able to lead the process of reviving the historical national Russia.

It must be said that the attitude towards the Church at that time among various social groups was benevolent. But it was an illusion. An illusion, since many destroyed the Soviet Union not because they were morally indignant at its untruth, but because they dreamed of redistributing the privileges of the party nomenklatura among themselves. They did not think about the revival of historical Russia. They thought only of power and wealth, which they, like everyone else, Soviet people- envious poor people by nature - were deprived.

It is indicative that during this democratic storm, the democratic onslaught, the Patriarch always took a very restrained position. He did not follow the path of supporting the dying communist regime, but he did not enthusiastically and enthusiastically welcome the new Russian order. His principle even then was the principle of the doctor - "do no harm." Therefore, while supporting the necessary democratic changes in Russia, he managed to maintain a certain kind of distance from the new government. He was always ready to support the country's revival process. Hence his very definite position on August 19, 1991, when the commemoration of the authorities was withdrawn from the peaceful litanies at the divine service, which the Patriarch celebrated. The GKChP was not mentioned at the litany during the Orthodox service - this was his position, not because he had any big illusions in relation to Gorbachev; not because he may have had any hopes about Yeltsin, but because he sensed the deep untruth of trying to bring Russia back to the past. Hence his attempt to keep the country from bloody civil strife in October 1993.

Let us recall his rather restrained position during the beginning of the first Chechen war. Let us remember that quite recently, when our entire country was filled with militaristic enthusiasm, he firmly managed to maintain our fraternal relations with the Georgian Church, not accepting adventurous proposals to include Abkhazia and South Ossetia under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Behind all this, there was something that annoyed everyone: both left and right. They could not understand what position the Patriarch takes? He was accused of always trying to be in power, but in fact he was trying to distance himself from power, because he remembered the Soviet times very well, when he, including as the Manager of the Moscow Patriarchate, had to repeatedly enter into relations with this power. And this attempt to preserve the honor of the Church in conditions when dishonor has become the norm of our political life he succeeded. It was successful in the sense that very many, to put it mildly, non-controversial acts of our government, both current and previous, cannot be charged with the Church as an accomplice in these acts. Indeed, he was often silent on issues that seemed to us burning, but behind this silence was the understanding that these issues would remain insoluble. And for me, the heaviest burden in the service of the Patriarch in the 90-2000s seems to be his deep underlying understanding that the very historical Russia in which he spent his childhood and adolescence will never be restored in our country, that what kind of -then new country, unknown to us, in which, first of all, it was necessary to preserve the Church as a Church.

And may be the most important symbolic episode recent years his ministry is what he dreamed of doing for many years: he reunited the Russian Church in Russia with the Russian Church Abroad.

He restored what was dear to him all these years as something unified. And here, perhaps, the most important thing opens before us: we all love to talk about unity as there is an obvious disintegration of everything and everyone - from territory to spiritual values. But under these conditions, the Church showed a striking example of the unification of its two parts, torn apart for decades. Perhaps this unification happened too late, perhaps it happened too quickly, but the fact remains: one of the significant deeds of the ever-memorable Patriarch is the reunification of the Russian Orthodox Church, the gathering together of those parts of the divided Russian world, which now seems irreparable.

- Indeed, the ever-memorable His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II is the first Patriarch who united in his personal experience the past century and the present century, the fate of the Church of martyrs and confessors and the free Church, the Church that began to be noticed and reckoned with. Looking back at the time of His Holiness’s ministry, what, in your opinion, is the main tragedy in the history of Russia that reverberated with particular pain in the heart of the ever-memorable His Holiness?

One of the main tragedies, which His Holiness the Patriarch never forgot, was that in the Soviet time of theomachism most of our people either participated in or remained indifferent to the persecution of the Russian Church. At some point, most of our people were ready to allow the destruction of the Church in our country. Why did it happen? So far this question has not been answered. Meanwhile, without an answer to this question, we will never understand what is the main problem that exists to this day in the relationship between the Church and society. For that spirit of triumphalism, which was characteristic of both the Church and society in the early 1990s, has long since disappeared, and, unfortunately, we must admit that 3-4% of practicing Christians, i.e. people those who take communion once a year testify to the fact that today church life is significant for a very small part of our society. Why is it so? A question that has become one of the painful questions in the life of Patriarch Alexy. He did not ponder this question aloud, but as he contemplated what was going on in the country, he apparently saw no other way for himself than to pray.

And being a seriously ill person, he performed such a huge number of services throughout the whole year, just like on the eve of his death, that we should think about this: we really had a Patriarch, an experienced administrator, a church politician who at some point , apparently, realized that he had no other way to influence the development of our life, except to pray for the souls of his most lost and, alas, unrepentant contemporaries. And this deep prayer, liturgical prayer, supported him and was his main contribution to our historical life.

A new book by Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, a teacher at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy of the ROC MP, "The Tragedy of Russia. "Forbidden" Themes of the History of the 20th Century", which is a collection of his sermons and articles of recent years, has already managed to make a lot of noise. In addition to the fact that the book really touches on a number of taboo issues in Russian history (for example, the activities of ataman Krasnov and General Vlasov), which has already allowed some "pretty patriotic" forces to dub the author "church Vlasov", it also fell into unison with the latest statements Patriarch Kirill (Gundyaev) and Archbishop Hilarion (Alfeev) of Volokolamsk regarding the Great Patriotic War and the Soviet past in general.

Surprisingly, it is a fact: the Moscow Patriarchate has found the courage to oppose the current, initiated from above, campaign against the "falsification of history." Patriarch Kirill, who called the war God's punishment for the sins of Bolshevism, Archbishop Hilarion, who said that there is no difference between Stalin and Hitler, do not fit too well into the Kremlin's "only correct" version of the events of those years about the valiant Soviet people, who for no reason at all the fascists attacked, but then, having rallied in a single impulse, brought liberation to the whole world. And if the Patriarch himself aroused indignation among the fighters against the "falsification of history", then Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov with his memorial services for Vlasov (the book contains three of his sermons at memorial services for the general) is simply an ideal target for the recently created "Commission to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the detriment of the interests of Russia" under the President of the Russian Federation. It remains only to wish. George of inner courage and readiness to defend his own views, which, moreover, are not alien to the church leadership (the Patriarch recently included him in the Editorial Board and editorial board for the preparation of the textbook "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture").

Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov's book is very relevant. Turning to the past, oh. Georgy comprehends, first of all, the present, analyzes the foundations on which the modern Russian state is built. And these grounds really need to be analyzed - it is only the presidential commission that knows in advance what is the "only correct truth" and what are the "interests of Russia" ... Main question who raises in his book about. George: Is it acceptable (from the ecclesiastical or simply universal point of view) that which forms the framework of Russian statehood in its current historical version? The author is inclined to a negative answer. And it calls for reconsidering our common approach to the past and present.

According to Fr. George, the main Russian problem, the problem of society and the state, is that they want to simultaneously be the heirs of both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union: "An attempt to realize oneself at the same time the successors of both the Whites and the Reds means, in essence, a cunning desire to save oneself from labor take on the spiritual and historical burden... The Russian Federation, writes Father George, has not made its final choice between nine hundred years Orthodox Russia and a seventy-year-old atheistic Soviet of Deputies".
And with Fr. It's hard to disagree with George. New Russia for almost twenty years of its existence has not been able to create anything truly Russian, despite all the talk about the search for a "national idea" and "modernization of the economy." In economic and economic terms, although Russia lives in a free market, but still at the expense of the Soviet legacy, pumping oil and gas from fields developed or explored back in Soviet times and continuing to stamp equipment developed by Soviet designers (everything else is purchased in more developed countries).

In ideological terms, Russia, too, could not come up with anything of its own (even composing its own anthem turned out to be beyond its power). the only hallmark of the modern Russian state, only some kind of postmodernist mixture of two past eras remains: the coat of arms with a double-headed eagle in the imperial crown, Lenin on Red Square and still in the form of thousands of statues throughout the country, the solemn reburial of the remains of the royal family, the words of the president about the collapse of the USSR as "geopolitical catastrophe" and the presidential award to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the celebration of the victory of the USSR over Germany under the tricolor, under which General Vlasov fought in those years ... The list of such "mutual exclusions" can be continued endlessly.

In the Russian Federation, they are stubbornly trying to cross the royal double-headed eagle and Lenin. It turns out confusion. One of these embarrassments is described in his book by Fr. George: the reburial of the remains of Empress Maria Feodorovna, General Denikin and philosopher Ilyin in Russia had the status of a state funeral. But they were embarrassed to play the current anthem of Russia. Because the foreign delegation could not understand why the empress, the white general or the anti-Bolshevik philosopher was buried under the Soviet anthem. For these purposes, I had to urgently look for musical fragments from the heritage of Russian composers.

Such embarrassment is not isolated – it has existed permanently for almost twenty years and is the basis of the current Russian identity. And recently, this embarrassment even began to put forward claims to neighboring states about the "falsification of history."

Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov proposes to resolutely reject such confusion and take "the path to that historical Russia that ceased to exist in 1917", preferring nine hundred years of Orthodox history to seventy years of atheism. In fact, this means a radical revision of the Russian statehood that we have now. It is in the context of the revision of Russian identity that Fr. Georgy talks about Andrei Vlasov, a Soviet general who was able to abandon his Soviet past and take up arms against Bolshevism. According to the author, Vlasov's betrayal - in relation to Russia until 1917 - was precisely his 25-year collaboration with the Bolshevik regime.

"The memory of the participants in the Vlasov movement is incompatible with the consciousness of those who now speak on behalf of the new Russia ... because our society consists of people who, in the vast majority, lived in a lie and now stubbornly pretend that their whole life was spent in the service of truth. They "served Russia" - was it called the Soviet Union, is it called the Russian Federation ... For them life path leaders of the Vlasov movement is an expressive reproach, because, unlike them, the leaders of the Vlasov movement were not afraid to cross out their unjustly lived life, "writes Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov.

But you have to understand that o. Georgy is not some kind of "stubborn" White Guard monarchist, who is convinced that under the tsar-father there was complete happiness and splendor, which the Bolsheviks who came from nowhere destroyed, and that the only salvation is to throw Lenin out and "return back" to the imperial eagle. By the way, the communists of the old school also argue in a similar way - but only they pull the blanket in the other direction, clutching at Lenin, and sigh about the glorious Soviet past, which the treacherous Americans ruined, also calling for a return to the past, but not by 90, but by 20 years ago.

Archpriest George is above this protracted game of "whites" and "reds". He perfectly understands that not only in the godless Soviet Union, but also in the Russian Empire, things with faith and churchness were not in the best way. For two hundred years there was no Patriarch in Russia, and the Church was governed by officials from the Synod. It took the overthrow of the autocracy so that the Church could restore its canonical structure and finally hold Local Council("the most pious emperors" did not allow this). And the fact that "the Russian people so easily put up with Bolshevism" (as the author emphasizes, the Bolsheviks were accepted by the majority of the population and the whites were in the minority) and calmly looked at the desecration of churches and the arrests of priests, also testifies that before 1917 with Orthodox faith something was wrong in Russia. Correctly notes about. Georgy, that among the Orthodox episcopate, resistance to the infamous declaration of Metropolitan Sergius and the conciliation of the Church with the godless Stalinist regime was minimal due to "two centuries of habit of synodal governance from a government-supervised body of supreme church authority." Russian empire and before Lenin was pregnant with Bolshevism (Berdyaev wrote about Peter I as the first Bolshevik).

Then about. In his article about Solzhenitsyn, Georgy quite rightly criticizes the illusion of pre-Petrine Russia with its supposedly "sinless organic church life", quotes Kartashev about the "powerless ghost of the Moscow theocracy".

And now it turns out that the glorious "nine hundred years of the Russian Orthodox past" is crumbling before our eyes. Here two hundred synodal years fall off, and pre-Petrine Russia also disappears. There remains a void. And here is the main contradiction of the book. The author calls to renounce Bolshevik Russia and he has no choice but to appeal to the glorious pre-revolutionary Russia. But he himself actually admits that he is calling to nowhere. Opens the door to an empty elevator shaft. Wherever you step in the history of the Russian state, you fall into the void.

“Before us lies either the still living or already dead body of our country,” writes Fr. George. The gospel immediately comes to mind: "Let the dead bury their dead" (Matthew 8:22). The body was ill, blue and crumpled long before 1917. Why bother with the dead? Maybe it is worth praying: "God rest the soul of your departed servant" - to step over and go further? ..

The book of Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov is valuable in that it raises difficult, but very important questions. Not everyone has the courage to ask them. Moreover, not everyone has the courage to give an honest answer to them.

Alexander Khramov,
for "Portal-Credo.Ru"

As it became known to NI, Patriarch Kirill forbade the teacher of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, who called on the Church to stand up for the release of Pussy Riot members, to communicate with the press. The archpriest himself refuses to comment, the press service of the patriarch claims that there was no official ban, and the clergy admit that they do not agree with many of the statements of Georgy Mitrofanov in the church environment .

The ban of Patriarch Kirill on communication with the press against the professor of the St. Petersburg Orthodox Theological Academy, rector of the Church of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, has been going on since November. In a conversation with NI, Archpriest Mitrofanov acknowledged the existence of the ban, but declined to comment further. The press service of Patriarch Kirill "NI" reported that there was no official ban on Archpriest Mitrofanov, and suggested that " such a recommendation followed from the patriarch in private conversation ". The existence of the "NI" ban was confirmed by Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev, professor at the Moscow Theological Academy, who declined to comment further, citing "unethics".

Editorial. Recall that on the night air of "Vesti +" (00:55 on July 8, 2009) a rebuke was given to the current detractors of Russia in the person of ... representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church. The moderator cited recent public statements made by Hegumen Peter (Meshcherinov), rector of the Danilov Monastery metochion, employee of the Patriarchal Center for the Spiritual Development of Children and Youth at the Danilov Monastery, censor of the Moscow Danilov Monastery, and teacher of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy and member Synodal Commission on the canonization of Fr. Georgy Mitrofanov: http://expertmus.livejournal.com/34282.html

It would seem that after the public flogging to which they were subjected ( see video: http://www.youtube.com/user/expertmus#p/a/f/0/5938Ts1BmEw) prot. Georgy Mitrofanov and ig. Peter (Meshcherinov) for their apology for collaborationism, all detractors of the past of our long-suffering Motherland were given a stern warning. However, it turned out that the “Vlasovites” found high patrons among the current hierarchy, about which Fr. Georgy Mitrofanov, commenting on the air of the St. Petersburg program “Lessons of History” on an interview given on June 15, 2009 by the new chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Archbishop. Hilarion (Alfeev) to the Expert magazine.

Tellingly, the host of the program "Lessons of History" Fr. Alexander Stepanov emphasized “the fact that such a high-ranking church hierarch as the archbishop is now. Hilarion, speaks on these topics, this is extremely important, because this sets a certain spiritual, moral tuning fork. What kind of “tuning fork” is being set in the Church by the new head of the DECR? To answer this question, it is necessary to recall some episodes of his church career.

Yes, Prot. G. Mitrofanov triumphantly informed the listeners that Archbishop. Hilarion is a holder of the state award of Lithuania - the medal "For Courage and Self-Sacrifice" in memory of January 13, which he received in 1992 for having once supported the Sąjūdis movement. According to him, “for him, the highly moral position of Father Hilarion then is evidence of what position the Russian Orthodox Church should have consistently and clearly pursued”, so that “our relations with our closest neighbors, including with other Baltic states, would be others." However, this touched the nerve of the audience, and in the comments it sounded that “the assessment of the role of Sąjūdis and participation of a monk in political actions frankly disturbing. Everyone who is in the least connected with Russian-speaking Lithuania knows that Sąjūdis is by no means just an anti-communist party. It was driven by a frenzied anti-Russian nationalist spirit, and its interpretation historical role Lithuania is akin to modern Ukrainian mythmaking”: http://expertmus.livejournal.com/42906.html

Meanwhile, the soft "disgrace" of Fr. Georgy Mitrofanov may not be associated with his support for the members of Pussy Riot, but with criticism ... of the cult of Peter and Fevronia, actively propagated by Svetlana Medvedeva! At the conference "The Sacrament of Marriage - The Sacrament of Unity", held on January 2, 2008 in the church house at the Fedorovsky Cathedral in St. Petersburg, Fr. Georgy Mitrofanov made a scandalous report “The Truth and Myths about family life in pre-revolutionary Russia”, which caused a storm of indignation among the parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church. Especially sharply. Georgy Mitrofanov answered a question from the audience about Saints Peter and Fevronia as an example of an ideal married couple in Russian hagiography: “We don’t know for sure whether these people even existed”?! It is curious that some Orthodox sites that initially posted the text of Fr. Georgy Mitrofanov (http://aquaviva.ru/news/date/2008-01-09/id/383/ ; http://www.pravkniga.ru/404.html), they hurried to demolish it as soon as the wave began to grow popular discontent...

As you know, on December 26, 2012, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, chaired by Patriarch Kirill, at its meeting in the Patriarchal and Synodal Residence in the Danilov Monastery in Moscow, met the persistent requests of the "second half" of the second half of the tandem Svetlana Medvedeva, who often complained that the main day of memory of these Murom saints July 8 falls on Petrov Lent, when the wedding cannot take place:

At diocesan meetings, the patriarch said several times that some clergymen do not know how to communicate competently with journalists, the rector of the church of St. Basil the Great in the village of Zaitsevo, Moscow Region, Archpriest Vladimir Vigilyansky, told NI. According to him, “if you don’t know how to properly defend the interests of the Church, it’s better to refuse an interview,” because “otherwise you will be misunderstood, and you will confuse readers or viewers by giving any comments out of naivety, thoughtlessness or ignorance that may lead to the temptation of believers."

Archpriest Vigilyansky insists that "the church has no general prohibitions on interviews, there are only special cases." According to him, there are cases when clergymen kept blogs in which they “talked too frankly and incorrectly about internal church affairs,” after which they “were recommended to close the blogs,” and they “fulfilled their obedience and stopped making their statements.” Mr. Vigilyansky also stated that he “does not always agree” with the statements of Georgy Mitrofanov and that “he really sometimes talks too frankly about the events that take place within the Church”, while “there are some internal problems that should not be endured to the general public."

Deacon Vladimir Vasilik reflects on the transfer of the St. Petersburg TV channel "100" with the participation of "church Vlasov"
On September 30, in the evening, in the program "Bridge of Freedom" of the St. Petersburg TV channel "100", once again Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov spoke out with the propaganda of the traitor Vlasov. His main opponent was presented by TV journalists as Boris Podoprigora, a historian, a retired military officer who was the deputy commander of the group federal troops in Chechnya, and now a civil servant - assistant to the chairman of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg. Against the background of sincere, but inexperienced in verbal skirmish As an officer, an experienced rhetorician Father George looked very impressive. This, however, did not help him - only 35 percent of the channel's viewers who called the channel's television studio spoke in support of his views. This is despite the fact that the question was posed by the authors of the program slyly: "Is General Vlasov a traitor to Russia?" Without prejudice, it would be worthwhile to formulate the question as follows: "Is General Vlasov a traitor to the Motherland?" But the most important thing is not that Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov suffered an ideological defeat. The main thing is that he failed as a shepherd.

Father Georgiy appeared at the broadcast not in the civil suit of a historian, but in the vestments of a priest. Apparently, he wanted the viewer to perceive his position as official position Church, wanted to hide behind the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church. On purpose or not, we don’t know, the organizers invited a person not only non-church, but even unbaptized, who is an undoubted patriot of the Fatherland, which he proved by deeds, as an opponent to Father George. That is, the organizers of the transfer set up the object of the pastor's missionary activity against Father George. And what is the result. And in the end, the officer who listened to the Orthodox priest said that he was glad that his parents did not baptize him in childhood, i.e. Father George literally drove away from the Church a person who could become Orthodox. This is the fiasco of the shepherd.

We are talking about this program, the circumstances of its preparation, with a person who is known for his well-grounded criticism of the Vlasov research of Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, Associate Professor of St. Petersburg University and the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Deacon Vladimir Vasilik. The program showed a one-minute video with his participation.

– After listening to an apology for betrayal from the lips of a clergyman of the Russian Orthodox Church, Father George’s opponent Boris Podoprigora uttered a terrible phrase, which perhaps Stalin did right when he shot the clergy before the start of the Great Patriotic War as potential traitors-Vlasovites. This is what the apology of Vlasovism has brought to!

I can say that exactly what I warned about in my summer publication of July 7 on the Russian Line is being fulfilled - the activities of Fr. Georgy Mitrofanov objectively leads to a split in society. Not only to the politicization of the Church, but also to the separation from it of not very church-minded, but patriotic people. If such processes continue, then this can lead not only to an informational, but also to a real civil war. The point is that o. George constantly speaks outrageous speeches that do not correspond to either historical reality or human truth. Based on the Vlasov emigrant myth, he is trying to rehabilitate General Vlasov, to prove that he was not a traitor, but was a patriot of historical Russia, which is not true. Vlasov, in the words of the same ataman P.N. Krasnov, was a “Bolshevik”. Further, Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov is trying to mold the image of a believer from Vlasov, which again is not true - there is Ivan Solonevich's testimony that neither he nor his commissars believed in God for a penny. Father Georgy constantly denigrates and dishonors the memory of the heroes of the war who died for the freedom not only of Russia, but, in fact, of the whole world. He dares to compare them with the Vlasov men who died on the gallows. Such statements cannot but revolt the moral sense. Basically, o. George dismantles the works of our great patriarchs - Sergius, Alexy, Pimen and Alexy II, during which Victory Day became a church holiday, a church celebration, a day of commemoration of our soldiers who died in the Great Patriotic War.

As for Boris Alexandrovich Podoprigora, his statement surprised and upset me. I heard about him as a patriot, sympathetic towards the Russian Orthodox Church, and suddenly such words ... In my opinion, he crossed a very important line. His indignation, quite legitimate, passed into a clearly illegal and improper sphere. He made two serious mistakes. The voice of He took George as the voice of the entire Russian Orthodox Church, which is not true. Because in addition to George on the betrayal of Vlasov and the Vlasovites during the Great Patriotic War and the feat of the Russian people in the war, a number of much more authoritative and worthy clergy spoke, such as Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov), Archpriest Alexander Ilyashenko, Archpriest Vladimir Sorokin, Priest Alexander Zadornov, Archpriest Georgy Gorodentsev . I'm not going to talk about myself as a sinner. Finally, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill himself spoke about this in his sermon on May 6 at the Church of the Holy Martyr. George the Victorious (on the day of his memory) on Poklonnaya Hill. On July 28, His Holiness refused to recognize the isomorphism of the Nazi and Soviet regimes, which Archpriest Georgy so insists on in his book The Tragedy of Russia. And finally, on August 23, he unequivocally condemned the apology for the Vlasov betrayal in his speech in Arkhangelsk to the public of the city. It is impossible not to notice this, sorry. And the fact that Boris Aleksandrovich Podoprigora did not notice this testifies at least to his weak orientation to the problem.

As for the historical side of the matter, it is known that all the clergy who were shot in 1937-38, and according to tentative estimates, this is 85 thousand people, were not involved in any conspiracies, in any political acts, did not conduct any anti-Soviet activities. If there were conspiracies, they were in communist-party and military circles. By the way, it was these atheist conspirators who betrayed Russia in 1941 in many respects. Believers became victims of NKVD slander and provocation. Most of the Church followed Metropolitan Sergius in 1927, declaring their political loyalty to the Soviet government, and at the same time, their rejection of atheism as a state ideology. Their death was lawless even in terms of Soviet laws. This is a crime that has no justification, and the priesthood was not any "fifth column" before the war. On the contrary, during the Great Patriotic War, despite all the persecution and crimes of the Soviet government, many clergymen helped the Fatherland in word and deed on both sides of the front. Some priests fought either at the front or in partisan detachments. And the priest Fyodor Puzanov accomplished a unique feat, having collected a convoy with food in the occupied territory, he managed to send it to besieged Leningrad across the front line. It costs a lot! It is impossible and should not fail to notice the feat of the Russian Church in the Great Patriotic War, all the more so for a representative of state power.

- Many people were struck by the words of Boris Podoprigora, who, by the way, was noticeably worried that he was glad that his parents did not baptize him in childhood. After all, this is a cross on the missionary activity of the Russian Church! Father George's provocative statements alienate the well-intentioned, patriotic, but not yet ecclesiastical part of society from the Church.

Of course, and I wrote at one time that speeches about George cannot be called anything other than anti-missionary. This is very dangerous in today's conditions, because the memory of the Great Patriotic War, unfortunately, is the only thing that spiritually unites modern Russian society.

The reaction of Boris Podoprigora is sad. He is a worthy and well-deserved man, he has seen a lot in his lifetime, he was the deputy commander of the federal troops in Chechnya. But then he succumbed to this informational provocation, and took the opinion of a marginal (albeit a very influential one) for the opinion of the entire Russian Orthodox Church. But I want to say that such a reaction is not isolated. More than once or twice I have had to meet with cases when people refused to go to Church, because "there is for Vlasov." And two years ago, in the church of the Apostles Peter and Paul at the University for the Advancement of Pedagogical Excellence, where Father George is the rector, dramatic events unfolded. When he delivered his Vlasov sermon, part of the flock - teachers, elderly people, children of war veterans - was indignant. They went to the rector, and then to the metropolis, turned to Archbishop Konstantin, the previous rector of the St. Petersburg Academy and Seminary, so that Fr. George was removed from the priesthood. For them, his behavior was morally impossible and incompatible with the status of the rector of a pedagogical church.

Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov harms the missionary activity of the Church, and in a very important area, in the field of pedagogy. Serving in this temple, he participates in the formation of the image modern teacher. The result is the following: some are torn away from him and from the Church and go on in life on their non-church paths, while others become apologists for betrayal, apologists for Judas sin, apologists for Russophobia. They broadcast absurd ideas that the Russian people disappeared during the years of the civil war, and completely incomprehensible, ugly, guilty people remained to live on the ruins of Russia. Naturally, such an absolutely destructive ideology can only bring confusion.

- There is a strange impression. A broadcast is being prepared on the 100 TV channel and, as an opponent, Fr. Georgy Mitrofanov is presented with a man, not only not a churchman, but not even a baptized one. And if you remember how quite recently on the 5th all-Russian TV channel, a similar program was shown, where Vladimir Zhirinovsky was proposed as an opponent to Father Mitrofanov. The scandalous politician put forward a completely delusional version that Vlasov was an NKVD agent and carried out an important mission among prisoners of war on Stalin's instructions. Of course, Zhirinovsky's version caused only laughter. And against this background, Fr. Georgy looked very soundly and academically, as in the dispute with Boris Podoprigora. In your opinion, is such a selection random, or are these elements of an information campaign?

I'm afraid that this is not accidental, and that there is an element of well-known companionship here. In general, transmissions to me from Fr. George are reminiscent of the hunting of the Assyrian king, when he safe distance threw spears at the lions locked in pens and nothing could harm him. Father George - "well done among the sheep." He avoids discussions with real opponents - church people, historically educated, with good rhetorical abilities. An example is the transmission we are discussing.

I was involved in its preparation. The day before, I received a call from the TV people, employees of this channel, and offered to take part in a debate with Fr. George. I enlightened them about the moratorium, the visit of the delegation of the Church Abroad with the Kursk-Root Icon Mother of God, and asked not to touch dangerous topics. I was assured that we would only talk about the Second World War, about Putin in Poland, and the Vlasov theme would not be heard. The next day, strange things began to happen. In the morning they called me and said that the studio was moving, that they had technical problems and that the program would not be recorded that day, and that they would invite me next time, but they asked me to give them a one and a half minute interview. I agreed, and they began to ask me ... on the Vlasov topic. I had to speak out, I realized that the program would still be, and this topic would also be discussed, and I could not influence it in any way. As a result, Father Georgiy spoke for an hour, and there were no worthy opponents for him. I strongly suspect that he, fearful of meeting me in live, since he has nothing to object to the argument that I have repeatedly expressed in my materials, he decided in a Napoleonic way to be stronger than the enemy at a certain time in famous place, and TV people played along with him. This strongly reminds me of Gorbachev's statement about pluralism, when there can be no two opinions, and even more the concept of totalitarian pluralism, which is pluralistic only in the field of moral permissiveness, but absolutely totalitarian in regard to the opportunity to speak out to the opponent.

It is not completely clear to me the reason for the television staff playing along with him: I would not want to suspect them of financial motives, although for a certain number of citizens of the Russian Federation, monetarism is the leading ideology today. Probably, the reason was the influence of Father George on the TV channel, as well as the lack of orientation of the TV people in the problem, journalistic superficiality and a sincere lack of understanding that this topic is too important and too scary to be treated lightly. Many have an illusion: Russia is strong, do what you want, shake it as you like, it will not collapse. But any material has a limit of resistance: a good example is the Sayano-Shushenskaya HPP. Russia has withstood 18 years of Februaryism, but will it survive the 19th year with such treatment? I'm not talking about obvious things: Father Georgiy swung at the sacred ... And it's disappointing that the television staff do not feel the sacred component of this topic.

- From what, in your opinion, Fr. Georgy Mitrofanov?

You know, Father Georgiy is quite flexible in his views. About 5-6 years ago, according to some evidence, he called the supporters of Vlasov's ideas nothing more than fascists, and Vlasov himself a traitor. What happened now? Apparently, he sensed which way the wind was blowing, namely: the “drang nah osten” of the European Union continues, the incorporation of the former Soviet republics into NATO, which needs a certain explanation, primarily a moral one. And for this it is necessary to develop the myth about the USSR as an "evil empire", about the Stalinist regime, as isomorphic to Hitler's, and in this regard it is necessary to glorify all those who fought with weapons in their hands on the side of the enemy against their own country. This is a systemic phenomenon. SS battalions are marching in Latvia and Estonia, which are publicly announced as fighters against two dictatorships. In Ukraine, they exalt Bandera and equate them with war veterans. Still Russian leadership protested and fought against it. And what if on the part of the Church to pull off such an action and demand to rehabilitate the traitors to the Motherland?! Then it is possible to carry out a new Nuremberg trial, to humiliate Russia, to stop all its attempts to go beyond the current state borders, to force us to pay reparations to the former republics, and so on. I think here about. George saw here some of his own benefit, his own benefit.

It is impossible to discount the purely postmodernist desire to stand out - to come up with a non-trivial and scandalous topic, to attract everyone's attention and become famous. Typical teen move.

- So you think that all this is connected exclusively with the conjuncture?

No, not only. Based on the well-known moral choice. The current life in abundance makes it possible to conjuncture in a small way. And the fact that Archpriest Mitrofanov went on such a dangerous action for himself and for society, this spiritual adventure, testifies to things deeper, more terrible. About hatred for life, which underlies the ideology of fascism and, I am not afraid to say, the basis of the ideology of Father George. I think that it is no coincidence that two years ago he spoke unambiguously in favor of euthanasia. At the same time, he considered the decision to euthanasia the patient as a free conscious act, which, at the same time, should be blessed by the Church. Thus, Father George binds three people in sin at once - a patient in suicide, a doctor in a murder, a priest in complicity in a murder. Let me remind you that from 1939 to 1941, on the orders of Adolf Hitler, 70,000 terminally ill and mentally ill people were killed by euthanasia in Germany alone, and tens of thousands in the occupied territories and in camps. The Nazi regime is euthanasia in its meaning. Repeatedly, Hitler turned to the heroism of suicide, which is at the heart of ancient Germanic lore. It turns out, unfortunately, about. George perceives this heroism in many ways, developing his book "The Tragedy of Russia". In particular, he writes with undisguised delight about his Vlasov heroes. According to him, their death is different from the death of the defenders of the Fatherland during the Great Patriotic War. It differs in that soviet soldier perished in the illusion that the salvation of Russia was near, while these went to the next world with a clear consciousness that they were cursed and killed. As a matter of fact, Father George's book is about people who commit a deliberately unnecessary and deliberately suicidal deed. These are the leaders of the white movement, who in reality fought for the myth " Constituent Assembly”, These are the leaders of the Vlasov movement. But the worst thing is that Father George is trying to put them on the same level as the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. This is nothing but discrediting the New Martyrs.

I think that's why this was the reaction of Boris Podoprigora. He, of course, became a victim of a very subtle informational provocation and he is sorry. But in essence, his reaction is the result of the temptation that Father George introduced. Indeed, “Because of you the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles” (Rom. 2:24). In this situation, I also feel sorry for Father George, as a pastor and a person. Having entered the multi-way political game, he probably did not fully understand what a terrible trap he had fallen into, primarily a spiritual one. After all, the blood of 27 million who died in the war cries out to heaven, like the blood of Abel. After all, it is no accident that the Holy Church developed canons condemning the deliberate political activity clergy: “Let not the presbyter take upon himself worldly cares” (81 Ap. Rule). After all, under certain conditions, it is capable of destroying a priest - both as a pastor and as a person. illustrative example- namesake of George - the priest Georgy Gapon, who fanned the revolutionary fire and burned down in it. Now many are fanning the fire of the orange revolution, which is capable of burning many, including its incendiaries, and it is not a priestly business to participate in this. God grant that Fr. George would remember and realize the words of the Savior about the fate of the one "who offends one of these little ones" (Matt., 18, 6).

http://www.rusk.ru/st.php?idar=105867