There is probably not a person in Rus', or in the whole world, who has not heard about the glorious life and wondrous miracles of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker. “Conqueror of nations” is how His name is translated from Greek. How did the wondrous Saint conquer and still conquer the hearts of all of us? Fiery faith and love for God, endless mercy and compassion for others, constant readiness to sacrifice oneself for the sake of fulfilling the Divine commandments.
It can in no way be an accident that in monastic tonsure our Mother Abbess received the name of St. Nicholas and that it was she who was chosen by the Saint to revive his holy monastery, to become the mother of numerous nuns and children - pupils of the orphanage. For only a big loving heart is capable of bearing this heavy cross.
To love means to obey. The hegumen's golden cross is very high before God, since the hegumen completely renounces himself for the sake of his brethren and suffers for them. The abbot is a wall between the novice and the devil; all arrows fly at him. If you come out from behind this wall, you will fall into the clutches of the devil.
In the world, Mother was called Lyudmila. Her parents were not believers, and only her grandmother supported the whole family with her prayer. Mother's father, Dmitry Ilyin, fought courageously to defend his homeland on the fields of the Great Patriotic War. He was a tank driver. One day he returned from a difficult mission, just lay down to rest in his dugout, when suddenly the commander ordered him to go into battle again. Dmitry immediately jumped up and ran to carry out the order, and at that moment a shell hit his dugout, and if he stayed there for even a minute, he was in danger of imminent death. Obedience saved him. Obedience - ipakoi - is the highest virtue of a monk and a Christian, which, unfortunately, has been lost in our troubled times. His daughter Abbess will fight for the revival of this virtue throughout her life. Monks are the same warriors, only they serve not the earthly king and fatherland, but the Heavenly one. This is the Army of Christ. Matushka’s mother, Vera Vasilievna, also has a heroic character, although she was not allowed to go to war, no matter how much she wanted to do so. But in the rear, she cared for the wounded in the hospital, and after the war she found a job that suited her heart - she became a nurse in a psychiatric hospital, which required enormous courage, patience, endurance and love.
Mother Abbess herself never thought about monasticism. She was engaged in science, received two higher educations and headed one of the Moscow laboratories dealing with problems of artificial intelligence. But the Lord called her. The spark of God's love that entered her heart flared up with such a flame that nothing could prevent her from completely devoting herself to serving God. Even in the world, Mother visited churches and monasteries, sincerely and unquestioningly obeyed her spiritual father, who predicted to her that in the future she would have a lot of spiritual children. Not only he, but also other elders prophetically foreshadowed her Abbot's service. Mother very much fell in love with Optina Pustyn, which opened in 1988, and its great elders - the comforters of all Rus'. And Elder Ambrose himself repeatedly appeared to her in a dream, admonishing her and instructing her on the path of salvation. In 1990, Mother entered the Shamordino Women’s Hermitage, the favorite brainchild of Elder Ambrose, which was then still ruined and completely poor. She was immediately made housekeeper. Instead of quiet, solitary prayer, which all newcomers dream of, they had to make countless trips to various authorities asking for help at the new monastery. Few people at that time sympathized with the holy cause, but Mother’s faith and selfless obedience prevailed - the monastery was built and flourished. The young nun had to endure a lot of internal sorrows. The Lord allowed Mother to experience both slander and persecution, clearly preparing her for the new heavy cross of abbotship.
One day Mother was praying at the Miracle-Working Icon of the Kaluga Mother of God, and a lamp suddenly spilled on her - the Mother of God herself noted Her chosen one, and after some time Mother was sent for obedience to Kaluga, to the diocese. The wise archpastor immediately discerned outstanding spiritual and organizational abilities in his new novice and invited her to become abbess in the ruined Maloyaroslavets monastery. Of course, Mother was then aware of her weakness and inexperience, but, true to her obedience, she went to the Elder, and the great prayer book told her: “If you will be an Abbess, do not refuse and do not be afraid of anything.” The elder remembered two great victories near Maloyaroslavets: one - in the war with the French, which saved Russia, the other - the victory of our troops in the Great Patriotic War, which raised the fallen spirit and faith of our people. “And there will be a third victory”; - the Elder said firmly. And now, when the monastery is already 25 years old, we can say that this has happened: the victory of light over darkness, truth over lies, humility over demonic pride, the victory of Holy obedience over vile self-will and selfishness.
It is difficult to describe how many sorrows and labors fell on Mother’s shoulders then. Complete poverty and ruin, lack of basic housing, destroyed churches, human malice and misunderstanding - all this brought Mother to severe illness, but her spirit was indestructible. Now the monastery is truly a wonderful paradise where love and obedience reign. Love for God gives rise to love for neighbor. Mother and sisters took upon themselves the feat of saving many orphan girls rejected by the world, preserving their lives, health and purity, raising them to be true Christians, educated people, worthy citizens of their Fatherland, and in the future - good wives and mothers. All this is rarely achieved by worldly people, but in the monastery Divine Grace helped to do what human powers could not. Come to our shelter, look at the joyful and pure faces of the children, listen to how they sing - and you will understand everything yourself. As for the monastery itself, the faith and obedience of Mother Abbess created a miracle.
As our Bishop said, “... women cannot get to Holy Mount Athos, so the Holy Mountain itself descended to Maloyaroslavets.” Mother searched for a long time for the true monastic Rules for the monastery and turned to ancient Athos, which always spiritually helped our Holy Russia. And so the elders - confessors of Athos - began to come to the monastery, and sincere spiritual friendships began with many monasteries and cells of the Holy Mountain. From the Vatopedi Monastery a miraculous copy of the Icon of the Mother of God “Pantanassa” (All-Tsarina) was brought as a gift, from which many healings and miracles have already occurred in our Russia. Athonites say that Athos is not a place, but a way of life. The main work of a monk is prayer and spiritual obedience, which is the fulfillment of all the commandments of God and the main one - about love. It would seem that the victory has been won: there are already more than 15 Abbesses from the monastery, reviving spiritual life not only in Russia, but also abroad. But the war with the devil does not stop.
New young sisters come and again Mother, as the commander-in-chief in war, teaches them to fight the enemy of salvation, who secretly lives in the human heart and is the source of sinful thoughts and deeds. Every day after the Divine Liturgy, Mother conducts spiritual classes with the sisters, revealing to them the experience of the holy fathers, teaching them reasoning and knowledge of spiritual laws. If each sister defeats the enemy in her heart, then this small victory will have global significance - there will be less and less evil in this world. As St. Seraphim of Sarov said: “Save yourself, acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved.”
“Who is the great God, like our God! You are God, work miracles!” And truly, whoever loves God with all his heart and serves him with all his might lives in a world of miracles. And we correlate this world with our Mother Abbess Nicholas - our beloved Spiritual Mother, about whom one great Elder told us: “Listen to Mother - she will pull you all out of hell!” We believe in this and thank God with all our hearts for this great gift.
from the village of Zakharovo, Belgorod region , widely known from the film Galina Tsareva "The Tsar Is Coming".Through her, the holy Sovereign Nikolai Alexandrovich himself conveyed the blessing for the installation of the Crosses of Repentance and for taking the Oath of Allegiance. For many years now she has been bearing the heavy cross of confession and prophetic service, thanks to which many of our people are beginning to be spiritually reborn. It is for this that a massive barrage of all kinds of slanderous attacks falls on her.
Our ancestors in 1613 once took a vow of allegiance to the Romanov family until
The Second Glorious Coming of Jesus Christ. Confirming loyalty to this Vow, our people from generation to generation swore the Oath of Allegiance to each subsequent king from the Romanov family who ascended the throne. And each subsequent oath did not cancel the previous ones and did not contradict them, because all of them were given to representatives of the royal Romanov family.
Now, if we want to restore the Russian people in the dignity of a loyal people to the Romanov family, then we must restore the continuity of the chain of oaths of allegiance to the Russian tsars, namely, by returning to the oath to the last legitimate Anointed of God -Tsar Nicholas IIand himThe heir whom the Lord, in His boundless mercy, gives to Rus'.Taking the Oath of Allegiance to Tsar Nicholas II has a more sacred and mystical meaning for the Russian people than a legal one. This great spiritual action adopts us into Tsarist Russia and the Romanov family, which our people betrayed at the beginning of the 20th century.Currently, there is a lot of discussion about possible options for God to grant Rus' a victorious Tsar: during the Third World War, after the war, before the reign of the Antichrist, after his accession, etc. But more important, undoubtedly, is that ourthe coming King cannot come to an empty place. The people must be ready, first of all, to spiritually accept him and serve him. Let not the whole people, but some part of them “right for the Sovereign” should already be loyal to the Romanov family and ready, without any hesitation, to take the Oath of allegiance to the last Anointed of God, standing on his side and in his defense. After all, it is quite obvious that the servants of the Antichrist, like himself, will immediately try to kill the New Russian Tsar, just as Herod tried to kill the Infant Christ. Therefore, the Lord will reveal the coming Anointed of God, first of all, to the loyal subjects of the Romanov family, i.e. who swore allegiance to the holy Tsar-Redeemer Nicholas II and his Heir - the coming Tsar.
Some of the people, and especially of the priesthood, say that they cannot swear an unknown oathto whom, because The king has not yet been revealed. They believe that they will have to first evaluate the candidate, consider his human qualities in order to decide on his worthiness for the throne, and only then swear allegiance to him. They are sure that if this is not done, then the enemies will slip some kind of masons
Kirillovich, Vladimirovich, etc.
Firstly, about those who swear allegiance “to an unknown person”, in a sense, we can talk about those who have already sworn allegiance and are now swearing allegiance immediately to the coming Anointed One, “The name of the Lord Thou weigh him” (according to Roman Zelensky). We swear allegiance to the holy Tsar Nicholas II and his legitimate Heir. And with such an Oath there can be no mistake.Secondly, just in the event of any “election” of the Tsar, it is most likely that he will be replaced with a candidate needed by the Khazars who occupied Rus'.
“Is there a sin in taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Holy Tsar Nicholas II and his Heir?”It is unlikely that anyone will answer “Yes”. There are no canonical violations in its adoption. The most fierce opposition to taking the Oath of Allegiance comes from the episcopate and priesthood of the Church. And this is not surprising.They are often, and often without realizing it, struck by the heresy of kingship, like their predecessors in the early 20th century, most of them approved and rejoiced at the overthrow of God's Anointed One.
Already today in Rus' there are royal people, faithful and ready to serve God, the Tsar and the Fatherland. We, the royal people, are already under the protection and protection of our beloved holy Tsar-Father Nicholas II. He, as promised, will not leave his loyal subjects to be torn to pieces by the servants of the Antichrist. And those who have already sworn allegiance to the Tsar and his Heir testify to such help from our Sovereign. And the Lord will grant to Holy Rus' the Anointed One of God. And he will restore order in our Mother Church and in the State. And Rus' will shine as a saving beacon of Christ’s Truth for all the peoples of the world. We must not become discouraged and despair.Yes, there are few of us. But God is not in power, but in truth!
Thank God that we are Russian and Orthodox! Thank God for everything!
______________________
Read in full
We decided to write this letter because... We are sure that the slander that unfolded on the Internet around the Maloyaroslavets St. Nicholas Chernoostrovsky Convent was inspired by anti-church, anti-God circles.
In her “Confession of a former novice,” Maria deliberately attacks all monastic traditions, the importance of observing which the Patriarch so clearly spoke at the congress of abbots and abbesses. No wonder this “confession” came out immediately after the congress. Maria, and those who support her, direct their blow against the foundations of monasticism, which Mother Abbess Nicholas strengthens and develops in her abbot service. Speaking against spiritual care (which the Patriarch recently spoke about at a meeting of abbots and abbesses), the “former novice” distorts its meaning, calling it “denunciations” (although Mother always teaches us to repent only of our sinful thoughts and scolds the sisters not for their thoughts, but for actions). Prayer, the main monastic virtue, is also blasphemed against the practice of the Jesus Prayer and keeping lips in the monastery. The devil, through his “novices,” attacks obedience, as the basis of monastic work, with particular fury—the author of the “confession” calls it a “cult of personality,” and a leading not to God, but to oneself. The target for denunciation is not only the abbess of Nicholas, but also the spiritual elders - Schema-Archimandrite Eli, Schema-Archimandrite Blasius, Archimandrite Naum, as well as St. John Climacus, whom the “debunkers of monasticism” classify as sadists, and his immortal “Ladder” is called PR for the “sadists” abbots."
Further in her writing follow unfounded accusations of poor nutrition, exhausting labor, lack of rest and treatment, not only of the sisters, but even of the children of the Otrada shelter. (For information: an Italian cheese factory is installed in the monastery, and the monastery feeds all parishioners on Sundays and holidays - 150-200 people, 2-3 times a month distributes food to more than 70 poor families, so why not take care of their sisters and children. In The monastery has a therapeutic sauna, physiotherapeutic and dental offices, and a large pharmacy.) The atmosphere of the shelter is called barracks, and the children are described as sitting within “four walls.” This year alone, the children of the orphanage had 7 trips abroad, including performances by the children’s choir and dance group, as well as pilgrimages, which have become commonplace. Every year, the pupils of the Otrada orphanage relax by the sea, in Greece or Crimea.
Slanderers form the image of Mother Abbess as a rude, domineering and cruel tyrant. But everyone who has been to the monastery knows how much all the sisters, not only of the Maloyaroslavets Monastery, but of all our monasteries, love Mother. We all live like one big, friendly, loving family; no one wants to leave, because when we came to the monastery, we chose this abbess for ourselves.
We, as former sisters of the monastery, are surprised at what evil and perverted vision those who write these slander must have in order to see our native monastery and Mother, always full of love and patience for our infirmities, in such a perverted form. We think it makes no sense to respond specifically to all these devilish lies, but we cannot tolerate it and want to stand up for the defense of those high spiritual ideals that are affirmed by Mother Nicholas and our confessor Schema-Archimandrite Blasius (formerly Lavra Schema-Archimandrite Michael) and which bear visible fruit, witnessed by everyone spiritual modern authorities of monasticism. Many bishops ask for abbess to come to their dioceses from the St. Nicholas Monastery. 15 abbess have left the monastery in all parts of our country; the abbess of the Orthodox monastery of St. Paisius in America considers Mother Nicholas to be her spiritual mother. The monastery is loved and appreciated for its spiritual attitude and adherence to the traditions of monastic tradition by Metropolitan Athanasius of Limassol, Schema-Archimandrite Eli, Schema-Archimandrite Vlasiy, Schema-Archimandrite Ephraim of Vatopedi, the late Elder Joseph of Vatopedi and many other spiritual people.
120 sisters live in the monastery; cases of sisters leaving are very rare, and this mainly concerns laborers or novices. Over the past year, not a single assigned sister left, but 13 sisters came.
Our Mother, for her work for the benefit of the Church and the state, has 2 government awards (the Order of Friendship and the Order of St. Catherine), and six church orders.
It is obvious that this campaign is planned and directed against monasticism as a church institution, against the charitable activities of monasteries, i.e. against the Church of Christ itself. There is a deliberate falsification of information (how do Rimma-Regina Shams, who left in 2011, and especially the novices who left in 1993, know what is happening in our monastery now?).
Who is the author? When Maria, after leaving the monastery, took up photography again, photographs of naked women taken by her were displayed in the photo gallery on her website. Now, being in Brazil, she collects information about everyone who left and was “offended”, sometimes fabricating false comments.
All this forces us to especially pray for our persecutors, but “God is betrayed in silence,” and if we do not respond to this slander, then the enemies of the Church will triumph. We all, who lived and were raised in this monastery as abbess and nuns, together with the sisters of our monasteries, testify that everything in the notorious “Confession of a former novice” is a lie, spread by the enemies of the Church and monasticism. And if you want to know the truth, come to Maloyaroslavets (only 110 km from Moscow) and see everything with your own eyes.
We abide with Love in the Crucified and Risen Lord:
- Abbess Theodosia (St. Alexeevsky Monastery, Saratov)
- Abbess Anthony (St. Peter and Paul Monastery, Khabarovsk)
- Abbess Anastasia (Spaso-Vorotynsky Monastery, Vorotynsk)
- Abbess Nektaria (Seraphim-Pokrovsky Monastery, Kemerovo)
- Abbess Michael (Holy Dormition Convent, Kemerovo)
- Abbess Varvara (St. George Convent, Essentuki)
- Abbess Theodosia (Nativity of Christ Monastery, Vyatka)
- Abbess Elikonida (John Convent, Alekseevka village, Saratov region)
- Abbess Makaria (Vladimir Convent, Volsk, Saratov region)
- Nun Paraskeva, abbess of the metochion (Monastery of the Kaluga Mother of God, Zhdamirovo village)
- Nun Mikhail, elder sister (Holy Dormition Gremyachev Monastery)
- Mother Elizabeth, elder sister (Holy Dormition Sharovkin Monastery)
- Mother Joanna, elder sister (Monastery of the Tikhvin Mother of God)
The result of slanderous publications about Mother Nikolai is the same as what is happening to the respected Olga Nikolaevna Chetverikova - persecution, persecution and threats. Purely Masonic bullying. For 18 years now, since 1998. The reason is because Mother Nicholas literally stands guard over the Truth and preserves the spiritual heritage of the great Russian righteous Elder Nicholas, who terribly prevents the forces of evil from completely destroying the Russian Church and Russia itself. They are turning people against Mother who don’t know anything and who have never even seen her, just like Father Nikolai. She is not a public figure and does not speak out or make excuses anywhere. He endures like a monk. And they have a whole staff of hacks. One finishes, another joins in. Everyone is different, no one knows her, but the texts are the same, from the same dirty source. Now here's this one. Victor Kuznetsov... Another representative of slanderers.
Do you think that many will look for the answer from Father Nicholas himself or know that this answer exists?! You have to work hard for this. [We are talking about how Father Nikolai denounced all the slanderers of his cell attendants, saying: “DEMONS ARE WRITING! SATAN WRITES! WHAT A LIE! THEY ARE NUNS... POOR PEOPLE! THEY ARE STANDING!” - which was recorded on video on January 30, 2001 by Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov) https://vk.com/topic-54357524_28144669 ].
And those who want to figure it out are not so easy to find, because the slander is replicated in thousands of copies. And we have witnessed more than once when, fed with such lies, after publications similar to those of Victor’s father, people spat in her back and took up the “shafts”... They incited all sorts of “mentally” sick people who tried to attack her at the Elder’s grave . Only normal people were nearby and they didn’t allow it. So, this Masonic “brotherhood” has been mocking my mother for many years, as it is now mocking Olga Nikolaevna.
The provocateur himself, Yuri Padolko [who brutally beat Olga Nikolaevna Chetverikova] https://communitarian.ru/novosti/kriminal/soversheno_napadenie_na_on_chetverikovu_23042016/ ] writes: in order to squeeze Russians out of everywhere, and especially from the life of the Church, you need to provoke them, slander them, write about them lie…
And as a result, Father has lived in the “halo” of this slander since 1998. He himself said after the first “shooting” article came out: “The Masons took up our cause. They won't rest until they drag me out to the cemetery without a coffin." It was they who turned his life into hell, and it was precisely such people with their “little books” and “articles” who shortened the years of his life and those with him.
Compare: “Enot” [https://enotcorp.org/two-minded/] before this attack began to intensively spread slander against Olga Nikolaevna. And what is the result?! - We all see him.
It is worth noting that it is this priest Viktor Kuznetsov who is aware of everything that happened on the Island, and yet spreads these nasty rumors, although he himself knows that these are lies! He repeatedly communicated with A.A. Senin, editor of the newspaper “Russian Messenger,” who visited the Elder and witnessed how he treated his cell attendants. Father asked Senin to write the truth about the Island, to protect his cell attendants from bullying. Therefore, knowing the Truth, “Russian Messenger” always defended Father Nikolai and all his loved ones, and Mother Nikolai. And this one about. Victor has been reading all the publications all these years! He knows perfectly well what he is doing. LIES! And it was 14 years later that he suddenly decided to “write” about what happened?! According to elementary logic, he is a direct accomplice in the murder of a person’s good name and deliberately incites people against mother, inciting hatred, hiding behind his priestly authority and using, again, conferences, meetings, broadcasts. Yellow media. Where is he a frequent visitor...
Nikolai’s mother was Father’s favorite child, his true spiritual daughter. And only to her did the Elder give his blessing to write about him, and handed over his manuscripts and archives. And Mother was with Father relentlessly, to the end, despite the fact that her life was turned into hell. When he was sick, she carried him in her arms and fed him with a spoon. She protected and helped. We are all witnesses. For many years, he predicted to his mother what she would experience if she were near him. And mother made her Christian choice, did not retreat, was not afraid. They called her on the phone and threatened that if she did not stop “disturbing them around the Island,” then she would have to blame herself... And this “writer” publishes such lies about her! As the same unfortunate scribblers attributed to the fact that Tsar Ivan the Terrible killed his son - now try to wash it off, prove it to people. Masons have been working for centuries. And it is a hundred times more terrible that a priest lies with a Cross on his chest... Even the laity did not collect such lies as he did.
And the most important thing: he introduces himself to everyone as the child of Elder Kirill (Pavlov). But it was Elder Kirill who defended Mother Nicholas, supported her in all her efforts to protect Father Nicholas. Father Kirill, it was he, who strengthened her after such terrible publications after the dormition of Father Nikolai. And he asked his mother to endure and protect the memory and grave of the Elder...
People! Turn on your heart and appreciate all the cynicism and outright impudence of this act! This is simply incredible! COMPLETE ABSENCE OF FEAR OF GOD IN THE PRIEST! Condemning Mother, slandering her, attributing terrible things to her, he calmly, cynically, coolly, takes her texts about Father, from all books. Attributes her memories to fictional characters. Doesn’t quote a source, as normal people with normal ethics should, but CYNICALLY STEALING AND DISTORTING!!! Moreover STEALING THROUGH THE PAGES, FEARING NOTHING! After all, as it is written there, he is a member of the Writers' Union - and knows perfectly well all the laws on copyright, on the pirate theft of other people's texts. He doesn’t worry because he knows there is impunity for his actions. He is inside this system, which allows itself to LIVE THIS way...
Most of the pseudo-Orthodox sects are far-right monarchist movements that received from Fr. Daniil Sysoev's name for the “tsarebozhniks”. The heresy of kingship is a doctrine whose followers profess the key role of the king as a mediator between God and people, a direct conductor of the will of God, possessing infallibility in matters of government. According to this teaching, every Orthodox king is the visible head of the Church, the chosen intercessor for the people and carries out the special ministry of “keeping” (2 Thess. 2:7) the world from the Antichrist. A special role in this doctrine is given to St. Tsar Nicholas II - he is the “redeemer of Russia”, repeating the feat of Christ, His atoning sacrifice. Also, the Tsar-worshipers profess the imminent end of the world and the imminent coming of the Antichrist (according to some teachings, he has already been born). Signs of apostasy are the introduction of tax identification numbers, bar codes, new passports, UEC, any electronic databases and identity cards, which they interpret as the “seal of the Antichrist”, or something that prepares people’s consciousness to accept the seal - “pre-seal”.
An integral part of the teaching is the confession of the holiness and special service of Ivan the Terrible as the “first anointed tsar” and Grigory Rasputin as a “prophet” and “friend of the last tsar.”
Such a typical sectarian preacher is Tatyana Groyan (“Nicholas’ schema-nun”), who actively shapes among her followers a pseudo-Orthodox worldview focused on royal ideas: the redemptive role of St. Tsar Nicholas II, the holiness of Ivan the Terrible and Grigory Rasputin.
I. T. Groyan and others. Nikolay Guryanov: on the history of relationships
Priest's cell service Nikolai Guryanov
Among all the authors developing Tsar's ideas, T. Groyan has an undeniable advantage in promoting opinions characteristic of various pseudo-Orthodox sects - she was the cell attendant of the elder Archpriest. Nikolai Guryanov, which, in her opinion, gives her the right to attribute her controversial ideas to the elder, thereby disproportionately increasing their authority. In addition to her and her like-minded person Valentina Polishchuk (“Schemonun Joanna”), other cell attendants at Fr. Nicholas was not there, so she considers herself the person who knows him best, the elder’s associate, his only true biographer and the keeper of his legacy. T. Groyan’s anti-church activities begin from the time of his cell service with Father Nikolai. First, Valentina Polishchuk appeared on the island. Father Nicholas did not have cell attendants before, and Valentina began to cook food, pass notes, then moved into the elder’s house to help with the housework, gradually took over all management of the house, imperceptibly pushing aside the people close to Father Nicholas. Subsequently, when he could no longer go out to visitors, she came out in his place and “prophesied”, usually convicting him of sins, pointing out demons on the TV, computer, etc., even writing her own answers to notes instead of the elder. I. Vyazovsky, who conducted a journalistic investigation, writes: “With the advent of Valentina, some kind of turmoil, troubles, and temptations began to constantly arise on the island. And they said to the priest: “Father, take her away!” And he answered: “She can bring a lot of trouble. I’d better be patient!” And he endured until his death."
In the mid-90s. Tatyana Groyan appeared in Father Nicholas’s entourage, very quickly became friends with Valentina as a soul mate, remained in the elder’s house as a “junior cell attendant” and gradually became a leader. From the biographical data before this period, it is only known about Groyan from her words that she graduated from the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University and worked as a translator from Portuguese. Information is being spread on the Internet that she was a member of a certain Pskov sect “Antinik”, which, however, is not possible to verify. Be that as it may, she came to the Church with a large baggage of occultism and pseudo-Orthodox ideas, and cell service with Father Nicholas did not result in obedience to him, not in the fight against passions by cutting off one’s will, but in the exploitation of the authority of the elder to promote these ideas.
In the last years of Father Nicholas’s life, strange things began to happen. A two-meter fence with a constantly locked gate grew around his house, two guards appeared, the windows and shutters were tightly closed, and access to him for spiritual children was almost stopped. The cell attendants in charge of everything motivated all this with concerns about health and safety requirements: ““They could kill him here!” - "Who, father!?" - “Yes! Satanists are walking around!” ". Only like-minded people Groyan and Polishchuk, as well as movie and pop stars and very rich people, were allowed. The elder himself perceived this position as the Cross that God sent him. He predicted it long ago to his spiritual daughter V.A. Pisareva: “Father used to tell me: “They will put me in prison for three years, Valentinushka.” When the people, driven to despair, were about to drive out the cell attendants (at that time V. Polishchuk dominated among them) with the help of the police and local authorities, Father Nikolai did not allow this to be done: “he came to the head of the village council, in front of witnesses he knelt before Poletaev:” Don't touch Valentinushka. She was sent to me by God." Out of respect for the lonely priest, who spent more than forty years on the island, the maid was left behind. What does it mean - sent by God, to help or to test, no one began to understand.” We repeatedly encounter such humble acceptance of embittering external circumstances as God’s will in the lives of the saints. The Savior Himself did not expel Judas from His disciples. Nicholas II refused to emigrate; Elder Nektary of Optina forbade changing the unfortunate place of exile, but said: “God brought me here.” Also, Father Nikolai accepted the “conclusion” from his cell attendants, asking everyone not to touch anything, not to change anything in his life, “to the proposal to free the priest from the communication that was burdening him, he quietly answered: “No need. This is my cross.”
Having achieved the isolation of the elder from the outside world, Groyan began to implement her policy. A characteristic feature of the spirit-bearing elders is respect for human freedom, but a person himself must decide whether to follow the revealed will of God or live in his own way. “If someone who asked Father Nikolai about something tried to insist on his own, he did not resist: “Well, as you want” (that is, do according to your own will).” Thus, having asked Father Nicholas for a blessing, T. Groyan began to collect material for the canonization of Grigory Rasputin, whose glorification at the Local Council in 2000 she really hoped for (she also wrote a lot about Ivan the Terrible, but her main topic was Rasputin). She placed unauthorized icons of Ivan the Terrible and Grigory Rasputin in the house, against which the elder was often photographed, and began to allow mainly monarchist-tsar-worshippers among the pilgrims into the house, creating the appearance of widespread popular veneration of the pseudo-saints. Like-minded people of Groyan also made films where, thanks to the skill of video editing, they created the appearance that the initiative to honor Rasputin came from the elder. Director Igor Vyazovsky drew attention to this problem: “We are offered, based on documentary footage of the videos “The Word of Truth” and “Man of God,” to make sure that Father Nikolai blesses Tatyana Groyan to write a book about Rasputin, and even more so “spiritually guides” this process! There is no such place on film! There is footage where Tatyana Groyan says: “Father, here is a book about Grigory Rasputin... Let me read it to you.” She... taking some fact from his life to confirm Rasputin’s holiness, cites, as if to confirm his approval, many sayings of the holy fathers. And it seems that all of them, including Father John of Kronstadt, only talk about the holiness of Rasputin. Tatyana Groyan reads to Father Nicholas the place where it talks about the murder of Rasputin. Father, who pitied even a small insect, and even more so a person, crosses himself, worries and repeats: “Save him, Lord!”
Activities after the death of Rev. Nikolai Guryanov
After the death of the elder in 2002, it turned out that his cell attendants took monastic tonsure, as they claimed, “with the blessing of Father Nicholas,” although no one saw this tonsure and they were not assigned to any monastery. After some time, these “nuns” found themselves in the schema, although they did not change their way of life. Archbishop of Pskov and Velikoluksky Eusebius has repeatedly asserted that these tonsures are false. And it’s strange to see a “shema” constantly writing, speaking and arguing. But Groyan’s “spiritual status” has undoubtedly increased: a lay cell-attendant is a housekeeper, and a schema-nun’s cell-attendant must be a companion and co-secretary who has inherited Father’s grace-filled gifts. However, T. Groyan did not learn anything from Father Nicholas, since she was never his novice, and humility, apparently, remained a theoretical concept for her.
There are many precedents in the history of the Church when seduced people, for the sake of vanity, retroactively become disciples of saints after their death, thereby giving rise to many temptations in the Church. One of the most striking examples is the “passerby man,” Sarov novice Ivan Tolstosheev (later Hieromonk Joasaph). Posing as the closest student of the Rev. Seraphim of Sarov, to whom he allegedly entrusted the care of the sisterhood, Tolstosheev passed off all his plans as the will of the elder, causing the “Diveyevo Troubles.” Such were the “Johnnites” who claimed that they inherited the spirit of St. right John of Kronstadt. The memory of Father Nikolai Guryanov did not escape this.
V. Polishchuk soon died, and “schema-nun Nicholas” Groyan, armed, in her words, with a great angelic image, developed vigorous activity. She began to collaborate with the newspaper “Eternal Life” and its editor-in-chief Vadim Kuznetsov, the leader of the “Brotherhood of the Tsar-Redeemer” sect, with the magazine “Russian Herald”, write a thick book a year, and tour with performances together with Zhanna Bichevskaya. Now T. Groyan has two main goals, combined into one - the canonization of Grigory Rasputin and the canonization of the elder Nikolai Guryanov. United, because, according to Groyan, “God’s calling of Father Nicholas is to restore the church memory of the slandered saint. To restore noble dignity to his name, to elevate Gregory’s personality to the proper spiritual height, dazzlingly pure and clear.”
II. Peculiarities of the doctrine and activities of T. Groyan
Activities for the canonization of Ivan the Terrible
In contrast to the efforts to canonize Grigory Rasputin, the glorification of Ivan the Terrible is an additional activity for T. Groyan. She does not conduct independent, targeted historical and archival research, but since this topic is relevant for her, Groyan reprints in her books the corresponding tzarish ideas of her like-minded people, naturally, “sanctifying” this with the authority of Father Nicholas. None of the Tsarebozhniks passes by Ivan the Terrible. “The sanctity of the first Russian Tsar” is a necessary element of the Tsarist dogma about the divinity of royal power. According to Archimandrite Makariy (Veretennikov), a historian and specialist in the 16th century: “today the personality of Ivan the Terrible is undergoing an extraordinary mythological rethinking. Moreover, this is not a spontaneous, but a completely organized process.”
T. Groyan also took a direct part in this process. She showed Father Nicholas in photographs “famous images of Tsar John Vasilyevich with a halo (in the Cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin, in the Faceted Chamber, in the Novospassky Monastery, in the altar of the Dormition Cathedral of the Sviyazhsk Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos Monastery, etc.)”, omitting the fact that there was no inscription on the halos that King John was a saint, as required by the canons of Orthodox icon painting (approved during his reign on Stoglav), was how Byzantine emperors were depicted, not excluding heretics. I read to Father Nicholas the “life” of Ivan the Terrible, written “without dirty slander” about tyranny, fornication, seven wives, the murder of saints and his son, attitude towards the Church, etc. The elder, accustomed to seeing only good things, believed that “He has already been canonized by the Church, a locally revered Kremlin saint.” Behind the high fence near Father Nicholas, according to prof. protod. Andrey Kuraev, “there was no opportunity to verify this information. He did not have the opportunity to rummage through the archives, ask historians, and therefore it turned out that he... became in this sense a hostage of the people who surrounded him and filtered the information coming to him.” T. Groyan’s calculation was made correctly; what is surprising is the gap between the moral level of Father Nicholas and the supporters of disorderly canonizations, who are trying to push “their” saints into the calendar. As Father Andrei Kuraev noted: “In the life of a person of such a type as Father Nikolai, there is only one feeling left - love. The zealots of the glorification of Ivan the Terrible live in hatred, thirst for revenge and malice, because they do not have power in society and in the Church. Love believes everything, according to the word of the Apostle Paul, and interprets everything for the better.”
After a long search, a historical document was found about the alleged glorification of Ivan the Terrible: “ Saints of the Koryazhemsky Monastery" (1621), where on June 10 the Church is celebrated - "on the same day the discovery of the Holy Body of the Great Martyr King John"". Without one iota doubting that this was said specifically about Ivan the Terrible, T. Groyan solemnly proclaims: “Also, the confession of the holiness of the First Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible, the creator of the Great Power, canonized by the Russian Church among the holy great martyrs and included in Saints 10/23 June 1621". The question is raised by the inconsistency of the rank of holiness - why “great martyr”? By definition, “Great Martyrs are saints, canonized as martyrs, who endured especially cruel and prolonged suffering and death for Christ... V.’s faith and patience, as well as the miracles performed during their torture, converted many. pagans to faith in Christ...". But Ivan IV is a free king of a free country - who tortured him? And no one touched his remains until the twentieth century, from the moment they were buried in the Archangel Cathedral. Also, his name is not in other calendars: “There is no concrete evidence of the posthumous veneration of Ivan the Terrible as a saint. Compiled at the end of the 17th century. “The book spoken about Russian saints” does not name Ivan the Terrible among the names of Moscow rulers canonized as all-Russian or locally revered saints.” There was no service left for him, but he is mentioned in the service of St. Philip, Metropolitan Moskovsky: “...this person is not called by name, but it is clear who we are talking about and who is called the “new pharaoh” and “new Herod” there.” If even a priori we do not believe our contemporaries, especially foreigners, and believe that they had the benefit of denigrating the holy Tsar, then why should the second Romanov, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich the Quiet, do this? And he is at St. Philip asked for forgiveness: “Nikon took the royal letter to Solovki: “I pray you, resolve the sin of our great-grandfather Tsar John, committed against you by envy and uncontrolled rage.” In order to glorify Ivan the Terrible, the Church will have to cross St. Philip of Moscow and the Great Prince. Cornelius of Pskov-Pechersk, because, as Patr. Alexy II: “You can’t worship murderers and their victims together. This is madness. Which normal believer would want to remain in a Church that equally venerates murderers and martyrs, libertines and saints?” .
In addition to the fact of the strong power of the first tsar, his “formidability,” the Tsar-worshippers are impressed by Ivan IV’s view of the role of the tsar in the state and the Church, his theocratic ideal, which he called “free autocracy.” According to research by Prof. A.L. Dvorkin, “he retained a firm conviction in the salvific nature of the form of autocracy he implanted. The latter was for him a matter of religious faith. And just as any deviation in faith is fraught with heresy and the destruction of the soul, so the slightest deviation from the ideal autocracy (the sign of which is the completely autonomous will of the monarch) makes it impossible to save the state, the Church and the souls of its subjects. The absence of “wave autocracy” in the country is an undoubted sign of heresy.” However, the existence of the Church, some of whose functions he took upon himself, does not fit into this scheme at all. According to the same study, a deep contradiction is soon revealed in the consciousness of Ivan the Terrible: “the contradiction between the highest and only service in the world of the earthly viceroy of God, who has “direct access” to Him, and the need to obey the hierarchy, mediating between him and God.” He resolved the contradiction in his favor by destroying Metropolitan. Philip and depriving the Church of its voting rights.
With an unbiased approach, it is clear that Ivan the Terrible is not suitable for the role of a great martyr and does not fit into the image of a “benevolent king.” But according to the logic of the Tsarist theocracy, he must be a saint, he is a key figure in the myth of the Tsar theocracy: “those who advocate his canonization do not at all proceed from his special church piety. We are talking, as it were, about the canonization of the monarchy.” Therefore, the moral side of holiness fades into the background, it can, if necessary, be “pulled up,” and the main virtue of Tsar Ivan is “formidable for enemies”: “Ivan the Terrible was convinced that he had the right to break any moral rules if the kingdom was under him flourishes because he developed the theological theory that the anointed of God will be saved by the fruits of his activities."
Tsar-papism is an extreme, distorted version of Caesar-papism, and it is imposed “from below.” Russian “right-wing” monarchists very loudly fight against Western heterodox confessions, especially Catholicism, but at the same time they often fall into the same mistakes. Thus, the pinnacle of the ideas of papism is the “Dictate of the Pope” of Gregory VII, where in paragraph 23 it is said: “The Pope, if he was elected in accordance with the canons, taking into account the merits of St. Peter, will undoubtedly become a saint.” A similar dogma follows from the tsarist logic: every legitimate Orthodox tsar is a saint (by virtue of his power and protection of Orthodoxy). Icons and services to almost all the kings of the Romanov dynasty are already ready.
Activities for the canonization of Grigory Rasputin
Motivation for canonization
T. Groyan developed her most vigorous activity after the canonization of Grigory Rasputin; among the Tsarebozhniks, she was one of the main initiators of glorification and one of the most prolific writers promoting this idea, along with A.N. Bokhanov and O.A. Platonov. As V. Lvov noted in his article, “She began to struggle in this field, apparently even before she entered Fr. Nicholas. This became for her a fixed idea, the meaning of life, an obsessive neurosis with which she managed to infect many others.”
The glorification of Grigory Rasputin is the canonization of the tsarist theocratic ideal, which consists in the fact that the best image of divine rule of an Orthodox country is the form in which the Tsar, the Prophet and the High Priest rule, as in the time of St. King David and Solomon (1 Kings 1:32-37). True, for the situation a hundred years ago, when St. Nicholas II, and the “prophet” Rasputin, lacks a high priest, because instead of the patriarch there was then a Synod. But T. Groyan, like most Tsarebozhniks, is sure that Tsar Nicholas should have become patriarch in 1905, having accepted monasticism and transferring the kingdom to his son with the regency of the queen, as he proposed to the Synod, but the bishops, “infected with pharisaism,” did not understand him and rejected... Further, T. Groyan’s idea develops as follows. In her opinion, God, wanting the salvation of Russia, sent the holy prophet Gregory the New to help the Tsar, and Russia remained alive while the prophet lived, and died when the prophet was rejected and “evil forces” killed him. She suffered punishment for the murder, she still bears it and will continue to bear it until she repents, that is, she glorifies Gregory as a saint. According to research by F.A. Gaida, a historian, specialist in the history of Russia during the era of the revolution, in such pseudo-historical publications, “the fate of the Orthodox monarchy was associated with the personality of Rasputin, who was tortured by the “Masons” with the aim of destroying the Russian kingdom. The image of the “elder” in such concepts practically obscures the image of the emperor when discussing the historical destinies of Russia. The fall of the monarchy after the death of Rasputin is declared fatal » .
Even more decisive in sympathy for Rasputin is the principle of similarity, according to which people look for people in history who are akin to themselves in spirit, defining them for themselves in the rank of founders, teachers, saints and prophets. The personality of Grigory Rasputin is extremely contradictory; it contains signs of both a spiritual person and a great sinner. As a result, some clearly evaluate him as a saint, and others as a sorcerer and false prophet. Most of the hierarchs of the Church from among his contemporaries viewed his life differently: “For the ministers of the Church, G. Rasputin is, first of all, a tragic figure, a fallen God-seeker, in whom “two principles fought and the lower prevailed over the higher”” - a gifted person called to a high life, who had to go through the school of obedience to the end, and who could not withstand temptations. His fall would not have been so deep if he had not begun to justify sin: “his critical attitude towards the clergy appears in the notes, as well as his easy and tolerant attitude towards sin, as a phenomenon without which salvation is impossible. In the spirit of the notorious folk wisdom “If you don’t sin, you won’t repent,” it sometimes seems that the zealots of Rasputin’s canonization are seeking church sanction for sin. In any case, the image of “Elder Rasputin” is deeply alien to what the Church traditionally venerates as saints.” The Tsarebozhniki very much hoped that at the Local Council of 2000 G. Rasputin, as a “royal friend”, as a “spirit-bearing elder”, as killed by the “enemies of Orthodoxy”, would be glorified with the Tsar’s passion-bearers, but it turned out the other way around, “just the communication between Emperor Nicholas II and the empress with Rasputin was the most serious problem that made it difficult to make a decision on the canonization of the Tsar’s passion-bearers, as noted by Archpriest. Vladislav Tsypin.
Pseudo-Orthodox activities of G. Rasputin
In order to better understand many of his actions, oddities, influence on the Tsar and Tsarina, the sympathies of modern Tsar-worshipers, etc., it is necessary to apply modern terminology to G. Rasputin and everything that surrounded him: Rasputin’s entourage was pseudo-Orthodox totalitarian sect, with all the corresponding signs.
Grigory Rasputin himself is a pronounced totalitarian leader, forcing you to believe in yourself and obey yourself, demanding an attitude of at least reverence, and at the limit - divine worship. He had no shortage of charismatic talent; he was able to charm anyone: from a peasant to a king and bishops. His life is shrouded in myths, which are further multiplying in our time.
Mine method Rasputin borrowed from the Khlysty, in whose sects he had previously been, and zeal was carried out in his circle. “In September 1907, a case was opened in the Tobolsk Consistory accusing G. Rasputin of spreading false teachings similar to Khlyst’s and forming a society of followers of his false teachings. The investigation was carried out with the blessing of Tobolsk Bishop Anthony (Karzhavin), who defended his master’s thesis on religious sectarianism back in 1888, but for unknown reasons after May 1908 it was left without consequences” (the investigation was terminated by the queen, who was under the influence of Rasputin). A modern investigation related to the attempt to canonize him concluded that Rasputin’s writings speak “of their author’s commitment to spiritual sentiments and religious attitudes, widespread among the “folk” sectarianism of the mystical-charismatic kind.” From the Khlysty he also adopted the ability to mimic Orthodoxy. If we analyze the “Life of an Experienced Wanderer” by G. Rasputin, then all the reviews about the priesthood in it are negative and derogatory, while at the same time a condescending attitude towards it is instilled: “the clergy in general at the present time has no spiritual life... We are not going to the clergy, but to the temple of God! Well, you need to think - thin, yes Father... Because they deserve their ranks to the letter, but they are far from the Lord and the spiritual organ is like a foreign language for them.” Also mentioned are certain communities of ascetics persecuted by the priesthood: “More than once I have seen how they are persecuted, where having gathered in the name of the Lord they conduct a conversation, that is, they live as brothers from the love of God and love not according to one letter, but according to the word of the Savior... they talk about love and how to unite with the Holy Mysteries and sing various psalms and read a chapter from the Gospel, although for this you will be expelled and they will suspect you.” One can, of course, interpret that he writes about holy people persecuted from the world, as today’s Tsar-worshipers interpret it, if his words were not suspiciously similar to the statements of the Khlysty about themselves, their communities and zeal, who consider themselves real, “spiritual” Christians . From here you can see that Rasputin writes here about the Khlyst-type sects, which the priesthood he disliked just recognized: “The villain enemy is looking for every opportunity - he incites the priests to be ‘champions - they are other sects, they have no brotherhood’.”
Organization his admirers were very united, especially the “inner circle” that idolized him, the most famous representative of which was the maid of honor A. Vyrubova. The “outer circle” that revered him as a prophet was unusually wide; it included Queen Alexandra, and to some extent the Tsar himself, members of the court, ministers, even bishops. Rasputin had no need to worry about the quantitative growth of the sect and its rigid structuring. Having received the highest patronage and “taking over” the royal family, he gained power much sooner. O greater than any of the sectarians in Russia at all times.
Esoteric Gap Rasputin’s teachings have been described many times by those who fell under the spell of the “old man” and then left him. To outsiders, he was an Orthodox “elder” to whom those who believed in him turned to on all spiritual issues. People came to “Elder Gregory” as a “man of God,” a bright representative of popular piety who had a living Orthodox faith, but ended up in the occult Khlyst “alternative church,” the head of which was Rasputin.
Addressing the ideas of the Tsarebozhniks, Archpriest. Nikolay Guryanov
Thus, modern Tsar-worshippers, glorifying “Elder Gregory,” make every effort to canonize the sectarian way of thinking and sectarian activity in the Church. T. Groyan here most often uses her favorite technique: having photographed Father Nikolai Guryanov several times in photos and videos with an unauthorized icon of Rasputin in his hands, she now presents him as the initiator and main ideologist of canonization, and herself as a humble novice and executor of the elder’s will. T. Groyan attributes all his arguments for the glorification of G. Rasputin to him, and a direct pattern is observed: the more unsubstantiated the argument, the more Father Nikolai “talks” about him. It turns out to be a factory for the production of myths: “Oral church tradition has preserved the knowledge that the experienced wanderer Gregory was tonsured into the rank of angels.” And moreover, as journalist V. Lvov points out, “In Zh. Bichevskaya’s radio program, “schema-nun” Nikolai told listeners a “mysterious” story allegedly told to her by Fr. Nikolai Guryanov. Empress Alexandra Feodorovna refused to confess to the confessor of the Royal Family, Bishop Feofan of Poltava, because of the “slander” against “Elder Gregory.” After this, the priest said that after this the Royal family began to confess... to “Elder Gregory.” Grigory Rasputin was a priest and held holy orders. He was a hieromonk. Grigory Efimovich Rasputin, who was tonsured a monk on Mount Athos, was ordained a priest by Bishop Barnabas of Tobolsk (Nakropin)” (who received the see under the patronage of Rasputin). And it doesn’t matter that there are no documents or evidence - the elder said it, which means God revealed it to him. However, there are no documents or contemporary evidence about this, and the “oral church tradition” dates back to the end of the twentieth century.
Only for some reason Father Nicholas said opposite things to other people: “once he was asked about the veneration of Rasputin, who was close to the royal family. Father answered the question with a question: “Are twelve volumes of St. Demetrius of Rostov not enough for you?” . Allowing the self-willed people to do their will in vain, the elder showed his attitude towards their activities in various ways: “another activist for the canonization of Rasputin came to the priest, who brought her materials. She sat down, put the materials - “life” and “icons” on a chair. And so, during the conversation, Father’s cat Lipushka jumped onto this chair and sat down. The activist was all perked up: how could it be, with a cat’s ass - on the “spirit-bearing great martyr”! And the priest waved his hand: “let him sit.” In reality, Father Nikolai showed sympathy for G. Rasputin only in connection with his death, because he felt sorry for everyone: “the activist complained to Fr. Nikolai, that on Rasputin’s grave someone wrote: “here lies a dog.” “Well, I feel sorry for the dog too,” the priest responded.
The fact that G. Rasputin was condemned by canonized saints who knew him closely caused great difficulty for T. Groyan. Here, just the words of Father Nicholas are not enough; we had to put into his mouth a long “divinely revealed” story with many apparitions of saints about how the priest was wrong. Elizaveta Feodorovna, enmity with Rasputin and quarreling with her sister and the Tsar because of him, this “was evidence of a serious darkening of the soul, blindness to the truth...”, Elizaveta Feodorovna “was in delusion,” and then “in the sin of enmity and indirect involvement she repented of the murder of the man of God Grigory Efimovich Rasputin... She deeply repented during her martyrdom in the Alapaevsk mine.”
Despite all the “cleansing of the image of Elder Grigory Efimovich” from “lies, dirt and slander,” there is no church glorification and is not expected. Moreover, this is not the machinations of bishop-officials, not the machinations of “evil forces taking up arms against Orthodox Russia,” he is simply not a saint, and the most important thing that is necessary for glorifying a saint is not there: “despite the excitement artificially fueled for several years by some periodicals around the possible canonization of the “slandered elder”... there is no veneration of G. Rasputin among the Orthodox clergy and church people.”
Peculiarities of the religious doctrine of the Tsarebozhniks using the example of the teachings of T. Groyan
All Orthodox Christians will probably agree that the cause of all the disasters in Russia in the twentieth century is the sin of apostasy. Murder of St. Tsar Nicholas II and the royal family is one of the consequences of this sin, along with the coup, repression, persecution, etc. The regicide teaching begins with the main substitution: the sin of regicide is presented as the root cause of atheism and all other consequences. But no matter how one evaluates the greatness of the personality of Nicholas II, the rejection of God is still much worse than the rejection of the Tsar, because he is a man. Anyone who has accepted such an illogical, inverted teaching accepts all other substitutions of this doctrine as the truth. This teaching is supported by the teaching about the king as a special image of God, through whom his subjects receive divine grace, but it is not based on either Holy Scripture or Tradition, that is, it is a heresy.
There is no unity among the Tsar-worshipers, since they all have different ideas about their ideal. They are divided by questions about the origin of the future tsar (will he be elected at the council or “appear”; will he be from the Romanovs, or a new dynasty?), about his attitude to the Russian Orthodox Church (is there salvation in it or not, for now to stay in it or is it time to separate?) etc. It happens that there is no consensus within one group, often united only by the topic “who are we friends against?” The two fundamental Tsarist “dogmas” are also contradictory: the Fall and the Redemption of Russia. The first is about the violation of the conciliar oath of 1613 of allegiance to the House of Romanov, which is why a curse weighs on Russia. T. Groyan, as always, attributed his formulation to the speeches of the elder: “Father Nikolai, like all spiritual fathers, saw the cause of the spiritual illness of Russia in the Conciliar sin of betrayal of God and His Anointed Tsar from the Romanov Family - in the sin of perjury of the Pious Conciliar Vow of 1613 of the year" . The second “dogma” is that St. Tsar Nicholas II, with his sacrifice, atoned for the sins of Russia, and first of all, the “conciliar sin”, for which he should be called “redeemer”, and also, from the point of view of the Tsar-worshipers, complemented the sacrifice of Christ. From a theological point of view, these teachings are heresy, since it is impossible to swear for descendants (and repent for ancestors), and there is only one Redeemer in the Church - the Lord Jesus Christ. In addition, only one of these two teachings can be considered as a call to action, but not both at once. If the sin of the Russian people has already been atoned for, then why repent of it? And if you are not redeemed, you cannot be called a saint. Nicholas II "Redeemer of Russia". And yet, as a rule, tsar-worshippers make both of these arguments. T. Groyan is no exception. On the one hand, she writes that the king is a redeemer, quoting a well-known fake, “the prophecies of Abel”: “He will be a redeemer, he will redeem his people with Himself - like a Bloodless Sacrifice. And he will be betrayed... as once the Son of God was crucified...", on the other hand, "another dying testament to us from Father - “The Order of Conciliar Repentance for the Sins of the Russian People.”
Whatever direction the Tsar-worshipers place their emphasis, the main consequence of all their teachings is that as long as there is no Tsar in Russia, the Church is flawed and insufficient. T. Groyan attributes this position to Father Nicholas: “Now the Church and Russia are ill. The essence of the disease,” Father lamented, “is that we are deprived of the deep strengthening Grace that pours out onto the Holy Head of the Anointed One of God, and through Him to our subjects, to all of Russia.” And since the Church does not have political power (i.e., the monarchists have not yet waited for the king and have not come to power), it is also unfree, dependent, and from this it falls into heresies (for example: “Sergianism”, “ecumenism” , etc.): “Under the political regime of a “liberal-democratic president”... is this freedom or a forced state of church power, which is forced to distort more and more not only its canonical, but also its dogmatic face?!” . The Tsar is a key figure in the Church, its true head, therefore, salvation in the current, “decapitated” Church can only be obtained by those who devote all their strength to preparing for the coming of its “head”, canonizing all the deceased kings and preparing the mass consciousness for the coming of the future monarch . However, the rules of life in a monarchical society suggest that one must always observe the commandment: “Do not slander the ruler of your people” (Acts 23:5), and ultra-right monarchists often exhibit revolutionary tendencies. As Father Andrei Kuraev noted, “These people have already formed dissident habits, the habit of rebelling. Their leaflets and newspapers, sermons and whispers, drop by drop, teach them not to trust the church hierarchy,” they will be dissatisfied with the tsar. But now they declare their hope, which can be expressed this way: the coming king must come and solve all the problems in the Church and the state. T. Groyan formulated this catechism as follows: “The question of the Orthodox Anointed Tsar, who, in symphony with the Church, carries out the ministry of the cross, “Restraining” world evil and the coming of the Antichrist, is of great importance in our days. Now we are split and divided as never before. True believers are waiting for the Orthodox Tsar as the faithful and strong Defender of the Church Ship - the “external Bishop of the Church”, capable of uniting the healthy forces of all Local Churches and cleansing the Universal Church from apostates and heresies.” In all likelihood, the cleanup will be severe:
In the terrible hour of reckoning, we will frown
And we'll sweep the vampires off the body of the whole country,
And there will be no zone, camps and prisons -
All enemies of Russia will be executed,
We will overtake the enemy on his own trail
And we will tear it to shreds, praising the Lord...
as Zh. Bichevskaya sang at joint performances with T. Groyan, where they glorified Ivan the Terrible and G. Rasputin. Political interests are visible here with the naked eye, as noted in the materials of the Council of Bishops in 2004: “In the person of the first king and “friend” of the last autocrat, they are trying to glorify not Christians who have acquired the Holy Spirit, but the principle of unlimited, including moral and religious, political power, which is the highest spiritual value for the organizers of the campaign.” The Tsar-worshipers passionately await this unlimited power and do everything possible to take a place closer to the throne in advance.
T. Groyan, in the process of forming public opinion on this issue, on behalf of Father Nicholas, “opens everyone’s eyes” that royal power is the only correct, the only God-established form of government (contrary to 1 Samuel 2:5-22), without understanding this truth everyone becomes atheists and traitors: “And the most bitter thing: the main reason has not been revealed that led to the apostasy from the Orthodox Tsar and His betrayal for mockery and slaughter - the assimilation of the false teaching about Autocratic power, about the symphony of authorities and about the place of the Tsar in the Church.” According to T. Groyan, the true teaching says that in the matter of salvation the kingdom is primary, and the Church is secondary: “For him / the elder / the question “the sacredness of the Tsar - the sacredness of the Church” was determined in favor of the sacralization of the Royal Power.” This is another dogma of the Tsarebozhniks, which is based on the following theses. Firstly, that anointing for the kingdom is a sacrament of the Church (the sacrament is the Confirmation of every Christian after Baptism, the sacrament that introduces a person into the Church): “Father firmly believed in the Holy Sacrament of Royal Confirmation and lamented that the clergy did not recognize the destructive crafty substitution - to place the Priesthood above the Kingdom." Secondly, that the Tsar’s supremacy over the Church is enshrined in law: “One of the basic laws of the Russian Empire directly stated: “The Emperor is called the Head of the Church as the supreme defender and custodian of the dogmas of the Orthodox Faith.” But from a dogmatic point of view, this is absurd, since the Church has one Head - Christ (Eph 1:22-23; 5:23, Col 1:18). This provision of the act of succession to the throne of 1797 of Emperor Paul I was subsequently commented in the Basic Laws of the Russian Empire of 1832 in such a way that the tsar is the supreme defender and guardian of dogmas and guardian of orthodoxy. This norm is not reflected in any way in the church canons. Thirdly, that in church documents the special role of the king in the Church was discovered: “According to the 104th rule of the Council of Carthage, every " the righteous King has a hierarchical rank"". These words are not in canon 104. The Fathers of the Council only ask the emperor for military assistance against schismatics within the framework of the law.
All the illogicality and tension of pseudo-Orthodox theses is covered by their mysticism, in all their movements and groupings, wherever you look - continuous myrrh-(tear-, blood-) flows, miracles, visions, apparitions and revelations. To confirm the royal dogma, T. Groyan, instead of logical justification, also resorts to “mystical” evidence, strengthening his authority with the “testimonies” of great saints: “ The Monk Seraphim revealed to Father Nicholas that the salvation of Russia directly depends on the attitude of the people towards the Holy Royal Power and the Tsar, especially the clergy, on the recognition of the truth that the Kingdom is above the Priesthood. But in order to accept and understand this obvious truth, a feat is necessary.” From this, according to the sectarians, it should obviously follow that all the pious made an effort, understood (God revealed to them) and accepted, and whoever did not understand means that he is lazy and wicked.
An attempt to glorify Archpriest. Nikolai Guryanov as Schemabishop Nektarios
Perhaps all Orthodox believers are sure that Father Nikolai Guryanov is a holy man, and the question of his glorification is only a matter of time. Any canonization begins with the collection of materials about the life of the ascetic, and, as a rule, this is done by people close to the saint, who saw him most of all (if not much time has passed since his death), his most devoted spiritual children. In relation to Elder Father Nicholas, T. Groyan certainly claims this role, not at all doubting his calling: “The basis of the lives is in the spirit of the Church, in church tradition and the continuity that is carried by the spiritual children and associates of the saints of God.” She explains the tendentiousness of the “life” of the elder, coming from the pen of T. Groyan, by the special position that she and Valentina Poleshchuk occupied in the life of Father Nicholas, unlike everyone else: “ The main thing is that Father and I are like-minded people and we keep his word ". It was to them alone that he “revealed great secrets,” keeping them silent from those who lived according to his advice and instructions for decades. He didn’t open them because they were not “real companions,” they were unworthy: “With some, seeing their petrified hearts, he simply remained silent, not answering a single question.” However, unlike the truly congenial disciples of the Saints, T. Groyan, who knows neither the humility nor the inner life of the elder, ambitiously tries to collect obviously distorted material for canonization and combines this process with the preaching of his ideas (for the sake of which everything was started), attributed to .Nicholas. Even during the elder’s life and in the first months after his death, she quarreled with most of his spiritual children, and as a result, rejects their testimonies as unreliable.
A distinctive feature of the biography of Father Nicholas “from Groyan” is the persistent insistence that he was a secret monk and bishop who accepted the schema. No one heard such things from the elder, and no documents about this were preserved, except for a photograph where Father Nicholas appeared in a monastic hood with a mark in the middle of two subdeacons of the Metropolitan. Sergius (Voskresensky), which cannot serve as proof of his bishopric. Even if we assume that this could be: for example, he was ordained by Metropolitan. Sergius (Voskresensky), excommunicated from the Church in 1943 for greeting Hitler, which made the ordination invalid and extremely dangerous from the NKVD, then why create a stir around it? On this occasion, Father Andrei Kuraev wrote: “In principle, the question of whether Archpriest Nikolai was a schema monk or not, whether he was a secret bishop or not, for our attitude to the memory of Father Nikolai is not of particular importance. But when messages of this kind enter the atmosphere of Zhanna Bichevskaya’s circle or “Russian Messenger” and “Orthodox Rus'”, they become another kernel that hits the stronghold of church canonical consciousness.”
Father Nikolai himself was categorically against such digging in his life, especially by people who used the methods of journalists of the “yellow” press, who needed “fried” news. “Some are surprised why Father did not reveal his episcopal rank to everyone and why God hid his title... Elder Nicholas said: "As for my inner life - the life of my soul and cell - not everyone can know this. I want everything to go with me" ...". Speaking against his opponents who demand proof of unfounded pseudo-facts, Groyan blurts out, denouncing himself: “Only an enemy can force a person to explore and experience this secret of the spirit-bearing righteous man,” showing the true motive for mythologizing the elder’s life story and all his activities. T. Groyan creates a myth around the far-fetched theme of the schibishopric, to which the maximum number of famous saints - contemporaries of Father Nicholas - are attracted “for weight”: “He himself was tonsured as a monk by Metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd when he was only eight years old.” However, Church historian and canonist Rev. Vladislav Tsypin writes: “the canons allow taking ten-year-olds to prepare for tonsure (40 rights. Trull. Sob.), and for pronouncing the vows themselves - seventeen-year-olds (18 rights. Vas. Vel.). In Russia, during the synodal era, state legislation allowed men to be tonsured no earlier than 30 years from birth.” “The tonsure,” according to T. Groyan, was performed in 1917, when synodal legislation was mandatory in the Church. From this detail of the myth, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that “schema-nun Nicholas” considers violation of the canon as a norm, “sanctifying” it through the actions of holy people.
Further, according to the new “life”, “Monk Nektary” is ordained as a bishop sometime during the era of persecution, in case of impoverishment of bishops, and “ Supplied without lectern, because then departments were not opened, but were abolished." However, there are things that, in principle, cannot exist in the Church: a bishop is appointed to a specific see, there is no “just a bishop,” just as it is impossible to get married without a wife. Prot. Vladislav Tsypin writes about this: “Ordination is valid if it is associated with appointment to a specific place... In the Orthodox Church, the so-called absolute ordination, which confers ordination without a specific place of service, is not allowed. The sixth rule of the Council of Chalcedon states: “Definitely do not ordain anyone, neither presbyter nor deacon, below any degree of church rank, except with the appointment of the one being ordained specifically to a city church, or a rural one, or to a martyr’s temple, or to a monastery. Regarding those ordained without a precise appointment, the Holy Council determined: their ordination should be considered invalid, and nowhere should they be allowed to serve, to the shame of the one who ordained them."
And finally, since “Bishop Nektarios” cannot serve, he accepts the great schema. And everything is secret! It is not clear what to do with the fact that Father Nicholas’s whole life was in the public eye; for many years he served as a parish priest. And this is incompatible with the schema, since, according to V. Lvov: “if he, as they say, was a secret schema-monk, then, according to church canons, he could not serve as a parish priest, and if, as we know, led, that means he violated the charter and the main schematic vow.”
The elder himself predicted this whole mythologization long ago, often saying: “Remember, my name is Nikolai!” Remember me: My name is Nikolai...”, causing bewilderment. The question arises, why does Groyan need prot. Was Nicholas a schema-bishop? After all, isn’t the fact that he became a saint much more important than who he was in this world? It turns out that T. Groyan was necessary for the canonization of G. Rasputin: “as a true Bishop of God, having full episcopal power, Schema-Bishop Nektary and blessed in the canonical territory of his parish the veneration of the glorious Martyr of Christ, who did not spare his life for the sake of the Tsar - Elder Gregory.” However, when Father Nikolai served in the parish, no one there had heard of Rasputin; “veneration” came with Groyan, when the elder had already retired. It turns out that “Father Nikolai’s cell was his The Episcopal Cross Church, independent of the will of the Pskov Bishop - as prescribed by the church canons." This is the true goal of the elder’s “bishopric” - a springboard for the creation of a parallel church structure - albeit just a cell, but autonomous from the ruling bishop, and the archbishop. Eusebius supposedly has no right to do anything in this diocese that is foreign to him. And then you can begin vigorous activity - write icons, lives, akathists, disseminate all this: “They turned to Schebishop Nektary for a blessing to erect thrones in memory of the Martyr Gregory the New - and he blessed,” writes T. Groyan. Father Nikolai blessed in the last years of his life, as is known, in absentia, through his cell attendants. It’s just that an archpriest was not enough for Groyan; it was necessary to privatize a larger piece of the Church for his sectarian interests. In addition, a schismatic reflex was triggered: when “a house is built on sand” (Matthew 7:24-27), then the higher the church ranks, the greater the illusion of authority and reliability. Among the Renovationists, all the priests climbed into the ranks of bishops, in the Seraphim-Gennadiev branch of the TOC, almost all the leaders bore the rank of schema-metropolitan, T. Groyan herself appropriated to herself the most authoritative title in the Church that she could come up with: schema-nun - which means old woman.
III. Anti-church activities T. Groyan
Schism activity
The distant goal of T. Groyan is to turn the entire ship of the Church towards his teaching. But history shows that when a dubious teaching arises in the church environment, the entire Church rejects it, and only some part of it follows, breaking away from the rest. This is how a split arises. If the schism is not healed, then sooner or later (or immediately) the schismatics begin to sharply isolate themselves from the rest, then the schism turns into a sect (or, more often, into sects when the schism splits up).
To give weight to his schismatic efforts, T. Groyan attributes to Father Nicholas disobedience and ignoring the opinion of the church hierarchy: “Father Nicholas was sincerely surprised how much effort and attention modern Christians devote to “philosophizing”: “canonized or not?!” “What is the opinion of the Patriarch and the bishops?!” Repeatedly caught falsifying the words of the elder, she accuses her opponents of legalism and pharisaism: “... they need a seal with the signature on everything of God: “This is exactly what Elder Nicholas said to such and such, on such and such a date.” Seal and signature of the Elder , certified by a notary." According to her logic, “internal Christians” speak by the Spirit, and “external lawyers” are not capable of this, they can only delve into the laws and blindly show obedience: “But what can modern missionary researchers testify about the Light...?! Lacking the strength of the departed fathers, they only repeat as a “spell” - “obedience to the hierarchy” ... ". All doubts about the correspondence of Groyanov’s books to the true words of Father Nicholas are translated into the plane of distrust of the elder: “And the vain spirit began to torment the Angelic soul of the God-inspired father: teaching, testing, not trusting either him, his words, or, of course, those who labored with him."
Signs of a sect formed around the teachings of T. Groyan
The activities of T. Groyan were initially limited to the prayers, labors and sufferings of Father Nikolai Guryanov. About her “companion,” senior cell attendant Valentina Poleshchuk, who had more pronounced pseudosenile habits (“prophesied” instead of the elder), he said: “She can bring a lot of trouble. I’d rather be patient!” . The same applies to T. Groyan. Unable to falsify what the whole Church heard from Father Nicholas, she initially abandoned the fight against Taxpayer Identification Numbers, new passports and globalization, as well as predictions of the imminent coming of the Antichrist - that is, what can be used to intimidate people. But even without this help, many signs characteristic of modern pseudo-Orthodox sects can be traced:
Guru.“Elder Schema Nun Nikolai,” despite her artificially raised authority, still lacks the toughness and charisma to become a real totalitarian leader. At one time she collaborated with V.P. Kuznetsov, the leader of the “Brotherhood of the Tsar-Redeemer” sect, but did not adopt his harsher leadership methods.
Method. T. Groyan sets herself the task of proving to the Orthodox that her teaching (about the “Tsar Redeemer”, about the holiness of Ivan the Terrible and G. Rasputin and about “Schibishop Nektarios”) was inherited from Father Nikolai Guryanov. She attracts those who are seduced and believe in this to active schismatic activities: organizing annual Nikolaev readings, distributing literature, writing and distributing non-canonical icons, “pilgrimage trips” to the elder’s grave, prayer services with non-canonical akathists, as well as the favorite method of all pseudo-Orthodox sectarians - organizing religious processions . Processions of the cross with prayer services are organized twice a year on the island and resemble a large political manifestation, taking place against the will of church and civil authorities: “The Pskov diocese has persistently and consistently prohibited all these years not only to pray to him / the elder /, but also to celebrate solemnly and with his love memory. They destroy holy icons and ban akathists, tear up and burn books “not sanctioned” by the bishop, drive people away from the grave on days of remembrance of the ascetic, disperse religious processions...”
Organization. The number of T. Groyan's followers is small, and, as a rule, these same people participate in other monarchist organizations, many of them in the Russian Messenger publishing house, where Groyan publishes his books. Since the events created by them are usually massive, with the involvement of a large number of outsiders (potential adherents), and they also involve the media (books, magazines, newspapers and leaflets published by the publishing houses “Eternal Life”, “Russian Messenger”, “Russian idea”, many Internet sites), then the illusion of a large all-encompassing movement is created: “These are very small groups, but very noisy. By constantly creating an atmosphere of scandal, they may create the impression that they express the point of view of many.” Organizationally, the sect is formalized as the “Society of Blessed Memory of the Righteous Elder Nikolai of Pskovozersk”, the society has a website