Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church. Russian True Orthodox Church

Until now, for many, the history of the Catacomb or True Orthodox Church within the borders of the former Russian Empire, especially in the post-war period, represented one of the most unsolved mysteries. As a rule, for the majority of those interested, all knowledge about it was based on some kind of speculation and assumptions based on little or completely unreliable sources, and almost no one could really understand and intelligibly explain what it is - the Catacomb Church, where it is located how does he live and what does he profess?

HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE CATACOMBS

For many decades of Soviet captivity, the TOC was forced, like the ancient Christians, to hide in deep underground - that “desert” of the Apocalypse into which, according to the holy prophecy, the Woman-Church will flee from the face of the beast-Antichrist (Rev. 12, 14). With the accession of Russian Bolshevik power on earth, this immediate forerunner of the “man of lawlessness” and the “son of destruction,” truly last times, the time of the dress rehearsal for the last decisive battle of Christ with Belial, the Church of Christ with the harlot anti-church. That is why the confessional path of the Catacomb Church of the IPC, for which the blessing of the holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia was given, serves for us as a true example of the feat of faith and beauty of spirit.

Such a long “silence” of the Catacomb Church gave rise, on the one hand, to all sorts of rumors about it, on the other hand, it was the soil on which the enemy of human salvation was not slow to sow his tares of self-proclaimed false catacombs, whose representatives now dare to call themselves “True Orthodox” Church."

The name of the True Orthodox Church in Russia “catacomb” in its meaning goes back to the Roman dungeons in which the first Christians gathered to pray.

“That Christian catacombs could exist in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the spread of the Christian faith and serve as places of worship at the tombs of martyrs, history testifies to this. Clement of Rome, on behalf of the Apostles, says to Christians: “Go, gather in the catacombs to listen to prayers and sing in honor of the martyrs.” The existence of Christian catacombs as places of burial of the dead and worship is confirmed by Roman laws, according to which in Rome at that time nothing was respected as much as cemeteries... and any place where anyone was buried was recognized as sacred.

Although the Roman government under Nero and Domitian persecuted Christians, it did not touch their tombs. Therefore, Christians, along with other cults, enjoyed the right of Roman laws and owned cemeteries without fear... Receiving, on an equal basis with other religions, the right to the surface of the earth, Christian society thereby acquired the only guarantee of the inviolability of underground tombs” - writes the church historian Archimandrite Gabriel (Manual of Liturgics. Tver. 1886, pp. 317-318).

In other words, such a right was the only one refuge for Christians from religious persecution by atheistic authorities. It was the ancient Christian catacombs that served as a prototype of the conditions in which the Church found itself in recent times; they actually symbolized the phenomenon of illegal Orthodoxy in the godless state of the USSR.

However, history knows many similar analogies: these are the times of the dominance of Arianism, and the Monothelite heresy, and the era of iconoclasm. The closest example in time can be the persecution of the Russian Old Believers, which had providential significance in the sorrowful destinies of the Russian Catacomb Church. And yet it is not easy to draw direct parallels with our last difficult times, when “All who want to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted”(2 Tim. 3:12). Truly, never before has the Church of Christ found itself in such terrible circumstances that occurred in the 20th century, when with such clarity we saw the fulfillment of the words of the seer: “Woe to those who live on earth and sea, for the devil has come to you, having great wrath, knowing that time is short.”(Rev. 12, 12).

THE APPEARANCE OF THE RUSSIAN CATACOMBS

When did the Catacomb Church arise in Russia? The time of its appearance is indicated differently by different researchers. Some of them compare its occurrence with the new wave of Red Terror in 1922-23. in connection with the confiscation of church values ​​and the formation of the so-called. "Living Church". Others name another date - 1927, which became the beginning of the Soviet government's personnel policy in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church, the intervention of authorities in its internal affairs, that is, the deprivation of its freedom. Still others point to the formation of the Catacomb Church in the 1930s, again caused by another intensification of repression.

Partly, they are all right in their own way, but only in identifying stages its formation. More correct, however, seems to us the opinion of the famous confessor of the Catacomb Church, monk Anthony Chernov (in the schema of Epiphanius), who wrote this: “When did she, this Church of Christ, persecuted and destroyed, and hence - secret, hidden - appear on Russian soil? It appeared from the moment persecution began. And it began simultaneously with the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks, when Christians were forced in one way or another to hide, hide their faith, hide and hide from the enemies of Christ... It appeared when crosses began to be torn off churches, icons were blasphemed, desecrated, closed, destroy temples... When the priests deprived of churches did not know where to go... When the first bishops and priests were subjected to all sorts of bullying and torment, and then executed or shot... That's when the Catacomb Church appeared! And not at all then, as they think and write, attributing this event almost to the thirties of our century”(Epiphany (Chernov), schemamonk. Catacomb Church on Russian Land. Typescript. 1981, p. 8).

It seems obvious that the formation of the Catacomb Church was a process gradual and it could not happen at the same time and everywhere. From this it is still impossible to draw the erroneous conclusion, recently established in historical literature, that by the term “True Orthodox Church” it is necessary to mean exclusively a movement that tried to stay within the framework of legality, and by the term “True Orthodox Christians” and “Catacomb Church” - the direction is actually illegal.

In fact, the TOC, IPC and the Catacomb Church are different synonymous names the same phenomenon. We should not forget that the founding fathers of all movements of the Catacomb Church, such as Archbishop. Andrei Ufimsky, Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd, archbishop. Dimitry Gdovsky, bishop. Victor Vyatsky, archbishop. Theodore of Volokolamsk and others - all were legal bishops or, at least, served openly. However, they actively carried out ordinations secret bishops and priests, calling for departure to the “catacombs”. The latter, however, was not an end in itself for the CPI, but rather a forced measure.

True Orthodox Christians took advantage of the opportunity for legal service provided by the authorities due to the inadmissibility voluntary transferring the temples of God and the shrines that they owned into the hands of heretics or atheists, but they did not go further than this. When this possibility disappeared with the forcible confiscation of church buildings, they moved their activities underground - some earlier, some later - which practically ended only by the end of the 1930s.

Unlike the Renovationists and Sergians, all True Orthodox, despite some internal disagreements on issues of no fundamental importance, were guided by the same principle that united them: to prevent the internal enslavement of the Church by the Bolsheviks and, in general, any control by godless authorities over her shepherds and flock. Thus, the unity of all branches of the TOC lay not so much in the manner of their ministry (open or secret) or even the principles of organization (centralized or decentralized), but rather 1) in the complete identity of ideology in all key positions, and 2) in the prayerful and Eucharistic communion between myself.

It is also completely incorrect from an ecclesiological point of view that the terms IPC (True Orthodox Christians) and TOC (True Orthodox Church) are used: the first in relation to those catacomb communities that do not have a priesthood, the second - to those that have some kind of priesthood. or have hierarchical leadership. If we accept this interpretation, then one might think that those IPCs who have temporarily lost contact with legitimate True Orthodox pastors have ceased to be members of the True Orthodox Church. But this is absurd. Such an opinion should be rejected as untenable, because it is impossible to agree that the IPC, which is in an acephalous position, is not an organic part of the IPC. By the way, it is interesting to note that the terms “CPI” and “IPC” first came into use among the Old Believers, and from there they were already borrowed by the fathers of the Catacomb Church.

“OUR CATACOMBS” ARE NOT OURS AT ALL

In 1992, the “Vestnik RHD” published an essay by the Sergian hierodeacon Jonah (Roman Yashunsky) “Our Catacombs,” which became a kind of first and only work on the current state of various catacomb movements in Russia. Unfortunately, despite all the obvious shortcomings of the essay, it remains so to this day. Almost all the sources that R. Yashunsky used to write his article are known to me. They are not very extensive, given the traditional hostility of the catacombs towards various kinds of “experts” from the MP.

Therefore, we cannot agree with the editorial preface of “Vestnik RKhD”, which states that the young author (born in 1966) “has extensive experience in communicating with the catacomb clergy of various directions existing on the territory of Russia.” R. Yashunsky had a direct relationship with only one such direction: in the past he himself was a cleric of the so-called. “Isaacian” schism of the “Seraphim-Gennadian” catacomb branch. It is about the “Isaakians” and “Gennadievites” that R. Yashunsky presents the most detailed material, which, however, is not without errors in facts and dates.

Despite the errors in Yashunsky’s essay, we still have to admit that some of the information he provided is of a certain value and even uniqueness. The main conclusion of R. Yashunsky: except for the non-canonical “Seraphim-Gennadievsky” branch, not a single current in the “catacombs” is currently “is not directly connected by an unbroken chain of episcopal consecrations with the Founding Fathers of the Catacomb Church, Sts. New Martyrs Joseph of Petrograd, Kirill of Kazan, Andrei of Ufa (Prince Ukhtomsky) and others”.

One way or another, we have to admit that not available today more or less objective, systematic and documented research on the state of the most famous currents in the Catacomb Church that exist today. Attempts made in this area earlier are of no interest, since they are mostly based on data from atheistic propaganda, or on the testimony of the same R. Yashunsky, which is far from complete and inaccurate. In addition, due to ideological predilections, the main goal of such works was to discredit the TOC, an attempt to present it in the most unsightly light, to pass it off as some kind of sectarian gathering.

But what is most surprising is the complete silence on this issue of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which considers itself part of the True Orthodox Church in Russia or even its direct heir. The ROCOR archives now contain a colossal amount of documents and materials about various branches of the Catacomb Church in the USSR from 1945 to 1990. But due to selfish, party interests, the ROCOR is forced to suppress any information about the TOC, since this would greatly damage the self-affirmation of the “foreigners” in Russia, where they consider only themselves canonical, pouring all sorts of slop on the catacombs and discrediting them in the eyes of their own flock.

One can hope that research in this direction will be continued in the future, supplemented by other authors and corrected if any inaccuracies are found in it.

Anti-orthodox

Catacomb Tikhonovskaya Church in 1974

Many True Orthodox Christians in the free world were amazed and disturbed by the fact that the world famous Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, living today, wrote in his letter to the Third All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Church Abroad, held in September 1974 at the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville in exile in Switzerland, wrote that “today there is no need to replace the real Russian Orthodox people with the imaginary image of the Catacomb Church,” denying the very existence of a “secret church organization” and warning the hierarchs of the Church Abroad against “solidarizing with the mysterious, sinless, but also incorporeal catacomb." The enemies of True Orthodoxy and the defenders of the Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate quickly took advantage of these phrases for their own propaganda purposes, publishing them under headings like “No to the Catacomb Church.” Indeed, it would be a great help to the success of Renovationist “Orthodoxy” if it were possible to “prove” or , at least loud enough to announce that there is no Catacomb Church in Russia, that the only Orthodoxy in the USSR is its Renovationist, Sergian version, shown to the world by the Moscow Patriarchate, which, according to Solzhenitsyn, is not at all “fallen”, but the true Russian Orthodox Church These statements by Solzhenitsyn raise important questions, both practical and theological.

True, at the beginning of his letter, Solzhenitsyn writes: “Conscious of my unpreparedness to speak on a church issue before a meeting of clergy and hierarchs, ... I only ask for forgiveness for my possible errors in terminology or in the very essence of judgments,” and at the end he again makes a reservation : “I do not consider myself called to resolve church issues.” It is possible, therefore, without any offense to Solzhenitsyn, who speaks so convincingly and truthfully on other topics, to note his mistakes regarding the True Orthodox Russian Church both in facts and in theology, for those who want to know the truth.

It turned out that these mistakes of Solzhenitsyn had a happy consequence: thanks to them, several people who had more accurate information about church life in the Soviet Union spoke out directly, refuting his assertion that there was no “secret church organization” there.

In the short biography of the young Vladimir Osipov, who for four years was the editor of the no longer published samizdat magazine “Veche”, which was distinguished by its bright national-patriotic and Orthodox direction and expressed the “Slavophile” position in modern Russia, there is a characteristic feature relating to the ongoing life of the Catacomb Church in Russia . An article by Alexey Kiselev, based on an interview with Anatoly Levitin (Krasnov), says that when Osipov was in a concentration camp in the 1960s, he met “a strange old man whom all prisoners call Vladyka.” It was Michael, bishop of the True Orthodox Church. He made a strong impression on Osipov, and this meeting may have turned him towards religion." This mere mention of a true Orthodox (catacomb) bishop in the modern Soviet Union and his influence on the younger generation of religious seekers is already an important indication of True Orthodoxy in Russia. Fortunately, from the same Krasnov and from other sources we now have an even better idea of ​​the existence of catacomb bishops in the Soviet Union at the present time.
The monthly review “Religion and Atheism in the USSR,” published in Munich by N. Teodorovich, published excerpts from three letters received from persons of German origin who had recently emigrated from the Soviet Union and who independently reacted to Solzhenitsyn’s statements about the Catacomb Church. One of them writes:

“A.I. Solzhenitsyn did not have to meet members of this Church. I was in prison with them and worked with them in a correctional labor colony. These are deeply religious and very steadfast people in their faith. They are persecuted for belonging to this forbidden Church.” .

The second person writes: “Catacomb”, “hidden” Church - these are the names here. In the USSR it is called the True Orthodox Church or Tikhonovskaya." It includes Orthodox, deeply religious people who do not recognize the official church. For this they are persecuted by the authorities. I know many who are now free, but I will not name their names and places of residence." .

A third correspondent gives a more complete description of the life of the True Orthodox Church, in which services are sometimes performed by monks, nuns and laymen. “The True Orthodox Church has a hierarchy,” he writes, “but most of it is in prison or in penal colonies. Members of the TOC conduct their service according to the rituals of the Orthodox Church. If they do not have a clergyman, then the service is conducted by one of the most knowledgeable. I know of those who did not marry and dedicated themselves to God from childhood, they also conduct services. These are, as a rule, extremely honest, leading a morally pure life. In the USSR, members of the TOC are cut off from the influences of the world on life, they are extremely devoted to God The majority of the TOC believers conduct their services in the presence of ordained clergy.

Your assumptions that the members of the TOC are only elderly people, since the split of 1927, brought a smile to my face. Those whom I personally knew were born after 1927. Of course, there are also those who remember 1927.

They also have prayer meetings without ritual, when they read the Holy Scriptures and spiritual books. Their prayer comes down mainly to petitions for the awakening of faith in the Russian people. They sometimes allow young people to attend their services if they know that they will not hand them over to the police or the KGB. The less advertising about them, the better. But you should know that they need the books of Holy Scripture and spiritual literature" ("Religion and Atheism in the USSR", Dec. 1974, p. 9).

The most remarkable information about the True Orthodox Church in Russia in recent months has come from the well-known fighter for “human rights” in the Soviet Union, Anatoly Levitin (Krasnov), who left the USSR last September and moved to Switzerland. In his youth he took an active part in the schism of the Living Church as a deacon, and even now, although he has long since repented and returned to the Orthodox Church, his views can only be called highly “liberal” and “ecumenical.” His testimony about the True Orthodox Church is all the more valuable because he cannot be accused of any biased sympathy for it: for him it is a “sect” and, therefore, deserves the same respect and freedom as any other “sect” in modern times. Soviet Union.

The first statement quoted by Krasnov is taken from his statement to the Human Rights Committee in Moscow, published in samizdat on September 5, 1974, just before his departure from the Soviet Union. Along with his protests against the persecution of Uniates, Baptists, Adventists, Pentecostals and Jehovah's Witnesses, the statement contains a chapter on “persecution of the True Orthodox Church (TOC).” This is what Krasnov writes in this chapter: “For 47 years this Church has been subjected to persecution.” What follows is a historical note about the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius of 1927 and the protests against it by a number of bishops; about how all the bishops who took part in the “schism of 1927” died in concentration camps in the thirties; about how they managed to ordain a number of successor bishops in the concentration camps, from whom the current secret hierarchy of the True Orthodox Church originates. Krasnov continues: “The number of members of the TOC cannot be counted. However, according to information received from members of this Church, it has from 8 to 10 bishops, about 200 priests and several thousand laity. The activities of the TOC are strictly suppressed. The authorities are afraid of its spread” (" Religion and atheism in the USSR", Dec. 1974, p. 2).

Krasnov gave even more detailed information about the True Orthodox Church after his arrival in the West, where he learned that part of the “liberal” Russian intelligentsia again rejoiced at the “non-existence” of the Catacomb Church, this time “proven” by Solzhenitsyn. This is what Krasnov said in an interview with the Russian-language Parisian newspaper Russian Thought (December 5, 1974, p. 5).

“As for the Catacomb Church, it exists, it is not a fiction. According to my information, there are about ten bishops. These bishops trace their hierarchical succession from the Josephites, from the bishops who broke away from Metropolitan Sergius in 1927...At present there is, As far as I know, there are either 12 or 8 bishops. All of them were ordained in the camps by the bishops who were there, they are all developing their activities. There is also a hierarchy - priests. But still a very small segment of the population. Firstly, "All this is so deeply classified that it is very difficult to find out anything reliable. I know one nun who came to an Orthodox archimandrite to persuade him to convert to the True Orthodox Church." When he began to question her in more detail, she answered him: “When you come to us, they will tell you everything.” I know that there is an underground Metropolitan Theodosius, this is their head, who, in connection with the election of Patriarch Pimen, published his appeal, which circulated around Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev, signed by Metropolitan Theodosius, “where, on behalf of the True Orthodox Church,” a negative attitude towards the patriarchy was declared. In private conversations, they usually say that they consider the foreign Orthodox Synodal Church the closest movement to themselves , the so-called Karlovac". They usually say: “We, in fact, are against the authorities, we are monarchists, but we are not against the authorities, since all authority is from God.” They just cannot accept the hierarchy, since it depends on atheists. They consider Patriarch Tikhon their last head , why they are usually called Tikhonovites in the camps." It must be said that their supporters are usually elderly people or people from camps. Their Divine Services usually take place in private apartments; 3/4 of the people are present at these secret Liturgies. The True Orthodox Church is hiding underground, it has the character of something so secret, classified that literally no one can find it, although, of course, one cannot refuse respect to these people, very persistent, very sincere.”

And previously it was impossible to deny at least the existence of True Orthodox Catacomb Christians in Russia, about whom even the Soviet press speaks; now no impartial observer can deny the existence of their “secret church organization.” Solzhenitsyn's related "facts" are clearly erroneous; in the Soviet Union, his very position as a world-famous writer, constantly under close surveillance by the secret police, absolutely isolated him from contact with the secret life of the True Orthodox Church.

However, even after correcting these erroneous data, Solzhenitsyn’s main assertion remains that Western Orthodox Christians should identify themselves not with a few thousand (or tens of thousands) of Catacomb Christians, but rather with “many millions” of “real Russian Orthodox people.” To justify this position, he risked expressing a bold ecclesiological position (the full conclusions of which he, no doubt, is not aware of): “The sins of obedience and betrayal committed by the hierarchs fell as earthly and heavenly responsibility on these leaders, but do not extend to the church body, on the numerous, sincere priesthood, on the masses of those praying in churches, and can never devote themselves to the church people, the whole history of Christianity convinces us of this. If the sins of the hierarchs were transferred to the believers, then the Church of Christ would not be eternal and invincible, but would be entirely dependent on accidents of character and behavior."

Without a doubt, Solzhenitsyn speaks here for all those who defend and justify the Moscow Patriarchate, and if he spoke only about the personal sins of the hierarchs, this would be the truth. But the catacomb hierarchs and believers separated from the Moscow Patriarchate not at all because of the personal sins of its hierarchs, but because of their deviation from Christ, which concerned not only the hierarchs, but also all believers belonging to this church.

Here we need to clarify several points, because the supporters of “liberal” Orthodox theology and ecclesiology have so confused this issue with their emotional arguments that it has become very difficult to see everything clearly and in the right light.

Let us say first of all that all those who, in Russia and outside of it, accuse the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate not of personal sins, but of apostasy, do not in the least “curse” or condemn either the ordinary people who go to open churches in the Soviet Union, or conscientious priests , serving as far as possible under the inhuman pressure of the communist government, not even the retreated hierarchs themselves; Those who say this are simply slandering the position adopted by True Orthodox Christians. Considering the clergy and believers of the Moscow Patriarchate to be participants in apostasy and schism, true Orthodox Christians treat them with compassion and love - but at the same time they speak the truth about them and refuse to participate in their affairs or have prayerful or liturgical communication with them, leaving the court to trial them to the future free All-Russian Council, when, if God wills, one will gather. In the history of the Church, at similar Councils, those most guilty of schisms were punished, and innocent followers of schisms were forgiven and reunited with the Church (as indicated in the letter of St. Athanasius the Great to Rufinian).

Secondly, true Orthodox Christians by no means consider the Moscow Patriarchate to be simply “fallen”, or its followers to be heretics or pagans. There are degrees of schism and apostasy; the fresher the break with the True Church of Christ and the more it was caused by external rather than internal reasons, the greater the possibility of reuniting those who have fallen away with the Church. For the sake of the purity of the Church of Christ, true Orthodox Christians must stay separate from schismatics, thereby showing the path of return to the True Church of Christ. When Solzhenitsyn writes in his letter: “Most people are not saints, but ordinary people. And faith and worship are called upon to accompany their ordinary life, and not demand every time a super-feat,” he speaks with the voice of human common sense, but not with the voice of Christian truth. Yes, it’s true: true Orthodox Christians in Russia are now heroes, ascetics of Orthodoxy, and the whole history of the Church of Christ is the history of the triumph of Christ’s ascetics. “Ordinary” people follow the ascetics, and not vice versa. The model is heroism, asceticism, and not “ordinary life.” If they hope to remain Orthodox, and not go further along the path of retreat, then the confession of the True Orthodox Church is now absolutely necessary for “ordinary” Orthodox Christians in Russia.

Finally, as far as we know, the True Orthodox Russian Church has not made official statements about the grace or gracelessness of the sacraments of the Moscow Patriarchate. In the past, individual hierarchs of the Catacomb Church expressed different opinions on this topic: some even allowed taking communion from a Sergian priest in mortal danger, while others insisted on the rebaptism of those baptized by the Sergian clergy. This question can only be resolved by the Council of Bishops. If the schism of the Moscow Patriarchate is only temporary, and if it ever enters into communion with the True Orthodox Church in a free Russia, then this issue may never need to be resolved officially. Of course, individual cases of acceptance or non-acceptance of the Holy Mysteries by True Orthodox Christians in Russia in Sergian churches are not a general rule and do not resolve the issue. The strict rule of the Church Abroad, prohibiting its members from receiving sacraments from the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate, is based not on the assertion that these sacraments are without grace, but on the sacred testament of Metropolitan Anastassy and other great hierarchs of the Russian diaspora, prohibiting any communication with the patriarchy while its leaders betray the faith and obey the atheists.

Having clarified these points, let us now return to the thought of Solzhenitsyn and the defenders of the Moscow Patriarchate that the betrayal of its hierarchs does not concern believers. This opinion is based on an absolutely incorrect view of the nature of the Church, which artificially separates hierarchs from the believing people and allows church life to go on in a “normal order”, regardless of what happens to the leaders of the Church. On the contrary, the entire history of Christ’s Church convinces us of just the opposite. Who else but the Roman bishops led the Western Church into apostasy, schism and heresy - Are ordinary Roman Catholics to blame for the fact that now they, the largest group of “Christians” in the world, are outside the Church of Christ, and that in order to return to the True Church , they need not only to abandon the incorrect Roman teaching, but also to completely change their religious mindset and forget the false piety transmitted to them by their episcopate - Now, however, the Moscow Patriarchate allows Roman Catholics to accept its sacraments and has already indirectly accepted the ecumenical teaching about that these Catholics are also “part of the Church.” But this fact only shows how the Moscow Patriarchate has moved far in its false ecclesiology from the universal Orthodox church tradition, and how correctly the True Orthodox Church is acting, refusing to be in communion with the church body, which not only allows the atheists to dictate their events, but also openly preaches modern heresies of ecumenism and chiliasm. If normal Orthodox life is not restored in Russia, the Moscow Patriarchate will follow the path of Roman Catholicism and will ultimately wither and die in apostasy, and the innocent people who obey it will without any doubt find themselves outside the Church of Christ! Then only those who have preserved unity with true Orthodox Russian Christians will still be in the church’s fence of salvation.

Solzhenitsyn and the Russian intelligentsia in general, both in Russia and outside it, clearly do not realize what the true crisis of Orthodoxy is now. Throwing a bold challenge to the inhuman Soviet tyranny, standing up for the oppressed, demanding “moral renewal” and preaching “life not by lies” is a good thing in itself, but this is not Orthodox Christianity, not what Christian martyrs died for and Christian confessors suffered for. . Baptists, well-intentioned agnostics and atheists are now doing the same thing in the Soviet Union, but this does not join them to the Church of Christ. In general, it can be said that the unprecedented suffering of modern Russia has forced many of us to use the words “martyr” and “confessor” too freely. For Orthodox Christians, these words have a certain meaning: they refer to those who consciously suffer and die for Christ and His True Church, and not for “humanity,” not for “Christianity in general,” and not even for “Orthodoxy,” if it is not True Orthodoxy.

Now the real crisis of Orthodoxy, not only in Russia, but throughout the world, does not come from obeying the orders of the atheists, and refusal to obey these orders will not overcome it. The crisis of Orthodoxy lies in the loss of the taste of true Christianity. This taste has been largely lost not only by the Moscow hierarchs, but also by the majority of Russian “dissenters,” as well as by the “Parisian school” of emigre theologians, the apostate Patriarch of Constantinople and all his followers, all kinds of New Calendarists, renovationists and modernists, and everywhere naive people imagining themselves Orthodox simply because their parents were so, or because they belong to a “canonical church organization.” Against this loss of the taste of Orthodoxy in the twentieth century, a single movement rebelled - the movement of true Orthodox Christians, be it in Russia, in Greece, on Mount Athos or in the Orthodox dispersion. Among these true Orthodox Christians in our time one can find true confessors and martyrs.

Partly under the influence of Solzhenitsyn, a real “unification fever” has gripped emigrant circles in recent months. Solzhenitsyn himself wants to be “in unity” with “millions of simple Orthodox believers” in Russia and with all Russian Orthodox believers abroad. May God grant that he may be united with them in the Truth. But if this is not in the Truth, but in some kind of compromise between Truth and falsehood, then such unity is contrary to God and His Holy Church; It would be better for Russia to perish than to be “united” not in the Truth. In the history of Orthodoxy, the great confessors were precisely those who rebelled against false unity, preferring, if necessary, to be alone against the whole world, if only they were with Christ and His Truth. Let's take just one example.

The Church of Christ does not know a better champion of the Truth than Rev. Maxim the Confessor, to whom the supporters of “church unity” offered all the same arguments that are offered today to true Orthodox Christians who refuse to be in communion with the “Orthodox” who have abandoned the path of piety and truth. From St. Maximus was demanded of only two things: the acceptance of a compromise statement of faith ("typos") and communion with the patriarchs and bishops who accepted it. Representatives of the Byzantine emperor explained to St. Maxim that “the typos does not deny the two wills in Christ, but only forces silence about them, for the sake of the peace of the Church”; they said: “Have whatever faith you like in your heart, no one forbids you”; they accused him of causing indignation in the Church out of stubbornness: “you alone upset everyone - precisely because because of you many do not want to have communion with the local Church”; they threw in his face the favorite argument of “Christian liberals” of all times: “that means you alone will be saved, and all the others will perish -” And they concluded the dispute with an appeal that is so strong at the present time: you will remain alone, since not only all the Eastern patriarchs accepted typos, but also representatives of the Pope “tomorrow, on Sunday, will commune with the Patriarch (of Constantinople) of the Most Pure Mysteries.” To this St. Maxim, a simple monk, who could think that he was the only Christian left who believed as he believed, responded with words that should now be written in golden letters for all true Orthodox Christians: “if the whole universe begins to commune with the patriarch, I will not commune with him". All this is very clearly stated in the life of St. Maxim (on January 21), but those who have lost the taste for Orthodoxy rarely read the lives of saints, and if they do, they do not base their lives on these primary sources of Orthodoxy.

A characteristic result of the anti-Orthodox mentality against which St. fought. Maxim, is the last attempt of the Russian Metropolitanate in America to destroy the confessional position of the Russian Church Abroad. In the same letter to the Third All-Diaspora Council, Solzhenitsyn expressed his disappointment at the sight of church disunity in the Russian dispersion. The Bishops of the Council expressed their readiness to once again try to unite with the American Metropolis and the Parisian Exarchate - provided that this unity was in Truth, and not through compromise. In relation to the metropolitanate, the main obstacle is, of course, the “autocephaly” it received in 1970 from the Moscow Patriarchate at the cost of recognition to the whole world of the complete “canonicity” and “Orthodoxy” of the Sergian church organization. In an exchange of letters with the metropolis, Metropolitan Philaret duly noted this obstacle, to which Metropolitan Irenaeus replied: “There have always been differences of opinion, disputes and searches in the Church... Even if we understand differently our participation in the struggle for the truth of Christ in the world and in the suffering country of Russia. Is all this really capable of disrupting our unity in Christ - .. We do not offer anything impossible... we only offer a waiver of the ban on visiting each other’s churches, praying together and receiving the Holy Sacraments together.”

Truly, such a small step! Just like in the days of St. Maximus the Confessor, “let us have in our hearts whatever faith we please,” but “let us remain silent about our differences for the sake of the peace of the Church.” - Each of us can interpret the “truth of Christ” as he wants - sharing this privilege with Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses and many others! With what “mercy” and “love” is this proposal of “Eucharistic communion” made, in the interests of attracting the Russian Church Abroad to communion with “world Orthodoxy” - an apostate “Orthodoxy” that has lost the taste of Christianity - and depriving it precisely of solidarity with the True Orthodox Church in Russia. The devil himself could not have invented a more crafty, “innocent” temptation that plays so strongly on emotions and humanitarian motives.

Therefore, undoubtedly, it is the great mercy of God that precisely at the hour of this temptation we received reliable information not only about the “secret church organization” of the True Orthodox Church in Russia, but even about its First Hierarch, Metropolitan Theodosius. Of course, “Orthodox” wolves in sheep’s clothing will continue to cruelly take advantage of the fact that those who know more about the Catacomb Church, located in Russia or abroad, of course, will not talk about it, so as not to somehow betray the true Orthodox Christians. Even if the Catacomb Church had not existed at all, the Moscow Patriarchate would still have been guilty of schism and apostasy, just as Roman Catholicism did not become Orthodoxy when the last Orthodox communities in the West were finally destroyed. But now, of course, there is no doubt that the Catacomb Church exists and is even organized to a certain extent, so that we, Orthodox Christians of the free world, have no excuse if we do not show our solidarity with it and with its fearless confession of God’s truth and truth. The True Orthodox Church is now the model of Orthodoxy in Russia, and neither “imagination” nor secret information is required from us in order to know this model and follow it ourselves. The model of Holy Orthodoxy does not change: if we ourselves try to be true Orthodox Christians, then we live according to the same model as the Russian True Orthodox Church. This is already very well known to the True Orthodox Christians of Greece, since their struggle is very similar to that which is being waged in Russia. Only we, who exist in the Orthodox diaspora, are still slow to follow their confessional path, not being taught by suffering, like they were.

So is it not time, finally, for the true Orthodox Christians of the free world to raise their voices in defense of the trampled Truth - Or only the persecuted Orthodox Christians in Russia have the courage to boldly speak out against the lies and hypocrisy of church leaders and proclaim their separation from the apostate hierarchs on the basis of truth and Orthodox principle - From the point of view of church principle, the question here is actually the same as there; the only difference is that in the Soviet Union the hierarchs participate in the retreat, clearly under pressure from atheists, while in the free world the hierarchs do the same freely. And if anyone naively thinks that the Parisian and American “jurisdictions” are still “conservative” and largely unaffected by the ecumenical madness of “Greek Orthodoxy,” let him read in the Russian emigrant newspaper “Russian Thought” (February 20, 1975) , under the title "Ecumenism in the Cathedral of Notre-Dame of Paris", an account of "a grandiose ecumenical prayer of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, led by the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Marty, the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Metropolitan Meletius, and the representative of the Protestant Federation, M. Courvoisier." The choir and clergy of the Paris Russian ("Eulogian") cathedral took full part in the "grand ecumenical prayer" with heretics (a sin for which, according to the sacred canons, they are subject to excommunication), and the protodeacon "with his mighty bass loudly" read the Gospel, in full vestments, bowing to the three primates of the meeting, as if they were Orthodox bishops. As a result, “it is unlikely that in the eight centuries of its existence the Cathedral of Notre Dame has heard such a reading of the word of God, and it is clear that those present were amazed” - amazed by the dramatically effective voice that helped close the path to salvation for those present, who did not dare to tell them that they were outside the Church of Christ.

The same “ecumenical” proclamation was proclaimed by Archbishop of the American Metropolis John Shakhovskoy, asking “forgiveness” from “our Catholic and Protestant brothers” for the fact that the Russian Church Abroad continues to proclaim the Orthodox teaching that they are not baptized (“New Russian Word”, February 18, 1975, p. 2).

True Orthodoxy is the same whether it is outwardly in freedom or in slavery; internally it is free to preach the unchanging Truth of the Church of Christ, and the questions before it here and there are the same: can we be with Christ and yet be with those who neglect the church calendar, renew theology and piety, legitimize the Sergian schism, pray with heretics, both in word and in deed, declare that “nothing separates us” from the poorest and most unfortunate Western “Christians”, who have not known the grace of God for centuries - In his first “Sorrowful Message” to all Orthodox bishops in the world (1969), Metropolitan Philaret, The First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad has already proclaimed the battle cry of all true Orthodox Christians against those who, in word or deed, participate in the soul-destroying heresy of ecumenism: “We have already protested earlier against the non-Orthodox ecumenical speeches of Patriarch Athenagoras and Archbishop Iakovos... But now the time has come when the protest must go louder and wider in order to stop the effect of the poison before it gains strength like the ancient heresies of Arianism, Nestorianism or Eutychianism that shook the entire body of the Church in their time, when it seemed that heresy could swallow Orthodoxy.”

We must obey God, not men; we must abide in the unchanging Orthodox faith, which is Divine, and not listen to the rationalistic arguments of worldly people who only want to please each other and apply faith to the humanitarian spirit of the times. May all true Orthodox Christians in the world remain unyielding in their confession of the Russian Catacomb Church, the confession whose words were given to us by the divine St. Maxim:

If the entire universe begins to commune with the apostate hierarchs, we will not. Amen.

Extracted from the magazine "The Orthodox Word" for November-December 1974.

At the end of 1974

"The Orthodox Church", November 1974, the official organ of the American Metropolis.

Vladimir Osipov, now chairman of the Christian Revival Union, was born in 1938.

Stopped publishing in the early 80s.

This is probably an inaccurate expression regarding the position of the True Orthodox Russian Church on this point. See the catacomb document "samizdat" "The Church and Power" ("The Orthodox Word", 1972, "3, pp. 133v135), where the Soviet government is called "anti-government".

Here: the thousand-year Kingdom of God on earth (= communist "paradise").

The so-called Orthodox Church in America, which received unrecognized autocephaly in 1970.

“1 Let every soul obey the powers that be: for there is no power unless it is from God, but the powers that exist are created by God.

2 In the same way, when you resist authority, you resist God’s commandment: but those who resist themselves receive sin.” Rome. 13

“...for there is no authority unless it is from God...” - ...there is no authority unless it is from God... Whether authority is from God is determined by its fruits (deeds), as the Savior taught (Matthew 7:16, 20). The authorities from God do everything for the welfare of God’s people and their protection.

“19 The sacrifice to God is a broken spirit: a contrite and humble heart God will not despise.” Ps. 50

“32 Fear not, little flock!
for it has been your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” OK. 12

“13 He who endures to the end will be saved.” Matt. 24

GUIDE: LIVING COMMUNITIES

Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church

in apostasic and apocalyptic conditions of various forms of persecution, persecution and physical influence

This Guide regulates the daily life of members of the communities of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church in accordance with the conditions available to them.

This Guide was written on the basis of many years of experience of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church - the Church of Christ - on earth, which was formed from the experience of Orthodox Christians who lived at different times in different areas of the once united Russian Empire and in different conditions. This experience includes both living in times of persecution and in times of prosperity of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, therefore this Guide is written to cover, if possible, all cases that may occur.

This Manual is not an unchangeable dogma of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, therefore givenManagement- with the exception of “Theological-dogmatic justification and canonical structure of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church. Prayer Sword of the Holy Russian Power,” i.e. the practical part of it, periodically edited:additionalappears, clarifiedappears, perfectionfits incontenteand phraseologistsI- any faithful member of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church has the right to submit for consideration one or another comment, amendment or improvement in relation to this Manual.

1. Theological-dogmatic justification and canonical structure of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church. Prayer sword of the Holy Russian Empire

2. Church authority, hierarchy, management

3. Confession

4. Community life in the absence of hierarchy

5. About Divine Services

6. About the language of Divine services

7. Community. Leadership of the community. Priest

8. Closedness and secrecy of communities

9. Acceptance into the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church and excommunication from church communion

11. Institute of Itinerant Priests

12. About Spiritual Mentors

14. About barbering and hair

16. On the performance of sacred rites in a non-priestly manner

17. About the sacrament of baptism

18. About the sacrament of anointing

19. About the sacrament of repentance

20. About communion outside the temple

21. About marriages

Holy ChurchChrist's, ChurchChrist's— One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

Orthodox Russian Church, an organic part of which is the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church - part of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church (Holy Church of Christ, Church of Christ).

1. Theological-dogmatic justification and canonical structure of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church. Prayer sword of the Holy Russian Empire

1.1. The Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church is an integral part of the Orthodox Russian Church and is part of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, founded by Him on earth.

1.2. The Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church is a Catholic Church, since it consists of its various members united into one Body of Christ. Conciliarity means the Spiritual unity of all members of the earthly Church among themselves and with the Church Triumphant in heaven, headed by Christ the Lord. (Hebrews 12:22-24).

1.3. This Church is Apostolic, as founded by the Lord on His holy disciples and Apostles, and as preserving within itself apostolic grace and apostolic succession.

1.4. The Church of Christ on earth, called militant, has only one main goal - to save its children from sin, the power of the spirits of evil, hell, eternal torment and death, to sanctify them with the word of truth and the sacraments of the Church, to reconcile and unite everyone with the Lord God, to prepare to an eternally blissful life in the Kingdom of Heaven.

1.5. In its life, the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church is based on the teachings and commandments of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself, set forth in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and in the Holy Tradition of the Church; on the teaching and tradition of the holy Apostles of Christ, apostolic men and holy fathers of the Church; on the decrees of the seven Ecumenical and eleven Local Councils of the Church, accepted by Her for guidance, and the canonical rules of the Holy Fathers.

1.6. The Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church attaches great importance to Spiritual manifestations of grace in the church community and the inner life of each of Its members, preventing Its transformation into a formal religious institution with external regulation, empty piety and ritual belief.

1.7. All our holy fathers, starting from the reign of the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine the Great, prayed clearly and clearly only for the Royal God-established Power. In apostolic times there were even prayers for the health of pagan emperors, who for the most part persecuted Orthodox Christians. And if you prayed for the health of the persecutors, all the more should you holyly pray for the Orthodox Sovereigns, who are the defenders of all piety and purity.

1.8. Our Lord Jesus Christ clearly says that one must render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, that is, one must respect the Royal Power, since it is given by God Himself. In this sense, if we open explanatory prayer books, then THIS is how our ancestors understood this commandment of Christ. And there is no other meaning in it. It is simply necessary to pay taxes to Caesar, i.e. the Tsar, the Emperor of the Roman Empire, and this is correct, as is glorifying God Himself. “By me kings reign and the mighty write the truth,” says the Lord. And again, these Words of God sound modern, just as all Holy Scripture is modern.

1.9. As for the Holy Apostles, they simply, literally, have already given us direct instructions that we must honor the King of the earth and pray for Him as God’s Anointed Christ the Lord. “I beg you, first of all, to make prayers, supplications, petitions, thanksgivings for all people, for the TSING and for all those in power, so that we may live a quiet and silent life in all piety and purity: this is good and acceptable before our Savior God... "(1 Tim. 2:1-3) The Holy Apostle Peter is of one mind in this with the Holy Apostle Paul, who conveys to us the commandment obligatory for all Christians: “Fear God, honor the king...” (1 Peter 2:17)

1.10. A deep theological meaning is extracted from the Royal prayer rite, in which there is a direct indication that the Lord Himself justified the Blessed and Christ-loving King to reign on earth. This is spelled out in the Eucharistic prayer immediately after the exclamation: “Exactly about the Most Holy One...”. If we turn to the beginning of Matins, then in the Theotokos after the Royal Psalms we read in black and white: “... establish the Orthodox residence, save our Blessed Emperor, whom you commanded to reign, and grant Him victory from Heaven, for you gave birth to God, O Blessed One.” The Lord Himself justified Him, the KING, to reign on earth, and the Most Holy Theotokos commanded Him, the KING, to do the same.

1.11. Sometimes you can hear that the Tsar is not here now, and therefore there is no need to pray for Him, but this is a strategic mistake, since in the Royal Order He exists and abides in it as a word. And this is not an easy word. It lives and acts on hearts. You cannot remove this word from the prayer text, since it defines Our Orthodox Faith Itself by the very fact of its existence. This can be felt at least in the fact that at the end of Vespers and Matins, the Holy Mother of our Church sings: “Confirm, O God, the Most Pious, Most Autocratic Great Sovereign, our EMPEROR... and the Holy Orthodox Faith, Orthodox Christians, forever and ever.” Let us note that first the Autocratic Imperial Power is established in the church, and then the Holy Orthodox Faith. The meaning is clearly visible - only with the Emperor can the Holy Orthodox Faith be established.

1.12. Having refused to pray for the Tsar, since 1917 all of Russia has left his father like the Gospel prodigal son.

1.13. Only the pre-revolutionary Royal Order can become the only bridge that will connect us with God. By building this bridge, we will truly repent. This will be a prayerful return to the Great Russian Empire and our dear Fatherland. To everything that is so lacking now.

1.14. In modern, unauthorized - invented by oathbreakers and apostates - Liturgical texts there is no prayer for Victory, for the Power, for the Christ-loving army. But all this is in our native canonical Imperial rank. Arbitrariness is precisely what distances us from God - after all, entire textual semantic chunks have been removed from the modern arbitrary text of the Divine Liturgy! And what is the current modern rank? - he is like a sheet with holes in it. Imagine a sheet with holes in it, and it will immediately become clear that there is a modern prayer order!

1.15. There are very correct and meaningful words from the Holy Scriptures that fully reflect what is happening now at the Divine Liturgy - the abomination of desolation in a holy place. On the sacred vessel, which is consecrated in the Name of the Most Holy Trinity - the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, a particle is not laid out for the Emperor! It would seem like such a small thing! Just think, some kind of particle! But this is not a small thing, venerable fathers. This is precisely the cornerstone that the builders rejected and which became the head of the corner. In 1917, the earthly Christ was rejected, and the Great Empire - the Third Rome - collapsed. A small particle was rejected, and how much blood was shed, entire rivers of human blood! Don’t we believe that the Divine Liturgy is the Service of the Lord, and the change in which is reflected on the entire Universe! There is no mention of the Tsar on the Holy Antimenses - here is yet another desolation!

1.16. And the Orthodox Church still sings: “Lord, save the pious and hear us - this is a paraphrase (Ps. 19:10) Lord! Save the King and hear us when we cry to You.” There is a clear meaning of this Church prayer: first save the Tsar, and then hear us. Thus, it all turns out very simply that without praying for the Tsar, the Lord will not want to hear us, since we upset Him by not honoring our father. And since all our Sovereigns are the Fathers of the Russian God-chosen people, we are obliged to honor them. For the King of kings and Lord of lords Himself shares His Holy Name with our Emperors. The Almighty Himself says about this: “And God also said to Moses: Thus say to the children of Israel: The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My Name forever, and the remembrance of Me from generation to generation.” (Exodus 3:15).

1.17. At the end of the hours, the reader says: “Bless in the name of the Lord, father,” and the Priest blesses with the following words: Through the prayers of the saints, our fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us. It turns out that it is in our fathers, the heads of our people, that the Holy Name of God is manifested. It turns out that at the proskomedia, if you don’t take out a particle for the Emperor, it’s the same as not glorifying the Name of God. We take out particles for ourselves, but not for the Holy Name of God! Moreover, if we create desolation in a holy place, we are also revolutionaries, since by arbitrarily ignoring, and actually rejecting, the Tsar’s power, we each time accomplish a mystical revolution on the paten, which by the way means a manger, Golgotha, and then the Holy Sepulcher. If we begin to pray according to the Royal Order, then before God we are no longer revolutionaries, but people faithful to the Lord. Serving the Royal Liturgy is the only correct choice that an Orthodox clergyman can now still make.

1.18. The royal prayer order is also important because it is alien to various additions that appeared after the apostasy events of 1917, as a consequence of perjury. There was neither a great lord nor other lords in the Royal prayer rite. In general, it is only through the Royal Rite of Prayer that one understands who in the Orthodox Russian Church is the real Master, that is, the HEAD of the Church as well as the entire State. According to the imperial rank, this is GOD’S ANOINTED, or, which is the same thing, CHRIST OF THE LORD, the Autocratic King. Our pious ancestors built the Earthly Kingdom as an icon of the Heavenly Kingdom. The earthly king was a living icon of the Heavenly King.

1.19. The will of Christ permeates both Heaven and earth. Therefore, we find an interesting and saving answer for ourselves in the Lord’s Prayer, Our Father: “Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done as it is in Heaven and on earth...” That is When the Name of God, the Father, is sanctified on our part, then the kingdom will come on earth.

1.20. We call the Lord Father, Christ and King. “Heavenly King, Comforter, Soul of Truth...” - we pray to the Holy Spirit. Therefore, respect for the Divinely established Royal Power is direct respect for God Himself! He who does not honor God’s Anointed Ones does not honor HIM who ANOINTED them. Pleasing the Lord, therefore, must be prayerful. The prayer model is the one that was already set in tsarist times. THE OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF SAINTS PRAYED FOR HIM.

1.21. The Royal Prayer Order is the prayer sword of the Holy Russian Power!

2. Church authority, hierarchy, management

2.1. The principles of governance in the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church are determined on the basis of Her holy canons, taking into account the signs and characteristics of our time. Due to the conditions of the time, in the administrative part, not all canons can be fully applied to the conditions of persecution and the final retreat, unprecedented in scope and force. For this reason, one should, at the same time, be guided by the pre-Nicene models of church life for Christians of the 1st-3rd centuries, with inevitable amendments and additions in accordance with the requirements of our recent times.

2.2. The basis of our piety should be the unanimity, unanimity and brotherly love commanded by the Apostles.

2.3. Anyone who avoids mutual communication not because of doubts in faith, virtue, or fear of a provocateur, but simply because of self-will, is subject to the conciliar court.

3. Confession

3.1. Every faithful member of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church must be prepared for various sorrows, hardships, imprisonment and the feat of confession up to death for Christ and His Church.

4. Community life in olack of hierarchy

4.1. Due to the absence in any locality of the canonical hierarchy of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, one should be guided by the rule: “If bishops are taken away from faithful Christians, then presbyters, deacons and monastics and other church people will gather. If the priesthood in general dries up among faithful Christians, then may the Holy Spirit be with them, who will teach them to resolve all issues that arise in the spirit of True Orthodoxy.”

4.2. The Holy Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church believes that the canonical Hierarchy in Her will not become completely depleted until the Lord comes in His second and glorious Coming, therefore She determines: “If the clergy dries up, the faithful are charged with the duty not to abandon church services at all and to even seek until the death of the true Priest."

5. About Divine Services

5.1. With regard to Divine services in the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, it is recommended to move away from bulky, magnificent, pompous and deliberately concert services, and to strive for the simplicity and spirituality of the Divine services of the persecuted ancient Apostolic Church.

5.2. The main and main divine service of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church in remembrance of the passion and death on the cross of our Savior Jesus Christ, as well as His Last Supper, is the Divine Liturgy with the sacrament of the Eucharist or Obednik with the self-communion of the laity with the Reserve Holy Gifts.

The Divine Liturgy and other services and prayer services in the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church are performed according to the rites that took place before the apostasy events of 1917.

5.3. Public worship is one of the most important Christian virtues, through which eternal salvation is achieved. Common prayer best expresses the Spiritual unity of all members of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church among themselves and with God, therefore all true Christians should strive for such mutual communion, sanctified by the invisible presence of Christ and the gracious action of the Holy Spirit (Ps. 144:18; Matt. 18, 20).

5.4. Frequency of Worship Services in the community:

• on Sundays, holidays and highly solemn days, do not omit divine services without a good reason;
• obligatory: Saturday – evening, Sunday – Divine Liturgy;
• additionally: holidays, prayer services.

The community determines the start time of Divine Services independently.

5.5. In the secret, persecuted by the Antichrist, deserted Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, there are not always conditions for performing public worship. Often Christians remain completely separated from the clergy and their brothers and sisters in Christ - then they can read the liturgical texts alone in a non-clerical order. In the absence of the necessary liturgical books for this, these texts can be replaced by reading the Psalter or other available prayer books, and can also be replaced by the Jesus Prayer:

• for evening - 100 Jesus prayers and 25 bows;
• for Compline - 50 and 12 bows;
• for the Midnight Office - 100 and 25 bows;
• for the morning - 300 and 50 bows;
• for the 1st hour - 50 and 7 bows;
• for the 3rd, 6th and 9th hours - 50 Jesus prayers and 7 bows;
• for fine arts - 100 and 10 bows
• for the canon of the Theotokos with Akathist - 200 and 29 bows;
• for the canon to the Guardian Angel - 50 and 7 bows.

5.6. According to the existing conditions of persecution of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church in some areas:

• You should refrain from ringing bells, religious processions and street processions with candles; loud singing; Taking photographs or videotaping (without the blessing of the Priest), as well as anything that could somehow give away the place of the meeting of the faithful.
• Open storage of church utensils, liturgical books, Holy Gifts, holy relics and other shrines is not recommended.
• Not only should no outsider be present at the common prayer of faithful Christians, but also know about the place of their meetings.

The secrecy of meetings must be strictly observed by all members of the community.

5.7. The place for public worship in underground and semi-underground communities is chosen by Christians themselves and takes place “in private houses and other premises adapted for this purpose,” as well as in forests and mountains. This need is caused by the fact that all open churches built before 1917 on the territory of the former Russian Empire are now captured by representatives of the godless government in the person of the dominant anti-Christ, apostasy heresy, and empty churches built before 1917, under various pretexts, are not transferred for use to the communities of the Russian True Orthodox Church. Catacomb Church.

6. About the language of Divine services

6.1. In the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, the language of Divine services is the sacramental Church Slavonic language.

6.2. In the communities of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, if necessary, teaching of the sacramental Church Slavonic language should be provided.

7. Community. Leadership of the community. Priest

7.1. The community of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church is a society of true Orthodox Christians, united by a common faith in Christ, prayers, sacraments, rituals and church discipline, for whom the service of God is living according to the Commandments of God, and performing rituals is a component of such living.

7.2. The basis for the formation of a community of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church is the consent of at least two true believers who have expressed their desire to join the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church.

7.3. No meeting can be called the Community of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church if it is not accepted into canonical communion with the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church through the proper rites performed by its faithful member, approved by the current Bishop (priest). Only those accepted in this way can visibly and Spiritually belong to the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church.

7.4. Clergy - clergy and clergymen of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church. Cleric: 1. Clergy: Priest, deacon; 2. - Clergy: the main ones - reader, singer, subdeacon; auxiliary - the regent, the altar boy and the like, who are part of the clergy and help the clergy during the Divine service.

7.5. A community that has two or more faithful Christians capable of active participation in church house-building can elect a candidate for the clergy. When electing to the clergy, preference, according to ancient custom, is given to candidates from communities.

7.6. The spiritual and general leadership of the community is carried out by the Rector, and in the absence of the clergy - by a monastic or Spiritual Mentor from the laity, who may be candidates for the clergy.

The rector of the community is the Priest. The abbot has all the fullness of Spiritual power, however, he governs Christians not individually arbitrarily, but in accordance with the truth and faithful members of the community, that is, strictly conciliarly.

7.7. Economic activities in the community under general leadership are managed by the headman, who ensures:

• arrangement of a temple or place of worship;
• the presence of church utensils and sacred vessels;
• Liturgical books;
• timely preparation of prosphora and wine;
• a sufficient amount of incense, coals, candles, oil;
• cleanliness and order;
• other.

7.8. The catechumens do not participate in the management of the community and cannot decide anything, but must learn from the Orthodox faith.

7.9. In a large community (more than 10 people), a parish council is elected to govern it, to which the Rector is accountable for his actions.

The participation of the laity in church government, however, does not exclude their obedience to their shepherds in social activities and, especially, in Spiritual affairs, according to the commandment: “Youngers, obey the shepherds (i.e., the elders); Nevertheless, being submissive to one another, clothe yourselves with humility, for God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Pet. 5:5).

8. Closedness and secrecy of communities

8.1. In the modern godless former Russian Empire, communities, if local conditions require it, must be closed from outsiders, as long as the anti-Christ, godless government, the apostate church, and persecution reign on Russian soil. If a community acts illegally but openly, it does so at its own responsibility. Such communities have the status of semi-underground or open, and can engage in missionary activities.

8.2. The community should not strive for communication and rapprochement with other communities or clergy other than its own, not caused by circumstances and necessity. One should be very vigilant and be wary of the provocations of the godless authorities, who always strive to destroy the Church of Christ. Internal connections in the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church must be kept secret and limited to a minimum, so as not to put on them the trace of the enemies of Christ. Communication between clergy and communities of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church is carried out only by specially authorized trusted representatives - “envoys”, chosen for this service from tried and tested Christians.

8.3. All original documents of great importance for the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church and Her children should be carefully preserved and protected. Transferring such documents to heretics, apostates or atheists is a grave crime before God, for which the one who committed such a sin will bear responsibility at the Last Judgment.

9. Acceptance into the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church and excommunication from church communion

9.1. The Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, which is in persecution, does not set as its goal broad missionary activity, but, above all, is concerned with preserving the continuity of the grace of the Holy Spirit given to Her by the Lord. But the servants of the Antichrist do not always and everywhere with equal force pursue the Woman-Church, who is fleeing into the desert from the face of the serpent (Rev. 12:6, 14). At times, according to the providential vision of the Lord God, the persecution weakens, although it does not stop completely, and a kind of “silence appears in heaven, as if for half an hour” (Rev. 8: 1). This short time is given to complete the number of those being saved (Rev. 6:11).

9.2. Faithful Christians of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, according to the book of Revelations and the tradition of the ancient Church of Christ, are called saints (Rev. 13, 7.10; Acts 9, 13.32). This name does not mean their lifetime canonization or a level equal to the ancient saints, but it testifies to their desire, goal and aspiration - to achieve holiness, as well as the presence of holiness, in comparison with apostate Christians.

9.3. Saints with great caution and foresight must accept into communion those who wish to join the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, while it is necessary to understand and remember that the Antichrist government is making attempts to introduce its agents into the communities of Christians faithful to the Church of Christ in order to neutralize and eliminate true Christians, so that preachers of truth could not bear the saving faith of Christ, which denounces sin, lies and all the abominations of the atheists.

9.4. The admission of those wishing to join the community of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church is carried out only on the recommendation of one of the faithful members of this community, with the consent of all its other members, and is approved by its Rector. Outsiders who wish to join the ranks of the believers must be thoroughly tested by a long trial and are accepted by the Priest upon the report of the entire community. Anyone wishing to join the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, in addition to observing the general order, is obliged to accept the doctrine of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church and this Guide.

9.5. Admission to the community is preceded by a preliminary test (moral and doctrinal) and the rite of announcement. If a newcomer approaches the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church out of godlessness, then the usual rite of announcement is performed; if it comes from some other faith, heterodoxy, or schism, then a special order of renunciation of this or that false teaching and false teachers.

9.6. The heresy called “Sergian” includes not only representatives of the structure created by the apostate and heresiarch M. Sergius of Stragorodsky, but also all structures and movements that originated from the robber Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917-1918, and from the apostate Patriarch Tikhon (Bellavin), the destroyer Orthodox Russian Church. In fact, none of the people coming from various church structures can be considered a faithful Christian. Such a person is accepted into the Church only as a repentant representative of apostasy.

9.7. The term for the announcement of the newcomer is determined by the Rector of the community and depends not on time, but on behavior (Apostolic Tradition, XVII).

9.8. Baptism in the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church is performed only by complete threefold immersion (Apostle 49, 50). The person being baptized must have two or at least one recipient from the faithful members of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, who is obliged to be personally present at the baptism. Absentee acceptance is invalid. At baptism, it is desirable that all members of the community be present (unless special circumstances prevent this), for baptism is the sacrament of entry into the Church of Christ, of which they are witnesses.

9.9. Pouring baptism is not allowed, except, as a last resort, on the deathbed, and is performed by pouring three times the entire body of the person being baptized, and not some of its members.

9.10. If there is doubt whether a newly arrived person has been baptized, he must be baptized (Carth. 83) without using the formula “unless baptized,” since no sacrament can be performed conditionally.

9.11. A person who has been accepted into full communion with the Church of Christ is given a certificate of baptism or acceptance. It is approved by the Priest, the recipients, two witnesses and the Rector of the community.

9.12. Anyone wishing to join the community of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church must realize the burden and destructive effect of the ancestral sin of perjury, and consciously repent in the ancestral sin of the Russian people - perjury - trampling on the Council vow of the Russian people to be faithful to the reigning house of the Romanovs until the Second Glorious Coming of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, given with the Kiss of the Cross in 1613 A.D. .

9.13. He who is accepted into full communion undertakes in front of the entire community to take the “Vow of joining the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church” with an oath on the Cross and the Gospel about non-reporting, keeping the secrets of the community, obedience to the canonical hierarchy and the Rector of the community and compliance with these Guidelines. During the first year, the newly baptized humbly learn church life without the right to vote.

9.14. People who smoke should not be baptized until they have completely given up sin. The faithful who fall into this illness are excommunicated from Holy Communion. Those who are overcome by the illnesses of drunkenness or drug addiction should not be accepted into fellowship at all until they completely abandon their addiction. The same applies to the possessed, possessed, mentally ill and generally insane, since they cannot always control their actions. They must be removed as socially dangerous elements that pose a constant threat to Christian society. “If anyone has a demon, let him not listen to the words of teaching until he is cleansed” (Apostolic Tradition, XV; see also Apostolic Canon 79). But if any of these categories of persons sincerely desires salvation in the Church of Christ, then such people can be considered worthy of the catechumen, but kept at a distance from Christians, and pray for their healing. If they are not healed, then may they be worthy of holy baptism and communion only at their death (St. Tim. Alex. 2).

9.15. It is prohibited to baptize as non-humans: corpses, sodomites, transsexuals, homunculi, hermaphrodites (or gradually degenerating into such), horned, furry, tailed, six-toed, scaly, Siamese twins and others who have outwardly non-human characteristics.

9.16. Final excommunication from the communion of the church faithful occurs (except for ordinary penances) only by the court of the parish council (if there is none, then by the court of the Rector and Christians), which is obliged to canonically justify its decision. The person excommunicated in this way, if for some reason he considers this excommunication to be unjust, has the right to demand a trial from the Bishop in the presence of the Rector and witnesses. If there is no peace and the community refuses to accept him back into communion, then the Rector must give him a letter of release.

9.17. The catechumens are excommunicated by decision of the Rector of the community.

9.18. Reception of excommunicated members back into communion occurs through public repentance before the entire community. The penitent confesses his sin, after which Christians decide on his fate. Over those who have been accepted, who have committed a sin, the “Prayer over those who are permitted from prohibition” is read (in the Trebnik), and over those who have fallen into apostasy, depending on the degree of fall, the “Second Order and Rule for those who come from rejection to faith” is read (in it, “The Rule for those who have rejected youth, defiled and repentant”, “The Charter of those who have been perfected by age, those who have been rejected by torment and those who repent” and “About those who have rejected their will and who repent”) (in the Great Trebnik).

10. Testing of those coming to the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church

10.1. “Everyone who comes in the name of the Lord will be accepted: but then, having examined him, you will know about him, since you will have an idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe right and the left. If the person coming to you is truly a stranger, help him as much as you can; but let him not remain with you more than two or, if necessary, three days. If he wants to live with you, being a craftsman, let him work and eat. And if he does not have a trade, you, at your own discretion, take care that a Christian does not live idle among you. And if he does not want to act in this way, he is a seller of Christ: beware of such” (Teaching of the 12 Apostles. Chapter 12).

10.2. Unauthorized transitions from one community to another, not caused by circumstances of persecution, are prohibited for members of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church. If any of the faithful Christians moves to another area and wishes to join another community of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, he must present (if he had the opportunity to do so) a “letter of representative” certifying that he is not deprived of church communion and is worthy acceptance (Apostolic Canon 12). The same applies to all Christians communicating with other communities.

11. Institute of Itinerant Priests

11.1. Due to persecution and the shortage of Priests, “wandering Priests” take place in the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church.

11.2. Those wishing to receive the Priest are asked, firstly, to take all precautions, protect him from outsiders, and maintain secrecy; secondly, to have a room for worship (if one is planned), as well as to provide the clergyman with everything necessary.

11.3. During the current persecution, those who have holy orders are not required to appear in public places in the robes of a clergy, and a monk in the robes of a monk, - at the same time, it is necessary for the world to set an example of meekness, tolerance and love, which is an example for us of our Lord Jesus Christ.

12. About Spiritual Mentors

12.1. Having received one talent in holy baptism, a Christian is obliged to increase it with virtues, through which the grace of the Spirit is acquired. By the power of grace, special gifts (charisms) are also revealed, such as teaching, spiritual guidance, eldership, etc.

“Serve one another, each one with the gift which he has received, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Pet. 4:10).

“There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and the services are different, but the Lord is the same; and the actions are different, but God is one and the same, producing everything in everyone. But everyone is given the manifestation of the Spirit for their benefit. To one is given the word of wisdom by the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to others gifts of healings by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another divers tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. Yet one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He pleases.” (1 Cor. 12:4-11).

The listed ministries do not require special dedication to perform them, but naturally flow from the single gift of apostleship received by a Christian in the sacrament of baptism. For baptism is the first hierarchical degree of initiation into the New Testament royal priesthood.

12.2. Due to the impoverishment of the priesthood, in the persecuted Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, in accordance with ancient practice, there is the rank of Spiritual Mentor (in monastic communities his functions are carried out by Abbots), who performs the duties of the Rector of the church community. The rank of Spiritual Guide corresponds to the ministries of presbyter (presbuteroV - Greek elder, elder), abbot (hgoumenoV - Greek mentor or leader), didaskal (didaskaloV - Greek teacher, teacher), primate (proistamenoV) of a meeting where there is no Bishop.

12.3. The office of Spiritual Director has a solid foundation in the history of the Church of Christ. Although Rule 64 of the VI Ecumenical Council prohibits a layman from “uttering a word before the people, or teaching, and thus taking upon himself the dignity of a teacher,” this only applies to preaching in church, from the pulpit, when there are shepherds endowed with holy orders, so that the laity would not illegally admire their power is in their presence. But this is also a later establishment, since the ancient rule says: “A teacher, even if he is a worldly person, is skilled in the word of teaching and is pure in character, let him teach. They will all be taught by God” (15 St. Paul). The history of the ancient Apostolic Church, as well as numerous examples from the lives of saints, confirms to us that the preaching of the Gospel was proclaimed by all Christians, and not just by shepherds and saints. This is especially strongly confirmed by the existence of ancient Christian apologists and teachers of the Church: Justin the martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tatian, Hermias the philosopher, Minucius Felix, Aristides the philosopher, Quadratus, Athenagoras and others.

“And He appointed some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-12).

“And God appointed others in the Church, firstly, apostles, secondly, prophets, thirdly, teachers; further, to others he gave miraculous powers, also gifts of healing, help, government, and diversities of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:28).

From these words of the Apostle Paul it is obvious that in the Ancient Apostolic Church there were various ministries - evangelists (evangelists), whose functions were performed by readers, prophets, teachers (didascals) - which were associated with preaching, but not associated with ordination to the priesthood.

12.4. The division into “teaching church” and “learning church”, characteristic of Roman papism, is rejected by Orthodox teaching as heresy.

12.5. The participation of the people of God in the ministry of teaching is undeniable, for every member of the Church, and not just the clergy, is given the ability to understand and interpret the Holy Scriptures in accordance with the truth, and therefore to preach the Word of God.

“Nevertheless, the anointing which you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you; but just as this very anointing teaches you all things, and is true and without falsehood, whatever he has taught you, abide in it” (1 John 2:27).

12.6. Since apostolic times, didaskals have existed in the Church as bearers of a special grace-filled ministry. The Church History of Eusebius of Caesarea (Book VI, 17-19) says: “The holy bishops, as soon as they found people capable of bringing benefit to the brethren, invited them to preach to the people. This is what the blessed brethren did in Laranda - Neon with Evelpides, in Iconium - Celsus with Peacock, in Sinnad - Atticus with Theodore. This was probably the case in other places as well.” This undoubtedly proves that the ministry of the laity in the field of teaching was widespread in ancient Christian society of the 1st-3rd centuries. Later, it ceased to exist as an institutional institution, as soon as there was no longer a need for it, but it found its manifestation in the institute of eldership and teaching.

12.7. The people of God are an integral part of the body of the Church, without which its existence would be unthinkable. In addition to teaching, the church people also perform the functions of government, intercession, i.e. they directly participate in church administration and general house-building, elect the clergy, regulate the life of the local community, have representation at Councils, etc. The oligarchic form of government in the Church of Christ is unacceptable in any of its manifestations, the only criterion in everything is truth and unity in the Holy Spirit.

12.8. The holy book of the Bible in the prophecy of the prophet Jeremiah (19:1) points us, as it were, to two threads that give grace from the one Lord God - the elders of mankind and the elders of the priesthood. On this basis, the Apostle Peter calls those who shepherd the flock of Christ elders.

“I beg your shepherds, a fellow shepherd and witness of the sufferings of Christ and a sharer in the glory that is to be revealed: feed the flock of God that is among you, overseeing it not under compulsion, but willingly and pleasing to God, not for vile gain, but out of zeal, and not lording over the inheritance of God, but setting an example for the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive an unfading crown of glory” (2 Peter 5:1-4).

12.9. The elders, as the Spiritual leaders of the people, are repeatedly spoken of in the Old Testament (Ex. 3, 16; 4, 29; 12, 21). The elders of the people, i.e. the elders, have been the legal representatives of the people since the times of Egyptian slavery. During the time of Moses, the Holy Spirit descended on them so that they could lighten the burden of national government (Numbers 11:16). They are mentioned many times in the subsequent history of Israel, as having retained the same meaning that belonged to them in Egypt (Josh. 7, 6; 23, 2; 1 Sam. 3, 17; 5, 3; 17, 4; 1 Kings 8, 1.3; 20, 7; 2 Kings 23, 1).

12.10. The Lord Jesus Christ in His Gospel says: “Salt is a good thing; but if the salt loses its strength, how can it be corrected? not suitable for soil or manure; they throw it away.” (Luke 14:34-35). Explaining these words, blessed. Theophylact on behalf of the Lord commands: “I want every Christian to be useful and strong to edify, not only those who have been entrusted with the gift of teaching, such as the apostles, teachers and shepherds were, but I demand that the laity themselves be fruitful and useful for their neighbors . If the one who has to serve for the benefit of others is himself unfit and leaves the state appropriate for a Christian, then he will be unable to either bring benefit or receive benefit... Therefore, as someone who does not serve for the benefit and does not receive benefit, he must be rejected and thrown out out." Moreover, these words should be attributed to Spiritual Mentors and learned elders.

12.11. In the Ancient Church, the elders-presbyters ordained to the priesthood did not perform the Eucharist and other sacraments and were not engaged in teaching, which was left to the Bishops, prophets and didaskals, but were engaged in other functions. In the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome (chapter 9) contains a clear indication of non-ordained elders, who, however, have their dignity.

Confessors were often monks who did not have holy orders (during the period of the Ecumenical Councils). Confessors who did not have holy orders still meet later. However, repentance was recognized in the Eastern Church as a free act of every believer, who could choose his own Spiritual father according to the thoughts and desires. Under such circumstances, the confessors noticeably rose above the ordinary parish clergy, who did not receive the right to confession from the bishop.

12.12. Priests did not have the right to accept people for repentance without the special permission of the Bishop. Therefore, now a practice has been established in communities when, even if there is a Priest, it can be controlled by a Spiritual Mentor or an appointed elder.

12.13. In hierarchical terms in the Ancient Apostolic Church, prophets and didaskals stood above presbyters. Only from the end of the 3rd century the latter were gradually granted the right to teach and perform the sacraments.

12.14. From the works of the Holy Fathers we know examples of simpletons who are in charge of spiritual affairs. So the Monk John of Rylsky is a simpleton and was chosen by simpletons to be abbot (Prologue, Oct. 19). The Monk Alexander taught the Greeks, baptized them and was elected by the simpletons to the abbess (Prologue, February 23). The Monk Marcian was the Mentor of the people and was asked by Patriarch Flavian of Antioch and Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, “to take him out of the desert for the benefit of many” (Prologue, November 2). The holy martyrs Florus and Laurus built the church and consecrated it themselves, and sang the verses: “Glory to Thee, O Christ God, praise of the Apostles...” in anticipation of the Cross of the Lord (Prologue, Aug. 18).

12.15. Both men and women can be elected as Spiritual Guides, just as in women's monasteries, abbess are elected. To this we have examples of holy women equal to the apostles: Mary Magdalene, Thekla, Nina, the enlightener of Georgia, Princess Olga, etc.

12.16. Women Mentors do not perform the sacraments, with the exception of confession and baptism (in special circumstances). These sacraments must be administered by other male faithful Christians.

12.17. A mentor or abbot elected according to the rules, without his own consent, cannot be removed arbitrarily by the community, but only for a canonical reason. However, the Mentor himself, with the blessing of the Priest and with the consent of the people, can concede primacy in favor of a more worthy one.

12.18. So, in accordance with the most ancient practice of the Church, the Mentor is a Spiritual person who is not invested with holy orders, but has the full scope of Spiritual power granted to him by the election of the church community and the approval of the bishop (if there is one). The Spiritual Guide is hierarchically placed above the Priests and Deacons, since he has the dignity of presbyter (elected elder) and didaskal (church teacher), being the Spiritual Father of the community. The mentor has the right to perform the holy sacraments (except for the Eucharist and ordination), the Spiritual Court, teach blessings with and without a cross according to the established rite, teach the people in moral and dogmatic matters, including from the church pulpit, wear a cassock and skufia. The Spiritual Mentor, as a shepherd and spiritual father, is the guardian of church rules and the purity of the contents of the Church of Orthodox doctrine. He is obliged, according to the commandment of the Apostle, to shepherd the flock of God, “supervising it not under compulsion, but willingly and godly, not for vile gain, but out of zeal, and not lording it over the clergy, but setting an example for the flock” (1 Pet. 5:2 -3).

13.1. Faithful members of the Church, as true Orthodox Christians, are prohibited from: being a member of the Communist Party and any godless political parties, Komsomol, Pioneers, collective farms; in Masonic and semi-Masonic organizations; in pro-Sergian, neo-pagan, ecumenical, heretical and apostate, nationalist, Islamic, pagan, neo-pagan, sodomite and immoral organizations; participate in the elections of a godless government - for true Christians should be interested in the speedy destruction of “Babylon”, and not in its creation, so as not to suffer the same fate as the wicked (Rev. 6, 10-11; 18, 4-7).

13.2. It is forbidden for all the faithful to enter heretical or pagan educational institutions or to be teachers in them; as an exception, they are allowed to study or work in the above educational institutions, provided that a sermon of repentance is carried out in them - if such a possibility is eliminated on the part of the godless administration or godless authorities, the faithful must leave this educational institution. It is prohibited to engage in professional or amateur sports, all types of martial arts and “Spiritual” practices (excluding physical training for military operations, fishing and tourism, recreational gymnastics), and to participate in the Olympic Games; go to sports or theater shows.

13.3. The faithful are prohibited from being a sculptor or artist who produces idols and amulets, signs of the zodiac and other magical products, as well as from working for apostate and heretical organizations. It is forbidden for the faithful to be an actor or giver of performances in the theater, as well as a laugher (Apostolic Tradition, XVI). Let all such and those named above be rejected from the Holy Church until they repent of their sin and forsake it. Also prohibited are: practicing oriental and occult medicine in general, any type of ritual herbal medicine and preparation of potions, godless psychology and psychotherapy. Treatment with homeopathy, urine therapy, hypnosis, witchcraft, incantation, whispering, sorcery, coding, spells and other magical actions is prohibited. It is prohibited to engage in cloning, folk “healing” and “extrasensory perception”. Those who heal with such means or resort to them for illnesses - let them be cursed.

13.4. If any of the faithful children of the Church enlist in military service in the godless army or in other executive authorities (excluding private security companies) and swear allegiance to an atheistic state, such are subject to excommunication along with apostates from Christ, “because they despised God” ( Apostolic Tradition, XVI).

The Fatherland for Christians is Heavenly Jerusalem, and their Homeland is the Holy Church (the place of their Spiritual birth), and not a desecrated territory inhabited by atheists and apostates (Ezra 9:11; Isa. 24:5-6).

13.5. The faithful children of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church need avoid using:

• bank accounts and cards (plastic cards), as well as other cards (plastic cards) with electronic digital storage media;
• barcodes and goods, services and other things with barcodes applied or applied after the purchase of goods, services

• Tax Identification Number (TIN);
• a biometric passport or a passport with the number of the beast decorated;
• Social Security Number;
• bank and other cards (plastic cards) with electronic digital storage media;
• CHIPs (Numerical Identification Devices) and equivalent identifiers

providing the opportunity to purchase goods, use services and other “benefits” of the Antichrist world and open the door to renunciation of God, acceptance of Satan and eternal destruction.

Faithful children of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church with TIN and other digital, electronic-digital identifiers must refuse from them, which for the spiritual world is confession.

The rationale is given in Revelation 13:15-18; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 20:4 specifically:

“15 And it was given to him to put spirit into the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would both speak and act, so that everyone who would not worship the image of the beast would be killed.

16 And he will cause everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,

17 And that no one may buy or sell except he who has the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Open 13

13.6. During the current persecution, faithful Christians of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church are prohibited from registering the community with the state bodies of the Antichrist authorities, which could lead to harm to Christians: various external pressures, the penetration of agents of theology into the community and, in the end, lead to its physical destruction. Anyone who disobeys this decree is excommunicated from church communion until repentance.

13.7. If any Christian - sanctified, monastic or lay - is convicted of betraying the faithful, then let him be completely excommunicated and, after his repentance, receive peace with the Church only at his death. Show mercy only to those traitors who fell after torture. Such, testing loyalty and deeds, should be accepted after 7 years. A cleric, a Master, or any layman or monk who dares to give fellowship to traitors is cast out and rejected from everything, and is subject to ecclesiastical judgment.

13.8. Upon the restoration of the LEGAL Monarchy, communities, churches and monasteries of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church are subject to Imperial state registration with all the ensuing Imperial state guarantees that took place before 1917 AD.

14. About barbering and hair

14.1. All male members of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church community are required to wear a beard. Shaving the beard (barber shaving) is strictly prohibited, as is the Latin custom. The one who follows him must be excommunicated from church communion (Lev. 19, 27; 21, 5; Stoglav chapter 40; Helmsman of Patriarch Joseph. Rule of Nikita Scythites “On tonsure of marriage,” fol. 388 on the ver. and 389).

14.2. The vile pagan custom of men cutting their heads (Lev. 19:27) or, being worldly, growing their hair, braiding it, etc., is also not allowed, and women are not allowed to cut their hair (1 Cor. 11: 14-15).

14.3. All female members of the community of the Orthodox Russian Church are required to cover their heads during prayer (1 Cor. 11, 14-15). Remembering what the Apostle teaches:

15.1. In the Russian Empire, churches and monasteries of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church were maintained at the expense of the Imperial treasury, and part of the income came from the communities’ own economic activities, as well as donations from believers.

In the current apostasy time of persecution and persecution of the faithful children of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, all its ministers are supported by donations from communities. This situation takes place until the restoration of the LEGAL Monarchy (see paragraph 54, paragraph 55, paragraph one).

In view of the small number of communities of faithful Christians of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, in times of apostasy, clergy can work in civil enterprises of any form of ownership, while conducting a feasible sermon of repentance among workers at the enterprise, observing measures of personal safety and the safety of the community. Work at a civil enterprise should not negatively affect the order of Divine services in the community (cancellation or postponement of Divine services, fulfillment of requirements). Working clergy devote a tenth of their income not from the altar to spreading the message of repentance.

15.2. The main form of collecting income for the needs of the Church of Christ is tithe, that is, a tenth of all monthly or annual income of each faithful, as well as voluntary donations. (see: Deut. 18, 1-2; Num. 18, 20-24; 1 Cor. 9, 4-14). All members of the community, including the catechumens, in addition to voluntary donations, offerings for the Lord’s table, firstfruits, etc., are obligated to contribute tithes to the needs of the Church of Christ, as a dedication to the Lord (Gen. 14:20; Lev. 27, 32-33; Numbers 18, 21-24; Deut. 14, 22-29; Apostolic Constitutions, II. 25. 28). And whoever wants to be perfect, according to the commandment of Christ, let him serve the Lord and His Church with all his property.

15.3. A tenth of the community's income from donations and tithes - "tithe of the tithe" - is due to the ruling Bishop (Num. 18:25-29; Neh. 10:38). She goes to spread the sermon of repentance.

15.4. A tenth of the “tithe of the tithe” is due to the first among equals Bishops of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church - it goes towards spreading the preaching of repentance.

15.5. In the communities of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, nothing is sold or valued (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45). Candles, prosphora, crosses, printed materials, etc. are freely available and used by community members as needed; requests are sent free of charge. If they are so inclined and able, community members can make a donation as much as they can.

16. On the performance of sacred rites in a non-priestly manner

16.1. In case of urgent need to serve the sacraments, but in view of the lack of a Priest, faithful Christians of the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church can perform the sacraments in a non-sacramental rite.

16.2. Of the seven sacraments of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, five can be performed in a non-sacred rite: baptism, anointing, repentance, marriage, and consecration of oil. The sacrament of the Eucharist is not celebrated in a non-sacred rite, but the laity can partake of the presanctified Holy Gifts, according to the practice of the Holy Church of Christ. Funeral services, requiem services, water blessing prayers, minor consecration of the church, and announcements are also performed in the secular rite. Monastic tonsures are performed only by robed monks. But a ryassophore monk can tonsure a ryassophore.

17. About the sacrament of baptism

17.1. The holy sacrament of baptism is the first and necessary condition for achieving salvation, for only it makes one a member of the Church of Christ, outside of which it is impossible to find the Kingdom of Heaven, therefore the Holy Church, when the priesthood is impoverished in certain places, or in other extreme circumstances, allows baptism with a non-sacred rite .

17.2. The Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church testify to the performance of the holy sacrament of baptism: St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, says that “a simple monk and deacon can baptize when necessary.” Blazh. Jerome also says: “We know that baptism is often permitted even to the laity; if only necessity requires it. For as someone has received, so he can give.” Blazh. Augustine, in his epistle to Fortunatus, writes: “When a need arises, the worldly have the skill of teaching baptism to those being baptized.” He says: “For it is proper to baptize unbaptized infants, if anyone is found in the absence of the Priest.”

About the same rev. Theodore Studit: “It is more useful for an unbaptized person, if there is no Orthodox Christian to perform baptism, to be baptized by a monk, or, in the absence of that, by a layman, saying: such and such is baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, than to depart unenlightened; - and he becomes truly baptized. For change occurs according to need and law (Heb. 7:12), as was explained in ancient times” (letter 24 to Ignatius the son). Tertullian: “However, even the laity, as a last resort, is allowed to baptize. Thus, when there is neither bishop, nor priest, nor deacon, then no one should deny the communication of the gift of the Lord" (De baptismo, XII).

“According to circumstances, a simple monk baptizes, as well as a deacon and a commoner, if a priest is not found in the place” (Rule 14 of Patriarch Nicholas).

“If a Priest cannot be found in a certain place, then unbaptized infants can be baptized by anyone who is present there. There is no sin: whether the father or anyone else baptizes, as long as he is a Christian” (45 rule of Nicephorus the Confessor). “A catechumen in case of illness, while on the road or at a distance from the church, can be baptized by a layman who has received correct baptism and is not a second-marriage” (Canon 38 of the Council of Elvira).

17.3. There are many examples in the Holy Scriptures when the sacrament of holy baptism was performed by persons not invested with the priestly rank. The Acts of the Apostles (chapter 8) tells how Philip preached the Gospel of Christ to the Samaritans, baptizing many husbands and wives. This Philip, according to the interpretation of the Holy Fathers, was a deacon, a minister not of the altar, but of meals (Acts 6: 1-6). The same Philip baptized the Eunuch on the way (Acts 8:38). Also, the Apostle Ananias, when he was still a deacon, baptized the Apostle Paul due to the lack of a Priest (Acts 9:17-18), as St. explains. John Chrysostom. Therefore, the Nomocanon says: “Our Lord Jesus Christ commanded many of the apostles who did not have the priesthood to baptize” (fol. 65).

17.4. The same is confirmed beyond doubt by examples from the lives of saints. St. Galaktion, being a layman, baptized his wife Epistimia (Prologue, November 5); similarly St. the martyr Menas baptized Hermogenes the eparch (Prologue, December 10); St. the martyr Blasius, called Vukol, sprinkled the believers with water from the pot in which he himself had been boiled (Prologue, February 3); St. the martyr Sozont enlightened the Hellenes and baptized them (Prologue, September 7); St. Athanasius the Great baptized his peers in childhood, which the Patriarch of Alexandria learned about and considered this baptism to be true and correct, although there was no need for it; St. Martyr Potius baptized the king's daughter (Cheti Menaion, July 1); St. Theophan of Antioch baptized himself and the harlot whom he taught Christianity (Prologue, July 10); St. Theophan the Confessor taught the infidels and baptized them (Prologue, Sept. 9); the martyrs Diodorus and Didymus did the same (Prologue, September 11); Priskill (Prologue, Sept. 21); Mark and others like him (Prologue Oct. 27); Dometius (Prologue, Oct. 4); an elder in Alexandria baptized a Jewish maiden, which he reported to Patriarch John the Merciful (Prologue, November 24); Alexander Mnich baptized a certain elder of the city and many others (Prologue, February 23); St. the martyr Callistratus himself baptized 39 soldiers in the lake into which they were thrown by the tormentor (Cheti Menaion, September 27).

The sacrament of baptism was also performed by pious wives. So St. Equal-to-the-Apostles Thekla baptized herself out of need. Then, having been sent to St. the Apostle Paul to teach people, baptized others, which is narrated in her life; St. Mariamne, the sister of the Apostle Philip, taught the word of God to the infidels in Lycaonia and baptized them (Prologue, Feb. 7). “However, in case of any need, this Sacrament can be performed by a worldly person, male or female... Such Baptism has such power that, although it is not repeated, it is an undoubted guarantee of eternal salvation” (Orthodox Confession of Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Eastern 1645 Part 1, issue 103).

17.5. Every Christian should know the short rules for performing the holy sacrament of baptism if there are no liturgical books at hand.

17.6. The correctly performed sacrament of holy baptism by a non-sacred rite is not subject to any addition or replenishment from the Priest, but is recognized as a genuine baptism of grace.

17.7. Self-baptism is permitted in case of mortal danger and only for catechumens. In other cases, self-baptism is not allowed, because it cannot lead one into the Church.

17.8. The Holy Church of Christ recognizes and accepts the following forms of the holy sacrament of baptism:

• Water, triple immersion.
• With your own blood, during torment.
• Bloodless martyrdom.
• Tearful, repentant washing with tears.

18. About the sacramentvanointing

18.1. If in baptism the rebirth of the newly enlightened into Spiritual life and cleansing by the grace of the Holy Spirit from sin takes place, being, as it were, a door to the Church and the kingdom of grace, then the holy sacrament of anointing is the communication of special gifts of grace of the Holy Spirit for strengthening and growing in faith and passing the title of Christian.

18.2. Although from ancient times anointing was performed in connection with the sacrament of baptism, nevertheless, anointing is a special sacrament, separate from baptism.

18.3. Like the sacrament of baptism, anointing can be performed in a non-sacred rite according to the missal, if there is a substance of the Holy Mystery consecrated by the Bishop. Each Christian, having received a blessing from the Bishop (or Priest), can perform the sacrament of anointing over the newly baptized, since he himself, having been granted it, has the power to also teach others the gift of the Holy Spirit, which he has through this sacrament.

18.4. Like baptism, the visible performance of the sacrament of anointing cannot be replaced by an invisible, Spiritual anointing, for the latter, although it occurs in some cases, is in no way connected with the sacrament itself, but is a special, exclusive action of God’s providence.

18.5. If the substance of the Holy Anointing, consecrated by the Bishop, necessary for performing the sacrament of anointing, is not available, then the anointing is replaced by the laying on of hands, as was the case in the Church of Christ from the beginning:

“The Apostles who were in Jerusalem, hearing that the Samaritans had accepted the word of God, sent Peter and John to them, who came and prayed for them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet descended on any of them, but only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:14-17).

“He said to them, Have you received the Holy Spirit when you believed? They said to him: we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. He said to them: What were you baptized into? They answered: in John's baptism. Paul said: John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people that they should believe in him who should come after him, that is, in Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they began to speak in other tongues and prophesy” (Acts 19:2-6).

18.6. The laying on of hands instead of anointing with the Holy Spirit is permitted only in the most extreme circumstances, when there is no long-term connection with true Priests and Bishops. The laying on of hands, instead of anointing with the Holy Order, is performed by several Christians (if the ceremony takes place in a community) and by one. When laying on hands, the prayer “Blessed art thou, Lord God Almighty, fountain of good things,” is read, according to the rite of anointing.

18.7. The sacrament of anointing, performed according to the described rite, is recognized as genuine and grace-filled. If it is accomplished by one laying on of hands, it can be supplemented by the anointing of the Holy Mystery from the Priest.

18.8. When the Holy Mystery becomes depleted, it can be diluted with consecrated oil (Syntagma of M. Vlastar. Composition of OT, rule 15; Breviary. Rite of consecration of the church).

19. About the sacrament of repentance

19.1. Regarding the performance of the sacrament of confession before a commoner or a monk who has not been invested with holy orders, we have clear instructions from the Holy Scriptures: “Confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed: for the prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much” (James 5, 16). St. Apostle Paul, referring to the forgiveness of the Corinthian incest, obviously speaks of the right to forgive this sin to the local Christian community, if this is in accordance with the will of God: “And whomever you forgive for anything, I also forgive him; for if I have forgiven anyone for anything, I have forgiven you on behalf of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:10).

19.2. This is confirmed in the teaching and practice of the Holy Church. The Nomocanon says: “If someone who is a Priest is not skilled, and another is not a Priest, but has the skill of spiritual action, it is more righteous than the Priest to receive thoughts and correct them correctly” (sheet 730). Blazh. Theophylact of Bulgaria, in the interpretation of Matt. 18, 18: “If you bind anyone on earth, they will be bound in heaven,” writes: “If, he says, you, offended, have as a publican and a pagan one who has dealt you unjustly, then he will be such in heaven as well.” . If you resolve it, that is, forgive, then it will be forgiven in heaven. For not only what the Priests allow can be allowed, but also what we, when we are treated unjustly, bind or loose, can also be bound or loosed in heaven.”

Rev. Theodore the Studite testifies: “But since he (the Bishop) sees that heresy reigns and the circumstances are constraining on all sides, he introduced everyone who wanted to heal the illnesses that had happened, as anyone can; and he did well, most venerable, so that what was done was the law, and the soul for which Christ died was not left without healing. Therefore, the penances used at the present time are medicines... These actions do not produce temptation, but serve as proof of true love” (message 162).

“It’s not against the rules,” says the same reverend. Theodore, - and assign penance to a simple monk" (epistle 215 to Methodius the monk).

19.3. The lives of the saints tell of the performance of confession by persons who do not have the priestly rank. So Saint Anthony the Great taught many who came to him and accepted the thoughts and gave the Monk Paul the Simple a monastic image; Saint Pachomius the Great, having gathered many monasteries, also accepted the thoughts of the brethren and imposed penance on the rejected Christ and corrected him; Saint John the Great accepted those confessing and, having accepted one heretic-iconoclast for repentance, made him a true Christian; the holy martyr Christopher, having received two repentant harlots, gave them forgiveness; the simple elder bound his disciple with “apostolic authority” (Prologue, Oct. 15).

19.4. In the Ancient Church of Christ in early Christian times, the sacrament of confession did not have the forms that appeared in church practice later. Repentance then took place publicly in the temple and all the people of God allowed or bound the sinner. However, public repentance or repentance before the primate was performed only for serious, mortal sins; for other sins, a Christian asked forgiveness from God in private prayer, which, of course, is also counted as true repentance. For the sacrament of repentance, unlike other sacraments, is not associated with a visible ritual, but is a purely moral matter. This is precisely how repentance was understood in the writings of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church of Christ in the 1st-3rd centuries. In general, according to patristic teaching, true repentance is imputed only to those who truly abandon the sin they confessed, for repentance is, first of all, a change of mind. The fact that in the absence of a confessor, repentance should be brought to God alone and this is counted as true repentance is stated in the Helmsman’s Book:

“Question: If a man has grown old in sins, he makes a covenant in his prayer between himself and God, saying, “Lord, forgive me those who have sinned hitherto, and so on, I will not commit the sins of my ancients, neither will I return to them, but let us confess to Your name. If a person has made this covenant with God and dies in a few days, what should you think?

Answer: His repentance was accepted by God” (Venerable Anastasia Sinaita, sheet 629).

19.5. To perform sacramental repentance, a witness to confession is required who testifies to the truth of its commission. He is a mediator between God and the repentant sinner, who has the power to resolve and bind, however, in such a way as to be in agreement with the will of God, and not according to his own arbitrariness. This is the most important basis of the sacrament of sacramental confession, the celebrant of which is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

19.6. The sacrament of confession is in no way connected with the sacrament of the Eucharist, and can be performed both together and separately with it. In the absence of a confessor or any other witness to confession from among the faithful Christians, every Christian who has no obstacles to holy communion, that is, is not excommunicated and is not under penance, and does not commit particularly serious, mortal sins requiring healing in the sacrament of confession before Spiritual Father - can partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, using the rite of “skete”, or more precisely, “cell” repentance, which consists of detailed confession in private prayer before God of possible sins. “Skete repentance” is thus considered true repentance and does not require additional purification by repentance before the Spiritual Father. However, everyone should be guided more by the voice of conscience than by the established law, for in this case it is impossible to establish one rule for everyone regarding confession, since everyone requires such Spiritual healing that is consistent with the state of his soul.

19.7. The performance of the sacrament of repentance by a non-priestly rite is not a right applied only in special circumstances, but a constant church practice used in the Holy Church always and everywhere, since it is based on the moral authority of the confessor - a layman or a monk - capable of Spiritual guidance of believers. The Institute of Elderhood perfectly confirms this experience.

19.8. Since the most important moment of the sacrament of repentance lies in confessing sins before God and renouncing them in the presence of a witness who forgives the repentant in the name of God, then the so-called. “Prayer of permission”, beginning with the words: “Our Lord and God Jesus Christ...”, and the placing of a priestly stole on the confessor with the sign of the cross, is not an indispensable condition for the validity of the sacrament of repentance.

19.9. In the persecuted Church of Christ, absentee confession also became a practice, when the penitent sent it in writing (including via the Internet) to the Priest (or Bishop), and he, upon receiving it, read the sacraments of prayer appropriate to the rites. This way of performing confession does not in any way contradict the essence and meaning of this sacrament.

20. About communion outside the temple

20.1. At first, the Holy Gifts were sent to the homes of all those Christians who were not present in the meeting. So St. Justin Martyr testifies: “After the communion of all the believers in the assembly, the deacons give communion to those who were not there” (Apologist 1 – 97 pp.). Later they began to send the Holy Gifts, mainly to prisoners in prison, confessors and the sick. Such are the testimonies of this from the fathers - Cyprian (letter 54), Chrysostom (about the priesthood VI, 4), and the decisions of the Councils - Nicaea (pr. 13) and Carthage (pr. 76, 77, 78). And if in the church communion was taught only by clergy, then, on the other hand, the mission of delivering the Holy Gifts to the homes of believers was sometimes performed by lower clergy and even ordinary laymen. Thus, there is a well-known story about the priest Tarsius, who was tortured by the pagans because he did not want to give up the body of the Savior that he was carrying (Martyrol. Rom die aug. XVIII. Martigny - 168 pp.). And that the Holy Gifts were sent to the homes of believers in case of need through ordinary believers, this is clear from the story of the communion of Elder Serapion. Serapion, excommunicated from communion, at the time of his death asked his grandson to call the local presbyter. The presbyter refused to go due to illness, but gave the boy a small particle of the Eucharist, ordered it to be soaked upon arrival home and placed in the elder’s mouth. So the boy did. Arriving home, he soaked the particle and poured the Eucharist into the mouth of the dying old man (St. Dionysius Alex. Bishop. From his letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, in the Church History of Eusebius, Book VI, Chapter XLIV).

Moreover, the believers themselves, present at the Liturgy, were allowed to take the Holy Gifts into their homes and receive communion there daily. This custom is indicated by Tertullian (to his wife, book 2, chapter 5), Cyprian (book of the fallen, p. 161), Gregory of Nazianzus (word XI on Gorgonia), Cyril of Alexandria (Malinovsky, pp. 17-18), Jerome (letter 50 to Pammachius). The general idea of ​​all these testimonies is expressed by Basil the Great in letter 81 to Caesarea: “And what is not the least dangerous,” we read here, “if someone, during persecution, in the absence of a Priest or servant, finds it necessary to take the sacrament with his own hand, it was unnecessary to prove this; because long-standing custom confirms this by the deed itself. For all monks living in deserts where there is no priest, keeping the sacrament in the house, commune to themselves. And in Alexandria and Egypt, every baptized layman, for the most part, has communion in his home and takes communion of his own accord whenever he wants. For, when the priest has once made and presented the sacrifice, having accepted it as a whole, receiving communion daily, he must rightly believe that he is receiving and receiving communion from the one who taught it. For in church, too, the priest teaches a portion, and the one who receives it holds it with full right and thus brings it to his lips with his own hand. Therefore, it has one power, whether someone accepts one part from the priest, or suddenly many parts”... Often believers lived in the same houses with pagans - women often had pagan husbands, and vice versa. Then home communion was celebrated in deep secrecy without any external ceremonies. Tertullian, for example, gives the following advice to a wife whose husband is a pagan: “...so that your husband does not know that you eat secretly before any food” (to his wife, 11, 5). In homes, the Holy Gifts were kept in special vessels, the value of which varied depending on the condition of the believers. Saint Cyprian is the first to speak of household tabernacles; he calls them “arca” - ark (On the Fallen, 161 pp.). This Holy Father tells the story of one woman who wanted to open her ark with unclean hands, where the Body of the Lord was located, but was held back by the flame that came out of it (ibid.). We cannot accurately indicate how long the custom of taking the Holy Gifts home for communion existed. In any case, it took place in the 6th century, for we see the hermit Zosimas giving communion to the Venerable Mary of Egypt (†521); and even in the 7th century, as we learn from the Meadow of the Spiritual John Moschus (†622). (See chapters 30 and 79 of the Spiritual Meadow).

20.2. Believers often took the Holy Gifts with them on their travels. St. speaks about this. Ambrose (de myster. c. 8, paragraph 48) and Gregory the Great (Conversation about the life of the Italian fathers, book 3, chapter 36). Moreover, there were cases when travelers had parts of the Holy Eucharist under both types (Baronius in Dialoog. III, p. 36. Annal eccl. loc. cit. - Macarius dogmatist. 223 pp.).

20.3. The Holy Gifts were even exchanged between believers as a sign of greeting. In this regard, a custom of this kind was especially widespread: Bishops on the Easter holiday sent the Holy Gifts to subordinate societies in order to testify to unity with them... From the Spiritual Meadow of John Moschus we learn that this practice existed in his time (Chapter 29 of the Spiritual Meadow).

20.4. “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you will not have life in you,” says the Lord (John 6:53). He who does not partake of the Body and Blood of Christ is dead in soul. However, this is said about those who remove themselves from partaking of the Holy Mysteries, but it does not say that whoever does not receive communion will not be saved. The Lord Jesus Christ was the first to introduce the prudent thief into heaven, although he apparently did not receive communion.

20.5. What if a Christian is unable to participate in the sacrament of the Eucharist, due to persecution, imprisonment, or other circumstances?

- Let him not be embarrassed, for we have many testimonies of how ascetics and confessors, according to their faith, were given communion by Angels. “In times of persecution,” says St. Athanasius of Alexandria, “when there is a shortage of teachers, the Lord Himself feeds those who believe in Him with His Spirit” (Creations. Part 4, p. 129). For even if someone on his deathbed desires to partake of the Holy Gifts, but for reasons beyond his control is not worthy of communion, this desire alone will serve as a reward and justification. But whoever does not stand in the truth will inherit eternal destruction, even if he has received communion.

20.6. He who is deprived of the opportunity to visibly receive the Holy Eucharist suffers no loss if he abides in Christ, for he invisibly receives communion in the temple of his heart. “And you yourselves, like living stones, are being built up into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5).

“This is wonderful, my brothers,” says the Rev. Ephraim the Syrian, - very wonderful, my beloved, incomprehensible to those above and inexpressible to those below. Inaccessible to every mind, he enters the heart and dwells in it, Hidden from the fiery is found in the heart. The earth cannot bear His footsteps, but a pure heart is His abode. He embraces the sky with His handful, and one span of space is His dwelling. If the whole creation spreads out, it will not enclose Him within its borders, but if it seeks the heart, then even a small heart will contain it. He chooses a small place in man for His dwelling, and man becomes the temple of God, in which God abides and dwells. The soul is His temple, and the heart is the holy altar on which praise, words and sacrifices are offered. The priest is the Spirit who stands and performs sacred acts there” (Works by Ephraim the Syrian. Part 4, p. 308).

And Blessed Jerome testifies: “Since the body of the Lord is true meat and His blood is true drink, then, according to the mysterious interpretation, in the present age we have only that one good, if we feed on His flesh and drink His blood, not only in the sacrament ( Eucharist), but also in reading the scriptures: for true food and drink, which is received from the word of God, is knowledge of the scriptures” (Works of Blessed Jerome. Part 6, p. 37).

20.7. However, it should be borne in mind that the invisible communion does not replace the visible communion - the Body and Blood of the Lord in the form of bread and wine, as established by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and, moreover, cannot replace it completely, as the priestless people wickedly teach. For we received the commandment from the Apostles themselves: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26).

This is said not about the invisible communion, that it will not cease until the Second Glorious Coming of Christ, and not about the heavenly Liturgy, but about the visible communion, which follows the meaning of the entire speech of the Apostle Paul. We reject any other teaching and consider it heretical.

20.8. Anyone who has a desire to receive communion, but does not have the opportunity to do so, for example, due to the lack of the Holy Gifts, should use “... with the fear of holy water and with piety...” according to the rite “Sequence of the communion of holy water of the great consecration on Epiphany. // When it is impossible for anyone to partake of the Holy and Life-Giving Mysteries of Christ, Flesh and Blood...” (in the Great Trebnik).

21. About marriages

21.1. Marriage between husband and wife is an image of the Church and the Spiritual unity of Christ with the Church (Eph. 5:22-33), and is a sacrament that can be performed in a non-sacred rite.

21.2. “Marriage is a union of husband and wife and a common lot for life, a communion of Divine and human law, whether it is concluded through a blessing, or through a wedding, or through a contract” (M. Vlastar. Syntagma. G. ch. 2).

21.3. A church marriage can be concluded only after betrothal, which is a memory and promise of a future marriage. Betrothal precedes marriage, just as announcement precedes Baptism.

21.4. The time between betrothal and marriage itself is a time of testing the intentions, the fidelity of both those wishing to enter into an eternal union and the opportunity to testify about the obstacles to marriage. A symbol of intention is a kiss, a symbol of fidelity is a ring.

21.5. There cannot be anonymous marriages: all Christians of a given community must know those getting married and bear witness to them. Like the recipients at Holy Baptism, at the sacrament of Marriage there must be witnesses on both sides of the spouses, vouching for them before the Church of Christ.

21.6. For those entering into marriage (especially for those under full age), the consent and blessing of the parents is required. However, only parents belonging to the Russian True Orthodox Catacomb Church, and not godless, heretical or heterodox. In the latter cases, those getting married turn to their successors or to the Spiritual Father for consent. According to accepted custom, parents (or their substitutes) bless with icons of Christ the Savior and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

21.7. Marriage through a wedding can be performed in a non-priestly rite, that is, without deaconal litanies and priestly exclamations, when placing crowns on the heads of the newlyweds as a sign of victory over lusts (note: crowns must be placed on the heads, and not held on top). In the absence of metal crowns (in the form of tiaras), they can be made from birch bark and even woven from wild flowers, as was established in the persecuted Church. If one of those entering into marriage is a second-wed, then his crown is placed on his right shoulder and the name is pronounced after the monogamous, regardless of gender; if one of those entering into marriage is a third wife, then his crown is given to him in his left hand.

21.8. If the spouses are both second or third married, then they enter into marriage through a blessing, and not through a wedding, according to the rite, for according to the word of St. John Chrysostom “as virginity is better than marriage, so the first is better than the second.” In many communities, the custom has been established to read the Canon of the All-Merciful Savior (which is on August 1) at such blessed marriages.

21.9. When concluding a marriage, it is necessary for the newlyweds to wear decent clothes, and for the bride to cover her head with a light veil.

21.10. In no form can there be a church marriage with atheists, heretics and people of other faiths. With such, only cohabitation is possible (only if it was concluded before the baptism of at least one of the cohabitants, see Trullo. 72), which is called “companionship” (contubernum), but does not have the essence of the sacrament, although, according to the words of the Apostle Paul, “For an unbelieving husband is sanctified by a believing wife, and an unbelieving wife is sanctified by a believing husband. Otherwise your children would have been unclean, but now they are holy” (1 Cor. 7:14).

21.11. “Marriage is given for procreation,” says St. John Chrysostom - but even more so to extinguish the natural flame.”

The reproduction of a Christian people and the subsequent raising of children as future generations of Christians is the most important task of marriage.

21.12. Nazariteism (abstinence and virginity) is the reverse side of marital cohabitation, for abstinence (monasticism = “solitude”) with virginity and blessed cohabitation are balanced forms of human marriage: in the first case, with abstinence, the soul of a person with God; in the second case, when husband and wife are united into one flesh, also with God.

+ CONFLICT VOW OF 1613 FOR THE LOYALTY OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE TO THE AUTOCRATIVE TSARS FROM THE HOUSE OF ROMANOV UNTIL THE END OF THE CENTURY : « APPROVED CREDIT OF THE GREAT ALL-RUSSIAIYSKAGO CATHEDRAL in MOSCOW CHURCH AND ZEMSKAGO, 1613 (February 21), ABOUT CALLEDIAND TO THE KINGDOM OF MICHAEL FEODOROVICH ROMANOV«

+ PRAYER FOR FORGIVENESS OF THE SINS OF YOUR KIND

Realizing the burden and disastrous effect of the ancestral sin of perjury, and consciously repenting in the ancestral sin of the Russian people of perjury - violation of the Council vow of the Russian people of allegiance to the reigning house of the Romanovs until the Second Glorious Coming of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, given with the Kissing of the Cross in 1613 A.D., I ask you to consider the issue of accepting me into the fold of the Orthodox Church Russian Church.

– Many historians and publicists talk about the Catacomb Church, and often in everyday consciousness it is contrasted with the Russian Orthodox Church - the Moscow Patriarchate. Did such a phenomenon exist and is such a opposition legitimate?

– Such a phenomenon undoubtedly existed, if catacomb communities are called communities that existed illegally. As for their opposition to the Moscow Patriarchate, this must be judged more subtly, more differentiated: the catacomb communities were different. There were communities that turned out to be illegal or even created illegal from the very beginning due to persecution, due to the massive closure of churches - at the end of the 30s, almost all churches were closed, on average there was only one church left for the entire diocese. But even in the post-war years, when legal church life was restored to a certain extent, very few open churches remained in many remote dioceses. Under these conditions, church life often had an illegal character, despite the fact that some illegal communities did not oppose themselves to the Moscow Patriarchate. But there were other catacomb communities that were actually in opposition to the Moscow Patriarchate, and this opposition had its own gradations. Some communities were in a severe break with the Patriarchate - Eucharistic communion with the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate was considered unacceptable and illicit among them. In these communities, over time, a sectarian spirit prevailed.

In general, if we keep in mind the origin of these communities, then there is a not entirely adequate idea that they are connected mainly with the opposition of several bishops of the late 20s to Metropolitan Sergius, with the so-called “non-remembering” bishops; this view is inaccurate. For the most part, the communities that were in break with the Moscow Patriarchate in the post-war years (they are sometimes called true Orthodox Christians) go back rather to those church groups that found themselves in opposition to the canonical Church even earlier. Firstly, these were the so-called “Johnnites,” that is, unreasonable admirers of the righteous saint, who revered him as the Lord God and therefore found themselves outside the Church already in pre-revolutionary times. Then there was opposition to the Local Council of 1917–1918. Even then, communities appeared (at least clergy and laity) that rejected the very reform of church government and the restoration of the patriarchate. But, perhaps, even more significant for the emergence of the catacomb communities, which were in opposition to the Patriarchate, was the name-glorifying movement, condemned by the Holy Synod on the eve of the Local Council of 1917–1918. In addition to all this, at the end of the 20s, opposition was added due to disagreement with the line that was chosen at one time by the Metropolitan, then Patriarch Sergius.

But with the opposition bishops of the late 20s and early 30s. these catacomb communities have little connection. Only a few bishops of those who did not commemorate Metropolitan Sergius tried to create parallel centers of church life; I definitely know that among them were Bishop Alexy (Bui) and Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh); in any case, he discussed this possibility; documents on this subject have been preserved. But whether there were parishes, whether there were catacomb communities directly connected with it - I’m not entirely sure of this. Therefore, I repeat: as for those communities that were in harsh, irreconcilable opposition to the Patriarchate, here, as it seems to me, the stronger current was coming from opposition groups that arose before the end of the 20s, without any connection with the discussion about “ Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius.

But at the turn of the 50s - 60s. and in the 60s, as far as I know, the priests who illegally, clandestinely ministered to such communities, often blessed their flock, their children, to visit the churches of the Patriarchate, receive communion there, and confess; sometimes they pointed to priests who inspired them with more confidence than others. Thus, I am talking about yet another level of opposition. In one case it simply did not exist, but there was a forced illegal status, in another there was sharp opposition, a breakdown in communication, in the third case there was such a restrained opposition, which, in general, over time, when the page of history was turned, in the 90s years, in its relatively healthy part has completely disappeared, while our current “catacombs”, once again filled with dubious personalities, are, of course, not communities of catacombs in the proper sense of the word, but schismatics, who, although they are adopting the name “catacomb church”, arm themselves with some lofty and sonorous terms, but in reality they are simply adventurers; they either left the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, or were simply impostors.

– If we talk about the church catacombs, which were in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, where were they replenished from: were they specially ordained into the catacombs, or were they cared for by ordinary clergy?

– I think that in the post-war years, cases of secret ordination by bishops who occupied cathedras and served legally were extremely rare; it was then very dangerous, first of all, not for them personally, but for the Church, and on the other hand, it had a certain space for legal existence. Nevertheless, there were such ordinations by the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate, but for the most part at a later time, during the era of Khrushchev’s persecutions and in the first time after them. This is well known. Church Moscow knows very well Archpriest Gleb Kaleda, who was appointed Metropolitan John (Wendland) at one time. I read that Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), ​​who occupied a very high position in the Russian Church, ordained illegally. But naturally, the majority in the catacombs were priests who had been ordained earlier and found themselves behind the staff: rarely - ordained in the pre-revolutionary years, often - ordained in the 20s, to a lesser extent - ordained by bishops who were in the opposition, for example, Alexy (Buy) . In addition, the war played a role; Church life in the occupied territories, cut off from the Moscow Patriarchate, was quite intense, and in the post-war years those priests who served in these territories were persecuted. Many of those who did not lose their freedom, nevertheless, for various reasons did not have the opportunity to serve in open churches.

But this phenomenon was not as large-scale as it was imagined, say, by the press of the Russian Church Abroad, which spoke of millions of Catacomb Christians, of thousands of communities. There may have been up to a thousand communities, but they were small in number.

– And speaking specifically, what catacomb monastic communities or simply lay parishes do you know?

– Unfortunately, I can hardly name any specific communities, except perhaps the priest Seraphim (Bityukov), and in the 30s - the now famous martyr Sergius Mechev, the son of the great shepherd the holy righteous Alexy Mechev.

– Was Father Seraphim in communication with Metropolitan Sergius?

“Probably not, but I think there was no spirit of intransigence in his community.” Those who left it were later in communication with the Patriarchate, but I assume that he himself was not in communication personally; he was closely aligned with those opposition bishops who stopped communicating with Metropolitan Sergius in the late 20s.

– What is your opinion about the extent to which the Catacomb movement is a search for a path to a full-fledged church life, even in an illegal position, and to what extent was it woven into it with political implications and the possibility of being in opposition to the state?

– I would say that in those cases when it came to the impossibility of legal existence, this movement was the only possible form of church life in a particular area, and then it was not associated with any opposition, but only with the lack of legal open churches. This situation existed almost everywhere in the 30s, and in the post-war years - in individual dioceses on the outskirts of the country: in Kazakhstan, Siberia, the Far East - with an almost complete absence of legal church life. There was also opposition associated with disagreement with the line of Metropolitan Sergius; I would call it church-political opposition, but this implies church politics, which, of course, could have a direct connection with the political position itself, but could not have such a direct connection.

If, say, we read the correspondence of St. Metropolitan Kirill, the most authoritative of those who disagreed with Metropolitan Sergius, the future Patriarch, then we will see almost no criticism in it that would be directed against the compromise line of Metropolitan Sergius in his relations with by the authorities. All the criticism there goes in a different direction; we are talking about the scope of the powers of the Deputy Locum Tenens, and this issue is discussed on a canonical plane, that is, the legality of the independent management of Metropolitan Sergius without contacts with the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Hieromartyr Metropolitan Peter is called into question. Metropolitan Sergius insists that since these contacts are impossible, he is forced to take all the initiative as the acting head of the Church bishop. And, for example, in the letters of Metropolitan Joseph (Petrov), criticism of the compromise line of Metropolitan Sergius appears quite clearly.

But the beginning of the opposition movement was not the moment of publication of the Declaration; After it, some time passed before the first appearance of the “non-remembering” opposition. And the “Declaration” itself did not cause criticism, and the fact of its publication also did not become a reason for criticism. But when Metropolitan Joseph, because the authorities did not allow him to live in Leningrad, as it was then called, was transferred to Odessa, this served as a signal for him and his admirers to begin the controversy. Of course, this transfer itself flowed from the agreements that were concluded by Metropolitan Sergius with representatives of the authorities while he was in prison. Obviously, one of the conditions for the normalization of church-state relations was the agreement to dismiss those bishops whom the authorities did not allow to live in the city where they occupied the see, or those who had already been sent to camps and prisons. Metropolitan Sergius fulfilled this condition, that is, he fired and transferred; whom he dismissed, whom he transferred to the place of exile - criticism of his line is most closely connected with this, and the “Declaration” became the object of criticism in hindsight.

As for the most consistent irreconcilable opposition, about which I have already said that it acquired a sectarian character, then the political moment itself was probably still transitory, and the matter lay in deep ecclesiological misconceptions, that is, in essence, this there was schism in its purest form, often with heretical layers. This was a path that to a certain extent repeated our Old Believers, which degenerated into priestlessness.

– It is known that in the post-war period and in the first half of the 40s, a large number of catacomb priests entered legal ministry. How can we evaluate this movement, and did it somehow influence social and church life in the first years of the patriarchate of His Holiness Alexy I?

– This happened after the Local Council elected Alexy (Simansky) as His Holiness Patriarch in 1945. Almost all the bishops who were free at that time took part in the Council, and this was the majority of the Russian episcopate, if we take into account the bishops who were in prison or in exile. Therefore, this election was very convincing and authoritative. I think that the very change of face on the Patriarchal Throne was significant, since as soon as there was polemics with Metropolitan Sergius, this created some kind of personal relationship, perhaps personal hostility, which was to a lesser extent directed towards the personality of Patriarch Alexy I, although in 1927–28, for the Petrograd opposition, a very important point was precisely the demand made to Metropolitan Sergius to remove from the Synod, in particular, Metropolitan Alexy.

This was not connected then with any big church-state policy; It’s just that the circle of those St. Petersburg priests who found themselves in opposition closely aligned themselves with Metropolitan Joseph, although there were other sentiments in St. Petersburg: when Metropolitan Sergius appointed Metropolitan Joseph to the St. Petersburg see, there were quite a lot of admirers of the future Patriarch Alexy I among the clergy and laity, whom they knew him well as the vicar of the diocese and wanted to see him as a metropolitan. And another circle of clergy and laity joyfully received Metropolitan Joseph, clung to him and rallied around him. They did not approve of the future Patriarch Alexy, and found reasons to accuse him of some inconsistency when the renovationist schism broke out there in 1922: he indeed initially behaved in a compromise with the schismatics, but in the end he did not submit to the renovationist authorities and ended up in exile.

But the main arrows of criticism were still directed at the end of the 20s. addressed to Metropolitan Sergius, therefore the new face at the head of the Church was conducive to reconciliation. And of course, most of the healthy forces from the opposition stopped their opposition to the Patriarchy; priests of this direction - as far as it was possible for them, as far as they were in a legal position, as far as the authorities could allow them to serve legally - entered the full jurisdiction of the Patriarchate. Of course, the most important and typical case, which served as a signal for many, was the action of St. Athanasius (Sakharov) at that time.

– What is the next period in the life of the church catacombs that can be identified and how can it be characterized?

The canonical foundations of the Catacomb Church are today applicable to modern church communities of “Alternative Orthodoxy”

Historically, the Catacomb Church began to be called a set of eucharistic communities led by bishops that did not recognize the authority of the Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) and the “Moscow Patriarchate” created by him. However, despite the presence of a sensitive church conscience, the catacombs often lacked a clear awareness of their own position, which led them to erroneously justify decisions that were essentially correct. The replacement of clear canonical argumentation with moral or religious bitterness compromised the Catacomb movement and gave its opponents a certain semblance of righteousness. I propose the following thesis for conciliar consideration. The canonical basis for non-recognition of the Moscow Patriarchate as the sole center of government of the Russian Church is the lack of the charisma of the First Hierarchal authority among Metropolitan Sergius and his successors. It was this conviction, although not always clearly formulated, that became the basis of the canonical structure of the Catacomb Church.

In the church consciousness, the idea of ​​only two types of Divine charisma has firmly established itself: the sacramental one, inherent in the rank of priest or bishop, and personal charisma, not associated with any specific conditions (“the spirit breathes where it wants”). However, the tragic post-revolutionary experience of the Russian Church brought to the fore the question of the third type of charisma - the specific charisma of church administration. This question is not simple or obvious. Doubts are often expressed: does such a charisma exist at all, institutionally inherent in the Primate's ministry? Perhaps this ministry is purely administrative, human, and does not involve the participation of grace at all? Or does divine grace participate in church government, but only in the two forms indicated above - sacramental and personal? It was precisely this understanding of the issue that became the basis for Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of false ecclesiological teaching. The purpose of this teaching was purely pragmatic: it was supposed to give the appearance of canonical legality to his claims to primacy.

The founders of the Catacomb Church held completely different views. The deeply realistic, palamite in spirit experience of the charism of the First Hierarchal power was remarkably expressed in the words of St. Cyril (Kazan), addressed to Metropolitan Sergius:

“Your rights in it [in the Church] are only a reflection of the rights of Metropolitan. Peter and do not have independent light emission.”

This perception was close and understandable to the majority of the Orthodox people, who had centuries of experience of experiencing the charisma of royal service; this seemed all the more obvious in relation to church authority. However, due to the fact that this experience has not yet been expressed in the form of a clear and generally accepted teaching, two decisive questions arise: first, in what is the charisma of ecclesiastical authority manifested and, secondly, what are the conditions for acquiring this charisma?

The fundamental difference between administrative and charismatic power is most clearly manifested in such extreme measures of protecting the church body from foreign invasions as “defrocking” and “excommunication.” Can power, graceless by its nature, abolish the episcopal or priestly charism received by the right of apostolic succession? Is she able to invalidate the divine grace of baptism by cutting off one of the members of the mystical body of the Church by a simple administrative decision? Such assumptions sound almost blasphemous. It is obvious to the church consciousness that divine charisma can only be abolished by power that is divine in nature. There is no “symmetry” between the right to transfer charisma and the right to take it away. Any bishop (in the presence of the second as a witness) can ordain a third, but he is not able to “cancel” the apostolic secrecy grace transmitted through him. Neither bishop's charisma, nor personal charisma (even if it exists) gives the simple head of the church administration the power to “take away grace” from a correctly ordained bishop. Nor does he have the power to excommunicate anyone from the Church.

All he can do is to prohibit a bishop or priest from performing divine services in communities and churches subordinate to this administration. He can also express his (or joint with other bishops) conviction that this or that Christian, by his behavior or teaching, has separated himself from the Church. But the followers of Met. For Sergius, this amount of power seems insufficient. At the same time, they do not want to recognize the charismatic nature of the highest church authority, since this would call into question their rights to such authority. As a result, their concept contains a glaring contradiction. On the one hand, they teach about the purely administrative nature of managerial power, on the other, they insist that its bearer has the power and right to “eruptions” and “excommunications.” This is precisely the main self-proclaimed claim of Metropolitan. Sergius, this was and remains the very “sting of Sergianism.”

Speculating on the acute sensitivity of the church people to the question of the “grace” or “gracelessness” of the clergy, Metropolitan. Sergius, literally “terrorizing” the people’s conscience, mercilessly and unceremoniously dealt with his church opponents. This is what his so-called “administrative” decrees sounded like: “The sacraments performed ... by bishops who are in a state of prohibition are invalid. Those converting from these schisms, if the latter were baptized in the schism, should be received through the sacrament of Confirmation;... those who died in Renovationism and the indicated schisms should not have a funeral service, even at the urgent request of their relatives, just as the funeral liturgy should not be performed for them.” Those. all those who disagree with his church position are to be rebaptized, re-married, and not to have a funeral service.

Only a few found in themselves sufficient spiritual firmness and depth of faith to say, following St. Joseph (Petrovykh), “Let these orders be accepted only by the all-suffering paper and the all-containing insensible air, but not by the living souls of the faithful children of Christ.”

A particularly insidious method of Met. Sergius was to identify the canonical status of Renovationism and the Catacomb Church. Indeed, the gracelessness of renovationism, condemned by Patriarch Tikhon, was recognized by the majority of the church people, which predetermined the collapse of this entire undertaking. In my youth, I heard a characteristic story from Natalya Mikhailovna Asafova, a contemporary of those events: “In the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, which belonged to the Renovationists, I saw a boy who was husking seeds and spitting the husks directly on the floor. When I shamed him, he replied, “Yes, still sanctify them after them!” This boy knew what he was talking about: when the parish community returned the temple to the control of the “Tikhon” hierarchy, the temple was consecrated anew!

Why did the anathema of Patriarch Tikhon have effective force, and the same form of acts of Metropolitan. Sergius could only be received by “all-enduring paper and all-containing air”? From the standpoint of “administrative theory,” there was no difference here. However, in fact, there is a cardinal difference, and it lies in the fact that Patriarch Tikhon had the charisma of primate power, and Met. Sergius did not have it. According to the meaning of the Resolutions of the Great Council of 1917-18, a prerequisite for the granting of the primatial charism is the conciliar expression of the will of the Autocephalous Local Church, the very existence of which is the cause of all world Orthodoxy. The deposition of a bishop or the excommunication of an ordinary layman from the Church is the taking away of part of the apostolic grace or the cutting off of a member from the entire Universal Church. Therefore, the conditions under which the Lord vests the High Hierarch with this truly formidable power are so strict and obligatory. By its decisions the Council of 1917-18. made a major contribution to the disclosure of the doctrine of the Church. In terms of the degree of influence on the future destinies of Christianity, it can be compared with the Council of Nicaea. We can say that we are now living in the “post-Nicene era,” when the overwhelming majority of the hierarchs renounced the Nicene Confession of Faith, accepting heresy in the compromise form of “semi-Arianism.” And we have our own Arius - in the person of Metropolitan. Sergius... What can be said about today's “semi-Arians” (“half-Sergians”)?

In 1977, in the concluding lines of the book “The Tragedy of the Russian Church” it was written: “We think ... that in relation to the Council of 1945, the mercy of God covered all its glaring canonical defects, and Patriarch Alexy was the actual first hierarch, i.e. received the charisma of high priestly power.” And now for the first time I confess before the Church: this statement of mine was erroneous. It took me 30 years to come to this conclusion; it came to me with great difficulty, but now I can no longer be moved from this position.

Now I would say this: “The mercy of God has preserved the Russian Church, despite the absence of Primate authority in It.” The psychological justification for my mistake at that time was the well-founded assumption that the main ailments of the Moscow Patriarchate were caused mainly by forceful pressure from the Soviet state. It was hoped that after the cessation of this pressure, deep healing of long-standing church diseases would immediately begin. Liberation from state intervention became a kind of “moment of truth” for the Moscow Patriarchate. And now we can say that the truth has become clear. 20 years have passed since freedom was gained, and nothing has changed in fundamental issues, if not made worse. The lack of conciliarity and, in connection with this, the lack of a grace-filled church center has become a sad and obvious fact.

The canonical state of our Church today is such that it consists of a number of independent associations or groups, each of which is governed by its own church conscience, its own understanding of tradition and canons. One of such voluntary associations is also the Moscow Patriarchate, together with the church communities that recognize its authority. Members of each group elect a leader or a governing board, to whom they obey by mutual agreement, for the sake of maintaining discipline, ease of management and coordination of their actions. The existence of several such church associations (leaving aside for now the question of their “quality”) is a fact of today’s life - and there is no guarantee that their number will not increase. It is possible that not all of these associations will be viable, and worse, not all of them will be able to remain faithful to the foundations of Orthodoxy. All this can already be the subject of fraternal judgment, but is subject to final assessment only at the canonical Local Council. One should not create illusions and underestimate the complexity of the situation: the process of restoring the unity destroyed by the Sergians will be very difficult. And now, as each church group determines its position, it must do its best not to close the door to itself and others before this coming reunion.

To justify their canonicity, catacomb associations usually refer to the famous Decree No. 362 of November 10, 1920, issued by Patriarch Tikhon and the Supreme Church Council.

This decree prescribed the self-government of dioceses in the absence of a general church center or interruption of communication with it. Bishops were recommended, if possible, to unite in independent groups for mutual assistance and joint resolution of issues of church life. Decree No. 362 remains valid today. But we must be clear that this Decree did not introduce anything new into church law: it only authoritatively confirmed self-evident things arising from the very nature of the Church. What else can bishops do in such conditions? Even if there had not been this wonderful Decree, they would still have been obliged to do what it prescribed, simply based on their archpastoral duty. The absence of charismatic power in itself does not mean arbitrariness and lack of command. Thus, any bishop or priest who behaves unworthily or does not share the principled position of his church association may be prohibited from serving in the communities of this association. Thus, he is deprived of the right to preach or make any statements on behalf of this association. Moreover, if doubts arise about the correctness of ordinations or other sacramental acts, the head of a church association or a meeting of bishops can express their authoritative opinion on this matter. These measures are quite sufficient to maintain the necessary church discipline.

But if any of these voluntary associations dares to claim full authority over the entire Russian Church (“Russian” is one of its parts, formed in 1943), then this cannot be regarded other than imposture and an attempt to usurp church power . This is the “original sin” of Sergianism, which threatens to develop into an ecclesiological heresy in the form of a whole system of dogmatic justifications and justifications. To the painful church divisions, inevitable in the historical situation of that time, Met. Sergius tried to oppose mechanical disciplinary unity. And what is most terrible is with the blasphemous claim to the subordination of Divine grace to administrative orders and decrees: his entry into power was marked by an orgy of “eruptions” and “excommunications.” This course of action does not help to overcome divisions, but, on the contrary, to multiply and deepen them. Foreseeing such destructive consequences of the church policy of Metropolitan Sergius, Saint Cyril (Kazansky) bitterly stated: “Caused by your activities, the church dispute is not yet clear to everyone; you consolidate it as irreconcilable church enmity.” And these methods of preserving church “unity” are used without hesitation by the spiritual heirs of Metropolitan. Sergius. Moreover, they themselves do not seem to believe in the effectiveness of their “excommunications.” The Moscow Patriarchate has already subjected the ROCOR hierarchs to all sorts of “bans” so many times that, according to its logic, no traces of church grace should have remained there. And now, as if nothing had happened, they are “reunited” with them and accepted “in their present rank” without any conditions! There is no doubt that the discussion and condemnation of not only the false practice, but also the false teaching of Sergianism will be one of the main tasks of the coming full-fledged Local Council. A genuine reunification of the Orthodox Russian Church and the establishment of canonical order in it is unlikely to be possible without the necessary clarification of the dogma of the Church.

You may ask: what about the “Local Councils”, which, at least occasionally, are still organized by the Moscow Patriarchate? Without arguing about the name, we must be clear that they are not essentially such. And first of all, because not all associations of communities of the Russian Church are represented on them, but only one of them. However, today the situation has become so complicated that the question arises: which of the autonomous associations that have arisen are included in the Russian Church? I propose another thesis for discussion: since the mystical Body of the Church is the church people, the Local Church includes all those communities and their associations that voluntarily and consciously recognize it as their Church. The concept of “Local” has long lost its literal meaning: no one is surprised by the existence of communities of the Moscow Patriarchate in Africa, consisting of local aborigines. So now we can talk about self-governing parts of the Russian Church, historically successive with the Orthodox Church of the Russian Empire, which has long gone beyond the territorial, state or national principle.

All the cathedrals of the Moscow Patriarchate were cathedrals of only one of the equal and autonomous parts of the Russian Church, an association that historically developed around Metropolitan. Sergius and his Synod. Today's overwhelming superiority of the Moscow Patriarchate in the number of episcopates and parishioners, not to mention the number of churches, is a historically temporary and accidental circumstance, which in no way gives it the right to claim that it alone is the Russian Church. Thus, before the start of the war (before the annexation of the western regions), the Catacomb Church had significantly more bishops and cared for a larger number of believers than the then Sergian Patriarchate. As for the subsequent rapid growth of the Moscow Patriarchate, for the same, “ecclesiologically insignificant” reasons, the renovationist schism acquired even greater power in its time. Most of the Russian churches (about 20 thousand, not counting Ukraine and Belarus) were given to the Renovationists. They had more than 100 dioceses, they had pompous “Local Councils”, they had recognition from the Eastern Churches. And where are the renovationists now? The word of Scripture was fulfilled on them: “Do not trust in princes, in the sons of men, for in them there is no salvation” (Ps. 145:3). The Renovationists are long gone, but what remains of them is a poisonous fruit: a deep distrust of the church people towards any attempts at genuine renewal. They distorted the creative tasks of the Great Council, which were generated by the internal requirements of church life, by the prophetic call of the Holy Spirit. In their irresponsible reformism, the renovationists were driven by something completely different: a passionate enthusiasm for the revolutionary worldly elements or simply a cynical desire to please the new “masters of life.” Isolated exceptions in the person of individual sincere reformers could not change the overall picture. The very term “renewal” was deeply and permanently compromised, and today it is used only as a curse word. But this New Testament word has a deep and sacred meaning: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, acceptable and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2). Long-ripe, vitally necessary church reforms, which were initiated by the Great Council, were ruined at the root by the Sergians - under the pretext of a “reaction to renovationism.” As a result, the Russian Church was again doomed to that disastrous spiritual stagnation, because of which the great Orthodox civilization collapsed twice in history - first in Byzantium, and then in Russia.

However, despite the steady and ardent desire of the Moscow Patriarchate to merge with worldly power, it would be wrong for this reason to consider it to have “fallen away from the Church,” as some “hot heads” from the ROCOR or the Catacombs claim. The very desire to use state resources to expand the capabilities of the Church is common in the history of Orthodoxy. Of course, one sometimes had to pay an exorbitant price for an alliance with the state; Moreover, the church, which has decided on such a “marriage” union, risks one day finding itself a “widow.” Attempts at rapprochement with the state are not an ecclesiastical crime: such attempts, albeit forced, were made in their time by Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Peter. A crime is committed when a church group, which has received “exclusive” support from the state, on this basis declares that it is in it that the entire fullness of the Local Church is embodied and begins to impose its will on everyone with the help of canonical violence. The Moscow Patriarchate, by resorting to such violence, violates one of the key resolutions of the Great Council. This is the definition from Aug 2/15. 1918 states: The Church cannot have any political position binding on all its members; on the other hand, no personal political views prevent a believer from being a full member of the Church.

Now I return to the topic of canonicity of the councils of the Moscow Patriarchate. My conclusion is that they could not be considered full-fledged Local Councils, even if there were no other associations in the Russian Church.

The decisive word on this issue was spoken by Archbishop Ermogen (Golubev) in his 1967 letter to Patriarch Alexy I, in connection with the 50th anniversary of the restoration of the patriarchate. Unfortunately, then the depth of church thought of Vl. Hermogen was not appreciated by anyone, although we all treated him with the deepest respect. But now it was his ideas that gave me the impetus to correct my long-standing ecclesiological error, which was mentioned above. Bishop Hermogen, ordained a hieromonk by Patriarch Tikhon himself, with his lonely and courageous opposition to the “Khrushchev persecution”, showed a worthy example of fulfilling his archpastoral duty. In those years when the total number of churches was halved, he did not allow a single church to be closed in two dioceses, for which, to please the authorities, he was removed from ministry by Patriarch Alexy I.

Considering the issue of the participation of priests and laity in the Local Council, Vl. Hermogenes wrote:
“From a principled, church-canonical point of view, the question of the composition of the Council must first of all be decided depending on how the episcopate is formed. If bishops were elected by dioceses in the order established by church canons and, as a result, are actual representatives of their dioceses, then, of course, the Council, as a representative body of the Church, can consist of bishops alone. If bishops were not elected, as required by church canons, but were appointed in violation of them, then it is clear that the episcopate formed in such an order cannot have either the canonical or moral right to represent those dioceses that did not elect it. In this case, the Local Council must necessarily include as full members not only bishops, but also clergy and laity, duly elected.”

Here, Bishop Hermogenes denotes the main disease of the Russian Church: a deep internal split between the episcopate and the church people. This schism manifested itself already during the time of Patriarch Nikon; in the person of the Old Believers, the Russian Church lost its best part, and was never able to fully recover from this blow. As a result of Peter's reforms, this destructive schism deepened further, bringing the Church into that state of protracted “paralysis”, to which the Orthodox layman Fyodor Dostoevsky testified with bitterness. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the direct consequence of this spiritual paralysis was the collapse of the Orthodox Monarchy in Russia. And only the Great Council of 1917-18. became a truly prophetic effort to heal this bleeding wound in the very Body of the Church. Sergianism negated the results of this saving effort and, under new conditions, returned to the usual “tradition” that was destructive for the Church.

The essence of conciliar representation, of course, is not in the procedure for “electing” bishops (this was only an intermediate step established by the Council towards the restoration of lost churchliness), but in the organic, inextricable connection of the bishop with his church community. In the Catacomb Church it often happens that the bishop himself creates a community around himself - and, of course, without any elections he becomes its “real representative,” according to the words of Vl. Hermogen. You all know firsthand what the situation is in the Moscow Patriarchate. The episcopate here exists practically separately from the church people - it appoints itself, governs itself, judges itself. Real pastoral activity is carried out only by parish priests, who have absolutely no rights before the bishop and do not have legalized forms of conciliar communion.
Prot. Pavel Adelgeim. "Dogma of the Church."

However, as soon as the ruling bishop notices that the priest’s connection with the community is becoming too deep, he immediately “transfers” him to another parish, or even dismisses him from the staff. Performed under the pretext of combating “church disorder,” such actions are a cruel blow to the very heart of the reviving church community. The motive for these actions is by no means the bishop’s desire to help the community overcome really existing parish diseases – leaderism and false eldership. The essence of the matter is that the sprouts of true churchliness emerging in parishes threaten the very principle of the existence of the hierarchy as a closed caste that dominates the Church from bureaucratic heights, sucking all resources out of it for its own benefit.

Being in fact in schism with its Church, the episcopate at the same time recognizes and declares itself as the “Church”. I remember how in 1975 Father Gleb Yakunin and I wrote a letter to the WCC Assembly calling for support for confessors of the faith in Russia. Father John Meyendorff, as a member of the Organizing Committee, translated this letter into English and distributed it to all the delegates (and there were about 2000 of them!). As a result, it was heatedly discussed, although not in the stands, but on the sidelines. The head of the delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) (who tried to put the entire ecumenical movement under KGB control) simply fled under the pretext of illness, leaving Metropolitan. Juvenalia “fights off” questions and accusations. And this is what he said in an interview with a local newspaper:

“Priest Gleb Yakunin is under ban, and the second author of the letter, Lev Regelson, has nothing to do with the Orthodox Church at all.”

What did he mean by this? Yes, exactly what I thought: the Church is bishops with a subordinate clergy, and the laity (i.e., the church people) “have nothing to do with the Church” at all! For the Moscow Patriarchate, the people are simply “consumers of religious services,” and the “Church” is a kind of “plant for meeting the religious needs of the population.” And this view of the Moscow Patriarchate completely coincided with the position expressed in Soviet legislation on cults.

Until this situation in the Moscow Patriarchate changes radically and the gap between the episcopate and the church people is eliminated, there can be no talk of any canonical Local Councils of the Russian or, especially, the Russian Church. The ostentatious presence at the 1945 Council of laity, selected by church authorities (who also did not have the right to vote), did not essentially change anything. After all, ow. Hermogenes emphasizes that in the absence of a representative episcopate, it is necessary for clergy and laity to participate in the Council “as full members,” moreover, not appointed from above, but “duly elected.”

The Council of 1945 also committed other gross violations of church canons. Thus, Archbishop Luke (Voino-Yasenetsky) insisted on the rule of electing the Patriarch by lot from three candidates who received the largest number of votes in a secret ballot (Definition of August 13, 1918). But just before the beginning of the Council, he inexplicably and suddenly fell ill. The voting was open and uncontested. Such was the “conciliarity”... But now the Moscow Patriarchate has generally proclaimed a rejection of these expensive – and given the presence of freedom of speech and risky – performances in the form of regular “Local Councils”. The Moscow Patriarchate considered “Bishops’ Councils” to be a more convenient form for resolving any issues, which became a kind of intradepartmental meetings of the episcopate. This reflects the actual state of affairs: the rest of the Church does not take any part in governing its own life - and the Moscow Patriarchate does not express any intentions to allow it to such participation.

Since in the absence of canonical Local Councils there cannot be charismatic church power, then during the entire synodal era there was no such power in the Russian Church. Therefore, in particular, all synodal “anathemas” (regardless of whether they were deserved or undeserved) should be considered invalid. The first bearer of the First Hierarchal authority after a centuries-long break was His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. In addition, due to exceptional circumstances, the Council made an unprecedented decision: Patriarch Tikhon was instructed to choose at his own discretion three worthy successors to the role of head of the Church, keeping their names secret. In fact, all of them received conciliar sanction for the primacy of power, becoming a kind of “Co-patriarchs”. Their names were announced at the funeral of Patriarch Tikhon: Metropolitans Kirill, Agathangel, Peter; the bishops present conciliarly confirmed their powers. There was no talk here of any practice of “inheriting power by will.” Although the letter of the canons was not observed, their essence was preserved and implemented in new conditions. The meaning of the canons is that the primacy of power is directly and directly rooted in church conciliarity. This is not “church democracy”: gracious power is given from God, but it is given only subject to the conciliar expression of the will. If there is no conciliarity, there is no charismatic power.

Important practical conclusions follow from this understanding of the canonical situation in the Russian Church. In order not to recognize the power of the Moscow Patriarchate over oneself, to justify one’s position one does not need, as is often done, to fall into bitterness and accuse the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate of all mortal sins (for, unfortunately, the bishops of the Catacomb Church also have enough personal sins). There is also no need to exaggerate the importance of certain aspects of the activity of the Moscow Patriarchate (such as, for example, participation in ecumenism or too close cooperation with authorities): even the Moscow Patriarchate’s rejection of these practices will not change its canonical status. A defensive or aggressive position towards the Moscow Patriarchate is in no way justified and is completely unproductive. For calm and fruitful church work, it is quite enough to realize the fact that any of the catacomb churches, in the presence of a correctly ordained episcopate, has exactly the same canonical foundations for its existence as the Moscow Patriarchate itself. The concept of “schism,” which the leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate love to use, simply has no ecclesiological meaning in today’s situation. Reproaching Met. Sergius is that he, “in violation of brotherly love,” applies the nickname “renegades and schismatics” to everyone who disagrees with him, Metropolitan. Kirill testified:

“I do not separate myself from anything holy and truly churchly; I am only afraid to begin and cleave to something that I recognize as sinful in its very origin, and therefore I refrain from fraternal communication with Metropolitan. Sergius and like-minded archpastors."

The Catacomb movement in its best manifestations is not a protest (“neo-Protestant”) movement against the Moscow Patroarchate, nor is it “alternative Orthodoxy,” as glib journalists have dubbed it. This is the beginning of that revival of Orthodoxy, which the best people of Russia have dreamed of for centuries. This is an attempt to create living, organic forms of churchliness to realize the enormous spiritual potential that lies hidden in the depths of the Russian people, thirsting for the unclouded Truth of Christ. The nomenklatura of the Moscow Patriarchate, despite all its declarative statements, is least of all concerned about the true revival of Orthodoxy. The selfless efforts of individual clergy and, especially, hierarchs within the Moscow Patriarchate itself invariably meet with dull, stubborn resistance from this closed bureaucratic organization, driven by a powerful instinct of self-preservation. The only thing in which it shows indomitable energy is the possession of church real estate, this historical property of the entire Russian people, to which the Moscow Patriarchate, misleading the state authorities, claims its exclusive rights. And this should not surprise anyone: the disposal of church buildings is the main source of the “power” of the Moscow Patriarchate, just as in its time it was the source of the power of the Renovationists.

In conclusion, I consider it necessary to emphasize once again: one of the most dangerous mistakes that the leaders of the Catacomb movement can make is to begin to intimidate the believing people with statements about the “gracelessness of the sacraments” in other parts of the Russian Church. There is no point here in imitating the unworthy behavior of the Moscow Patriarchate, which is not stopped by the fear of committing a mortal sin: blasphemy against grace. After all, even in relation to such an obvious usurper and destroyer of the Church as Metropolitan. Sergius, Saint Cyril did not allow himself such accusations. Here's what he writes about it:

“On my part, there is no suspicion at all of the supposed gracelessness of the sacred rites and sacraments performed by the Sergians (may the Lord save us from such thoughts).” And he repeats this more than once in even stronger terms. In a letter to Met. At the end of 1929, he spoke to Sergius “about the horror with which he pushed this thought away from himself,” and then continues: “You yourself note this horror of mine and, after this, introducing me to such blasphemers, you are simply telling a lie.”

And finally, the most difficult thing (but perhaps the most important) is to avoid by all means the sectarian spirit, which is expressed, first of all, in the intolerance of the catacomb churches towards each other. For, as the Lord said: “By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). This, of course, is not about indulging the abuses of unscrupulous figures who arise like foam on the wave of church revival. This has always been the case during turning points, critical periods of church history, and the Russian Catacomb Church has accumulated vast experience in separating the true from the false in its own life. This experience teaches that one cannot change one’s convictions and violate one’s religious conscience “for the sake of church peace” (the favorite “justification” for the repression of the Moscow Patriarchate against its critics). Peace is never achieved this way. “They say: Peace! World! But there is no peace” (Jer. 6:14). In our circumstances, it is precisely among the most sincere and zealous “workers in the church field” that differences of opinion, sometimes deep and painful, are inevitable. They should not be ignored or obscured, but they should not become a reason for mutual denial and alienation. Of course, brotherly love in the absence of unanimity is a heavy cross, but without this no conciliar unity can be born.

Return