Nikolay Savchenko. Priest Nikolai Savchenko: “There are just wars

O. Nikolay Savchenko wrote a bomb article September 14th, 2009

On the attitude of the Russian Church to the Stalin and Hitler regimes.

Historical background to the resolution of the Synod of the ROCOR regarding General Vlasov.

The authorship of this text belongs to ROCOR priest Nikolai Savchenko. He kindly allowed us to publish his creation online. Any reproduction of this text, in whole or in quotations, in paper or electronic media is prohibited without the permission of the author. You can only provide a link to this material. All rights reserved. For rights of republication, you can contact the author at:

nicholas-savchenko @ lycos.com

“On the issue of the relationship of the Russian Church to the atheistic regimes, many words were said in the past in order to strengthen the disagreements between the two parts of the Russian Church. Moreover, the main accusations came from outside the Church. On the one hand, the atheists claimed that the Russian Church Abroad allegedly “blessed Hitler.” the other side argued that the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate was allegedly “generated by Stalin” and allegedly “served the atheists not out of fear, but out of conscience.”

Although there are more and more correct objections to these statements, comprehensive and complete refutations, we believe, are still to come. The task of refuting such slander is both simple and difficult at the same time. It is extremely simple in that upon impartial historical research it turns out that the attitude towards both the Stalinist and Hitlerite regimes was EXACTLY THE SAME among both parts of the Russian Church in the person of the overwhelming majority of hierarchs, clergy and laity. Moreover, the attitude towards both the Hitlerite and Stalinist regimes of both parts of the Russian Church was EXACTLY THE SAME with the same attitude in other Local Churches. Upon impartial historical research, it turns out that the Orthodox from different countries and peoples and different Local Churches In general, they looked at the events that took place then in the same way, and differences in statements were most often explained by fear of persecution where they were used against the Church. But with the advent of relative freedom, differences in views disappeared. This is the simplicity of refuting such slander.

But there is one great difficulty in objecting to the slander about the “service” of the Church to Hitler or Stalin. This difficulty lies in the fact that the mentioned identical attitude towards Hitler and Stalin of Orthodox believers, regardless of people, language or “jurisdiction”, is difficult to understand by modern believers. It is especially difficult to understand for believers in Russia. For many believers, impartial historical facts church history those years can become a temptation due to their somewhat unexpected nature. Perhaps such historical evidence is even premature for publication.

First of all, the words of the Orthodox hierarchs of that time, who repeatedly expressed their gratitude to the German troops and even Hitler himself personally, become a great temptation for modern believers of the Russian Orthodox Church. Nowadays, such words are unthinkable and even often seem outrageous. However, at that time, the arrival of German troops was perceived by Orthodox believers mainly as deliverance from the bloody persecution of the atheistic authorities.

First of all, in a historical study of the attitude of the Russian Church Abroad to the Hitler regime, it turns out that it treated this power with great caution. One might even say more, both the Synod of Bishops and the ruling bishops of the Church Abroad with the exception of Metropolitan. Seraphim of Berlin made much less definite statements regarding the power of Germany than many other bishops. This happened, most likely, because the hierarchs and flock of the ROCOR were scattered throughout the world and could take into account the opinions and views of many states and peoples. In addition, the Synod of Bishops was located on Serbian land, and just two and a half months before the start of the war in Russia it was occupied by Germany. Could the hierarchs of the Russian Church praise the occupiers of Yugoslavia after it sheltered and cared for Russian refugees? And could the hierarchs believe the propaganda about the fascists as defenders of Christianity after they captured Christian Yugoslavia? Of course not. When the Soviet-German war began, there were forces in the Russian dispersion that called on the Russian Church Abroad to bless the war on the side of the Germans. But such a blessing was never given. These are the reproaches addressed to the Synod of Bishops that were heard then from the pages of some independent church publications: “Here, outside the red cordon, no one has yet blessed the weapons directed against this red evil spirits... Even the daughter, an offshoot, is silent Russian Church- Foreign. Why? Can the principle truly triumph: we must wait to see who will take it... And what a colossal impression would be made there, in the liberated and liberated cities and villages of Russia, if they were bombarded with the message of the Church Abroad about the meaning of the ongoing struggle” (Church Review, Belgrade, ch. ed. Makharoblidze, 1941, No. 7-9, p. 4) “There is still no message from a foreign church center. Archbishop. The Synod, as such... is eloquently silent at such an extraordinary historical moment” (Central Church, 1941, No. 10-12, p. 11). The emigrant press even published ironic reviews of the official publication of the ROCOR, “Church Life,” which said that in the “era of the sign of the times,” the Synod, instead of calling for participation in a “crusade” on the side of Germany, published supposedly untimely theological articles and articles about church life. Of all the dioceses of the Russian Church Abroad, the German diocese under the leadership of Metropolitan. Seraphim (Lyade) and Western European, under the direction of Metropolitan. Serifima (Lukyanova). At the same time, Met. Seraphim of Berlin was German by nationality and his empathy for the fate of his native people is more understandable. However, in the Synod of Bishops in Serbia itself, they commemorated not the German occupation authorities, but the Serbian King Peter, Hitler’s opponent. Metropolitan himself Anastasius was subject to house arrest and was under pressure to bless the “crusade” and stop commemorating King Peter. Metropolitan Anastasius, despite the pressure, remained on a firm church position and did not make statements beneficial to the fascists. And even more so, the numerous bishops, dioceses and parishes of the ROCOR located in America and China and throughout the rest of the world could not “serve Hitler”, and during the war years the overwhelming majority of Russian parishes were located in these parts.

To understand that one part of the Russian Church did NOT “serve Hitler”, and the other was NOT “generated by Stalin”, it is necessary to know the attitude of the Local Churches to the events that took place then.

The Romanian Church, together with the entire people of Romania, was then convinced of the justice of the war against the atheists. This conviction was completely sincere. The Romanian soldiers were sure that they were going to liberate their Orthodox brothers from the atheists. The first message with a blessing for the fight against Bolshevism was issued by the Romanian Patriarch on July 10-11, 1941. “His Holiness the Romanian Patriarch Cyrus Nicodemus called on the children of the Romanian Church, united with the ranks of the German troops, to fight against the apocalyptic monster of Bolshevism” (Central Church, 1941 No. 7-9, p. 4). And later, in 1943, the patriarch, in full agreement with the overwhelming majority of the Romanian people, expressed his blessing for the armed defense of Christianity, as it was then understood in Romanian society. The patriarch made a similar statement on Christmas Eve according to the new style of 1942. On February 7, 1943, funeral services were held in all churches in Romania for the Orthodox Christians who died surrounded in Stalingrad. And on June 3, 1943, on the day of remembrance of fallen soldiers, the patriarch issued a message, which included, in particular, the following words: “The Red Power of the East, having renounced Christ and Christian principles replacing it with destructive abomination, she rushed at neighboring states and captured them by force. Therefore, we must fight against them with all our strength and defend ourselves from the devastating communism - the enemy of religion and civilization. We... pray to God to help us achieve victory in the struggle we are waging against our mortal enemy.” (TsO, 1943, No. 6, p. 8). In Romania, a decree was even issued ordering all government officials compulsory visit church services every Sunday. It was believed that all officials should constantly pray for victory over the atheists and for the liberation of the Russian people.

The Bulgarian Church also reacted favorably to the advance of German troops. Although the Bulgarians did not take an active part in the war on the side of Germany, nevertheless, before the election of Patriarch Sergius in Moscow, the Bulgarian society and the Bulgarian Church were sincerely convinced that German troops were bringing freedom from godlessness to Russia. Representatives of the Bulgarian Church provided assistance to the Russian Church in the occupied territories and made fraternal visits. In the publication of the Bulgarian Church “Tsrkoven Vestnik” the war was described as a struggle of Christians against the atheists.

The Finnish Orthodox Church was also completely convinced of the justice of the war against the atheists, as the entire society of this northern country understood this war at that time. The advancing troops were accompanied not only Orthodox priests Finnish nationality, but also the hieromonks of the Valaam Monastery, who, with the blessing of the abbot, served for the Russian people and Karelians. The attitude of the Valaam fathers, as well as the Finns, is not surprising, since the Finnish government, according to the law of June 13, 1941, allocated 25 million Finnish marks only in aid Valaam Monastery and other small monasteries. During the Finnish War, the authorities assisted Valaam in evacuating all its property, while the Soviet regime is remembered by the monks for the brutal bombing of peaceful Valaam by Soviet planes and the desecration of the temples of Valaam. If abbot Khariton’s calculations are accurate, then on one day of the Finnish war, the peaceful and unarmed monastery was bombed by up to 70 Soviet aircraft, and this is more aircraft than those that bombed Berlin in the summer of 1941. Many parishes opened on the lands occupied by the Finnish army, and in the memoirs of the Valaam fathers this time is still called liberation.

In the Greek Orthodox Church, sympathy for the German army on Russian territory was extremely strong. Thus, on Great Friday of 1943, Metropolitan of Thessalonica called on his flock to pray word for word “for all those who now stand on the eastern front with arms in hand in the fight against godless Bolshevism and who thereby enable the Greek people to confess their Christian faith"(TsO, 1943, No. 6, p. 8). Metropolitan Vasily of Florinsky made the following statement: “The attack that the Bolsheviks have been preparing for 25 years on civilized Europe will be repulsed by the titanic struggle of Germany. For this, all civilized humanity owes deep gratitude to the Leader of the Great Reich and the brave German Army” (TsO, 1943, No. 6, p. 7). “We wish complete success for German weapons,” said Metropolitan Irenaeus of Chalkida (Central Church, 1943, No. 6, p. 7). Also, the Metropolitan of Olympia stated the following: “All civilized humanity is watching with anxiety and pain the terrible persecution of faith, the unheard-of Asian barbarism in relation to Christian and other religions in the Soviet Union. Russia... These phenomena caused the majority of civilized nations to defend themselves” (TsO, 1943, No. 6, p. 7). The first hierarch of the Greek Church, Archbishop Damascus, also spoke out favorably regarding the German army in Russia. During the war, he visited the occupied territories of Russia and participated in services with the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Holy Mount Athos also perceived the German offensive as the deliverance of Orthodox Christians from the yoke of the atheists. Impressed by the massive opening of churches in Russia, the Fathers of the Holy Mountain transmitted the following statement through the DNB agency: “Synod of St. communities on St. Mount Athos sincerely thanks the German occupation authorities... With great surprise we followed the courageous struggle of the German army and its allies for the liberation of Russia from godless Bolshevism. Wherever German troops enter, it is restored religious life And church bells they start calling again. Germany and its allies have taken upon themselves the defense of Christianity... the sacred community on the holy Mount Athos confidently awaits the victory of the defender of Christianity - the German Reich and the allies. She prays that the Lord may bless the victorious weapon of Leader Reich and sends her heartiest congratulations and sincere wishes for good to the believers in the Eastern region” (Central Church, 1943, No. 6, p. 8) Quoted statement from Kinot St. Mount Athos was done already in 1943.

The head of the Exarchate of Russian parishes of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Metropolitan, also expressed joy about the liberation of Orthodox believers in Russia. Eulogius. And in the Berlin Church of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1941, every day at 19:00 a prayer was served for the deliverance of Russia from the godless government. The rector of this church was then Archimandrite John (Shakhovskoy), later a bishop of the American Church and a famous spiritual writer, whose books are now so widely distributed in Russia. Even long after the end of the war, in his book “Establishing Unity,” Bishop John described the Russian people’s understanding of the beginning of the war in these words: “Germany, which idolized its flesh and blood, began to slaughter its flesh and shed its blood for spiritual salvation.”

During the war, the eastern patriarchs were away from the front and mostly on English territory. However, in the newspapers of that time there were reports that the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem refused to serve prayers for the granting of victory over Nazi Germany (Central Church, 1941, No. 10-12, p. 7).

The Polish Orthodox Church, although it experienced German occupation, but also welcomed the advance of German troops in Russia. Repeatedly the First Hierarch of the Polish Church, Metropolitan. Dionysius published messages expressing support for the German army as a liberator from atheistic captivity. Similar thoughts were expressed in Easter and Christmas messages. So, for example, in his Christmas message on December 25, 1943, Metropolitan. Dionysius stated that “the enormous tension of the fight against world evil has continued for the fifth year” (M.V. Shkarovsky, “Nazi Germany and the Orthodox Church,” p. 149).

Hieromartyr Bishop Gorazd of Bohemia and Moravia, First Hierarch of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Gestapo. The Nazis accused him of harboring Czech patriots. But this holy martyr, according to indirect evidence, approvingly perceived the offensive of German troops in Russia. As an example, one can cite the bishop's parting words spoken to the newly installed Bishop of Potsdam Philip. Although it was not Bishop Gorazd himself who pronounced this word, the future new martyr participated in the hierarchal consecration together with other hierarchs of the ROCOR and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the word when presenting the staff to the newly installed bishop, the following general bishop's farewell was given with a mention of the war that was taking place at that time: “Bless the weapon that Divine Providence chose in order to save our Church from Calvary and your people from final enslavement, denationalization and spiritual death at the last hour. Remind everyone that first of all satanic Bolshevism must be overthrown, and all efforts must be directed towards this holy goal...” (Central Church, 1943, No. 2-3, p. 5). Most Orthodox believers and clergy in Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia also rejoiced at the liberation of Russian Orthodox Christians. In the church publications of those years printed in Slovakia, one can clearly see words of support for all fighters against Soviet power.

The First Hierarch of the Old Believers, who are so close to us, Metropolitan Innokenty (Usov) of Belokrinitsky composed a very sharply anti-Bolshevik interpretation of the Revelation of John the Theologian. His work entitled "Apocalyptic Monsters" interpreted this book of Holy Scripture in an extremely vivid way for that historical moment. The images of the red dragon, the beast and the false prophet were very convincingly described and correlated in the book with the Soviet regime and the anti-Christian persecution of the faith. In turn, the fighters against Soviet power were endowed with the qualities of an angelic army. The Metropolitan's book may seem to the modern reader to be full of political judgments, but upon an impartial reading such an interpretation could seem very convincing. It should be noted that the Old Believer Metropolitan. Innocent enjoyed great respect from Metropolitan. Anthony (Khrapovitsky). During the war, Metropolitan Innocent and his Old Believers flock were on Romanian soil, and many believing Old Believers fought with conviction in the Romanian army.

From a historical point of view, the answer to the question of how the hierarchs of the Russian Church treated Hitler’s and Stalin’s power was much more important. First of all, the attitude of those hierarchs, clergy, and the people themselves on Russian soil is interesting. When the war began, almost all the bishops and clergy belonged to the Moscow Patriarchate, since the Catacomb Church was almost destroyed by terrible persecution. Were the bishops and clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate “faithful to the ideas of Soviet power,” as foolish zealots often say about this? Did the Church in Russia serve Stalin “not out of fear, but out of conscience,” as zealots out of reason like to accuse many innocent people?

The vast majority of hierarchs and clergy of the Russian Church in the Motherland perceived the arrival of the Germans in 1941 as liberation. In the areas occupied by the German and allied armies, up to 10 thousand parishes were opened, church newspapers began to be published, church schools and pastoral courses were opened, and periodic church radio broadcasts and broadcasts of divine services began. Changing Attitude new government to the Church was so strong that many hierarchs and clergy expressed their gratitude repeatedly, both verbally and in writing, without any coercion. Indeed, by the beginning of the war in the Soviet Union, only about 350 churches remained operating within the borders of 1939, the closure of churches continued, and the majority understood that in 2-3 years last temples would be closed. The Church would simply cease to exist legally, and this at a time when illegal ministry was strictly prohibited and, under pressure from the authorities, was forced to be condemned by the Moscow Patriarchate itself. Almost all the hierarchs and clergy who previously, under Soviet rule, expressed themselves as like-minded people of Metropolitan. Sergius, or even were at one with the renovationists, with the arrival of German troops they agreed that all their previous speeches in support of Soviet power were forced concessions. Even those hierarchs and clergy who were personally close to Metropolitan. Sergius and his entourage were convincingly testified that Metropolitan himself. Sergius was forced to collaborate with the Soviet government, and he cannot be judged for this. In 1941-1942. The situation was such that in 10 thousand parishes of the Russian Church the German occupation authorities were commemorated, and only in the 200-300 parishes remaining on Soviet territory were the Soviet authorities commemorated. That is why the reproaches that the Russian Church Abroad allegedly “prayed for Hitler” and the Russian Orthodox Church MP “served Stalin” look unfair and even absurd, because at that time only 2-3% of the parishes of the entire Russian Church, headed by Metropolitan. Sergius commemorated the Soviet government, and the remaining 97-98% of the parishes of the entire Russian Church commemorated the German government and even thanked it for the liberation.
Service in the occupation reconciled the contradictions in church-state relations. Without exception, all hierarchs and clergy, although they did not agree with Metropolitan. Sergius, but did not condemn him. Those who were forced to collaborate with the Soviet government were saying goodbye. And these were the majority of those who served in 1941. It was believed that only those who publicly renounced faith in God were unworthy of priesthood. However, even such former renouncers were found among the serving clergy and their sacraments were considered valid. Moreover, bishops and priests who were forced to collaborate with the communists without renouncing their rank or faith were recognized. “Sergianism” as such in the occupied territories is a thing of the past, like a forced untruth torn out by force. And communion with the Russian Church Abroad was almost immediately established by the bishops in Ukraine, Belarus and Central Russian dioceses. The overwhelming majority of parishes, with the possible exception of the Baltic states, were in fraternal communion with the Russian Church Abroad, without severing ties with the Moscow Patriarchate. We can definitely say that the first unification of the Russian Church took place then.

During the years of occupation, the Ukrainian Church united several thousand parishes around itself. The first hierarch in Ukraine was Archbishop Alexy (Hromadsky), the deputy first hierarch was the Catacomb Archbishop Anthony (Abashidze). Arch relations. Alexy and other hierarchs in Ukraine to the German authorities will be better understood if you know that the German offensive found Bishop Alexy in a Soviet prison. The arrival of German troops brought freedom not only to the ruler himself, but also to many other hierarchs and clergy. But the main joy was the massive opening of churches. In an open letter to Bishop Polycarp (Sikorsky), directed against Ukrainian autocephaly and then published in various church publications, the Bishop and First Hierarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church expressed his joy: “If you knew,” the Bishop writes to Bishop Polycarp, “what is for me in prison there was no better music than the explosion of German shells, and after his miraculous salvation and in fervent prayer for our liberators he showed his joy, and then in writing, together with his brother bishops, expressed our gratitude to the Great Leader and His Invincible Army" (TsO, 1943, No. 5 p. 7). In the same letter, Bishop Alexy also touches on the relationship of the Church in Ukraine to Metropolitan. Sergius and his compromises in relations with the atheists. “I saw with my own eyes,” writes Archbishop Alexy in a letter against Ukrainian autocephaly, “what a difficult situation the Orthodox Church in Moscow was in and how the Orthodox in Moscow were waiting for that salvation from the West, which we have already waited for, and they are still waiting for. You express yourself about Moscow Church Administration with contempt, like a judge in his judicial cloak, for you have not seen what I have seen. I think that it is difficult to hit from afar those who lie tied up and barely breathe; It would be better to feel sorry for them and pray fervently that the Lord would help the Army of the Great People and Its Leader to quickly deliver them from the unbearable yoke...” (TsO, 1943, No. 5 p. 7). It would be a big mistake to reproach the hierarchs of the Russian Church for some illusions. It is better to understand their feelings at the unexpected liberation and at the sight of unexpectedly revived churches.
Even before the German troops occupied Kyiv in August 1941, a council of bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine took place in the Pochaev Lavra. The information message about the Council said the following about the attitude of the episcopate to the German authorities: “The episcopate, in a welcoming telegram, expressed feelings of gratitude to the Leader of V. Germany A. Hitler for liberation from the Bolshevik yoke and prayerfully wished him long life, noting that “God blessed him to guide future destiny people in a good way"" (Central Church, 1941, No. 10-12, p. 8) Somewhat later, the First Hierarch Ukrainian Church Archbishop Alexy and several other hierarchs in Ukraine compiled a special message calling on the people of Ukraine to work in the fields of the country for the benefit of the Motherland liberated from the atheists. (TsO, 1942, No. 7-8, p. 6)
The monks also reacted to the arrival of the Germans in full agreement with their hierarchs. Pochaev Lavra, the last functioning Russian monastery in those years. It can definitely be said that the bishops, clergy and the majority of the people in Ukraine have not shown themselves to be “devoted slaves of the atheists,” as foolish zealots say.

The Belarusian Church also perceived the arrival of German troops as liberation. From August 30 to September 2, 1942, a Bishops' Council Belarusian Church. Among the various conciliar documents, the bishops also adopted an appeal to the German leadership. In particular, this address contains the following words: “The first in the history of the All-Belarusian Orthodox Church Council in Minsk, on behalf of the Orthodox Belarusians, he sends you, Mr. Reich Chancellor, heartfelt gratitude for the liberation of Belarus... and wishes the fastest complete victory to your invincible weapon" (M.V. Shkarovsky, "Nazi Germany and the Orthodox Church", p. 433). Not all canonical Orthodox bishops, but if we set out to restore the opinion of other bishops of the Belarusian Church who did not participate in this Council, it turns out that one bishop (Metropolitan Panteleimon) was a participant in the Council in the Baltic States, where completely similar opinions were expressed, and the other (Bishop Venedict) himself issued separate appeals with the blessing of the struggle against the atheistic government. In one of Bishop Benedict’s addresses there are the following words: “The best peoples of the world are fighting these enemies of humanity, sending hundreds of thousands of their children to the front and, under the command of heroic Germany, defending the freedom of all of Europe. Our happiness is that our country is under the protection of this people and can take part in the defense of its homeland and people from the slavery of communism, from the destruction of our Christian culture, for preserving your faith in God, for your freedom.” (TsO, 1943, No. 5 p. 3)
During the war years, the Smolensk diocese belonged to the Belarusian Church. For a long time there was no bishop in Smolensk, and the clergy even turned to Metropolitan in Berlin. Seraphim with a request to send a bishop to Smolensk. In one of the letters from the Smolensk clergy to the Metropolitan of Berlin it was in the following words the attitude of local clergy towards the ongoing war is expressed. “Only now, under the protection of the German banner, have we gained the right to be considered human after 24 years of inhumane bullying by the Bolsheviks” (TsO, 1942, No. 11-12, p. 9). A similar attitude took place in the Oryol diocese, whose clergy also turned to Metropolitan. Seraphim to Berlin. As for the Bryansk diocese, the population of this region generally took an even more anti-communist position, since the movement of True Orthodox Christians was especially strong there. We can make an unambiguous conclusion that the hierarchs and clergy in Belarus and the central regions of Russia did NOT “serve Stalin according to their conscience,” as unreasonable zealots assume. I even need to say more, probably none of the clergy was seen in any kind of “loyalty to Stalin.”

A large number of parishes of the Russian Church were united during the war by the exarchate in the Baltic states. The bishops, clergy and people in the Baltic states also for the most part perceived the arrival of the Germans as liberation from persecution. The Exarch of the Baltic states wrote his first letter of gratitude to the Germans for their deliverance from the atheists back in early July 1941. In October 1942, a council of bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate in the Baltic region was held in Riga under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Sergius (Voskresensky), Exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate and with the participation also of the First Hierarch of the Belarusian Church. “Members of the Council greeted the Leader of the German people, expressing deep gratitude to him for liberation from the communist yoke,” said a report about the council in periodicals. (TsO, 1942, No. 11-12, p. 9). The bishops even criticized the message of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) from Moscow with a call to fight against the fascists. As stated in the information message about the Council: “The bishops express in their message doubt that M. Sergius could sign or write such an appeal, or he did not sign it, or, in their opinion, he was forced to do so by the Bolsheviks under the threat of execution of the clergy.” (TsO, 1942, No. 11-12, p. 9). October 7, 1942 Exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate Met. Sergius (Voskresensky) issued a separate message, where he outlined in detail that in the Soviet Union the Church suffered almost complete destruction, while in the territories occupied German army A church revival is taking place. “Only a final victory over the Bolsheviks can open up the Church new era free peaceful growth,” said the exarch’s message. (TsO, 1942, No. 11-12, p. 9). The bishops' conference of the Russian Orthodox Church, convened in Riga on April 5, 1944, issued an appeal to the flock, in which, in addition to spiritual and edifying pastoral words, there was the following appeal: “For free Russia to live, Bolshevism must be destroyed. Only then will the Church be free... Realize clearly that our place is in the ranks of the fighters for a new free and happy Russia, in the ranks of the Russian Liberation Army... Lord, save and preserve Russia" (M.V. Shkarovsky, "Nazi Germany and the Orthodox Church", p. 365) The brethren of the Pskov-Pechersk Monastery also expressed their support for such views. The monastery repeatedly issued appeals in support of the fight against Soviet power. It is difficult to condemn monastics for this. The German authorities provided some assistance to the monastery, and the monks saw the influence of Soviet power in the repeated bombing of the peaceful monastery by Soviet aircraft. All bishops in the Baltic states and most of the clergy commemorated the German authorities in in the prescribed manner and prayed for their prosperity according to the commandment of the Apostle. Although prayer requests for the German occupation power may be embarrassing now, at that time the majority of the clergy and believers perceived them with understanding and even approval. At that time, in the Baltic states, a young priest, Father Nikolai Guryanov, served at pastoral courses in Vilna, where German power was also commemorated, and in Tallinn, prayers for German power were offered in the church where the young altar boy Alexy Ridiger, the future His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All, served Rus'. And there is credible, and most importantly, convincing information that later, at the end of the 50s, the future patriarch was forced to make some concessions to state security authorities under the threat of reprisals against his loved ones, who could be put under pressure for their relationship with the German authorities during the war years. There are also references in emigrant printed publications to the fact that the German occupation authorities provided assistance in the education of men and women. convents in Vyritsa. The spiritual mentor of the monasteries was Venerable Seraphim Vyritsky. Only with the arrival of the Germans was Father Seraphim able to begin his ministry. The rector of the monastery was Abbot Seraphim (Protsenko). Both the freedom of worship and the help from the German authorities should have caused quite understandable gratitude. In the emigrant printed publications of those years it is mentioned that monastery in Vyritsa he cared for numerous Orthodox Christians in Wehrmacht units. In those years, the care of military units also meant bringing them to the military oath. Often the swearing-in took place in the presence of a priest. It is especially tragic that the swearing-in in the Red Army was carried out, for obvious reasons, without the presence of priests. It is difficult to estimate how many Wehrmacht and German allied soldiers were sworn in by the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate in all occupied territories, but one can only assume that this number was very significant. Although the presence of a clergyman at the military oath cannot be considered a blessing of the Church for all death and destruction (this issue has already been sufficiently discussed in anti-sectarian literature), such presence itself in in this case definitely testifies against the slander about “loyalty to the Soviet Antichrist.” The myth of “dedicated service to the atheists” is also decisively refuted by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the clergy who ministered to the Wehrmacht units belonged to the Moscow Patriarchate and commemorated their ruling bishops. Only a small number of them belonged to the Russian Church Abroad.
In the post-war period, the overwhelming majority of clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate left the occupied territories. The majority of representatives of the monasticism of the Russian Orthodox Church MP came from the same occupied territories.

To summarize, based on the above information, we can definitely say that accusations of “loyalty to the atheists” are unfair. Is it possible, in a healthy state, to say that the 10 thousand parishes opened in the occupied territories were “created by Stalin”? And if Stalin organized the Council of Bishops in 1943, then where does the overwhelming majority of parishes of the Russian Church come from?
On the other hand, all the evidence presented cannot be interpreted as support for Nazi ideology or as a “blessing of the punitive forces.” At first, many residents of the USSR sincerely and naively believed that the Germans were sent by God to rid Russia and the whole world of godless communism. The German army was illusoryly attributed the characteristics of defenders of Christianity. And can we condemn the suffering inhabitants of the Soviet Union for their naive illusions? Only gradually did it become noticeable that the German troops often became more like ferocious hordes of Huns than guardians of Orthodoxy. The hierarchs, priests and people had no evidence of the atrocities of the fascists on the occupied lands. Even cruelties against Gypsies and Jews were presented by the fascists as some kind of spontaneous lynching of the local population against the communists.

This historical background can only be an introduction to the presentation historical events those years. Let's hope that the Lord God will send historians in the future who could comprehend and present difficult questions the relationship of the Russian Church to the atheistic regimes of the 20th century. The main thing that should accompany this is love for others and an attempt to explain, if not understand, the actions, beliefs and even illusions of Orthodox believers during the difficult years of upheaval.

Priest Nikolai Savchenko,
St. Petersburg - London

source http://readerz.livejournal.com/50901.html

Priest Nikolai Savchenko regularly receives threats from members of the St. Petersburg cell of the People's Council movement for calling for peace in Ukraine. On February 8, several people led by the leader of the movement, Anatoly Artyukh, came to his service in the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage near St. Petersburg and began to threaten. On the Internet, signed by Artyukh, threats are being spread to write denunciations against Father Nicholas in the name of His Holiness the Patriarch and to the law enforcement agencies and force him to leave the state and leave Russia. Father Nikolai was a clergyman of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia; after the unification, he joined the clergy of the St. Petersburg diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church. Known for his monarchist views. On February 22, he served a litiya in memory of the Volunteer Army soldiers who died in the Ice Campaign, the anniversary of which is celebrated these days. Father Nikolai explained his position in an interview with Pravmir.

–Why did you decide to oppose the war?

– The war in Donbass violates, probably, all the Commandments of God without exception, contradicts the entire history of our state and people of recent centuries, throws us back into the dark years of princely civil strife Ancient Rus'.

For the first 500 years, the Church tried as best it could to pacify civil strife in Rus', but now everything has gone back 500 years.

This war inflames the basest human passions and quarrels between peoples and families for a long time. The war pushes us away from other Orthodox peoples, because the Greeks, Orthodox Arabs, Romanians, Bulgarians, Moldovans and Georgians are now in the greatest degree of bewilderment at the sight of military action.

War negates our country's intentions to cultivate Christian moral principles in our lives, because true Christian morality has nothing to do with hatred, violence, persecution or war. By the way, this year marks exactly one thousand years since the first Russian civil strife and the murder of princes Boris and Gleb.

– Does this have something to do with the fact that you have Ukrainian roots, for example, or relatives?

- No. This has nothing to do with the fact that I have Ukrainian roots. Although my paternal ancestors are from the Nikolaev region of Ukraine, and my maternal ancestors are from the Belgorod region from the area of ​​​​cohabitation of Great Russians and Little Russians. However, national factors have no effect here. Here exclusively Christian and peacemaking beliefs influence.

– Why did you go to the Peace March?

– Before my participation in the “Peace March” on Nevsky Prospekt, I came to the gathering on St. Isaac’s Square in March, but in St. Petersburg all such events before the “Peace March” were not allowed by the authorities.

According to the rules, a priest should refrain from participating in political events, but one must understand that peacemaking is not politics in itself. This is extremely important for everyone to know. Peacekeeping actions are not political actions. Otherwise, we would have to recognize the words of Christ “blessed are the peacemakers” as a political speech. Of course this is not true.

Due to the fact that the May “Peace March” in St. Petersburg was part of a demonstration of heterogeneous political forces and could be presented as political, we, several Orthodox believers, went out onto Nevsky Prospekt separately from everyone else, took pictures with Ukrainian flags and walked several hundred meters along the sidewalk of Nevsky avenue separately from all other columns.

I was wearing a cassock with a cross, and there were several Orthodox Christians with me. We didn’t know how else to express our rejection of the public fury that was blazing around us on television.

– What was the reaction of your parishioners?

– Most parishioners are very worried about what is happening, but they are at a loss as to how to act and where, in fact, the truth is. Many understand that Christian moral principles are in clear conflict with the flow of military propaganda.

It must be said that the Orthodox community is less militant than ordinary average non-church people. And immediately after the start of the flow of military rhetoric, the number of parishioners and the number of communicants in many churches in St. Petersburg decreased somewhat. Many priests noticed this.

For the first time in many years, the steady growth in the number of parishioners in churches has stopped and even reversed somewhat. Many believers found themselves in a state of severe grief, despondency, or, conversely, anger, and this affected the number of parishioners at services. I cannot speak about all of Russia, but for many churches in St. Petersburg this is, unfortunately, the case.

Some parishioners, although they are a minority, fully supported and support the war in Donbass. Any conversation about peace in Ukraine immediately provoked an irritated response: “What kind of peace can there be with the fascists and Banderaites?”

And only recently the words about the need for reconciliation began to find at least some response. On the other hand, some understand grave sin war and hatred and are waiting for the people's enlightenment.

– What was the reaction of the ruling bishop?

– I did not have a personal meeting with the bishop and his opinion was not conveyed to me. However, we must understand that the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to the war in Ukraine has been repeatedly expressed by His Holiness the Patriarch and the Holy Synod.

The Patriarch has said more than once that this is an internecine war in nature, that it is similar to the fratricidal wars in Ancient Rus', that the Church cannot and should not take either side, but must, literally, “be above the fray.”

– Do you consider expressing your opinion openly? political activity? And if no/yes, why?

– Peacemaking is not politics. Just like preaching love for one's neighbor or peace with one's neighbor is not political propaganda. And after all, the preaching of Christ was rejected by many of His fellow citizens precisely because He carried the word of peace and love.

And the opponents strived for a political struggle, for a war against Rome, this kind of West of that time. They were waiting for a messiah who would conquer the surrounding peoples with an iron hand, a kind of Stalin. Christ said that His kingdom is not of this world.

And that is why the word of the Gospel in the hearts of people turns out to be stronger than all political aspirations. It is universal for all times and peoples. And peacekeeping is an integral part of it. Any policy should be secondary to peacemaking and love for neighbors. First, life according to the beatitudes, among which “blessed are the peacemakers,” and only then – political discussions.

We must bring peace between neighboring peoples and countries, between Russia and the West, between nationalists and liberals. When they tell me that nationalism is wonderful and liberalism is always evil, I suggest we remember that it was the nationalists who crucified Christ. Christ was crucified under the guise of political goals. One could even say that He was crucified, explaining this by geopolitics.

The Gospel says that the congregation, which decided to look for Jesus in order to crucify Him, explained this with the words: “ If we leave Him like this, then everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take possession of both our place and our people... it is better for us that one person should die for the people than that the whole people should perish».

From these words of the Gospel it is clear that Christ was led to death by real political strategists without love and peace in his soul. Of course, they had obvious passions in their souls: pride and lust for power, but they hid behind nationalism and anti-Western views. For them, the struggle against Rome-West was more important than the Lord God. Crucify Christ so that Rome would not enslave their people...

– Do you consider your opinion to be the opinion of a pastor or the opinion of a citizen?

– I would not share the position of a citizen and a shepherd in this case. We must remember that the words of the Holy Scriptures “no authority can be exercised except from God” (Rom. 13:1) do not mean that every order of the ruler is supposedly from God. This is wrong.

The very original structure of power, the very design of power, is from God, but not any power and not any decisions of power. The power of the leader of the robbers, the power of the commandant of the concentration camp, the power of Cain over Abel and the power of the criminal over the victim are not from God. Also, the orders for war from rulers at different levels did not come from God. There are just wars. But not this one.

– What political views do you hold?

– A Christian’s rejection of war does not depend on his political views. Inciting a war against the fraternal people is a sin regardless of political sympathies. Scripture is tolerant of different types of government structures. The First Book of Maccabees speaks positively and laudably about the ancient Roman republican structure of government.

I have had my preferences for a very long time and do not impose them on anyone. Without wanting to insist on this in any way, I would like to mention that I consider it important and useful in the future for Russia to increase the role of the Russian Imperial House and its head Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, the legal heir of the House of Romanov.

By the way, for those who are afraid of this among the Democrats, I would like to mention that this would bring a wonderful synthesis of Russian and Orthodox tradition with the European choice of our country.

– Do you believe in stabilizing the situation in Ukraine?

- Without a doubt. However, this will not be a quick thing. Deep wounds have already been inflicted. But the Russian and Ukrainian peoples know how to forgive and heal wounds. And we, of course, will heal them.

– Do you somehow help refugees from Donbass? Or, for example, the Ukrainian army?

– A priest from Russia should not so openly take one side of the confrontation, helping the Ukrainian army. We must not give reason to think that complete victory over war and sin can be achieved with a sharp sword. The priest needs to bring reconciliation. As for helping refugees from Donbass, everyone should do this good deed to the best of their ability.

Priest Nikolai Savchenko, one of those few people who went through all stages of the history of the parishes of the Russian Church Abroad that openly existed in Russia from 1990 to 2007. Few of the Russian children of the ROCOR were able to step over their personal history and beliefs and, together with their Church, restore church unity . In 2006, Fr. Nicholas spoke at the Council in San Francisco with a report on Restoring Eucharistic Communion and Overcoming Divisions in Church History.

From 2008 to 2010 Fr. Nicholas served at the Assumption Cathedral of the ROCOR in London. ROCOR parishes in Russia ceased to exist in 2012 and Fr. Nicholas now serves in the St. Petersburg Metropolis of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The interview brought to the attention of readers shows that the clergyman of the Russian Orthodox Church continues the tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, grieving that he poses a danger to his homeland.

O. Nikolay, what is happening now in the east of Ukraine, for many of our parishioners, and specifically people from the Russian Church Abroad, is very consonant with what was said in the past - with the ideals that the White movement set for itself. And it’s precisely this feeling that the empire is being restored, despite the fact that, unlike, say, post-war period, the empire is precisely Orthodox. What can you say to this? How can you comment on this? And you, as a priest of the Church Abroad - now in the Moscow Patriarchate, but a person who knows our tradition - take a slightly different position here, you have a different approach. Please explain it and comment on what I said above.

Of course, for a Christian, the main value should not be an empire, not military power, not the ability to instill fear and horror in front of neighbors, but completely different values, and we all understand what they are. I would even say more: this is an important question, this temptation: external force - or good deeds, this is not the first time that it has arisen before Christians. The first such question arose during the earthly preaching of the Savior, when He came to bring a new Testament, and not to be a messiah, conquering other nations with fire and sword. And we know what a terrible danger the Jewish people faced at that moment. They perceived the Messiah as a kind of new Stalin - or old Stalin? - in general, the image is exactly this: that is, power, all-crushing force, “they are afraid of us.” And so the Jews accepted faith in such a messiah, but they rejected faith in Christ, they rejected the image of Christ, do you understand? And at the same time, I want to say that the Jews of that time had even more excuses in places than ours. Rome then occupied Judea. Then Rome implanted its pagan ideals. Now in Russia we hear from the screens how they constantly preach hostility against the West. And then why didn’t Christ preach hostility against ancient Rome? Ancient Rome was even further from moral ideal than the current West... The current West is still partly Christian, at least in part. Ancient Rome was completely pagan. Judea was completely colonized. We are not colonies. We are a huge, powerful country with thousands of nuclear warheads, with hundreds of delivery units for these nuclear warheads. Who can strike us, or go to war against us? Well, only crazy people. Therefore, it seems to me that even the Jews of the Old Testament had more human reasons for being at enmity against Rome, against the West. We have our economy, our ruble is solid - but what did the Jews have? Only shekels - these are their coins that remained in the Old Testament Temple, nothing more. Everything else is Western currency. Therefore, I believe that we are now faced with the same temptation: Christ - or the false messiah. Orthodoxy - or the image of the new Stalin, conquering and inspiring terror with fire and sword. And I believe that many of us were unable to perceive, to properly resolve this temptation, that they swallowed this bait. And this is very dangerous. And it seems to me that now we need to realize this, understand and stop such hostility against the West. She's the strongest . And accordingly, this fratricidal war. After all, Ukrainians are much closer to us than the Galileans, or even more so the Samaritans, were to a resident of Jerusalem. That's what's important. And it is surprising that now this temptation has equally gripped both communists, socialists and, so to speak, the White Guards, who also see the greatness and power of the empire. Thus, it becomes clear that this network of temptation has entangled everyone at once, and this is such deceit, this is such a great temptation. This is the network that needs to be reset. We must end this fratricidal war.

Thank you, father.

Even you know, I will say this. If we look in the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of John at the words of the high priest Caiaphas, it says there, he explains that this Man - speaking about Christ - does many signs. If we leave Him like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take possession of this people... I am quoting from memory, forgive me. It turns out that Caiaphas even introduced some kind of anti-Western motivation into the issue of the crucifixion of the Savior. That is, as if in the name of preventing the homeland from being enslaved, God forgive me, he decided that it was necessary to crucify the Savior. This is the danger, you know? And now something similar is facing us. This is the tragic spiritual essence of this phenomenon - this fratricidal war.

Thank you, oh. Nikolai.

Source: Interviewed by Deacon Andrey Psarev

In Strelna, publicist, author of articles on the history of Russia in the 20th century.

Biography

In the 1990s he belonged to the ROCOR parish in Russia and was a member of the editorial board Orthodox magazine"Vertograd", known for its very critical attitude towards the Moscow Patriarchate.

On September 19, 2000, Bishop Mikhail (Donskov) ordained him to the rank of deacon.

On December 17, 2003, he was included in the newly formed ROCOR commission for dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church as a consultant.

In May 2006, he was a participant in the IV All-Diaspora Council in San Francisco, where he delivered a report in which he detailed the history of overcoming church divisions, giving examples from the Old and New Testaments, the history of the early Church and the Byzantine Church. He points out that the issue of church unity must come before personal interests. Separation brings with it sin, and therefore the Orthodox should be characterized by a love of reconciliation. Church history contains examples of saints who accepted humiliation to avoid division.

He joined the “Association of Orthodox Experts”, headed by publicist Kirill Frolov.

Then he served in the metochion of the Russian Church Abroad in St. Petersburg. In the same year he accompanied the Kursk-Root Icon to Russian dioceses Mother of God- the main shrine of the Russian Abroad.

In 2012, he was transferred to the clergy of the St. Petersburg Metropolitanate and appointed cleric of the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord in Lesnoy.

On April 15, 2012, the Russian Imperial House organization awarded him the medal of the Order of St. Anne. The diploma was presented and the medal was personally presented by Maria Vladimirovna Romanova after the prayer service in the Grand Ducal Burial Vault Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg on April 24, 2012.

In May 2014, he was transferred to the Trinity Monastery in the suburbs of St. Petersburg, without a priestly salary.

On February 22, 2015, he served a litiya in memory of the Volunteer Army soldiers who died in the Ice March, the anniversary of which is celebrated in those days.

Received threats from members of the St. Petersburg cell of the People's Council movement. On February 8, 2015, several people led by the leader of the St. Petersburg branch of the movement, Anatoly Artyukh, came to his service in Trinity-Sergius Pustyn near St. Petersburg and began to threaten him.

Publications

• , August 4, 2002
• , December 8-12, 2003
• // “Demographic Review” 2015, No. 1, p. 166-174
• on the website pravoslavie.ru

Write a review of the article "Savchenko, Nikolai Nikolaevich"

Notes

An excerpt characterizing Savchenko, Nikolai Nikolaevich

When Natasha left the living room and ran, she only reached the flower shop. She stopped in this room, listening to the conversation in the living room and waiting for Boris to come out. She was already beginning to get impatient and, stamping her foot, was about to cry because he was not walking now, when she heard the quiet, not fast, decent steps of a young man.
Natasha quickly rushed between the flower pots and hid.
Boris stopped in the middle of the room, looked around, brushed specks from his uniform sleeve with his hand and walked up to the mirror, examining his handsome face. Natasha, having become quiet, looked out from her ambush, waiting for what he would do. He stood in front of the mirror for a while, smiled and went to the exit door. Natasha wanted to call out to him, but then changed her mind. “Let him search,” she told herself. Boris had just left when a flushed Sonya emerged from another door, whispering something angrily through her tears. Natasha restrained herself from her first move to run out to her and remained in her ambush, as if under an invisible cap, looking out for what was happening in the world. She experienced a special new pleasure. Sonya whispered something and looked back at the living room door. Nikolai came out of the door.
- Sonya! What's wrong with you? Is this possible? - Nikolai said, running up to her.
- Nothing, nothing, leave me! – Sonya began to sob.
- No, I know what.
- Well, you know, that’s great, and go to her.
- Sooo! One word! Is it possible to torture me and yourself like this because of a fantasy? - Nikolai said, taking her hand.
Sonya did not pull his hands away and stopped crying.
Natasha, without moving or breathing, looked out with shining heads from her ambush. “What will happen now”? she thought.
- Sonya! I don't need the whole world! “You alone are everything to me,” Nikolai said. - I'll prove it to you.
“I don’t like it when you talk like that.”
- Well, I won’t, I’m sorry, Sonya! “He pulled her towards him and kissed her.
“Oh, how good!” thought Natasha, and when Sonya and Nikolai left the room, she followed them and called Boris to her.
“Boris, come here,” she said with a significant and cunning look. – I need to tell you one thing. Here, here,” she said and led him into the flower shop to the place between the tubs where she was hidden. Boris, smiling, followed her.
- What is this one thing? – he asked.
She was embarrassed, looked around her and, seeing her doll abandoned on the tub, took it in her hands.
“Kiss the doll,” she said.
Boris looked into her lively face with an attentive, affectionate gaze and did not answer.
- Don't want to? Well, come here,” she said and went deeper into the flowers and threw the doll. - Closer, closer! - she whispered. She caught the officer's cuffs with her hands, and solemnity and fear were visible in her reddened face.
- Do you want to kiss me? – she whispered barely audibly, looking at him from under her brows, smiling and almost crying with excitement.
Boris blushed.
- How funny you are! - he said, bending over to her, blushing even more, but doing nothing and waiting.
She suddenly jumped up on the tub so that she stood taller than him, hugged him with both arms so that her thin bare arms bent above his neck and, moving her hair back with a movement of her head, kissed him right on the lips.
She slipped between the pots to the other side of the flowers and, lowering her head, stopped.
“Natasha,” he said, “you know that I love you, but...
-Are you in love with me? – Natasha interrupted him.
- Yes, I’m in love, but please, let’s not do what we’re doing now... Four more years... Then I’ll ask for your hand.
Natasha thought.
“Thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen...” she said, counting with her thin fingers. - Fine! So it's over?

Briefly about myself: I am 64 years old. Optimist pensioner. Rural resident. Higher education.
On the site since February 2012.
I started writing poetry very late, so I can consider myself a “young” aspiring poet. I like the site so far. I try to get acquainted with the works of those authors who visit my page. I always try to highlight my favorite works with reviews.
I react calmly and creatively to reviews of my works. The positive feedback is encouraging.
Although this is an amateur site, the assessment of my colleagues in creativity is very important to me. I would fully support the idea of ​​a kind of code of communication, for which some authors have good proposals. For example, Anatoly Lesenchuk,
and especially Arissa Ross
With respect to all authors and readers of the site, Nikolay Savchenko.

Reader!!!
I'm not alone with you
And if he wandered into my light
Tell me a little about yourself,
and if you like my poems
Leave your mark. And if not,
Well well friend my.
Go silently to your home.

At the link http://music.lib.ru/n/nekrasow_w_k/alb9.shtml#rossija you can listen to the song “Russia” based on my poems performed by Viktor Nekrasov.
Nominated for the 2015 Poet of the Year Award. Nominated for the 2016 Poet of the Year Award.

PS. Reprinting of materials in online publications
permitted only if the appearance remains unchanged
material, indicating the author and hyperlink to
source. I ask readers to remember the need to respect the Legislation of the Russian Federation and the norms of Copyright. Any use of materials, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes, is permitted only with the consent of the author. When quoting, references to the source are required.