Are the words or thoughts of historical figures often distorted to suit the ruling party or ideology? Take, for example, Nietzsche's harmless doctrine of the superman, the God within us. It led Germany and the whole world to a world war, just as the idea of ​​universal equality led to the War of Independence and gay pride parades. The history of Russia is rich in such concepts: they emerge every time a people stands at a crossroads. One of these theories is the legend of the Third Rome. Why Moscow is the Third Rome, how to understand this today, did the modest monk think that his words would be speculated on for centuries? Let's talk about this in our article.

How it all began: letters from Filofey

A long time ago, in the first decades of the 16th century, the Pskov clergyman Philotheus wrote a series of epistles. The first - about the sign of the cross - he addressed to Grand Duke Vasily, the second - against the astrologers - to the clerk, the prince's confessor. These were letters of warning against the dangers of that time: astrologers, heretics and homosexuals. In his address to the ruler, he calls him “the guardian of the church throne” and “the king of all Christians”; he calls Moscow a “kingdom” in which all Christian lands came together, forming here a spiritual Orthodox center - the “Romean Kingdom”, Rome. And further: “The first Rome and the second fell; the third one is worth it, but the fourth one won’t happen.”

It is not known whether Philotheus was the founder of this concept. According to some sources, Metropolitan Zosima’s letters discussed the theory of the Third Rome 30 years before the Pskov monk. Describing the essence in the same way, Zosima called Moscow “Constantinople’s successor.” To understand what the Russian churchmen had in mind, you need to plunge into the history of that time.

Historical situation

In 1439 he concluded the Union of Florence with Rome, recognizing the primacy of the Pope and retaining only formal rituals from Orthodoxy. It was a difficult period for Byzantium: the Ottoman Turks stood on the threshold, threatening its independence. Constantinople hoped for the support of Western kings in the war against the invaders, but it never received help.

The capital fell, the patriarch and the emperor were killed. This was the end of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Position of the Russian Orthodox Church

Until this moment, the supreme ruler of the Russian local church and the kings could only be anointed by the patriarch - the vicegerent of God on earth - and only in Constantinople, this human embodiment of the kingdom of Christ. In this sense, the Russians were dependent on their eastern neighbor. Grand Duke for a long time claimed the title of king. In 1472, Ivan III even married Zoya, the daughter of the last Byzantine emperor. With her, Ivan took the double-headed eagle as a symbol of the new state. Formally, he had the right to a fief - his wife's inheritance.

From the point of view of the Russian clergy, the union was a betrayal of the Orthodox Church, a departure from the true faith. The empire paid for this with the invasion of Muslims. The Roman kingdom - Christ's patrimony, and with it the rights of the patriarch, passed to the only remaining stronghold of Orthodoxy - the Russian local church. And here now stands the Third Rome - this is the earthly kingdom of God on earth.

First and Second Romes

According to Philotheus, First Rome is the ancient Eternal City, which was destroyed in the 9th century. nomads after the division of churches into Western and Eastern. The Latins were mired in the “Apolinarian heresy” and betrayed the ideals of Christ. The Roman kingdom passed to Constantinople.

The Second Rome stood strong until the 16th century, and then was destroyed by the Ottoman Turks as punishment for spiritual betrayal. The conclusion of the Union of Florence was perceived as a heresy, from which the Russian Grand Duke, later the Tsar, had to protect Rus'.

The Third Rome is Moscow

Was there a political calculation in Filofei’s words? Of course, the kingdom of God must have strong central power and influence in the international arena. But the political situation was not the Pskov monk’s concern.

After the Russian Church inherited the rights of the Byzantine patriarchate, it:

1. It became independent, the metropolitan did not have to bow to Constantinople, he was appointed from the local clergy, and not from the Greeks.
2. The Russian ruler was able to crown the prince as king and demand his protection.

The idea of ​​the Third Rome was proven by the author from prophetic books - Old Testament tales about the four earthly kingdoms and four beasts. The first - pagan - disappeared during the times of Egypt, Assyria and old Europe. Second kingdom - Latin ( Ancient Rome), actually the first Christian; third - Byzantium. The fourth - earthly - should be the last, since the Antichrist himself will destroy it and thereby herald the end of the world.

The monk's messages contained more fear of the apocalypse than pride in the rise of the Russian Church. If Moscow collapses, not only Christianity will fall - it will be the end of humanity. Therefore, the prince, whom the Russian metropolitan anointed as king, must protect the true faith from infidel Muslims and heresies, including Catholicism.

How were Filofei’s words received in society?

Unlike the pessimistic author, Russian churchmen highlighted the positive side of the concept: pride and greatness. The Third Rome is the pillar of all Christianity. It is not surprising that right up to Nikon’s reform, the monks’ words were retold in every possible way in stories and parables:

1. The Novgorod “Tale of the White Cowl” (1600) says that in ancient times Constantine the Great gave Metropolitan Sylvester a hat - a symbol of high church rank. The Russian clergyman was embarrassed and did not accept the gift, but the relic returned to Moscow through Novgorod, where the new ruler rightfully accepted it.
2. The parable of the Crown of Monomakh: about how not church, but secular royal regalia came to Rus', which passed to the rightful anointed of God - the first Tsar Ivan the Terrible.

Despite the fact that it was a difficult time for the unification of Russian lands into a single Russian state, the concept of the Third Rome is not mentioned anywhere in official documents. Based on the above, we can conclude that the idea was fashionable among the clergy, who defended the independence of the church and their privileges. For a very long time it did not have any political significance.

Third Rome and Nikon

In the original sound of Philotheus there was a protest not only against Muslims, but also against heresy. It meant science and any innovations. Nikon's reform to unify church rituals was also a departure from tradition. Supporters of Avvakum perceived Nikon as the Antichrist - the fourth beast who would destroy the last Roman kingdom.

The writings of Philotheus and all legends and parables that directly or indirectly pointed to the theory of the Pskov monk were officially banned, because they proved the legality of the Old Believer rules. The schismatics took this idea with them to Siberia and remote monasteries. Until now, Old Believers believe that the Third Rome is the old Old Testament Moscow church, which exists as long as they, its true and only representatives, are alive.

What happened next?

It seemed that both the church and the political elite had forgotten about the concept of the Third Rome. But in the second half of the 19th century it received a new birth. In connection with the establishment of the Patriarchal Throne in Russia and the fact that the Russian people urgently needed a unifying idea, Filofei’s letters were published. The theory “Moscow is the Third Rome” became publicly available, the essence of which changed slightly: all references to heresy were removed, only words about Muslims remained.

The Russian philosopher V. Ikonnikov proposed an interpretation that strengthens the imperial claims and ideology of Russia: Moscow, after the fall of Byzantium, took its rightful place in international relations, it is the savior of Christianity and humanity, because “there will be no fourth Rome.” This is its historical role, its mission, on this basis it has the right to be a world empire.

Subsequent transformations of the theory

From this moment on, Russia is called the Third Rome as a stronghold of humanity, attributing to it a great mission. Slavophiles and pan-Slavinists especially tried to strengthen this idea. V. Soloviev, for example, believed that Russia has a key role in uniting East and West, all Christians under the auspices of Russian Orthodoxy. The historian I. Kirillov wrote that the theory of Moscow as the Third Rome is the same Russian idea, national self-determination, self-awareness, which the country has so lacked all this time. The Orthodox must not only unite all fraternal peoples around themselves, but also strike at the Muslim Ottoman Empire so that it does not attack first. During the liberation wars on the Balkan Peninsula, ideas became extremely popular among the people.

From then on, Philotheus’s words finally became political, and their spiritual and ecclesiastical meaning was crowded out.

The theory was interpreted differently during the formation of the Soviet state, but already with the advent of Stalin, research was carried out, chronicles and legends were studied. It has been proven that the concept of the Roman kingdoms concerned only spiritual matters.

This is understandable. The great Soviet state did not need other theories other than the victory of communism throughout the world in order to rally neighboring peoples around itself. And religion was banned. The tales of the Pskov monk were even removed from textbooks.

Our days

The USSR collapsed, the people turned to God and again began to look for hints of the Russian path in their history. All studies and publications, from Filofey to Berdyaev and Solovyov, were resurrected, explaining why Moscow is the Third Rome. The theory has been included in all history textbooks as a political one, which also points the Russian people in the right direction of development. Nationalists again started talking about Russia's mission in world history.

Religion these days is separated from the people, nevertheless, the top officials of the state often go to church, Orthodoxy classes are introduced in schools and universities, and the Patriarch is listened to when making diplomatic decisions. How can one be surprised that Western political scientists sometimes explain Russia’s place in the international arena using the concept of the Third Rome!

So, Pan-Slavism, Bolshevism, Soviet expansionism, the Russian national idea, the true path, the historical mission - all this was explained by the concept of the Third Rome, described by the monk Philotheus in 1523-1524. Did the clergyman know that his words would find such wide application? If you study the context (the complete record of the messages) and the historical situation, you can see that there is no great political connotation in the theory. Only religious, apocalyptic, church fear for the independence and strength of the Russian Church. However, over the course of several centuries, Philotheus’ words were still mercilessly exploited by those who benefited from a different interpretation, and acquired a different meaning. How should we understand “Moscow - the Third Rome” today? As with all other historical ideas, everyone must decide for themselves whether to consider it a product of that time or to explain the current state of affairs with a theory.

Moscow – the Third Rome? Representatives of the clergy and public figures expressed their thoughts on the fate of the empire at the exhibition-forum “ Orthodox Rus'».

The conference was opened by Archimandrite Tikhon, he thanked all those present for their interest in the conference, as well as in the exhibition-forum “Orthodox Rus'. My history. Rurikovich". Archimandrite Tikhon gave the floor to the presenter of the conference, Konstantin Malofeev, who noted the importance of the already traditional combination of the exhibition and the historical conference:

“Last year it was the conference “Triumph and Collapse of the Empire: Lessons from History,” this year the theme of the conference was the well-known philosophical concept “Moscow - the Third Rome.”

The conference was attended by leading Russian scientists, public figures, politicians, and representatives of the clergy:

Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov), executive secretary of the Patriarchal Council for Culture

Konstantin Malofeev, founder of the St. Basil the Great Foundation

Natalia Narochnitskaya, Doctor of Historical Sciences, President of the Historical Perspective Foundation

Leonid Reshetnikov, Ph.D., Director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies

Sergey Karpov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dean of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov

Dmitry Volodikhin, Doctor of History, Professor, Faculty of History, Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, writer

Yuri Petrov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Alexander Dugin, Ph.D., Ph.D., philosopher, political scientist, sociologist.

Natalya Narochnitskaya: Moscow – Third Rome. ABOUT reflection in Russian social thought. Myths and interpretations

Natalya Narochnitskaya noted the tendency of the modern West to deliberately use the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” as the ideological foundations of Russian imperialism, while the idea of ​​a “world empire” belonged not to a secular, political, but to a religious worldview and reflected the search for salvation:

“Understanding the religious content of power as service and zeal for faith, and not just for possession, which in former times was only the property of individual outstanding statesmen(for example, Andrei Bogolyubsky), during the years of the Mongol yoke received a final interpretation. The Russian people, as A. Kartashev wrote, “in contrast to the Asian darkness of the Tatar yoke that fell upon them, first pagan and then Muslim (XIII-XV centuries), immediately realized themselves as the bearer of the light of the Christian faith, its defender from the infidels, and felt their land as “Holy Rus', historically felt myself of age, spiritually grew into a great nation.” So the development of the Muscovite kingdom to the empire is inextricably linked with the concept of service, first of all.

The myth of “philo-feyism” as a program of “Russian and Soviet imperialism” still reflects the poster image of Russia in liberal-Western literature. K.S. Gadzhiev, in a voluminous book that claims to be a modern large-scale overview of political and state doctrines, repeats the stilted cliché that the “Moscow - Third Rome” doctrine served as the basis for the territorial formation of the Russian Empire.

This stamp reflects the ignorance of irreligious historicism in relation to the doctrine of Rome, of the Kingdom, which equally belongs to both Eastern and Western Christianity - one of the deepest interpretations of the connection between universal spiritual history and earthly history, which does not separate the East and West of the Christian ecumene, but confirms their unity precisely in Christian history.

In the old days, the idea and the whole complex of concepts about a “world empire” belonged not to a secular, political, but to a religious worldview and reflected the search for Salvation. The first writings and interpretation of the visions of the prophet Daniel and his interpretations of the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar about four kingdoms, the last of which is the kingdom of Antichrist, the first beginnings of the teaching about Rome as the kingdom of Christian Truth are permeated not with the idea of ​​world domination or triumph, or superiority, but of salvation and belong to the category eschatological literature.

A. Kartashev explains how, in the eschatological consciousness of Christians, “the Roman Empire becomes the frame, vessel, armor and shell of the eternal kingdom of Christ and therefore itself acquires some symbolic resemblance to this eternity in history.”

Rome has become an allegory of the mystical center, the stronghold of the world-historical struggle between good and evil, on the survival of which the end of the world depends. Tarnovo was called Rome in the Bulgarian chronicles, Chretien de Troyes called France Rome, Toledo became Rome and the imperial city in the mouth of Tirso de Molina.

N.V. Sinitsyna wrote the most fundamental study of the doctrine of the Third Rome and its place in the understanding of the mystical and historical role of Orthodox statehood. The author notes that the literary skill of the learned monk, expressed not only in a witty conceptual discovery, but also in the laconism and aphorism of the method of expression, did him a disservice and became a formula with arbitrarily interpreted content, giving rise to various, unduly broad interpretations, a kind of ideological meditation.

Journalism returns anew to the image of the Third Rome, investing in it imperial or messianistic, universalistic or ethnocentric, panegyric or minor content. When we turn to the origins, we just need to understand that “medieval thinking and historical reality itself were fundamentally different.”

Further, Natalya Narochnitskaya noted that the doctrine of the Third Rome, voiced at the beginning of the 16th century by the monk of the Pskov Spaso-Eleazarovsky Monastery Philotheus, never had the overtones of world domination and generally cannot be interpreted as a call for domination over any territory:

“In the doctrine of the Third Rome, which fits in 10-15 lines, there is not a word about world hegemony or moral encouragement for the territorial expansion of Moscow. Moreover, the text itself does not contain the formula “Moscow is the Third Rome”.

As for the Russian concept of the Third Rome, first formulated in 1523-1524 in works of the epistolary genre, it was set out in an official document of 1589 in the Charter of the Moscow Consecrated Cathedral with the participation of the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah and the Greek clergy, when the Moscow Patriarchate was established.

There, the “Third Rome” was not even called Moscow, but “Great Russia” as a whole - the kingdom. This testifies to the connection of the concept with the events of church history, the inseparability of the destinies of the “priesthood” and the “kingdom,” and the purely religious interpretation of this paradigm.

Western historiography, which became familiar with the concept itself in Russian journalism of the 19th century, began after the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878 to argue that after the collapse of Byzantium, Russia laid claim to its role and dominance on its territory.

However, for medieval thinkers to reduce the concept of Rome to Byzantium would be dangerous and ambiguous, and would mean repeating its sad fate. Philotheus himself evokes the specter of not only the Second, but the First Rome, and is not satisfied with the ideas of Metropolitan Zosima, who called Moscow “the new city of Constantine.” Thus, the historical and spiritual retrospective and perspective are clearly expanded and deepened; national consciousness is not confined to the image of Byzantine-centrism and involves the European and Eastern Mediterranean geographical and Christian time space into its paradigm.

Philotheus’s only pride is the righteousness of his faith, however, such a feeling is characteristic of any solid value system: it becomes odious only when it is accompanied by preaching the violent spread and arrogant subjugation of others. But Philotheus does not have this at all, while in the West the idea of ​​Rome, already several centuries earlier, unambiguously justified the desire for a geographically worldwide empire. On the contrary, as if foreseeing future accusations of “imperialism,” the elder warns the prince against the temptations of earthly glory and acquisitions.

Finally, it is necessary to provide another very convincing proof of the absolute absence of any proclamation of state ideology in Philotheus’s teaching. In one of the few versions of the message recognized by researchers, several lines about the Third Rome are only part of the text entitled “Message to the Grand Duke Vasily, in it about the correction of the sign of the cross and about the fornication of Sodom.”

The purpose of the appeal was not a call for world domination, but for the organization of internal church affairs and the maintenance of Christian morality. The tirade about Rome is given only at the end only to say: “For this reason it is fitting for you, O king, to maintain your kingdom with the fear of God.”

Many of today’s authors, neophyte “fundamentalists”, from opposite motives, based on the established unfounded opinion about the widespread dissemination of this prophecy in Rus', glorify this teaching as a “minted formula”, as a doctrine-proclamation, which allegedly became a real concept of state building, consciously implemented kings. In fact, this did not happen either for the simple reason that the message was unknown practically until the 19th century and there is no evidence that the Russian tsars knew about it or somehow responded to it.

The name of Philotheus became known to a wide circle of historians and thinkers in 1846 in volume I of the “Additions to the Historical Acts”, where Philotheus’s message to clerk Munekhin-Misyur was printed; the rest of his writings began to appear in the late 50s and 60s of the 19th century in "Orthodox Interlocutor".

The negative attitude of the West towards Russia, according to Natalya Narochnitskaya, is caused by jealousy - Europe could not survive the power of Rus':

“After the conquest and destruction of Constantinople, the Turks hung over Europe like a black cloud. Then the idea of ​​a new crusade even arose. At the same time, the expansion of Muscovy occurred, which prompted a certain jealous attitude in Western Europe. After the Mongol invasion, Rus' expanded and became powerful so quickly that Europe could not survive it. It is from then that the vilification of Russia as an aggressor begins.

A phenomenon of enormous significance that changed the entire international situation in Europe was the growth of Russian power in XVII-XVIII centuries. Russia had by this time turned into a huge empire stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean,

K. Marx, who did not favor Russia, wrote: “The astonished Europe, which at the beginning of Ivan’s reign barely knew about the existence of Muscovy, squeezed between the Tatars and Lithuanians, was stunned by the sudden appearance of a huge empire on its eastern borders, and Sultan Bayezid himself, before whom Europe was in awe , for the first time I heard Moskovit’s arrogant speech..."

And the new round of difficult relations that exists today between Russia and the West is caused, according to Natalya Narochnitskaya, by the fact that “we are becoming stronger spiritually, more independent, we amaze the world with our independence in choosing a path. Despite the fact that the West built its paradise on earth, it never freed itself from the fear of uncertainty about the independence and strength of Russia. And as Pushkin said: “Europe in relation to Russia is as ignorant as it is ungrateful.”

Academician Sergey Karpov:"The Idea of ​​Empire: from Byzantium to Rus'."

Sergei Karpov noted that the word “empire” is often profaned today:

“Where and when was the concept of empire formulated? The answer is obvious - this was done by the Roman Empire and its direct continuation - Byzantium. It was there, during the time of Justinian, that the basic principles of understanding what an empire was were laid down.

There are three constants about the nature and essence of imperial power: the doctrine of the divine nature of this power, its universality and universal character, and the legal principle of this power.

The source of the emperor’s power is the people - “whatever the principle pleases has the force of law, since it was the people who, through the Lex regia, which gives supreme power, communicated to him their supreme power and strength.” The word “imperium”, which originally meant “power, command”, gradually acquires the meaning of “sovereignty”, and in this meaning it is accepted by other peoples and, above all, by Russia.”

“In Byzantine legislation there is the concept of a “republic” - a common cause that does not contradict the empire, and the sovereign is thought of as a champion of the common cause as opposed to private interests. The rights of the sovereign are the rights of the trustee. There was an idea of ​​deification through mimesis, through the imitation of God in the image of an ideal sovereign. The sovereign was depicted with a halo as a saint, but this sovereign one day washed the feet of the last beggar in imitation of Christ, as a sign of humility.

God was revered as a Pantocrator, and the Emperor as a Cosmocrator. The sovereign is the executor of God's providence. The emperor is not subject to the law, because he himself is the law. But at the same time, the emperor has restrictions that force him to honor the laws of his ancestors through the principle of economy.

The Byzantine system of power is primarily universalism. Any territorial losses are either temporary or given for sins. The power of the sovereign is power on a universal scale.

Another important postulate - unbreakable bond Empire and Church. The patriarch and the sovereign have a symphony, a consonance of power.

Also, empire is always associated with a missionary character. Missionary is not only preaching in foreign lands, but when the state itself conveys the truth of its faith and its system to others.

Moreover, Byzantium is a rule of law state, since the emperor was always elected.

The main difference between Byzantium was its connection with law, morality and ethics. It was the transfer of this connection of law-morality-morality-missionary work from Byzantium to Rus' that became the replacement of the disparate system that existed before Ivan III, with a system that became possible and strengthening different peoples under one scepter."

: “Russia – a state or a civilization?”

As a practitioner and analyst of the modern situation, Leonid Reshetnikov expressed bewilderment that Russia does not conceive of itself as a separate civilization, while this is precisely what irritates and frightens the West today:

“When we talk about the postulate of the monk Philotheus, we do not fully understand that we are talking not about the state, but about civilization. We are not just an empire of the spirit. We are an alternative to the Western civilization that has already taken shape. And our Russian Empire was also an alternative Eastern Orthodox civilization. That is why we, then and today, cause irritation and a sense of danger in the West, because we are not just a large, powerful, strong, strong state, but an independent civilization.

We are different, we do everything differently. Already with the Rurikovichs, we began to be seen as something different, and not just as a state that was gaining strength. We often say about Alexander Nevsky that he chose the West or the East, but it was a God-sent choice, he had to preserve civilization, not the state. That’s why I wasn’t afraid of the horde or dependence, since the task was not just to preserve the faith, but our Orthodox civilization.

I had the opportunity to work in the Balkans for half my life, and I often thought about that incomprehensible love when I came to some village and the old people kissed hands and cried just because I was Russian.

Unfortunately, we underestimate this mysterious and sacred connection, when the Bulgarians, Serbs, and Greeks always looked to the East, to Russia. After all, at one time all these countries - Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and others - were part of the Byzantine civilization, and all these peoples are still drawn to it.”

Leonid Reshetnikov called on Russia to return to the idea of ​​civilization as the mission of the Russian people:

“Russia is faced with the task of returning to a civilizational approach, to understand that we long ago resolved the dispute between East and West, and long ago became a separate civilization. From God, the mission from Byzantium to us was precisely a civilizational one.”

Speech on the topic “The Moscow – Third Rome Theory”; historiographic tradition" was presented by Yuri Petrov, he wished everyone present to continue studying history and take part in conferences:

“If we want to further learn the history of our country on the basis of scientific, reliable research, then of course we must expand the circle of researchers. We must ensure that the historiographical tradition does not lose its historiographical perspective.”

Dmitry Volodikhin: “Monasticism of Muscovite Rus' and the birth of the idea of ​​the Third Rome”

Dmitry Volodikhin noted the decisive role of Moscow monasticism in the formation of the idea of ​​“Moscow – the Third Rome”:

“In the 16th century, the Russian kingdom developed three major historiosophical ideas: Moscow as the Third Rome, Moscow as the Second Jerusalem, Moscow as the Destiny of the Most Pure One. All these concepts belong to the creativity of one intellectual environment, namely the Moscow monasticism.

It is a well-known fact that the idea of ​​Moscow as the Third Rome was expressed by the monk of the Pskov Spaso-Eleazarovsky Monastery Philotheus. The words expressed by the monk Philotheus were apprehension - Rus' had acquired the role of a pillar of Eastern Christianity, a force that should save Orthodoxy from complete destruction and death. And Philotheus is afraid - what kind of piety should be in order to fulfill such a significant role, to correspond to it. It didn't go any further.

But subsequently, many decades later, it was the Moscow monasticism that managed to give this idea a different sound - political. This happened already under Fyodor Ioannovich, namely in documents related to the approval of the Moscow patriarchal see. It was there that the idea of ​​“Moscow – the Third Rome” sounded like something belonging, if not to politics, then to ideology. This is the work of the metropolitan court, of Moscow monasticism.

When did this intellectual layer appear in Rus'? Moscow did not have this monastic tradition for a long time, southern Rus' developed it in the 11th-12th centuries, then it appeared on the Pskov land, Novgorod land, then the Vladimir-Suzdal land acquired it in the 12th-13th centuries. And Moscow Rus' acquired this monastic tradition in the middle of the second half of the 14th century.

To a large extent, the birth of the monastic tradition is associated with the activities of two monastic figures: St. Alexis, Metropolitan of Moscow and St. Sergius of Radonezh. Under Alexy, the Chudov Monastery appeared - the intellectual center of Moscow monasticism. His comrades-in-arms dispersed from St. Sergius like rays, founding new monasteries. At the same time, Moscow was decorated with a huge number of new monasteries - Spassky, Simonov and others.

It was the Moscow monasticism that gave the Russian state the opportunity to think of itself in such lofty, theologically substantiated, historically grounded categories as the Third Rome, the Second Jerusalem, the Destiny of the Most Pure One.”

Alexander Dugin: “The Third Rome as a national idea”

“We were honored to become an empire in the 16th century. The anointing of Ivan IV to the throne and the Council of the Hundred Heads in 1551 were the entry into the rights of the empire. The emperor is not just an earthly ruler, he is an eschatological figure who prevents the coming of the Antichrist. What does the word “Christ” mean – the anointed one, but the royal anointed one. Accordingly, the king, the emperor is God’s anointed, hence the identity with Christ. Hence the doctrine of the sacred nature of the emperor and the empire - it is a sacred mission.

At the end of the Byzantine Empire, when theology and ascetic practice flourished, eschatological events began. After the end of Byzantium and the fall of Constantinople, the apostasy period begins. People find themselves in new ontological conditions. The only line that preserves the experience of connection with Christ remains the monastic ascetic tradition.

Constantinople fell, and Moscow rose, and the prince serves as the Byzantine emperor. Moscow takes on the mission of being an empire, the status of the Moscow prince changes to the status of an emperor. And a new Russian imperial ontology begins. The peak of the Rurikovich mission is the 16th century, the hundred-domed cathedral of 1551 and the anointing of Ivan IV to the throne. From now on, we are an empire.

Next came the time of troubles, the election of the Romanovs, after 1917 the last indication of the empire collapsed, and now between us and Christ stands an empire that does not exist. Today we are again connected by only one line - the ascetic monastic tradition. And we need to go to the empire in order to go to Christ, this is our Orthodox Russian duty.”

After the conference, all those present were invited to a tour of the exhibition-forum “Orthodox Rus'. My history. Rurikovich".

Video: Victor Aromshtam

On November 11, 2014, as part of the interactive exhibition-forum taking place in the Moscow Manege, the historical conference “Moscow - the Third Rome” took place. During the event, the historical background for the emergence of the idea of ​​the Muscovite kingdom as a successor to Byzantium and the concept of the Third Rome in the Russian Empire, as well as modern scientific approaches to the study of this issue, were discussed. The conference was attended by leading Russian scientists, public figures, politicians, representatives of the clergy: Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov), executive secretary of the Patriarchal Council for Culture, Konstantin Valerievich Malofeev, founder of the St. Basil the Great Foundation, Natalia Alekseevna Narochnitskaya, Doctor of History, President Historical Perspective Foundation, Leonid Petrovich Reshetnikov, PhD, Director of the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies, Sergey Pavlovich Karpov, Doctor of History, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dean of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Dmitry Mikhailovich Volodikhin, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, writer, Yuri Aleksandrovich Petrov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexander Gelyevich Dugin, Candidate of Philological Sciences, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, philosopher, political scientist, sociologist.

The conference opened with a report President of the Historical Perspective Foundation Natalia Narochnitskaya“Moscow is the Third Rome.” Reflection in public thought. Myths. Interpretations." N. Narochnitskaya noted:

Today, the West constantly uses the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” as the ideological basis of Russian imperialism.

In fact, the development of Russian statehood from the Muscovite kingdom, and then to the empire, went inextricably along with the spiritual understanding of this very concept as service first of all. However, Western historiography of the 20th century is filled with clichés that Bolshevism follows from the nature of Russian history. Although the great conservative Oswald Spengler unequivocally wrote: “The spirit that is victorious in Russia does not come from Moscow. The birthplace of Bolshevism is Western Europe. Democracy of the 19th century is already Bolshevism.”

But liberal thought encourages us to look for the origins of revolutionary despotism precisely in the concept of the monk Philotheus, who allegedly calls for world domination. And today the myth of “philofeyism” as a program of “Russian and Soviet imperialism” is a cliche in liberal-Western literature, and even in post-Soviet Russia. So, K.S. Gadzhiev, in a very voluminous and generally very serious academic book, repeats the cliché that the “Moscow - Third Rome” doctrine served as the basis for the territorial formation of the Russian Empire. This approach reflects a misunderstanding of the teaching about Rome and the Kingdom, which belongs equally to both Eastern and Western Christianity.

This is one of the deepest teachings about the connection between spiritual, universal and earthly history, which does not separate, but, on the contrary, confirms the eschatological unity of the East and West of the Christian ecumene.

Therefore, in the old days, the idea and the whole complex of concepts about the “world empire” belonged not to a secular, political, but to a religious worldview, and this is reflected precisely by the doctrine of salvation. The first writings and interpretation of the visions of the prophet Daniel and his interpretation of the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar about four kingdoms, the last of which is the kingdom of Antichrist, the first beginnings of the teaching about Rome as the kingdom of Christian Truth are permeated not at all with the idea of ​​world domination, or triumph, or superiority, but of salvation and relate to eschatological literature.

A. Kartashev says that in the eschatological consciousness of Christians, “the Roman Empire becomes the frame, vessel, armor and shell of the eternal kingdom of Christ and therefore itself acquires some symbolic resemblance to this eternity in history.”

Along with its historiographical significance, Rome, as an imperial and royal city, where the world-historical struggle of good and evil takes place, entered the symbolism of Christian artistic consciousness. And such an understanding is found not only in spiritual, but also in secular literature. Rome has become an allegory of the mystical center, the stronghold of the world-historical struggle between good and evil, on the construction of which the end of the world depends. Tarnovo is called Rome in Bulgarian chronicles, Chrétien de Troyes called France Rome, and in the poems of Tirso de Molina Toledo becomes “Rome, the imperial city.”

But Philotheus’s message relates exclusively to eschatological literature; it absolutely cannot be interpreted as a call for domination over some territory. Let us note that all commentators and interpreters of the doctrine of the Third Rome did not turn to the primary source - the message of the monk Philotheus. But it is surprisingly brief and concise, fits in 10-15 lines, and there is not a word in it about world hegemony or encouraging territorial expansion, not even the formula “Moscow is the Third Rome” itself. The Russian concept of the Third Rome was formulated in the writings of the epistolary genre of 1523-1524 and set out in an official document of 1589, when the Patriarchate was established in Rus'. There, the Third Rome was not even called Moscow, but great Russia as a whole, kingdom . This testifies to the connection of the concept with the events of church history, the inseparability of the destinies of the priesthood and the kingdom, and a purely religious understanding of this paradigm.

However, two clichés are especially widespread in journalism and historiography: the characterization of this idea as the official state doctrine of Russia and its replacement with the concept of a second Rome - that is, Constantinople: reducing this concept to the idea of ​​the Byzantine heritage.

The acquaintance of Western historiography with this concept of Russian journalism begins after the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878. It was then that assertions appeared in the West that after the collapse of Byzantium, Russia was claiming its role and dominance on its territory. However, for medieval thinkers to reduce the concept of Rome to Byzantium would be dangerous and ambiguous, and would mean repeating its sad fate. And Philotheus evokes the ghost of not only the second, but the first Rome, and thereby deepens the historical and spiritual retrospective and perspective, the national consciousness is not limited to Byzantine-centrism and involves the European and Eastern Mediterranean geographical and Christian time space in its perspective. However, there is no hint of preaching the arrogant subjugation of others, while in the West the idea of ​​Rome already several centuries earlier justified an unambiguous desire for a geographically worldwide empire.

The complete indifference of the Russian tsars to the Byzantine heritage is beyond doubt. Ivan the Terrible never referred to his marriage with Sophia Paleologue. When all the descendants of the Palaiologos disappeared and our kings were reminded that, according to marriage law, they could be heirs, they showed complete indifference to this fact. Ivan the Terrible, whose personality in the West is interpreted as a symbol of unbridled expansion and anti-reform, most clearly expressed his attitude towards the creation of a great eastern empire under the auspices of the Russian Tsar. He said: “We in the present kingdom (earthly) do not want a state in the Universe, for this will be a creep toward sin.” And that Constantinople land, in his opinion, was the land of God.

The expansion of Muscovy aroused a jealous attitude towards it in Western Europe. After the Mongol invasion, after the work of eight generations did not serve the national history, Rus' expanded and became powerful so quickly that they could not survive this in astonished Europe. Since then, the vilification of Russia as an aggressor begins. Our relations with Europe have always been accompanied by its jealousy towards us, and today we must consider this new round of jealousy as proof that we are becoming stronger spiritually, united, independent, that we amaze the world with our independence in choosing a historical path. After all, despite the fact that the West built its own paradise on earth, it never freed itself from the fear of Russian independence.

I noticed that today the word “empire” is often used in vain. The word empire implies both good and evil, depending on political preferences. But many things that are called empires, in fact, were not and could not be empires.

In the report “The Idea of ​​Empire. From Byzantium to Rus',” he emphasized:

I strongly object to any use of the concept "empire" in a negative sense. One dictionary even defines an empire as “a large state with extensive colonies.” But nothing more wrong, nothing more erroneous than such an interpretation can be imagined, because the concept of “empire” has a completely different meaning.

Considering the origins of Byzantine civilization, the speaker identified three - biblical, Hellenistic and Roman:

In their fusion, a great culture was born and a great idea was born. And this idea was transferred to three constants, three cornerstone ideas about the nature and essence of imperial power. They were: the doctrine of the Divine nature of this power, derived from biblical eschatology; about the universality and universal character of power, received from Hellenism, and about the legal principle of this power, minted by Roman law.

The source of the emperor’s power is the people: “whatever pleases the princeps has the force of law, since the people, through the royal law relating to his authority, have entrusted to him all their power and strength.” The word “imperium”, originally understood as “power, command”, gradually takes on the meaning of “sovereignty” and in this meaning is accepted by other countries and peoples, and above all by Russia.

Byzantine legislation speaks of the republic as a matter that does not contradict the empire. And the sovereign is conceived as a champion of general interests as opposed to private interests. The sovereign is the holder of sovereign rights, but these sovereign rights are not the rights of the owner of the empire, but the rights of a trustee.

Orthodox tradition introduced something new into pagan thought. The pagan emperor was deified. Of course, the Byzantine emperor could never and under no circumstances be a god. Such a blasphemous thought could never have occurred to him. But there was an idea about O life through mimesis, through imitation of God in the image and actions of the sovereign. The sovereign was depicted with a halo as a saint and was addressed as a holy sovereign. But this holy sovereign one day washed the feet of the last beggar in imitation of Christ, as a sign of his humility. If God was revered as a Pantocrator - the Almighty, then the emperor was revered as a cosmocrator - the ruler of the inhabited world. Theocratic concept state power implied that the sovereign is the executor of God's Providence.

The Byzantine system of power is, first of all, universalism. Universalism is an understanding of the cosmic scale of this power. Only one empire, the empire of the Romans, is the only legitimate ecumenical power. There can be no other. Losses of territory are temporary losses or given for sins. And therefore the idea of ​​power was not interfaced with the boundaries of the state, because in fact the power of the sovereign is power on a universal scale.

Another important postulate is the inextricable connection between the empire and the Church. The patriarch and the sovereign have one thing in common and the most important. This common and most important thing is the symphony, the consonance of this power.

Empire is always associated with missionary work. But missionary work is not only when a sovereign or patriarch sends a preacher to foreign lands; missionary work is when the state itself transmits the truth of faith, the truth of its very existence, its system to others through the system of “taxi” - the system of order.

Byzantium has always been a legal state. The idea that an autocratic state is illegitimate is wrong.

Conservative by nature and slowly changing, political ideology ideally strived for harmony between above and below, recognizing the imperfection of the existing world order and striving to follow the hierarchy of existence determined by God, in which the highest power is the radiation and reflection of the image of God.

Its connection with the law, with morality and morality is unambiguous. And it is precisely the transfer of this connection of law-morality-morality-missionary work from Byzantium to Rus' that is characterized by the replacement of the disparate system that existed in Rus' before Ivan III with a system that strengthens different peoples under a single scepter.

Leonid Reshetnikov, Director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, reminded that today it is necessary to talk not about the state, but about civilization, which is what Byzantine Empire was not just an empire, but a civilization, an alternative to the Western civilization that had developed by that time.

And our Russian Empire was also an alternative Eastern Orthodox civilization. It’s not just the large and strong state that caused and still causes irritation and a sense of danger in the West, but the feeling that we are different, that we are a special civilization,” the speaker emphasized.

Yuri Petrov, director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, remembering those geopolitical shifts that became the basis of the theory of “Moscow - the Third Rome” (the reign of Ivan III was a decisive stage in the formation of the Russian state led by Moscow; the annexation of the Tver principality, the Novgorod Republic, a number of Verkhovsky principalities finally resolved the issue of Moscow’s leadership as center of national unification), noted:

In the West, it is very common to interpret the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” as allegedly justifying Russia’s geopolitical claims to world domination. One of the common judgments is the emphasis on foreign policy issues, the correlation of this concept with Russia’s policy in the Balkans, building a bridge from the concept of Philotheus to the “Greek project” of Catherine II. There is also an identification of this concept with a variety of doctrines, up to the formula “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality.” However, it has been documented that the concept of the “patrimony of Constantinople” of the Russian tsars was of non-Russian origin. In 1518, it was outlined in Moscow by the Prussian diplomat Dietrich Schonberg on behalf of the legate of Pope Leo X. And even earlier, this idea was expressed by the Venetian Senate. The concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” in the 16th century played the opposite role, namely: it was an integral part of the ideological justification for refusing to join the anti-Turkish coalition, since this did not correspond to the foreign policy plans of the Moscow princes at that time. Authors who bring later ideas closer to the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” artificially use this symbol to fill it with content that is not contained in it, for modernization and unlawful extrapolation to others historical eras.

Report Dmitry Volodikhin, professor of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, was dedicated to Moscow monasticism:

In the 16th century Russian kingdom developed three major ideas: Moscow as the Third Rome, Moscow as the second Jerusalem and Moscow as the Destiny of the Most Pure One. All these concepts were the creation of one intellectual environment - the Moscow monasticism, that is, monastic scribes who either lived in large monasteries in Eastern Rus' - and first of all I mean the Joseph-Volotsky Monastery, or belonged to the Moscow Metropolitan Court.

It is a well-known fact: the idea of ​​Moscow as the Third Rome was expressed by the monk of the Pskov Spaso-Eleazarovsky Monastery Philotheus. However, the words expressed by the monk Philotheus did not have broad political significance; these were, first of all, fears, because Rus' and Moscow were given the role of the pillar of Eastern Christianity, the role of the force that should save Orthodoxy from complete destruction and death. And Philotheus is horrified: what kind of piety is needed to fulfill such a significant role in order to live up to it!

However, later, not in the time of Vasily III, when the monk Philotheus wrote, but many decades later, it was the Moscow monasticism that managed to give this idea a different sound - a political one. This happened already under Emperor Fyodor Ioannovich and is associated with the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchal See. It was then that the idea of ​​“Moscow - the Third Rome” first sounded as something belonging, if not to politics, then to ideology. And it is absolutely clear that this is the work of Moscow monasticism.

But when did this layer, remarkable in its intellectual strength, appear in Rus' - monastic scribes? Southern Rus' - the Kiev region developed a monastic tradition in the 11th-12th centuries; soon its own powerful monastic tradition appeared on the Novgorod land, and therefore on the Pskov land. The monk Philotheus himself belonged to it. The Vladimir-Suzdal land acquired this tradition somewhat later - in the 12th-13th centuries. Moscow Rus', neither in the 12th, nor in the 13th, nor in the 14th centuries, was the focus of any significant monastic traditions. There were only a few unimportant monasteries here. And it was necessary to create a powerful layer of monasticism so that it would gradually, over many generations, grow into this intellectual force in order to raise the bulk of such significant historiosophical ideas that are still living in the Russian consciousness. When did this happen? In the middle - second half of the 14th century. And the birth of the Moscow monastic tradition is connected with the activities of two luminaries of our monasticism - St. Alexy, Metropolitan of Moscow, and St. Sergius of Radonezh. It was under Saint Alexy that the Miracle Monastery appeared, which became the intellectual center of Moscow monasticism. And from the monastery of Sergius of Radonezh, according to the figurative expression of one of our classics, his students and associates dispersed like rays, founding new monasteries throughout Moscow Rus' and beyond its borders - in the North. Then Moscow was decorated with many monasteries, which would later become extremely influential in spiritual life.

And of course, our monasticism had to go through the path of perception of the intellectual traditions of late Byzantium. Moscow monasticism actively absorbed everything that the Byzantine scribes could teach it. And Rus' of the 14th-15th centuries had a constant theological dialogue with late Byzantium. It is necessary to understand that Byzantine culture is not just one of the roots of Old Russian culture. This is one of the roots of the Old Moscow culture itself.

It was the Russian Orthodox Church and especially the Moscow monasticism that gave the Russian state the opportunity to think of itself in such high theologically based, historically funded categories as the Third Rome, the Second Jerusalem, the Lot of the Most Pure One.

Alexander Dugin, philosopher, political scientist, sociologist, in the report “The Third Rome as a National Idea,” drew attention to the religious significance of the meaning of the empire, linking it with the doctrine of the fate of the earthly Church:

The Emperor is an eschatological figure from the very beginning, preventing the coming of the Antichrist. There is an empire - there is no Antichrist, there is no empire - there is an Antichrist. Empire is not just an earthly organization of life, it is a sacred mission, it is part of a fundamental ecclesiological period.

A. Dugin emphasized:

We became full-fledged heirs of the empire just at the culmination of the Rurik dynasty, under Ivan the Terrible. In this we see the fulfillment of the fate of the Russian people and Russian statehood. We were honored to become an empire in the 16th century. The anointing of Ivan IV to the throne and the holding of the Council of the Hundred Heads in 1551 - this, of course, was the entry into the rights of the empire.

The Empire is our religious Orthodox Russian home. How can we move in this direction to restore the fullness of Christian existence? We are given only one line. Only one line really connects us with original Christianity - this is the ascetic tradition, the tradition of eldership, the tradition of monasticism. And it is no coincidence that monasticism was the environment that recalled the need to transmit the idea, to transfer the empire to Moscow - the Third Rome.

Christians for many centuries can live in an incorrect political state, as the first Christians lived in pagan Rome. But living in a wrong political system that is contrary to Christian principle, Christians should never say “yes” to this. They must not recognize the underlying religious legitimacy of any political system other than the imperial one. Not imperialistic, not nationalistic, but spiritually imperial. Only the empire is the political homeland of the Christian. And today it is very important to withdraw legitimacy from liberal, democratic, secular and even nationalist political models. They can be, they are now. We can be and remain Christians within these systems, but they are an anomaly. What they lead to is shown to us by the God-damned West, which, having fallen away from this imperial ontology many centuries ago, has reached absolute perversions, to Conchita Wurst, to the legalization of all vices. And this is the path of all those who have embarked on the thorny road of negating the empire. This is punishment for the loss of the empire, for its distortion. Therefore, if we want to defend our Russian Orthodox values, we must withdraw trust in the legitimacy of what is not imperial policy. Yes, maybe we don’t deserve it, maybe we have to beg the king, maybe we deserve it, but this is our goal. It’s one thing when we say “yes” to democracy and actually recognize its legitimacy, as well as liberalism, Westernism, and another thing, even without being able to change it and not being able to build an empire, we must say “no” to it . And insist on our own political, religious, spiritual, historical ideal, which is, first of all, our idea of ​​Moscow - the Third Rome.

Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov), who spoke at the end of the conference, said:

We must not lose sight of the reasons why Elder Philotheus wrote his letter. Firstly, we must remember that Elder Philotheus was a confessor. In those days it was not necessary to be a priest in order to confess. The elder’s main task was one - bringing people to God and fighting sin.

What did the elder say to Vasily III? “You are the sovereign of the Third Rome, and what is going on around you? What's going on in your court?" And the same thing happened, the expression of which is Conchita Wurst today. And this is reflected in the title of the message: “On the correction of the sign of the cross and on the fornication of Sodom.”

We must also remember about the heresy of the Judaizers, which spread at this time. This heresy was characterized by a rejection of faith in Christ and faith in the Church, but also by the spread of vice, then brought to Rus' also from the West, as now. It was a terrible moral scourge. And this is precisely what motivated Elder Philotheus. What words does he find! “I write with tears and bitterly say that you will eradicate in your Orthodox kingdom this bitter weed, which even now is still evidenced by the sulfur flame of the burning fire in the squares of Sodom...”

We must remember that this is the 15th century - a special time for Western Europe, when the decline in morals was terrifying. It was then that superstitious aspirations about the end of the world after the seventh millennium from the creation of the world did not come true. And the people said: “Everything is permitted.” This infection began to flow in large quantities to Rus'. This problem has become huge among the elite.

At the same time, there were money-grubbers and non-money-grubbers. But there was no conflict between them. This was all invented in the 19th century and in subsequent Soviet historiography. What then was the meaning of the discussion between Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky? They thought about what to do with the heretics. Nil Sorsky, who did not particularly see heretics in his distant monastery, insisted that they should be treated quite leniently. And Joseph Volotsky, who saw all the evil that the heretics were spreading around them, called either to admonish those whose heresy was expressed only in the heresy of the mind, or to execute those heretics who spread the moral infection around themselves. This was the main issue on which the discussion took place.

Dear friends! Very often, unfortunately, I see in my feed that many of my Internet friends share links to publications of a certain site “Moscow - 3 Rome,” which positions itself as an Orthodox Internet resource.

On the pages of this site you can see the following message:

Such statements (in modern language, a double standard) are very interesting against the backdrop of the fact that the authors themselves in their publications sow this very split, teach “analysis” of information in such a way that there is a negative attitude towards our Patriarch and the hierarchy:

If you carefully consider the publications of the sections “Patriarch”, “Orthodoxy”, “Heresies”, “Ecumenism”, and especially the section “Prophecies” on this site:

then we will see that the authors of the site promote schismatic sentiments, disrespect and disobedience to the hierarchy, openly call His Holiness Patriarch Cyril is an ecumenist and heretic (and not only him!), publish very dubious “prophecies” attributed to many famous elders and fathers of the Church (St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov and many others), and also actively promote “prophecies and teachings "of a certain Athonite monk Father Raphael (Berestov) - about whom Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov in his book “Unholy Saints” clearly indicated that Father Raphael has mental health problems (over the years, as we see, they have grown into spiritual charm and youthfulness (or pseudo - eldership... which is essentially the same thing), as well as various pseudo-predictions of a dubious nature (both in content and in the attributed authorship) from Pelagia of Ryazan, Lavrenty of Chernigov and many others..

We will also see on this site actively ongoing work to disseminate such false trends in our Church as uranopolitizm, tsarebozhie, anti-INN, etc....

The newspaper “Orthodox Cross” is also distributed among parishes.

As I thought, these are the so-called “true Orthodox catacomb church named after St. Tikhon, Patriarch-Confessor”... in a word - schismatics... Tsar-worshipers, Ouranopolitans, anti-INN and so on - so on - so on... Just see how they water there “filthy ecumenists” are the mud of our entire hierarchy! It’s even strange that parishioners stubbornly ignore this - how in this newspaper they pour dirt on the Patriarch! Remember: “not everything that is called “cross” and “church” is Orthodoxy!” You need to work more actively in the direction of exposing impostors! The website of this pseudo-Orthodox newspaper itself: www.pkrest.ru.

In such cases, it is immediately clear that if there is even a word against the official line of the Church, then you need to immediately look at the source! - in the source materials of this newspaper (if I may say so) - there is not a single word about a blessing from the clergy, all editorial staff are laymen... materials are selected mainly from the most popular publications about the new martyrs and confessors of Russia... more or less Orthodox articles signed by priests - we need to figure out what kind of priest he is, from what parish, etc…. does he have the blessing of his bishop to cooperate with an incomprehensible publication... next to the materials about fasting (I only looked at the issue of April 7, 2014 today) - there is also material about “the ecumenical activities of Metropolitan Hilarion and the falsity of the coming pan-Orthodox council.” That was enough for me... the most active in this direction are precisely the TOC of the false patriarch Raphael, which means the newspaper - at a minimum - cooperates with them.. at a maximum - it is their printed and electronic organ, a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, hiding behind the Orthodox. materials in order to sneak into the Church and sow confusion and schism through lies..

Dear friends! I earnestly ask you: do not visit these very dubious sites, do not distribute dubious newspapers! If we already see a discrepancy at the very beginning: positioning itself as belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church MP and warning about the inadmissibility of schism and heresy, but at the same time in publications they spread the exact opposite of these statements - then this alone already casts doubt on the authors of the website and newspaper in their belonging to our Mother Russian Church!

The website “Moscow - 3 Rome” and the newspaper “Orthodox Cross” are UNORTHODOX resources, they are wolves in sheep’s clothing!

Be vigilant and careful in choosing your sources of information! Remember the words of the Holy Scripture: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” (Matt. 7:15). Remember, my dears, that the enemy of God - Satan - uses many ways to deceive people and lead them away from God: “Beware, this will be done so cunningly that many will be deceived” (Matthew 24:4-5)…

There are many quotes from the Holy Scriptures that could be cited to warn us against such false teachers, false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing! I urge everyone to be more attentive and selective in sources of information (especially Internet sources), because Satan does not sleep and is looking for how to deceive and how to destroy the human soul, leading it astray from the path of salvation into the jungle of schism and false teachings!

Valery Pavlovich Filimonov is a famous writer-hagiographer, academician of the Petrovsky Academy of Sciences and Arts, specialist in the field of biocybernetics and control systems. For many years, he has been active in the public movement “For the right to live without TIN, personal codes and microchips,” writes books and articles, and gives radio broadcasts exposing the great lie of globalism and showing ways to confront this system of world evil. Valery Pavlovich also appeared on television, on Round tables and Parliamentary hearings in the State Duma, at many forums and conferences, and gave lectures in a variety of audiences. In addition, he is the author of a number of books about the saints of the Russian Land, whose prayers, without a doubt, support him in all good endeavors and help him in difficult public service.

Naturally, workers like Valery Pavlovich and their active work in the field of educating people in the field of globalization processes evoke anger and envy among the enemy of the salvation of the human race and among those who have become a toy in his hands. Slander, slander, lies are their favorite methods. Often slanderers dress themselves in sheep's clothing in order to attract the gullible to their side. It happened this time too: Valery Pavlovich Filimonov is vilified by the authors of the “Orthodox” website “Moscow - the Third Rome”.

Many believers who read publications on this resource are perplexed: it would seem that if Orthodox people (writer V.P. Filimonov, lawyer O.A. Yakovleva and others) on the one hand and the M3R website on the other, do the same thing case, they are fighting against ecumenism and globalization, then why does the second side constantly attack the first, using unscrupulous methods, throwing mud at like-minded people? There are no answers.

And the latest publication seems to have crossed all possible boundaries. Yesterday “M3R” posted another “fried” note discrediting the good name of V.P. Filimonov, with a scandalous title: “BE CAREFUL AND CAREFUL! V.P. FILIMONOV - CRIMINAL STATUS - “THIEF”. After the “oohs” and “aahs” of unknown authors, a whole series of sensational “revealing evidence” was posted - scans from the databases “Anti-Crime of the Russian Federation” and the RUOP of St. Petersburg, according to which V.P. Filimonov is identified as a criminal subject who was in the past “in serious structural grouping."

Only in these “material evidence” there is one inconsistency: in the RUOP database, indeed, a criminal appears - Valery Pavlovich Filimonov, born on July 27, 1946, and the Orthodox writer Valery Pavlovich Filimonov was born in Kazanskaya on July 21, 1946.

As the anonymous author of the article states, they “did not make this information public for a long time, because... “We hoped that Valery Pavlovich would stop his destructive activities.” It turns out that during this “long” time the would-be detectives didn’t even bother to compare the dates of birth of the criminal and the writer and laid out the “irrefutable evidence” as is?!! No wonder they say: “A thief’s cap is on fire.” It's a funny parallel...

And here is the “material evidence”:

The Caucasian hermit, monk Constantine, recently expressed his attitude towards the scandalous website “Moscow - the Third Rome” as a yellow press, on behalf of the monastery brethren: “We do not recommend visiting the site “Moscow - the Third Rome”, since it abounds in such materials calculated, looks like people with an unstable psyche” (http://pustynnik.rf/o-prorochestvax/).

As for Valery Pavlovich’s good name, his authority among prudent people will only increase. And, undoubtedly, the Lord will invisibly strengthen this person worthy of respect, according to His word: “Blessed are you, when they revile you, and destroy you, and say all kinds of evil things against you who lie, for My sake: Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is many in heaven.” (Matt. 5:11).