Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II was killed with three shots to the head (or was his skull broken with an ice pick?).
Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II was killed. This was stated and continues to be stated by the famous Russian actor, TV presenter and public figure Stanislav Sadalsky.
“It’s crazy to me: they killed His Holiness - and they are silent! I want to know the truth about how Alexy’s earthly life actually ended. Familiar priests and the police told me that the patriarch was found with his head broken in three places, that his gaze was fixed on the door. I ring all the bells - no one seems to hear me. Many priests, forced people, have become afraid to communicate with me publicly - the security service (Security Security of the Church and FSB) of the current patriarch is monitoring their contacts,” Sadalsky is indignant.
According to him, Kuraev was the first to react - he admitted in a blog that the Patriarchate “was embarrassed to tell the unseemly truth about the circumstances of the death of Alexy II.”
“Dear deacon, I am appealing to you through the Sobesednik newspaper: explain to people what the truth is. How did three holes form in the head of His Holiness? Why was Alexy's face covered during the funeral? It’s a lie, according to the Orthodox tradition. When Patriarch Tikhon was seen off, nothing was hidden. Maybe because there was nothing to hide?” asks the actor.
Commenting on Sadalsky’s link, the archdeacon admits the version of a heart attack is “partly correct.” “As such, a heart attack would not have killed the patriarch,” writes Father Andrei. “It just happened in the most inconvenient circumstances for help.” At the same time, he admits: “It is possible that there was no attack at all. It’s just that an elderly person, during some turn or sudden movement, lost coordination of movements for a second - and fell. But, falling, The back of my head hit the corner of a chair.And this corner broke a vein".
Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev also reports that “bloody traces from his hands” remained on the walls of the room in which the Patriarch was at the time of his death. The professor testifies that Alexy II himself created the conditions that prevented help to him: “It was in the inner chambers of the Patriarch, which he himself locked from the inside at night (and why did he lock the key, because his cell attendants never entered without his blessing? Apparently , he had something to fear... - Ed.) Double doors, sound insulation from the rest of the building, where the nuns are bustling about, complete. No one heard the Patriarch’s groans. Even the guards didn’t have the keys to his chambers.”
According to Fr. Andrei, the doors of the patriarch's chambers were broken open only at 8.30, after which the body of Alexy II was found in the bathroom. Explaining the lack of a clear official version of the Patriarch’s death, the protodeacon lists possible confusions: “It is clear that the procurator had many questions. Why was there no panic button in the bathroom? Why was the elderly man alone? Why didn’t the guards have the keys? How could there be someone next to him? not upholstered and impact-hazardous furniture? Why didn’t the nun-housekeeper immediately inform the guards? It is clear that it was difficult for the Patriarchate to say that the Primate met with death in the restroom. What would have been quite normal for an ordinary person could have been perceived as scandal as applied to the Patriarch. And the schismatics outside and within the church would happily lament about the “death of Arius.” In this regard, the version about the death of the Patriarch as a result of an accident, which was actively disseminated on the day of his death, Father Andrei calls “disguise” .
From the Editors of M3R. Firstly, it is clear to any sane person that, even if we accept the possibility of the patriarch’s fall, in which he hit the back of his head on a chair, then it is definitely incredible that he broke a vein and cut the skin of the back of his head so that the blood flowed like a fountain. . Secondly, those who were at the patriarch’s residence know very well what luxurious chairs he had in his offices. Cutting your head off on them while falling with your body is simply unrealistic.
But Sadalsky’s “political” argument – that Alexy II could have been killed for refusing to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and accept their dioceses into the Russian Orthodox Church MP – is not correct.
The further from this tragic event, the clearer the motives for the possible murder of Patriarch Alexy become. The fact is that he made compromises with the Russian leadership and participated in ecumenical meetings, etc. But he was not a “locomotive” in these matters. They always had to push him. It is likely that at a certain moment, feeling the approach of death, he simply abandoned the next betrayal of Christ. And this sealed his fate.
As eyewitnesses of the growing apostasy in the Russian Orthodox Church MP, which is actively initiated by the current patriarch, we can say with a high degree of confidence that the death of Patriarch Alexy II is beneficial specifically to the ecumenical apostasyists in the Russian leadership, who are under the direct patronage of the World Government and some of the Judaizing hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church MP. In this matter, P. Kirill is right; Patriarch Alexy, apparently, was “practically incapable of governing” ( from outside).
Of course, if he was killed, then this crime could only be committed on the initiative and instructions from the very “top”, because people from outside would not be able to enter the territory protected by the Federal Security Service (FSO, i.e., actually presidential) under any circumstances.
When Kuraev began to say that the FSO employees did not have the keys to the patriarch’s chambers, allegedly because they did not want to contradict him, this makes me smile. The FSO is not a structure that is burdened with any emotions. She always follows instructions exactly.
Why could they kill using such a stunt? Hard to say. Perhaps the matter was urgent. It would be quite difficult to poison him, because... the food was prepared by people devoted to him to death.
It is always virtuous to think of people better than they eventhere actually is. Perhaps, feeling the approach of death, the patriarch wanted to repent for his sins before God (ecumenism, etc., etc.), which could become public. This could serve as a signal for the enemies of Orthodoxy and Russiato its quick elimination.
Anyway, Lord rest the soul of the deceased slave yours Alexy and forgive him all his sins, voluntary and involuntary, and grant him the Kingdom of Heaven!
Sadalsky posted on his blog a piece of speech from the “Word of the Shepherd” program, where Kirill (the new patriarch) responded to the departure of Alexy II.
This fragment was cut from the air. In it, Kirill reports the sudden death of the patriarch and says that by his departure Alexy “protected our church from a difficult test, when at its head is an elderly man and practically no longer capable of governing.”
Here is this fragment (Ed.M3R)
From the Editors of M3R- It is difficult to imagine that when the 95-year-old (!) Serbian Patriarch Pavel died, the Serbs could say such a thing about him. Despite the fact that he was very advanced in age and was often ill, and in recent years he was “hopelessly in the military medical academy in Belgrade,” all Orthodox Serbs worried about him as if they were their own father, considering him “a real righteous man of our time.” " and "a symbol of the spiritual unity of the Serbian people."
In addition, Patriarch Alexy was not a frail old man and did not suffer from senile dementia for Metropolitan Kirill to characterize him like that. He was sick, like any elderly person, but even on the eve of his tragic death he served the festive liturgy of the Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple.
All the more obvious is the cynicism of Patriarch Kirill, who spoke in this way about the deceased 79-year-old Primate of the Church, and now publishes books in his memory and sings panegyrics to him.
This was stated by the famous Russian actor, TV presenter and public figure Stanislav Sadalsky in an interview with the Sobesednik newspaper.
“It’s crazy to me: they killed His Holiness - and they are silent! I want to know the truth about how Alexy’s earthly life actually ended. Familiar priests and the police told me that the patriarch was found with his head broken in three places, that his gaze was fixed on the door. I ring all the bells - no one seems to hear me. Many priests, forced people, have become afraid to communicate with me publicly - the security service of the current patriarch is monitoring their contacts,” Sadalsky is indignant.
According to him, the other day Kuraev was the first to react - he admitted in a blog that the Patriarchate “was embarrassed to tell the unseemly truth about the circumstances of the death of Alexy II.” “Dear deacon, I am appealing to you through the Sobesednik newspaper: explain to people what the truth is. How did three holes form in the head of His Holiness? Why was Alexy's face covered during the funeral? It’s a lie, according to the Orthodox tradition. When Patriarch Tikhon was seen off, nothing was hidden. Maybe because there was nothing to hide?” asks the actor.
Stas Sadalsky writes that he does not recognize Kirill. “Elections in the church should be the same as those that resulted in my friend, Bishop of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, Archimandrite George (Stransky), coming to power. They prepared three notes with the names of the candidates and said: “To whom will God send...” But we are not having elections - they are staged. I like Clement, he’s my neighbor, he’s amazing. I would like him... I watched him - he is a man of prayer, a man without double morals. A real priest. And Kirill is disgusting to me. He says in Sevastopol that we are two fraternal peoples. This is all correct, but I cannot believe him, because he has been lying since the death of His Holiness.”
Sadalsky recalls that he posted on his blog a piece of speech from the “Word of the Shepherd” program, where Kirill responded to Alexy’s departure. This fragment was cut from the air. In it, Kirill reports the sudden death of the patriarch and says that by his departure Alexy “protected our church from a difficult test, when at its head is an elderly man and practically no longer capable of governing.”
After Stas Sadalsky’s speech on his LiveJournal blog, circles began to swim. The rumor that the death of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II was “accelerated” is sweeping across Rus' at the speed of rumor.
The Russian Orthodox Church, although reluctantly, is forced to reveal the secrets of the death of Alexy II.
Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev told the details of the death of the Patriarch, thus responding to rumors about the violent death of His Holiness the Patriarch.
Deacon Andrei Kuraev’s explanations leave even more questions than there were before Sadalsky’s monstrous assumption. For example, visitors to Kuraev’s blog rightly ask: “Why did the Patriarch close himself and no one had the keys to his inner (!) chambers? I see only one option (if I’m wrong, tell me another): he was afraid of an assassination attempt. And this is actually his killed (but saved someone from the sin of murder, if such a thing happened in real life).”
Another blog visitor writes: “Yes, judging by these keys, there was an unhealthy atmosphere of mistrust there. There can only be one meaning for closing oneself to a single key - the Patriarch did not trust those closest to him. It leads to bad thoughts...”
But what’s even worse is that, hiding behind the eternal “ethical problem” that lies in the area of the toilet and human functions, the Church begins to lie. And this is a sin. Sin is everywhere. And here it is sin, and so it is sin.
We are confident that the Russian Orthodox Church will get out of a difficult situation by referring to the biblical Ham, to whom Stas Sadalsky was likened. You had to believe, not notice, not interfere where you weren’t asked.
And in response: I had to think, I had to come up with a more truthful explanation for the bandaged head of the deceased Holy One. Or was it necessary to tell such a sad and inconvenient truth?
Why did Sadalsky “kill” Patriarch Alexy?
Stas Sadalsky, through the Komsomol press, notifies the country that Patriarch Alexy was killed.
Well, okay, this type of press was created specifically for the drainage of this kind of substance.
However, among the “arguments” of Sadalsky (and the arguments of the level “the priests I know told me”) there is a mention of one specific source. This honor fell to me. Like, even Kuraev says that “the Patriarchate was in vain in telling the true circumstances of the death of His Holiness.”
Here, however, Sadalsky has two inconsistencies.
First: I said this phrase after his first statement. And my phrase sounded like this: “Afraid to tell the unseemly truth about the circumstances of the death of His Holiness, the Patriarchate received a vile rumor.” Therefore, no matter how my phrase was understood, but, being said in response to Sadalsky, for this reason it could not be either a source or an argument in favor of Sadalsky’s version.
The second inconsistency: I did not at all mean the murder of the Patriarch.
The official version was that the cause of death was a heart attack. Although in the first hours there was even a non-Church rumor about a car accident ("The Moscow Patriarchate denied the rumors that appeared that the cause of the death of Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' was a car accident that occurred the day before" - Ros. Newspaper December 8, 2008).
The first is partly true, the second is completely false (although the reason for the appearance of such a rumor is understandable).
As such, a heart attack would not have killed the patriarch. It just happened in the most inconvenient circumstances for help.
It is possible that there was no attack at all. It’s just that an elderly man, during some turn or sudden movement, lost coordination of movements for a second - and fell. But, falling, the back of his head hit the corner of a chair. And this angle interrupted the vein. The Patriarch regained consciousness. I tried to get up - there were bloody marks from his hands on the walls (this is important from a religious point of view: it means that the death of the Patriarch was not instantaneous and he had time not only for the last struggle for life, but also for realizing the inevitability of the upcoming final Transition and preparing for it ).
Even with such an injury, he could have been saved. If only someone knew that he needed help. But the matter was in the inner chambers of the Patriarch, which he himself locked from the inside at night. The doors are double, the sound insulation from the rest of the building, where the nuns are bustling about, is complete. No one heard the Patriarch’s groans. Even the guards did not have the keys to his chambers.
The Patriarch ordered breakfast for 8 am the night before. When he didn’t come out at half past eight, they began to worry. Knocking and calling brought no answer. They began to look into the windows (without much hope - not all of the patriarch's chambers had windows). And yet, through the bathroom window (in order to look through it, they had to crawl to the edge of the roof), they saw him lying.
The door was broken into. But the body was already cooling down.
It is clear that the prosecutors had many questions. Why wasn't there a panic button in the bathroom that could even be reached by a person lying on the floor? Why was the elderly man alone? Why didn't the security have the keys? How could there be non-soft and high-impact furniture next to him? Why didn't the nun-housekeeper immediately inform the guards?
It is clear that it was difficult for the Patriarchate to say that the Primate met with death in the restroom. What would be quite ordinary for an ordinary person could be perceived as a scandal when applied to the Patriarch. Yes, both outside and inside the church schismatics would happily lament about the “death of Arius.”
Therefore, at first (given the head injury) a camouflage version about the car accident arose (it is unlikely that this gossip originated in the patriarchate - rather among journalists who learned the first details of the tragedy).
But no one gossiped about the murder.
And even more wild is Sadalsky’s version that the Patriarch was killed because he did not support the Kremlin during the Ossetian-Georgian August War.
Political murders must be symbolic and understandable - by whom and for what, so that others will be discouraged.
Let's assume that Sadalsky is right, and someone (Ossetian super-militants or Kremlin agents) killed the Patriarch precisely for this. But is the position of the new Patriarch Kirill on this issue in some way different from the position of Patriarch Alexy? Still, the Moscow Patriarchate emphasizes that it views South Ossetia and Abkhazia from the point of view of church law - that is, as a canonical part of the Georgian Orthodox Church. At the same time, attention is drawn to the fact that church and state boundaries do not have to coincide, and the recognition by the Moscow Patriarchate of the jurisdiction of church Tbilisi over these dioceses does not mean our disagreement with the sovereignty of Abkhazia and South Ossetia or with the recognition of this sovereignty by Russia.
I wrote about this in detail just before the death of Patriarch Alexy - “The Abkhaz Knot of Church Politics” (Profile No. 47, December 15, 2008). And a completely pro-Kremlin magazine published this article of mine shortly after the unexpected death of the Primate.
And even under Patriarch Alexy, the development of external church policy was carried out by Metropolitan. Kirill. So it would be completely strange for the Kremlin: to remove Patriarch Alexy for a “mistake” in foreign church policy and instead allow the author of this “mistake” to be elected.
As for the covered face of the funeral primate, this is a church tradition. Those interested can look at the 6th issue of the ZhMP for 1970 - the face of Patriarch Alexy the First is revealed only at the first funeral service in his house. Then at the general church funeral it is closed.
“The initial succession of the monks” speaks of the burial of the schema-monks: “Even if there is a great image, covering it with a helmet over the head, and hanging down even to the brad, as if the person could not see its relics” (Monastic Trebnik M., 2003, pp. 135-136). “The face of a deceased bishop and priest is covered with air, which is not removed during burial” (Bulgakov S.V. Handbook for clergy and church ministers. M., 1993, (reprint from 1913) p. 1290).
By his cry about this, Sadalsky testifies to only one thing: he is so unchurched that he did not attend the funeral of a single priest.
I won’t prescribe a morality tale. You just shouldn’t confuse two things: the death of the Primate of the Church always has a political echo. But the death of the Patriarch is not always a consequence of the policies he pursues.
Farewell to His Holiness, see:
Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev, a well-known publicist close to the patriarchal leadership, talks about the true, as he assures, circumstances of the death of Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Alexy II (Ridiger).
As is known, according to the official version, the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church died of a heart attack, but a medical report on his death was not published, and no details were reported about the last hours of the Patriarch’s life. This contributed to the emergence of various rumors and versions, including the version of murder for political purposes, which was expressed in an interview with the Sobesednik newspaper by the famous Russian actor, TV presenter and public figure Stanislav Sadalsky. This version has recently been widely circulated in the media.
Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev admitted that the details of the death of Patriarch Alexy II were deliberately suppressed due to their “disrespect,” although the official version is still closer to the truth than others. Further Andrey Kuraev reports:
“As such, a heart attack would not have killed the patriarch. It just happened in the most inconvenient circumstances for help.
It is possible that there was no attack at all. It’s just that an elderly man, during some turn or sudden movement, lost coordination of movements for a second - and fell. But, falling, the back of his head hit the corner of a chair. And this angle interrupted the vein. The Patriarch regained consciousness. He tried to get up (there were bloody marks from his hands on the walls).
Even with such an injury, he could have been saved. If only someone knew that he needed help. But the matter was in the inner chambers of the Patriarch, which he himself locked from the inside at night. The doors are double, the sound insulation from the rest of the building, where the nuns are bustling about, is complete. No one heard the Patriarch’s groans. Even the guards did not have the keys to his chambers.
The Patriarch ordered breakfast for 8 am the night before. When he didn’t come out at half past eight, they began to worry. Knocking and calling brought no answer. They began to look into the windows. And through the bathroom window they saw him lying.
The door was broken into. But the body was already cooling down.
It is clear that the prosecutors had many questions. Why wasn't there a panic button in the bathroom? Why was the elderly man alone? Why didn't the security have the keys? How could there be non-soft and high-impact furniture next to him? Why didn't the nun-housekeeper immediately inform the guards?
It is clear that it was difficult for the Patriarchate to say that the Primate met with death in the restroom. What would be quite ordinary for an ordinary person could be perceived as a scandal when applied to the Patriarch. Yes, both outside and inside the church schismatics would happily lament about the “death of Arius.”
That’s why at first (given the head injury) a cover-up version of a car accident arose.”
In the comments to Kuraev’s message, many draw attention to the fact that such a strange self-isolation of an elderly and sick person, who could need help at any moment, is most likely caused by nothing more than fear and distrust of his immediate environment and personal security.
They also draw attention to the surprising coincidence of the circumstances of the death of Patriarch Alexy II with the history of the death of Patriarch Alexy I (Simansky) of the same name, who died in 1970, who died, according to the official version, from “heart failure.” According to one of the commentators on the blog of Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev, “in the evening at his residence he was walking to the bathroom, carrying a basin in his hands (for some reason his old servant Danila Ostapov was not there that evening), he tripped, fell and hit himself. He died, however, not immediately, but a few months later, but After that, he fell ill and never got up (he was a lot of years old - 91).”
Stas Sadalsky opened Pandora's box. The mysterious death of the Patriarch, which allegedly occurred in the toilet and therefore did not find a truthful official explanation
shrouded in rumors and gossip. Deacon Kuraev, who was forced to refute the rumor about the murder of the Patriarch with three shots to the head, unleashed even more horror. It turns out that the Patriarch, while in the bathroom, hit his temple on the doorframe, the temporal vein was broken, he groaned, but did not receive help, because he himself locked himself in his chambers at night, leaving no one the key. Apparently he was afraid of an assassination attempt...
This was stated by the famous Russian actor, TV presenter and public figure Stanislav Sadalsky in an interview with the Sobesednik newspaper.
.
« It’s crazy to me: they killed His Holiness - and they are silent! I
I want to know the truth about how Alexy’s earthly life actually ended.
Familiar priests and the police told me that the patriarch was found with his head broken in three places, that his gaze was fixed on the door. I ring all the bells - no one seems to hear me. Many priests, forced people, began to be afraid to communicate with me publicly - the security service of the current patriarch is monitoring their contacts.”, - Sadalsky is indignant.
According to him, the other day Kuraev was the first to react - he admitted in a blog that the Patriarchate “was embarrassed to tell the unseemly truth about the circumstances of the death of Alexy II.” “Dear deacon, I am appealing to you through the Sobesednik newspaper: explain to people what the truth is. How did three holes form in the head of His Holiness? Why was Alexy's face covered during the funeral? It’s a lie, according to the Orthodox tradition. When Patriarch Tikhon was seen off, nothing was hidden. Maybe because there was nothing to hide?” asks the actor.
Stas Sadalsky writes that he does not recognize Kirill. " Elections in the church should be the same as those as a result of which my friend, the Bishop of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, Archimandrite George (Stransky), came to power. They prepared three notes with the names of the candidates and said: “To whom will God send...” And we are not having elections - they are staging. I like Clement, he’s my neighbor, he’s amazing. I would like him... I watched him - he is a man of prayer, a man without double morals. A real priest. And Kirill is disgusting to me. He says in Sevastopol that we are two fraternal peoples. This is all correct, but I cannot believe him, because he has been lying since the death of His Holiness».
Sadalsky recalls that he posted on his blog a piece of speech from the “Word of the Shepherd” program, where Kirill responded to Alexy’s departure. This fragment was cut from the air. In it, Kirill reports the sudden death of the patriarch and says that by his departure Alexy “protected our church from a difficult test, when at its head is an elderly man and practically no longer capable of governing.”
After Stas Sadalsky’s speech on his LiveJournal blog, circles began to swim. The rumor that the death of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II was “accelerated” is sweeping across Rus' at the speed of rumor.
The Russian Orthodox Church, although reluctantly, is forced to reveal the secrets of the death of Alexy II.
Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev told the details of the death of the Patriarch, thus responding to rumors about the violent death of His Holiness the Patriarch.
As reported Father Andrey on his blog , “as such, a heart attack would not have killed the Patriarch. It just happened in the most inconvenient circumstances for help.”
Why did Sadalsky “kill” Patriarch Alexy?
Stas Sadalsky, through the Komsomol press, notifies the country that Patriarch Alexy was killed.
Well, okay, this type of press was created specifically for the drainage of this kind of substance.
However, among the “arguments” of Sadalsky (and the arguments of the level “the priests I know told me”) there is a mention of one specific source. This honor fell to me. Like, even Kuraev says that “The Patriarchate was wrong for not telling the true circumstances of the death of His Holiness.”
Here, however, Sadalsky has two inconsistencies.
First: I said this phrase after his first statement. And my phrase sounded like this: “Afraid to tell the unseemly truth about the circumstances of the death of His Holiness, the Patriarchate received a vile rumor.” Therefore, no matter how my phrase was understood, but, being said in response to Sadalsky, for this reason it could not be either a source or an argument in favor of Sadalsky’s version.
The second inconsistency: I did not at all mean the murder of the Patriarch.
The official version was that the cause of death was a heart attack. Although in the first hours there was even a rumor about a car accident.
The first is partly true, the second is completely false (although the reason for the appearance of such a rumor is understandable).
As such, a heart attack would not have killed the patriarch. It just happened in the most inconvenient circumstances for help.
It is possible that there was no attack at all. It’s just that an elderly man, during some kind of turn or sudden movement, lost coordination of movements for a second - and fell. But, falling, the back of his head hit the corner of a chair. And this angle interrupted the vein. The Patriarch regained consciousness. I tried to get up - there were bloody marks from his hands on the walls (this is important from a religious point of view: it means that the death of the Patriarch was not instantaneous and he had time not only for the last struggle for life, but also for realizing the inevitability of the upcoming final Transition and preparing for it ).
Even with such an injury, he could have been saved. If only someone knew that he needed help. But the matter was in the inner chambers of the Patriarch, which he himself locked from the inside at night. The doors are double, the sound insulation from the rest of the building, where the nuns are bustling about, is complete. No one heard the Patriarch’s groans. Even the guards did not have the keys to his chambers.
The Patriarch ordered breakfast for 8 am the night before. When he didn’t come out at half past eight, they began to worry. Knocking and calling brought no answer. They began to look into the windows. And through the bathroom window they saw him lying.
The door was broken into. But the body was already cooling down.
It is clear that the prosecutors had many questions. Why wasn't there a panic button in the bathroom? Why was the elderly man alone? Why didn't the security have the keys? How could there be non-soft and high-impact furniture next to him? Why didn't the nun-housekeeper immediately inform the guards?
It is clear that it was difficult for the Patriarchate to say that the Primate met with death in the restroom. What would be quite ordinary for an ordinary person could be perceived as a scandal when applied to the Patriarch. Yes, both outside and inside the church schismatics would happily lament about the “death of Arius.”
Therefore, at first (given the head injury) a camouflaged version of a car accident arose.
But no one gossiped about the murder.
And even more wild is Sadalsky’s version that the Patriarch was killed because he did not support the Kremlin during the Ossetian-Georgian August War.
Political murders must be symbolic and understandable - by whom and for what, so that others will be discouraged.
Let's assume that Sadalsky is right, and someone (Ossetian super-militants or Kremlin agents) killed the Patriarch precisely for this. But is the position of the new Patriarch Kirill on this issue in some way different from the position of Patriarch Alexy? Still, the Moscow Patriarchate emphasizes that it views South Ossetia and Abkhazia from the point of view of church law - that is, as a canonical part of the Georgian Orthodox Church. At the same time, attention is drawn to the fact that church and state boundaries do not have to coincide, and the recognition by the Moscow Patriarchate of the jurisdiction of church Tbilisi over these dioceses does not mean our disagreement with the sovereignty of Abkhazia and South Ossetia or with the recognition of this sovereignty by Russia.
I wrote about this in detail just before the death of Patriarch Alexy - “The Abkhaz Knot of Church Politics” (Profile No. 47, December 15, 2008). And a completely pro-Kremlin magazine published this article of mine shortly after the unexpected death of the Primate.
And even under Patriarch Alexy, the development of external church policy was carried out by Metropolitan. Kirill. So it would be completely strange for the Kremlin: to remove Patriarch Alexy for a “mistake” in foreign church policy and instead allow the author of this “mistake” to be elected.
I won’t prescribe a morality tale. You just shouldn’t confuse two things: the death of the Primate of the Church always has a political echo. But the death of the Patriarch is not always a consequence of the policies he pursues.
Deacon Andrei Kuraev’s explanations leave even more questions than there were before Sadalsky’s monstrous assumption. For example, visitors to Kuraev’s blog rightly ask: “Why did the Patriarch close himself and no one had the keys to his inner (!) chambers? I see only one option (if I’m wrong, tell me another): he was afraid of an assassination attempt. And this is actually his killed (but saved someone from the sin of murder, if such a thing happened in real life).”
Another blog visitor writes: “Yes, judging by these keys, there was an unhealthy atmosphere of mistrust there. There can only be one meaning for closing oneself to a single key - the Patriarch did not trust those closest to him. It leads to bad thoughts...”
But what’s even worse is that, hiding behind the eternal “ethical problem” that lies in the area of the toilet and human functions, the Church begins to lie. And this is a sin. Sin is everywhere. And here it is sin, and so it is sin.
We are confident that the Russian Orthodox Church will get out of a difficult situation by referring to the biblical Ham, to whom Stas Sadalsky was likened. You had to believe, not notice, not interfere where you weren’t asked.
And in response: I had to think, I had to come up with a more truthful explanation for the bandaged head of the deceased Holy One. Or was it necessary to tell such a sad and inconvenient truth?
Loading...
