Notes of a Humble Heretic

Is there a “canonical” priest’s hairstyle, will the Tatars be saved, how to perform funeral services for those who died without infant baptism, why in church we pray not for all people, but only for the Orthodox plus for the authorities, “prayer with feet”, akathist at the all-night vigil, the oddities of the bishop’s service - Father Sergiy Zheludkov asks endless questions about all this. Not out of curiosity, but out of concern, which prompted him to write these “untimely reflections,” mainly of a critical nature “(26). Before us are the “Notes” of a caring person:

Every time... you acutely feel that a church sermon cannot leave a simply indifferent impression: a good one - it is very inspiring, a false one - it certainly does harm, inspires disgust, poisons the soul. That is why I am afraid not only to speak , but also to listen to sermons (99).

These are really notes: individual, very specific thoughts; each time an ascent from little things familiar to Father Sergius - upward and in breadth, and not vice versa. Everything he writes about is well known to the author from the “grassroots” experience of a parish priest. He is non-academic, does not pretend to be an expert, but simply asks questions with the tireless courage of a child, soberly, from the standpoint of common sense, reflects on them, tells anecdotes (in the ancient sense of the word) from practice... And the reader “gets involved” in a live dialogue ( Throughout his life, Father Sergius endlessly respected his interlocutor, and all his texts are truly “interactive”, as if you were reading a printout of an Internet forum ). And sometimes - out of nowhere - "Notes" actually become a forum: mysterious correspondence is inserted here, where it is difficult to distinguish who is saying what, where is the owner and where is the guest. It is worth remembering that anonymity is a natural feature of samizdat, the desire not to name any names of living people. (Although, what prevented the compiler from giving notes?) This also explains another feature - extremely sparse references to literature (one could only refer to pre-revolutionary books and to a single periodical publication - the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate; two other categories: self- and tamizdat - were not subject to quotation).

So, questions - and answers open to development, sometimes naive, sometimes perplexing. Lively thought and observation. The author does not hide his reactions, his feelings about the little things described. For example, regarding singing at the Liturgy:

It is believed that nothing “simple” can be sung. It is believed that every time you definitely need to change your “numbers” and sing something “new”. These singers are terrible provincials, even in the capitals... Thus, with their singing they block the Eucharist from the people, whose prayers are being read at this time by a priest who is still blocked by the iconostasis. And people are tormented by unfamiliar, usually bad or poorly performed music. Some try to pray in solitude, some think about household chores, and some turn to leave... And this is the central moment of the Eucharist! If we managed to ruin our liturgy in this way, then should we be surprised at the trials that befell the Church? (127)

Any reader of the Notes will definitely find something to disagree with here, but, more importantly, he will be drawn into reflection.

“The theater begins with a hanger,” and for Father Sergius there are no trifles unworthy of attention; the field of worship includes everything: from the text of prayers to everyday details that the author knows from the inside - literally “from the inside,” from the space behind the iconostasis:

The iconostasis, which closed the altar from the people, one might say, seduced us... our altar now represents an almost blasphemous combination with the vestibule, and even very reverent priests, of necessity, get used to this. They need to change clothes, even change shoes (not to serve in felt boots or sandals), wash, comb their hair, check in the mirror, talk about business, even have a snack while on duty, until recently, even count money... All this is done at us at the throne, in the “holy of holies” (245-46).

Sometimes Father Sergius describes liturgical curiosities he has seen - always not for the sake of comedy, but as a starting point for reflection:

From memorable observations:

Chelyabinsk, 1947. At a diocesan meeting of the clergy, one archpriest proposed issuing Communion using tags or coupons received at confession (236-7).

Whether the reader agrees or disagrees, he will appreciate that the author is not afraid of thinking and criticism, and does not run away from doubts. And he even doubts the “holy of holies” of worship - the Typikon itself! " The Typikon was not written for ours, not for Russian monasteries. You read about services and readings in the vestibule; but we don’t have such vestibules. You read instructions about fasting: “wine and fruit”!.. St. Tikhon of Zadonsk suggested replacing something so dangerous for Russians with milk monks wine Typikon" (64-65).

It turns out that the main rules of worship were not fixed at any councils. In addition, it is a monastery, so everyone is forced to shorten it, otherwise the services would last about 6 hours. Quoting the words of the Greek archbishop who visited Moscow during Holy Week under Alexei Mikhailovich: “ We were dying of fatigue, our legs gave way from continuous standing from early morning until evening ..." - Father Sergius continues: " Prayer with feet"... The Russians humbly accepted other people's statutes from the East and began to carry them out so diligently that the guests from the East themselves could not bear it. From time immemorial, the Russian people looked at church services as a kind of piously-tedious physical feat " (232-33).

Thus, liturgical trifles inevitably force us to make excursions into history. O. Sergius shows with convincing examples how changes 100-50 years ago become a “sacred and inviolable” tradition (and he himself describes two innovations that appeared before his eyes and took hold). The current situation forces us to look back, move to the past of Russia, to Byzantium - and further - to early Christianity and the Gospel.

Here Father Sergius cites an ancient liturgical text polemically directed against monastic pride:

With the head raised up,
You despise everyone, you spit on everyone,
You consider everyone, heartless, evil.
In sins, cruelly reproaching,
You yourself are terribly sinning.
Or for the praise of men
Aki sinless
Holy you say,
Boast about your fasting
(In thoughts) they themselves are dissolute,
You see depravity in marriage.
You only see yourself as right,
Not yet arrived
IMPROPERABLE CROWN!

(from the kontakion of Roman the Sweet Singer, translation by Uspensky)

This text was left out of the service, about which Father Sergius remarks:

Such polemically-sharp poetic preaching could not survive in church services; it gave way to... works that were not so talented, but more consistent with the style of, as we would now say, “conflict-free” piety. In ours, that is, in the Byzantine kontakia, stichera, and canons, there are very few comments on the Gospel preaching and a lot of dogma (85-86).

Some of Father Sergius’s opinions are quite radical (this is more noticeable in other books, closer to dogma) and caused disagreement - even to the point of accusations of “modernism” and “heresy”. But labels somehow don’t suit this person . First of all, because he always lives in dialogue. Thus, the original version of the “Notes” was submitted to the Calendar and Theological Commission under the Patriarchate in 1958 (the commission did not exist for long against the background of Khrushchev’s persecutions.) “ I am writing about how it should approximately be tomorrow, because it is impossible to reconcile with how this is happening with us today. And this will not be an innovation, but a return to the most revered antiquity " (113).

In addition, in the face of the “liturgical sleep”, which is convincingly depicted in the “Notes”, the division into modernists - traditionalists gives rise to only terminological confusion. “When tradition is interrupted, it is very important to preserve values ​​of lasting significance. In fulfilling this task, it happens that conservatives must become modernists” (187). “ ...Now the biggest step forward would be to go back, and the more back the better” (196).

There is a beautiful duality in the Notes: love for the rules of worship (for Byzantium) fights in Father Sergius with love for early Christianity, for the Gospel. This duality remains an unresolved contradiction. It was noted by the reviewer, conservative professor D.P. Ogitsky: “ ...Your book is valuable not because you proclaimed the slogan of free creativity (this is precisely the drawback of your book), but because you, in fact, deviated from this slogan, you try to remain a church traditionalist, in the best sense of the word " (21).

But here is the opinion of the famous theologian Father Alexander Schmemann (although about another book by Father Sergius): “From a formal point of view, the book of Father Sergius Zheludkov is full of “heresies”... But it seems to me that it is not appropriate to approach it with the standards of abstract “Orthodoxy” "would mean overlooking its true meaning. This meaning, first of all, is that Father Sergius Zheludkov poses questions to the Orthodox consciousness, which sooner or later must be answered. Our school, abstract, self-satisfied theology did not pose questions and did not answer them - and it is most to blame for that terrifying deadening of theological interests in the Church and in church society, which so often makes the Church powerless in the modern world. Whether the answers of Father Sergius himself are acceptable or unacceptable, they are rooted in a living and deeply personal understanding of the issues, as well as in a passionate one. desire for the faith of Christ to shine again with victorious power in a world that has left it.” (“Why I am a Christian”, “Sowing”, 1973, preface).

***

What do we need this book for? Someone said that Father Sergius did not write anything new in the Notes, all these questions had already been asked by the same Schmemann and Afanasyev or the historian Golubinsky, they were raised in discussions at the Local Council of 1917-18. Perhaps this is true. But there is one difference - here the conversation about painful issues is taken out of the bishop’s cell or the office of a liturgics professor and is conducted with us, among us, in our language. We are not so much taught as invited to participate, we are interested in our opinion, we are provoked, finally - this is what “Notes” is alive with. The book is conscientious and open in every sense. Even its end, the last paragraph, invites to a new beginning:

“It will be continued if the readers of this manuscript show interest in the questions raised here and in any form (letter, memo) express their critical comments and positive considerations” (251).

So, “ if they show interest ,” there will be a continuation...