Priest Sergiy Karamyshev about the campaign against Professor A.I. Osipova.
This material was prepared in mid-April. I agreed not to publish it, because... he could arouse passions.
However, after it was posted on the pages of RNL, in which the respected professor A.I. Osipov is directly called a heretic, I consider it necessary to give it a go, prefaced by the following remarks.
Father George cites a chain of reasoning, here is part of it: “In the intervals between the convocations of the Local Council... the highest governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church is a permanent council - the Holy Synod, whose decisions are the decisions of the Church.”
A month and a half ago, the same author, in the article “Embarrassment: about the meeting in Havana,” stated the following: the people “have the right to vote and even protest in the Church; can and should use this right, especially when he feels embarrassed about this or that issue of Orthodox piety.”
It turns out: sometimes, when you want it, prot. Georgy Gorodentsev, the voice of the Holy Synod (and in this case, the commission at all), is identical to the voice of the Church Plenitude, and when the same respected author does not want it, it is not identical, and, accordingly, the “right to protest” comes to the fore. .
We think, Rev. George quite consistently appeals specifically to feelings and desires, as we have already discussed in the articles “To those who are embarrassed” and “The opposition to the Patriarch continues to stir.” Further, in his “Experience of prayer during worship in the church of those who do not remember the Patriarch” he writes: “Immediately after this failure to remember, this blessed joy in my soul was replaced by feelings of embarrassment and anxiety.”
Sorry, Father George, a couple of months ago you were embarrassed by the meeting of the Patriarch and the Pope, while at the same time approving a possible protest. And now you are embarrassed, seeing one of the forms of protest that you called for.
Your feelings remind me of the feelings of the liberals of the second half of the 19th century. They also only called for protest. When the revolutionaries they had nurtured began to carry out terror, they suddenly began to feel embarrassed and, poor people, they became so embarrassed that they began to say: we didn’t teach them this... The psychological side of this transformation was at one time revealed with brilliant accuracy in the articles of L.A. Tikhomirov.
Disobedience to the Patriarch is the first phase of denial of the legitimate authority of the hierarchy. It is usually followed by a split, and then terror against dissenters, in which fanatical sectarians usually succeeded. They began by accusing their opponents of heresies and other crimes.
And now we see, so to speak, the first sign - the promise to announce Professor A.I. Osipov as a heretic, condemn him, and then experience the pleasant feeling of accomplished revenge.
Your feelings, Father Georgy, agree that it suits your feelings that Professor A.I. Osipov, a very dangerous opponent of the heresy of papism, was condemned as a heretic. Apart from you, first of all, the so-called philo-Catholics will be very happy about this, especially if the noise around Osipov begins on the eve of the Pan-Orthodox Council.
Imagine what joy all the enemies of Orthodoxy will experience if the question of the MDA professor is brought up, say, at the Local Council of the Russian Church. They will simply rejoice that they managed to split the Orthodox into supporters and opponents of Osipov. They will say: let them peck at each other like wood grouse on a leash, and in the meantime we will throw a net over them, wrap them up and neutralize them.
While I do not share all the views of the respected professor, I must note: they have the right to exist as private theological opinions. Excuse me, but Alexey Ilyich never said anywhere: those Orthodox Christians who do not share my opinions are heretics and are subject to anathema. And you dare to say such things about him. Let Osipov’s opinions exist, let there be the opinion of the theological commission, which is not at all the ultimate truth. Our job is to pray for both Osipov and the members of the Commission. Amen.
How much delight there is on the part of pseudo-zealots about the condemnation of the SBBK (Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission), headed by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev), of some of the views of the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Alexei Ilyich Osipov! Those who just yesterday shouted: “Hilarion is a heretic” (the cries were confirmed not so much by facts as by the critics’ own fantasies) today forgave him everything - for the sake of striking a respected professor. And the accusations of Metropolitan Hilarion, against the backdrop of the current heart-rending zealot cries: “The Patriarch is a heretic,” are perceived almost as a childish prank.
So is it a matter of dogma? Is it not even more so in unbridled passions such as envy and rancor? There is no other theologian in the modern Russian Church who can explain complex dogmatic issues clearly and harmoniously. Not schematically, like: step left, step right - execution. But creatively, forcing people not to cram, but to think, comprehending the logic of Orthodox theology, filled with antinomies, i.e. seeming contradictions.
The commission examined Osipov’s case for three years. The reason was a letter from 48 laity addressed to the Patriarch. And the decision was made on March 31, after the warming of political relations with the papists.
It is unknown whether the SBBK called the “culprit” himself to its meeting where Osipov’s case was examined. In any case, this does not follow from the text of the Conclusion. The pseudo-zealots who wrote the slander pulled out quotes from his speeches, castrating them, i.e. deprived of context, and presented to the commission. It is easy to fight such mutilated texts. The teachers, unsurpassed in their skill in such a struggle, are, without a doubt, Bolsheviks.
In turn, the representatives of the commission (for some reason it’s tempting to call them commissars) with one quote, it seems to them, laid Professor Osipov on his shoulder, scolding him like a junior school student: “An Orthodox theologian should strive to expound, first everything, “what has always been believed, everywhere and by everyone” (St. Vincent of Lerins), and if there are different approaches in the patristic tradition - to cover them, if possible, evenly, without giving obvious preference to one particular point of view.”
Let us note that Alexey Ilyich Osipov, when some of the current commissars did not yet exist in the world, was elected by a very prudent man, and perhaps also a perspicacious one, by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy (Simansky), as a member of the theological commission for the preparation of draft documents of the Pan-Orthodox Council. Then three pre-conciliar pan-Orthodox meetings were held in Rhodes and one in Geneva.
Let us remember that this was the time of the Second Vatican Council, when in Rome and Constantinople the project of subordinating all Orthodoxy to papism was hatched. Due to the principled position, first of all, of the Russian Church, this did not happen. And here it could not have happened without the active participation of the then young theologian, teacher at the Moscow Theological Academy Osipov.
Philo-Catholics residing in the bowels of the Russian Orthodox Church, contrary to the will of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, will undoubtedly try to use the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete for the most consistent possible dogmatic rapprochement with the papists (especially since among a number of representatives of other local Churches they will have here support). Professor Osipov is clearly preventing them from carrying out this criminal plan. Why not, in fact, deal with this dangerous enemy with the hands of pseudo-zealots?
A well-known publicist who has been openly speaking against Patriarch Kirill for many years in a row, V.P. Semenko has already left an enthusiastic review about the persecution of the professor: “One was straightened out.”
This is said by a person sounding the alarm about the “Wolf 8th Ecumenical Council”, because there will inevitably be a betrayal of the Orthodox faith. Why gloat about the persecution of Alexei Ilyich? Where is the logic?
There is only one answer left: the so-called zealots (at least, a significant part of their leaders) are a blind instrument in the hands of people more skillful and intelligent than themselves. These people pursue two goals: religious (to split the Russian Church in order to subordinate at least part of it to the Vatican) and political (to create unrest in Russia in order to destroy our country, which stands in the way of universal globalization according to US patterns). And only after this will the third goal be identified - religious ecumenism, trampling on the revealed truth.
Gentlemen, zealots, do you really want this?
P.S. The list of participants in the Pan-Orthodox Council from the Russian Church was published after this material was written. And this list inspires optimism, because with such a composition the philocatolic influence from within will be reduced to zero. Let us pray for our hierarchs, led by Patriarch Kirill, so that they sacredly guard the purity of the Orthodox faith.
All quibbles with some of the wording of the documents submitted for consideration by the Council are aimed at preventing the triumph of the Russian Church in Crete, for it will bring irreparable damage to the plans of the papists and our home-grown philocatholics.
Priest Sergiy Karamyshev, publicist, Rybinsk
As repentance and cleansing proceed, the Gospel becomes more and more dearer and closer to the believer, it speaks more and more deeply to the human soul, it is more clearly and more joyfully pleased with every word, because the Lord, the Spirit of God, lives in the Gospel. It concerns the soul, and the human soul cannot find joy anywhere, true spiritual joy, except in God, Who is present and speaks in His Gospel.
And I repeat again: as in the time of John the Baptist, in order to accept the Savior who came and believe in Him, it was necessary to cleanse one’s soul by repentance, otherwise a person was not able to accept Him, which we see in the example of the scribes, Pharisees, elders, and high priests who insulted , persecuted, slandered and, finally, crucified the Lord, because they did not accept the preaching of John the Baptist and did not repent of their sins - and so it is in our time. If we do not repent of our sins, if we do not beg the Lord for the forgiveness of sins, then we will also be unable to read the Gospel or sincerely believe in the Lord. For our faith will be like a reed shaken by the wind: someone has spoken against the faith, and we are already denying the Lord. Another spoke for her, and again, it seems, we believed. This weakness of faith testifies to our unrepentance, to our lack of a living sense of God. And if we do not work to cleanse our souls from sins, if we do not sincerely repent, then we will not be able to firmly and deeply believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. He will gradually move away from us, and we will perish, just as the unrepentant scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites perished.
Man, even now, in his inclinations and passions, remains the same as he was under the Savior. But it is easier for us to believe in the Lord than it was in the time of John the Baptist. We have the Gospel, we have the Church, we have a two-thousand-year history of Christianity, we have millions of examples of the transformative effect of God’s grace on man, we have wonderful images of great saints who, through sincere repentance, rose from the depths of sin to the heights of purity and spiritual perfection. Let us not, through our laziness and negligence, reject the call of the Church; let us resort to the saving repentance of the tax collector, the harlot, the robber, so that the merciful Lord will accept us along with them into his eternal abodes. Amen.
Homily for the Sunday of Epiphany and the Council of St. John the Baptist
You heard in the Gospel today: when the Lord came out to preach after His Baptism, His first words, which were repeated many times in the future, were a call to repentance. Repent, He said, for the Kingdom of God is at hand (see: Matt. 4:17). You have also heard that the Lord raised up the greatest of those born of women, John the Baptist, His Forerunner, so that through repentance he would prepare people to accept our Savior Jesus Christ - the Lord who came in the flesh to earth. Why repentance? Because there is no other way for the human heart to believe in God and in Christ, there is no other way to the Kingdom of God except through repentance.
The Apostle says: We all sin many times (James 3:2). Anyone who takes care of himself can sincerely, from the bottom of his heart, say that every day, every hour, every minute he is not what he should be. We constantly sin with our eyes, and ears, and with our unfortunate tongue, and with our thoughts - we are constantly in sin. For cleansing from sins, there is only one means - this is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and turning to Him with all your heart with a request, with a prayer: “Lord, I acknowledge my sins, be merciful, forgive me. I repent, Lord, of my sins and will try, as far as I have the strength, not to repeat them.”
And if a person recognizes his sins, is not justified in them by any circumstances, but only considers himself guilty of these sins, laments over them, has a heartache that with his sins he has offended both the Lord and desecrated his soul - if a person realizes all this and converts with a prayer to the Lord, He forgives him for sincere repentance.
What does it mean to be forgiven by the Lord? This means that the Lord removes the burden of sin from the soul, heals the wounds that every sin inflicts on the human soul, returns the joy of a clear conscience, and revives love for others.
That is why the saints of God, who have opened their inner spiritual vision and vision of the human soul, claim that the soul of a sinful person is all wounded, stained with dirty spots, emits a stench, that it is like the body of a leper. On the contrary, the holy soul is pure, luminous, fragrant. And there is only one way to cleanse the soul - to sincerely repent from the bottom of our hearts, to fall down before the Lord, begging Him to show us mercy, to cleanse the leprosy of our souls, not to reject us with our sins, but to sanctify us and make us worthy to enter the Kingdom of God.
Here the Lord Himself, and John the Baptist, and the apostles, sent by the Lord to the whole earth to preach, call: repent, the Kingdom of God is approaching. There is no other way to enter the Kingdom of God except by doing the commandments. But since we constantly violate them, only by deep, sincere, from the bottom of our hearts repentance can we open the doors of heaven for ourselves. Everyone knows from the experience of his life that when he quarrels with someone: with his family, with his children, or with his neighbors, how can one reconcile, restore good relations, how can one soothe the heaviness of the heart, the heaviness that always happens with all discords? This is only possible if you humble yourself and say from the bottom of your heart to that person: forgive me, I’m guilty. And if you do this sincerely, and not just with your tongue, then the other person will feel and also sincerely forgive, and thus peace will be restored again.
Peace is also restored between a sinful person and God, when a person realizes his sins, weeps before the Lord, and begins to beg Him: “Lord, forgive me, be merciful to me, a sinner.”
Therefore, let us remember that if we constantly, not only daily, but every minute, sin, stain our soul and wound it, then there is no other way to cleanse it than with sincere repentance.
Let us resort to this almighty means that the Merciful Lord has given us, we will realize our sins, we will fall to Him, we will cry and beg Him: “God, be merciful to me, a sinner, forgive us and grant us worthy to enter Your Kingdom.” Amen.
Sermon for the Week on Zacchaeus
In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit!
Today in the Gospel you heard the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself that the Son of Man (as the Lord called Himself) came to seek and save the lost (see: Matt. 18:11). What does it mean: “to seek and save the lost”?
Everyone is struck by the terrible word - “dead”. Who does it mean? Whom did the Lord come to “seek and save”? Was it Judas, who, together with all his disciples, walked and communicated with the Lord Jesus Christ for several years, saw all His miracles, but sold the Lord? He sold his Teacher for money and died. The Lord calls him the son of perdition. Here he is dead. But did the Lord save him? No, he didn’t, because this man clearly and consciously went against the Truth, against his conscience. Did the Lord save the Pharisees, who seemed pious on the outside, stopped and prayed in the streets; did they give alms by ringing or blowing a horn, so that the beggars would run from all sides and be seen by those around them, and then they would majestically give out alms? - No.
The Pharisees were generally disingenuous and presented themselves to the people as very religious, since they performed every detail of external rituals and even multiplied their number. So, for example, on the Sabbath day, according to their instructions, it was impossible to even carry a handkerchief, because it turns out to be heavy - this is how they “understood” and “fulfilled” the commandments of God. But in fact, the Pharisees and the majority of the priesthood and Jewish teachers did not believe in God, which is why they persecuted the Lord Jesus Christ Himself all his life, insulted Him, slandered Him, finally handed him over to Pilate, stirred up the people and crucified Him.
This is how these “pious” Pharisees, priests, theologians, and elders showed themselves. They were clearly dying. The Savior angrily spoke to them: Serpents, brood of vipers! How will you escape from condemnation to Gehenna (Matthew 23:33)? The Lord did not save them because they resisted the Truth, the Holy Spirit, who lives in the soul of every person and who appeared with special power in the works of Christ. May all the righteous blood shed on earth come upon you, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Barachi, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to you! how many times have I wanted to gather your children together, as a bird gathers its chicks under its wings, and you did not want to! Behold, your house is left to you empty (Matthew 23: 35–38) - this is the Savior’s verdict to the people who did not want salvation.
diak_kuraev in "Matilda" - a film about the feat of the Russian TsarProtodeacon Andrei Kuraev and director, aka “mityok”, Viktor Tikhomirov presented the documentary “Andrei Kuraev. Direct speech". But we were talking not only about her, but also about the film “Alexey Uchitel’s Matilda.”
Once upon a time, Viktor Tikhomirov became interested in books written by an Orthodox priest, younger than him, and also funny. I re-read everything, and when the opportunity arose, I made a film about it.
“I believe that one of the aspects of Father Andrei’s activities is to achieve transparency of financial flows, apparently large and mysterious. And this gives rise to a lot of hostile reactions. The church in this sense is like an army. She received the command “Father Andrei is harmful.” Well, many clergy took it up, not really knowing what was going on. But this is not the main thing. You should always remember the eternity and immortality of the soul. Against this background, everything else has almost no meaning,” says Viktor Tikhomirov.
Father Andrei himself clarifies: “The topic of financial flows is not important to me. I don’t want the church to turn into just another security agency.
The film is a film, but at the festival it was difficult to avoid the question of what was happening around the film “Matilda” by Alexei Uchitel. Andrey Kuraev gave a direct answer:
The best way to recreate 1917 is to revolve around Matilda, a quote by Chaplin. I am one of the few people to whom Alexey Uchitel showed the film. He is pro-monarchist. If history is distorted in it, it is most likely in this direction. Here is the final scene: Nicholas II, on the day of his coronation (the director by his own will identifies it with a wedding with a German princess), contrary to history, comes to Khodynka, where a tragedy has already occurred. Seeing an endless line of carts with corpses, he kneels and asks for forgiveness from his people. Historically, that day he was at a reception with the French ambassador. In the evening, on the day of Khodynka, and having already received information about it. If the tsar had actually not gone to the ball, but had gone to Khodynka and knelt down, then 1917 would not have happened. So in this case, the Teacher was very flattered by the Romanov house. Monarchists have not seen the film, but condemn it.
There is a logic of myth that is superimposed on our instincts of totalitarian thinking according to the principle: “Mistress, give me some water, otherwise I want to eat so much that I have nowhere to sleep.”
When the Synod decided to canonize Nicholas and his family, clear reservations were made. This is not a canonization of the principle of monarchy or a canonization of the way of government of Nicholas II. He is praised for his ability to remain human under inhumane conditions of arrest. These restrictions were clearly stated, including at the 2000 Council. And we will soon invent the dogma of the immaculate conception of Nicholas II. He is already the Tsar-Redeemer, who, it turns out, suffered for the sins of the Russian people and atoned for them. According to critics of the film, he, not yet being a king, was already obliged to be a saint, and there could not be a shadow of sin in him.
In reality, it is a simple story of struggle, passion and duty. A kind of “Anna Karenina” in a masculine way with a slightly different ending. We were shown a guy who wants to, but who, through an effort of will, pulls himself together and acts as his professional duty tells him, and goes to the official bride. This is a victory in the language of asceticism. He conquered passion. Another star on his halo.
But with what eyes do you have to look at a film to see something opposite in it?
Photo: Filming of the film “Matilda” © RIA Novosti / Alexey Danichev.
Controversies surrounding the film “Matilda” by Alexei Uchitel have escalated to such an extent that they are beginning to really damage civil harmony in the country. With him, the agreement, not everything is all right, but here is another dispute, and a serious one.
Nevertheless, with tenacity worthy of better use, the guardians of “respect for the rights of believers,” among those who are ready, as they say, to break their foreheads, are intensifying this discord.
It’s as if there is no outside world, no civilizational pressure on us from the west, south and east, no desire of globalists to destroy Russia precisely as a cultural and historical reality. I’m not talking about current foreign policy challenges, although they are also growing, because compared to all this they are a trifle. And what, shall we respond to all this by protecting the image of Nicholas II from the bare breast of Mademoiselle Kshesinskaya?
The basis of all disputes and conflicts in the world is untruth or unwillingness to accept the truth. In today's Russia, a new passion for distorting the past is coupled with the desire to transform phenomena and concepts that are important for strengthening national self-awareness into tools for achieving opportunistic political goals. And this is exactly what, in my opinion, is happening with the truly tragic story of Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov and his family.
As you know, the family of the last Russian emperor who abdicated the throne was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as passion-bearers in 2000 as part of the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. This was preceded by their spontaneous veneration by some believers, political lobbying, long-term historical and theological research on this issue, and intra-church and public discussions.
Not everyone, including among Orthodox believers, accepted the very idea of canonizing the last Russian emperor and his family, as well as the arguments that guided the supporters of this step.
In order to avoid further aggravation of the situation around today's dispute, I will not present in this article the arguments against canonization that were voiced then. Nevertheless, I advise those wishing to form a solid opinion on this issue to read an article on this topic by Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Alexei Ilyich Osipov, published on the eve of the Council of Bishops in 2000. A.I. Osipov’s article, however, contains one conclusion that is directly related to the topic of today’s attacks on Alexei Uchitel. Here it is: “Possible canonization with the obvious disagreement of many people ... can even more seriously complicate the situation in our society and divide it along one more basis, because by many this act will be perceived as forcing their conscience to honor someone in whom they do not see not a proper example of Christian life, much less holiness.”
Taking into account the fact that the canonization took place, I relate what was said then, naturally, not to churchgoers who are obliged to accept the decision of the Council, but to a large number of our unchurched compatriots or citizens of other faiths, who are forced “to venerate someone in whom they do not see any right.” example of Christian life, much less holiness,” would indeed be harmful, first of all, for our Church itself.
Filming of the film “Matilda” © Photo courtesy of PR Agency “Sarafan”
MORE ON THE TOPIC
Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. This main monastery of Russia, founded in the 14th century by the Abbot of the Russian Land, St. Sergius of Radonezh, has been one of the key symbols of Russian Orthodoxy for seven centuries. It is here that Moscow theological schools have operated for three centuries: a seminary and an academy that have trained many thousands of Orthodox clergy and theologians. Among the latter is the Honored Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, Doctor of Theology Alexey Ilyich Osipov, who has been teaching theological disciplines within these holy walls for more than half a century.
Alexey Osipov was born on March 31, 1938 in the city of Belev, Tula region. After graduating from high school in Gzhatsk, he entered the Moscow Theological Seminary. In 1963 he graduated from the Moscow Theological Academy with a candidate of theology degree, in 1964 he graduated from graduate school at the Moscow Theological Academy and was appointed a teacher there.
Since 1965, he simultaneously lectured at the Moscow Theological Academy and Seminary on Basic Theology and Western Confessions. At the Academy he taught a special course “Fundamentals of Spiritual Life in Orthodoxy.” In 1969 he received the title of associate professor, in 1975 - professor, in 2004 - emeritus professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, in 1985, for a body of theological works, Professor Osipov was awarded the academic degree of Doctor of Theology.
Perhaps, in the entire recent history of Russian theological science, there has not been a single person whose work has caused such heated discussions as Alexei Ilyich Osipov. A man of deep, encyclopedic knowledge and unique personal charisma. A teacher to whom several generations of clergy, including those in the rank of bishop, are grateful, and at the same time, a brilliant polemicist, whose books, lectures and public appearances, including those organized with the support of our colleagues from the St. Basil the Great Foundation, are constantly discussed as numerous fans of Alexei Ilyich's work and his critics.
However, according to the favorite aphorism of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, stones are not thrown only at a tree that does not bear fruit. And the fruits of Professor Osipov’s scientific and pedagogical activities are obvious.
“I remember very well how Alexey Ilyich answered questions that sometimes sounded very incorrect, and in relation to him, including, sometimes even insulting, and he answered them very calmly, humbly, based on the words of the holy fathers, which he constantly brought - this is what his student said about Osipov - Archbishop of Peterhof Ambrose (Ermakov), rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy.
Indeed, if we talk about the leitmotif of all the work of Professor Osipov, then this is a “return to the fathers,” to the very patristics on which the foundation of Orthodox theology was built, which was later slightly shaken during the years of Westernizing reforms. And in this context, the figure of one of the Russian saints most revered by Alexei Ilyich - St. Ignatius Brianchaninov - is of particular importance.
With the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus', on May 27, 2017, a conference “St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov): 150th anniversary of his repose” was held in the Hall of Church Councils of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. At it, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church and scientific figures presented their reports on the personality and legacy of one of the most authoritative spiritual mentors and ascetic writers of the 19th century - St. Ignatius. In total, 600 people took part in the conference. The event was organized by the St. Basil the Great Foundation. During his speech, Alexey Osipov noted that the entire teaching of St. Ignatius “is aimed at the inner life of the human soul, therefore it is necessary to study his works with deep attention.”
“Alexey Ilyich Osipov is one of the most prominent Orthodox theologians of our time. The courage with which Professor Osipov raises issues of Christian life is admirable. His lectures, distributed on cassette tapes in the Soviet Union, were a symbol of the fight against godlessness. Currently, thanks to television and the Internet, Professor Osipov’s speeches have gained worldwide fame and influence on a large, and not only church, audience. Our Foundation has been fruitfully cooperating with Professor Osipov for a long time; in the near future, with the support of the Foundation, a series of television programs dedicated to theological topics will be released with the participation of Professor Osipov,” said Elena Milskaya, Vice-President of the St. Basil the Great Foundation.
By the way, Alexey Ilyich told our viewers about the importance of turning to the holy fathers live on the Tsargrad TV channel. “Orthodoxy considers true, both in matters of faith and in matters of life, only that which is confirmed by common experience, the common teaching of those people who are called saints. Not theologians, not just teachers, not just authoritative people, not just clergy, but holy people..." Osipov said then.
And looking at the inspiration and energy with which Alexey Ilyich, who is approaching his 80th anniversary, conveys this precious heritage to us, the Orthodox people of the 21st century, there is hope that the patristic revival of our Church will continue.
