Papal truth: about Francis’ appeal to Russian youth
In the tradition of the Vatican
The other day, the Roman pontiff reminded himself, causing approval from the Russian Foreign Ministry and irritation from the Ukrainian one, although Francis did not say anything critical of the Kyiv regime. His statement itself is consistent with the centuries-old traditions of the Vatican, dating back to the XNUMXth century, when the popes, in the ruins of the Western Roman Empire and surrounded by barbarian kingdoms, began to play an important, including political role, largely determined by external circumstances.
Over the centuries, all sorts of things happened: maneuvering between the Lombard kings, who professed Arianism and fortified themselves in the north of Italy, and the Byzantine iconoclast emperors who controlled its south; and the path of Emperor Henry IV to Canossa, which demonstrated, albeit temporary, the triumph of papal power over secular power; and the Rome-initiated First Crusade; and the humiliating, albeit very comfortable, Avignon capture of the popes, and the self-coronation of Napoleon, who could not stand the long ceremony (however, perhaps this was a part of the ritual full of symbolism, about which the pope was initially informed).
Shattered but not lost influence
Over the centuries, especially after the Great French Revolution and the subsequent “Spring of Nations,” the political role of the Vatican in Europe was increasingly leveled out. However, she didn't history absolutely, which is reflected in the maxim attributed (precisely attributed) to Stalin about the number of divisions at the pontiff’s disposal.
John Paul II somewhat revived the prestige of the Vatican (one of his first steps in the international arena was a meeting with Gromyko, and at the latter’s request), although the return of his former influence is no longer out of the question.
About Russia and Rome: stepping on stereotypes
Now let's take a closer look at Francis' words regarding Russia. I understand that readers are already aware of what he said, but still:
“Never forget the legacy. You are the heirs of great Russia. Great Russia saints, rulers. Great Russia of Peter I, Catherine II, that empire - great, enlightened, a country of great culture and great humanity.”
Let's start with the saints.
Usually Russian saints and the Roman throne are considered as a kind of antithesis in relation to each other: they say, our ascetics did nothing but condemn the Latin heresy. No, there were those - say, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov.
Alexander Nevsky and papal bulls
But in general, relationships should not be drawn only in black and white. Even the famous correspondence between Alexander Nevsky and Pope Innocent IV is not unequivocal, since the prince gave a completely benevolent answer to the first letter, recorded in the words of the pontiff himself:
“You asked with all zeal to be included as a member of the single head of the church through true obedience, as a sign of which you proposed to erect a cathedral church for the Latins in your city of Pleskov (Pskov. - Author's note."
Here you need to understand the context: Alexander received the first bull in an extremely difficult political situation: in the summer of 1248, on the eve of his trip to Karakorum, the result of which was difficult to predict. Therefore, the generally friendly response to Innocent fit into the prince’s desire to retain the possibility of maneuver in dialogue with Rome and Karakorum, depending on the developing situation, which was completely unpredictable on the eve of the trip.
And only to the second bull there was a negative response, and perhaps for reasons more military-political than religious. For during a trip across the expanses (by the way, completely unthinkable for a European ruler) of the Mongol Empire, Alexander saw the power of its military force, incomparable with the fragmented states from Oka to Gibraltar and their very small professional armies.
And in Karakorum and Sarai, who expressed loyalty to the conquerors, the Russian princes were made to understand that they were not going to seize their lands, limiting relations to the format of vassalage and the payment of tribute. From this point of view, the dialogue with Rome lost its meaning for Alexander and was curtailed by him.
And the fate of the Galician prince Daniel, who received the royal crown from the hands of the pope, but not military assistance, confirms the correctness of the geopolitical choice made by Nevsky: Rome could not provide effective military assistance to any of the Russian princes in the confrontation with the superpower of that time.
Little Russian clergy and Catholic education
After the annexation of Little Russia in the second half of the XNUMXth century, the influence of the more educated local clergy, who largely adopted Catholic theological views, became very widespread (among our clergy, not only with theological education, there were serious problems with elementary education).
It is enough to recall Saint Dmitry of Rostov, who was born in the Kiev region: the Chetya Menaion (lives of the saints) compiled by him were coolly received by the much less educated Patriarch Joachim (by the way, a former Reitar lieutenant and captain of one of the soldier regiments of the New System) precisely because of the ascetic’s use of Catholic sources.
Peter I and his “paradise”
It is also worth recalling the pro-Catholic sympathies of Peter I's associate Stefan Yavorsky. And the connection between the Vatican and the new capital of the Russian Empire is evidenced by the coat of arms of St. Petersburg itself. And here I will give the floor to outstanding Russian scientists Boris Andreevich Uspensky and the now deceased Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman:
“The coat of arms of St. Petersburg contains transformed motifs of the coat of arms of the city of Rome (or the Vatican as the successor of Rome), and this, of course, could not be accidental.
Thus, the crossed keys in the coat of arms of the Vatican correspond to the crossed anchors in the coat of arms of St. Petersburg, the location of the anchors with their paws up clearly reveals their origin - the keys in the coat of arms of the Pope are also turned with their beards up. The symbolism of the coat of arms of St. Petersburg is deciphered precisely in this regard.
On the one hand, the anchor is a symbol of salvation and faith, and in this meaning is well known in Baroque emblems; its comparison with the key is natural and appropriate. But at the same time, the anchor metonymically denotes the fleet - placed in the place of the keys of the Apostle Peter, it signifies that Peter (the emperor, not the apostle) intends to open the door of his “paradise”.
Thus, the coat of arms of St. Petersburg semantically corresponds to the name of the city: the name and coat of arms appear as a verbal and visual expression of one general idea.
At the same time, the emphatic planting of the cult of the apostles Peter and Paul in St. Petersburg takes on special significance. The cathedral in the Peter and Paul Fortress is dedicated to them, which according to the original plan should have coincided with the city center. One cannot help but see this as echoing the place that St. Peter's Basilica in Rome occupies in the semiotics of urban planning.
In this perspective, the frequent calling of St. Petersburg “paradise,” both by Peter himself and the people around him, could mean not just praise for a chosen and beloved piece of land, but an indication of the holiness of this place.”
Thus, the crossed keys in the coat of arms of the Vatican correspond to the crossed anchors in the coat of arms of St. Petersburg, the location of the anchors with their paws up clearly reveals their origin - the keys in the coat of arms of the Pope are also turned with their beards up. The symbolism of the coat of arms of St. Petersburg is deciphered precisely in this regard.
On the one hand, the anchor is a symbol of salvation and faith, and in this meaning is well known in Baroque emblems; its comparison with the key is natural and appropriate. But at the same time, the anchor metonymically denotes the fleet - placed in the place of the keys of the Apostle Peter, it signifies that Peter (the emperor, not the apostle) intends to open the door of his “paradise”.
Thus, the coat of arms of St. Petersburg semantically corresponds to the name of the city: the name and coat of arms appear as a verbal and visual expression of one general idea.
At the same time, the emphatic planting of the cult of the apostles Peter and Paul in St. Petersburg takes on special significance. The cathedral in the Peter and Paul Fortress is dedicated to them, which according to the original plan should have coincided with the city center. One cannot help but see this as echoing the place that St. Peter's Basilica in Rome occupies in the semiotics of urban planning.
In this perspective, the frequent calling of St. Petersburg “paradise,” both by Peter himself and the people around him, could mean not just praise for a chosen and beloved piece of land, but an indication of the holiness of this place.”
Agree, in the context of this quote, the above words of Francis take on a deeper meaning.
Further: Peter’s abolition of the patriarchate and his adoption of the title “Father of the Fatherland” testifies to his desire to unite, following the example of the Roman pontiffs of the early Middle Ages, spiritual and temporal power.
Paul I and the Church: in the Traditions of Rome
A similar vision of imperial service will be perceived by the descendants of the second (the first, strictly speaking, was False Dmitry I) emperor - Paul I, first of all. In the Act of Succession to the Throne of 1797, he emphasized that “Russian sovereigns (are) the essence of the head of the Church.”
Uspensky writes about the desire of Paul I “immediately after the coronation “as the head of the Church” to serve the Liturgy; Likewise, Paul wanted to become the confessor of his family and ministers. However, the Synod dissuaded him, objecting that “the canon of the Orthodox Church prohibits performing the sacraments to a priest who has married a second time.” And one day “Paul expressed a desire to serve mass on Easter, citing the fact that he is the head of the Russian Church and therefore has the authority to do what the clergy subordinate to him do.”
I can’t say that in Rome this attitude of the Russian autocrats towards their own power met with approval, but there was definitely understanding. Yes, regarding Catherine II mentioned by Francis: in correspondence with the Austrian Emperor Joseph II, she calls herself the head of the Greek Church, essentially puts herself above the Ecumenical, that is, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and calls Joseph the head of the Western European Church.
Why did Catherine II dislike Patriarch Nikon
By the way, an interesting detail is connected with the empress: in the pre-Petrine era there was a ritual of procession on a donkey: on Palm Sunday, a horse stylized as a donkey with the patriarch sitting on it and symbolizing Christ was led by the bridle by the king. Peter I abolished the ritual as inconsistent with the dignity of royal power.
And Catherine II wrote about this in her essay “Antidote,” reproaching Patriarch Nikon, whom she did not love, for “immense claims” and citing the mentioned procession as an example.
Caesaropapism in Russian: the last tsar who wanted to become a patriarch
The desire to combine spiritual power was also reflected in the desire of Nicholas II to assume the patriarchate when in 1905 they began to seriously talk about its restoration.
In general, if the popes sought to rise above secular kings and even emperors, taking upon themselves the prerogatives of not only the religious power itself, then the Russian emperors followed the same path, only with a rearrangement of terms. And this cannot but be known brilliantly - the Jesuit - to the educated Francis.
On the veneration of Russian saints by Catholics
And at the end of the day, let’s return to where we started – the pope’s call to Russian Catholic youth to venerate Russian saints. It was not founded in a vacuum.
Catholicism has a very respectful attitude towards the saints: Sergius of Radonezh and Seraphim of Sarov, as well as John of Shanghai, who lived in Paris for a long time (Parisian Catholics called him John the Discalced and took a blessing when they met), and Saints Euphrosyne of Polotsk and Nikita the Stylite were canonized by the Catholic Church.
So Kyiv’s indignation at the pope’s balanced and historically contextual appeal is unfounded.
And I think there is no need to talk about the fact that Francis is right about the inherent humanity of Russians - it’s obvious.
Information