Metropolitan Mark of Ryazan and Mikhailovsky. The apostolic time has come

Mark (Golovkov)
(born 1964), Metropolitan of Ryazan and Mikhailovsky, head of the Ryazan Metropolis, administrator of the Budapest diocese, chairman of the Patriarchal Award Commission, member of the Inter-Council Presence of the Russian Orthodox Church in the World Sergei Anatolyevich Golovkov, born on March 31, 1964 in Perm in a church family singer His father, Anatoly Grigorievich Golovkov, graduated from the Saratov Theological Seminary, served as a subdeacon for some time, then sang in the choir, combining it with secular work; at one time he was the treasurer of the cathedral in Perm, and was involved in church management. Mother, Anna Vasilievna, worked in the diocese and always sang in church. The elder brother is Archimandrite Luka (Golovkov), the younger brother is Archpriest Vladimir Golovkov.

In 1981 he graduated from high school. In 1982-1984 he served in the Soviet Army.

In 1984 he entered the Moscow Theological Seminary, from which he graduated first class in 1988. In the same year he was admitted to the Moscow Theological Academy. While studying at the academy, he was twice awarded a patriarchal scholarship.

In the third year of the academy, on October 19, 1990, he was tonsured a monk with a name in honor of the Apostle and Evangelist Mark.

On November 21 of the same year he was ordained to the rank of hierodeacon, and on January 7, 1991 - to the rank of hieromonk.

In 1992 he graduated from the Moscow Theological Academy, defending his thesis at the Department of History of the Ancient Church on the topic “Blessed Diadochos of Photikie and his theological and ascetic views.”

On August 12, 1992, he was appointed a member of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem.

On the feast of Pentecost 1997, he was elevated to the rank of abbot by Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' at the Trinity Cathedral of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem.

On December 28, 1999, he was appointed deputy chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate.
In this position, he oversaw the administrative and economic work of the Department and carried out practical interaction with government agencies in Russia and other countries. Editor-in-chief of the magazine "Orthodox Pilgrim".

On January 26, 2000, he was appointed rector of the Moscow Church of the Holy Trinity in Khoroshev.

On May 3, 2000, he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite by Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad.

By decree of the Holy Synod of December 26, 2003, he was determined to be Bishop of Yegoryevsk, vicar of the Moscow diocese.

On January 14, 2004, he was consecrated Bishop of Yegoryevsk, vicar of the Moscow diocese.
The consecration in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow was led by Patriarch Alexy II, he was concelebrated by Metropolitans of Krutitsky and Kolomna Yuvenaly (Poyarkov), Smolensk and Kaliningrad Kirill (Gundyaev), Archbishops of Kaluga and Borovsk Kliment (Kapalin), Istra Arseny (Epifanov), Korsun Innocent (Vasiliev) ), Vereisky Evgeniy (Reshetnikov), bishops Orekhovo-Zuevsky Alexy (Frolov), Krasnogorsky Savva (Volkov), Stavropol and Vladikavkaz Feofan (Ashurkov), Baltic Seraphim (Melkonyan), Dmitrovsky Alexander (Agrikov), Sergiev Posad Feognost (Guzikov) , Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas Georgy (Danilov), Lyubertsy Veniamin (Zaritsky), Saratov and Volsky Longin (Korchagin). From February 11 to March 31, 2009, he temporarily served as chairman of the Department for External Church Relations.

On March 31, 2009, he was relieved of his post as deputy chairman of the DECR and appointed secretary of the Moscow Patriarchate for foreign institutions and temporary administrator of the Vienna-Austrian and Hungarian dioceses [1].

Chairman of the Patriarchal Award Commission.

Since July 27 of the same year - a member of the Inter-Council Presence of the Russian Orthodox Church.

On February 1, 2010, he was elevated to the rank of archbishop [2].

On July 26 of the same year, in connection with the renaming of the Secretariat of the Moscow Patriarchate for Foreign Institutions into the Office of the Moscow Patriarchate for Foreign Institutions, he became the head of the latter.

In December 2010, the care of parish churches in the North-Western Administrative District (Uspenskoye Deanery) of Moscow was entrusted [3].

On March 22, 2011, he became a member of the newly formed Supreme Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church [4].

On December 31, 2011, he was appointed manager of the Northern and Northwestern Vicariates of Moscow and included in the Diocesan Council of Moscow ex officio [5].

On July 16, 2013, he was appointed temporary administrator of the parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate in Italy [6].

On July 25, 2014, he was appointed chairman of the Financial and Economic Administration of the Moscow Patriarchate, an ex-officio member of the Supreme Church Council [7].

On October 22, 2015, he was transferred to the Ryazan See, to the post of head of the Ryazan Metropolis, with release from the management of the Vienna-Austrian and Hungarian dioceses, parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate in Italy, and the post of head of the Moscow Patriarchate Office for Foreign Institutions [8].

On November 3 of the same year, he was released from the management of the Northern and Northwestern vicariates of the city of Moscow [9].

On November 4, 2015, he was elevated to the rank of metropolitan by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' in the Patriarchal Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin [10].

From July 14 to November 18, 2021, he temporarily ruled the Kasimov diocese [11].

On February 26, 2021, he was relieved of his post as chairman of the Financial and Economic Administration of the Moscow Patriarchate [12] and rector of the Trinity Church in Khoroshev, Moscow [13].

On August 30 of that year, in addition to his obediences, he was appointed administrator of the Budapest diocese, with the title “Budapest and Hungarian” within this diocese [14].

Since August 25, 2021, he has been temporarily acting as rector of the Ryazan Theological Seminary.

The future metropolitan was born into an Orthodox family

Sergei Anatolyevich Golovkov was born on March 31, 1964 in Perm. The family was church-going: the father, Anatoly Grigorievich Golovkov, studied at the Saratov Theological Seminary, then sang in the church choir. Mother, Anna Vasilievna, also sang in church and helped churches. The family had an extensive library of spiritual literature.

In a real Orthodox family there are many children. Sergei had two brothers and three sisters. All of their parents raised them in the Christian tradition, so it is not surprising that they decided to connect their lives with the church.

Sergei's elder brother, Archimandrite Luke, heads the Icon Painting School at the Moscow Theological Academy

Sergei decided to devote his life to God while still at school

Seryozha studied well at school and could go to study anywhere. All roads were open for the boy. But Christian upbringing bore fruit - Sergei realized that his calling was to serve God and people.

After the army, in 1984, Sergei entered the Moscow Theological Seminary. Studying left him with the warmest memories.

In Soviet times, one could enter the seminary only after military service.

The Moscow Theological Academy became the alma mater for the future metropolitan

After graduating from the seminary in 1988, Sergei entered the Moscow Theological Academy. In 1990, the talented student became an assistant to the head of the Church and Archaeological Office at the academy.

1990

this year Sergei Golovkov took monastic vows under the name Mark

On October 19, 1990, another stage was passed in the history of the formation of the future metropolitan: in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, a student of the Moscow Theological Academy Sergei Anatolyevich Golovkov was tonsured into monasticism under the name Mark.

On November 21, he was ordained to the rank of hierodeacon, and on January 7, 1991, to the rank of hieromonk. At the same time, Mark is working on his Ph.D. dissertation and teaching Holy Scripture at the seminary.

After graduating from the Moscow Theological Academy, Mark was sent to Jerusalem

The Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem became an important milestone in the development of Mark as a priest.
In 1992, Mark graduated from the Moscow Theological Academy and defended his thesis on the topic “Blessed Diadochos of Photikie and his theological and ascetic views.”

The talented graduate was immediately found a suitable place where he could show himself. In August 1992 he goes to Jerusalem. The young hieromonk became a member of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem. In the Holy Land, Mark gained invaluable experience of communicating with various Christian churches and plunged into an atmosphere of true holiness.

After 5 years of service, in 1997, Mark was elevated to the rank of abbot by Patriarch Alexy II himself. The experience gained while serving in Jerusalem allowed him to rise one step higher: in 1999, Mark was appointed deputy chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Department of External Church Relations - “Ministry of Foreign Affairs” of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In the person of Mark, the Church of the Life-Giving Trinity in Khoroshevo found its rector

On January 26, 2000, Mark became rector of the Church of the Life-Giving Trinity in Khoroshevo, and in May he became an archimandrite.

Hard work and activity continued to serve Mark. He moved up the stairs higher and higher.

In 2004, the Synod restored the Yegoryevsk Vicariate. Mark received the honorary rank of suffragan bishop.

A vicariate is an ecclesiastical administrative-territorial unit that is part of a diocese.

PORTAL CONTACTS

— Your childhood was in Soviet times, but you grew up in an Orthodox, believing family. At your consecration as bishop, you considered it your duty to say the warmest words about your parents. Tell us about them and about your childhood. What was it like for a believing boy in a Soviet school and then in the army?

— My father Anatoly Grigorievich Golovkov graduated from the Saratov Seminary, served as a subdeacon for some time, then sang in the choir, combining this with secular work. At one time he was the treasurer of our cathedral in Perm, was involved in temple management, made something, and tried to help other churches as well. He was a strict man, he tried to instill in his children the Orthodox way of life, but not in the sense of only external observance of the rules. Father strove for us children to acquire a religious worldview. Therefore, he introduced us to spiritual reading and acquired antique literature. We had a whole library at home - both monographs and periodicals, among which were the works of pre-revolutionary theological academies. We have a large family - six children: three sons and three daughters. All my brothers and sisters later connected their lives with the Church. My older brother, Archimandrite Luke, is the head of the Icon Painting School at the Moscow Theological Academy, my younger brother, Archpriest Vladimir, serves in Moscow. He also has a large family - five children.

Our father also loved to do various good deeds. I remember that I was already studying at the seminary, I came home for the summer holidays, and my father invited our whole family to go to one village to do a “good deed.” There is a wooden temple there that needs renovation. The income in this village was not very good, it was necessary to help paint the temple. We took some paints with us and went to this village. The temple workers were at first surprised by this “landing”, and then they were very happy. We quickly, in two days, painted the floors and walls in the temple.

When the attitude towards the Church in the country changed, and churches began to be restored in Perm, there was a lot missing, and my father tried to help everyone: he made candlesticks, gave away icons that we had at home. This impulse to do good - it, of course, left a mark on my soul.

Mom, Anna Vasilyevna, is an amazingly kind person, and she also instilled in us the principles of Christianity. I remember how she read to us children the lives of saints and talked about the ascetics of piety. She worked in the diocese and always sang in church. My parents' influence was decisive for me.

All this happened during Soviet times. To be a believer meant, in a certain sense, to challenge society, to live not according to general rules. Although I was both a pioneer and an October child. But in the 70s there was nothing special about this: they didn’t ask us questions about whether you were a believer or not, they were simply given this October badge or a pioneer tie.

At that time, those who had not served in the army were not accepted into the theological seminary. I knew this, so I didn’t go to any university after school, but immediately joined the army.

At the draft board, sitting opposite a doctor, I see a document with an underlined line. Since I was nearby, I managed to read: “I was brought up in a religious family.” This was a reference from school. A little later, the head of the commission, an officer, yelled at me: “How are you, a believer, going to serve in the army?” I calmly told him that I was going to serve in the army normally, like everyone else. The service was generally calm. There were no more such attacks on me. I did not advertise my faith. We did not have those blatant cases of hazing that I heard about in the army and then learned from the media. The army made me more mature. It was the experience of immersion in a worldly environment, the experience of living independently away from my parents.

— You also entered the Moscow Theological Seminary in Soviet times. How did her life at that time differ from the life of today's religious educational institutions? Was there a feeling of a “besieged fortress”?

— Every time brings something of its own, both good and bad. While studying at the seminary, I did not feel like I was in a besieged fortress, because the time of besieged fortresses had already passed. Interest in faith has already arisen in society; one might say that the Church and the world were a two-way street. The Moscow Theological Seminary and Academy attracted a variety of people. Many guests came to us from abroad: government officials, representatives of local Orthodox Churches, and other Christian denominations. Frequent guests were those who can be called the cream of Soviet society. These are representatives of culture, scientific intelligentsia, doctors, government officials. People wanted to get to know the Academy, to understand what faith is, what the Church is. The problem is that this was not available to everyone. Not everyone knew that the Lavra and the Academy were ready to receive guests and communicate. There was no sense of hostility. My comrades who came to the Academy from Ukraine said that there the attitude towards the Church was much more tense: anyone who applied to the seminary could either be urgently drafted into the army for training, or sent to a psychiatric hospital. In Russia in those pre-perestroika years (1984–88), this was already taken calmly. Although, when I came to the clinic to get a health certificate and said that I was going to enter a theological seminary, they looked at me as if I had fallen from the moon. But there were no other hostile manifestations, no one called me, no one chased me, no one dissuaded me.

— And yet, how did you imagine your priestly future? For whom were you going to serve - in the Soviet Union? Have you tried to mentally answer the question: how many Soviet citizens will go to an Orthodox church in ten, twenty, thirty years?

“I didn’t think about for whom I would serve, where and under what conditions I would serve, I thought about something else: about my theological education, about how to strengthen my worldview in order to serve God and the Church with dignity. As for how many people will come to the temple in ten or twenty years, I haven’t given much thought. I remember: once, even before entering the seminary, I came across a church calendar with information about local Orthodox Churches. It was said there that in many Orthodox countries believers constitute the majority of the population - in Bulgaria, Greece, Romania. And this really inspired me then. The fact that our country lived in such isolation from the Church was perceived as something abnormal. There was a feeling in my soul that this would pass, that this was some kind of extreme: after some time, rejection would be replaced by a normal, even, benevolent attitude towards faith.

— Who were your comrades - applicants and then students of the seminary and the Academy? Where did they come from - in the Soviet years? How did you come to faith? How did your environment differ from the usual youth environment of those years?

“At that time it was difficult to find like-minded people; there were few believers, so the opportunity to communicate with Orthodox peers was a real outlet for each of us. Where did the applicants come from? From different cities and villages, from different families. Firstly, these were the children of priests who grew up in the church fence; secondly, the children of lay believers. But for some, fate turned out differently. I remember one current bishop as a seminarian: he grew up in an atheistic family, but somehow the Lord revealed Himself to him, and he came to the seminary against the wishes of his parents. At that time, quite a few religious books were already in circulation in samizdat, and we had classmates who came to the seminary with a secular profession, from science and culture. And if earlier, in the 50s and 60s, they tried not to take people with higher education to the seminary, then in our time quite a few of them came. A practice arose: to admit people with higher education directly into the second class of the seminary.

Of course, our environment was different from the usual Soviet environment. And she was distinguished, above all, by her sincerity. The absence of official formalism, which dominated in those years in the USSR. We had the opportunity to communicate sincerely and valued it very much. There was no falsehood between us. We felt like that small flock that rallied around the Lord. We tried to value both time and friends. We had no quarrels, no showdowns, there was a feeling of unity and cohesion. Sincerity was the main thing for us.

— Who were your teachers and mentors in those years, which of them had a decisive influence on you?

- A person is like a bee that flies around many plants and takes something from each plant. We had many wonderful teachers, wonderful people. Among them is Boris Nikolaevich Pushkar, then a teacher of biblical history, now Archbishop of Vladivostok and Primorsky Veniamin. He is a very enthusiastic person, he gave us exciting lectures, he lived the spirit of Christianity. Or catechism teacher Konstantin Efimovich Skurat; I remember an episode related to him. He called one student to answer the lesson. The student quietly moved the book towards him and, while answering, peered into it. When Konstantin Efimovich saw that the student was deceiving him, he was so upset that he even cried. Yes, now it's hard to believe. But he had such an exalted attitude towards theological school, towards the process in which he was engaged, that he considered even seemingly innocent deception unacceptable. I remember Archimandrite Plato (Igumnov), who inspired me to learn foreign languages ​​and encouraged scientific creativity; Alexei Ilyich Osipov, a wonderful speaker who also left a deep mark... Andrei Borisovich Zubov, who revealed to us the world of other religions; Alexey Gavryushin, who told us about the religious insights of Russian philosophers; Alexey Ivanovich Sidorov, who instilled in us a love for the ancient fathers; Archpriest Maxim Kozlov, with whom I studied Greek and thanks to whom I got the opportunity to read texts in the original. All these people left a mark on my soul, and I am grateful to them.

— What were the years of service in the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem like for you? What were the specifics of this ministry? What is the position of the Orthodox mission in a state of other faiths?

— The Holy Land, without exaggeration, became a second home for me. This is no coincidence, because for every Christian it is a special place on Earth, the place where the word of God was first heard, where the Word became flesh. Of course, the ministry in Jerusalem was a special ministry, and it had different facets. Serving in Jerusalem means being simultaneously in several worlds that exist in parallel. Firstly, this is the atmosphere of the holy places: the Holy Sepulcher, Golgotha, Gethsemane, Bethlehem - all this was located very close to our mission. Secondly, this is Russian Palestine, the Russian world: employees of the spiritual mission, nuns, our compatriots who worked in the Holy Land and were an island of Russia. Thirdly, these are representatives of the fraternal Orthodox Churches: Jerusalem, Romanian and others; finally, these are representatives of other faiths: Catholics - there are many Catholic monasteries in the Holy Land, Protestants, the Armenian Church, as well as various Christian organizations. The Holy Land is also holy for other religions - Judaism, Islam - this can be felt in the Holy City, in its different places. These are different worlds, each of which you can enter, each of which you can touch several times a day.

A special feature of serving in the Spiritual Mission was also that it taught one to be independent. You need to write a letter - there are no secretaries, no assistants, think about how to write it yourself. You need to go somewhere - you get into the car and drive. You need to communicate with someone, which means you need to master the language. We need to provide assistance to pilgrims, defend our property rights, communicate with Israeli lawyers - we have to do all this. This is a versatile activity that requires both theoretical and practical abilities, patience and pastoral love.

The most cherished memories of the Holy Land are services in holy places, at the Holy Sepulcher. With a special feeling I remember the night services - when there was no Babylonian mixing of peoples, and there were very few pilgrims visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at that hour. And this Jerusalem entered most deeply into my heart.

In Jerusalem I had the opportunity to immerse myself in the atmosphere of old pre-revolutionary Russia. I remember Bunin’s words: our descendants will never know what old Russia was like. But we can see fragments of this Russia, traces of its former greatness in different places, including the Holy Land. While performing divine services, I heard the bells of our Trinity Cathedral, and the ringing of these noble bells reminded me of lost Russia. It is different from the bell ringing that we can hear today in our cities and villages. I saw those gifts - expensive icons, vessels, utensils that were presented both to the churches of the Jerusalem Church and to the churches of our Mission even before the revolution. In Russia it was lost or was in museums, but there it was preserved and used in worship. They say that when Patriarch Pimen arrived in Jerusalem, the head of the Mission invited him to take some expensive vessels to Moscow, but he said: no, let it stay with you.

There were, of course, excesses, there were cases of extremism, hooliganism, and vandalism. Once our pilgrims came under fire in Jericho, but no one was hurt - the Lord protected. It turned out that often heterodox, heterodox surroundings treat religion much more respectfully than many of our compatriots, who in the twenties and thirties destroyed churches and killed thousands of believers.

— The Russian Orthodox Church today is in the center of public attention; Perhaps she had never attracted such attention to herself before. They constantly write, talk, and argue about it, about what happens in it, about its social role. What does this mean, in your opinion, what is this symptom?

- This suggests that a ray of light is in demand. And that the Russian people have a Christian soul, and it is making itself known. Society is hungry, it needs positive information. The theme of spirituality, the theme of goodness is not exhausted, despite all the negative phenomena in our society. We constantly hear from many people that society has lost spiritual values. All moral guidelines have been taken away from people. The Church alone retains a beneficial influence on our people. This is an indicator of the wisdom of many representatives of our society. On the other hand, this is evidence that even moving in the wrong direction sometimes leads to positive results. People are beginning to understand that you cannot serve only the body, you cannot think only about well-being. Everything earthly passes away to give way to the spiritual and eternal.

— Everyone hears two theses: “The Church is not involved in politics” and “The Church is separated from the state, but not from society.” Indeed, to this day the Church excludes the participation of priests and bishops in politics, in particular in bodies of representative power. But social activity, concern about the problems of society, participation in their resolution are by no means excluded. In your opinion, is the social activity of Church representatives today sufficient? insufficient? excessive and fraught with danger?

- I would say - insufficient. But in what sense? We see with what interest people react to the voice of the Church. But we also see that people have a negative attitude towards naked declarations, including those coming from the Church. People are tired of slogans, and they often do not perceive the voice of the Church in cases where it acts exclusively through secular PR methods. The activity of the Church is insufficient precisely in terms of deep internal work aimed at clarifying the Church’s position on a variety of issues. People want to know this, they favorably perceive the words of pastors and hierarchs when this happens in dialogue, in an atmosphere of love and respect. This kind of work—specific, active—is lacking. It is important that Church representatives perceive their task not only as participation in official ceremonies, in fact, as decoration. Society does not need this, but real pastoral work, which should bear good fruit.

— Isn’t cooperation between the Church and the authorities fraught with danger, even for the best purposes? Many people shudder at the phrase “church-state” (project, holiday, etc.).

— Of course, such cooperation is fraught with danger. But precisely when the matter is limited to the formal participation of Church representatives in various state events. If representatives of the Church at ceremonial receptions say some words in support of representatives of the authorities, then this can strike as a boomerang: later, when either the representative of the authorities compromises himself, or the popularity of the authorities simply falls. At the same time, it is impossible to live in a society and not cooperate with the authorities that operate in this society. Probably, in any country the Church cooperates with the authorities in one way or another. The Russian Orthodox Church collaborated with the Soviet authorities, in particular with Stalin. The Church Abroad collaborated with Hitler, moreover: in Hitler’s Germany a law was passed according to which all churches in Germany were transferred to the Church Abroad. Our Mission in Jerusalem cooperates with the Israeli and Palestinian authorities. Our parishes exist in countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Iran - and there, too, we have to find a common language with the authorities. Not cooperating, not making the necessary contact is like living and not breathing air. Cooperation itself is natural. Another question is: what does it result in? It is important that it is filled with creative activity. If cooperation is simply positioning oneself next to the authorities, this is one thing, but when it is filled with real good content, deeds that benefit people, this is completely different, and I think no one would dare to accuse the Church of such collaboration .

— Today you are not only the secretary of the Patriarchate for foreign institutions, but also the manager of two foreign dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church; What is the main difference between the foreign flock and the Russian one?

— One of the differences between the foreign flock and ours is multinationality. In Austria, where I periodically travel, Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Moldovans, Georgians, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Macedonians come to the Orthodox Church. And also Austrians, Lithuanians, Latvians. The situation is the same in many countries. Thus, our Church serves to unite peoples. We have lost the state unity of peoples within the USSR, within the socialist camp, but in our parishes abroad this informal unity has been preserved: people already living in different countries meet in the church community, interact, and live in the spirit of brotherly love. Different countries have their own specifics, and different parishes too. For example, in Italy there are many Ukrainians and Moldovans who go there to earn money. There are many Ukrainians in Portugal and Spain. I remember the story of one of our priests from Germany, who has many Georgian students in his parish... Our parishes are international in the best sense of the word - not in a formal way, but in the spirit of brotherly love. What else is special about our foreign parishes? In Russia, a church is a place of prayer, first of all, and if a person wants cultural communication, he goes to the theater, maybe to the cinema, to some club. If he wants to learn a language, he takes courses. If he wants to get involved with literature, go to the library. And our foreign parish is, as a rule, a temple, a place of cultural communication, and a place for someone to get acquainted with the language. This is a home in a sense. Many of our parishioners in Italy, for example, are labor immigrants who care for lonely elderly people and live in their homes. At the same time, the only place where they really feel at home is an Orthodox church. An Orthodox church abroad is a special place, and we are glad that we can serve the unification and spiritual unity of Orthodox peoples.

—What, in your opinion, are the main problems and troubles of Russian Orthodoxy today? What are we missing and why?

- Two problems first of all. The first is that there are not enough workers. I can remember the words of the Gospel: the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few (Matthew 9:37 ). There are not enough people who would strive to do their job not formally, not for the sake of a piece of bread and not to please their vanity, but for the sake of serving Christ and the Church. The second problem is that we lack unity. There is a lot of discord, quarrels, desire to satisfy your ambitions. In communication between people there are too many passions that divide us. We are just learning unity in the Church. And I wish we could learn this faster.

Prepared by Alisa Orlova and Marina Biryukova Journal “Orthodoxy and Modernity” No. 15 (31)

Archbishop Mark (Golovkov) of Yegoryevsk was born in 1964 in Perm. He graduated from high school and served in the army from 1982-84. Then he entered the Moscow Theological Seminary. In 1988 he graduated with the first category and was admitted to the Moscow Theological Academy. In 1990 he was tonsured a monk with the name Mark, and in 1991 he was ordained to the rank of hieromonk. By decision of the Holy Synod he was appointed a member of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem. On the feast of Pentecost 1997, His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' elevated him to the rank of abbot. Since December 1999 - Deputy Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. In 2000, he was appointed rector of the Church of the Life-Giving Trinity in Khoroshev. Since January 2004 - Bishop of Yegoryevsk, vicar of the Moscow diocese. Now he is an archbishop, secretary of the Moscow Patriarchate for foreign institutions, temporary administrator of the Vienna-Austrian and Hungarian dioceses.

The bishop continued to deal with the external affairs of the church

The rich experience of interfaith communication and work abroad determined the main direction of Mark’s activity. He continued to be involved in church issues abroad.

On February 12, 2009, Mark became chairman from deputy chairman of the Department for External Church Relations. But he did not hold this post for long - already in March, Patriarch Kirill brought Mark even closer to himself: he became the head of the secretariat of the Moscow Patriarchate for foreign institutions.

But there was no need to idle at the post of “high boss”; Mark was thrown to the distant frontiers. He became the temporary administrator of the Hungarian and Vienna and Austrian dioceses.

The Chair of the Hungarian Bishop is located in the Assumption Cathedral in Budapest

In addition to external relations, Mark was also involved in administrative work. He took part in the preparation of the Sixth Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which took place on January 27, 2009.

In 2011, a significant event took place for the Russian Orthodox Church. Patriarch Kirill, based on tradition, created the Supreme Church Council - the main executive body of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The first Supreme Church Council was convened in 1917 to govern the church during a time of chaos.

The heads of the synodal institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church became members. Therefore, the young head of the Office for Foreign Institutions of the Moscow Patriarchate, Bishop Mark of Yegoryevsk, also appeared on the council.

essays

articles

• Article by Archbishop Mark (Golovkov) “On modern innovations in the names of churches and monasteries” // pravoslavie.ru. - 2005. - October 7. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• Church protocol. M.: Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2007. 184 p.

interview

• Archbishop Mark of Yegoryevsk: “We are just learning unity in the Church” // Patriarchy.ru. - 2010. - September 22. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• Archbishop Mark of Yegoryevsk about the construction of the first Russian Orthodox church in Madrid // Patriarchy.ru. — 2011. — December 27. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• Archbishop Mark of Yegoryevsk: “If a priest talks about spirituality that is not supported by his own life, this is pharisaism” // Patriarchy.ru. — 2012. — March 13. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• Archbishop Mark of Yegoryevsk: People of different nationalities pray together in Orthodox churches in Thailand // Patriarchia.ru. — 2012. — March 16. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• Interview of Archbishop Mark of Yegoryevsk to the newspaper “Krestovsky Bridge” // Patriarchy.ru. — 2012. — February 15. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• Archbishop Mark of Yegoryevsk: “I have been in the Church since childhood” // Patriarchia.ru. — 2012. — October 26. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• Not only the mayor of Paris is not satisfied with the project of the Russian temple // Orthodoxy and the World. — 2012. — December 27. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• Archbishop Mark of Yegoryevsk: “The creation of the Church of St. Ludmila of Bohemia in Prague is a unique event of its kind” // Patriarchy.ru. — 2013. — January 9. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• Archbishop Mark of Yegoryevsk: For a full life of body and soul, a church is needed // Patriarchia.ru. — 2013. — October 11. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• There must be moderation in everything. Conversation with Archbishop Mark of Yegoryevsk // Patriarchia.ru. — 2013. — December 24. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• When we talk about church websites, we need strict simplicity in everything. Conversation with Archbishop Mark of Yegoryevsk // Patriarchia.ru. — 2013. — December 28. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• Archbishop Mark of Yegoryevsk: Money is needed to build a church in Strasbourg. // Patriarchia.ru. — 2015. — October 2. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• God help you. // mediaryazan.ru. — 2021. — January 07. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.
• Bishop Mark's greatest joy. // "Blagovest". — 2021. — November 1. — Date of access: 11/30/2017.

In 2014, the archbishop mastered a new area of ​​activity

Smart and active people are needed in any organization. In 2014, the Holy Synod made an unexpected decision: the head of the Office for Foreign Institutions of the Moscow Patriarchate simultaneously became the chairman of the financial and economic management of the Moscow Patriarchate. The archbishop plunged headlong into a new field of activity.

Financial and economic management is the “Ministry of Finance” of the Russian Orthodox Church.

On November 4, 2015, in the Patriarchal Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill elevated Mark to the rank of metropolitan. Mark became the head of the Ryazan and Mikhailovsky Metropolis, formed in 2011.

Mark inherited a region with a rich and complex history. The burden of resolving numerous issues that have accumulated in the region fell on the shoulders of the new metropolitan.

awards

• Order of St. Sergius of Radonezh, II degree (“In consideration of the diligent archpastoral service and in connection with the fortieth anniversary of his birth”; April 12, 2004[24])
• Order of St. Seraphim of Sarov, II degree (June 6, 2006)[25]
• Order of Friendship (Russia) (July 20, 2011) - for great contribution to the development of spiritual culture and strengthening friendship between peoples
  [26]
• Certificate of Honor from the President of the Russian Federation (April 11, 2014) - for achievements in labor, significant contribution to the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation, services in the humanitarian sphere, strengthening of law and order, active legislative and social activities, many years of conscientious work
  [27]
• Order of the Holy Blessed Prince Daniel of Moscow, II degree (March 30, 2014)[28][29]
• Order of the Holy Sepulcher of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church

The Metropolitan promised not to close the territory of the Ryazan Kremlin to tourists

On November 30, 2010, the law “On the transfer of state or municipal property to religious organizations” was adopted. The church began to give away buildings that had once been (and in some places had never been) in its possession.

The Ryazan Kremlin is the pearl of the Ryazan land

The Ryazan Architectural Museum Reserve was founded back in 1884. The architectural complex includes unique buildings of both church and civil architecture. Museum exhibitions are located in the Kremlin buildings.

In the Singing Building, a building of civil architecture of the 17th century, there is an exhibition “According to Grandfather’s Custom,” which tells about the everyday life and holidays of the Russian people. The building's 17th-century interior has been restored, allowing you to immerse yourself deeply in the era

Until 2003, the museum lived in peace with the church. Services were conducted in the churches, the clergy and workers and visitors of the museum did not interfere with each other at all.

Everything changed in 2003. Pavel (Ponomarev) became Archbishop of Ryazan and Kasimov. With his arrival, an incomprehensible attack of the church on the museum buildings began.

Archbishop Pavel of Ryazan and Kasimov ruined the relationship between the Ryazan public and the church. He turned the unremarkable situation with the Ryazan Kremlin into an acute problem, laying claim to the entire architectural ensemble

In 2008, the church buildings were transferred to the church. Problems immediately began to emerge. The Ryazan Museum was federal, and museum staff closely monitored its safety. The church stopped reconstructing the buildings that were given to it.

The Church does not even monitor the temples. Restoration is not being carried out, although money is allocated for it. The future of the Ryazan Kremlin after the complete transfer of its church appears in a gloomy light

In 2015, the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation decided to evict the museum from the Kremlin. Public arguments that civil buildings are not covered by the restitution law were not heard. Now the dialogue between the church and society will depend only on the position of the Ryazan Metropolitan.

In a conversation with the governor of the Ryazan region in March 2021, Metropolitan Mark stated that the Kremlin territory will remain open to visitors. Whether the Metropolitan will keep his promise, time will tell.

In 2021, the Metropolitan criticized the film “The Irony of Fate” and came under attack from the press

The priest's opinion about the film became an information source for discussion in the media.
At the end of December 2021, the Metropolitan became the object of criticism in the media. The reason was his opinion about the film “The Irony of Fate”:

Mark

Metropolitan

“...Christianity, the Church calls people to work, to constantly work on themselves. We are talking about the fact that you need to work on yourself, that any result is a consequence of constant work. But here the picture is completely different: in order for a miracle to happen, no work is needed, you can just meet, sit, get drunk - and the miracle will happen by itself ... "

In the church, opinions about the Metropolitan’s statement were divided. Vladimir Legoyda, head of the synodal department of the Moscow Patriarchate for relations between the church and society and the media, spoke on the moderate side:

Legoyda Vladimir

Russian public figure

“The position of Metropolitan Mark of Ryazan and Mikhailovsky, who criticized the film “The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath!”, is the personal opinion of the clergyman. Of course, like any work of art, the film can be liked or disliked by any person, including the Metropolitan.”

The opinion of the opposite side was voiced by Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin:

Archpriest

Vsevolod Chaplin

“The Church thinks exactly like Bishop Mark, and not like Vladimir Romanovich. It is the Church - and not half-believing parishioners who have not yet freed themselves from attachment to false cults.”

The secular part of society either did not pay attention or perceived the Metropolitan’s “attack” on the favorite New Year’s film of millions of Russians as a misunderstanding. On the other hand, the fact that the busy metropolitan (and he continues to deal with financial issues and remains the rector of the church) does not ignore a single detail of the life of modern society characterizes him as a truly caring person for Orthodoxy.

By leaving a comment, you accept the user agreement

We remember! In blessed memory of Archimandrite Mark (Grinyuk)

How quickly time flies! Three years have passed since the inhabitants of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and the numerous spiritual children of the priest were shocked by the news of the untimely death of the resident of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, Archimandrite Mark (Grinyuk), who for many years adorned divine services with unique singing. But what do we know about God’s Providence? The best is sacrificed to God...

Let us remember Archimandrite Mark, Orthodox!

Archimandrite Mark (Grinyuk), a resident of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, died on March 19, 2021 as a result of a tragic accident. People who knew the priest as a man of a broad soul, an optimist and a lover of life, could not cope with the shock for a long time. For many years he worked at the monastery in various obediences, was a housekeeper, sang in the choir, and contributed to the restoration of the Church of the Mother of God “Life-Giving Spring.” The priest’s unique voice, especially his Lenten singing, was remembered by many.

The funeral service for Father Mark took place at the Church of the Exaltation of the Cross on Tuesday, March 21, 2021, after the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. And they buried him in the newly built monastery of the Pechersk Mother of God.

The funeral service for the newly deceased clergyman after the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts was led by the Vicar of the monastery, Metropolitan Pavel of Vyshgorod and Chernobyl, co-served by Archbishop Panteleimon of Bucha, the brethren and guests of the monastery in holy orders.

Farewell speech of the vicar of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, Metropolitan Paul (Lebed)

The night before, in the Church of the Exaltation of the Cross, where the body of Archimandrite Mark was laid, a fraternal funeral service was celebrated, led by the treasurer of the monastery, Archimandrite Nestor. During the memorial service, the Vicar of the Holy Dormition Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, Metropolitan Pavel, Bishop Dionysius (Konstantinov), and Bishop John of Zolotonosha prayed in the church.

Last kiss

Before the start of the funeral service, Metropolitan Pavel addressed the worshipers with a word in which he said: “Today we have gathered in this holy church in order to see off our brother Archimandrite Mark on his last journey. We knew him as a wonderful son, a loving spiritual father, who led many people to Christ and the Holy Church. And now we see him lying in a coffin. And he no longer needs anything except prayer. Let us pray that the Lord will accept his soul and lead him to the quiet haven of the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Funeral service

After the funeral service, the brethren of the monastery, led by Dean Archimandrite Anthony, took the body of the deceased to the burial place in the Lavra monastery, where after the litany it was interred.

Maternal grief