“…So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4)
As the above quote suggests, this article explores the topic of Antichrist and Christian eschatology, and it’s far from accidental. This very topic has long been used as a weapon by apologetic centers and architects of anticult terror. In the practice of attaching derogatory labels, the terms “Antichrist” or “forerunners of Antichrist” have occupied a significant place in the arsenal of dehumanization of undesirables, right alongside the classic labels like “sects” and “cults.”
This kind of inquisitorial anticult approach, steeped in eschatology, is especially pronounced in countries where Christianity and specifically Orthodoxy is the dominant religion. In such places, anticult centers have effectively transformed the church into their entity and turned it into a tool for influencing believers. That’s the case today in Orthodox Russia where believers have for years been subjected to indoctrination by apologists from RACIRS and their leader, Alexander Dvorkin.
Recognizing this approach among the arsenal of those who fight against “cults” and “sects,” we turned our attention to this branch of Christianity — eschatology — and began studying the subject. However, unlike anticult inquisitors who use verses from the New Testament for speculation, manipulation, and terror, often twisting them through their own interpretation or outright distortion, we believe it is vital to treat eschatological tradition, church teaching, and Christianity as a whole with respect. That is why, when interpreting New Testament passages concerning the Antichrist, we will turn directly to the revered Church Fathers whose interpretations are recognized within the Christian world and are beyond dispute. Throughout this article, we will solely rely on their authoritative opinions.
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
This article begins with a quote: “So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” — these words are taken from 2 Thessalonians (2:4). Let’s start with interpreting this particular epistle because other rare cases of mentioning the Antichrist in the New Testament are quite controversial among theologians and experts in exegesis. For instance, the five uses of the term Antichrist or antichrists in the epistles of John do not refer to a specific figure of the Antichrist of the last days, but rather characterize a general category of individuals such as apostates, deceivers, and false prophets. Other similar examples — Matthew 24:24 and Mark 13:22 — are also addressed to a multitude of false Christs, but not to the image of the main Antichrist.
In contrast to the aforesaid examples, the second Epistle to the Thessalonians presents a separate, specific figure of the one who is called the Antichrist in Christianity and portrays his anti-Christian role in the church as “the man of sin,” “the man of lawlessness,” and “the son of destruction” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Based on the New Testament tradition, everyone who listens to this “man of sin” will be under “a powerful delusion so that they believe the lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:11). How can this “man of sin” actually be recognized? Let’s turn to the interpretation of these lines by the Church Fathers.
St. Ephraim the Syrian: Interpretation of 2 Thessalonians
We’ll now touch upon one of the most prominent figures in early Christianity — Saint Ephraim the Syrian (circa 306-373 — 4th century AD), known for his sermons and profound spiritual texts.
In his interpretation of the 2nd Epistle to the Thessalonians, St. Ephraim the Syrian says that the Antichrist will initially be strictly Orthodox, will speak out against heresies and sects, and will thus deceive people. “He will appear and ascend into the temple of God, in order to sit within, and precisely in the Church of God. He does not (will not) deviate to any other society from heretical sects, so that he would not be recognized, but with contempt rejects all cults (false ones) so that the Church can be captivated… How will he show that there is a true God?… He will show this even more through the enmity that he will wage against heretical sects. Since he will not incline to any heresy, thanks to his (feigned) love for the children of the Church, he will make them think that he loves them… He will pretend so skillfully that he will captivate the people by means of fleshly things and will govern the Church under the guise of truth.” 1,2
This interpretation by St. Ephraim the Syrian, written more than one and a half millennia ago, describes the events of our days with unimaginable precision. Recognized as a saint throughout Christianity, he foresaw even then the most important factor and the key cause of the spiritual decline of Christ’s Church and accurately described the image of future Antichrist — the one who would lead the church away from God.
Based on the interpretation by St. Ephraim the Syrian, let’s answer the following questions: Who is the main fighter against “heretical sects” and “false cults” in the international arena of anticultism nowadays? Who has lured the people of an entire country today and is running its church “under the guise of truth”? Who, under the pretext of combating “cults” and “sects,” is introducing destructive ideology into society and the Orthodox Church, committing terror against lots of innocent people? At whose order have many Orthodox priests been banned from serving and defrocked? Who caused the Orthodox Church to abandon the New Testament and Christ’s teaching and to go back to the Old Testament ideals, militancy, and the ideology of superiority? There is only one answer to all of these questions — it’s Alexander Dvorkin.
The actfiles portal has repeatedly addressed anti-Christian activities and extremist ideology of Alexander Dvorkin and his entourage, which is alien to Orthodox Christianity and directly contradicts Jesus Christ’s teaching. For more comprehensive acquaintance with numerous supporting facts, we recommend that you review the materials published on actfiles.org, in particular:
· “Nazis Who Expelled Christ from Orthodoxy”
· “Murderers of Christ. Do Not Repeat the Same Mistake”
· “The IMPACT. Episode 6. Genocide of the Entire Country. The Ukraine Case.
· “The IMPACT | Groundbreaking Documentary”
It is noteworthy that Alexander Dvorkin hasn’t straightforwardly declared his anti-Christian views in public. On the contrary, he repeatedly spoke reverently about Jesus Christ on camera. However, based on the prescient interpretation by St. Ephraim the Syrian, such a public stance of Dvorkin becomes quite clear. Let’s partially repeat the Saint’s interpretation: “How will he show that there is a true God?… He will show this even more through the enmity that he will wage against heretical sects. Since he will not incline to any heresy, thanks to his (feigned) love for the children of the Church, he will make them think that he loves them… He will pretend so skillfully that he will captivate the people by means of fleshly things and will govern the Church under the guise of truth.”
Alexander Dvorkin’s hypocrisy is evidenced by all of his activities and his entire life that is publicly devoted to the alleged “fight against cults and sects.” In reality, his efforts are aimed at achieving and strengthening his own power and levers of influence within both secular and church community; at embedding his extremist ideology into Orthodox Christianity, and combating peaceful, nonviolent Orthodox tradition that complies with the New Testament of Jesus Christ’s teaching. Dvorkin’s destructive activities are the cause of many schisms and conflicts among the clergy. Alexander Dvorkin has distorted the understanding of church ministry and is gradually and methodically displacing the essence of Christian teaching, destroying the Orthodox Church. This will be discussed in detail, supported by facts and evidence, further in the article.
Dvorkin’s Repressions of ROC Clergy
One of Alexander Dvorkin’s numerous “merits” is the repression within the Russian Orthodox Church. This became possible because, for decades, RACIRS, which is headed by Dvorkin, has been establishing its units in every Orthodox diocese. Many clergymen who formally profess Orthodox Christianity are in fact members of those regional units of RACIRS and, consequently, successors and mouthpieces of Dvorkin’s extremist ideology. RACIRS and its core center named after Irenaeus of Lyons, which is also headed by Alexander Dvorkin, has become sort of a department for combating undesirables both outside the church and within the ROC. This internal entity of the ROC, whose members occupy most of the key church positions, performs an inquisitorial role, reports to the leadership, and creates conditions for subsequent repression, also operating in the information field.
There have been documented cases where, at Alexander Dvorkin’s initiative, representatives of Orthodox clergy were subjected to persecution and ecclesiastical punishments, removed from the staff, banned from serving, and defrocked. It’s important to note that defrocking is formally carried out by decision of an ecclesiastical court. As for the church court itself, among other related factors, it bases its decisions on complaints that seemingly ordinary laypeople and priests send against a discredited clergyman. However, it is now reliably known that the role of informants within the ROC has long been assumed by both formal and informal RACIRS members and their accomplices among laypeople, whose minds have been brainwashed by Dvorkin’s extremist ideology.
Notably, Dvorkin’s slander campaigns often target priests who have earned widespread recognition and reverence among people, and those who sought to follow the Bible more than the extremist ideology which is imposed by RACIRS on the ROC and is too far from Christian life.
One of illustrative examples of persecution is archpriest Vladimir Golovin and his son, archpriest Anastasy Golovin. Within just a few months, PACIRS’ president Dvorkin and its vice-president archpriest Alexander Novopashin published way more defamatory content about Father Vladimir Golovin than they had released over all the years about all the so-called non-Orthodox “sects” and “cults” combined (at the time of this campaign, Dvorkin had been active in Russia for more than 25 years).
We previously exposed facts about the persecution of Father Vladimir Golovin organized by Dvorkin, in the following articles on actfiles.org:
· “Totalitarian Sect Rules Russia. Not For Free”
· “Warning! Dvorkin’s Totalitarian Sect”
Let’s also pay attention to the persecution of other members of the ROC. The two examples we will consider below are among the most famous and high-profile cases in the history of the modern Russian Orthodox Church. They are particularly illustrative because they highlight the extent of Alexander Dvorkin’s influence and his true goals in attaining absolute power. We’re talking about archpriest Alexey Uminsky and deacon Andrey Kuraev who both devoted many years of their lives to serving the ROC.
What connects these individuals who at one point became objectionable and undesirable for the ROC, were banned from ministry and subsequently deprived of ecclesiastical ranks (deacon Andrey Kuraev in 2020-2023 and archpriest Alexey Uminsky in 2024)? They are connected by the same Alexander Dvorkin. Both archpriest Alexey Uminsky and deacon Andrey Kuraev had long been working with Alexander Dvorkin closely in the past. At the same time, archpriest Uminsky and deacon Kuraev were quite well-known and respected in wide circles, among the clergy and especially the laity. Their authority among people was much higher than that of Alexander Dvorkin, and many listened to them, noting their spiritual sincerity, true faith in God, and their theological sophistication, which was evident in public debates, speeches, and lectures.
Yet, for both of these highly respected ROC clergymen, who devoted their lives to serving the church, there came a point when they were literally kicked out of the ROC. They were kicked out, while Dvorkin remained, and not just remained, but also significantly strengthened his influence among the clergy. At the same time, he seized the opportunity to incite yet another wave of division and conflict — both among the clergy and among the laity — through his defiant and provocative statements against his former colleagues, further dividing the church from within. As a matter of fact, those treacherous statements by Dvorkin, steeped in hatred and animosity toward his former colleagues, showed his true attitude to anyone who stands in the way of his consolidation of influence and pursuit of his own real power.
These and other examples of persecution within the ROC, as well as the fact that every diocese has essentially turned into a branch of RACIRS and now serves Alexander Dvorkin rather than Christ and His Church, explain when and where the shift in the ROC has taken place — the departure from Jesus Christ’s teaching and the dominance of extremist ideology of superiority, introduced to the church by RACIRS apologists. RACIRS units, currently located in every ROC diocese, have become links in a single chain spread by Alexander Dvorkin, which he wrapped around the necks of Orthodox Christian people, strangling them for decades.
Mold Instead of God
Despite his carefully constructed image of a devout churchman that Alexander Dvorkin has upheld for decades, his true attitude to the teaching of Jesus Christ and the essence of Christianity sometimes still slips out from under his deceitful mask. Here’s an example of Dvorkin’s statement 3:
“You constantly hear the same arguments: ‘God is one, so why do people invent different religions?’ ‘God is in the soul’ – as if, forgive me, God is mold that appears in the soul by itself. I always want to ask this question: ‘When exactly did He appear in you, and how do you actually know that He is there? What are the fruits and what is the name of the God in your soul – do you even know that?’ Then it means: ‘God is in the soul, so why go to church?’” — Alexander Dvorkin, “Problems of the Mission of the Modern Russian Orthodox Church”
With this statement, Alexander Dvorkin rejected the core doctrine of Christianity about the one God (Mark 12:29) and denied the key fundamental theological concept of the presence of the soul in every human being. Not only did he mock the quintessence of the entire Christian teaching, but openly trampled on the words of Jesus Christ, calling God in the human soul a mold. Meanwhile, the Bible says: “The kingdom of God will not come with observable signs; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:20-21)
It’s appropriate to add a statement by metropolitan Anthony of St. Petersburg regarding the soul: “The soul is an image of God which God Himself inscribed. It’s a spirit. It is free and immortal and must be pure, bright, and full of love as the image of God.” 4
However, neither the wisdom of the Orthodox metropolitan nor even the teaching of Jesus Christ seem to mean anything to Alexander Dvorkin. For this fighter against “sects” and “cults,” such statements are equal to a statement about mold.
A Return to Old Testament Ethics And Departure From the New Testament
A marker indicating the shift in the ROC’s course and its departure from God are calls for a return to Old Testament ethics, militancy, hatred, and murder, heard from mainstream Russian Orthodox TV channels. Similar statements have been noted on Russia’s leading Orthodox television channel, SPAS (Russian word for “Savior”) owned by the Moscow Patriarchate, particularly in the program “Evening on SPAS.” “Evening on SPAS” is a series of programs designed for a huge Orthodox audience not only in Russia, but all over the world.
One of participants in the “Evening on SPAS” broadcasts who makes such anti-Christian appeals for a return to militant Old Testament traditions is Yevgeny Nikiforov, director of Radonezh Orthodox radio station. But before we proceed to Nikiforov’s specific statement, it is important to highlight his connections with RACIRS leadership — particularly with its president, Alexander Dvorkin, and vice president, archpriest Alexander Novopashin — including through the platform of Radonezh Radio.
Radio broadcasts on Radonezh, involving RACIRS president Alexander Dvorkin:
Articles by RACIRS vice-president, archpriest Alexander Novopashin, on Radonezh:
Yevgeny Nikiforov also personally lent active support to Dvorkin in persecuting ROC clergy, including the aforementioned archpriest Vladimir Golovin. In their joint radio broadcasts, the clergymen they discussed were systematically discredited and automatically portrayed as alleged creators of “pseudo-Orthodox sects.”
Here’s one of such examples: In the summer of 2019, during a broadcast on Radonezh Radio, Alexander Dvorkin and the station director, Yevgeny Nikiforov, held a discussion on “defrocking of former archpriest Vladimir Golovin and other ‘sects’” 5. The previously mentioned SPAS TV channel 6, owned by the Moscow Patriarchate, also published information and video footage of that broadcast.
Now, let’s return to Yevgeny Nikiforov’s statement regarding the Old Testament ethics 7. In 2023, Nikiforov, already as a guest on the Orthodox program “Evening on SPAS,” said the following (32:50):
“In Ukraine, the disease is so advanced that no amount of persuasion, negotiation, or anything else can cure it anymore — only surgery is possible there. So the only answer to those speeches by the ‘Nazis’ is one: Solntsepyok. This must be utterly scorched… Some people may tell me, ‘Oh, that’s not the Christian way’ — it is Christian! Entirely! It’s just that for those people who present themselves as pagans, forgive me, they are treated as pagans. So for you [pagans], it’s not New Testament ethics, but Old Testament — the ethics of the Prophet Elijah who personally cut the throats of three hundred (300) priests of Baal. That’s how these ones must be treated, too — eliminate them, without a shred of doubt. Only Old Testament ethics — that’s the only language they understand.” 7
The Solntsepyok weapon so fervently recommended by Yevgeny Nikiforov is one of the most destructive non-nuclear weapons. A single salvo from this type of weapon can annihilate all life across 430,000 square feet.
It is hardly necessary to point out that such statements, like the one above, directly contradict the fundamental principles of Orthodox Christianity, especially the commandment “Do not murder,” which has traditionally been considered a cornerstone of Christian teaching.
Yet, the most cynical part of this story is that, even as he witnesses the fruits of his actions, Alexander Dvorkin hypocritically continues to attend church, serve in it, read the Gospel, and even speak about God — the very God he has cast out of his own soul, leaving room only for mold, and out of the entire Orthodox Church. He continues to be respected and revered by many ROC priests who are blinded by his rhetoric. This raises a question: Is there truly not a single clergyman nor a single believer left in the entire Russian Orthodox Church who still serves not the devil, not the Antichrist, not Dvorkin, but Jesus Christ?
Alexander Dvorkin and the Legacy of His Spiritual Father and Mentor, Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann
In light of the information discussed, a particularly noteworthy chapter in Alexander Dvorkin’s life is his time in the United States. In the fall of 1980, Dvorkin enrolled as a student at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (SVOTS) in New York. There, he met the seminary’s rector, protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, who became his spiritual father and remained so for three years until his death in 1983. While back in Russia, during his “anticult” work, Dvorkin often spoke about Father Alexander Schmemann, promoted his legacy among students in seminaries during his lectures on fighting “sects” and “cults,” and referenced him in interviews, books, and articles.
Dvorkin calls himself a disciple and spiritual son of protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann. This kind of reverence is unsurprising, given other cases in Dvorkin’s career. On the one hand, it is quite convenient to align himself with a respected and successful figure in order to elevate his own authority in the eyes of impressionable youth. On the other hand, when necessary, he can use his mentor’s views as a shield, leveraging another person’s reputation to support his own arguments.
In one of interviews, when he was asked, “Who is the best or a good modern preacher?” Dvorkin replied: “I don’t even know… I would again say it’s my contemporary, Father Alexander Schmemann, but he died in 1983, so since then, among the current ones, I don’t know.” 8
However, the figure of protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann is rather controversial. While he received significant recognition and support within church circles, he also faced criticism, particularly from conservative Orthodox Christian groups and several senior-generation theologians. 9,10,11
This dual-sided image — combining both ecclesiastical recognition and criticism — emerged because, while serving in the Orthodox Church in America, Alexander Schmemann sought to bring Eastern Orthodoxy closer to a Western liberal audience. His strong emphasis on liturgy was at times interpreted as a disregard for ascetic practices and monastic tradition, which sparked controversy among more rigorous theologians. Father Alexander Schmemann’s pro-liberal initiatives led many Orthodox fundamentalists and traditionalists who strive to prevent any distortion of Orthodoxy to view his legacy as consisting of reforms that were both unwelcome and dangerous for the Orthodox Church. In this context, it’s important to highlight one quote directed at him:
“Father Seraphim commented on his words as follows: ‘In his heart, he is still Orthodox, but his mind is set on ‘reforming’ the American Metropolia and Orthodoxy as a whole. Future generations simply will not be able to experience the spiritual depth that Schmemann once knew. To be fair, perhaps he [Schmemann] does not see himself as a ‘reformer,’ but it is future generations — souls less discerning and even further removed from true Orthodox life — who will issue a God-opposing verdict based on the Protestant-leaning views of Father Alexander Schmemann’.” 9,10
By no means do we diminish Father Alexander Schmemann’s contribution to the development of American Orthodoxy. We understand his motives aimed at building a bridge between the Eastern traditions of Orthodoxy and the Western mindset. However, whether by coincidence or not, the verdict expressed in the quote above leads us to the God-opposing role of his disciples. And once again, we return to Alexander Dvorkin — the student and spiritual son of Father Alexander Schmemann. The fruits of Alexander Dvorkin’s extremist activity, which we witness today in the Orthodox Church, serve as evidence of that very verdict. It is Dvorkin, president of RACIRS and the leading “anticult” fighter, who has become a representative of that “future generation,” “far removed from true Orthodox life,” who for many years now has been issuing a “God-opposing verdict” upon the entire Orthodox Church.
It’s important to emphasize the fundamental difference in the motives behind the actions of protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann and those of his student, Dvorkin. One thing is to adapt Eastern Orthodox traditions to fit a foreign and distant American mindset. That’s what Alexander Schmemann was doing — attempting to build bridges between the two opposing cultures of East and West. That’s one thing. But it is something entirely different to take those Schmemann’s adapted ideas — views altered specifically for the West yet inappropriate for the East — and begin promoting them in countries that are the cradle of Orthodoxy. In a historically Orthodox Christian region, there is no need for reform, unless the goal is to deliberately destroy those traditions. There is only a need to preserve the purity of Orthodoxy — something that is undoubtedly difficult to achieve for a person whose soul is filled with mold instead of God.
It is noteworthy that decades after returning to Russia from the United States, Alexander Dvorkin continued collaborating with the Orthodox Church in America and spreading his extremist ideology even across the ocean.
Patriarch Dvorkin
To conclude, here is a brief and unusual fact from the official website of Novosibirsk Diocese headed by archpriest Alexander Novopashin, vice president of RACIRS. The Novosibirsk Diocese website published an article authored by another mentor of Alexander Dvorkin — the Danish anticult fighter Johannes Aagaard 12. The introduction to that article stated:
“Professor Emeritus of the Royal Aarhus University, President of the Dialog Center International for the Study of Contemporary Sectarianism, patriarch of modern Christian sectarians studies — Johannes Aagaard. (Aarhus, Denmark).”
The first question that arises is: did they have the right to use the title “patriarch” on the official website of one of ROC dioceses to refer to someone outside its ecclesiastical leadership?
On the one hand, in public discourse the word “patriarch” can be used metaphorically to describe a prominent figure in a given professional field. However, this title appeared on the official website of Novosibirsk Diocese of the ROC, headed by archpriest Alexander Novopashin. In the church, this term has a single, concrete, and strict meaning. The title “patriarch” is never applied to laypeople or to those outside the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Using it for someone who’s not a patriarch is considered inappropriate and is not supported by church norms.
Regardless of the intent behind the use of the term, it still implies a person who holds unquestioned authority and significant power over a particular group. Moreover, considering that those ROC hierarchs affiliated with RACIRS units within regional dioceses formally profess Orthodoxy but, based on their actions, are primarily motivated by the fight against “sects” and the promotion of Dvorkin’s extremist ideology, an interesting question naturally arises: who is their real patriarch — the one they truly obey?
It is worth noting that Johannes Aagaard died in 2007. Who took his place after his death is more of a rhetorical question. The one who had always been considered Aagaard’s most devoted disciple. The one who is now the leading fighter against “cults” and “sects.” The one who holds real — not nominal — power within the ROC, and who controls a significant portion of its clergy. Once again, we are led back to Alexander Dvorkin.
Conclusion
This is an appeal to the people of the Orthodox Church, to those who consider themselves true believers. Each of you has stood before icons and prayed many times. Most likely, you are familiar with and deeply moved by the icon of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. As you stood before that icon, reflecting on the end of the Savior’s earthly life, you must have asked yourself: how could society, 2,000 years ago, betray the Son of God and allow His crucifixion — the most shameful execution imaginable, carried out not against a mere innocent man, but against God incarnate on this sinful earth? As you stood before those icons, you prayed and condemned those who crucified Christ. You sincerely could not understand how people could remain silent and do nothing during His execution.
However, now you are silent too. You are silent while the teaching of Jesus Christ is being crucified. You are silent while the New Testament is being pushed out of the Church of Christ, and Christ Himself is being shown the door. You are silent, blinded by the shine and deceit of Alexander Dvorkin’s speeches and those of his inner circle — Judases in cassocks who have betrayed God. You are silent while the Holy Church — the Church of Christ — is being turned into a mouthpiece that preaches a return to the Old Testament, at the direction of Christ’s traitors and the loyal servants of their “patriarch” who is, in fact, the Antichrist. So where are you, Orthodox Christians? Whom do you listen to, and whom do you serve? Why have you forgotten the words of Christ: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only” 13?
Just as no one stood up for God two thousand years ago, so too nothing has changed today. Dvorkin has established a church in which he can exist and rule — a church where God has long since been cast out. The Son of God and His teaching have been shown the door, and His Father has been called mold.
The term “antichrist,” particularly the prefix “anti,” carries two meanings for good reason: “against” (Anti-Christ — Against Christ) and “instead of” (Anti-Christ — In place of Christ). So what do we see today? As a result of Alexander Dvorkin’s activities, the Orthodox Christian Church now teaches the Old Testament instead of the New; preaches militancy and repression instead of God’s love; imposes dictatorship instead of humility and forgiveness; worships mold instead of God; and serves Alexander Dvorkin instead of Jesus Christ.
Indeed, the early Christian saint, Venerable Ephraim the Syrian, was right. As we can see, he truly possessed the gift of foresight, predicting events that would unfold more than fifteen centuries later. And maybe now the time has come to cry out: Orthodox Christians, wake up!
Sources:
- https://1260.org/Mary/Apostasy/Apostasy_Antichrist_Ephrem_the_Syrian_en.htm
- https://bible.optina.ru/new:2sol:02:04
- https://www.grad-petrov.ru/broadcast/problemy-missii-sovremennoj-russkoj/
- https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Nikolaj_Pestov/sovremennaja-praktika-pravoslavnogo-blagochestija-tom-1/2
- https://radonezh.ru/2019/04/05/professor-dvorkin-o-situacii-na-prihode-v-gorode-bolgar
- https://m.vk.com/video-55490878_456473437?list=93fbc4f7c63875ae4f&from=wall-55490878_125136
- https://spastv.ru/mitropolit-pavel-iz-pod-aresta-ne-uhodite-iz-lavry-ne-otrekajtes-ot-hrista-molitva-za-geroya-rossiya-proshhaetsya-s-vladlenom-tatarskim
- https://youtu.be/Sx6SEXKAH7o?t=7248
- https://hram-pohvala.moseparh.ru/2017/09/03/statya-obnovlenchestvo-ieromonax-serafim-rouz-i-protopresviter-aleksandr-shmeman
- https://blagogon.ru/digest/280
- https://blagogon.ru/biblio/402
- https://ansobor.ru/articles.php?id=42
- https://bible.by/verse/40/4/10
