Orthodox sovereign union "for faith, king, family and fatherland". Orthodox Sovereign Union "for Faith, Tsar, Family and Fatherland" Cathedral Oath of the House of the Romanovs

People have always attached sacred meaning to words. The tradition of swearing originated in very ancient times. A person, as it were, concluded an agreement with higher powers, realizing that if his words turn out to be untrue, if he does not keep this promise, then heaven will punish him. I wonder what kind of oaths were taken in Russia?

What oaths did the Slavs take?

In pagan times, the Slavs, giving false vows, invoked the wrath of the gods on their heads. Actually, the word “oath” itself has the same root as “curse”, “curse”. There is no doubt that there is a magic ritual in this.

Oaths were an official part of the charters (charters) - contractual letters, judging, for example, by the texts of Russian-Byzantine treaties of the tenth century, the translations of which were included in the Tale of Bygone Years. So, in the text of the treaty of 911, we read that peace between states is sealed by a “swear (firm)”, which no one should “transgress”. And in the agreement between the Russian prince Svyatoslav and the Greeks for 971, one can find the following words: “Yes, we have an oath from God ... and let us be gold like gold (that is, we will turn into despicable metal - Auth.), And we will be cut with our weapons ".

As a sign of the strength of the oath in Russia, they kissed the blade of the sword or put it to the forehead, since the sacred meaning was attributed to the weapon. Here are excerpts from the annals: "... According to Russian law, they swore by their weapons both Perun and Veles"; “... And unbaptized Russia lays down its shields and its swords naked (naked - Auth.), hoop your hoops and other weapons and swear in everything”; “... In the morning Igor called for servants, and came to the hill where Perun stood, laid down his weapons and shields and gold, and swore an oath to Igor and his people ...” About those who violated the oath, it was said: “Let them be sworn from God and from Perun and will perish from their own swords.

How did the warriors swear?

For Russian soldiers, the oath was mandatory. Before the battle, they swore to fight for Holy Russia, to be her faithful sons. Thus was born the ritual of taking the military oath. It is known that the soldiers of Prince Alexander Nevsky took the oath on the eve of the battle on Lake Peipus. Novgorod warriors took an oath in the Hagia Sophia, uttering the following words: “Let's stand up for our father and brother, for our family; we will die for Saint Sophia.

Oaths in land disputes

A special oath was taken when resolving land disputes. One of the debaters put a piece of earth with turf from the disputed field on his head, and walked in the direction where, in his opinion, the border with the neighboring plot should have passed. At the same time, he would say: “May the earth cover me forever if I lie!” This rite was associated with the Slavic cult of Mother Earth.

With the advent of Christianity in such situations, they began to swear on the icon of the Virgin. Even in official land surveying documents, the following phrase appeared: “Allot the land along the Most Pure”.

How did the people swear?

The following oaths were common among the Russian people: “Burst my eyes if I tell a lie!”, “May I fall through the ground if I’m lying!”, “Don’t leave this place!”, “God kill me!”, “Smash me thunder!” etc. God was often mentioned in oaths, so the word “swear” has a synonym - to swear. As proof of the veracity of the oath, they often kissed the cross, the Bible, and icons.

In our time, one can sometimes hear how unchurched people swear by their lives and health, and even by the lives and health of their loved ones, without thinking that these are by no means empty words thrown to the wind. We should not forget how our ancestors treated such things.

Oath, oaths, wives. Solemn affirmation, assurance, backed up by the mention of something sacred, valuable, authoritative, oath. Make an oath to someone. An oath of allegiance or allegiance. Take an oath from someone. Allow someone... Dictionary Ushakov

The oath- Speech * Aphorism * Loquacity * Literacy * Dialogue * Slander * Eloquence * Brevity * Cry * Criticism * Flattery * Silence * Thought * Sneer * Promise * Sharpness * ... Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms

THE OATH- Oath, s, wives. A solemn promise, an assurance. K. fidelity or fidelity. Give, break an oath. K. Hippocrates (for novice doctors: a solemn oath of allegiance to medical duty). | adj. oath, oh, oh. K. vow. Dictionary… … Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

the oath- Annibalova (Annibalovskaya, Gannibalova), age-old, great, eternal, hot, loud, loud (obsolete), iron, sincere, light-winged (obsolete poet.), love, unshakable, indestructible, fatal (obsolete poet.), holy, mortal, terrible, ... ... Dictionary of epithets

The oath- I. BASIC VALUES IN THE SYNOD. per. two euros. words are conveyed by the word oath: 1) n. chevua (oath) has the same root as number. sheva (seven). Etymological the connection between these two words cannot be established (cf. Gen. 21:22 32 Beersheba, Synod. per. ... ... Brockhaus Bible Encyclopedia

The oath- This term has other meanings, see Oath (meanings). An oath is a solemn promise or a solemn assurance. “I will not desecrate this sacred weapon and leave my comrade in the ranks. I will protect not only what ... ... Wikipedia

The oath- Heb Sheba. Under Moses, the oath between the Israelites was in use, as a very old custom. See Gen. 14:22 and gave. Moses gave her rules and restrictions. He forbids false swearing by invoking the name of God (Ex. 20:7; Lev. 19:12); command to do... Dictionary of Biblical Names

The oath- a solemn appeal to the Almighty God, the faithful and unfeigned Witness of what is affirmed or denied. The oath of the Jews was direct and indirect. Direct appeal to God, as the Supreme Witness, was permitted by the Law ... ... Bible. Old and New Testaments. Synodal translation. Bible encyclopedia arch. Nicephorus.

THE OATH- assuring another of the truth of something said or done; then an oath calling God to witness what is truly said, concerning present, past or future facts, actions, etc., since they depend on a person. Oath, ... ... Russian history

the oath- @font face (font family: ChurchArial ; src: url(/fonts/ARIAL Church 02.ttf);) span (font size:17px; font weight:normal !important; font family: ChurchArial ,Arial,Serif;)   n. (Greek ἀνάθεμα) accursed, cursed; (Greek κατάρα),… … Church Slavonic Dictionary

Books

• The Oath, Frank Peretti. Ancient sin. Ancient Oath. A city that holds a terrible secret... Some dark force is operating in Hyde River, a remote mining town, lost in the mountains in the northwest of America. Evil power. Under…

1613 - 2013. The oath of excommunication from the Holy Trinity does not weigh on the Russian people. Research by Leonid Bolotin.

In 2013, all people faithful to Orthodoxy will spiritually celebrate the anniversary of the reign of the great sons of the Romanov family, who justified God's chosenness and, having received the grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of chrismation, carried the heavy and unbearable burden of the Tsar's autocratic power for the sake of the triumph of God's truth in the sinful human race. , for the sake of protecting and preserving the purity of the true Orthodox faith, for the sake of increasing the power of the God-protected State of Russia, for the sake of the well-being of the Russian people and all peoples inhabiting the great Kingdom.

In connection with this anniversary, a clear dividing line should be drawn between two related, but not equivalent concepts: the Blessed Romanov Family and the modern representatives of the Romanov House. As you know, the descendants of Vel. Prince Kirill Vladimirovich Romanov. This status of the Kirillovichs is not recognized by a significant part of the living Romanovs. Currently, the youngest offspring of the Kirillov line (by mother) is a representative of the Prussian royal house of Hohenzollern (by father) - George. According to fans of this hereditary line, Prince George of Prussia of Hohenzollern is the only legitimate (legitimate) contender for the Russian Throne.

There is no doubt that the year of purely remembrance of the Tsar's Romanov family will become an occasion to strengthen the ambitions of the Kirillov branch and bring the claims of representatives of this branch to the fore. The claim of the Kirillovichs is presented as a natural process of restoring historical justice and returning the lost royal power in Russia to the legitimate claimant. Many supporters of Kirillov Legitimists in Russia also think so. An illustration of well-known sentiments can be found in the final paragraph of the article by the archpriest Gennady Belovolov“Will 2012 be on a par with 1612?”:

“The fact that the year of the 400th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty is coming up gives us special hope. This anniversary should be the main theme of the coming year. I would compare it only with the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Russia. 1988 became the year of the second baptism of Russia, when we remembered that we are an Orthodox people, that we have a thousand years of faith and life in Christ behind us. And now we need to remember that Russia is a tsarist Power, that we have not only 70 years Soviet power, but also 1000 years of Orthodox monarchical statehood. The Tsar has always been the crystal around which all Russian life has crystallized. I hope that this year will not only be a historical retrospection, but also open up perspectives for our history. I hope that we will be able to realize that the House of Romanov is not only our glorious past, but also our great future.”

The last sentence is the key to understanding the aspirations of the supporters of the Kirillov branch. If “the House of Romanov is our great future”, then who, apart from Georgy, can ensure the realization of this great future today. Nobody but him. That is, if our future Tsar is Romanov and only Romanov, then this is precisely George Hohenzollern and only he. There are simply no other real contenders who combine the legitimacy of claims with an ardent desire to take the throne in the Romanov family. So only George.

As far as I understand, the position of the opponents of the “Kirillov branch” consists in recognizing the objective reality that at the present time, out of the living members of the House of Romanov, a worthy candidate who satisfies all the requirements of the “Law on Succession to the Throne” (or “Basic Law Russian Empire") No. Moreover, Prince George of Prussia of Hohenzollern does not meet these requirements. There is only one way to resolve this conflict. Namely, the manifestation of the All-good Providence of God, whose inexpressible goodness and mercy will indicate in due time God's chosen one. Whether he will be from the Romanov family or not is known to God Himself and no one else. Russian people should only be ready to accept the all-good will of God, having approved their free choice by the decision of the All-Russian Council, as a witness to the will of the entire Russian People.

The point is that in Russian and world history there are no such events that would strictly oblige the Russian people, after everything that happened in Russia, to tie their choice to the Romanov family. This choice can be rigidly bound by only one thing - the desire to know the will of God. With all the strength, with all the thought, with the whole being of the Christian Russian soul, pray to the Lord to give His Divine revelation about the fate of Russia, and humbly follow the pointing finger of God. And no more than that, and do not dare to impose your desires on the Lord after all that happened in 1916-1918.

But the longed-for ambitions of the Kirillovichs, in addition to referring to the Basic Law of the Russian Empire (ground number one), have two more grounds (two and three) to oblige the Russian people to tie their choice specifically to the House of Romanov.

The second reason (in addition to the Basic Law) can be considered the words of Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, who, relying on the prophecies of the elders known to him, said that the monarchy in Russia would be restored, and the future Tsar on the maternal side would be from the Romanov family. In particular, Schemamonk Anthony (Chernov), Archbishop Feofan’s cell-attendant, conveys his words in this way: “He [ the coming King] will not be Romanovs, but by his mother he will be from the Romanovs.

The words of Vladyka Theophan cannot be considered as a direct indication of the inspired elders that the future Tsar belongs to the Romanov family. These words only indicate maternal kinship with the Romanovs. It does not say anything about the degree of relationship. In a word, the future Tsar will not be Romanovs on his father's side, but will be related (the degree of which is unknown) with the Romanov family on his mother's side. A similar situation has already been realized in Russian history when Mikhail Romanov was elected to the kingdom, who, through the wife of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, Anastasia, turned out to be related to the Rurikovichs. Thus, the Lord, as it were, in a visible way testified to the acceptance of the royal dignity of the Rurikovich by the first representative of the new royal family of the Romanovs. So, we emphasize once again: Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov was not a Rurikovich, but was in a distant relationship with the Rurikovichs through Tsarina Anastasia.

No one knows how the prophecy of the elders about the Coming Tsar and his maternal (female) lineage with the Romanov family will be realized. It is only known that the Tsar will be chosen by God Himself, will be God's chosen one, to whom God's finger will point in emergency (precisely in emergency!) circumstances. And the Russian soul will immediately sense the Chosen One of God as its own Tsar. There will be no alternative, no other choice: He and only He, known and accepted by all, is the Russian Tsar, the Orthodox Tsar, God's Chosen One, God's Anointed One.

As if everything is clear, and objections, in general, are not visible. But there is a third basis for Kirillov's claims - the conciliar oath of 1613. In accordance with the oath, the Russian people cannot accept anyone other than a representative of the Romanov family as tsar. It follows from this that in the current situation, when not one of the surviving representatives of the Romanov family dares to declare their claims to the Russian royal throne, if only because none of them satisfies the unequivocal requirements of the Law on Succession to the Throne, the only contender, declaring his rights and eager to realize these rights is Prince George of Prussia of Hohenzollern. Opponents of the Kirillovichs have only one thing left to do - to prove that Prince George has no declared rights to the throne. But this question, as it turned out, does not so much relate to the merits of the case, but rather to the area of ​​competence and eloquence of connoisseurs of jurisprudence, since the provisions of the law of the Russian Empire on Succession to the Throne, for all its certainty, are interpreted differently by supporters of the Kirillov branch (legitimists) and their opponents, and speech now not about it.

The point is that, as it turned out, there is an additional circumstance that radically changes the attitude towards the issue of the inviolability of the hereditary succession of the Russian throne by representatives of the Romanov family. Namely, as a result of painstaking analytical work, the historian Leonid Bolotin came to the conclusion that the text of the conciliar oath in the form in which it became widely known does not exist. Thus, the last, third basis of their claims slipped out from under the feet of the Kirillovichs. The original text, which was approved by the Consecrated Ecumenical (All-Russian, Zemsky) Council of 1613, provides grounds for a broader understanding of the ideas that our ancestors included in the Council Code, wishing to consolidate the form of governance of the Russian Land, which the Russian people suffered through suffering, for all time. And this meaning consists in an oath of fidelity to God and the Ruler of the Russian Land chosen by God - God's Anointed Autocratic Tsar for all time. There is no literal indication of loyalty to the Romanovs from generation to generation until the end of time. In the Cathedral Code (letter) we are talking literally about loyalty to King Michael, his faithful wife and their children, whom the Lord will give. Beyond this, the eyes of the Russian elected people and the Consecrated Cathedral itself (the clergy) do not extend, since they do not dare to look forward to the fate of God, anticipate God's will and foresee God's providence. The elected Russian people and the Spiritual (consecrated) Council approved the principle of earthly tsarist autocratic power indicated by God, the principle of the attitude of a Russian person to this power, which together expresses the principle of the Russian person's obedience to God's will through obedience to God's Anointed Tsar.

The conclusion drawn is important not so much for the Kirillovichs, who will still cling to the legitimate side to the last (we will clarify, pseudo-legitimate, since for a certain category of people, as they say, the law that the drawbar, where you turned, went there). The conclusion drawn is important for ordinary Russian Orthodox people, over whom the oath of excommunication from the Holy Trinity for betraying the Romanov family was weighed down - an oath on which all sorts of political speculations could be built. There is no such oath, and there never was, and it is criminal to bind Russian people with such an oath! This is the essence of the study. Leonid Bolotin and his articles

There are no words about a curse for non-compliance with the Approved Council Charter of 1613 in the original text - this is the conclusion that modern researchers of this document have come to.

In 1990, with active participation Brotherhood of the Holy Tsar-Martyr Nicholas Alexandrovich in the form of leaflets, a short text of the Cathedral Oath of 1613 began to be actively distributed. Reliable chronological evidence of the appearance in 1990 of the version of the “short version” of the Cathedral Oath of 1613 is the publication in Zemshchina No. 11 in October 1990. In this regard, the church historian S.V. Fomin compared the short text with the original text of the Approved Council Charter of 1613 according to the scientific edition of 1906. Serious discrepancies were revealed. Especially in those places that are most frequently cited today.

For example, the “short version” says: “It is commanded that the chosen one of God, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, be the ancestor of the rulers in Russia from generation to generation, with responsibility in their affairs to the only Heavenly King, and who will go against this Council Decree - Whether it is a king, a patriarch, and every man, may he be cursed by such in this age and in the future, for he will be excommunicated from the Holy Trinity.

In the original, this statement is not at all! It says the following: “So that the All-Merciful God ... would give us the Sovereign Tsar for the Moscow State, righteous and holy, and pious, and noble and Christ-loving, so that, by the grace of God, forward their ROYAL DEGREE IS ESTABLISHED FOREVER, AND THAT IT WAS ETERNAL AND SOLID, AND STRONGLY AND STILL IN GENERAL AND GENERAL FOREVER.

Just think about how serious the accusation is brought against the Russian people by today's short version: “And who will go against this Council decision - the Tsar, the Patriarch, and every person, may he be cursed by such in this century and in the future, for he will be excommunicated from the Holy Trinity."

In the original text of the Approved Charter, where the Cathedral Oath is given, it says quite differently: “And whoever does not want to listen to this Council Code, God wills it, and will begin to speak differently and repair rumors in people, and such, if only from sacred ranks, and from the boyars of the royal sigklit and warlike, or others from ordinary people and in whatever rank, according to the Sacred Rule of the Holy Apostles, and the Ecumenical Seven Councils of the Holy Fathers and the Pomes, and according to the Council Code of the entire Consecrated Council, his rank will be cast out, and excommunicated from the Church of God and the Holy Mysteries of Christ of communion, as a schismatic of the Church of God and the whole Orthodox peasantry is a rebel, and ruined the law of God, and according to the Tsar's law he will take revenge, and our humility and the whole Consecrated Cathedral do not wake up a blessing on it from now on and until the age; because I didn’t want blessings and the Cathedral Code of obedience, so I departed from him and put on an oath.

Of course, this prohibition is very, very severe for Orthodox people - excommunication from the Church and deprivation of Communion, refusal of the Church blessing. BUT THIS IS NOT A CURSE IN THIS AGE AND IN THE FUTURE! THIS IS NOT EXECUTION FROM THE HOLY TRINITY! Namely, this is what they are now imputing to the Russian people, citing the text of a false oath! The true text implies forgiveness in case of repentance.

The bloody and fratricidal consequences of the Troubles, together with robberies and betrayals, continued after the Council of 1613 until the year 1618. There were also executions of the leaders of traitors, but there were also mass amnesties for ordinary members of the robber detachments and Cossack bands, who repented, swore allegiance to the Tsar and became his warriors.

But the false incantation formula: “whoever goes against this Council decree ... let him be cursed in this century and in the future, for he will be excommunicated from the Holy Trinity,” does not even hint at the very possibility of repentance. Moreover, the sacred person of the Tsar, the Anointed of God, falls under this curse!

“And who will go against this Council decision - is it the KING ... let him be cursed in this century and in the future, for he will be excommunicated from the Holy Trinity.”

There is no such curse in any decrees, nor in church prohibitions, nor in any Christian oaths. Several years ago, the historian S.V. Fomin, who published in his two-volume Russia before the Second Coming the full text of the original “Approved Charter of 1613”. As a result of his research, he did not find such a spell in pre-revolutionary and Soviet publications. Fomin made a preliminary but well-founded assumption that this text is an émigré apocrypha. It is not found in any texts of both the pre-revolutionary period and the time of the Soviet period. And only in 1990 a false text appears: “It is commanded that the chosen one of God, Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov, be the ancestor of the Rulers in Russia from generation to generation, with responsibility in His affairs before the One Heavenly Tsar. And who will go against this Council decision - whether the Tsar, whether the Patriarch, and every person, may he be cursed by such in this century and in the future, for he will be excommunicated from the Holy Trinity.

Who and why made such an insert? To date, there is no exact answer to this question. It requires a separate investigation. Although with great reason it can be assumed that the primary source of falsification was the publication in the leaflet of the Brotherhood of the Holy Tsar-Martyr Nicholas Alexandrovich, from where the most dubious fragment short text migrated to Zemshchina. This is what Leonid Bolotin, a member of the Brotherhood, writes about, who brought public repentance for distributing the unverified text of the Cathedral Oath. Note that this article was also compiled on the basis of his historical research, which can be found in more detail at the link http://zargradet.ru/?page_id=3642

As Leonid Bolotin rightly notes, the false version of the Sobor Oath of 1613 is currently almost the only version distributed by monarchists. Our website and the websites “Monarchy”, “ Autocratic Russia", "Russian Line", "Russian People's Line" and "Kirillov" portals "Russian Imperial House" and the website of the All-Russian social movement"For Faith and Fatherland". In addition, many more dozens, if not hundreds of personal pages contain precisely a forged version of the Oath of 1613 with a curse on the Autocratic Tsar and the Russian people for all ages and excommunication from the Holy Trinity! What a terrible forgery this is – excommunication from God! Nowhere in Orthodox and simply Christian non-Orthodox texts do such anathemas occur. While a person breathes, no matter how villainous and sinful he may be, his breathing is an ontological evidence of his connection with God, even if the person himself does not believe in it. This connection can be interrupted only by the Lord God Himself and no one else. There is no such Christian law - to separate a living person from God! Excommunication from the Church, from Communion, from a blessing is a legal punishment if a person deserves it. The very idea of ​​this exclusionary formula is clearly a product of non-Christian religious consciousness. Attributing such an idea to our Orthodox ancestors in 1613 is a great sin!

We call on everyone - refer to the original of the Cathedral Oath, which is given on pages 42-43 in the publication “Diploma on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the Moscow State. With a preface by S.A. Belokurova. M., 1906. This edition is based on S.A. Belokurov deposited the so-called Archival original of the Diploma, which is now kept in the Russian State Archive Ancient Acts: RGADA. Fund 135. Dep. III. rubr. I. No. 5. L. 1–82. The original scientific publication of the text, prepared by S.A. Belokurov, you can download from the link: http://narod.ru/disk/63663500001.f1f724496cc6b9bfc7c5dab52ffd4058/utverzd_gram.pdf.html

Save everyone, Lord, from quoting and even more so from spreading the false statement “It is commanded that the chosen one of God, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, be the ancestor of the rulers in Russia from generation to generation, with responsibility in their affairs to the only Heavenly King, and who will go against this Council Decree - Whether the king, whether the Patriarch, and every person, may he be cursed by such in this century and in the future, for he will be excommunicated from the Holy Trinity.

"AND an oath fidelity held back

We v Borodinsky the fight…"

(M. Yu. Lermontov, Borodino)

Head of the Commission on National Security of the Public Chamber under the President of the Russian Federation Alexander Kanshin took the initiative to amend the text of the Military Oath. He proposes to replace the solemn and binding word “I swear” with another - “I promise” (Izvestia, December 24, 2012, article by Denis Telmanov and Vladmir Poroshin), which, in our opinion, has an optional and vague meaning.

A. Kanshin explains the need to amend the text of the Military Oath by saying that "service in the army and defense of the Fatherland should not contradict the inner convictions of the soldier's personality." He also explains that the proposal of the Public Chamber is made "taking into account religious views and national characteristics."

At the same time, in the funds mass media discussing this message, it is said that the Russian Orthodox Church represented by the Head of the Synodal Department for Cooperation with the Armed Forces and other law enforcement agencies, Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov, supports this initiative.

So Interfax claims that D. Smirnov said: “... the idea of ​​​​replacing an oath with a promise is positive, since the Gospel says:“ Do not swear at all. (Interfax/Religion; http://interfax-religion.ru/?act=radio&div=1871, article by Elena Fomina, December 25, 2012).

It is not clear why D. Smirnov took the words out of the context of the Holy Gospel, which, in our opinion, has a completely different meaning.

The word "I swear" is inseparable from the solemn acceptance of the Oath, it emphasizes the exclusivity and importance of the moment, enhances the patriotic mood of the serviceman. It is quite obvious that in life this word is used much less frequently than the commonplace - "I promise." A promise is demanded from us in the family, kindergarten, school: promise not to be naughty anymore, promise to study well, promise not to offend the younger ones, etc. And a little older you can hear: "Promise to marry", "I promise to return by morning."

Good word "Promise", but it is for other cases. Promises, unfortunately, are often not fulfilled, and by people regardless of social status, age and gender. What are the pre-election promises of many politicians who forget about them as soon as they make their way to power. For a promise, one cannot be held accountable, one can only scold or be offended.

A. Kanshin refers to a certain national feature, without explaining its nature. What are the national characteristics in our society that the word "I swear" "...contradicts the inner convictions of the soldier's personality"?

The oath of allegiance to the Fatherland has ancient roots, is used in most countries, the texts of the Oath of which begin precisely with the words "I ..... swear."

For instance:

Military Oath in Ukraine: « I, (last name, first name and patronymic), enter the military service and solemnly swear always be faithful to the people of Ukraine and…”.

Military oath in Germany: "I I swear serve the Federal Republic of Germany and conscientiously defend the rights and freedom of the German people…”.

The military oath of a private in Australia: "I am (last name, first name) I swear that I will serve as (rank and type of troops) well and faithfully in accordance with the law ... "

Military oath in the United States (general): "I (first name, last name) solemnly I swear remain loyal to the United States of America, faithfully serve them against any enemies ... "

Military oath in Turkey: "I hereby I swear with my honor that in peace and war, on land, on sea and in sky, always and everywhere I will serve my nation and my republic ..».

The list of texts of the military oath with the words "I swear" is quite large. In some isolated countries, the word “I promise” is used in the text of the oath. So in Finland, the text of the oath begins with the words: “I (surname, name) I promise before God Almighty and omniscient to be a worthy citizen, devoted to the Finnish state. I will honestly serve my country…”

Even in the test of the Oath of a US Citizen, when acquiring citizenship, the word “I swear” is not present, but the no less solemn and significant phrase “ I swear by oath».

Maybe the notorious national feature…”, which prevents swearing allegiance to the Fatherland, is stored in the history of Russia?

Also no. For example.

Oath in the Russian Imperial Army:

"I, the undernamed, promise and I swear before Almighty God, before His Holy Gospel, in what I want and owe to His Imperial Majesty, to my true and natural Most Merciful Great Sovereign Emperor [Name and patronymic] ... ... ". It must be recalled that the Emperor in tsarist Russia was the Anointed One of God.

Even religious persons took an oath with the words "I swear." For example, the Oath for members of the Holy Synod of Tsarist Russia:

“Az, undernamed, I promise and I swear before Almighty God, before His holy Gospel, that I must, and according to my duty, I will, and I will make every effort, in advice and judgment, and in all the deeds of this Spiritual Governing Assembly, always seek the very essence of truth and the very essence of truth, and act in every way written in the Spiritual Regulations by the charter ... ".

And only members of the State Duma did not "swear", but "promised": "We, the undernamed, promise before Almighty God, to fulfill the duties entrusted to us as Members of the State Duma, to the best of our understanding and strength, while remaining faithful to His Imperial Majesty the Sovereign Emperor ... " And what did it lead to? To the betrayal of Russia!

V modern history The president Russian Federation upon taking office, he takes the following oath to his people:

« I swear in exercising the powers of the President of the Russian Federation, to respect and protect the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, to observe and protect the Constitution of the Russian Federation, to protect the sovereignty and independence, security and integrity of the state, to faithfully serve the people. ”(Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 82)

The President may be removed from office if he violates the Constitution and laws of Russia, as well as the oath given to him.

Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov, when evaluating the proposal of the Public Chamber, refers to the Gospel. Yes, indeed, in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, it is said:

“…33. You also heard what was said of the ancients: do not break your oath, but fulfill your oaths before the Lord.

34. But I say to you: do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God;

35. Not the earth, for it is His footstool; nor Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King;

36. Do not swear by your head, because you cannot make a single hair white or black.

37. But let your word be: yes, yes; no no; and what is more than this is from the evil one….

The meaning of these words is completely different from what D. Smirnov is trying to "explain" to us. Before the Christian faith, the pagans swore by all the gods (I swear by Jupiter, I swear by Mars), swore by Heaven, swore by the Earth, etc. They swore anything, but not on their own behalf, but by referring to some kind of power, from which it was not possible to ask for an oath. The essence of the words of the Gospel, in our opinion, is that an oath cannot be taken in vain and for any reason, but an oath is given by a person at the most important moments of his life and he becomes responsible for its fulfillment!

A soldier, taking the military oath, in its current content with the words "I swear" in this we are sure, fulfills the requirements of the gospel! And God is the witness!

The oath for the Russian soldier at all times was a spiritual and moral boundary, a measure of his share of responsibility to the Motherland.

Whoever breaks an oath is an oathbreaker. V war time for this he will be severely punished. A serviceman who breaks a promise is by definition not a criminal, but people do not swear by an oath. There is a deep meaning in this word corresponding to the defender of the Fatherland.

Servicemen of the Armed Forces and other law enforcement agencies, law enforcement officers, taking an oath, take an oath of allegiance to their word before the Almighty!

It is quite obvious that word replacement suggestions "the oath" on word "Promise", will change the very meaning of serving the Fatherland, will lead to undermining the combat readiness of our Armed Forces and to reducing the responsibility of military personnel during military service and defense of their homeland.

President of the Association of Higher Officers of Russia, Lieutenant General E.D. Makoklyuev, First Vice-President of the Association of Higher Officers of Russia, member of the Bureau of the Presidium of the VRNS, Lieutenant General, Professor V.Ya. Shatokhin