Renovationist schism in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Moscow Sretenskaya Theological Academy

Georgy Babayan 08/03/201729587

The emergence of the renovation movement in Russia is a difficult topic, but interesting and even relevant to this day. What were its prerequisites, who stood at the origins and why the young Soviet government supported the renovationists - you will learn about this in this article.

Church reasons for the schism

In the historiography of the renovationist schism, there are different points of view on the origin of renovationism.

D. V. Pospelovsky, A. G. Kravetsky and I. V. Solovyov believe that “the pre-revolutionary movement for church renewal should in no way be confused with “Soviet renovationism” and even more that between the movement for church renewal before 1917 and "Renovationist schism" 1922–1940 it’s difficult to find something in common”[1].

M. Danilushkin, T. Nikolskaya, M. Shkarovsky are convinced that “the Renewal movement in the Russian Orthodox Church has a long prehistory, stretching back centuries”[2]. According to this point of view, renovationism originated in the activities of V.S. Solovyov, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy.

But as an organized church movement, it began to be realized during the First Russian Revolution of 1905-1907. At this time, the idea of ​​renewing the Church became popular among the intelligentsia and clergy. Among the reformers are Bishops Antonin (Granovsky) and Andrei (Ukhtomsky), Duma priests: Fathers Tikhvinsky, Ognev, Afanasyev. In 1905, under the patronage of Bishop Antonin, a “circle of 32 priests” was formed, which included supporters of renovationist reforms in the church[3].

One cannot look for the motives for creating the “All-Russian Union of Democratic Clergy”, and subsequently the “Living Church” (one of the church groups of renovationism) only in the ideological field.

During the Civil War, on the initiative of former members of this circle, on March 7, 1917, the “All-Russian Union of Democratic Clergy and Laity” arose, headed by priests Alexander Vvedensky, Alexander Boyarsky and Ivan Egorov.
The union opened its branches in Moscow, Kyiv, Odessa, Novgorod, Kharkov and other cities. The “All-Russian Union” enjoyed the support of the Provisional Government and published the newspaper “Voice of Christ” with synodal money, and by the fall it already had its own publishing house, “Conciliar Reason”. Among the leaders of this movement in January 1918, the famous protopresbyter of the military and naval clergy, Georgy (Shavelsky), appeared. The union acted under the slogan “Christianity is on the side of labor, and not on the side of violence and exploitation”[4]. Under the auspices of the Chief Prosecutor of the Provisional Government, an official reformation arose - the “Church and Public Bulletin” was published, in which the professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy B.V. Titlinov and Protopresbyter Georgy Shavelsky worked.

But one cannot look for the motives for creating the “All-Russian Union of Democratic Clergy”, and subsequently the “Living Church” (one of the church groups of renovationism) only in the ideological field. We must not forget, on the one hand, the area of ​​class interests, and on the other hand, the church policy of the Bolsheviks. Professor S.V. Troitsky calls the “Living Church” a priestly revolt: “It was created by the pride of the Petrograd metropolitan clergy”[5].

Petrograd priests have long occupied an exceptional, privileged position in the Church. These were the most talented graduates of theological academies. There were strong ties between them: “Do not be afraid of the court, do not be afraid of important gentlemen,” St. Philaret of Moscow admonished Metropolitan Isidore, his former vicar, to the St. Petersburg see: “They care little about the Church. But be careful with the St. Petersburg clergy - they are the guard.”

Renewalists begin to actively participate in the political life of the country, taking the side of the new government.

Like all white clergy, the St. Petersburg priests were subordinate to the metropolitan, who was a monk.
This was the same academy graduate, often less gifted. This haunted the ambitious priests of St. Petersburg; some had a dream of taking power into their own hands, because until the 7th century there was a married episcopate. They were only waiting for the right opportunity to take power into their own hands, and hoped to achieve their goals through a conciliar reorganization of the Church[6]. In August 1917, the Local Council opened, on which the renovationists had high hopes. But they found themselves in the minority: the Council did not accept married episcopacy and many other reform ideas. Particularly unpleasant was the restoration of the patriarchate and the election of Metropolitan Tikhon (Bellavin) of Moscow to this ministry. This even led the leaders of the Union of Democratic Clergy to think about breaking with the official Church. But it didn’t come to that, because there were few supporters[7].

The Petrograd group of reformers greeted the October Revolution generally positively. She began publishing the newspaper “God’s Truth” in March, in which its editor-in-chief, Professor B.V. Titlinov, commented on the Patriarch’s appeal of January 19, anathematizing “the enemies of the truth of Christ”: “Whoever wants to fight for the rights of the spirit, must not reject the revolution, not push it away, not anathematize it, but enlighten it, spiritualize it, transform it. Severe rejection irritates anger and passions, irritates the worst instincts of a demoralized crowd."[8] The newspaper sees only positive aspects in the decree on the separation of Church and state. From this it follows that the renovationists used the appeal to discredit the Patriarch himself.

Renewalists begin to actively participate in the political life of the country, taking the side of the new government. In 1918, the book of the renovationist priest Alexander Boyarsky, “Church and Democracy (a companion to a Christian Democrat),” was published, which propagated the ideas of Christian socialism. In Moscow in 1919, priest Sergius Kalinovsky attempted to create a Christian Socialist Party[9]. Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky wrote: “Christianity wants the Kingdom of God not only in the heights beyond the grave, but here in our gray, weeping, suffering land. Christ brought social truth to earth. The world must live a new life”[10].

The head of the renovationists, Metropolitan Alexander Vvedensky, During the years of the Civil War, some supporters of church reforms sought permission from the authorities to create a large renovationist organization. In 1919, Alexander Vvedensky proposed a concordat - an agreement between the Soviet government and the reformed Church - to the Chairman of the Comintern and the Petrosovet G. Zinoviev. According to Vvedensky, Zinoviev answered him as follows: “The Concordat is hardly possible at the present time, but I do not exclude it in the future... As for your group, it seems to me that it could be the initiator of a large movement on an international scale. If you manage to organize something in this regard, then I think we will support you”[11].

However, it should be noted that the contacts the reformers established with local authorities sometimes helped the position of the clergy as a whole. So in September 1919 in Petrograd, plans were made for the arrest and expulsion of priests and the seizure of the relics of Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky. To prevent this action, Metropolitan Benjamin sent the future Renovationist priests Alexander Vvedensky and Nikolai Syrensky to Zinoviev with a statement. Anti-church protests were cancelled. It should be noted that Alexander Vvedensky was close to Bishop Veniamin[12].

It should be noted that the contacts that the reformers established with local authorities sometimes helped the position of the clergy as a whole

Bishop Benjamin himself was no stranger to some innovations.
So, under his patronage, the Petrograd diocese began to use the Russian language for reading the Six Psalms, hours, individual psalms and singing akathists[13]. However, the Patriarch, seeing that innovations began to become widespread in the dioceses, wrote a message about the prohibition of innovations in church liturgical practice: “The divine beauty of our truly edifying in its content and grace-effective church services must be preserved in the Holy Orthodox Russian Church inviolably, as Her greatest and most sacred property..."[14]

The message turned out to be unacceptable for many and caused their protest. A delegation consisting of Archimandrite Nikolai (Yarushevich), Archpriests Boyarsky, Belkov, Vvedensky and others went to Metropolitan Veniamin. As the latter later recalled, in a conversation with Bishop they “received his blessing to serve and work as before, regardless of Tikhon’s will. This was a kind of revolutionary step on Benjamin's part. In other dioceses, Tikhon’s decree is being taken into account and implemented”[15]. For unauthorized innovations in worship, Bishop Antonin (Granovsky) was even banned[16]. Gradually, a group of clergy was formed that was in opposition to the church leadership. The authorities did not miss the chance to take advantage of this situation within the Church, adhering to rigid political views on the events taking place.

Political reasons for the split

In 1921-1922, the Great Famine began in Russia. More than 23 million people were hungry. The pestilence claimed about 6 million human lives. Its casualties were almost double the human losses in the civil war. Siberia, the Volga region and Crimea were starving.

The country's top government officials were well aware of what was happening: “Through the efforts of the Information Department of the GPU, the state-party leadership regularly received top secret reports on the political and economic situation in all provinces. Thirty-three copies of each are strictly for receipt by the addressees. The first copy is for Lenin, the second is for Stalin, the third is for Trotsky, the fourth is for Molotov, the fifth is for Dzerzhinsky, the sixth is for Unschlicht.”[17] Here are some messages.

From the state report of January 3, 1922 for the Samara province: “There is starvation, corpses are being dragged from the cemetery for food. It is observed that children are not taken to the cemetery, leaving them for food”[18].

From the state information report dated February 28, 1922 for the Aktobe province and Siberia: “Hunger is intensifying. Cases of starvation are becoming more frequent. During the reporting period, 122 people died. The sale of fried human meat was noticed at the market, and an order was issued to stop selling fried meat. Famine typhus is developing in the Kyrgyz region. Criminal banditry is reaching threatening proportions. In some volosts in Tara district, hundreds of people are dying of hunger. Most feed on surrogates and carrion. In Tikiminsky district, 50% of the population is starving”[19].

The famine presented itself as the most successful opportunity to destroy the sworn enemy - the Church.

From the state information report dated March 14, 1922, once again for the Samara province: “Several suicides occurred due to hunger in Pugachevsky district.
In the village of Samarovskoye, 57 cases of starvation were registered. Several cases of cannibalism have been registered in Bogoruslanovsky district. In Samara, 719 people fell ill with typhus during the reporting period.”[20]. But the worst thing was that there was bread in Russia. “Lenin himself recently spoke about its surplus of up to 10 million poods in some central provinces. And Deputy Chairman of the Central Commission Pomgola A.N. Vinokurov openly stated that exporting bread abroad during a famine is an “economic necessity”[21].

For the Soviet government there was a more important task than the fight against hunger - it was the fight against the Church. The famine presented itself as the most successful opportunity to destroy the sworn enemy - the Church.

The Soviet government has been fighting for a monopoly in ideology since 1918, if not earlier, when the separation of Church and state was proclaimed. All possible means were used against the clergy, including repression by the Cheka. However, this did not bring the expected results - the Church remained fundamentally unbroken. In 1919, an attempt was made to create a puppet “Ispolkomdukh” (Executive Committee of the Clergy) led by members of the “Union of Democratic Clergy”. But it didn’t work out - the people didn’t believe them.

So, in a secret letter to members of the Politburo dated March 19, 1922, Lenin reveals his insidious and unprecedentedly cynical plan: “For us, this particular moment is not only extremely favorable, but also the only moment when we can with 99 out of 100 chances for complete success to smash the enemy headlong and secure the positions we need for many decades. It is now and only now, when people are being eaten in hungry places and hundreds, if not thousands of corpses are lying on the roads, that we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of church valuables with the most furious and merciless energy, without stopping in the face of the pressure of any kind of resistance.”[ 22].

While the government was puzzling over how to use the famine in another political campaign, the Orthodox Church immediately responded to this event after the first reports of the famine. As early as August 1921, she created diocesan committees to provide relief to the hungry. In the summer of 1921, Patriarch Tikhon addressed an appeal for help “To the peoples of the world and to the Orthodox people”[23]. A widespread collection of funds, food and clothing began.

On February 28, 1922, the head of the Russian Church issued a message “about helping the hungry and confiscating church valuables”: “Back in August 1921, when rumors about this terrible disaster began to reach us, we, considering it our duty to come to the aid of our suffering spiritual children , addressed messages to the heads of individual Christian Churches (Orthodox Patriarchs, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of York) with an appeal, in the name of Christian love, to collect money and food and send them abroad to the population of the Volga region dying of hunger.

At the same time, we founded the All-Russian Church Committee for Famine Relief, and in all churches and among individual groups of believers, we began collecting money intended to help the starving. But such a church organization was recognized by the Soviet Government as unnecessary and all sums of money collected by the Church were demanded for surrender and handed over to the government Committee.”[24].

This does not mean at all, as the renovationists later said, that the Patriarch calls for resistance and struggle.

As can be seen from the Message, it turns out that the All-Russian Church Committee for Famine Relief from August to December 1921 existed illegally. All this time, the patriarch fussed with the Soviet authorities, asking them for approval of the “Regulations on the Church Committee” and official permission to collect donations. The Kremlin did not want to approve it for a long time. This would be a violation of the instructions of the People's Commissariat of Justice of August 30, 1918 on the prohibition of charitable activities by all religious organizations. But still they had to give in - they were afraid of a world scandal on the eve of the Genoa Conference. On December 8, the Church Committee received permission[25]. Saint Tikhon (Bellavin), Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. Further, in his message dated February 28, 1922, His Holiness the Patriarch continues: “However, in December the Government invited us to make, through church governing bodies: the Holy Synod, the Supreme Church Council, donations in money and food to help the hungry. Wanting to strengthen possible assistance to the population of the Volga region dying of hunger, We found it possible to allow church parish councils and communities to donate precious church items that have no liturgical use to the needs of the hungry, which we notified the Orthodox population on February 6 (19) of this year. with a special appeal, which was authorized by the Government for printing and distribution among the population... We allowed, due to extremely difficult circumstances, the possibility of donating church items that were not consecrated and had no liturgical use. We call upon the believing children of the Church even now to make such donations, with only one desire: that these donations be the response of a loving heart to the needs of one’s neighbor, If only they really provide real help to our suffering brothers. But we cannot approve the removal from churches, even through voluntary donation, of sacred objects, the use of which is not for liturgical purposes is prohibited by the canons of the Universal Church and is punishable by Her as sacrilege - the laity by excommunication from Her, the clergy - by defrocking (Apostolic Canon 73, twice). Ecumenical Council. Rule 10)"[26].

The reason for the schism already existed - the confiscation of church valuables.

With this document, the Patriarch did not at all call for resistance to the confiscation of church valuables.
He just did not bless the voluntary surrender of “sacred objects, the use of which is prohibited by the canons for purposes other than liturgical purposes.” But this does not mean at all, as the renovationists later said, that the Patriarch calls for resistance and struggle. By February 1922, the Orthodox Church had collected more than 8 million 926 thousand rubles, not counting jewelry, gold coins and in-kind assistance to the hungry[27].

However, only part of this money went to help the starving: “He (the Patriarch) said that this time too a terrible sin was being prepared, that the valuables confiscated from churches, cathedrals and laurels would not go to the starving, but to the needs of the army and the world revolution. No wonder Trotsky is so furious.”[28]

The government immediately headed for a split within the Church itself.

And here are the exact figures of what the hard-earned money was spent on: “They sent popular prints through the proletarian clubs and Revkult drama sheds - those that were bought abroad for 6,000 gold rubles on Pomgol's account - they shouldn't waste the good - and hit the newspapers with a strong word of “party truth” against the “world-eaters” - “kulaks” and “Black Hundred priesthood”.
Again, on imported paper”[29]. So, they waged a propaganda war with the Church. But this was not enough. It was necessary to introduce division within the Church itself and create a schism according to the principle of “divide and conquer.”

Participation of the GPU in the split

The Central Committee of the RCP(b) and the Council of People's Commissars were well aware and knew that there were people in the Church who were opposed to the Patriarch and loyal to the Soviet government. From the report of the GPU to the Council of People's Commissars on March 20, 1922: “The GPU has information that some local bishops are in opposition to the reactionary group of the synod and that, due to canonical rules and other reasons, they cannot sharply oppose their leaders, so they believe that with the arrest of the members of the Synod, they have the opportunity to organize a church council, at which they can elect to the patriarchal throne and to the synod persons who are more loyal to Soviet Power. The GPU and its local bodies have sufficient grounds for the arrest of TIKHON and the most reactionary members of the synod.”[30]

The government tried to establish in the minds of the population the legitimacy of the Renovationist Church.

The government immediately headed for a split within the Church itself.
In a recently declassified memorandum by L. D. Trotsky dated March 30, 1922, the entire strategic program of the activities of the party and state leadership in relation to the renovationist clergy was practically formulated: “If the slowly emerging bourgeois-compromising Smenovekhov wing of the church developed and strengthened, then it would become much more dangerous for the socialist revolution than the church in its current form. Therefore, the Smenovekhov clergy should be considered as the most dangerous enemy of tomorrow. But exactly tomorrow. Today it is necessary to bring down the counter-revolutionary part of the churchmen, in whose hands the actual administration of the church is. We must, firstly, force the Smenovekh priests to completely and openly link their fate with the issue of confiscation of valuables; secondly, to force them to bring this campaign within the church to a complete organizational break with the Black Hundred hierarchy, to their own new council and new elections of the hierarchy. By the time of the convocation, we need to prepare a theoretical propaganda campaign against the Renovationist Church. It will not be possible to simply skip over the bourgeois reformation of the church. It is necessary, therefore, to turn it into a miscarriage.”[31] Thus, they wanted to use the renovationists for their own purposes, and then deal with them, which will be exactly done.

The reason for the split already existed - the seizure of church valuables: “Our entire strategy in this period should be designed to create a split among the clergy on a specific issue: the seizure of valuables from churches. Since the issue is acute, a split on this basis can and should take on an acute character” (Note from L.D. Trotsky to the Politburo on March 12, 1922)[32].

The seizure has begun. But they started not from Moscow and St. Petersburg, but from the small town of Shuya. An experiment was set up - they were afraid of mass popular uprisings in big cities. In Shuya, the first incidents of shooting a crowd of believers, which included old people, women and children, took place. This was a lesson for everyone else.

Bloody massacres swept across Russia. The bloodshed scandal was used against the Church. The clergy were accused of inciting believers against Soviet power. Trials against the clergy began. The first trial took place in Moscow from April 26 to May 7. Of the 48 defendants, 11 were sentenced to death (5 were shot). They were accused not only of obstructing the implementation of the decree, but also mainly of disseminating the Patriarch’s appeal. The trial was directed primarily against the head of the Russian Church, and the Patriarch, greatly discredited in the press, was arrested. All these events prepared fertile ground for the renovationists for their activities.

On May 8, representatives of the Petrograd Group of Progressive Clergy, which became the center of renovationism in the country, arrived in Moscow. The authorities welcomed them with open arms. According to Alexander Vvedensky, “G. E. Zinoviev and the GPU Commissioner for Religious Affairs E. A. Tuchkov were directly involved in the schism”[33].

One cannot think that the renovationist movement was entirely a creation of the GPU.

Thus, the interference of the Soviet government in internal church affairs is undeniable.
This is confirmed by Trotsky’s letter to members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) dated May 14, 1922, fully approved by Lenin: “Now, however, the main political task is to ensure that the Smenovekhov clergy does not find itself terrorized by the old church hierarchy. The separation of church and state, which we have carried out once and for all, does not at all mean that the state is indifferent to what is happening in the church as a material and social organization. In any case, it is necessary: ​​without hiding our materialistic attitude towards religion, not to bring it forward, however, in the near future, that is, in assessing the current struggle, to the fore, so as not to push both sides towards rapprochement; criticism of the Smenovekhov clergy and the laity adjoining them should be conducted not from a materialistic-atheistic point of view, but from a conditionally democratic point of view: you are too intimidated by the princes, you do not draw conclusions from the dominance of the monarchists of the church, you do not appreciate the entire guilt of the official church before the people and the revolution and so on and so forth.”[34]. The government tried to establish in the minds of the population the legitimacy of the Renovationist Church. Konstantin Kripton, a witness of that era, recalled that the communists everywhere announced that the renovationists were representatives of the only legitimate church in the USSR, and the remnants of “Tikhonism” would be crushed. The authorities saw in the reluctance to recognize renovationism a new type of crime, which was punishable by camps, exile and even execution[35].

Evgeniy Tuchkov

The leader of the renovationist movement, Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky, issued a secret circular addressed to diocesan bishops, which recommended, if necessary, to contact the authorities to take administrative measures against Old Church members. This circular was carried out: “God, how they torture me,” Metropolitan of Kiev Mikhail (Ermakov) said about the security officers, “they extort from me recognition of the “Living Church,” and threatened me with arrest otherwise.”[36]

Already at the end of May 1922, the GPU requested money from the Central Committee of the RCP(b) to carry out the anti-Tikhon campaign: “Limiting the funds for the publication of printed organs, propaganda, movement around the republic and other work that requires immediate implementation would be equivalent to the clergy working with us. the atrophying of this activity, not to mention the maintenance of an entire staff of visiting clergy, which, given limited funds, places a heavy burden on Political Science. Management"[37].

E. A. Tuchkov, head of the secret VI department of the GPU, constantly informed the Central Committee about the state of the intelligence work of the Higher Church Administration (VCU). He visited various regions of the country to control and coordinate “church work” in local branches of the GPU. Thus, in a report dated January 26, 1923, based on the results of an inspection of the work of the secret departments of the GPU, he reported: “In Vologda, Yaroslavl and Ivanovo-Voznesensk, work on clergy is going tolerably well. In these provinces there is not a single ruling diocesan or even vicar bishop of Tikhon’s persuasion left, thus, on this side, the road has been cleared for the renovationists; but the laity reacted negatively everywhere, and for the most part the parish councils remained in their previous compositions”[38].

However, one cannot think that the renovationist movement was entirely a creation of the GPU. Of course, there were many priests like Vladimir Krasnitsky and Alexander Vvedensky, dissatisfied with their position and eager for leadership, who did this with the help of government bodies. But there were also those who rejected such principles: “Under no circumstances should the Church become depersonalized; its contact with Marxists can only be temporary, accidental, fleeting. Christianity should lead socialism, and not adapt to it,” believed one of the leaders of the movement, priest Alexander Boyarsky, with whose name a separate direction in renovationism will be associated[39].

Babayan Georgy Vadimovich

Keywords:

renovationism, revolution, causes, Church, politics, famine, confiscation of church values, Vvedensky.

[1] Soloviev I. V.

Brief history of the so-called “Renovationist schism” in the Russian Orthodox Church in the light of new published historical documents.//Renovation schism. Society of Church History Lovers. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2002. - P. 21.

[2] Shkarovsky M. V.

Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 10.

[3] Dvorzhansky A. N.

Church after October // History of the Penza diocese. Book one: Historical sketch. - Penza, 1999. - P. 281. // URL: https://pravoslavie58region.ru/histori-2-1.pdf (date of access: 08/01/2017).

[4] Shishkin A. A.

The essence and critical assessment of the “renovationist” schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970. - P. 121.

[5] Troitsky S.V., prof.

What is the Living Church? // Renovationist schism. Society of Church History Lovers. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2002. - P. 99.

[6] Troitsky S.V., prof.

What is the Living Church? // Renovationist schism. Society of Church History Lovers. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2002. - P. 99-100.

[7] Shkarovsky M. V.

Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 11.

[8] Kuznetsov A.I.

Renovationist schism in the Russian Church. — M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House,

2002. - P. 200.

[9] Shkarovsky M. V.

Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 11.

[10] Shishkin A. A.

The essence and critical assessment of the “renovationist” schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970. - P. 135.

[11] Shkarovsky M. V.

Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 12.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid. P. 13.

[14] Regelson L.

The tragedy of the Russian Church. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2007. - P. 275.

[15] Shkarovsky V. M.

Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 13.

[16] Regelson L.

The tragedy of the Russian Church. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2007. - P. 275.

[17] Vasilyeva O. Yu., Knyshevsky P. N.

— Red conquistadors. - M.: Soratnik, 1994. - P. 154.

[18] Ibid.; RGASPI. F. 5. Op. 2. D. 45. L. 3.

[19] Ibid.; RGASPI. F. 5. Op. 1. D. 2629. L. 6, 7.

[20] Ibid.; RGASPI. F. 5. Op. 1. D. 2629. L. 98.

[21] Ibid. P. 158.

[22] Regelson L.

The tragedy of the Russian Church. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2007. - P. 281.

[23] Ibid. P. 272.

[24] Ibid. pp. 278-279.

[25] Vasilyeva O. Yu., Knyshevsky P. N.

— Red conquistadors. - M.: Soratnik, 1994. - P. 157-158.

[26] Regelson L.

The tragedy of the Russian Church. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2007. - P. 279.

[27] Vasilyeva O. Yu., Knyshevsky P. N.

— Red conquistadors. - M.: Soratnik, 1994. - P. 157.

[28] Ibid. P. 159.

[29] Ibid. P.155; RCHDNI. F. 5. Op. 1. D. 2761. L. 37.

[30] Russian Orthodox Church and the communist state. 1917-1941. Documents and photographic materials. M.: Biblical and Theological Institute of St. Apostle Andrew, 1996. - P. 93.

[31] Shkarovsky V. M.

Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 66.

[32] Russian Orthodox Church and the communist state. 1917-1941. Documents and photographic materials. M.: Biblical and Theological Institute of St. Apostle Andrew, 1996. - P. 79.

[33] Shkarovsky V. M.

Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 17.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Soloviev I. V.

Brief history of the so-called “Renovationist schism” in the Russian Orthodox Church in the light of new published historical documents.//Renovation schism. Society of Church History Lovers. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2002. - P. 26.

[36] Nikodimov I. N.

Memories of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. - Kyiv, 1999. - P. 168-169.

[37] Ibid. pp. 29-30.

[38] Soloviev I. V.

Brief history of the so-called “Renovationist schism” in the Russian Orthodox Church in the light of new published historical documents.//Renovation schism. Society of Church History Lovers. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2002. - P. 30.

[39] Shkarovsky V. M.

Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 28.

Conservative renewal: The historical chance of the Russian Church

The Ukrainian autocephalist project is designed to weaken the Russian Orthodox Church, but makes us stronger in defending the patristic faith

Throughout its thousand-year history, the Russian Church has experienced many trials: from the times of the Horde yoke to the Polish-Lithuanian and Napoleonic invasions and, of course, the bloody Schism of the 17th century, as well as the aggressively atheistic persecutions of the 20th century.

However, in all these trials, our Church not only survived, but strengthened, revealing to the world many saints, including the new martyrs and confessors of the recent past.

Today's unrest, which began in Ukraine and, due to the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, spread to the entire Orthodox world, is no less dangerous and tragic. But at the same time, it provides the Russian Church with a unique historical chance. A chance that allows us to do serious work on the mistakes of modern church history, making a genuine conservative, patristic renewal of all World Orthodoxy. However, before deciding what this update should be, it is necessary to make a short historical excursion.

Phanariot turmoil. Background

It would seem that what happened in Russia a century ago - revolutionary turmoil, civil war, godless five-year plans, the imposition of the Renovationist schism and constant repressions against Orthodox clergy and laity - did not leave hope for the preservation of Russian Orthodoxy. As you know, by the beginning of the Great Patriotic War there was not a single functioning monastery on the territory of modern Russia, and most of the archpastors of the Russian Church had either already been shot or were in camps and prisons.

Photo: www.globallookpress.com

And at the same time, pseudo-Orthodox renovationist sects operated on the territory of the Soviet Union. Back in the 1920s, they were created by the Bolshevik authorities (with the “moral” support of the Patriarchs of Constantinople) as a “progressive alternative” to the counter-revolutionary “Black Hundred” clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate. Quantitatively, the Renovationists were always inferior to the “Old Churchmen” (as genuine Christians were called), but they managed to capture many Orthodox churches.

The participation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Soviet anti-church persecutions of the 1920-30s is a separate topic, discussed in detail in the book by priest Alexander Mazyrin and Andrei Kostryukov “From the history of the relationship between the Russian and Constantinople Churches in the 20th century.” It is only worth noting that soon after the civil war it was the Phanar that initiated a whole series of autocephalist and autonomist church projects, as a result of which the Polish, Finnish, Latvian and Estonian Churches were torn off from the Moscow Patriarchate.

Moreover, it was Phanar that actively encroached on Russian Orthodox communities and parishes in the diaspora, “Russian Abroad,” and also provoked the first schismatic projects in Ukraine and Belarus. As a result, as priest Alexander Mazyrin quite rightly notes, back in the first half of the 20th century:

With its policy towards the Russian Church, the Phanar has completely discredited itself, even in the eyes of... irrepressible Hellenophiles... The Patriarch of Constantinople as the “supreme judge for Orthodox Christians of all countries” is a thing of the past. The inappropriateness of such judging in the Orthodox Church should become obvious to everyone.

In short, the tragedy unfolding today in the lands of Southwestern Rus' had already been rehearsed a century earlier. With the same writers and directors and almost the same scenery. However, only a few decades passed, and the Russian Orthodox Church was reborn with almost the same greatness.

Zeal not for reason and zeal for faith

The Russian church revival at the turn of the century, in fact, the Second Baptism of Rus', aroused truly non-Christian jealousy among the same Phanar. Whose Eastern papist power-hungry aspirations do not allow the Turkish-subject first hierarchs to come to terms with the position of “first among equals” in the equal family of Orthodox Local Churches.

Photo: www.globallookpress.com

It was this zeal not for Christian reason, zeal not for faith, but for one’s own ambitions that led the Patriarchate of Constantinople to support the Ukrainian schismatic autocephalist project. And accordingly - to incite a fratricidal conflict in the lands of South-Western Rus'.

In turn, the Russian Church never laid claim to the laurels of the Church of Constantinople. Moreover, it received its autocephaly, church independence, solely due to the fall of Constantinople in the mid-15th century into the Latin heresy - the Union of Florence. And then, as a consequence, the final fall of the former Roman Empire (Byzantium) under the blows of the Ottoman Turks.

And even the idea of ​​Moscow as the Third Rome was not proud, since it did not imply special powers of the Russian High Hierarchs.

This is how this point was explained in an interview with the Tsargrad TV channel by Professor Nikolai Lisovoy, Doctor of History and Candidate of Philosophy, Deputy Chairman of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (IPOS):

When Elder Philotheus said that “Moscow is the Third Rome, and there will never be a fourth,” it was not a proud slogan, like, “We are the best and the highest.” The meaning of this was different: “Guys, we are the last trench, there is nowhere to retreat, if we are gone, then Orthodoxy will not be.” And this understanding gradually triumphed throughout the Orthodox world. To the point that the same Eastern Patriarchs who then went to Moscow - some for alms, some for political support - themselves recognized us as the Third Rome, and the Russian Church as the last stronghold of Orthodoxy on Earth.

And that was also jealousy. But with genuine, Christian zeal - zeal for the Orthodox faith. That even in the face of total challenges from the surrounding world, we must preserve patristic Orthodoxy, free from Western heretical nonsense and protected by the power of the Christ-loving “White Tsar” from the Eastern yoke.

Conservative renewal: not a given, but a task

And now we come to the most important and interesting thing. The entire church history of recent centuries shows: under pressure from the West and East, all Local Churches, including the Russian, had to make compromises with the spirit of this age. We managed to maintain theological and dogmatic purity, but in following the canons, as well as the patristic spirit itself, much was lost.

Photo: www.patriarchia.ru

Alas, this has tempted many consistent traditionalists. Thus, in the second half of the 17th century, Russian “zealots of ancient piety” categorically did not accept church reform, which was carried out largely according to Western Christian and modern Greek patterns. The total ban, on pain of death, of ancient liturgical books, rites and rituals led to the most terrible schism in our history, the death of many thousands of Russian people. As a result, the Westernizing reforms of the 18th century, including the secularization of the socio-economic and cultural life of Russia, fell on already prepared soil.

And only in the second half of the 19th – 20th centuries, including under the most difficult conditions of atheistic persecution, the Russian Church gradually began to return to patristic foundations. There are quite a lot of symbols of this - from translations into modern Russian of the works of the holy fathers of the first centuries of Christianity to the acts of the Local Council of 1971, which abolished the anti-Old Believer decrees of 300 years ago (in which the Greek hierarchs of that time were largely involved):

To approve the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of April 23 (10), 1929 on the abolition of the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1656 and the Great Moscow Council of 1667, which they imposed on the old Russian rituals and on the Orthodox Christians who adhere to them, and consider these oaths as not having been . The Consecrated Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church embraces with love all who sacredly preserve the ancient Russian rites, both members of our Holy Church and those who call themselves Old Believers, but who sacredly profess the saving Orthodox faith.

However, if for almost half a century only a few knew about these conciliar decisions, today they acquire particular relevance. The very logic of these actions makes it possible to reconsider many events in Russian church history, freed from the liberal-Western strata of recent centuries. And we can offer exactly the same to the entire Orthodox world, which has experienced the same Western influences, largely under the pressure of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Let us recall that in 1923, the Patriarch of Constantinople Meletios (Metaxakis), a liberal Russophobe, a Greek nationalist (and at the same time a member of the Masonic lodge) initiated the “Pan-Orthodox Congress”, which began the calendar reform. It was the liberal-renovationist reform of the church calendar in the Western style that then gave rise to a number of conservative “Old Calendarist” schisms (which include the multimillion-dollar “Orthodox Old Calendar Church of Romania”, as well as the Athonite “zealots” led by the large Svyatogorsk monastery of Esfigmen).

Alas, like any other schism, the Old Calendarists very quickly began to fragment further, but the very idea of ​​​​resistance to liberal renovationism was fair, and until this day it is supported by many clergy and laity of the Orthodox Local Churches. Among them was Archimandrite Epiphanius (Theodoropoulos), one of the most famous theologians of the Greek Orthodox Church of the second half of the 20th century, now revered in Greece as a holy elder.

Meeting of Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI in Jerusalem in January 1964. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

A consistent critic of the liberal-renovationist course of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but at the same time an opponent of extreme zealotism, a fighter for church unity, Father Epiphanius hoped to the last for the repentance of Patriarch Athenagoras (a student of the freemason patriarch Meletius, also a renovationist, a freemason and an active philocatolic, the teacher of today's patriarch Bartholomew), to whom he wrote letters filled with sincere sorrow:

You've already gone too far. Your feet touch the streams of the Rubicon. The patience of thousands of pious souls, clergy and laity, is constantly being exhausted. For the love of God, turn back! There is no need to create schisms and divisions in the Church. Trying not to notice the differences, you will achieve one thing - you will break the unity and cause cracks to appear in the soil, until now solid and monolithic. Realize this and come to your senses!

Unfortunately, in the second half of the 20th century, little was heard of Orthodox conservatives. But precisely today, when the main center of liberal renovationism - the Patriarchate of Constantinople - makes mistake after mistake, crime after crime, the Russian Orthodox Church, which has already stopped the prayerful commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew, has the opportunity to lead the conservative resistance. Yes, this requires a certain ecclesiological (church-political) courage, similar to that which in 2007 led to reunification with the Russian Church Abroad. But to demonstrate to the conservative majority of the entire Orthodox world that there is a Church that said “stop!” compromises with the modernist spirit of this century are possible and must today.

World. Human. Word.

In May 1922, a schism broke out in the Russian Orthodox Church, which was provoked by the Bolshevik government. This split was necessary for the new government to solve the problems of anti-church politics and atheistic propaganda. As a result, the Russian Church was divided into the Patriarchal Church, headed by St. Tikhon, and the Renovationist Church. For five years until 1927, renovationism was the only church organization officially recognized by the Soviet leadership. Moreover, the Renovationists achieved recognition of other Local Orthodox Churches, but at the same time they opposed the legitimate Patriarch Tikhon.

The movement itself for the “renewal” of the Russian Church arose in the spring of 1917. One of the organizers and ideologists of this movement was priest Alexander Vvedensky. In the future, he will lead the Renovationist Church with the rank of Metropolitan and become its permanent leader for the entire duration of the schism. According to the memoirs of contemporaries, he was “a bright, intelligent, somewhat eccentric person. He had a lot of the judge's speaker and operetta actor in him. He knew how to be charming and win people over, had six diplomas of higher education, quoted from memory... entire pages in different languages... But at the same time he was an extremely ambitious person...”

The renewal movement did not receive support at the Local Council of 1917–1918. Finding himself in the minority, Alexander Vvedensky wrote in his diary: “After the election of the Patriarch, one can remain in the Church only in order to destroy the patriarchate from within.” However, there was no unity among the renovationists. Their movement turned out to be a combination of very different currents. All of them were united only by the fight against the “Tikhon’s” Church.

With the coming to power of the Bolsheviks and the outbreak of the civil war, the renovationists became more active. Many small, church reform groups appeared. Each of them had its own program of church reforms, designed for a radical renewal of the Russian Orthodox Church. All of them advocated close cooperation with the Soviet state in the fight against Patriarch Tikhon, but otherwise their voices ranged from demands for a change in the liturgical rite to calls for the merger of all religions.

The philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev, summoned to the Lubyanka in 1922, recalled: “I was amazed that the corridor and reception room of the GPU were full of clergy. These were all renovationists. I had a negative attitude towards them, even with disgust, since they began their work with denunciations against the Patriarch and the Patriarchal Church. This is not how reformation is done.”

Alexander Vvedensky demanded from the arrested Patriarch Tikhon that he leave the throne and renounce power. But the saint refused. Then the Renovationist delegation reached an agreement with the Soviet government, which officially announced the establishment of a new “Higher Church Administration”, consisting entirely of schismatics. The Bolsheviks, in order to make it easier for the “new church government” to seize power, placed the patriarch in strict isolation. And by the end of 1922, the renovationists were able to occupy two-thirds of the 30 thousand churches operating at that time. Moreover, the seizure of local church power by the Renovationists was accompanied by mass arrests of the clergy and administrative exiles.

One of the bishops wrote bitterly to Saint Tikhon: “In order to seize power, the renovationists, with the help of local authorities, removed many bishops from their cathedras without trial or giving reasons and replaced them with like-minded people.” Patriarch Tikhon himself complained in a letter to the Serbian patriarch: “During our involuntary removal from church affairs, some rebellious presbyters and unworthy bishops rebelled.” The Renovationists managed, with the help of secular authorities, to convince the Patriarch of Constantinople of the legitimacy of their power. The Ecumenical Patriarch wrote an appeal to Patriarch Tikhon, in which he asked him to remove himself from the administration of the Church and to abolish the patriarchate, “as it was born in abnormal circumstances... and was a significant obstacle to the restoration of peace and unity.” Not without hesitation and pressure from Constantinople, other Eastern patriarchs temporarily recognized renovationism.

However, the majority of believers in Russia did not accept their religious and church reformism, seeing in it “a corruption of Orthodoxy,” a rejection of “the faith of their fathers and grandfathers.” Here is the opinion of the renovationist bishop himself about the moral decay of the schismatics: “There is no longer a single drunkard, not a single vulgar person who would not get into church administration and would not cover himself with a title or miter. The whole of Siberia was covered with a network of archbishops who rushed onto the episcopal sees directly from drunken sextons... The population, behind an insignificant minority, stood and stands for the integrity of the Orthodox Patriarchal Church.”

With the death of the Patriarch, the renovationists' hopes for victory over Orthodoxy increased.
However, the very first message of the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne demanded a categorical refusal to make peace with the schismatics on their terms. It became clear that renovationism was doomed. Their position was unenviable: empty churches, poor priests, surrounded by the hatred of the people. The number of churches and clergy loyal to them declined catastrophically. A modern historian, assessing the renovation movement, writes: “Renovationism as a whole turned out to be erroneous. Based on the desire for reform, the reformers tried to revolutionize the Church, at the same time stepping over the doctrinal and liturgical principles fundamental to Orthodoxy, losing contact with the believers.” The influence of renovationism was steadily declining. The final blow to the movement was the decisive support by the USSR authorities of the Patriarchal Church in September 1943. By the end of the war, only one parish remained from all the renovationism. And with the death of the renovationist Metropolitan Alexander Vvedensky in 1946, this movement completely disappeared.

New updaters - old methods

When I read the words of representatives or supporters of the “Kyiv patriarchy,” I constantly feel déjà vu: this sloganeering, propaganda phrases, categorical phrases, cheap pathos always painfully remind me of something. And this feeling has not left me for many years. For example, you come across the following note in the press: “Piketuvalniks were holding the following words in their hands: “Get the Moscow priests out of Ukraine!”, “We are committed not to Moscow Orthodoxy, but to the Ukrainian Local Church!”, “Gun to the Moscow priests.” - to the minions of the FSB! (https://www.ound.com.ua)

“Patriarch” Filaret Denisenko and “First Hierarch” Alexander Vvedensky

How similar is this to texts from another era:

“...We brand with shame all the highest hierarchs, led by Patriarch Tikhon... Long live the world revolution, which freed the workers and peasants from the yoke of capital. Long live the revival of the country of workers and peasants. Shame on all enemies of the proletarian republic!” (“What was decided by the Vladimir Provincial Congress of Clergy and Laity.” Vladimir. 1923. P. 6–7)

Or, for example, writes the ideologist of the split, Prof. D. V. Stepovik: “Onuphriya is at the plant of uniting the church. This is a classic hypocrite, Pharisee. He transformed the church of the UOC MP into the singing Sanhedrin. Their main goal is to spread rot on the Kiev Patriarchate and, of course, encourage aggression in the country.”

How does this resemble the theses of the “council” that deposed St. Tikhon:

“Patriarch Tikhon, who deliberately got involved in politics and confidently and firmly carried out his counter-revolutionary plans...”

Or his:

“The founder of corruption in Ukraine, in general, is the Church of the Moscow Patriarchate itself. The stink was encouraged” (https://glavcom.ua/articles/25474.html)

“Tikhon’s Church is the heritage, flesh of flesh, bone of the bone of the Church that existed before the revolution of 1917, the Autocratic Church, the Romanov Church.” (Vvedensky A.I. Church of Patriarch Tikhon. M., 1923. P. 10.)

This is a very important parallel. The “Philaretites” never tire of accusing the Orthodox of being politicized (just as the renovationists of the 20s accused St. Tikhon of the same thing). But at the same time, the renovationists themselves were extremely politicized, just like the “Filaretites” now. Only the former supported the Bolsheviks in every possible way, but the latter rely on extreme national radicalism. It is the forces of these groups that are now setting fire to and seizing Orthodox churches. But once upon a time, renovationists also took away churches from the Orthodox Church with the help of an external force - the Bolsheviks.

Both those schismatics and the current ones did not create anything of their own, but are parasites on the true Church. And this applies not only to the seizure of temples that they did not build. This applies to everything. And Filaret in the doll of the Moscow Patriarchs looks no less false than the renovationist “First Hierarch” Alexander Vvedensky in the vestments of Patriarch Tikhon.

And, of course, the parallel would be incomplete without the reformist itch that obsessed the schismatics of the 20-30s of the twentieth century. and current ones - beginning. XXI century.. “In our hour, the Kiev Patriarchate is most controversial from the Moscow Patriarchate in that it serves the Ukrainian language in our churches. And this is a great achievement, because it has become clear that our services flow more into the people, but they are not understood” (interview with Philaret)

“...The people go to church and want us to teach the teachings of Christ in a language they understand, and we must do this. The “Church Revival” Union gives what the people want” (Proceedings of the first All-Russian Congress or Council of the “Church Revival” Union. M. 1925. P. 25)

Of course, it's not a matter of language. In fact, in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church there are parishes where they serve in Ukrainian. But this is not a general Ukrainization that Filaret is pursuing. In a de facto bilingual country, Ukrainian is far from being a “sound language” for everyone, especially since the majority of our parishioners are not at all against the Church Slavonic language of worship. And this is very easy to check - in this case, the people vote with their feet. “Ukrainian-speaking” parishes are not overwhelmed by the influx of believers to the detriment of “Church Slavonic” parishes. Moreover, the sermon in the church is always heard in the language that the parishioners themselves prefer, be it Russian, be it Ukrainian. And sometimes it sounds in both languages ​​in the same temple. This has never been a problem for the UOC. Problems arise only where translation of the divine service is obligatory, where they want to “brush everyone with the same brush,” where they want to take away a person’s freedom - and this is precisely what distinguishes schismatics of all times. They always have narrow black and white thinking. Either this or that. If you remember Patriarch Kirill, serve in Church Slavonic, preach peace, then you are already an enemy of Ukraine.

But what really distinguishes the old renovationists from the new ones is the degree of responsibility for their actions. The Living Churchmen understood perfectly well what they were doing and did not hide. And only now can the seizures of churches be “diplomatically” called “transitions of communities,” and the systematic arson of UOC churches “the machinations of the special services.”

Of course, it is impossible to draw a complete identity between the “living church members” of different times, but one thing will remain - all schismatics end the same way. But the Church is eternal, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

The ugly ghost of the red church

Everything at this council was fraudulent. The renovationists themselves called themselves the Orthodox Russian Church - just like the original “Tikhon” church. This renovationist council was called the Second Local All-Russian, declaring the tasks of reviving the church and, as it were, continuing the actions of the Local Council of 1917–18. In fact, he directly renounced these acts and fulfilled only the demands of the authorities.

In the black fire of revolution kindled in 1917, the main force that stood in the way of the Bolsheviks was Tikhon’s Orthodox Russian Church. It was a peaceful and unarmed force, but it was she who “discovered greater stability compared to other historical bodies that quickly decomposed. “She was the only spiritual refuge,” wrote Nikolai Berdyaev in 1923. “Russian priests turned out to be at a greater height than could be expected from them based on the historical past of the Russian clergy, who were not accustomed to struggle and resistance.”

Split as a strategy of power

The Bolsheviks waged a total war against the Orthodox Church, and the main strategy of this war was discredit, and the tactics were unpunished terror, lies and forgery. Implementing this tactic, the Soviet government issued the “Decree on Freedom of Conscience,” opened holy relics, plundered church valuables, introduced hundreds of agents and provocateurs into church meetings, and initiated schisms. The Renovationist schism is not only the largest of them, but also the most successful anti-church project of the Soviet secret services, which continues to bear its evil fruit to this day.

Some of the laity, priests and bishops who had converted to Renovationism would return to the Patriarchal Church through repentance only in the middle of the summer of 1923

The beginning of the renovationist schism is considered to be May 1922, when, after the publication in Izvestia of the “Appeal to the Believing Sons of the Orthodox Church of Russia,” a renovationist body, the Supreme Church Administration (VCU), was formed. In the “Appeal” the hierarchy and Patriarch Tikhon are accused of church ruin and oblivion of the hungry and suffering. Two days before publication, on May 12, 1922, L. D. Trotsky asks J. V. Stalin to send out this text “consistently to members of the Politburo (without making copies).” And although the future head of the VCU, Metropolitan Antonin (Granovsky), for some reason did not put his signature on the appeal, not only the laity, but also priests and bishops responded to it. On June 16, 1922, the power of the renovationist VCU was recognized by Archbishops Evdokim (Meshchersky) of Nizhny Novgorod and Seraphim (Meshcheryakov) of Kostroma, as well as the future Patriarch Metropolitan of Vladimir Sergius (Stragorodsky), who published the “Memorandum of Three” in the renovationist newspaper “Living Church”. Already in the fall of 1922, two thirds of Orthodox parishes were Renovationist. Some of the laity, priests and bishops who converted to Renovationism would return to the Patriarchal Church through repentance only in the middle of the summer of 1923, after Patriarch Tikhon was released from imprisonment in the Donskoy Monastery.

Renovationism vs renewal

One of the reasons for the success of renovationism was that many aspects of Christian life in Russia had become so decrepit by the beginning of the twentieth century that they not only barely met the social needs of their contemporaries: culture, education, social structure, but could no longer satisfy the basic needs of the Orthodox Church itself. the church, its internal structure, management and main task: witness to faith and Christ.

Having become one of the foundations for the overwhelming majority, Russian Orthodoxy most of all needed renewal and clarification of its own faith, combining it with clear prayer and righteous life according to the Gospel, and not just observing customs and performing rituals. And many came to renovationism, focusing not on cooperation with the new government, but inspired by pre-revolutionary ideas of spiritual renewal, the goal of which was the restoration of the canonical conciliar system of church life. “Moreover, by the canonical system, first of all, we understood such a structure of the Church in which not only representatives of the clergy and episcopate, but also the laity could take an active and active part in church life and affairs of church administration,” says priest Ilya Solovyov, director of the Society of Church History Lovers. “But if a characteristic feature of the movement for church renewal before the revolution was the desire to free the Church from the too close “embrace of the state,” then the leadership of the renovationist schism, on the contrary, actually sought to restore a symphony with power, despite the fact that the power was clearly anti-Christian.”

Although among the participants in the renovation movement there were people who dreamed of the revival of the church, it did not and could not cope with any of the stated tasks of this revival

Although among the participants in the renovation movement there were people who dreamed of reviving the church, it did not and could not cope with any of the stated tasks of this revival, because the plans of the security officers who became the head of the renovation project did not include any renewal of church life, and they consistently destroyed all zealous ministers of the church, regardless of their jurisdictional affiliation.

Big footprint

The Renovation Council decisively decided that he had already “left a big mark on the history of the church.” What was this trail? They added capitalism to the list of mortal sins, calling the fight against it “sacred for a Christian” and recognized “in Soviet power... the world leader for brotherhood, equality and peace of nations.” Tirelessly proclaiming their loyalty and subordination to the new Caesar - the atheistic and anti-Christian government, the participants of the “Second Local” switched to Soviet newspeak: “The Council brands the international and domestic counter-revolution, condemns it with all its religious and moral authority.”

Of the internal church issues, besides the deposition of Patriarch Tikhon, the most pressing ones turned out to be the veneration of relics and the marital status of the clergy: the possibility for bishops to be not exclusively monks, but to marry and the permission of second marriages for priests. All three issues were resolved positively. The patriarch, who was under arrest, was allowed to become a layman Vasily Bellavin, bishops were allowed to marry, and priests were allowed to remarry. The question of the holiness and authenticity of the relics revealed many points of view, therefore it was decided that in order to avoid falsification, all relics should be buried. Another high-profile decision of the council of schismatic-renovationists was the excommunication of all participants in the 1921 council in Karlovtsy, which marked the beginning of the Foreign Schism of the Church.

The Council left in complete oblivion every single liturgical, doctrinal issue, and even issues of the internal organization of the church, its governance

In an effort to “deepen the revolution, to introduce it into church life,” the council left in complete oblivion every single liturgical, doctrinal issue, and even issues of the internal organization of the church and its governance. The council's bulletin on these issues, called “reformation issues,” stated that they were “for informational purposes only.” Issues of genuine revival and renewal of church life were not considered at the next council (“Third Local”) in 1925, convened after the death of Patriarch Tikhon. It was no longer attended by 8, as in the previous one, but by 90 bishops and 109 clergy! Patriarch Basil of Constantinople sent greetings to the schismatics in Moscow and was elected honorary chairman of the “Third Local Council.” The patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), declared the renovationist meeting illegal.

Successful project

It can be said that the renovation project mostly coped with its task even before 1939, when most of the priests and bishops of the patriarchal church went over to different schisms, began to collaborate with the authorities, were shot or were imprisoned in camps. Church life was almost completely forced out abroad, underground, into secret communities, and in 1943 Stalin called Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), loyal to the Soviet regime, to the patriarchal throne. Officially, Renovationism ceased to exist only after the death of one of its main leaders, Alexander Vvedensky, in the summer of 1946. Almost all of the renovationists returned to the Moscow Patriarchate. What did renovationism bring to the church space?

• The conviction that the existence of the church is possible only in alliance with the state,” says Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, head of the department of church history at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, “and with any state, on any conditions that this state offers or imposes.”
• Not only a rejection of the expected revival of various forms of church life in dioceses and parishes: divine services, spiritual education, mission, management, but also discrediting these undertakings. “The revolutionary process entered church life and there once again revealed its uncreative character,” writes Nikolai Berdyaev. “But the revolution in the Church has a more pitiful and reflected, not independent character than in the state and social life - it comes at the tail of the revolution.”
• We must add to this the schisms and enmity brought into the church by schism and schismatics. Close alliance with intelligence agencies. An unprecedented discredit in society not only of the church, but also of the Christian faith itself.

The schism is not only not healed, it has struck the very depths of church life

All of the indicated characteristics of renovationism have been preserved to this day in the Russian Orthodox Church. The schism is not only not healed, it has struck the very depths of church life, given the apparent external jurisdictional monolithic nature of the ROC MP and the obviously unattainable desire for uniformity of opinions on church and social problems and for the unification of forms of church life.

This schism can only be seen by an interested, indifferent to the fate of Christianity view, such as the confessors of the faith of Archbishop Hermogenes (Golubev), who wrote letters to the government about the lawless oppression of the Russian Church, the missionary and educator of the Soviet intelligentsia, Father Alexander Men, or Father Pavel Adelgeim, who fought against tyranny church and secular authorities for the worthy and responsible life of the parish - all those who saw in the church not a source of political power and influence, but wanted for it the light and persuasiveness of Christ's life. In the modern church, this view will distinguish between polar spiritual principles - those that gather the Church and divide it into their own opposing parties, liberal or conservative.

The spirit of discord and struggle for power is expressed either in small provocations that discredit elders in the Church, or in the creation of false media authorities - so that it is no longer possible to determine who speaks on behalf of the Church. The same spirit creates a false image of the church and Christianity, equally adapted both to the needs of the state (like the exhibition “Russia - My History”) and to the undemanding demands of the average person (the book “Unholy Saints”).

Nikolai Berdyaev believed that a religious and church revival would take place in Russia and the “ugly ghost of the Red Church” would be exorcised only “after comprehending the enormous experience experienced in it” of persecution and betrayal. So far, only a few dare to admit to collaborating with the secret services of the criminal regime. But the spirits of schism and renovationism invariably retreat where, overcoming the “hateful discord of this world,” those who yearn for what is authentic in the church, for God and neighbor, gather together, in search of not enemies, but friends.

Why the “renovationists” failed to become the official “Soviet church”

Remember how the character in “The Twelve Chairs,” Father Fyodor, scared his priest by announcing to her that he had joined the “renovationists”? Ilf and Petrov in their novel did not say a word about what kind of “renovationists” these were and why the priest was so inconsolable - after all, it was not because of the shaved beard and hair of her restless husband, in fact. And mother grieved for a reason: rumor attributed to the “renovationists” the most unbridled sinfulness and sexual promiscuity - they allegedly promoted bigamy and persuaded priests to it. Moreover, the “renovationists” were considered secret employees of the Soviet secret services and at the same time freemasons. Nevertheless, the notoriety of the new church did not prevent prominent adherents of canonical Orthodoxy, such as the former Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Vladimir Lvov, from providing it with all kinds of patronage. At the same time, Soviet leaders, from Lunacharsky to Stalin, also patronized the “renovationists.”

Polemicizing on the newspaper pages with the People's Commissar of Public Education Anatoly Lunacharsky, the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy and one of the leaders of “renovationism” Alexander Vvedensky could, for example, allow himself the following passage: “Anatoly Vasilyevich believes that man descended from a monkey. I think otherwise. Well, everyone knows his relatives better.”

The priests, having heard about the bigamist first hierarch, left the ranks of SODAC en masse, declaring it a “church of sinners.”

The passage was widely circulated by the Soviet press - in conditions when, it would seem, the priest should have been shot for such words.
They didn't shoot. Moreover, year after year in the churches where the “renovationists” served, there were more and more people praying, while the “old” church was experiencing an acute crisis of trust among parishioners. The believers were also captivated by the fact that the “renovationists” spoke to them on equal terms: the services were conducted in understandable Russian, and not in Church Slavonic, which not everyone could understand. The priests, in turn, also for the most part approved of “renovationism.” Firstly, hierarchs were allowed to have a wife, but many priests were forced to give up a church career, making a choice in favor of a family. Secondly, it was allowed not only to get married, but also to get divorced. By the way, it was the possibility of divorce that gave rise to the myth about bigamy, allegedly approved by the “renovationists.” “Renovationists” appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century

It is believed that the “renovationists” were born by the revolution. Indeed, the movement formally took shape in 1922 - six months ago the Union of Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church (SODAC) - the “renovationists” - turned 90 years old. In fact, Vvedensky and several of his associates - Archpriest of the Russian Orthodox Church Vladimir Krasnitsky, Bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church Leonid (Evgeny Skobeev) - came to the idea of ​​​​the need to renew the church 15 years before the October revolution.

“Decipher the concept of “capitalist,” Vvedensky wrote in 1911, “translate it into the gospel. This will be the rich man who, according to Christ, will not inherit eternal life. Translate the word “proletariat” into the Gospel language, and these will be those lesser, bypassed Lazars, whom the Lord came to save. And the Church must now definitely take the path of saving these neglected smaller brethren.”

Of course, the church authorities could not approve of such sermons. Before the revolution, both Vvedensky and his associates were, as they say, “overwritten.” It got to the point that Vvedensky, expelled from yet another church, had to spend the night in some city park.

Also in 1911, Vvedensky’s article “Reasons for the Unbelief of the Russian Intelligentsia” was published in the magazine “Strannik.” The basis for the mass spread of atheistic ideas, Vvedensky concludes in his article, is “the apparent discrepancy between religious dogmas and the progress of science and the deep depravity of the clergy.” Agree, it still sounds very, very relevant.

The revolution changed Vvedensky's fate, but not immediately. While remaining an archpriest of the Russian Orthodox Church, he sympathized with the new government and frankly did not understand why Patriarch Tikhon needed to create a confrontation between church and state out of the blue, and even replacing the ideological background of the confrontation with a political one. Vvedensky more than once shared his misunderstanding with his flock, and it is not surprising that the special services, the GPU Cheka, also learned about this misunderstanding. In the early 20s, Vvedensky met the secretary of the Commission for the implementation of the Decree on the separation of church and state of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) Evgeniy Tuchkov. And Tuchkov (who at the same time headed one of the departments of the GPU) gives Vvedensky advice to talk with Patriarch Tikhon in order to finally clarify for himself: is he intentionally inciting confrontation with the authorities or unintentionally? Vvedensky goes to the Trinity Compound, where Tikhon is being held under house arrest. Their heated conversation, which, according to eyewitnesses, more closely resembled a quarrel, ends with Tikhon’s renunciation. But after Vvedensky’s departure, the patriarch suddenly “sees the light” and renounces his renunciation. And Vvedensky is excommunicated from the church (although a little later the excommunication is annulled). No longer wanting to play politics with fellow clergymen, Vvedensky creates the Union of Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church and actively participates in the Second All-Russian Local Holy Council. The Local Council defrocked Patriarch Tikhon, who at that time had completely overplayed his hand in politics. The next day, the “demoted” patriarch was transported from the Trinity Metochion to the Donskoy Monastery.

On this topic

1573

Erdogan said that Cyprus will not be able to become a NATO member without Turkey's consent

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Cyprus will not be able to become a member of the North Atlantic Alliance without the consent of Turkey.

Divorce scandal seriously damaged reputation

After the removal of the patriarch, a period of dual power began in Russian Orthodoxy, but a church schism as such was avoided. “Renewals” served prayer services in some churches, representatives of the “persecuted” Moscow Patriarchate (MP) - in others, and the flock, who did not understand the vicissitudes of the confrontation between confessors, prayed in both. Perhaps this situation would have continued if not for two scandals. The first of them caused Vvedensky's remarriage in 1935. The fact is that the “first hierarch of the Orthodox churches in the USSR” (as Vvedensky’s official title sounded) had his first marriage dissolved in the civil registry office, but the Orthodox Church does not recognize such divorces. And thus, it turned out that Vvedensky was, as it were, married twice. Almost Stalin himself warned Vvedensky about the possible consequences of his careless decision to marry a second time, but neither one nor the other could imagine the real consequences.

The leader of the “renovationists” became a self-proclaimed patriarch

And the second scandal led to the fact that the “renovationists” lost the remnants of influence in the country’s leadership. For a long time there was no patriarch in Russia - after the removal of Tikhon, the Council of Bishops was not convened. In October 1941, Vvedensky, without informing the leadership of the USSR, declared himself patriarch and carried out enthronement. And it was here that everyone was indignant at the arbitrariness of the “first hierarch” - from Stalin, who at that time had no time for the infighting of confessors, to the church hierarchs of the MP. Vvedensky is sent to be evacuated to Ulyanovsk, meanwhile they are looking for candidates to fill the vacant position of patriarch - and Vvedensky is not among the applicants. In 1943, a candidate was determined: this was Metropolitan Sergius. From that moment on, the liquidation of “renovationism” began. Vvedensky is trying to “jump into the last carriage” and turns to the Moscow Patriarchate with a proposal to unite. From there comes the answer: the “first hierarch” can only be accepted by a “layman” and take the place of an employee of the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate”. The reunion did not take place, Vvedensky fell seriously ill and died.

Yes, it is possible that Alexander Vvedensky would have become the first Soviet patriarch if he had not started to act arbitrarily. Many people sympathized with him - Stalin, Academician Pavlov, and many other representatives of the USSR elite. As for Vvedensky’s influence on modern church life, it is much stronger than it might seem. For example, Archpriest Alexander Men was considered the ideological heir of Vvedensky - was there a more popular priest in the “perestroika” USSR? And today some of Vvedensky’s ideological messages evoke sympathy. Let’s say this: “Only those who work are worthy of power; you cannot go against the power of the working people.”