History of the Russian Orthodox Church, Pre-Conciliar Presence - Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov

Part 1. 1900–1917

It is necessary to dwell on two very important issues concerning the situation of this time. This, of course, is a question about the Royal Family, about its spiritual appearance; this question is important for many reasons. In this regard, I will mention the phenomenon of Rasputinism, which had a painful impact on church life and even led to the unification of the entire Duma clergy against Rasputin.

First, Emperor Nicholas II was perhaps the most religious of the Romanovs who ruled Russia in the 19th century. Nicholas I, Alexander III were people, of course, believers, churchgoers, but they did not have such ardent personal religiosity as Emperor Nicholas II. In addition, the process of raising Nicholas II was greatly influenced by Pobedonostsev, about whom we talk a lot talked. Nicholas II was brought up in the stereotypes of our synodal system. He did not, perhaps, fully understand the place of the Sovereign in church life in an Orthodox way, for he put up with the synodal system. His ideal was Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, his ancestor, perhaps one of the brightest personalities among our Sovereigns. Klyuchevsky considered him a model of an Orthodox layman in pre-Petrine Rus'.

Emperor Nicholas II's education was very unique; he attended a course of higher military and legal education. He was taught by the best professors. He spoke three languages and was knowledgeable in legal matters, but it must be said that from the very beginning he was burdened by the prospect of serving the Sovereign. His personal religiosity manifested itself very early and was supported in every possible way.

The death of his grandfather Alexander II was a severe shock for Nicholas II; he saw him dying, bloodied in the Winter Palace, and Pobedonostsev immediately, hot on his heels, as they say, instilled in him the idea that any reforms were disastrous for Russia, for the Sovereign.

Nikolai was brought up in very strict conditions. He was also afraid of his father, a truly impressive man. And the mother was quite a strong-willed woman. She was a Danish princess and raised him quite strictly. He, like all Sovereigns, was assigned to the Guard, served in a Guards regiment, led the lifestyle of an ordinary Guards officer: maneuvers, summer camps, guard duty, and, therefore, officer feasts, he paid tribute to this, because our Guards officer environment for all the, so to speak, external splendor, she was far from being so pious.

When the marriage of the Hessian princess, our future princess Elizaveta Feodorovna, was being prepared with Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich (and Elizaveta Feodorovna was considered one of the best brides of the royal houses of Europe, one of the first beauties, the heir to the German throne wooed her and was rejected by her), Tsarevich Nicholas met her younger sister Alice, with whom he fell in love. Alice was then still more of a teenager than a girl. Alexander III did not attach much importance to this then. When the future Emperor Nicholas II began to insist that he wanted to marry Princess Alice, Alexander III categorically disagreed with this, because he had other plans for his marriage, especially since it was under Alexander III that Russian politics became to acquire an increasingly anti-German character, an alliance with France emerged as a counterbalance to Germany. And here Nicholas II showed quite a lot of persistence. He was a very gentle man, very reserved, who did not like to offend anyone, and was even a little afraid of his father, but here he showed firmness. And subsequently he could often show very great firmness in some matters.

Time passed, Alice was far away, his infatuation with the ballerina Kshesinskaya began, Alexander III also turned a blind eye to this: let him be distracted, maybe he will forget Alice. Then there was his trip around the world, during which an attempt was made on his life in Japan. And yet he still had love for Alice, and, despite all the protests of his family, he declared that he would marry only her. Ultimately, consent to the marriage was given, but by this time Alexander III was getting sicker and sicker. He was treated and nursed in Crimea. At his deathbed was St. John of Kronstadt. Perhaps what is in the hands of St. Ion of Kronstadt, Alexander III died and healing did not occur, made the attitude of Emperor Nicholas II towards St. John is somewhat cool. Of course, he was very worried about the illness and the possibility of his father’s death, because completely unexpectedly for himself he found himself faced with the need to take power in Russia. He didn’t really want this and was certainly not ready for it in 1894. And the situation was aggravated by the fact that his marriage was scheduled precisely at this time, and it turned out that his bride, Alice, arrived in Russia at the moment when her father-in-law was dying. He died. Naturally, the arrival of the unloved daughter-in-law was greeted by the Dowager Empress accordingly (there had always been very bad relations between them), and it turned out that the wedding feast was preceded by a funeral. Less than forty days had passed since the death of Alexander III, when Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna were married very modestly, in the court church. And this largely predetermined the very bad relations between Alexandra Feodorovna and the Dowager Empress.

A few words about Alexandra Feodorovna herself. She belonged to the rather poor reigning House of Hessin in Germany. Their family was not very prosperous, and two sisters, Elizaveta Feodorovna and Alexandra Feodorovna, were brought up at the court of Queen Victoria, their grandmother. Her upbringing was also quite prim and strict, and, unlike Elizaveta Feodorovna, Alexandra Feodorovna was a very vulnerable person, even, one might say, somewhat neurotic. She received a very good education, had a master's degree in philosophy, that is, she was a very educated person. Both sisters were very religious, they were Lutherans, although there was one Catholic saint in their family. True, their religiosity was different. Elizaveta Feodorovna was a more restrained person, more spiritually sober, focused on serving her neighbors, which was very evident later. And Alexandra Feodorovna was prone to this kind of unbridled inner mysticism, perhaps somewhat characteristic of Germany, and she was a very addicted person. She was in love with Nicholas II, she sincerely tried to understand the country to which she should come and in which she should reign. On the eve of the marriage, she faced a very serious test: if Elizabeth Feodorovna, entering into marriage with Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, could remain a Lutheran after the wedding, then Alexandra Feodorovna, as entering into marriage with the Tsarevich, had to accept Orthodoxy on the eve of the wedding. She was probably not yet fully prepared for this; it was difficult for her to break ties with the confession in which she was raised, and for her it was also a big spiritual crisis.

Having converted to Orthodoxy, Alexandra Feodorovna comes to Russia and comes to the funeral. She was a very touchy, impressionable person, because she had a difficult adolescence. Here she found herself in very difficult conditions, but the closer she was naturally connected to her husband. He tried with his love to compensate for the troubles and experiences that she encountered at the Court from the very beginning, and therefore, already in the very first months of marriage, they felt a very deep closeness and at the same time - opposition to the world around them: the entire Romanov family, court circles. Court circles behaved differently. Someone was insincerely fawning over her. She was a very sensitive person in this regard, she understood it. Some, on the contrary, wanting to please the Dowager Empress, emphasized their neglect of the young Empress. From that moment on, she developed a trait that irritated many: she did not approach anyone in court circles, many considered her very prim, very cold, but this was simply a defensive reaction. Their relationship with Nicholas II was very good: they were one of the most perfect families in the Romanov dynasty, indeed, a small Church. And Nikolai himself, of course, lived most of all in the interests of his Family.

His vocation would, indeed, be to serve as a colonel in the guard, to be a landowner and live in a narrow family circle, in a simple estate. Nicholas II was a man of such a rather modest lifestyle. The Alexander Palace in Tsarskoe Selo, which was their favorite place to stay, is more reminiscent of a landowner's estate than a royal palace. But circumstances were such that he was forced to reign. Nicholas II wore colonel's uniform all his life. This was due to the fact that as soon as the Tsarevich became the Sovereign, he already lost the opportunity to receive the next rank, and whatever rank he found himself in at the time of his accession to the throne, he remained in that rank. Nicholas II was a man with a very great sense of duty, and he sincerely tried to take upon himself the burden of the problems of Russian state life, which were very complex. From the very beginning, he was torn by contradictions: on the one hand - Pobedonostsev, on the other hand - Witte, people diametrically opposed. Pobedonostsev was his teacher, mentor, Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, and the Emperor considered him, a person in many ways in tune with him. On the other hand, Witte was his father’s favorite, a man with whom many successes of Russian domestic and foreign policy were associated.

The marriage is preceded by the death of the father, the coronation will be followed by the Khodynka stampede. Nicholas II had nothing to do with what happened. If anyone from the reigning family was to blame for these events, it was the Moscow Governor-General, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, who did not send a sufficient number of soldiers and police to restore order on the Khodynka field, so a spontaneous gathering of people occurred with subsequent events. Characteristic episode: The Emperor is very upset about what happened, he and, in particular, the Empress see this as another bad sign, a sign that their family life will be a difficult Way of the Cross, but, not wanting to violate his duties, he, after the Khodynka events that took place early in the morning, in the evening he goes to a reception at the French Embassy. There was a ball there (this was supposed to be according to the schedule of the celebrations), he goes there not because he is indifferent to what happened, but simply because he considered it impossible to put his personal experiences on the same level as his responsibilities. But after the Khodynka events the nickname “Bloody” was assigned to the Emperor.

And then - the events of 1905: the execution on Palace Square, which was blamed on him, although he was not even informed, while in Tsarskoe Selo, about what was happening. The blame fell on specific individuals: the Minister of the Interior, the Governor-General, the mayor, and the palace commandant. But again above him is the halo of some “bloody king”.

Personal life is also very difficult. The Empress is a person, perhaps even more intelligent than Nicholas II, a good education, and a much stronger will. She rightly believes that one can understand Russia only by understanding Orthodoxy. And with the fervor of a neophyte she tries to become Orthodox. Alexandra Feodorovna feels very well a certain artificiality of court church life. Educated, secularly mannered, court clergy who behave very delicately and reservedly with the Royal Family; then the bishops, who, in general, try not to go beyond the bounds of secular decency in communicating with the Sovereign; and somewhere there are the Orthodox people with their living faith. She wants to understand this living faith of the Orthodox people and therefore strives in every possible way to get acquainted with the bearers of such folk religiosity. This is where all sorts of “elders”, wanderers, pilgrims, monks, holy fools at the Court come from. The Empress is trying to understand the faith of a completely unfamiliar, alien people. In general, she is right: Orthodoxy is the key to understanding the Russian soul. Another thing: both she and her husband misunderstand that Russia of the 20th century is not Russia of the 17th century. Orthodoxy is no longer the dominant feature of spiritual life, not only in secular circles, but often also among the masses.

The path of the Empress was not easy, because in secular circles there was either formal religiosity (serving “with legs” of compulsory services) and a rather secular life, or rather exalted mystical quests with “table turning”, using all sorts of psychics, as was typical, in particular , the wife of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, Montenegrin Princess Anastasia, through whom Philip Vasho, a classic psychic from our point of view, enters the Royal Family for some time.

It is very difficult for the Empress to seek true Orthodox religiosity for herself; she gradually comes to it, from year to year, slowly, but some, perhaps neophyte elements interfere with her. She trusts some elders, but does not trust the recognized authorities of our Church. Also, personal drama. She was a person with a very developed sense of duty. She gives birth to four girls in a row, there is no heir, doctors forbid her to give birth to another child, she is very sick. Alexandra Feodorovna earnestly prays for the gift of a son to her, as a result it comes to the point that she experiences an induced pregnancy, when signs of pregnancy appear, but in fact she has no one in her womb.

And here is the canonization of St. Seraphim. She takes this very seriously. She rightly feels in St. Seraphim, the exponent of the people's deepest religious aspirations, prays fervently, making a pilgrimage trip to glorify St. Seraphim, and, indeed, she becomes pregnant, a son is born, but she experiences a terrible shock: her son is doomed to slowly die because he is sick with hemophilia, a disease that affects only men, but which is transmitted through women. She is the culprit of her son's illness. The disease causes him constant suffering, but most importantly: he can die at any moment, and medicine is powerless here. Any bruise, any cut can be fraught with death. The doctors give up, the Empress places her trust only in God.

And then Rasputin appears. He was first introduced by Bishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) to Archimandrite Feofan (Bistrov). Arch. Feofan (Bystrov) was a somewhat naive and enthusiastic person; he perceived Rasputin as a representative of popular religiosity. He was the confessor of the Grand Duchesses, in particular, Grand Duchess Anastasia, who was married to Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Rasputin was introduced by him to the Grand Duchess. Then they presented him to the Empress. This was his way to the palace. The palace was not so closed for this kind of people. Like a minister, any petitioner could come to Stolypin and submit a petition, just as the Tsar could be available in some cases.

Rasputin knows what the Empress wants, and he appears before her as the personification of popular religiosity: a wanderer, an idealist, hoping to find the city of Kitezh for himself. He was sent to her by God from the Siberian forests in order to convey to the Empress the word of the people, which she cannot hear in her palace.

Rasputin was not an adventurer; he was, indeed, a man endowed with a special worldview and special spiritual abilities. He, indeed, alleviates the suffering of the Tsarevich, this is confirmed many times, although, of course, he does not heal him of his illness. The Empress develops a certain kind of illusion: Rasputin was sent by God, Rasputin will be nearby - the Tsarevich will live, because there will be someone nearby who can save him with his prayer. All personal family moments are gradually transferred to public life: Rasputin was sent not only to save the Tsarevich, he was sent to save the Sovereign, the state. Not the State Duma, not the state bureaucrats, but it is he, the representative of the people, who will be the prophet under the Orthodox Sovereign who will proclaim to him the will of God. The strengthening of Rasputin begins, who, of course, begins to be used by all sorts of people, both secular and spiritual, trying to make a career for themselves with the help of his intercession.

There are many dubious stories emerging. The Emperor knows from repeated reports from the police department that Rasputin behaves outside the Tsar's house like a libertine and a drunkard. The Emperor is very distressed by what is happening, but sees that Rasputin’s presence is very important for the Empress. He makes several attempts to remove Rasputin, but each time he yields to the insistence of the Empress. He tries not to follow the advice of Rasputin in everything, who now begins to advise him on who to appoint as which minister, to which department to appoint a bishop, and guides people, sometimes obviously doubtful. And the Empress begins to perceive all those who denounce Rasputin as personal enemies. Rasputin is denounced by Stolypin and becomes the personal enemy of the Empress, especially since Stolypin is the protege of Empress Maria Feodorovna; She patronizes him, so his resignation is a foregone conclusion. Rasputin is denounced by Bishop Ermogen (Dolganov), who was once his friend - he is sent to rest at the insistence of the Empress. Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany) denounces Rasputin - in 1915 he was sent to Kyiv from St. Petersburg. Elizaveta Feodorovna denounces Rasputin - the Empress banishes her to Moscow in 1915, and they never met again in this world. The Empress enters into conflicts, often with worthy people, obsessed with this trust in Rasputin.

The Emperor endures this like grief, he constantly emphasizes that Rasputin is a personal matter for his Family, that there is no need to attach any importance to it at all. And in moments of frankness he says that one old man is better than a hundred hysterics of the Empress. The opposition public in every possible way exaggerates this connection between Rasputin and the Royal Family. Gossip begins that Rasputin is Alexandra Feodorovna’s lover, which, of course, is absurd. Gradually, Rasputin begins to be portrayed as a man who is a tool of some dark forces, even the German General Staff during the war. And the Empress herself is allegedly a German spy. This deliberate lie is put forward by the opponents of the Sovereign, who want to undermine the statehood at any cost, not to improve it, but rather to destroy it.

And at this time, the bishops demand the convening of the Local Council, the patriarchate. Nicholas II makes concessions with heartache that are internally alien to him, he creates the State Duma, never tries to abolish it in the future, but does not want to weaken the autocratic monarchy, because for him this is a violation of the will of his father, trampling on the centuries-old foundations of Russian statehood . He lives, all woven from internal contradictions. So 1917 is gradually approaching. There are fewer and fewer worthy people around him, both among ministers and among those close to him, even among his retinue. This will manifest itself very well at the time of the February Revolution, when most of the retinue leaves the Royal Family in the Alexander Palace, when the Emperor and his Family are arrested. But we will talk about the circumstances of his abdication later.

Questions of historiography of the Russian Church of the 20th century

After the revolution, when the Church was persecuted, it was very difficult to engage in historical research into the events that took place. In our country, almost all of the educated clergy were simply physically eliminated. Naturally, access to archival sources for our church historians was also closed. Therefore, the first attempts to collect some information about the events of Russian church history of the 20th century, especially after 1917, began primarily in emigration, abroad. This was a very difficult task, because most of the sources were closed to emigrant historians.

One of these first books was Valentinov’s book “The Black Book or Storming the Heavens. Collection of documentary information about the struggle of Soviet power against religion", Paris, 1925. Here, as the name implies, documentary information was collected about how the Soviet government fought against religion, primarily, of course, against the Russian Orthodox Church. Naturally, the history of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century is the history of state persecution of the Church in various forms, which continued until 1989. This was the first book.

In Russia, in 1923, Gidulyanov’s book “Church and State under the Legislation of the RSFSR” was published, but it was a Soviet publication, which did not include many by-laws, which in fact regulated the repressive policy of the state. This publication, like any Soviet book, was deceitful. The 20-30s were a time when serious works, with at least some primary information about the situation in the Russian Orthodox Church, did not appear abroad. There were only isolated publications in newspapers and magazines, nothing more.

The first serious book that in the West summarized information collected abroad and, partly, here, about the situation of our Church in the 20s and 30s, was the famous book by Protopresbyter Mikhail Polsky “New Russian Martyrs”, 2 volumes, the first was published in Jordanville in 1949, the second - in the same place, in 1957. The author of this book was a diocesan missionary in Russia, lived here in the 20s, was an eyewitness to many events, then was arrested, was in a camp, in exile, he managed to escape not only from prison, but even from Russia across the Persian border. Once in the Middle East, he entered the jurisdiction of the Karlovac Church, became a clergyman there, and what he was able to take with him, what he was able to collect abroad over several years, he tried to publish in this two-volume work. This book is the first collection of documents, or rather, information, mainly gleaned from publications and from oral testimony about what was happening in Russia. The descriptions of events during the Civil War and the early 1920s are especially interesting, but the book contains many factual errors, especially when it comes to the 1930s; and this is natural, because he received information through third, tenth hands. But this book is certainly important. Then, in the 1950s, the importance of such work was difficult to overestimate.

To finish the conversation about serious books published abroad in those years, it is necessary to mention the multi-volume study of Archbishop Nikon (Rklitsky), “The Biography of His Beatitude Anthony, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia,” which became the official Karlovac version of Russian church history of the 20th century. This book, which was published over many years, is not only a biography of Metropolitan Anthony, it represents a version of Russian church history of the 20th century truly recognized at the top of the Church Abroad: both the pre-revolutionary period, and the post-revolutionary period, and the period when the Russian Church Abroad was already outside of Russia. The book is valuable because it contains many documents, and because it contains documents from the Karlovac Synod. Unfortunately, with the exception of this book on the relationship between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Church Abroad, we no longer have books that would contain the decrees of the Karlovac Synod on issues of higher church governance. Of course, it gives a very tendentious point of view on the development of church life, which, of course, we all need to know, for this is the position of a very important part of our Church. The chronology is brought there until the death of Metropolitan Anthony, until the mid-30s.

The main research work had to be carried out in Russia, and, of course, it could only be carried out in Soviet times underground. And so it was. Here we should name a direct participant in many important events in our church history of the 20th century, the confessor of our Church, Metropolitan Manuel. Throughout his entire archpastoral activity, he was involved in compiling the “Dictionary of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church,” and although there were cases when his archive was confiscated during numerous arrests, he, despite this, continued his work, and in the 60s in the “samizdat » version, his “Dictionary of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church” was distributed in six volumes. In this form it is in the library of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. But after some time, in the 70s, his corrected dictionary, with some errors corrected, was published in Germany. And this publication is also in the library of St. Petersburg. The bishops were located in this dictionary in alphabetical order, and contained information about their lives and activities, about their theological works. Of course, this was, in a sense, censored creativity, so in some cases Metropolitan Manuel had to speak in “Aesopian” language about events in the lives of bishops (about arrests, about exiles). But in some articles he directly calls a spade a spade. In addition, Metropolitan Manuel compiled a dictionary of renovationist bishops. This book is not a historical study itself, but a collection of information, a book that only provides material for future historical research. Of course, Metropolitan Manuel did not have access to the state archives, because materials relating to church life were classified in the state archives, and church researchers did not have access there, but he had access to the personal archives of various church figures, and it must be said that personal archives at this time become the main repositories of information about our church life; in addition, he knew many people, he knew very well our oral church tradition, which recorded the events of church life, and he himself was a person involved in this life. By the way, the authorities were also aware of the importance of personal archives, so they were confiscated. Of course, they were always confiscated when clergy were arrested. The following cases also occurred: a clergyman died, say, in the 50s, the corresponding comrades came to his home and removed from his archive letters, diaries, materials that, from their point of view, could provide information about the church that was objectionable to the authorities. life.

Thus, it was very difficult for church researchers to carry out their work, because they were isolated from state archives, and the authorities tried to lay their hands on personal archives.

But the work continued. It was dealt with by those who worked in contact with Metropolitan Manuel. In the 50s and 60s, another group of researchers collected materials. However, first I will mention another collector of materials on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church - M.E. Gubonin, whose main work was a collection of materials: “Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the highest church authority. 1917–1943." This, along with the archive of Metropolitan Manuel, is one of the most complete collections of materials on our church history of the 20th century. M.E. Gubonin was a provincial intellectual near Moscow and all his life he was a deeply ecclesiastical man, serving as a subdeacon in his youth with one of the bishops. He collected materials, did work for which he could pay with both freedom and prosperity, and collected an amazing archive. Archive of Metropolitan Manuel and archive of M.E. Gubonin were used by researchers of Russian church history as basic materials.

Several groups of researchers have worked with these materials. The result of the activities of one of these church-dissident research groups was the book by Anatoly Levitin and Vladimir Shavrov, “Essays on the history of the Russian church unrest of the 20-30s of the XX century.” In their work, these researchers relied both on the Gubonin archive and on the archive of Metropolitan Manuel. This book gives a detailed history of Russian church life of this period, but the emphasis is placed on the study of the renovationist movement, especially since Levitin was at one time a subdeacon with the renovationist “Metropolitan” Alexander Vvedensky and knew from the primary source what was happening in the renovationist environment. This, of course, led to the fact that in this book, although Levitin later moved away from renovationism and returned to the Orthodox Church, there is a certain amount of sympathy for church modernism in general. Shavrov, on the other hand, took a different position, and in some cases the difference in the positions of these two authors is manifested in the book itself, where Levitin’s opinion and Shavrov’s opinion are given in their assessments of a particular event. The book contains Renovationist and Orthodox documents from this period of time, and, of course, this book is extremely important. It was published, like the “Dictionary” of Metropolitan Manuel, in Germany in the 70s.

Another group of researchers (Shavrov also belonged to it) worked on writing a general work on Russian church history of the 20th century. The result of this work was the book by Lev Regilson “The Tragedy of the Russian Church. 1917–1945”, first published in Paris, and then repeatedly republished here. A whole team of authors worked on the book, who paid for this book with their freedom. The introduction to this book is not uncontroversial. This detailed introduction examines the question of the canonicity of Russian church authorities in the 20s and 30s. It was written from an anti-Sergian position. But the most valuable thing in this book is the chronicle, which is given at the end and makes up the bulk of the book. The chronicle lists all important church events by date, citing church documents. This book focuses exclusively on events in Orthodox church life, although it also mentions the Renovationists.

Next we should mention the work of the ever-memorable Metropolitan John (Snychev), very interesting due to the circumstances of its appearance, “Church Schisms in the Russian Church of the 20-30s of the XX Century.” It has now been reprinted, and in 1965 it first appeared in typewritten form as his master's thesis. The Bishop there cites numerous materials from the archives of Metropolitan Manuel, and this book contains a lot of information, in some ways even supplementing Regelson’s book, about those trends in our church life that opposed Metropolitan Sergius from traditionalist positions: “Josephites”, “those who do not remember” .

Regelson has written a lot about this, but as for the “Josephites”, the oppositionists of Metropolitan Sergius in Petrograd, there is a lot of new information in the bishop’s book. And it is interesting because it was published legally as a master’s thesis. Of course, it is better to say that it appeared semi-legally, because access for church researchers even to the library of St. Petersburg was very limited, and this work was read by government officials, but, be that as it may, the Bishop managed, by publishing the documents of the “Josephites,” to give a very clear a description of those who criticized Metropolitan Sergius, and therefore, in a sense, criticized those who continued his line in subsequent years. One may wonder how this dissertation passed at the Theological Academy at that time.

It is necessary to mention one more book - “The Russian Orthodox Church in Soviet times.” The two volumes of this book contain documents about Russian church life, starting with the main definitions of the Local Council of 1917, ending with current publications of the 90s. Everything is collected here: the resolutions of all the Councils that were in the Russian Church during this period, say, the Council of 1945. His decisions are now a bibliographic rarity. Also the Council of 1971, 1988, state decrees. The first volume of this book, of course, is largely overlapped by Gubonin’s collection “Acts of Higher Church Authority,” although there is something there that Gubonin does not have, but Gubonin brings it to a certain chronological period, and the second volume of this book examines the period from the second half of the 40s. x years. All these researchers worked from personal archives, from samizdat memoirs; they did not have the opportunity to penetrate state archives.

To finish the conversation about research literature, I will name two more manuals on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. This is a famous book about. Vladislav Tsypin and the book by D.V. Pospelovsky “The Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century.” These books cannot be called flawless in many respects: both from the point of view of source studies and from the point of view of conceptual provisions. Each is good and bad in its own way.

From the memoir literature, the book of Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky) “The Path of My Life” is interesting. This is perhaps the best memoir that exists, although I think a time is coming when many more memoirs will be published.

It should be noted the very interesting, but little accessible memoirs of Protopresbyter Georgy Shavelsky “Memoirs of the last Protopresbyter of the Russian Army and Navy” in two volumes. In many ways, very controversial memories, but there is a lot of information there.

In the “Materials on the History of the Church” series, another volume has been published in which the memoirs of Protopresbyter Vasily Zenkovsky, a famous theologian, historian and philosopher, have been published: “Five months in power.” He describes the period of his life when he was the Minister of Confessions in the government of Hetman Skoropadsky. They, too, are interesting in their own way, although they consider a local episode of our church history.

Very interesting books were published in the same series: the Minister of Confessions in the provisional government A.V. Kartashov “The Provisional Government and the Russian Church”, Stratonov “Russian Church Troubles” and Metropolitan Eleutherius “Week in the Patriarchate”.

Smolich I.K. Pre-conciliar presence in 1906. Magazine "Path" No. 38

(To the 25th anniversary of the attempt at church reform in Russia).

__________

Peter's church reform on January 25, 1721 - the drawing up of the Spiritual Regulations and the establishment of the Spiritual College, transformed into the Holy Synod - radically changed the structure of the Russian Church. The Regulations established a new relationship between the Church and the Supreme Power, recognizing as a normal position governmental guardianship over church affairs and the right to intervene in them. Of course, even under the Moscow tsars, secular power often interfered in church affairs, but these invasions were not considered a permanent normal phenomenon; Moreover, this was seen as a defense of the church (though this was not always the case), and the psychology of relations with the Russian Church before Peter and after him among the supreme authorities was not only different, but directly opposite. The Church itself, from an honorable position in Muscovite Rus', was relegated by Peter to the position of other state institutions. Already during the life of Peter himself, this abnormality was recognized by many and caused protests, but the harsh hand of the emperor suppressed them, although he could not extinguish them completely. Throughout the synodal period, there was a negative attitude towards reform, both among part of the hierarchy and among church society, not having the power to influence a change in the synodal system or create at least favorable conditions for this (*), while the need for reform in the present day

____________________

*) Unfortunately, we cannot dwell here in detail on the consideration of this criticism during the synodal period in the history of the Russian Church. On this issue, see Verkhovsky’s book, The Establishment of the Spiritual College and the Spiritual Regulations of the R-D, 1916, 2 vols.

in the early 900s was so clear that, oddly enough, the secular government itself took the initiative in this matter.

The social movement of the early 900s was partly the impetus here. The highest decree of December 12, 1904 “on plans for improving the state order” was the first assurance from the government about a possible change in political and social relations in Russia. The consequence of this decree was the formation of a Special Meeting chaired by S.Yu. Witte, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers. The meeting, having begun to consider the existing legal order, could not, of course, fail to touch upon the question of the position of the Russian Church, especially since some changes were planned in the area of religious relations. The consequence of which later was the well-known decree of April 17, 1905 “on religious tolerance.” The decree provided benefits and freedoms to the Old Believers, heterodox and other faiths, which could not but affect the position of the dominant Orthodox Church.

Even before the decree “on religious tolerance”, soon after the formation of the Special Meeting, Witte, foreseeing possible reforms, bypassing K.P. Pobedonostsev, the powerful chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, entered into relations with Metropolitan Anthony of St. Petersburg on the question of what changes in the church system might be necessary or desirable. Already in February 1905, Metropolitan. Anthony instructed the professors of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy to compile a list of “questions” “about desirable changes in the organization of our church system.” In these questions, submitted on behalf of Metropolitan. Anthony, expressed very carefully, “whether the Orthodox Church should not be given more freedom in managing its internal affairs” and freed “from a direct state-political mission.” Further in the “Questions” it was asked whether it was necessary to begin “revising the church system” and “convene a meeting of hierarchs, clergy, knowledgeable persons and laity.” Upon careful reading of the “questions” of Met. Anthony cannot help but notice the indirect condemnation of the existing synodal system, especially since even a vague mention was made of the patriarchate.

Witte found, however, that the “questions” did not sufficiently illuminate the situation of the Russian Church and submitted on his own behalf in the month of February to the Conference a note “On the current situation of the Orthodox Church.” In this note, written apparently by a knowledgeable person, to the fore

the “non-canonical nature of Peter’s church reform” was put forward. At the same time, they pointed to the “conciliar principle as a distinctive feature of ancient Orthodoxy” and the desirability of “conciliar government” with the patriarch at its head. The author of the note noted that modern church administration has a “closed clerical character” and “the secular bureaucratic element stands as a constant barrier between the Church and the people, the Church and the Sovereign.” The note fired many arrows towards “secular” management, i.e. chief prosecutor. Last, K.P. Pobedonostsev, submitted on March 12 a response to Witte’s note - “Considerations on the issues of desirable transformations in the organization of our Orthodox Church.” Pobedonostsev's answer did not introduce anything new and in general terms polemicized with Witte's note. More energetically, Pobedonostsev denied the need to restore the patriarchate. During the latter period, according to Pobedonostsev, there were only “negative aspects” in the structure of the Russian Church and everything was imbued with the “mortality of ritual formalism.” The patriarchate itself was approved only for political reasons. Petrine reform replaced it with a permanent “conciliar” government, which Pobedonostsev considered the synodal system to be. The Chief Prosecutor further emphasized that in his prosecutor’s office more than once there were councils of “the local Church in Kazan, Irkutsk and Kyiv,” meaning here diocesan congresses of an expanded nature. As for the 19th century in general, Pobedonostsev found it difficult to talk “about the restrictions on the highest church administration and the activities of the clergy by the State authorities.” Such were the views of this influential official of the Russian church, who firmly believed in his system of “managing” the affairs of the church.

Witte was not slow to submit a counter-note in response, and it seemed that a controversy was about to flare up in the depths of the Conference itself. However, Pobedonostsev hastened to use the influence that had not yet ceased, and already on March 12, the day he submitted the note, the highest order was issued to “remove the issue from the Conference and submit it for consideration to the Holy Synod.” Pobedonostsev apparently cherished the hope that the Synod, where his imperious image hovered, would shelve the whole matter. But his hopes were not justified, for the Synod, after three meetings, on March 15, 18 and 22, presented a most comprehensive report, which spoke of the need to “reconsider the State position of the Orthodox Church.” As the proposals put forward in the report-

eos: 1) in addition to the permanent members of the Synod, summon other hierarchs of the Russian Church in turn to the latter and head the Synod “of honor for the sake of the Russian State” by the patriarch “with all the canonical powers of the regional metropolitan”; 2) convene a Local Council of “all diocesan bishops of the Orthodox Russian Church.” This council would have to deal with all urgent church matters and elect a patriarch.

To the said report, the Synod added an address addressed to the Sovereign, which stated that the urgent need of the Russian Church lies in the restoration of “the conciliar principle, now no longer in effect.” The report and address with the addition of the icon were presented to Emperor Nicholas II by a delegation represented by Metropolitan Anthony of St. Petersburg, Vladimir of Moscow and Flavian of Kyiv. The Synod report understood the “conciliar” principle in a rather unique way, if it believed that only diocesan bishops should take part in a local council; the question of restoring the patriarchate was understood not as an organic reform, but rather as a pompous completion of the synodal bureaucratic mechanism, which, of course, would operate in the old way. It should be noted that the report did not touch at all on the important issue of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office and its relationship to the Local Council and the Patriarch.

On March 31, 1905, the highest resolution followed, which, while agreeing in principle with the provisions of the report, recognized, however, the need to postpone the convening of the Local Council due to the “troubled times” being experienced.

It seemed that such an important issue was buried, if not forever, then at least for quite a long time. But, it should be noted that in the Synod itself the “conciliar” sentiments did not die out, since on June 27 of this year. A request was sent to all diocesan bishops asking for their opinion on the desired changes. This request stirred up local church life, penetrating the clergy and church society, but it met with different attitudes. The bishop's reviews, which amounted to three extensive volumes, provide interesting material about the views of the Russian episcopate. It should be noted that the episcopate treated the request with great attention and its response was unanimous in recognizing the need for church reform in Russia. Some bishops even convened special meetings from the local clergy, for example. in Yaroslavl, Riga, and discussed in detail the issues raised by the synod; there were also those like the Bishop of Omsk, who forbade

willing to discuss requests, and persecuted those who disobeyed. Only the bishop of Turkestan reacted negatively to the restoration of the patriarchate, while the rest recognized this as necessary in the interests of the Russian Church.

The Moscow clergy became especially interested in the reform, although they did not receive much support from the local metropolitan. In the “Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment,” which was vegetating in idleness, a lively discussion of the proposed reforms began; reports were made to clarify issues of concern in historical and canonical terms. In the fall of 1905, when the October 17 party was formed, the latter even created a “Commission on Church and Religious Issues”; the latter's meetings were not of a party nature and soon became the center of discussion of church reform. In 1905-06, our church historical magazines were filled with many articles on exciting issues, providing the reader with rich material and covering controversial issues of church history and canon law. A number of brochures appeared and one of them, “On the Council” by Lev Tikhomirov, was presented to Tsarskoe Selo. Perhaps she paid attention, and on December 17, Metropolitans Anthony, Vladimir and Flavian were summoned to Tsarskoye Selo “to directly teach them the royal instructions for the upcoming convening of the Local Council of the All-Russian Church,” as stated in the Church Gazette, and on December 27, Metropolitan Anthony received the highest rescript, inviting the three highest hierarchs to determine the time to convene a meeting to discuss the desired reforms. On January 14, 1906, the Holy Synod decided to establish a special presence under the chairmanship of Metropolitan. Antonia. The Synodal resolution received the highest approval on January 16, and so the “Highest Approved Pre-Conciliar Presence of 1906” arose, which began its work on March 8 and ended on December 15, 1906, and left us with four volumes of “Journals and Protocols” (St. Petersburg. 1906-07) ).

***

In the Pre-Conciliar Presence, according to the highest approved definition of the Holy Synod, the following took part: Chairman - Met. Anthony; members: Metropolitan Vladimir Moskovsky, Metropolitan. Flavian of Kiev, archbishops: Dmitry of Kherson, Nikanor of Lithuania, Jacob of Yaroslavl, Sergius of Finland; bishops: Anthony of Volyn (in the same year he was elevated to

consecrated to the rank of archbishop), Arseny of Pskov, Stefan of Mogilev; The Chief Prosecutor and his Comrade were also given participation in the Presence. Further, a number of people were invited to join it - professors, historians and canonists, some of them from the white clergy. In addition, according to the report of Metropolitan Anthony, the following were invited to the Presence: Gen. A. Kireev, Prince E.N. Trubetskoy, D. Samarin, D. Khomyakov, N. Aksakov, A. Papkov, known for their “commitment to the Orthodox Church” and who can bring “significant benefit”, hereinafter Lev Tikhomirov, approx. believe N. Kuznetsov, who later played a large role in the Pre-Conciliar Presence, as an opponent of the patriarchate, and several other professors and members of the white clergy from the provinces, closely familiar with the needs of church and parish life.

The activities of the Pre-Conciliar Presence were divided into seven departments. The first one is prev. arch. Dmitry - about the composition of the local council, the procedure for considering and deciding matters at the council, about the transformation of the central church administration; second - pres. arch. Nikanor - about the division of Russia into metropolitan districts and the transformation of local church government; third - pres. arch. Jacob - on the organization of the church court and the revision of marriage laws; fourth - pres. Ep. Stefan - about the improvement of parish life, and about the church school and social activities of the clergy; fifth - pres. Ep. Arseny - about religious educational institutions and their transformation; sixth - pres. arch. Anthony - on matters of faith: about common faith, Old Believers, etc.; seventh - pres. arch. Sergius - about measures to protect the Orthodox faith and Christian piety from incorrect teachings and interpretations in order to strengthen the principles of religious tolerance in Russia. Questions from departments had to come to the final discussion of the general presence. However, by decree of the Holy Synod of October 25, 1906, it was prescribed that questions regarding departments one, five and six should be submitted directly to the discussion of the Holy Synod, which greatly diminished the fruitfulness of the work.

Before moving on to consider the work of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, it should be noted that, having done a lot of work on church reform, the Presence was unable to bring it to a good end. Its activities were stopped halfway, and the supreme authorities considered it premature to convene a Local Council and carry out church reform. The grounds were found in the tense public mood and revolutionary movement of those years.

The convening of the State Duma and, in general, events of a state-political nature captured public attention, and church interests faded into the background. The structure of the Russian Church remained unchanged until in 1917 the question of church reform arose again in the face of the hierarchy, clergy and church society.

In this article we focus our attention on the work of the first department of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, which is engaged in resolving the most important issues of the proposed reform: the convening of the Local Council and the restoration of the patriarchate.

When the first department of the Pre-Conciliar Presence began its studies, preparing the main provisions of church reform, it should have immediately encountered a very significant question about church canons, i.e., about their “bindingness” in relation to issues of a non-dogmatic nature. It has emerged for understanding the concept of “obligation”: one, so to speak, considers the canons to be unconditional and the other to be not unconditional. Representatives of the second point of view, mainly secular canonists and church historians, pointed out that the church-historical situation at the time of the adoption of the canons and the present day differs greatly; In addition, the canons were established partly casually, and much that the Church now has to deal with could not have been foreseen then, at the time of their establishment. The unconditionality of the canons, based on Rule 2 of the VI Ecumenical Council, was defended in his “Review” on the reform by Arch. Anthony Volynsky and his point of view also found supporters among the Presence. Without speaking decisively on this issue, the Pre-Conciliar Presence for the most part took the point of view of the immutability of the canons, which in general affected the project of church reform. This mood was especially important for the question of the composition of the Local Council. It was necessary to decide who should and has the right to be a member of it other than the episcopate. The point of view of the Holy Synod, known to us, expressed by it in a report submitted to Imp. Nicholas II, where it was proposed to convene a Local Council only from diocesan bishops, of course, did not stand up to any criticism, since all bishops, by virtue of the canons of the Orthodox Church, are recognized as members of the Local Council. Thus, the Pre-Conciliar Presence had no desire to take the synod's point of view. For the Pre-Conciliar Presence, the participation of the entire episcopate (with equal rights), however, also seemed not entirely acceptable. The question was raised

Should ruling (diocesan) and non-ruling bishops have equal rights at the council? In the end, the Presence decided that the ruling bishops or their deputies were present at the Council with the right to vote, while the rest took part with the right to vote only at the special invitation of the Holy Synod. It is interesting to note that this point of view was especially defended by the diocesan bishops themselves, who apparently did not want to let go of the right to “bind and loose.”

The question of the participation of clergy and laity caused very heated debate in the Presence. The clergy themselves and church society were very interested in him. The above-mentioned meetings of the “October 17 Commission” devoted their attention to him. Among the episcopate participating in the Pre-Conciliar Presence, there was a very strong tendency to exclude, in whole or in part, clergy and laity from the work of the Local Council. There are three points of view. One is categorical, demanding that clergy and laity not be admitted into the Council at all; she was represented by the architect. Anthony of Volyn and Bishop. Lavrenty of Tula (last in the response to the “Request” of the Holy Synod). Another point of view defended by Arch. Sergius of Finland in his articles and “review”, considered it possible to provide only an advisory voice to the clergy and laity, which in the end, leaving the final decision to the episcopate, was practically little different from the previous one. Both of these points of view were based on the letter of the canons and the testimony of church historians, which speaks of the decisive importance of the voice of the episcopate. The third point of view, guided by church practice in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as well as the authority of the Apostolic Council, pointed to the need to involve both the clergy and laity in the work in the Local Council with the right to a decisive vote. Its supporters were the white clergy and representatives of church society. N.D. especially defended this point of view. Kuznetsov in his numerous speeches and dissenting opinions. Most canonists and professors supported the same point of view. Bishop also treated her sympathetically. Hermogenes of Saratov, a former supporter also of the admission of clergy and laity to the Holy Synod. It is absolutely clear that the third group, when discussing the issue of organizing a reformed synod, considered it obligatory to include representatives from the clergy and laity into its composition. The first department, by a majority vote, recognized only the right of an advisory vote for the clergy and laity, with which the general Presence agreed and approved it. No less heated debates arose over

the question of the procedure for the representation and selection of local members of the Local Council from the clergy and laity. The Pre-Conciliar Presence recognized the order of single-degree elections, reserving the right of approval to the diocesan bishop, but with the highest approval of the regulations on the composition of the Local Council, they were replaced by two-degree elections for the clergy (and only priests can be elected), and three-degree ones for the laity.

Here we focus our attention only on issues of a fundamental nature, without going into consideration of certain purely technical aspects of the internal regulations of the Local Council.

The question of whether the meetings of the Council should be open or closed was also significant. Guided by the practice of ecumenical councils, it was recognized that the meetings were open and accessible to the public. The presidency of the Council was recognized by the first-present member of the Holy Synod, and the ancient capital of Russia, Moscow, was chosen as the site of the Council.

Now we must turn to consideration of the second important and fundamental issue of the transformation of the highest church government. According to the apostolic rules and decrees of the ecumenical and local councils of the ancient church, the highest authority in the local church belongs to the Local Council, convened at least once a year. For purely geographical and social reasons, it was extremely difficult to apply this canonical provision to Russia. The presence recognized that the Local Council of the All-Russian Church should be convened no less than once every ten years. This Local Council is the highest authority and has full judicial, administrative and legislative power in the Russian Church. During the interval between convenings of the Councils, its active and authorized body is the Holy Synod. The presence recognized that the Synod should consist only of 12 bishops and a chairman; the latter is permanent, and the bishops are one third permanent, the rest rotating.

Who should be the primate of the Russian Church in its everyday life? This is how a patriarch should be. The question of the patriarchate met with the sympathetic attitude of the Russian episcopate. Looking through the reviews of diocesan bishops, we see only one negative answer on this issue, which belonged to Bishop. Turkestan. The main supporter of the restoration of the patriarchate was

arch. Anthony of Volyn, proving the need for this even before the convening of the Local Council. We find a less sympathetic attitude among secular theologians, canonists and representatives of the clergy. We must not forget that this was a time when the ideas of a representative system were too popular among society. State autocracy met with a negative attitude. The restoration of the sole power of the patriarch, even if controlled by periodic local councils, frightened many. Arguments were even given, albeit unfounded ones, that the patriarchate contradicts the idea of conciliarity. The same intelligentsia that was indignant at the orders of the synodal period now strived for “conciliarity” of government, approaching it from a secular, politicking point of view. The main representative of the anti-patriarchal side was N.D. Kuznetsov, attorney at law of the Moscow Trial Chamber, who played a large role in the Pre-Conciliar Presence.

It should be noted that among supporters of the restoration of the patriarchate, the latter was understood differently. So arch. Anthony stood for the point of view of more unlimited power of the patriarch, while others (for example, Prof. Zaozersky, Prof. Ostroumov, etc.) recognized his complete subordination to periodically convened local councils, on behalf of which the patriarch governs and represents the church. The Pre-Conciliar Presence leaned towards the second point of view. Also difficult was the question of the relationship between the primate of the Russian Church and the Supreme Authority. Under the autocratic system, these relations were clearer and were understood as direct. Meanwhile, in 1906, the Supreme Power had to act with the help of the State Council and the State Duma. It was hardly convenient for the Patriarch to communicate through the latter with the Supreme Power, both practically and from the point of view of the dignity of the Orthodox Church. The Pre-Conciliar Presence, after discussion, formulated these relations as follows: “The Orthodox Church in its internal affairs is governed freely by its institutions.” For the basic laws of the Russian Empire, the following version of Article 65 was proposed: “In relation to the Orthodox Church, the Autocratic Power acts in accordance with the All-Russian Church Council recognized by it, the permanent Holy Synod and the Primate of the Orthodox Russian Church - the Patriarch.” It should be noted that these important issues were not clarified in detail at the Pre-Conciliar Presence and the Local Council had to do difficult work,

important work to clarify the important issue of the relationship between Church and State in Russia. The question of the functions of the Holy Synod was also unclear: they, too, had to be determined by the Local Council.

The work of the Pre-Conciliar Presence was in full swing when, by decree of the Holy Synod, it was asked to complete it on December 15, 1906 and to leave further development of materials for the Council to the Holy Synod itself. The latter, at the beginning of 1907, submitted the proposals of the Pre-Conciliar Presence for the Highest approval, which, having approved the “acts” of the Presence on April 25, albeit with some changes, recognized the convening of the Local Council as untimely due to the “troubled times.”

Ten years passed, devoted by both the government and society to the resolution of other state and social problems - church reform was rarely and mutely spoken of, until, in an even more alarming time, in 1917, the Russian Church itself began to heal its system. The All-Russian Council of 1917 was, however, forced, due to changed circumstances, to carry out all the preparatory work anew, but historically it is certainly closely connected with the history of the Pre-Conciliar Presence (*).

I. Smolich.

Berlin.

December 1931.

_____________________

*) Materials: Journals and Protocols of the Pre-Conciliar Presence. 4 vols. St. Petersburg, 1906-07. A.R. Historical correspondence about the fate of the Orthodox Church. Moscow 1912. N.D. Kuznetsov, On issues of Church reforms. Moscow 1906. Proceedings of the Moscow Commission on Church Issues. TI Moscow 1906.

Literature: Verkhovsky, Establishment of the Spiritual College and Spiritual Regulations. Rn. D 1916. T. I-II. Ognev, Church Cathedral, Moscow 1905. Suetov. About the Highest approved. at the Holy Synod with a special Presence to develop issues to be considered by the All-Russian Council. Yuriev 1912. In addition, a lot of data to illuminate the need for reform is provided by articles by various authors in the Theological Bulletin and other church history. magazines for 1905-1906.

Diocesan reforms

Chapter 3

Beginning of the pre-conciliar period and discussions

We will not cover in detail the historical background and chronology of the notes that initiated the reform of the pre-conciliar works and discussions, since this issue is exhaustively discussed in the work of S. L. Firsov, published earlier in this series, dedicated to the All-Russian Church Council of 1917–1918[182]. Let us recall that the question of the position of the Orthodox Church was raised at the beginning of 1905 at a Special Meeting of Ministers and Chairmen of Departments of the State Council, chaired by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Justice. Witte when discussing the issue of introducing religious tolerance. In connection with this issue, Witte apparently proposed to the first present member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga Anthony (Vadkovsky), to draw up a list of issues requiring urgent discussion. Thus, at the end of February - beginning of March 1905, a note by Metropolitan Anthony “Questions about desirable transformations in the setting of our Orthodox Church” appeared. Around the same time, Witte was preparing his note “On the current situation of the Orthodox Church”[183]. Somewhat later, K. P. Pobedonostsev reports to the Committee of Ministers his “Considerations on the issues of desirable transformations in the organization of our Orthodox Church” (Pobedonostsev’s note), which are a polemical response to Metropolitan Anthony and Witte. In the future, Witte will respond to Pobedonostsev with another note “Concerning “Considerations of State Secretary Pobedonostsev on the issues of desirable transformations in the organization of our Orthodox Church,” which we will not consider, since it does not affect the problem of diocesan administration[184]. The question of the authorship of the notes of Metropolitan Anthony and Witte was resolved in the research of priest Georgy Orekhanov. Based on the evidence of the diary of Bishop Arseny (Stadnitsky), Father George shows that the note was edited by Metropolitan Anthony based on questions prepared by Bishop Sergius (Stragorodsky), at that time rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, and Hieromonk Mikhail (Semyonov)[185] . Opinions differ regarding the authorship of Witte's note[186]. The most substantiated is also given by Orekhanov: he refers to the agreed evidence of the diaries of Witte and Bishop Arseny (Stadnitsky), according to which the author of this note is F.N. Belyavsky, an employee of the Ministry of Finance, then transferred to the ecclesiastical department. Belyavsky was also an employee of the Slovo magazine and was sympathetic to the note of the “32 priests,” which we will turn to below[187].

* * *

The main theme of Metropolitan Anthony’s note was related to the issue of religious tolerance discussed in the Committee of Ministers and was based on the fact that the introduction of religious tolerance would give advantages to Old Believers and sectarians who, unlike the Orthodox Church, are not in union with the state. In this regard, the main pathos of this note is a request to grant the Church freedom in internal self-government and to convene for this purpose “a special meeting of representatives of the church hierarchy, with the participation of knowledgeable persons and laity” to resolve pressing issues relating to church life. The brief note only briefly touches on projects for specific transformations of church governance, but these transformations are presupposed at all levels of church governance by the very fact of separation from the tutelage of the state. In addition, the starting point of the changes is seen by the authors of the note in “the decentralization of church administration, when the initiative in many matters, as well as their final implementation, will be transferred from the center to the regions and dioceses.”

These changes entail many changes in the structure of church government, both central and
diocesan,
and in the mutual relations of both.
<…> On the other hand, and regardless of this, there is an urgent and long-recognized need in the literature to revise certain aspects of church governance, <…> [including] the rights and powers of diocesan congresses,
the participation of laity in them as representatives of parishes [188].

Thus, the note recognized the reform of diocesan administration as a necessary condition for revitalizing church life. Metropolitan Anthony, in particular, referred to the discussions in the literature discussed in the previous paragraph. Analyzing this note, priest Georgy Orekhanov sees its main drawback in jurisprudence - the idea that

Church problems, often very complex, multifaceted, related to the deepest issues of spiritual life, can be solved through purely external, administrative, and legal means[189].

While recognizing a certain validity of this criticism, it should, however, be taken into account that the resolution of internal issues of church life could not fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee of Ministers, to which this note was addressed. The competence of the Committee, within the framework of the ongoing consultations on religious tolerance, included the discussion and preparation of a review of the relationship between church administration and state government, to which Metropolitan Anthony’s note was directed. This also applies to the diocesan system, which, as we have seen, along with the structure of other levels of church government, can in many ways be characterized as bureaucratic, meeting state legal norms. If in Metropolitan Anthony’s note we really do not find the spiritual and moral pathos of the work of Archpriest AM Ivantsov-Platonov, then, nevertheless, we must not forget that this work, among others, was introduced by Metropolitan Anthony’s note into the circulation of official discussions.

Finally, it should be emphasized that one of the two examples given of necessary changes in diocesan administration was the reform of diocesan congresses, their rights and powers, and the introduction of laity into their composition. Perhaps it was this remark that led to the fact that in the March all-submissive report of the Synod on the convening of the Council, when listing the issues to be considered at the Council, the issue of diocesan congresses was separated from the general issue of diocesan administration[190]. However, this inclusion of congresses in a special article may be due to the fact that at that time the congresses were not part of the diocesan administration,

but they were more of an economic, or at best pastoral-advisory, nature. At the same time, when posing this question, Metropolitan Anthony includes diocesan congresses among “certain aspects of diocesan administration” and, in addition, refers to “literature” in which, as we have seen, it was assumed that congresses would be introduced into the diocesan administration, even if with a deliberative nature.

Metropolitan Anthony’s brief note is difficult to compare with Witte’s note. The first mainly focuses on the problem of state guardianship over the Church, without fully identifying the internal consequences of such a situation for the Church[191]. Witte’s note, having as its main conclusion the need to convene a Council, emphasizes the “contemporary decline of church life,” including “the alienation [of the flock] from their spiritual leaders,” “the weakness of the pastoral activity of the clergy”[192]. Witte saw the reason for this situation in the absence of conciliarity.

The religious principle is primarily a social principle; it develops and strengthens where social life is given some freedom. It is natural, therefore, that “conciliarity” was the main principle of church life and the main principle of church government[193].

Witte's note describes in detail how the ancient church system seemed to its author: under the bishop there was a council of presbyters, and the entire community often participated in their meetings. Then, with the increase in the size of each community and the number of communities dependent on one bishop, the presence of all members at the council under the bishop was replaced by representation. “The church government of the apostolic times and in general of the first centuries of Christianity was so public”[194]. According to Witte, this conciliarity was replaced by Peter I with collegiality, which “is only a system of internal bureaucratic organization.” The author of the note contrasted this system with the definition of conciliarity, which he apparently took from P.V. Tikhomirov: the essence of conciliarity is that “each of the persons [composing the board— and.

C] is a representative of the whole community”[195]. In particular, “in the diocesan administration, in replacement of the ancient council of elders, so-called “consistories” were established, representing bureaucratic collegiums.” That is, Witte pointed out, now there is no longer even a thought about representation. Moreover, if the consistory is considered a “council”, then it is a “headless cathedral”[196], for its head - the bishop - is never present in it, communicating with it through the office:

At present, our church administration is of a closed clerical nature: the hierarchy communicates with the people through papers, rarely entering into direct live communication with them[197].

In this regard, Witte developed the theme of conciliarity as a public church union, as an expression of the “best forces” of the Church (the pathos of Zaozersky, whom he quoted)[198]. As N.D. Kuznetsov noted back in 1906[199], “the note turns out to be stitched together with a living thread from various scraps, facts, provisions and conclusions, borrowed in a certain direction from different people”[200]. Apparently, the compiler of the note was not entirely clear on the postulates that he put forward in an effort to defend a certain idea of church reform. According to priest Georgy Orekhanov, although Witte’s note is deeper than Metropolitan Anthony’s note, it is further from church life. Namely, writes Father George, “the idea of conciliarity in Witte’s note is directly connected with the idea of representation, moreover, it is argued that this is its essence.” According to Orekhanov, Witte, trying to align himself with the demands of the Church, uses the ideas of the “liberal-democratic camp”, not realizing that such an approach is unacceptable for the Church - he replaces the collegiality of the synodal system with the collegiality of a parliamentary nature. Without commenting on this opinion here, we note that Witte’s pathos in this case coincides with the ideas of P.V. Tikhomirov[201]. It is this pathos, along with the desire to abolish (or reduce) the powers of the chief prosecutor[202], that is, obviously, the “well-known direction” in which the note was drawn up.

The Chief Prosecutor soon responded to the accusations against the system of which he was a representative. The basis of his note is an objection to accusations of the church-state system that it is the cause of existing shortcomings in church life, as well as an indication of the far from ideal state of the Church in the pre-Synodal period. Regarding diocesan administration, justifying the existence of a consistory, Pobedonostsev explained: this establishment is caused by the extreme complication of correspondence on the affairs of the same church administration in contact with the affairs of general civil administration, [which] reaches in other consistories up to 20,000 outgoing papers per year[203].

Pobedonostsev admits that the consistory has all the disadvantages of a public office, but how can one get by without it? After all, paper is necessary, because “the physical conditions of life make it difficult for the hierarchy to directly communicate with the people.” At the same time, Pobedonostsev somewhat contradicts himself, then asserting that a bishop can “not forget a person on paper and, as far as possible, have live communication with his flock.” Finally, removing any criticism from the secretary of the consistory by indicating that he only “occupies an official position under the bishop,” Pobedonostsev here again shifts the blame onto the shoulders of the bishop. According to the chief prosecutor,

It largely depends on the bishop to breathe life through his personal attitude and participation in the meeting of elders, who are members of the consistory and usually come there only to sign the protocols, which are then presented to the bishop.

It is noteworthy that here Pobedonostsev, perhaps the most emphatically of all three compilers of the notes, speaks of the need for living communication, the “living life” of diocesan administration. But, unlike Archpriest AM Ivantsov-Platonov, he does not want to link this with the fight against the bureaucratic form of government received from the state. “What does this have to do with constraint from state power?” - he asks. Of course, during the synodal period, the bureaucratic structure of the Church, which binds the bishop in many ways, inevitably resulted from the connection between the Church and the state, which actually presupposed the inclusion of the system of church government in the system of the state apparatus. However, in a certain sense, Pobedonostsev’s remark is fair. The abolition of state guardianship, as well as the creation of conciliarity in the form of “representation,” did not at all imply the inevitable abolition of bureaucracy in the Church.

So, official discussions about reforms in the Church, including in the diocesan administration, began with the three texts we examined. According to Orekhanov, the notes of Witte and Pobedonostsev outlined positions and arguments that would later be reproduced in all articles and books devoted to the reform[204]. It should be noted, however, that Pobedonostsev’s note was not published until 1906[205], so it is impossible to talk about direct cause-and-effect relationships between this note and the subsequent journalistic discussions. The first two “reform” notes raise the question of the forms of self-government of the Church, that is, government independent of the state, including at the diocesan level. Metropolitan Anthony’s note, however, does not address the last issue; it only talks about decentralization of management, changes in relations between the center and the dioceses, and the need to reform some aspects of diocesan management, including diocesan congresses. Witte's note points to the need to introduce, including at the diocesan level, conciliarity, which he understood in the sense of representation of the flock and the laity. Witte also points out the problem of bureaucracy in church administration. In particular, he considered the consistory to be abolished with the restoration of conciliarity-representation. However, Witte gives no indication of how this replacement will eliminate bureaucracy while maintaining stability in the diocese. And it cannot be said that Pobedonostsev is completely wrong in pointing out the need for the existence of a consistory. After all, an element of formality is in any case inherent in management, and the problem it indicates (“physical living conditions”) is real (the size of the dioceses). But, of course, here Pobedonostsev avoids the fact of the extreme formalization of clerical relations and the practice of moving bishops that he himself widely used, which hindered the development of the personal relationship to which he calls.

* * *

On March 13, 1905, Chief Prosecutor K.P. Pobedonostsev obtained the emperor’s resolution to remove the issue of “desirable changes in the organization of our Orthodox Church” from the Conference of the Committee of Ministers and transfer it to the Holy Synod for consideration[206]. At meetings on March 15, 18 and 22, the Synod prepared a report to the emperor on the convening of the Council, in which, among the subjects for discussion at the proposed Council, the questions were indicated “on the revision of the legal provisions on the existing bodies of diocesan administration and court and the transformation of them in accordance with the canonical principles of the council” and, separately, “about diocesan congresses of the clergy”[207]. Despite the fact that the Council was not convened then, a few months later, on June 28, 1905, K. P. Pobedonostsev turned to the Synod with a proposal in which he pointed out “the need now, in advance, to begin preparatory work,” since the supposed the reform “raises many different issues that require extensive preliminary development”[208]. The Chief Prosecutor's proposal develops in sufficient detail each of the questions raised by the Synod. With regard to diocesan administration, Pobedonostsev, pointing out that “at present, the body of diocesan administration is the spiritual consistory, which represents an administrative-judicial institution,” mentioned the work undertaken in the 1860s to separate the court from it. The Chief Prosecutor acknowledged a number of shortcomings of consistories:

As administrative institutions, consistories, with their presence of members constantly distracted from diocesan affairs by the performance of their direct clergy duties, and the office of an insufficient number of poorly provided and mostly poorly prepared officials for service, while observing outdated forms of office work, are burdened with formal written proceedings.

Mentioning the many institutions that have arisen in the dioceses, the chief prosecutor noted:

All these institutions are united in the person of the diocesan bishop. But, given the diversity and isolation of these institutions, it is extremely difficult for one bishop, without an intermediary body that reflects the entire totality of affairs and interests of diocesan institutions, to direct them to correct and consistent action. Thus, a question arises that requires preliminary development, about the organization of such an effective diocesan body of episcopal power that would unite under its jurisdiction the entire area of diocesan
management[209]·.

The review of the topic of diocesan management ended with the mention that there could be no talk of any additional funding from the state. Then, among the questions proposed by the Synod, Pobedonostsev touched upon diocesan congresses:

There is a real need to establish, on the basis of experience, certain boundaries for their activities and to indicate to them their proper place and importance in the ranks of diocesan institutions.

Mentioning the origin of the congresses on the basis of the seminary charter of 1867 and praising their efforts to create various institutions to meet the needs not only of the educational part, but also of missionary and charitable purposes, the Chief Prosecutor noted:

But, at the same time, it is impossible not to point out that in many dioceses the congresses involved in the sphere of general diocesan needs have arrogated to themselves the right of authorized owners, allowing themselves not only to establish various mandatory fees and tax church incomes with them, but even to dispose of the exploitation church quitrent articles.

Finally, Pobedonostsev pointed out that diocesan bishops used congresses as a means of communication with clergy: on the one hand, for archpastoral influence, and on the other, to familiarize themselves with the life of parishes, which is not always well known to bishops.

The importance of such a living and mutual exchange between the bishop and pastors in general for church governance in dioceses is undeniable. In view of this, the question arises as to whether diocesan congresses should not be given the significance of an auxiliary body under the bishop not only on issues of material, but also on religious and moral needs
[210].

What is noteworthy in the Chief Prosecutor’s proposal, first of all, is that he recognized the shortcomings of the consistory, in particular, the burden of written proceedings, but did not question the consistory system itself and, on the contrary, intended to strengthen it by uniting it in one body (the same consistory? - and how could it be otherwise if additional funding is not foreseen?) all aspects of diocesan administration. Moreover, was it not the need to strengthen the bureaucratic element in the consistory that K. P. Pobedonostsev hinted at when he emphasized that the members of the presence were “distracted” by their clerical duties? Moreover, if in the synodal proposal the question of diocesan administration was associated with “canonical conciliar principles” (although it was not specified what was meant here), then in the proposal of the chief prosecutor this motive was no longer heard.

Then it should be emphasized that, following the note of Metropolitan Anthony, the issue of diocesan congresses was especially highlighted in the synodal report, as well as in the proposal of the Chief Prosecutor. Here, in contrast to Metropolitan Anthony’s note, he did not explicitly deal with the issues of diocesan administration reform.

This is indicated by the very enumeration of questions in the synodal report: after the question of diocesan administration, questions are listed about the parish, about the theological school, about the acquisition of property by the Church, and only then about congresses: the topic of the congresses turns out to be closer to school and economic than to management[211 ]. In the Chief Prosecutor's proposal, the expansion of the powers of the congresses extends to pastoral issues, which actually defines the congresses as an advisory body under the bishop. We will see in the next part that such a formulation of the question found a certain reflection both in the bishop’s reviews, which became a response to the proposal of the Chief Prosecutor, and in the organization of the work of the Pre-Conciliar Presence.

* * *

Almost simultaneously with the transfer of the issue of church reforms to the Synod, on March 17, 1905, a note from “32 priests” entitled “On the need for changes in Russian church administration” was published in the weekly journal of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy “Church Bulletin”[212]. This note initiated journalistic discussions about the reform: according to statistics cited by S. L. Firsov, from March 17 (date of publication of the note) to April 17, 417 articles on the topic of church reform were published in the press, and until June - another 573[213 ]. The circumstances of filing the note “32” are examined in detail by S. L. Firsov[214] and priest Georgy Orekhanov[215]. Researchers point to the relationship between official notes and the publication of “32 priests” who had a meeting with the St. Petersburg Metropolitan back in February. Firsov, based on archival material, indicates that the note was transferred to the editorial office of Tserkovny Vestnik on March 10. Considering that the censor of the publication was the student and vicar of the metropolitan, Bishop Sergius (Stragorodsky), the researcher considers this fact as an indirect indication that the priests did not doubt the approval of the metropolitan, who knew their point of view well since February. According to Firsov, “The St. Petersburg Metropolitan, by giving permission to print the note, wanted to “test the waters” and find out public opinion on the issue of church reform”[216]. Father George, believing that more compelling data is needed to assert the support of the “Group of 32” by the church leadership[217], points out, however, that the note “was published at a time when the struggle for initiative in the issue of Church reform reached its apogee"[218]. As for the authorship of this note, according to priest G. Orekhanov, its main compiler was N.P. Aksakov[219]. Among those who signed it are St. Petersburg archpriests M.I. Gorchakov[220] and M.P. Cheltsov, priests A.P. Rozhdestvensky (editor of the Church Bulletin in 1905), V.Ya. Kolacheva, GS . Petrov, K.M. Aggeev, I.F. Egorov, and, apparently, hieromonk (later Archimandrite) Mikhail (Semyonov), the probable compiler of Metropolitan Anthony’s note[221].

The note of “32” seems to us an attempt to answer statements expressed, in particular, in Pobedonostsev’s note published later, but obviously “hovering in the air”: about the absence of dependence between the question of the separation of the Church from the state and the question of its renewal. The main idea of “32” is the following: in order to return to the Church “all the power of fruitful influence on all aspects of human life”[222], the “free self-governing Church”[223] (meaning freedom from the state) must be restored. At the same time, the authors of the note acted in line with church tradition when they pointed out that “the free order of church life cannot be subject to human discretion,” for it is defined in the apostolic order and in the canons[224]. Briefly describing their ideas about this church system, the authors of the note put the diocesan administration in the foreground, the reform of which is reflected in the parishes and is repeated in the church organization at the highest level: in the system of district and all-church government. The main features of diocesan administration, according to the authors, are the following:

The bishop, certified at the time of election by the clergy and people of the local Church, is the focus and example of shepherding within the Church entrusted to his care, the center of all life activity and the focus of church love[225].

Above, we expressed the opinion that freedom from the state alone might not be enough to eliminate bureaucracy in the Church and restore conciliarity as a living communion. The authors of the note were obviously aware of this problem and stated:

In order to be truly, and not just in name, the shepherd of the flock entrusted to him, [the bishop] performs his pastoral ministry <...> together with a host of elders, as his advisers, collaborators and co-servants, in the face of the people, in the communion of the entire body of the Church[226] .

As secondary conclusions from these basic provisions, the authors drew attention to the inadmissibility of the practice of moving bishops and proposed reducing the territories of dioceses to the limits of counties. Comparing the note of “32” with the notes of Witte and Metropolitan Anthony, we see that both here and there, first of all, the question is raised about the liberation of the Church from the tutelage of the state and about the forms of self-government of the Church independent of the state, including at the diocesan level. Just like Witte, “32 priests” pointed to the need to introduce conciliarity, but, unlike Witte’s “representation,” they focused more on the interaction of the bishop, clergy and flock. As we remember, in an effort to abolish the consistory, Witte did not give instructions on how to maintain stability of government in the diocese. The note of “32” tried to fill this gap, emphasizing the pastoral component of the bishop’s activity, his unity with the flock, and at the same time pointing to a practical measure - reducing the size of dioceses. At the same time, there is no doubt that the proposal of “32” is to a certain extent “naive” and can be characterized as “an illusion of a quick resolution of complex issues”[227].

* * *

The publication of the note “32” and shortly after that the notes of Metropolitan Anthony and Witte[228] provoked wide discussions in the press and society. Discussions in the press gradually subsided by the middle of 1907[229], subsequently manifesting themselves in separate outbursts[230]. Along with printed speeches, discussions within the framework of deanery and diocesan congresses and meetings of the clergy, which peaked in the autumn of 1905, played a significant role. This is evidenced by the increase in publications of their materials in periodicals[231]. “Questions about the need for church renewal were widely and freely discussed at many diocesan congresses,” testifies the “Church Bulletin,” pointing out that “secular people were invited to them locally, not only pastors, but also flocks”[232]. In part, these congresses were convened by the bishops for consultations on issues sent by the Holy Synod for their recall. The convening of congresses could be a personal initiative of the bishop or an initiative of the clergy approved by the bishop. However, there were cases of bishops’ disapproving attitude towards such initiatives. Thus, the St. Petersburg newspaper “Slovo” wrote in June 1905:

The Moscow clergy (of course, not all), despite the local metropolitan’s strict ban on touching the issue of church reform,
set out her pia desideria in an interesting note[233].

Initiatives to convene congresses received additional support in the synodal resolution of November 18, 1905, which proposed rules for organizing parishes to the leadership of bishops. It was noted that these rules “cannot but create a need for special pastoral meetings for the exchange of thoughts on these subjects,” and therefore the corresponding decision was made:

The Holy Synod blesses the pastoral meetings convened, as needed, within the deanery, districts and dioceses <...> with the provision, if the need arises, to invite the laity[234].

The decisions of such congresses acquired binding force, however, only after their approval by the bishop.

Another direction in the development of discussions was the creation of public organizations within which issues of reform were discussed. Basically, these are two organizations: the “Group of St. Petersburg Priests” (later - the “Union of Zealots of Church Renewal”, and even later - the “Brotherhood of Zealots ...") and the “Moscow Commission on Church Issues”. Each of these organizations held seminars, published articles under the authorship of one or another of its members, and, finally, each organization published a collection of articles devoted to the reform[235]

End of introductory fragment.

Text of the book “The Russian Church on the Eve of Change (late 1890s - 1918)”

Chapter 3. Interrupted reform: attempts to restore the canonical order of church life and political priorities of the Orthodox state

§ 1. Pre-Conciliar Presence: tasks and prospects

At the very end of 1905 - on December 27 - an event occurred that had been expected in the Russian Church for a long time: the sovereign signed an appeal to the first present member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Anthony, remembering
the need to update the church structure and his promise to give movement to the matter at a “favorable time” convening of the Local Council.
As a reason that forced him to postpone this intention, Nicholas II reasonably mentioned the war in the Far East. “Now,” the rescript said, “I recognize that it is quite timely to make some changes in the structure of our Russian Church on the solid principles of the ecumenical canons, for the greater establishment of Orthodoxy. And therefore I propose to you, Vladyka, together with the metropolitans: Vladimir of Moscow and Flavian of Kiev, to determine the time of convening this Council, expected by all the faithful sons of the Church.”[418] 418
To Metropolitan Anthony. 2.

[Close].

So the word has been spoken. Since then, metropolitans have had the opportunity to resolve issues of church construction, having the highest permission. Just two and a half weeks later, on January 14, 1906, the Holy Synod decided to create a Pre-Conciliar Presence for the preliminary discussion of all issues scheduled for conciliar consideration. The list of persons called to work in the Presence was quickly determined. It was compiled by both bishops and clergy, as well as laymen - professors of theological schools and experts on various theological issues. Throughout 1906, the list was repeatedly updated and changed. Church Gazette regularly reported on this[419] 419

See in detail: [On the invitation to work in the Pre-Conciliar Presence].

[Close]. Competent specialists were involved in the work of the Presence who could understand the intricacies of church-state relations and propose a project of internal church changes that could be implemented in Russia. The names of the members of the Pre-Conciliar Presence were widely known not only in church circles of the empire, but also abroad. Among them were Metropolitans of St. Petersburg Anthony (Vadkovsky) - Chairman of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, Vladimir (Epiphany) of Moscow, Flavian (Gorodetsky) of Kiev; Archbishops of Kherson Dimitri (Kovalnitsky), Lithuanian Nikandr (Molchanov), Yaroslavl Jacob (Pyatnitsky), Finnish Sergius (Stragorodsky); Bishops of Volyn Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Pskov Arseny (Stadnitsky), Mogilev Stefan (Arkhangelsky). At the very end of the work, on November 24, 1906, Sukhumi Bishop Kirion (Sadzagelov) was invited to the Presence. However, the bishops did not have a majority in the Presence; the majority were priests (for example, professors-archpriests Mikhail Gorchakov, Timofey Butkevich, Fyodor Titov, etc.) and lay theologians (for example, professors N. A. Zaozersky, N. N. Glubokovsky, A.I. Brilliantov and others). At the end of March 1906, the emperor ordered the inclusion of secular scientists known for their commitment to church reform and deep religiosity (for example, the “neo-Slavophiles” A. A. Kireev, D. A. Khomyakov, F. D. Samarin) into the Presence. A total of 49 people were invited to take part in the work. Not everyone accepted the invitation. The outstanding Russian historian, professor at Moscow University and Theological Academy V. O. Klyuchevsky refused to work in the Presence. The scientist believed it was impossible to reform the Orthodox Church of his time and did not find any point in convening a Local Council. His motivation, set out in his diary for 1906, is noteworthy. Klyuchevsky was convinced that the Council made sense only as “the local organ of the Ecumenical Council.” But this obviously does not exist. His "local organ" is therefore dead. “Local” Orthodox Churches, according to Klyuchevsky, “are transactional police-political institutions, the purpose of which is to calm the naively believing consciences of some and clamp the loudly protesting mouths of others. Both of these goals, he believed, lead to the third, the most desirable for the ruling church hierarchy, this is the complete indifference of the thinking and calm part of society to the affairs of their local Church: let the dead bury their dead. The Russian Church, as a Christian institution, does not and cannot exist; there is only a ryassophore department of temporary-permanent state protection”[420] 420
Klyuchevsky (1).
Entry dated October 22, 1906

[Close]. Such a derogatory view of the institutional Church, of course, was not shared by the majority of teachers of theological schools, however, it is extremely indicative. A professor at the Moscow Theological Academy, a native of the clergy, Klyuchevsky considered his participation in the preparation of reforms useless, because he did not believe in the creative powers of the Church and viewed it only as a department of the state pseudo-symphonic structure.

But his colleagues nevertheless responded to the call of the Holy Synod, hoping for change and understanding the urgent need to convene the Council as soon as possible. Is it possible to characterize the political “face” of the Presence members? Among the participants in the general work were both conservatives and liberals. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that at that time the revolution was ongoing in Russia, and the statements of many members of the Presence indirectly reflected the mood of the “street”. Maximalism of assessments, as well as disbelief in church creativity, illustrated by the example of V. O. Klyuchevsky, in those conditions can be considered as the bitter result of many years of Pobedonostsev’s adjustment “to the peasant” (as Konstantin Petrovich understood this “peasant”). Many were dissatisfied with the position of the Church in Russia, but they saw the reasons for church unrest differently, just as they saw differently the ways to resolve them.

Thus, supporters of the liberalization of church government, speaking from the position of restoring conciliarity

and strengthening the role of the laity and white clergy in the life of the Church, they declared that the composition of the Pre-Conciliar Presence was formed according to the principle of “authoritative appointment”, therefore, it is the product of “dead, purely bureaucratic work, energetically opposing any living social initiative”[421]
421
Before the Church Cathedral. 287.

[Close]. It is difficult to argue with this: they were appointed, not elected, to participate in the work of the Pre-Conciliar Presence. But could it have been otherwise? It is quite obvious that under those conditions this was impossible.

On the other hand, the “conservatives” were unhappy with the invitation to the Presence of scientists who were inclined to defend the class interests of the white clergy and did not enjoy the reputation of strict zealots of the faith. Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), known for his harsh judgments, wrote to Metropolitan Flavian of Kyiv in February 1906 that he mourned the composition of the “priestly and professorial part of the commission” (that is, the Presence). Calling some of the appointed professors atheists, fools and drunkards, he summed up without embarrassment: “All of them - whether liberals or conservatives - are all revelers.

This is not a conciliar commission, but an estate commission”[422]
422
Anthony (4). 209.

[Close].

Of course, it was not a matter of the class of the Presence or the triumph of the principle of appointment. Of fundamental importance was the fact that since the time of Peter the Great this was the first attempt

discuss issues necessary for convening the Local Council and carrying out reforms in the Russian Church. It was almost impossible to avoid mistakes along this path, just as it was impossible to balance all interests. However, despite the difficulties, the Pre-Conciliar Presence was nevertheless convened and managed to discuss many pressing issues for the Church.

So, by resolution of the Holy Synod No. 1065 of February 21, 1906, the appointed members of the Presence were summoned to St. Petersburg by March 5. At the same time, all diocesan eminences were instructed to elect one priest from their diocese to work in the Pre-Conciliar Presence. On March 4, members of the Presence met for the first time at a ceremonial “tea” with Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky). The meeting was unofficial, although almost all members of the Holy Synod and many representatives of theological academic science attended it. General A. A. Kireev, who described it in his diary, accurately noted that the future of the Presence directly depends on whether it will be able to go beyond formal administrative issues. “Will issues of faith be addressed, and not just secondary ones... Why does faith fall? – the general wondered. “Because it is identified with uninteresting issues of rituals, habits, just trifles... or superstitions - that’s why modern society recoils from them.”[423] 423
Kireev (2).
128–128 vol. Entry dated March 4, 1906

[Close]. Convinced of the absolute correctness of Orthodoxy, Kireev believed that Russian society was “not a mile away from our principles.” He associated the success of the Presence’s work primarily with the ability to resolve issues not only and not so much ecclesiastical and administrative, but religious and moral. So, it is important to note that contemporaries, who knew church affairs closely, saw the task not in dismantling the church reform of Peter the Great, but in strengthening the moral influence of the Church.

The Pre-Conciliar Presence began its work on March 8, 1906 in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. Opening the meetings, Metropolitan Anthony expressed his conviction that the development of even such material that will not be considered by the upcoming Council will benefit the Church. At the same time, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince A.D. Obolensky, calling himself a “simple layman,” stated that he would look forward to the successful completion of the work of the Pre-Conciliar Presence. The words spoken from the mouth of the head of the spiritual department can be considered a kind of sign of the times: it was simply impossible to imagine something like this in the time of K.P. Pobedonostsev.

Everything seemed to speak in favor of the coming Council. However, no one could predict what it would be like. The members of the Pre-Conciliar Presence who developed the materials for its convening sometimes held diametrical views on many fundamental issues (for example, on the question of the degree of participation of the laity in the work of the Council). The division of the Presence members into liberals and conservatives is largely arbitrary: everything depended on the attitude of one or another theologian to a specific issue. It is even more incorrect to talk about the episcopal “party”, as well as about the renovationist “party”. We also cannot agree with the statement that “by convening the Pre-Conciliar Presence, the government made an attempt to achieve the unity of the forces of the Church on the common specific tasks of fighting the revolution, strengthening the autocracy and strengthening its ideological influence on the people.”[424] 424

Zyryanov (2). 177.

[Close]. The revolution, of course, could not be supported by the Church and the fight against it naturally had to become one of the political tasks

spiritual department. However, it did not at all follow from this that the Presence was convened for political benefits: it was easier for secular authorities to use the Church as an ideological force without convening any “presences”: after all, any meeting is an exchange of opinions, therefore, a discussion, an argument.

Regular meetings began on March 14, 1906 and continued until June 13, then a break was announced and work resumed only on November 1, to finally stop on December 15. Thus, the Pre-Conciliar Presence was active for only four and a half months. If we take into account that it began its work during one of the most acute periods of the struggle against the revolution, and completed it at a time when the revolution was almost completely suppressed, it becomes clear why the interest of the secular authorities in convening the Council sharply decreased within a few months: The political situation in the country has changed. In conditions of relative stabilization of the state machine, the secular authorities were concerned about the further strengthening of church independence, entailing an adjustment of church-state relations. However, initially no one doubted the effectiveness of the work ahead of the theologians.

The work took place in departments (there were seven of them) and in the general meeting. It was assumed that all issues considered in the departments would then be “passed” through the general meeting of the Presence. However, there was not enough time for this. At the general meeting, the work of the first and second departments and only some of the developments of departments from the third to the seventh were fully reviewed.

The first department of the Presence, led by Archbishop Demetrius of Kherson, turned out to be the most representative: 26 members, the vast majority - professors of theological academies. The meetings were held in the hall of the School Council at the Holy Synod (Kabinetskaya St., 13). The task of the department was to consider the issue of the composition of the Local Council and the procedure for resolving matters at it, as well as the problem of transforming the central church government. The main thing that the first department was able to fully consider and submit to the general meeting, and then for approval by the emperor, was the draft regulation on the composition of the Council (with the exception of the procedure for electing deputies from the clergy and laity to the Council).

The second department, led by Archbishop Nikander of Lithuania, considered the issue of dividing Russia into metropolitan districts, their organization and the transformation of local church government. It consisted of 13 people, some of whom were also members of other departments (for example, the first). The second department worked at the Synodal Preobrazhensky Metochion (Bolshaya Podyacheskaya Street, 32).

The third department, under the leadership of Archbishop Jacob of Yaroslavl, dealt with issues of organizing the church court and revising marriage laws, including laws on mixed marriages. The meetings took place in the statistical department of the School Council on the same Kabinetskaya street. Only 9 people signed up to work in the department.

The fourth department (chaired by Bishop Stefan of Mogilev), in which 13 people participated, examined one of the most painful issues in Russian church life: the improvement of the parish, as well as questions about the church school, the procedure for acquiring church property, diocesan congresses and the participation of clergy in public and class institutions. Members of the department gathered for meetings in the Synodal Archives, located in the building of the Holy Synod.

The fifth department, chaired by Bishop Arseny of Pskov, discussed the issue of transforming religious educational institutions. 20 people expressed a desire to participate in its work. They gathered in the meeting room of the Educational Committee, in the Holy Synod.

In the same building, in the Synodal Archive, meetings were held of the sixth department, dealing with matters of faith: about common faith, about the Old Believers, and some others. Eight members, chaired by Bishop Anthony of Volyn, tried to unravel the complex knot of relations between the main confession of the empire and those who until recently were called “schismatics” and with whom there was an active struggle.

The last, seventh department analyzed the measures necessary “to protect the Orthodox faith and Christian piety from incorrect teachings and interpretations in view of strengthening the principles of religious tolerance in the empire.” The chairman of this small department (only 7 people took part in its work) was Archbishop Sergius of Finland. The meetings were held in the library of the School Council on Kabinetskaya Street[425] 425

See in detail:
Preparatory materials.
5–6 vol.
The above data characterizes only the initial
distribution of participants by department. During the work of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, some of its members moved from one department to another.

[Close].

Let us consider in order what the departments listed above were doing and how the discussion took place.

Before the first

The department faced the difficult question of the relationship between church power and secular power.
In Russian conditions, this was a sensitive issue, because the church rights and responsibilities of the supreme patron of the Church, the emperor, were affected. It was necessary to draw up the provision in such a way as to, on the one hand, emphasize the independence of the Church in internal affairs, and on the other, not to infringe on the autocrat by specifically pointing out his special rights in the Church. In the summer of 1906, the eleven-point project was adopted by the department. Already in the first line it is indicated that the Orthodox Church has the right to publish new decrees only with the consent of the emperor. The Church was to be governed "freely", but under imperial protection. As a matter of fact, the emperor was conceived as a political initiator of church initiatives, without which it was impossible to convene a Council, give legitimacy to its decisions, legalize the election of the patriarch (which was also planned): “a time-based Council,” said the sixth paragraph of the provision, “submits to the discretion of the sovereign the emperor about his choice of patriarch; in the case of a trial of the patriarch, the court’s verdict is also submitted to the sovereign’s discretion.”[426] 426
Journals and protocols (1). 379.

[Close].

The rights of the chief prosecutor were also stipulated by the regulations. This, perhaps, was the most painful issue: after all, the traditions of state supervision over the Church that developed during the 19th century, the instrument of which was the synodal chief prosecutor’s office, were difficult to change; officials considered the department of Orthodox confession as part of the state machine, the breakdown of which could have the most negative consequences for the entire system of government of the country.

The Pre-Conciliar Presence recognized the need for the participation of the Chief Prosecutor in the highest state institutions. At the same time, it was proposed that he should not be a member of the Council of Ministers, “so that a change of ministry, due to fluctuations in internal politics, would not necessarily entail a change of chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod.” Such a proposal, however, did not in any way infringe on the rights and powers of the members of the Holy Synod, since according to the provision, the chief prosecutor was only supposed to monitor the agreement of the synodal decisions with the national ones[427] 427

See: Journals and minutes (2). 673–674.

[Close].

It is significant that in June 1906, when these department proposals were considered at a general meeting, they were somewhat adjusted by adding the words that the chief prosecutor not only discusses, but also participates in appropriate cases in resolving church and public affairs and issues. Members of the Presence understood that secular authorities might react negatively to the narrowing of the powers of the Chief Prosecutor. The general meeting also edited the paragraph on the non-membership of the Chief Prosecutor in the Council of Ministers[428] 428

See in detail:
Sakharov.
76.

[Close].

According to the proposal of the majority of the members of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, the Synod was to consist of a chairman and twelve bishops. A third of the members were to be made permanent, and two thirds were to be replaced regularly. As a matter of fact, in the Holy Synod and previously three metropolitans were considered permanent members: St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev (now it was planned to add to them the bishops of Kazan and Lithuania). The remaining hierarchs appointed to work in the summer or winter sessions were called present. Some of them sat in the Synod for years, but this was not due to the traditions of the spiritual department, but to the personality of a particular bishop. True, among the members of the Holy Synod there were not only bishops, but also protopresbyters of the court and military clergy, but this can be considered rather an exception to the rule of appointing episcopate representatives to the Holy Synod.

When voting both in the department and in the general meeting, the majority spoke out against the participation of clergy and laity in the work of the Synod. Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) especially actively objected to this. He believed that the participation of clergy and laity in the Synod “is an insult to Orthodox hearing.” Arguing with his opponents, the Bishop said that such proposals were caused by concessions to the “spirit of the times” and represented a betrayal of Orthodoxy. To the remark that it was premature to threaten such treason before the Council, the archbishop succinctly replied: “This is wrong. We have both the Bible and the canons. Anyone who denies the Holy Trinity must be recognized as non-Orthodox even before the Council. ‹…› If the Council had introduced lay people into the Synod as members, then the Council itself would have turned out to be non-Orthodox.”[429] 429

Journals and protocols (2). 585.

[Close].

Earlier, in May 1906, the general meeting also considered the regulations prepared by the first department on the composition of the upcoming Council and the procedure for conducting business at it. The regulation consisted of fourteen points, and already in the first it was stated that among the participants in the Council there would be bishops, clergy, and laity.

All bishops active at that time were obliged to appear at the Council, while those who were retired could take part in its work only by invitation. Clergy and laity received the right to discuss all council affairs and issues. They were not granted only the right to draw up and approve conciliar decisions and decrees, which belonged only to bishops. The number of expected participants in the Council was determined by the fact that at least three people had to appear from each diocese - a bishop, a priest and a layman. The decisive role, however, remained with the bishop: after the election of candidates from the clergy and laity at the dean’s meeting, it was he who, with his authority, approved the candidates from the list presented to him.

At the discretion of the Holy Synod, the question of inviting to the Council, as members, “representatives of monasteries, religious educational institutions and other church institutions, as well as private individuals known for their theological scholarship or love for church education and, in general, for their zeal for the Church,” was given to the Council. [430]430

Journals and protocols (2). 670.

[Close]. Thus, the members of the Pre-Conciliar Presence sought to expand as much as possible the circle of competent persons who would be able to take an active part in the matter of reforming the Orthodox Church. It was envisaged that the meetings of the Council would be open. The issue of the secretariat of the Council was also considered in the regulations. Its composition, according to members of the Presence, could include learned theologians and canonists. Moscow was supposed to be chosen as the site of the Council.

Another question studied by the first department did not cause much controversy: “For the honor of the Russian Church, it is fitting for its high priest to bear the title of patriarch.” The title of the first hierarch, the participants of the Pre-Conciliar Presence believed, should belong to the bishop of the capital, that is, St. Petersburg. Another thing is how to choose this first bishop. Serious problems arose here. In fact: there are no specific instructions in the canons regarding the procedure for electing a patriarch. It can be assumed that the canons do not distinguish between the elections of the diocesan bishop and the patriarch. Therefore, the following scheme was proposed. The flock of the capital diocese, the Holy Synod, and the Council participate in the election of the patriarch - after all, the primate will be both the chairman of the Synod, and the chairman of the Council, and the primate of the Church, and the bishop of St. Petersburg. The flock indicates one of its candidates, one - the Holy Synod and three - all Russian bishops. The election belongs to the Council, consisting of the ruling bishops, which elects one out of five candidates by secret ballot. The procedure for election proposed by Professor I. S. Berdnikov was accepted by the majority both in the department and in the general meeting[431] 431

See in detail:
Journals and protocols (1).
292–295.

[Close].

At the general meeting of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, the issue of the rights of the future patriarch was also considered. He was supposed to preside over the Synod, direct its meetings, oversee the implementation of its decisions and the correct course of affairs in all synodal institutions. The right to communicate with other local Churches (on private issues - on his own behalf, on general issues - on behalf of the Synod) and with government bodies passed to the patriarch. The right of the patriarch to directly petition the emperor about church needs and to give him an annual report on the internal state of the Church, which had previously been the prerogative of the chief prosecutor, was stipulated. It was the patriarch who had to monitor the correct replacement of bishops' sees, be an arbiter in resolving episcopal affairs, and convene Councils “with the knowledge of the Synod and with the permission of the sovereign emperor.” Having the “advantages of honor,” the patriarch, in the event of any offenses, was subject to the episcopal court “at the discretion of the sovereign emperor”[432] 432

Journals and protocols (2). 671–672.

[Close].

However, the highest church administration did not belong to the patriarch alone: priority remained with the Local Council. The Council was to have all the power in the Church - legislative, executive, auditing and supreme judicial. Moreover, Councils were to be convened at least once every ten years[433] 433

Journals and protocols (2). 672–673.

[Close].

Members of the Pre-Conciliar Presence recognized that the relationship of the Church to the state in Russia is determined by the emperor’s affiliation with Orthodoxy. Some researchers called the principle underlying church-state relations “historical” and not “abstract” (like Cavour’s formula about a “free Church in a free state”). The logic was simple: since this was the case in Byzantium and Russia, then nothing should be changed. But in an effort to preserve the existing model of relations, it was difficult to hope for a weakening of state control in church affairs.

Members of the Presence, proposing their changes, were convinced that the emperor would support the Orthodox Church with his power, dividing the secular and ecclesiastical principles. However, what is good in theory is often difficult to implement in practice...

Even such a sober expert on church-state relations as A. A. Kireev, who participated in the work of the first department, formulated in his diary the wishes of the members of the Presence as follows:

"I. The world (state) should not interfere in the internal affairs of the Church.”

The general did not seem to see that this intervention was a completely logical, natural result of the existing church-state relations that existed on a “historical principle.” He then continued his thought with equally inconsistent sentences.

"P. Shcherkov] should be autonomous, but she also does not interfere in the affairs of the state.

III. The Patriarch communicates with the Tsar.

IV Chief Prosecutor (epitrope??)[434]434

Under this name in Byzantine law, managers of the property of various church institutions were mentioned, mainly churches and monasteries established by ktitors (this was the name of the persons who built the temple or provided material resources for its construction; who supplied the temple with the necessary accessories and decorations). The main duty of the epitrope was to carry out the will of the ktitor, expressed in the typikon (a church service book containing a systematic indication of the order and manner of performing church services). As you know, the All-Russian Emperor was officially called the Supreme Ctitor of the Orthodox Church. Apparently that’s why, when mentioning the Chief Prosecutor, A.A. Kireev used the word “epitrope”.

[Close] is needed in order to monitor the actions of the church government and prevent illegal interference in the affairs of the state (not allowing clericalism is an obvious absurdity, what kind of clericalism we have!!).

There is no need to create “illusions” for ourselves,” the general summarized, “having taken a constitutional basis, we, of course, must move (and will soon arrive) towards the separation of Church and state”[435] 435
Kireev (2).
151 rev. Entry dated May 30, 1906

[Close].

Aware of the impending prospect of separation, in other words, the victory of the “abstract” principle, A. A. Kireev, nevertheless, continued to defend the union of the Church with the state, thinking that it would help strengthen the influence of the Church. He saw the path to such strengthening in the growth of the influence of the laity, as well as in the use of the “power of the king” - “in order to consolidate the relationship of the Church to the state (as far as possible), introducing them into organic, fundamental laws

(along with the law on succession to the throne, etc.)”[436]
436 Kireev (2).
Entry dated May 30, 1906

[Close]

The state, it turned out, had to help the Orthodox Church destroy the previous union, but not refuse to create a new union, the essence of which can be formulated as follows: the Church has more rights, the state retains the old responsibilities. The Pre-Conciliar Presence expressed this idea in a laconic statement: “The Orthodox Russian Church in its internal affairs is governed freely by its institutions under the supreme protection of the sovereign emperor.”[437] 437

See:
Suetov.
36.

[Close].

Let us recall that the activities of the Chief Prosecutor, who was a member of the Holy Synod as a representative of His Majesty’s authority, were limited to external observation. The drafters of the project “On the attitude of the highest government of the Orthodox Russian Church to the supreme state power” even proposed changing Article 43 of the Basic Laws. “In relation to the Orthodox Church,” said the proposed (new) edition of the article, “the autocratic government acts in harmony

with the All-Russian Church Council, the permanent Holy Synod and the primate of the Orthodox Russian Church - the patriarch recognized by it"[438]
438
Journals and minutes (1). (Emphasis added by me. – S.F.)

[Close]. How did this differ from the original text of the article: “In church government, autocratic power acts through

of the Holy Governing Synod established by it”[439]
439 Code of Laws.
(Emphasis added by me.
– S.F.
)

[Close]!

The regulations, developed at meetings of the general meeting and adopted as an official document of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, provided for the emperor the right to a “decisive vote”: the Church could, as before, issue new decrees only with his permission, only with his permission could Councils be convened and for him had the right to approve the patriarch elected by the Council. However, the project deprived the tsar of his main instrument of influence on the Church - the chief prosecutor's office. What this could lead to in practice, K. P. Pobedonostsev wrote to the emperor a year earlier.

Pobedonostsev convinced Nicholas II that under an autocratic government

in the event of a change in the prerogatives of the power of the Chief Prosecutor, not only the hierarchs, but the entire institutional Church will remain without protection.
“Having been freed from the imaginary guardianship - as they say - of the chief prosecutor,” Pobedonostsev wrote about the hierarchs who raised the issue of church reforms in March 1905, “they will fall - already defenselessly under the long-term guardianship - of any authority, of every minister and governor, under the guardianship every department, under the tutelage of countless newspapers and journalists who fill their pages with cries and tales and gossip about the Church and the clergy; they will lose their real defender, entrusted by the tsar, a church man united with the Synod”[440] 440
Pobedonostsev (3). 186.

[Close].

It is impossible to say with certainty whether the emperor in 1906 remembered the statements of his old teacher. However, he undoubtedly had an understanding of the importance of the chief prosecutor's office in church-state relations in Russia. Nicholas II could not help but realize that the reduction of the power of the chief prosecutor to the level of the imperial legal adviser on church affairs would also affect the reduction of imperial influence in the Church. This, it seems, is the main reason why the sincere wishes of the members of the Pre-Conciliar Presence were listened to, but were not fulfilled.

* * *

Second

The department of the Pre-Conciliar Presence also discussed issues important for the fate of the Russian Church. One of them was the question of the possibility of establishing new metropolitan districts. Of course, it was not a matter of simply increasing the number of metropolitans from three to seven. The problem was to give broader powers to the bishops of large centers, freeing the Synod from matters that could be considered in the church district. Since from a canonical point of view it was impossible to object to the establishment of such districts, and also taking into account the urgent needs of Russian church life, the members of the second department eventually recognized the establishment of districts as a necessary action of the future Council. However, this recognition did not mean that the issue was resolved without problems. For example, a member of the department, Academician E.E. Golubinsky, proposed restoring the old Byzantine system in Russia: establishing episcopal departments in all district cities, and metropolitan departments in all provincial cities. The scientist’s proposal was not accepted: the Presence considered that there was neither money nor candidates for its implementation. The second proposal was also rejected - to revive the practice of convening district councils, uniting several dioceses into church districts. They limited themselves to asserting the fundamental need to create districts, without resolving the “technical” question: whether it is worth restoring the church district as a judicial and administrative center or whether the reform should pursue only pastoral goals.

Inter-conciliar presence of the Russian Orthodox Church – a place for discussion

The photo shows the opening of the plenum of the Inter-Council Presence in January 2020. Photo from patriarchia.ru

On May 26, in the hall of church councils of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, chaired by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus', a plenum of the Inter-Council Presence of the Russian Orthodox Church opens, which brings together almost 200 bishops, priests and deacons, monks and nuns, laymen and laywomen. Not all participants were able to be gathered, but the majority found the opportunity to come, including from countries near and far abroad.

The idea of creating an Inter-Council presence was proposed by the current patriarch in the very first months after his election to the Moscow patriarchal throne. I can assume that he was inspired, among other things, by the example of the activities of a multi-member working group to write in 2000 the Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, which he also led. At the end of the 1990s, the future patriarch, then Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, managed to gather many experts from various church ranks and social views, who, in lengthy and, according to the testimony of participants, sometimes even heated discussions, were able to prepare the mentioned text, which is still one one of the most striking statements of the church on most topics in public life.

At the electoral Local Council of 2009, inevitably limited in time, the delegates touched upon many subjects requiring detailed discussion. For this reason, the final document of the Council said: “The Holy Synod should take care of creating an appropriate mechanism for church-wide discussion of issues raised at the meetings of the Local Council.”

On July 27, 2009, the Holy Synod established the Inter-Council Presence of the Russian Orthodox Church, which has the status of a church-wide advisory body. It received its name by analogy with the Pre-Conciliar Presence, which operated in 1905–1906, whose works formed the basis for the decisions of the famous Holy Council of 1917–1918. However, unlike the beginning of the twentieth century, the current mechanisms of work go far beyond the scope of commissions and working groups, in which members of the Inter-Council Presence discuss a variety of – sometimes very internal to the church, and sometimes socially important – topics that require church understanding. The most important component of the work of the presence is the open discussion of the most significant proposals and draft decisions, which are not only sent to all dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate, but also published on the Internet so that everyone can express their opinion. The most controversial or complex documents are then submitted for discussion at the plenum, and based on the results they can be submitted for canonical approval by the Council of Bishops. For example, in the coming days the plenum will discuss a complex, but very necessary for the work of church courts, document concerning the imposition of penalties on clergy for possible offenses (with caution, an analogy can be drawn with the Criminal Code). The question of what secular professions a clergyman can and cannot engage in will also be discussed, perhaps not yet so relevant for our country, but which has fully entered into the life of the clergy in foreign countries. A topic related to the practice of “blessing weapons” will become a hot topic that will cause multilateral controversy during the publication of the project. The document, by the way, discusses the very applicability of this expression: the authors of the project insist that the church prays primarily for soldiers, and not for their weapons. Finally, if time permits, it is planned to discuss some proposals for even more precise expression of the Church's position on abortion prevention.

Returning to the work that preceded the plenum, it is worth mentioning the recently completed stage of discussion of the topic of the church’s attitude to in vitro fertilization. Thanks to the publication of a project prepared by one of the working groups of the Inter-Council Presence, it was possible to identify not only ideologically polar opinions on this matter, but also a number of arguments for or against that were not fully taken into account during the expert work. This became the reason for the long-overdue creation in the church of the Synodal Commission on Bioethics, which will also continue to work on this very pressing issue, taking into account both scientific, theological, and pastoral issues.

A striking example of the capabilities of the Inter-Council presence was the round table that took place just the other day, dedicated to the topic of vaccination, which is very concerning for many church people, along with other members of society. The round table, organized by the Secretariat of the Inter-Council Presence, brought together clergy, representatives of the scientific world, the public and became an example of another church deliberative format. Its participants, as a result of many hours of discussion and sometimes controversy, were able to give a preliminary answer to some questions that concern the average believer and which did not find an answer in the documents of the Russian Orthodox Church. In particular, it was emphasized that vaccination is not a subject of church doctrine: choosing whether to get vaccinated or not is a personal matter for everyone. An important topic discussed was the use of human embryonic cell cultures, that is, cell cultures derived from the cells of a once aborted baby, for the development or testing of vaccines (and many other medications). Since abortion for an Orthodox person is, of course, a sin, an ethical conflict arose. The members of the round table came to the conclusion that in the absence of an alternative, a person’s use of such a medical drug does not make him complicit in the sin of an abortion once committed by other people. At the same time, medications in the development of which the mentioned technologies were not used are considered as ethically more acceptable, that is, if there is an alternative, their use will be correct.

Nowadays, in the conditions of the possibility of unlimited expression realized thanks to new means of communication, social networks and similar tools, differences in views can become even stronger than in past centuries, a reason for even more frequent and strong divisions and even discord. And church members are members of the same human society, in which, along with achievements, similar risks arise.

Without a doubt, there are issues in the church that do not involve an alternative opinion; these are, first of all, issues of a doctrinal nature. But there are also many subjects that need discussion and reasoning. The inter-conciliar presence is a place for church discussions in which topics that, it would seem, could lead to more or less serious friction can “cook” and crystallize. The main thing is to develop the ability for honest and respectful dialogue. And for a Christian - to such a dialogue in which in the interlocutor and even the opponent we will see, first of all, a brother or sister in Christ.