REFERENCE: Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Sergius (Stragorodsky). short biography

Sergius (Stragorodsky)

Ivan Nikolaevich Stragorodsky

1867-1944

Russian Orthodox Church

First generation of modernists

San: patriarch

Graduated from: Arzamas Theological School, Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary, SPbDA

Taught at: SPbDA, MDA

Organizations: Commission for Correction of Liturgical Books, Religious and Philosophical Meetings of 1901-1903, Pre-Conciliar Presence

Press: Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, The Truth about Religion in Russia (collection)

Influenced by: Anthony (Khrapovitsky)

Influenced by: Voronov Liveriy Arkadievich

Direction: moral monism

,
Church reform
Modernism

in the world Ivan Nikolaevich Stragorodsky

(1867 - 1944) - modernist theologian, one of the founders of moral monism.

Content

• 1 influences 1.1 Sergianism

influence

Student of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky).

Sergianism

In Sergianism there is a special veneration of Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky).

Wise helmsman[1][2]:59 • A wise hierarch with a penetrating gaze, looking forward[2]:70 • A great mind who correctly assessed the entire situation of church life of that time[2]:70 • An experienced helmsman who navigated the church ship among many reefs and reefs to a quiet marina[2]:70.

The wise management of Patriarch Sergius made it possible to safely navigate the church ship among underwater rocks and reefs, among the unrest and whirlpools of wartime, bypassing the vast and loose shoals of indifference and disbelief[3].

— Archimandrite Isaac (Vinogradov). 1952

Name of Metropolitan Sergius is connected in Sergian speech with the theme of “salvation of the Church.” Metropolitan Sergius was the first to introduce this topic. In a conversation with the Petrograd clergy in 1927, Metropolitan. Sergius said: “I am saving the Church.” Those present told the metropolitan: “The Church does not need salvation, but you yourself are saved through it.” Then Met. Sergius says that he said this in a different sense: “Well, yes, of course, from a religious point of view it makes no sense to say: “I am saving the Church,” but I am talking about the external position of the Church.”[4].

Patriarch Alexy II:

He preserved the Church in the most difficult years, led it through storms, unrest and trials until the restoration of the Patriarchate[5].

opening of a monument in Arzamas Opening of a monument to Patriarch Sergius of Stragorod.
On August 13, 2021 (in the year of the 150th anniversary of the birth of Patriarch Sergius), His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' took part in the opening ceremony of the monument to Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow and All Rus' near the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery in Arzamas.

The ceremony was attended by: Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas Georgy, Governor of the Nizhny Novgorod Region V.P. Shantsev, manager of the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga Barsanuphius, head of the Administrative Secretariat of the Moscow Patriarchate, Archbishop Sergius of Solnechnogorsk, all the hierarchs who arrived in Arzamas for the memorable celebrations dedicated to the 150th anniversary of Patriarch Sergius, the clergy of the Nizhny Novgorod Metropolis, relatives of Patriarch Sergius.

Then His Holiness Patriarch Kirill addressed the ceremony participants:

Probably, many of you know that His Holiness Sergius carried out his labors during the most difficult time in the entire history of the Russian Orthodox Church. As the Primate of the Church, he faced difficulties that no one else had encountered, because it was about the very existence of the Orthodox faith in Rus'.

His Holiness Sergius walked his Patriarchal path on the Cross with dignity. And therefore, we, grateful descendants, remembering the anniversary date of his birth, turn to God with a prayer that He may rest in His heavenly abodes the soul of His Holiness Patriarch Sergius and preserve the eternal grateful memory of him in our hearts[6].

memorial services
On May 15, 2021, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia performed a litany for the ever-memorable Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) on the occasion of the 76th anniversary of his death[7].

Time in fate: His Holiness Sergius, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'

II

His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Sergius (Stragorodsky) was born into a priestly family: his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were clergy. It was his origin that largely determined (or even predetermined) the stages of his first steps in life: theological school, the Seminary, and then the Academy. He could choose only one thing: in what capacity he would serve God: as a white priest or as a monk. Ivan Stragorodsky chose the latter[4].

The human soul is in darkness, it is difficult to say what made the 23-year-old young man put on a black hood and renounce the “world” forever. One thing will remain undoubted - from that time until his death, the “learned monk” Sergius was entirely in the service of the Church, his life was inseparable from official church institutions. Career developed rapidly. After a short service in the Japanese Orthodox Spiritual Mission and as a ship's priest on the ship "Memory of Azov", he was appointed acting assistant professor in the department of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament at the capital's Theological Academy, from where he was soon transferred to Moscow (also to the Academy), but as an inspector.

At 27 years old, Sergius is an archimandrite and rector of the Russian embassy church in Athens. Nothing delayed his rapid rise up the career ladder: in 1895 he received a Master of Theology[5], two years later he became assistant to the head of the Japanese mission, where in 1890 he began his ministry as an ordinary hieromonk. Finally, since 1899, Archimandrite Sergius was finally established in the capital. First, as the rector of the seminary, then (for a short time) as an inspector of the Academy, and from January 25, 1901, as the rector. A month later, Sergius became a bishop. It took him eleven years to go through all the steps of the church hierarchical ladder, receive an academic degree and the position of rector of the Academy, to which promising “learned monks” were usually appointed.

Of course, all this speaks of Sergius’s remarkable abilities, his energy, will and intelligence. To become a bishop at the age of 34 was something that rarely happened during the Synodal period of Russian church history. In addition to his “talents,” his superiors had to like him - from Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg to Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev inclusive. There is every reason to assume that the young bishop was well versed in all the intricacies of “church politics”, understood where and what needed to be said, with whom and why it was worth having good relations, and with whom it was not worth it. All this was combined with Archimandrites. Sergius with sincere, almost childlike faith, deepest religiosity and conviction of the need to carry out long-overdue church reforms.

It is no coincidence that already in the fall of 1901, when meetings of the Religious and Philosophical Assemblies began, he became their chairman, participating in discussions with domestic intellectuals and God-seekers[6]. On the other hand, he sincerely believed in the deep religiosity of the Russian people, in the possibility of the emergence of “elders of the people” among them. It is no coincidence that he believed the vicar of the Kazan bishop Khrisanf (Shchetkovsky), who sent him the then (in 1903) famous Grigory Rasputin with a letter of recommendation to few people. It was Bishop Sergius who led the Siberian wanderer to Archimandrite Feofan (Bistrov), who introduced the “elder” to the high society.[7] We know almost nothing about the future connections of the future Patriarch with his “king’s friend.” One can only say that their acquaintance lasted quite a long time: Bishop Sergius, as well as Archimandrite Theophan, for a number of years considered Gr. Rasputin as an “old man”, showing him all sorts of attentions. If you believe the memoirs of Hieromonk Iliodor (Sergei Trufanov), Rasputin stayed in the chambers of Vladyka Sergius back in 1909.

Talking about how he settled his affairs related to his return to Tsaritsyn (from where he was transferred to Minsk due to constant clashes with the authorities), the former hieromonk recalled how, having learned about Rasputin’s stay in the chambers of Archbishop Sergius, he called the latter’s apartment. “Sergius himself spoke on the phone,” Iliodor informed readers. — To my question: “Is it possible to see Grigory Efimovich?” he replied: “They are sleeping.” These words puzzled me a lot. “Here’s the thing, that’s the thing—Rasputin; such important dignitaries as Sergius speak of him with such reverence: they rest!” — I thought”[8].

It is worth recalling that by that time Vladyka Sergius was the Archbishop of Finland and had already been appointed to attend the Holy Synod. It is impossible to imagine that Sergius at that time did not understand the role and significance of the “elder,” rumors about whose adventures had not yet been announced by the press. The Archbishop of Finland cannot be considered the same “naive soul” as Feofan (Bistrov) - Sergius has proven throughout his career that he is very pragmatic and “political.” It is this circumstance, as it seems to me, that was the key to such a successful career. He was well versed in the direction of political “winds,” which, in fact, allowed him, from the end of the last century, to climb the steps of the church-administrative ladder without leaving the capital.

Proof of the above can also be his appointment to Finland with automatic elevation to the rank of archbishop (October 6, 1905 - still under Pobedonostsev), especially since the appointment to the Finnish and Vyborg Sees was then considered proof of the exceptional favor of the secular authorities towards the bishop.

By the way, recalling in 1911 the history of the “Finnish appointment” of 1905, Archbishop of Volyn Anthony (Khrapovitsky), a former teacher and patron of Sergius, stated that in March of that year “St. The Synod elected the Most Reverend Tikhon [Bellavin - S.F.], Bishop of America, to the Finnish see, but at the next meeting the proposal of the Chief Prosecutor about the need for the Right Reverend Tikhon for America was announced, and a different appointment followed.”[9]. Bishop Anthony did not clarify why in March 1905 the Holy Synod did not take into account the need for Bishop Tikhon for America, and later “received the light” by agreeing with the proposal of the Chief Prosecutor, but for those who knew the synodal system, what was said was quite enough to understand : K.P. Pobedonostsev “had designs on” Bishop Sergius. Paradoxically, it was the old Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, an ideologist and apologist for Peter’s church reform, who helped the future Patriarch, who on many internal church issues fundamentally disagreed with the opinions of his patron, enter “big” church politics.

Pobedonostsev knew how to understand people: in Bishop Sergius he saw a brilliant church administrator, a purposeful and strong man. At the same time, Vladyka Sergius knew how not to quarrel with the authorities, find contacts with God-seeking intelligentsia[10], and avoid the extremes of the “right” and “left” interpretations in his statements and articles. In addition, he was a well-educated theologian, an erudite and well-read man.

Proof of this can be found in the answers to the question about urgent church reforms that he gave to the Holy Synod at the very beginning of 1906. The history of this survey was quite simple. In the spring of 1905, Pobedonostsev found himself in a state of real war with the leading member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Anthony. The bishop responded to the invitation of the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers S.Yu. Witte and took part in a meeting that discussed the issue of religious freedoms. Metropolitan Anthony quite reasonably pointed out that if religious rights were granted to non-Orthodox people, the Orthodox Church would find itself in a difficult position, tied hand and foot by state tutelage. Thus, the meeting also addressed the question of the situation of the Church. Enraged, the Chief Prosecutor made every effort to remove the case from the Committee of Ministers and transfer it to the Holy Synod. He succeeded. But the Synod also “betrayed” Pobedonostseva, showing an amazing initiative and turning to Nicholas II with an all-submissive report, which stated the need to convene a Council. Having managed to “stop the flow” this time too, the Chief Prosecutor, whose influence was catastrophically declining in the first half of 1905, decided on the last measure: to oppose the “rebellious” Holy Synod in its entirety to the episcopal corps.

On June 28, the Holy Synod considered Pobedonostsev’s proposal “on the need for preparatory work on the issues proposed for consideration at the Local Council of the All-Russian Church.” It was supposed to discuss questions about the division of Russia into church districts under the control of metropolitans, about the transformation of church administration and court, about the parish, about the improvement of theological schools, about the procedure for acquiring church property, about diocesan congresses, about the participation of clergy in public organizations and about objects of faith.

Having listed the issues, the Holy Synod pointed out the need to familiarize the diocesan bishops with them, especially since the Local Council must have before it the material necessary “for judgment” - “developed and brought into the system.” The bishops were required, having hired competent assistants, to present their considerations to the Holy Synod no later than December 1, 1905. The bishops did not meet the deadline (the last response was dated March 1, 1906), but, nevertheless, they submitted answers. For Pobedonostsev, if he had continued to remain in his post, it would have been a disaster: almost all the bishops spoke in favor of convening the Council and electing the Patriarch.

Among these bishops was, of course, Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky). In writing his review, he went much further than his fellow bishops, often offering non-standard solutions to the most difficult church problems. Sergius the theorist is also interesting because he gained fame mainly as a “practitioner” who steered the Russian church ship during the years of militant atheism, when no reforms could even be dreamed of. However, we should also not forget that at the time of writing his review, Vladyka Sergius was a relatively young man and a very young bishop (since 1901). But still…

In the opinion of the archbishop, it was best to convene the Local Council in a city less significant than St. Petersburg or Moscow. The best place is in Novgorod. The first act of the Council was to abolish the Holy Synod as the supreme government of the Orthodox Church and proclaim as such the Local Council. The election of the Patriarch, he wrote, should be the end of the council meetings. In the future, it was proposed to convene the Local Council as often as possible, because it would gradually give the force of law to changes “in the church system, as their necessity and suitability become clear”[11].

Vladyka Sergius was a supporter of an elected clergy, but believed that “now” this is an “idle dream.” Judging by the reviews, it is impossible to recognize him as a supporter of episcopal absolutism: the Bishop, he wrote, must share his controlling and partly administrative power with the diocesan congress, the decisions of which he approves with his authority. Under the renewed church system, the bishop would also approve the verdicts of the church court with the right of appeal to higher authorities, and would have the final (decisive) vote in electing candidates for the priesthood.

A supporter of the decentralization of church government, Archbishop Sergius declared the need to divide Russia into 12 metropolitan districts (in Novgorod /if the Patriarch is in St. Petersburg/, in Vilna, in Vologda, in Moscow /if the Patriarch is in the Mother See, then in Tver/, in Kazan, Vladimir, Novocherkassk, Kiev, Kharkov, Tobolsk, Irkutsk and Georgia). “The metropolitan is elected by the council of bishops of the region,” he wrote, “and, as a general rule, the voice of the metropolitan diocese is also heard; the election is confirmed by the Patriarch and his Holy Synod”[12]. Vladyka Sergius also wrote about the election of a bishop, who should be elected by a council of bishops in the presence of the metropolitan of the district and with the testimony of the clergy and people.

He separately described the election of the Patriarch. For this purpose, the All-Russian Council had to be divided into two chambers: the upper (the Holy Council) and the lower (the Council of representatives from the dioceses, as well as clergy and laity). The second chamber draws up its list of candidates, which is considered by the bishop's council. The latter has the right to supplement and trim this list. The final authority is the Sovereign, who approves it. Then, separately, by closed voting, both chambers elect one candidate each, after which the representative of the Sovereign, in the temple where everyone has gathered, writes three names on identical tickets: the names of the candidates from the two chambers and the personal candidacy of the Emperor. All three names can be the same. Everything is decided by lot. The highest legislator and judge of the Russian Church, according to Sergius, is undoubtedly the Council, which meets at least once every five years, as needed.

The relationship between the Church and Her Supreme Ktitor, the archbishop believed, “must be such as the very essence of the matter requires, that is, the relationship of a faithful son to his spiritual mother, must be characterized by submission to Her canons and tradition, respect for Her voice and Her freedom and benevolent patronage and protection in Her external position and activities”[13].

As already mentioned, Sergius was a “learned monk” and in 1901 he was appointed rector of the capital’s Theological Academy. Therefore, the question of the state of theological schools was close and understandable to him. In his review, he specifically examined it, joining the opinion of Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Volyn, who proposed to allocate all four upper classes of the Seminary for the pastoral school and leave for the general education (mainly class) school and two lower classes of the Seminary (the so-called six-grade pro-gymnasium). Bishop Sergius believed that in order to prepare pastors it was necessary to open special theological Seminaries, which would accept all interested Orthodox Christians who had graduated from secondary educational institutions, without distinction of class.

Regarding the future of theological academies, the archbishop adhered to “liberal” (at that time) views, pointing out that the principles of complete autonomy should prevail in both their scientific and educational activities. Administratively, in the event of a general reform, the Academies must report directly to the Patriarch and the Holy Synod. But all this was said only under the condition that the bishop occupy the rector’s position.

Sergius also spoke about the possible timing of convening the Council: in his opinion, it was necessary to immediately “invite the dioceses to begin electing representatives, so that after Easter or on the week of St. father (the day indicated by the canons, and by the way, the 10th anniversary of the coronation) to appoint the opening of the long-awaited All-Russian Local Council”[14]. Several categories of delegates were to compose this Council, assembled to transform and abolish the synodal system of church government.

Firstly, the diocesan bishops, who, at the invitation of the Holy Synod, approved at the Council, are joined by some of the suffragans. Secondly, two protopresbyters (military and court clergy). Thirdly, representatives from the dioceses (four people each). And, fourthly, distinguished professors of canon law and church history (by special invitation). All these delegates, Vladyka Sergius believed, should have a decisive vote. Another category are persons who will come to the Council of their own free will: supernumerary and vicar bishops, representatives of other autocephalous Churches, clergy and laity.

Considering class to be one of the scourges of spiritual life, the archbishop proposed to decisively abandon the idea of ​​​​considering the clergy a special corporation, separate from the laity, with specific (different from general church) interests. “If we consider a parish and then a diocese to be a cell of the church body,” he wrote, “let them, and not the different ranks of the Church, send their representatives, and these representatives can be both clergy and laity indifferently.”[15] For a person who grew up and was formed in a “clerical” environment, whose ancestors were priests for many decades (and even centuries), making such a statement meant renouncing class egoism, pointing out that there is and cannot be a place for any privileges in the Church for the "tribe of the Levites".

At the Councils, Archbishop Sergius believed, members of the Holy Synod should be elected for a period of five years. Only a third of the composition, the archbishop wrote, could be received by bishops, the other third by representatives of the white clergy, and the last by the laity. Metropolitans of church districts were asked to be given the right to convene regional councils to discuss and satisfy the needs of the district. The author of the review saw the diocesan governing body as consisting of a presbytery council, also elected for a 5-year term at local (diocesan) councils. In turn, diocesan councils should consist of elected clergy and laity (equally) and convene every three years.

Such a scheme could not fail to provide for the granting to the parish of the rights of a legal entity to acquire movable and immovable property, the right to control church funds and, partly, the right to dispose of them. It is significant that among the proposals made by the Archbishop of Finland was a proposal to discuss at the future Council the issue of simplifying the liturgical Slavic language and granting the right, where the parish wishes, to perform divine services in their native language!

The parish, in his opinion, should have received the right to intercede for an elected candidate for clergy membership, who was to be elected by the presbyteral council and approved by the bishop. True, the scheme could operate only if certain conditions were met: the candidate passed the educational qualifications and age (the future priest could not be ordained before the age of 30).

To improve the material maintenance of clergy, it was stated that it was necessary, in addition to local funds, to pay a decent government salary: in the village - at least 1200 rubles - to priests, 1000 rubles - to deacons and 800 rubles to psalm-readers. All this, counting land income, circle income and government salaries.

Regarding the relationship of the Church with the “world,” Sergius showed himself to be a supporter of the closest possible contacts. “As for the right of participation of the clergy in public and civil institutions,” he said, “this should be granted to them as one of the means for implementing Christian principles”[16]. Concern for “Christian principles” also prompted a call to destroy the prisons of the ecclesiastical department. The Archbishop even proposed to give the clergy the right on the outskirts of the Empire, where the Orthodox were in the minority, to avoid troubles to wear secular clothing.

But this was not the most radical proposal. Bishop Sergius considered it possible and correct to discuss granting each diocese the right to elect its own bishop. At the same time, bishops could also be persons of the white clergy, without taking monastic orders, for example: widowed priests or those who left their wives by voluntary agreement with them! In addition, Vladyka supported the right of widowed priests to enter into a second marriage (though if they were widowed before the age of 45). These radical proposals are somewhat reminiscent of the “revolutionary” reforms of the renovationists of the 1920s, although the motivation of their ideologists was completely opposite to Sergiev’s: Vladyka was an opponent of any, especially church, revolutions.

First of all, Vladyka tried to find a compromise. Apparently, this can explain the fact that after the failure of the idea of ​​church reformation in 1905–1907. Sergius was not perceived by Russian conservatives as a “left” bishop (unlike, say, Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky)), having suffered nothing “in his service.” In general, the ability to achieve a set goal, to go per aspera ad astra distinguished Sergius in all periods of his life.

After Pobedonostsev’s resignation, he managed to become so strong that from 1911 (and, as it turned out, until 1917) he was a member of the Holy Synod, in fact being one of the real leaders of the Russian Church. He was valued by chief prosecutors, and he had the opportunity to influence (indirectly, of course) on episcopal appointments. For example, it was Archbishop Sergius, and not anyone else, who proposed to the deputy of the Third State Duma, Bishop Evlogiy (Georgievsky) of Kholm, whose activities then fully satisfied the department of Orthodox confession, to move “to another, calmer and more convenient diocese” - to the Simferopol See: in the opinion of Bishop Sergius, as well as in the opinion of V.K. Sabler, who then held the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, the undoubted advantages of this department were not only the wonderful climate and nature, but also “frequent visits to the Crimea by the Royal Family”[17 ].

It is quite difficult to judge Sergius’s relationship with the Royal Family (primarily with Nicholas II) - there are clearly not enough sources, however, the awards received by the Finnish Archbishop from the Supreme Ktitor of the Church can obviously serve as signs of royal mercy to the bishop. It is significant that the appointment as a member of the Holy Synod, and the awarding of a diamond cross to be worn on the hood (in 1912), and the awarding of the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky (in 1915) occurred on May 6 - the Emperor’s birthday.

However, he never received a white metropolitan hood until 1917, although the formal

there was an opportunity for this: after the death in November 1912 of the capital's bishop Anthony (Vadkovsky), whose closest ally Archbishop Sergius was for many years, and after the death of the Kiev Metropolitan Flavian (Gorodetsky) - in November 1915. However, in the first, and in the second case his candidacy was rejected. For the first time, the reason was the notorious deafness of the archbishop, although the point, I think, was that Sergius in the eyes of the autocrat was still an insufficiently understandable figure: a comrade-in-arms of Metropolitan Anthony, unloved after 1905, although loyal, always had his own opinion, moreover by the standards of that time, he was relatively young to lead a department in the capital - only 45 years old!

The second time the reason was much more serious, so much so that the question of the white hood could only be considered as purely theoretical. In the new circumstances, the problem was the attitude towards Rasputin and his henchmen. We know very little about how (and whether) contacts between the future Patriarch of the Russian Church and the notorious “elder” developed. Most likely, Sergius recoiled from “father” Gregory immediately after the scandalous revelations made against the latter, i.e. approximately between 1910 and 1912. The Archbishop apparently realized that a connection with “his royal friend” would discredit not only him personally, but also the Church. However, it is not entirely clear why such a subtle person, as Vladyka Sergius undoubtedly was, could ignore the accusations brought against the “elder” for so long - for example, the case of belonging to gr. Rasputin to the mystical sect of the Khlysty, approved by Tobolsk Bishop Anthony (Karzhavin) back in May 1908?! This is all the more interesting since Vladyka knew Rasputin since 1903. I do not have an answer to the question asked.

Only one thing is clear: it was precisely the anti-Rasputin sentiments of this “darling of fate” that ultimately created a negative attitude towards him among the royal couple. The desire to “be liked” could not outweigh the voice of his conscience, and the years spent strengthening his own position in the church administration were ultimately lost in vain. During the First World War, Archbishop Sergius openly opposed Rasputin’s protege, the illiterate and arrogant Tobolsk Bishop Varnava (Nakropin), whose very affiliation with the episcopal “corporation” offended this latter; against his unauthorized actions related to the canonization of Metropolitan John Maksimovich. On September 8, 1915, the Empress wrote to her husband how Sergius, together with Archbishops Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) and Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) “for 3 hours attacked V.[arnava] about our Friend[18]” (i.e. .gr. Rasputin - S.F.). The next day, in a detailed letter, Alexandra Feodorovna again recalled the “case” of Barnabas, recommending that Nicholas II “send to retirement” Agafangel and replace him (as the Yaroslavl bishop) with “Sergius of Finland, who must leave the Synod”[19].

However, the Empress’s calls were unsuccessful: Sergius remained in his place. They remembered him only in November 1915, when the Kiev department became vacant. It was then that his name reappeared in the correspondence of the last royal couple. As is known, Petrograd Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) was then transferred to Ukraine, appointing Exarch of Georgia Pitirim (Oknov) to the capital. In connection with the changes that had taken place, the Empress feared the possible appointment to Georgia (to the fourth most important department) of the bishops she hated. “But not S.[ergiy] F.[Inlyandsky], or A.[tony] V.[olynsky], or Hermogenes! [Dolganev, former Bishop of Saratov, the most active enemy of Gr. Rasputin - S.F.], she wrote. “They would ruin everything there with their spirit...”[20]

End of introductory fragment.

education

He studied at the Arzamas Theological School. In 1886 he graduated from the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary. From 1886 to 1890 he studied at SPbDA under the guidance of Metropolitan. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and accepts his teaching of moral monism. He defended his Ph.D. thesis “Orthodox teaching on faith and good deeds” outlining the foundations of moral monism.

In 1893, he was appointed acting assistant professor in the department of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament at St. Petersburg. In the same year - acting inspector of the MDA.

In 1895, he defended his master's thesis on the topic “Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation,” which became a classic of modernism.

On July 29, 1899, he was appointed rector of SPbDS, and in the same year he was appointed inspector of SPbDA. Since 1901 - rector of SPbDA.

hierarchy

In 1890, he was tonsured a monk, ordained a hieromonk, and appointed to Japan as a member of the Orthodox Spiritual Mission.

In December 1891, he was appointed ship's chaplain on the ship "Memory of Azov".

In 1894, he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite and appointed rector of the Russian Embassy Church in Athens.

In 1897, he was reappointed to Japan as assistant chief of mission.

On February 25, 1901, he was consecrated as bishop. Yamburgsky, vicar of the St. Petersburg diocese. Since 1905 - Archbishop of Finland and Vyborg.

In August 1917, he was elected Archbishop of Vladimir and Shuisky by secret ballot. On November 28, 1917, he was elevated to the rank of metropolitan.

Member of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917 - 1918.

Russian Orthodox Church

The future Patriarch Sergius (in the world Ivan Nikolaevich Stragorodsky) was born on January 11, 1867 in the city of Arzamas, Nizhny Novgorod province, into the family of Archpriest Nikolai Stragorodsky. He received his primary education at the parish, then at the Arzamas Theological School.

In 1886 he graduated from the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary and entered the St. Petersburg Theological Academy.

On January 30, 1890, on Valaam, he was tonsured a monk with the name Sergius in honor of St. Sergius of Valaam; On April 21, he was ordained hieromonk.

On May 9, 1890 he graduated from the Theological Academy with a candidate's degree in theology. On June 13, he was sent to Japan as a member of the Orthodox Spiritual Mission. In December 1891, he was appointed ship's chaplain on the ship "Memory of Azov".

In 1893, he was appointed acting assistant professor of the Department of Holy Scripture of the Old Testament of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. From December 13, 1893 - acting inspector of the Moscow Theological Academy.

On September 21, 1894, he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite and appointed rector of the Russian Embassy Church in Athens.

In 1895 he was awarded a master's degree in theology for his dissertation “Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation.”

In 1897, he was reappointed to Japan as assistant to the head of the Orthodox Ecclesiastical Mission.

On July 29, 1899, he was appointed rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary, and on October 6 - inspector of the Theological Academy. Since January 21, 1901 - rector of St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

On February 25, 1901, he was consecrated Bishop of Yamburg, vicar of the St. Petersburg diocese. The consecration was performed by Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg, Metropolitan Theognost (Lebedev) of Kiev, Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany) of Moscow, Archbishop Jerome of Kholm and Warsaw (Exemplarsky), Bishop Jacob (Pyatnitsky) of Chisinau, Bishop Boris (Plotnikov), Bishop of Gdov Veniamin (Muratovsky), Bishop Nikon (Sofia) of Narva and Bishop Vladimir (Blagorazumov) of Sarapul.

From October 6, 1905 - Archbishop of Finland and Vyborg. In 1906, he participated in the session of the Holy Synod, chaired the Educational Committee, while simultaneously correcting the texts of liturgical books.

On May 6, 1911 he was appointed a member of the Holy Synod.

From March 1, 1912 - Chairman of the Pre-Conciliar Conference at the Synod.

On April 4, 1913, he was appointed chairman of the Missionary Council at the Holy Synod. On January 14, 1915, according to the request, he was relieved of this position.

From August 10, 1917 - Archbishop of Vladimir and Shuisky. On November 28 in Moscow he was elevated to the rank of Metropolitan. On December 7, he was elected a member of the Holy Synod.

He took part in the work of the All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918.

In January 1921 he was arrested for several months, released by Easter and sentenced to exile in Nizhny Novgorod.

On June 16, 1922, Metropolitan Sergius, together with Archbishop Evdokim of Nizhny Novgorod and Archbishop Seraphim of Kostroma in the so-called. The “Memorandum of the Three” (“Appeal”) publicly recognized the Renovationist Provisional Church Administration (TCU) as the only canonical church authority, but Metropolitan Sergius, despite the recognition of the TCU, indicated that Patriarch Tikhon should be commemorated in his diocese. He was not a supporter of renovationist reforms and on August 25, 1922 he addressed the All-Russian Central Church with a letter of protest against non-canonical innovations (the introduction of a married episcopate, second marriage of the clergy, etc.); On September 13, he broke off relations with VCU. On August 27, 1923, during the Liturgy in the Donskoy Monastery in Moscow, he offered public repentance and was received by Patriarch Tikhon into the bosom of the Church.

Since March 18, 1924 - Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod.

In December 1925 he was appointed Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens.

Arrested in November 1926, released in March 1927 and again entered into the administration of the Church as a deputy Patriarchal locum tenens.

The result of the arrest and pressure on him and on the Church was the publication of a document known as the “Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius” and published on July 29, 1927. The declaration noted the fact of the sabotage and sabotage activities of “our foreign enemies”, in connection with which it is especially important “now to show “that we, church leaders, are not with the enemies of our Soviet state and not with the insane instruments of their intrigues, but with our people and Government.” This document caused a protest among the clergy; many representatives of the episcopate and clergy broke off communication with Metropolitan Sergius. By the end of 1930, there were about four dozen bishops who refused administrative subordination to Metropolitan Sergius. Particular dissatisfaction among the clergy and laity was caused by the ban on commemorating exiled bishops at services and demands for commemoration by the authorities.

On February 19, 1930, Metropolitan Sergius addressed the Soviet government with a petition to resume church publishing activities and restore theological schools. The Patriarchate received permission to publish its official organ, the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (24 issues were published in 1931-1935).

On April 27, 1934, Bishop Sergius was given the title “His Beatitude Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna” with the right to wear two panagias.

In the fall of 1936, the Moscow Patriarchate received false information about the death of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), who was in prison (in fact, he was shot a year later, on October 10, 1937). On December 27, the Patriarchate issued the “Act on the transfer of the rights and duties of the locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne of the Orthodox Russian Church to the deputy of the Patriarchal locum tenens, His Beatitude Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Sergius (Stragorodsky)”; the Moscow Patriarchate also issued a decree on the appropriate form of commemoration from January 1, 1937 at the service of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius.

June 22, 1941, on the first day of the Great Patriotic War, before the first appeal to the people by I.V. Stalin, delivered a “Message to the Pastors and Flock of Christ’s Orthodox Church,” which was sent out to all parishes on the same day.

On September 4, 1943, together with Metropolitans Alexy (Simansky) and Nikolai (Yarushevich), I.V. was received. Stalin. During the meeting, the bishops outlined their wishes, including the holding of the Council and the election of the Patriarch. I.V. Stalin assured that the USSR Government would provide all possible assistance.

On September 8, 1943, in the new building of the Patriarchate in Moscow at 5 Chisty Lane, a Council of Bishops was held, which elected Metropolitan Sergius Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. On September 12, his enthronement took place at the Epiphany Cathedral in Elokhov, Moscow.

He died on May 15, 1944. He was buried in the basement of the St. Nicholas (northern) chapel of the Epiphany Cathedral.

renovationism

During the Bolshevik campaign to confiscate church valuables in 1922, Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) called on the clergy and laity of his diocese to seek a compromise with the authorities and condemned violent measures to protect church shrines. Shifting responsibility for “excesses” to believers, Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) wrote about this: “Every action performed with hostility, with irritation, causes irritation against oneself. And where both sides are irritated, it is difficult to expect mutual compliance and moderation in demands from them. It would not happen to us that those church things that, with our different behavior, could have been preserved for our church, now, due to mutual irritation, would be taken from us.”

On June 16, 1922, together with Archbishop. Evdokim (Meshchersky) and Archbishop. Seraphim (Meshcheryakov) recognizes the renovationist VCU and becomes its member. He remained in the Renovationist schism until August 27, 1923.

Accepted from Renovationism into the fold of the Patriarchal Church with a scandal after public repentance by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon on the day of the Dormition in the Donskoy Monastery.

According to a contemporary description:

Metropolitan Sergius asked the Patriarch to bless him to serve with him in Donskoy. The Patriarch refused, citing the fact that he was in the “Living Church”. Metropolitan Sergius began to prove that he had not sinned, and the Patriarch agreed to allow him to serve without public repentance. When Met. Sergius appeared in Donskoy and began to put on a mantle in order to go together with other bishops to meet the Patriarch (this was the order there), then the bishops told him not to go out to meet him and not to serve with the Patriarch. He began to refer to the blessing of the Patriarch, then they told him that if he served, then all of them, including the priests, would not serve and would leave them alone, since the decision given by the Patriarch was considered illegal. At the same time, they suggested Met. Sergius must first bring public repentance, and then serve. Metropolitan Sergius was forced to obey. In general, a very scandalous thing happened here and Met. Sergius dropped himself badly. Ep. Theodore (Pozdeevsky) strongly rebelled against his appointment to Nizhny and once did not even receive him. Metropolitan is considered to be the main culprit of the church unrest. Sergius, who, together with Evdokim and Seraphim, wrote a letter recognizing the Church Administration of Antoninus as canonical. Many who have recognized the “Living Church” say that they were confused by Met. Sergius (eg Artemy, former Luzhsky).

Since March 18, 1924 - Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod.

Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky).

On September 8, 1943, a Council of 19 bishops took place, which elected Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.

Sergius was born on January 11, 1867 in the city.
Arzamas, Nizhny Novgorod province, studied at the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary and completed his education at the Petrograd Theological Academy in 1890 as the first candidate. His candidate's essay was revised into a master's essay and published under the title: “Orthodox teaching on salvation.” This is not an ordinary work for obtaining an academic degree, but a book that made a whole revolution in Russian theological science, establishing a firm view of the intrinsic value of Christian virtue. Who observed the life of the archbishop up close. Sergius, he has the moral right to add that this work is not just a scientific work abstracted from life, but a sincere confession of the living faith of its author and the basic rule of his behavior. At the end of the academic course, the young monk, left as a professorial fellow at the Theological Academy, despite his natural inclination for scientific activity, does not take advantage of his advantage, but voluntarily goes to distant Japan. Here he successfully studies Japanese and enters into missionary work. Enlightenment of Japan Rev. Nicholas declares that of all the assistants who were sent to him from Russia, Hieromonk Sergius was the only one whom he could wish to have as his successor. His state of health did not allow him to stay for a long time in this country, which he managed to love heartily and with which he still has ties. Nevertheless, the two-time, total five-year interruption in the mission brought him rich experience in organizing Christian life in the spirit of the first centuries of Christianity. His two books: a) “In the Far East (letters from a Japanese missionary)” and b) “Across Japan” - give a very clear idea of ​​the school where he studied Christian practical work under the guidance of Bishop. Nicholas, and about his own face. During his wanderings, the young monk confirmed and expanded his knowledge of new languages, and at the same time became familiar with the broad outlook that is the property of representatives of Western culture, without losing anything from his always strict Orthodoxy and churchliness. Subsequently, thanks to this, he took an active part in the efforts of the society to bring the Orthodox Church closer to the Anglican Church. Service in the embassy church in Athens and a trip to Palestine allowed him to personally become acquainted with the church life and church leaders of the East that shares our faith; this acquaintance is extremely important for the person who is at the center of government of our Church, which awaits reorganization on canonical grounds. A new trip to Japan and a return to Petrograd to the educational activities that began before his appointment to Athens - such is the sequence of changes in the life of the current archbishop. Finnish. His educational activities took place at the Moscow and Petrograd Theological Academies, mainly in the latter. Rector of Petrograd Spirit. He attended the seminary for a very short time. Holding the position of Inspector and Rector of the Petrograd Theological Academy, he was a direct successor of the work and traditions coming from the Reverend. Anthony Vadkovsky. His simplicity, accessibility, humane attitude towards students and colleagues, broad tolerance and, so to speak, intelligence left a good and indelible memory of him in everyone who had contact with him during these years. The religious and philosophical community saw him many times in its meetings and appreciated both his moral personality and his ecclesiastical intelligence and broad education. He has been in the rank of bishop (of Yamburg) since February 25, 1901, and in 1905 he was appointed archbishop. Finnish. The management of the Finnish diocese allowed him to familiarize himself in detail with the original structure of Finnish Orthodox parishes, which is not similar to the structure of those in Russia. The Archbishop of Finland, according to established custom, is a permanent member of the Holy Synod and works in both its winter and summer sessions. But none of the Finnish archbishops worked in the Holy Synod as much as the Most Reverend. Sergius. It seems that all commissions on church reforms had him as a member, starting from the years of the first revolution. He participated in the pre-conciliar presence and to this day is the chairman of the pre-conciliar meeting at the Holy Synod. He chaired the missionary council, the commission on the issue of grounds for divorce, on the reform of the church court, etc. Since 1913, he was chairman of the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod. Despite this mass of work, he found time to carry out practical work on correcting church liturgical books, and worked here more than all the members of the commission. His scientific background and administrative experience are extremely extensive. Everyone who has had the fortunate opportunity to serve with His Eminence unanimously declares his ability to preside over boards and commissions: it is a pleasure to work with him. Full attention to the opinions expressed, a calm presentation of one’s thoughts or convictions without intrusiveness, an absolute absence of superior superiority, no sign of autocracy, so often observed in rulers - all these are the characteristics of the Archbishop of Finland. Accessible to everyone, he received both the emeritus rector archimandrite and the expelled seminarian with equal attention and benevolence. The direction of his beliefs can be characterized as church-progressive. He is a convinced supporter of the conciliar principle in governing the Church. He was an opponent of Grigory Rasputin and his companions. In the case of the appointment of Barnabas to the episcopal see and the unauthorized discovery of his relics, Archbishop Sergius became the head of the opposition and drew up a written review addressed to the sovereign, signed by another prominent member of the Synod, for which he received the highest moral reward - a reprimand and displeasure from Tsarskoye Selo. In the sphere of spiritual education, Archbishop Sergius was credited with the authorship of the 1911 project on the reform of religious educational institutions. This project aroused great displeasure. But the name of the Eminence is not entirely correctly associated with this reform. The creators of this project were Rev. Mogilevsky - Stefan, and Kharkovsky - Anthony. As for the archbishop. Sergius, he was on the side of the project rejected by the Synod on a full general education course, which would allow seminarians to enter higher educational institutions, and additional three special theological classes. His Eminence Sergius did not curry favor with anyone. As for his relationship to earthly benefits and advantages, it is truly monastic. Working tirelessly for the benefit of the Church, he did not try to replace the poor Finnish see with a more prosperous one. Moreover, people who know his life report that he does not receive his Finnish salary in person, but transfers everything entirely to the Koreli mission, being content with the content that he receives from the Synod and leading an extremely simple and undemanding lifestyle. A feature of the good and honest archbishop is also a surprising circumstance in his rank; not a single piquant gossip stuck to his monastic robe, and the myrrh-bearing women neither in swarms nor alone disturbed his peace. His simple, loving heart and his ability to understand the soul of a person unites the most diverse elements around him: a simple peasant or a monk from the outback, and an important general, and an Old Believer, and an intellectual. It is known that Novorussky, released from Shlisselburg, initially found shelter and affection with His Eminence Sergius; other Shlisselburg residents, for example, the famous Morozov, visited him with confidence. This sympathy for everything sincere and worthy, as well as for unhappy and sometimes embittered humanity, was always unfeignedly true in him, alien to showmanship or politicking. August 8-12, 1917 – Vladimir Extraordinary Diocesan Congress of Clergy and Laity. On August 9, the solemn election of a bishop took place in the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral. The Holy Synod sent His Eminence to elect a bishop. Tikhon, Archbishop of Moscow, who arrived in Vladimir on August 7 at 4 o’clock in the afternoon. On August 9, in the Assumption Cathedral, the archbishop was solemnly committed. Tikhon, concelebrating with all the vicars of the Vladimir diocese and numerous clergy from the congress, celebrated the Divine Liturgy. Only delegates of the diocesan congress with special delegate tickets were allowed into the cathedral; They were also given ballot papers for election, on which they had to write the name of the person elected - the presbyters wore stoles during the service, and the deacons and psalm-readers wore surplices. After the liturgy, a prayer service was offered to the Savior, the Mother of God and the Vladimir miracle workers. At the end of the service, the act of election began. Three ballot boxes were placed on the solea for placing ballot papers. The urns were inspected and sealed in the presence of Archbishop Tikhon. Members of the administrative commission stood around each ballot box. Voters were called from a list; approaching the ballot box, they presented their delegate tickets and cast the ballot. Thanks to these measures, ballot papers were cast in perfect order. The counting of the submitted notes was carried out by a commission under the direct supervision of the archbishop. Tikhon. The names of the candidates named in the notes were called out loudly and voters followed the progress of the voting with keen interest. By the end of counting the notes, it became clear that the majority of votes were in favor of the archbishop. Sergius. Apparently, the mood of some voters changed overnight; Bishop Andrei's candidacy was withdrawn and those who nominated him the day before went over to the side of the archbishop. Sergius; Some of those who had voted the day before for Bishop Eugene also went over to the same side. The voting results were as follows: Archbishop. Sergius received an absolute majority (307), Archpriest. Nalimov 204, Bishop Evgeniy - 27. At the end of the count, an act was drawn up, which was then solemnly read from the pulpit by the protodeacon. After this, “axios” was proclaimed to the newly elected Vladimir hierarch three times, and the general choir of voters began singing the solemn church song “We praise God to you”... The singing was harmonious and animated. One felt the full importance of the church act that had just been accomplished, long forgotten in the Russian Church, the act of the flock electing their archpastor. For the Vladimir diocese, this act was of particular importance: three months ago, the Vladimir flock, represented by its representatives at the diocesan congress, broke communication with its archbishop and expressed a desire to elect a bishop according to its heart. Now this wish has come true: she received the right to vote and carried it out. The choice made seemed to satisfy everyone. In the person of Archbishop. Sergius, the Vladimir diocese has an archpastor who will be its reliable helmsman in the organization of church life as its renewal begins. At the end of the elections, the diocesan congress decided to welcome its archpastor, asked for his blessing and expressed the desire to see him in Vladimir before the end of the congress. Archbishop Sergius at this time had just arrived in Moscow along with other members of the Holy Synod. The welcoming telegram of the Congress was not accepted due to existing orders, and the greetings and request of the congress were transmitted to Moscow by telephone. Bishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) was at a meeting of the Synod at that time. He reported his election to the Vladimir See to the Holy Synod. By the determination of the Holy Synod of August 10, 1917 No. 4961, Sergius was confirmed as Archbishop of Vladimir and Shuisky, replacing Archbishop Alexy III (Dorodnitsyn), who was dismissed at the request of the clergy of the diocese for “despotic” management and rough treatment of the clergy. The congress was very pleased with the opportunity to see their chosen archpastor. On the evening of August 9, Archbishop left Vladimir. Tikhon; Vladimir and former Archbishop Alexy III (Dorodnitsyn) left with the same train. On August 10, the Vladimir flock met their new archbishop in Vladimir. Holy On this day, the Synod approved his election, which was reported to the Spiritual Consistory by telephone. Vladyka arrived at 4 p.m. At the station, His Eminence Sergius was met by the Reverend Vicars, a deputation from the Diocesan Congress, the Temporary Executive Committee, the Spiritual Consistory, representatives of religious educational institutions, etc. From the station, Vladyka drove to the cathedral. At the entrance to the cathedral he was met and welcomed by the diocesan congress, from which the new archpastor was presented with an icon and bread and salt. All the city clergy gathered in the cathedral. The archbishop was greeted with a speech by the cathedral archpriest. After listening to the speech, Vladyka venerated the relics and the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God and entered the altar. At the end of the short prayer service, he addressed those gathered with a speech in which he conveyed the idea that we Orthodox Christians need to first of all seek the kingdom of God, and “all the rest,” i.e. the arrangement of external life “will be added.” From the cathedral, Archbishop Sergius left for his chambers, and in the evening he visited the Diocesan Congress, where at that time the elections of members to the cathedral were taking place. Having familiarized himself with the progress of the elections, Vladyka addressed the congress with a speech in which he thanked the representatives of the clergy and laity of the Vladimir diocese for the trust placed in him by election to the Vladimir see, promised to serve the Vladimir Church to the best of his ability, etc. The simplicity and friendliness of the new archpastor had an impact on the congress was a pleasant experience. On behalf of the congress, the chairman of the congress that took place in May, N.M. Georgievsky, addressed the archbishop here; in his speech, he indicated the reasons why the Vladimir diocese chose Archbishop Sergius and the aspirations that it places on him. The Vladyka was escorted out of the congress with animated singing of “Is polla these despots.” SPEECH delivered by Archbishop Sergius of Vladimir and Shuisky at his first entry into the Vladimir Cathedral on August 10, 1917

I greet you, beloved brethren, my beloved flock, my voters, who have called me to serve you, in your Vladimir diocese. Yesterday my election took place, today I greet you here. I came so quickly, obeying your call, on the one hand, in order to quickly respond to your love with my readiness to serve your salvation, and on the other hand, because there is so little time left before the cathedral that it is difficult to choose another day to visit, and yet it is inconvenient to remain at the cathedral and be called by the name of the diocese without having visited it. And so I wanted to see you, to unite with you in common prayer, so that from here, guided by prayers, I could go to the cathedral. So, may the Lord God bless our joint first prayer and may the Lord God grant me to serve, to the best of my strength and spirit, your salvation. Maybe some are expecting a lengthy word from me, maybe they want me to explain what I intend to do, what plans I have regarding the church dispensation. But I think that now, at the first meeting, words will remain words, since, knowing little of the local situation, being little familiar with your needs, I believe that there is no particular need or purpose to spread much. And at the present moment, when I think what I need to do, how to establish our mutual relations, how to heal the local church diseases, in the words of Fr. cathedral archpriest, what medicine or plaster to apply to the wounds, it seems to me that all this will then be indicated by the circumstances themselves. Now let me remind you of the words of the Savior: seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all this will be added to you (Matthew VI, 33). If in our lives we are guided by some earthly goals, aspirations, looking for what is inherent in the earth and will remain on earth, then we will not achieve that joy, that spiritual world to which we strive, because earthly things will not satisfy our soul, unless we seek the Kingdom of God, unless we illuminate our thoughts, words, actions with the only thing needed - our faith, our trust in God, the desire to do His will and hope in Him, and not our strength. This is the case in relation to the clergy and the laity, the bishop and the clergy and the laity. If we seek mutual gratification, mutual flattery, then woe will befall us; Woe will it be for us if we begin to build our relationships on such a foundation, if we bind ourselves into a union with such cement, because such a union will be fragile and our peace will not be the peace of Christ and this is not the kind of peace the Lord has called us to. It was not for nothing that He said: I did not come to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew X, 39), that is, I did not come to bring what flatters each other, what flatters passions and base habits. No, the Lord came to serve the cause of common salvation, to lay down his soul for the salvation of all. In our mutual relations, let us also begin to seek first of all the Kingdom of God and His truth; we will strive to ensure that in our mutual relations there is no hypocrisy, no servility, or anything else unworthy of the Church of God. Let us seek the truth of God, the love of Christ, we will be at peace with each other in the name of Christ, we will help each other in the common salvation of our souls, and then all earthly relationships, earthly needs will find their satisfaction; then everything will be fine with us, because everything will be warmed by the love of Christ, animated by the grace of God, directed towards the goal to which it should be directed. The Kingdom of God will sanctify everything, correct everything, pacify passions, give strength and wisdom to find ways to bring common salvation as close as possible. And now, praying with you for the first time, I pray to the Lord that He would reveal to us what He revealed to infants, what was hidden, according to Him, from the wise of this age (Matthew XI, 25), which is the only thing needed for salvation of our souls. This is the main happiness, the main thing we should strive for. If we have it, then all our other relationships will be peaceful, joyful, and our life will be a proclamation of the Kingdom of God on earth, which will open in the next century. Let us strive for this, let us help each other both through mutual zeal for the faith, the temple of God, and through our mutual prayer for each other, because just as a shepherd is obliged to pray for his flock, so the flock for the shepherd. If it is difficult for each of us individually to go up the mountain, if a weak person requires help, then even more so does the one who must not only go ahead, but also lead others, support the weak, strengthen the weak, require help. How much strength of faith is needed for this, how much spiritual zeal. That is why the intense prayers of all of you are needed, so that God will help me complete my ministry, so that your aspirations will be justified, so that your prayers will be heard, and the Vladimir Church will find peace and healing, and its future life will flow peacefully and joyfully. May the Lord God bless you, may He strengthen you with all-effective grace, and may He help us to serve each other according to our strength and according to the grace that the Lord has given each of us. I ask for your prayers and ask you to accept me in peace.

Speech at the meeting of Archbishop Sergius in the Cathedral

Your Eminence! Chosen clergy and laity of the entire Vladimir Diocese, you come to us at a time when the Russian Orthodox Church is called by the Providence of God to revive its life in its external forms and spiritual essence. This revival of church life in our Fatherland began as a stormy stream of spring waters, destroying the shackles of ice, and took place in many places with great upheavals. Our Vladimir Diocese did not escape such a shock. For three months she was sick in soul, having abandoned her former Archpastor and awaiting his replacement with a new one. And on the now memorable day of August 9, the Lord showed us a new Archpastor in the person of Your Eminence. And now we meet you as a messenger of peace, which we so need, we meet you as an archpastor with power - firm power, but at the same time and most of all - paternal, benevolent power, which we have been deprived of for a long time and which we long for with all our souls. Come to us, our chosen Lord, and be our Archpastor! Come and heal our ailments and those illnesses in which our local church life has begun to revive, heal with the word of your bright mind, the spirit of meek love and piety, with which, as we have learned, your life and your service to the Orthodox Church are so rich. Your Eminence! We meet you in this temple - one of the oldest in Rus' - a temple which, during its more than seven-hundred-year existence, has repeatedly witnessed the election and installation of a Bishop both for the city of Vladimir and for other cities, and which in its bowels preserves the remains of its chosen ones , among whom are Mitrofan and Serapion, as well as other saints - people of great mind and high life. We meet you in this ancient temple, which also preserves in its depths and at the autopsy the bodies of the great organizers of the Russian land and the defenders of our fatherland, the Blessed Princes. Enter this most ancient sanctuary, Holy Master, as a worthy successor of the valiant Hierarchs who adorned our ancient Vladimir Chair! You are coming to us from the tomb with the relics of St. Blessed. Vel. Book Alexander Nevsky! Come and venerate the tombs and relics of His Relatives, the Blessed Ones who rest in incorruption. Princes George, Andrei and Gleb. As a welcoming blessing for your entrance to us, Holy Master, deign to receive from us the cathedral and city clergy and citizens who welcome you - the pilgrims of this temple - this Holy Icon of our representatives and intercessors before God, the Holy Blessed. Vel. Princes Alex. Nevs., Georg. Andr., Gleb and St. Martyr. Avramia. Let them be your representatives and intercessors before God! May your entrance to us be blessed, Holy Master! Caf. Prot. M. Speransky.

Speech delivered by the Chairman of the Diocesan Congress N. M. Georgievsky on August 10 in the meeting room of the Congress

Your Eminence! Allow me to say a few words in response to your simple and at the same time wise word. I, a layman, take the liberty of speaking on behalf of the entire congress of clergy and laity because the 1st joint Diocesan Congress of clergy and laity awarded me the high honor of being the chairman of the congress. By authority of the same congress, for several months I worked, to the best of my ability, on the Diocesan Executive Committee, the work of which ended with the fact that at this moment we see Your Eminence at the episcopal see of the ancient Vladimir diocese. Allow me, Vladyka, to greet you as the chosen one after the people’s heart, and openly set before you the aspirations and hopes with which the Vladimir flock has lived these last months. I will be brief, because you, so to speak, anticipated some of our aspirations and hopes and outlined them in your speech. We believe that Divine grace, always rejecting the weak and replenishing the impoverished, has given you in due measure those high, truly Christian qualities of the spirit, about which St. wrote so vividly and clearly. ap. Paul in his instructions to Titus, Bishop of Crete (1, 7 - 9 vv.). In a few days, at the All-Russian Local Council you will appear as a representative of the Vladimir Church. We believe and hope that you will appear there as a zealous defender of the great idea of ​​conciliarity in the church in that pure and inviolable form, as this idea was embodied in the lives of Christians of the first centuries, when, according to the book of the Acts of the Apostles, all believers had “one heart and one soul,” when the bishop, the church clergy, and the “firm in the faith” laity were one, for, according to the word of St. Ambrose of Milan, the whole Church “prays together, works together, is tested together.” We believe and hope that in a real difficult time for our renewed homeland, when - alas! She stands on the edge of the abyss, when, together with her homeland and our free Church of Christ, there is danger on the one hand - from all political and church “Bolshevism”, and on the other hand - from lurking, but not yet disappeared “dark forces” - We trust that Your Eminence, as a faithful and reliable helmsman of a church ship in the midst of a stormy sea, will guide this ship along the right path past numerous rocks and stones. We hope that the church ship of the Vladimir diocese will always fly a flag with the motto: a free church in a free state. We are aware of your scientific, literary and social-administrative activities. We hope that Your Eminence will use all the power of your rich mind, your administrative experience, your personal archpastoral influence, first of all, to support and strengthen true enlightenment in the spirit of St. Church of Christ. You, more than anyone else, know what a critical, hopeless situation our theological school is in now. We hope that, thanks to your administrative experience, our parish life, which has just been revived in the form of parish councils, will develop and strengthen in the spirit of truly Christian democratization of the Church. We dream of seeing this democratization in the ideological (and not just external) unity of the laity and the clergy, the lower clergy and elders, the entire flock and the archpastor. With such unity and participation of all in the matter of church building, our three million (and if we count only conscious adult believers, then two million) flock of Vladimir will have the opportunity to beneficially influence not only the church structure, but also the civil and political system of a renewed Russia (we mean elections to the Constituent Assembly). We believe, finally, that those bright features of your spirit that manifested themselves in the hostel with the “humiliated and insulted” and even people from the “House of the Dead” - that these humane features will not only not die out in your soul, but with even greater strength will appear to the “lesser brethren” of the Vladimir diocese that is now dear to you. Here, in a nutshell, are our aspirations and hopes. God grant that, under your wise leadership, we will be able to realize these aspirations and hopes through joint efforts. On behalf of the congress, I greet the person chosen after the people’s heart. Is these people, despots.

Speech delivered at the meeting by the delegation of the Diocesan Congress of His Eminence Archbishop. Sergius at the entrance to the Cathedral

Your Eminence! A restructuring of our entire state life is underway. There is a reform of our entire church social life in general and our Vladimir diocese in particular. Yes, reform, a radical reform of our entire church and social life is necessary: ​​without it, no creative, constructive work is possible. But no reforms will achieve their goals if at the head of the Diocese there is no Archpastor, animated by zeal for the glory of God; why our Diocese, represented by us - its representatives - began to elect such an Archpastor for itself in the first place. Our choice settled on you, Master. Our choice settled on you, Vladyka, as such an Archpastor for whom the good of the Church is first of all, most important, most precious. Our choice settled on you, Vladyka, as such an Archpastor who is ready to lay down his soul for every sheep of his flock, not excluding these little ones (pointing to the psalms and the laity). And we firmly believe that the Lord God will help you through the prayers of His Mother, our Most Pure Lady Theotokos, to work for His glory and our salvation in our Vladimir See. A. Avdiev. (After this speech, the Vladyka was presented with an icon of the Vladimir Mother of God by a lay delegate).

Metropolitan Sergius and His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. 1918

On November 28, 1917, he was elevated to the rank of metropolitan.
On the evening of November 30, 1917, Moscow newspapers brought the news of the elevation of Archbishop Sergius of Vladimir, one of the five most worthy hierarchs of the Russian Church, to the rank of metropolitan. This news was not completely unexpected, since it was already known about the intention of the highest bodies of church government to form several new metropolitan districts, including the Vladimir district. But in the official press, informing about the actions of the All-Russian Local Council, until November 30, nothing was reported about the decision to approve the previously destined division of the Russian Church into metropolitan districts; and therefore the newspaper news, to some extent, was news for which the Vladimir flock was not prepared by previous conciliar acts. Of course, this extremely important event in the history of the Vladimir diocese could not be silenced by the Vladimir flock. Now, after receiving newspaper news, in circles close to the diocesan administration, as well as among the clergy and laity of the city of Vladimir, a lively discussion of this significant event began, and wishes were expressed in one way or another to honor the recently elected archpastor of Vladimir, who was named metropolitan. On Saturday, December 2, when the official decree of the Synod on the existence of Archbishop Sergius was received, in honor of his special personal merits, the Metropolitan of Vladimir, in the chambers of His Grace Evgeniy Yuryevsky, representatives of the Church-Diocesan Council, the spiritual consistory and theological educational institutions of the city gathered. Vladimir, where it was decided to send greetings on behalf of the Vladimir flock to Metropolitan Sergius, who was present in Moscow at the Council. The text of the greeting was immediately heard and adopted in the meeting, and it was decided to delegate two representatives from the clergy and laity to Moscow to bring it. The elected delegates were: the rector of the seminary, Archimandrite German, and the teacher of the seminary, S. F. Arkhangelsky, who left for Moscow that same day in the evening. On Sunday, December 3, at 1 o’clock in the afternoon at the Valaam courtyard, where Metropolitan Sergius has a temporary residence, the delegates were received by the Bishop, who wore the sign of metropolitan dignity - a white hood. S. F. Arkhangelsky read the following greeting addressed to Metropolitan Sergius on behalf of the Vladimir flock. “Your Eminence, Most Gracious Archpastor and Father. Among the formidable waves of the raging worldly sea, ready to wash away and destroy all the foundations of past centuries in Rus', the Church of Christ stands as an unshakable stronghold, and, like a beacon on its top, the All-Russian Local Council illuminates the darkness and chaos of our time. Light rays pour from there, igniting in the spiritual eyes of the faithful sons of Orthodoxy hope for the salvation of their dying homeland. And the Holy Council, in the midst of general devastation, does its great creative work, gathering under the roof of the Mother Church all those who thirst for a true rebirth to a new life, all those striving to embark on the path of salvation. A few days ago, the entire Russian Orthodox flock was consoled by the restoration of its ancient primate leadership with the rank of Patriarch of All Russia. The hearts of all believers were illuminated with joy, for in this election of the great archpastor, man of prayer and mourner for Orthodox Rus', in the days of great trials, the indication of the finger of God was clearly revealed, not completely casting off his evilly sinned children. Now this common joy of the faithful souls of the Russian Church has been aggravated by the new great and comforting act of the Holy Council for the flock of the city of Vladimir, which restored the ancient metropolitan throne in this city. With a trembling heart, the whole of Vladimirskaya accepted this good and highly gratifying gospel. Directing our gaze into the depths of centuries, from where the glory of the unfading exploits of the first hierarchs of the Vladimir saints shines, now to You, our beloved Archpastor, the chosen one after our hearts, elevated to the high rank of hierarchs, we bring our filial feelings of deep respect and reverent reverence to Your God-given flock, trusting in To Your honor is my honor and in Your exaltation is immeasurable condescension to my unworthiness. Accept from us, our loving archpastor, the prayerful wish for You longevity, strength of strength and spiritual power in Your new service, so that you may worthily stand before the throne of the Lord for all of us, the weak, the overwhelmed and the sorrowful. We firmly hope that through Your labors and prayers, the Merciful God will raise Your flock from the darkness of temptation into the mind of the ancient walk in the fear of God, in devotion to the Church of Christ and our long-suffering homeland.” Having heard this greeting, Metropolitan Sergius addressed the delegates with a response. In his sincere speech, the bishop asked to convey gratitude to the Vladimir flock for the feelings expressed in the greeting; said that he also shared the general joy over the significant event of the restoration of the metropolitanate in Vladimir, seeing in this a worthy tribute to the ancient city, adorned with great shrines, a city that wrote dear pages on the charter of the hoary history of strengthening in Rus' the foundations of the Orthodox faith and the beginnings of statehood. The Bishop expressed the hope that the shepherds and flock of Vladimir would intensify their prayers for him, so that in our troubled days the work of God would be done more successfully by the combined forces within the boundaries of Vladimir, and so that the faithful sons of the Church of Christ would show themselves in times of difficult hard times as a stronghold of faith and good habits of ancient piety and thereby returning triumph to the trampled truth of God. On December 7, 1917, he was elected a member of the Holy Synod, sharing third place in terms of the number of votes cast for him with Archbishops Anastasius and Evlogii. In December 1917, he was elected a member of the Constituent Assembly for the Nizhny Novgorod district. He did not take part in the work of the Meeting. In 1922-1936. on the canonical territory of the Vladimir diocese there was a renovationist “Vladimir diocese”
. It was headed by bishops - Metropolitan of Vladimir and Shuisky Sergius (Stragorodsky) in 1922-1923; Bishop of Murom Seraphim (Ruzhentsov) in 1922-1924. ... Alexy (Sergeev) since September 14, 1937 - Bishop of Ivanovo. In 1938, he left Metropolitan Sergius: after he saw the name of the patriarchal locum tenens among the “spies and saboteurs” in Soviet newspapers, he hastened to announce a break with him and proclaimed “autocephaly” in Ivanovo. In 1939 he was banned from the priesthood and put on trial by the bishops. The act of prohibition was signed by: Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky), Archbishop Pallady (Sherstennikov). Hierarchs, priesthood, ministers of the Vladimir Diocese. Vladimir Diocese.

Copyright © 2021 Unconditional love

church positions

In 1907, he headed the Commission for the Correction of Liturgical Books created by the Holy Synod, which managed to “correct” the Lenten and Colored Triodion, the Octoechos, the Festive and September Menaions.

Since May 6, 1911 - member of the Holy Synod.

After the February Revolution, he was the only member of the Holy Synod left by the revolutionary Chief Prosecutor Vladimir Lvov after the dissolution of the old composition. The new Synod, headed by Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) wrote: “With the changed political system, the Russian Orthodox Church can no longer remain with those orders that have outlived their time.”

At the Local Council the candidacy of Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) was nominated during the elections of the All-Russian Patriarch. Member of the Holy Patriarchal Synod.

From December 10, 1925, after the arrest of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Sschmch. Peter (Polyansky), - Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens.

In November 1926, Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) was arrested again. On March 27, 1927, the released man again took charge of the church as a deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens.

On May 18, 1927, he organized the “Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod.” On July 29, 1927, he issued the now infamous “Message to the Orthodox Archpastors, Shepherds and Flock of the Moscow Patriarchate” (Declaration of 1927).

After false news of the death of Sschmch. Peter (Polyansky) in 1936 issued the “Act on the transfer of the rights and duties of the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne of the Orthodox Russian Church to the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens, His Beatitude Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Sergius (Stragorodsky).”

Sergius (Stragorodsky), Patr. On the powers of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens and his Deputy. ZhMP No. 01

Author: Sergius (Stragorodsky), Patriarch

OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT

On the powers of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens and his Deputy

According to the current church rules, the title of Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne is assigned to the hierarch who temporarily fulfills the duties of the first bishop of a given Church Sede vacante, that is, during the period from the vacancy of the Patriarchal see (after the death or resignation of the Patriarch from office) and until the election of a new Patriarch. The position of Locum Tenens is also provided for by the Regulations on our supreme administration, developed at the Council of 1917–1918. It is as if the hierarch appointed by the will of His Holiness the Patriarch to fulfill the duties of the first bishop of our Russian Church follows this general church order. But it is not for nothing that his title is “Patriarchal Locum Tenens” and not “Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne”, as provided by the rules. This seemingly insignificant difference hints at a very significant difference in the scope of powers of our Patriarchal Locum Tenens from an ordinary Locum Tenens. I. The rules, as always, provide for church life in its normal course. It is assumed that next to the Patriarch there is a well-known cathedral or collegial institution sharing the work of governance with him, called differently in different Churches: the Council of Bishops, the Holy Synod, and in our country the jointly operating Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council. With the death of the Patriarch, the fullness of canonical power, strictly speaking, passes to this institution, and it elects a Locum Tenens from among itself. In all appropriate cases, the Locum Tenens acts as the temporary Primate of a given Local Church, as its first bishop. But, of course, he does not enjoy the authority of the Patriarch, because he is elected only for a time, until the election of a new Patriarch, that is, for us for three months, and in other Churches for a shorter period. He does not enjoy the fullness of Patriarchal power, because he remains a member of the Synod and its Representative and can act only with the authority of the Synod and inseparably with it. This limitation of the powers of the Locum Tenens was emphasized by our Council of 1917–1918, determining that the Locum Tenens does not have the Patriarchal right to exalt his name in all churches of the Patriarchate*, as well as the right to address messages on his own behalf to the All-Russian flock. Both are provided to the Locum Tenens only in conjunction with the Holy Synod. It goes without saying that such a Locum Tenens cannot have substitutes. The source of his powers - the Synod - can, if necessary, always transfer these powers to another person with the same title. II. Our “Patriarchal Locum Tenens” received his powers not from the Synod and not jointly with the Synod, but directly from the Patriarch. It is significant that by the day of the Patriarch’s death, out of all the apparatus so widely conceived at the Council, only one Patriarch remained. He alone retained his powers received from the Council to govern the Russian Church. The term of office of the Members of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council had long expired, and they could no longer take part in governance. The Synod of three archbishops and then metropolitans that existed under the Patriarch did not have authority from the Council; it was assembled at the personal invitation of the Deceased and with his death lost its authority. Thus, next to the Patriarch, the Council did not find an authorized institution that, by participating in the highest governance of the Church, could automatically accept from the Patriarch the fullness of the Patriarchal power entrusted to it by the Council and observe it until the election of a new Patriarch by electing a Locum Tenens. The only way remained to preserve this power: by personal Patriarchal order, indicate a person who, after the death of the Patriarch, would assume the fullness of Patriarchal power for transfer to the future Patriarch. The Deceased made this his will. Since the question was precisely about preserving for the Russian Church, not in theory, but also in practice, in action, the Patriarchal power established by the Council in its entirety, the will definitely speaks of the transfer to one of the indicated candidates of all rights and responsibilities Patriarch without any restrictions. The will does not assign to the future bearer of Patriarchal power the title Locum Tenens, which would give reason to equate it with an ordinary Locum Tenens and thereby limit his rights. Vladyka Metropolitan Peter himself, upon taking office, chose such a title for himself, perhaps wanting to show that he does not intend to appropriate Patriarchal power for life, but views himself only as a temporary bearer of this power for transfer to the future Patriarch. According to the literal meaning of the will, he should have been called: “Correcting the position of Patriarch” with all the rights assigned to this position, including the right to address the All-Russian flock personally with messages and the right to exalt his name in all churches of the Patriarchate. III. Some express doubts about the canonical consistency of such a personal transfer of the Patriarchate. Rule 23 of the Council of Antioch, they say, directly prohibited the bishop from appointing a successor for himself and declared such a decree invalid. But the rule prohibits the bishop from appointing a successor, as if his own heir, to the see, and it is clear why. Firstly, the bishop should not consider the property of God and the Church of God as his personal property (especially since the occupation of the see was then combined with the disposal of all the property that belonged to the see), as is stated in the 76th Apostolic Canon. Secondly, the sole replacement of a see violates the rights of the clergy and laity, as well as the council of bishops, which, according to the established procedure, are authorized to elect and appoint bishops to dowager sees. Meanwhile, the deceased Patriarch, transferring the Patriarchal power individually due to the prevailing circumstances, did not touch the chair of the Moscow Patriarch with a single word. It still stands unoccupied. This, by the way, also fuels a special attitude towards the deceased on the part of believing Muscovites. Not coping, of course, with the order established in the Church, they still call the deceased “Great Lord and Our Father, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.” For them, the Patriarchal See is still, as it were, listed as deceased, and they by no means equate the actual bearers of Patriarchal power with it. This means that when our Local Council meets, it will have every opportunity to elect a new Patriarch to the empty Moscow see, and the will of the deceased will in no way interfere with such an election. The main thing is that the transfer of Patriarchal power cannot be considered in the strict sense the sole action of the deceased. Firstly, he had a special instruction for this from the Council of 1917–1918, which proposed to him such a transfer of power to a temporary holder in the event that the Council did not have an authorized institution. And secondly, the Patriarchal will, when it was opened, was unanimously approved by the conciliar opinion of a whole host of archpastors who gathered for the burial of the Patriarch. Then a written act was drawn up, in which, among other things, it was noted that the will should be valid, since the deceased had no other way to preserve the legal succession of Patriarchal power in the Russian Church and that therefore Metropolitan Peter, on whom the lot fell, had no the right to evade imposed obedience. Thus, our Patriarchal Locum Tenens is the legal, canonically indisputable bearer of Patriarchal power in all its fullness, and the position of such a Locum Tenens must be preserved in our Church until the replacement of the Moscow Patriarchal See in the established way. IV. It would be the same mistake in determining the powers of the Deputy to proceed from the title. As a technical term, the word "Deputy" (like "Locum Tenens") usually means a position with rights more or less limited in comparison to the one being replaced. Based on this technical meaning, some tried to argue that the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens is authorized to deal only with so-called current affairs and cannot take upon himself decisions on matters of principle and general church importance. But suffice it to say that in the order of Metropolitan Peter dated December 6, 1925, by which the duties of Locum Tenens were transferred to me, I was not named Deputy. I began to call myself that on my own initiative. One can argue how well I chose the name for my position, but it is completely wrong to determine the scope of delegated powers with this random title. The only legal determinant in this case can only be the above-mentioned document dated December 6. In it we read: “If for some reason it is impossible to assign me the duties of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, I temporarily entrust the performance of such duties” to so and so. Responsibilities are transferred, as we see, without any reservation, obviously in the same form and volume in which they were carried by the Locum Tenens himself. The document reserves for the Locum Tenens only his title and the right to exalt his name in all churches of the Patriarchate. With regard to the scope of transferred powers, our document differs significantly from the well-known resolution of Metropolitan Peter of February 1, 1926. In this resolution, proposing to transfer the highest management of the Church to a board of three bishops, the Locum Tenens very clearly indicates that he entrusts only current affairs to this board, while he reserves matters of principle and church-wide matters to himself. There is no such clause in the document dated December 6, and on the merits of the case there could not have been one. After all, we have a decree of the Patriarch and the Synod dated May 5/18 and November 7/20, 1920, No. 362, according to which the diocesan bishops were given the authority to handle all matters (and not just current ones) when the administrative connection between the diocese and the center ceases. What would be the point of piling up an extra authority - the Deputy, if the latter could not do anything more than what is granted to each diocesan bishop. A historical analogy also leads us to the same conclusion about the powers of the Deputy. As is known, the late Metropolitan Agafangel of Yaroslavl began to call himself Deputy Patriarch in 1922, whom His Holiness the Patriarch, “due to the extreme difficulty in church administration that arose from bringing the Patriarch to the civil court,” considered it useful for the good of the Church to place at the head of church administration. The title of Deputy, again, was not indicated in the Patriarch’s charter, but was elected by Metropolitan Agafangel himself. However, defining his powers not by the technical meaning of the word “Deputy”, but by the essence of the matter, Metropolitan Agafangel “considered it his duty... to convene the All-Russian Local Council,” which was supposed to provide a solution to all fundamental issues. Thus, the Deputy Patriarch, who is still living, but has withdrawn from government because he was brought before a civil court, recognizes himself as invested with the fullness of Patriarchal power, until and including the convening of the Local Council. Even at this convocation, he does not consider it necessary to seek any instructions from the Patriarch at any cost, and yet the Council is authorized to raise the question of the trial of the Patriarch himself. The present position of our church administration - headed by the Deputy of the living, but removed from the affairs of the Locum Tenens - is identically similar to the position of the administration in 1922 under the retired Patriarch and the Deputy who actually governed. Therefore, there is no reason to assert that the current Deputy, unlike the then one, should be considered limited in rights, even if in the document transferring power, and there were no reservations about the limitation (just as there were none in 1922). Thus, according to our documentary data, the Deputy is vested with Patriarchal power to the same extent as the Locum Tenens he replaces. Yes, and the essence of the matter requires this, otherwise there would be no responsible helmsman for the church ship, and then there would be no purpose at all to transfer power to anyone. The difference between the Locum Tenens and his Deputy is not in the amount of Patriarchal power, but only in the fact that the Deputy is, as it were, a companion of the Locum Tenens: he retains his powers as long as the Locum Tenens remains in his position. If the Locum Tenens leaves office (due to death, refusal, etc.) - the powers of the Deputy are terminated at the same moment. It goes without saying that with the return of the Locum Tenens to management, the Deputy ceases to manage. The Locum Tenens cannot in any way be responsible for the orders of his Deputy and therefore one cannot expect or demand that the Locum Tenens interfere in management and correct the Deputy’s mistakes with his orders. Such interference would only lead to an even greater disorder of church affairs and to anarchy, like any dual power. As an independent ruler, the Deputy himself is responsible for his rule before the Local Council. Of course, the order of things when the Church is controlled by a Deputy cannot be considered normal. Such an order can only be tolerated as a temporary and transitional measure. The same can be said about management under the Locum Tenens. It would be very bad if the Deputy and the Locum Tenens were interested in maintaining such an order for as long as possible. It is our archpastoral duty to think about the speedy convening of a Local Council, which, true, would free us from such high powers, but would also bring the administration of our Church into normal order.

Metropolitan Sergius

* According to the custom established in our Russian Church.
In other Orthodox Churches the practice is different: there the name of the Patriarch is exalted only in the churches of his own diocese, while in other dioceses the Patriarch is commemorated only by the diocesan bishop, the clergy of the bishop. The page was generated in 0.06 seconds!

church reforms

In 1904, the opinion of Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) formed the basis of the note by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers Sergei Witte “On the current situation of the Orthodox Church.” It proposed a reform program: renewal of the parish, decentralization of management, transformation of theological schools. Sergei Witte’s note was objected to by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who denied the fact that the Church was being constrained by the state.

During the Bishops' survey in 1905, Met. Sergius (Stragorodsky) stated that he considered it necessary at the upcoming Council to discuss the issue of simplifying the liturgical Slavic language and granting the right, where the parish wishes, to perform divine services in their native language.

Declaration of 1927

Main article: Declaration of 1927

October 21, 1927 Met. Sergius (Stragorodsky) issues a decree adding to the litany the petition “For our God-protected country, its authorities and its army, let us pray to the Lord.” The same decree prohibits the commemoration of imprisoned clergy in churches, because, according to the explanation of Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky), they made a political demonstration out of it.

In an interview on February 15, 1930 with the Izvestia newspaper, Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) argued that there was and is no persecution of religion in the USSR. To the question: “Is it true that atheists close churches, and how do believers feel about this?”, Met. Sergius (Stragorodsky) answered: “Yes, indeed, some churches are closing. But this closure is not carried out on the initiative of the authorities, but at the request of the population, and in other cases even by decree of the believers themselves.” About the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian Metropolitans. Sergius (Stragorodsky) reported: “The repressions carried out by the Soviet government against religious clergy are applied to them not for their religious beliefs, but in a general manner, as well as to other citizens for various anti-government acts.”

Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky)

In the world, Ivan Nikolaevich Stragorodsky, in the Nizhny Novgorod province in the city of Arzamas, in the family of Archpriest Nikolai Stragorodsky, where he received a deep religious education.

He received his initial education at the parish and then at the Arzamas Theological School.

In August 1880 he entered the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary

In 1886 he entered the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in the history department.

January 30, 1890 - tonsured a monk with a name in honor of St. Sergius of Valaam, while a 4th year student at the academy, and on April 21 he was ordained a hieromonk.

On May 9, 1890 he graduated from the Theological Academy with a candidate's degree in theology.

On June 13, 1890, he was appointed to Japan as a member of the Orthodox Spiritual Mission. The center of his activities was the nascent parish in Kyoto.

In December 1891, he was appointed ship’s chaplain on the ship “Memory of Azov.”

In 1893, he was summoned to St. Petersburg and appointed as an assistant professor in the department of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy.

On December 13, 1893, he was appointed acting inspector of the Moscow Theological Academy.

On September 21, 1894, he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite and appointed rector of the Russian Embassy Church in Athens.

In 1895 he was awarded a master's degree in theology for his dissertation “Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation.”

In 1897, he was appointed for the second time to Japan as assistant to the head of the spiritual mission of St. Nicholas of Japan. In 1898 he served in Osaka.

On July 29, 1899, he was appointed rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary.

On October 6, 1899 he was appointed inspector, and on January 21, 1901 - rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy.

On February 25, 1901, he was consecrated Bishop of Yamburg, vicar of the St. Petersburg diocese. The rite of consecration was performed by: Metropolitans Anthony of St. Petersburg, Theognost of Kiev and Vladimir of Moscow, Archbishop Jerome of Kholm, Bishops Jacob of Chisinau, Bishop Benjamin of Gdov, Nikon of Narva, Vladimir of Sarapul and Bishop Boris.

In November 1901 - April 1903, he led religious and philosophical meetings of representatives of the clergy and the public, created on the initiative of a number of creative intellectuals to discuss the problem of the relationship between the Church, the intelligentsia and the state; freedom of conscience; Church and marriage; Christian dogmatics and many others. etc. After 22 meetings, the meetings were stopped by personal order of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, K. P. Pobedonostsev.

From October 6, 1905 - Archbishop of Finland and Vyborg.

In 1906, he participated in the session of the Holy Synod, chaired the Educational Committee, while simultaneously correcting the text of liturgical books.

From the same year he was an Honorary Member of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy.

Since May 6, 1911 - member of the Holy Synod.

In March 1912, he was appointed Chairman of the Pre-Conciliar Conference at the Synod.

On May 6 he was awarded a diamond cross to wear on his hood.

On April 4, 1913, he was appointed Chairman of the Missionary Council at the Holy Synod. January 14, 1915 - according to the request, relieved of the post of Chairman of the Missionary Council.

In 1917 - 1918 - participant in the All-Russian Holy Council in Moscow

Since August 10, 1917 - Archbishop of Vladimir and Shuisky.

On November 28, 1917, he was elevated to the rank of metropolitan.

He became seduced into the renovationist schism, issuing on June 16, 1922 in Nizhny Novgorod an appeal recognizing the canonicity of the Living Church-renovationist All-Russian Orthodox Church together with Evdokim (Meshchersky), Seraphim (Meshcheryakov) and Macarius (Znamensky). On August 27, 1923, he repented and was added to the Church.

Since March 18, 1924 - Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod.

From December 10, 1925 - Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens.

Since November 1926 he has not governed the diocese.

On March 27, 1926, he again entered into the administration of the Russian Church as a deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens.

On February 15, 1930, he gave an interview to representatives of the Soviet press, which was published in Izvestia the next day. In an interview he stated:

“There has never been any persecution of religion in the USSR, and no... The repressions carried out by the Soviet government against believers and clergy are applied to them not at all for their religious beliefs, but in the general manner, as well as to other citizens for various anti-government acts... K Unfortunately, even to this day, some of us cannot understand that there is no return to the old ways, and continue to behave like political opponents of the Soviet state.”

On April 12, 1932, by decree No. 60/b, he was awarded the presentation of a cross during worship. From the same year he was titled Gorky and Arzamas.

On April 27, 1934, he was given the title of His Beatitude Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, with the right to wear two panagias.

On June 22, 1941, on the first day of the Great Patriotic War, even before J.V. Stalin’s first military address to the people, he delivered a “Message to the Shepherds and Flock of Christ’s Orthodox Church,” which was sent out to all parishes on the same day. In a short fiery message, the archpastor emphasized that “everyone can and should contribute their share of labor, care and art to the common feat” and concluded: “The Church of Christ blesses all Orthodox Christians for the defense of the sacred borders of our homeland. The Lord will grant us victory."

On September 8, 1943, the Council of Russian Hierarchs elected him Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. On September 12 of the same year, his enthronement took place at the Moscow Cathedral of the Epiphany.

He died on May 15, 1944, at 6:50 a.m., from a cerebral hemorrhage. On May 18 of the same year he was buried in the St. Nicholas chapel of the Moscow Patriarchal Epiphany Cathedral.

The first years of Metropolitan Sergius' leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church were years of great disagreement between the hierarchs, violent fluctuations and schisms. Not everyone recognized Metropolitan Sergius as the legitimate head of the Church from the very moment he took control, and many separated from him in subsequent years, especially after the declaration he issued on July 16/29, 1927.

His own mistake, a temporary fall into the Renovationist schism, played a significant role in these events, as it shook confidence in him in the minds of individual hierarchs and ordinary clergy.

The Gregorian schism, which arose earlier than all the schisms of this period, having a legal governing body registered by the civil authorities, relied on this advantage until the moment when it registered the Provisional Patriarchal Synod and thereby cut the ground from under the feet of the Gregorian All-Russian Central Council. Then the Leningrad Josephite schism arose, involving a small number of bishops, priests and laity.

The separation of the Yaroslavl group led by Metropolitan Agafangel, although short-lived, was also painful.

The respected Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov), who was previously the first candidate for the post of Patriarchal Locum Tenens, stopped communicating with Metropolitan Sergius. Other individuals and groups also departed, smaller in number than the hierarchs included there (the Victorian schism, the Danilovskaya and Mechevskaya groups and others).

The most moderate part of the opposition continued to recognize Metropolitan Sergius as the legitimate head of the Church, although with great bitterness in their souls, considering some of his actions and orders to be incorrect.

Those who broke away to varying degrees moved away from Metropolitan Sergius and the Church he led, and the most extreme of them went so far as to consider the actions of Metropolitan Sergius a betrayal of Orthodoxy, he himself was almost the forerunner of the Antichrist, prayerful communication with his supporters was a sin, and the sacraments performed by them - graceless.

It is quite understandable that these schisms, departures and sharp accusatory letters that bishops dissatisfied with him wrote to Metropolitan Sergius had a serious impact on his morale. This severity was further aggravated by the fact that among those departing there were good shepherds who showed themselves to be the most steadfast during the struggle against renovationism, and respected hierarchs, some of whom were personally close and dear to Metropolitan Sergius.

Of those who remained faithful to him as the legitimate head of the Church, many still condemned his actions and speeches, but said that this was his personal sin, for which he himself would answer before the Lord. He does not preach any heresy, so you cannot interrupt prayerful communication with him.

In relation to all the hierarchs who separated from communication with the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius adhered to the following method: First he wrote to them, then exhorted them, asked them to abandon the wrong path they had adopted. He pointed out the great harm caused to the church by schisms. If neither exhortations nor warnings were effective, then a session of the Synod was convened and a resolution was passed to deprive the guilty of their chairs and ban them from the priesthood.

Many of Metropolitan Sergius’ letters of exhortation were imbued with deep feeling, such as his letter to Metropolitan Agafangel, in which the exhorter writes:

“You and I have already come to the point where there is only one thing left: to give an answer to the judgment of Christ. In the name of this common hope of ours and in the name of the good of the Holy Church, I ask and pray that you do not break off communication with us, do not go over to the side of our enemies.”

In the mid-1930s, Archbishop Philip (Gumilevsky) was traveling from the northern camps to Vladimir exile in Moscow; he went to the office of Metropolitan Sergius in Baumansky Lane, hoping to see the bishop, but he was away. Then Archbishop Philip left a letter to Metropolitan Sergius, which contained the following lines: “Dear Vladyka, when I think of you standing at night prayers, I think of you as a holy righteous man; when I think about your daily activities, I think of you as a holy martyr...” The next day, Metropolitan Sergius read the letter, touched it to his chest and said: “With such a letter, it’s not scary to appear at the Last Judgment.” Then he handed the letter to Father Sergius Lebedev and said: “Put it on my personal file, Seryozha. They will judge me a lot, let at least someone read these kind words.” Later, Father Sergius, who deeply respected and loved both - the author of the letter and the addressee - told his loved ones about this.

views

Metropolitan
Sergius (Stragorodsky) In the case of Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) there is complete correspondence between his teaching and his life path. In his presentation, moral monism acquires a distinctly immoral meaning. Like Baruch Spinoza and Friedrich Schleiermacher, Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) understands sin as a feeling of discomfort, internal duality. Therefore, if a sinful act does not cause this discomfort, then there is no sin in it. In this sense, there is simply no sin and evil in the world: it only seems to us that it exists.

For Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) “repentance, repentance has the meaning that thanks to the elevation of a person to the truth, the crime is recognized by him as overcome in himself and for himself, having no power in itself.” It always remains within the framework of a natural explanation: a revolution in a person’s soul is the forgiveness (forsaking) of sins: “Thanks to this revolution in a person’s soul, his sins are forgiven,” abandoned in the sense that he himself has left sin and no longer sins. “A person has given up his previous sins and therefore they do not count towards him, but instead of sin he now has the decision to serve God.”

Sin is remembered, and then sin is forgotten: “Sin literally moves away from a person, ceases to be part of his inner content.” This is what, according to Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky), forgiveness of sin: “The thread of a person’s life is, as it were, interrupted, and the sinful past that has formed in him loses its defining compulsory force, as if thrown out of the soul, becomes alien to the person.”

Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) considers sin naturalistically and comes to the conclusion that it is irremovable. Sins, for Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky), are indestructible: “At the final judgment, the book of everyone’s life will be opened, and everyone will give an answer for every deed and word, for every thought, no matter how insignificant and fleeting it may be. The perfect cannot be called imperfect.”

Since Met. Sergius (Stragorodsky) denies any meaning of Christ’s Sacrifice, except for the inspiring one, it turns out that there is and cannot be any satisfaction for sin: “man did not satisfy God with anything for his sin.” Satisfaction with the truth of God, Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) rejects it as unnecessary: ​​“The reason for punishment... is not the need to somehow satisfy the truth of God (after all, this satisfaction is not even after repentance), but that the sinner does not repent, continues to remain in sin and thereby alienates himself from life God's."

All together this leaves a person with his sins without any supernatural help from God.

It is impossible to get rid of sin, but, teaches Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky), you can learn about mercy: “Man has not satisfied God with anything for his sin: he only recognizes God’s mercy, but does not deserve it.” Mercy is understood by Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky), as the knowledge that sin has no meaning or weight, and therefore, sin does not interfere with salvation, but only leads to greater humility: “A sin that has been committed cannot be called imperfect. But this revelation of life for some will only be a source of humility, will only lead them to the realization that pardon is undeserved and will tie them even more closely to God; for others, conviction of conscience at the trial will bring despair and finally separate them from God and the kingdom. “And these go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.” Whoever’s soul is directed where, goes there.”

According to the Metropolitan system. Sergius (Stragorodsky), sins are not forgiven, but remain, and “salvation” occurs apart from them. The Christian faith itself becomes a way to learn that sin does not prevent communication: “Faith in Christ is the means through which a person learns the will of God, that is, that the sin committed does not at all prevent the rapprochement of God with man, that God has forgiven sin and all His economy is directed towards somehow returning sinful man to Himself.”

secular mysticism

The mysticism of the past and present at Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) boils down to the fact that it is impossible and unnecessary to stand before God personally. Standing before God, the memory of God, the fear of God cannot be mastered in secular terms, which Metropolitan offers. Sergius, but only in Christian theological ones, which Met. Sergius is rejected as scholastic.

concepts

Anti-juridism, Doing good because of rewards, denial, Mysticism of time, Mysticism of process, Practice, Betrayal of the New Martyrs

pathological speech

stamps

Case

But, if the work of Christ and the work of man are concepts of a legal order, then they are mutually exclusive: as much as the price of human merit increases, so much is the merit of Christ unnecessary; Christ came because man could not save himself. Meanwhile, the Word of God and conscience require both, and precisely together, and precisely as indispensable reasons for the salvation of man[8].

swear words

theory

• Anyone who wants to know the true essence of Catholicism, Protestantism or Orthodoxy must turn not to theoretical
  teaching, but to their concept of life... After all, Catholicism is not from filioque, but vice versa... In the same way, Orthodoxy is not recognized from its
  theoretical
  teaching [8].

legalism

• The life of the Church has developed in such a way that a completely legitimate and completely understandable application to the spiritual development of members of the Church served as the source of that fundamental error that now distinguishes Western Christianity; on this basis, a legal (juridical)
  formulation of the doctrine of salvation developed [8].
• Given a legal
  understanding of life, it is impossible to understand why the Word of God and all patristic literature insists with such force that a person is saved only by faith in Christ and only in the church[8].

discourse

• Nothing is random
• Sergianism

pathological speech techniques

techniques for quoting
St. Seraphim (Sobolev) reports the incorrect method of Met. Sergius in the use of patristic teaching, one-sided and fragmentary citing of quotes without their connection with the view of the Holy Fathers on the accomplishment of our salvation[9].

biblical allusion

• And the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19)

pathological vocabulary

Retribution, Retribution, Revival, Cause of Christ, Merit, Monarchical system, Ordinary, Otherworldliness, Right, Legal, Self, Save the Church, Old, Theoretical, Satisfaction, Legal

quotes

Holy Rus' is no less dear to me than to all of you. But I remember the advice of the wise, you cannot cry endlessly about the deceased and think only about him, our strengths and abilities belong to life, and we must turn to it. The page with Holy Russia has already been turned, and it would be madness on our part to deny this... now it would be a denial of the fact, that is, an unwillingness to submit to the accomplished will of God.

It's time to make sure that there can be no return to the old ways. We will leave complaints and concerns about the former state, which no longer exists, to those who have the leisure to do so; But we, who are obliged to serve the Church, are called by the will of God to think first of all and most of all about the Church, to devote ourselves entirely to its structure.