Tsar Peter I influenced the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. It was with Peter's reform that the so-called Synodal period began in the development of the church, which lasted more than two centuries.
Some historians, for example, Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, consider the beginning of the synodal period to be 1700, when, after the death of Patriarch Adrian, Peter violated the previously established order and did not convene the Local Council to choose a new patriarch, but appointed the guardian of the patriarchal throne - Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky.
The second part of the researchers identifies the beginning of the Synodal period in 1721 - the abolition of the patriarchate and the creation of the Spiritual College, which was later called the Holy Governing Synod.
At the end of the period there are no disputes or discrepancies - 1917, the proclamation of the power of the Soviets and the persecution of faith and the church.
Buildings of the Senate and Synod in St. Petersburg. Members of the Holy Synod made decisions here, instead of the usual Local Councils
What is the Synodal period?
This is what historians call the era from February 1721 to November 1917—almost 200 years. All this time, the highest authority of the Russian Orthodox Church was the Holy Synod, established by Peter I. It was a meeting of the most influential hierarchs of the Russian Church, heading the largest Russian departments - St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan, Kyiv. At first, the Synod included not only bishops, but also abbots of large monasteries, and representatives of the white clergy (that is, married priests), and even secular officials.
Peter I establishes the Holy Synod. Painting by Ivan Tupylev. 1801
Under Peter, the Synod was conceived as a church government. He dealt with matters of a spiritual order, was called the Governing One and had the emperor himself as the “ultimate judge” (like the Senate, also created by Peter and responsible for civil affairs). Later it turned into a kind of ministry. Ministries as such were created only at the beginning of the 19th century under Alexander I for Church affairs. In official documents of the 19th century, the Synod was called the “department of the Orthodox confession,” by analogy with the departments of military, financial, internal affairs, etc.
But, no matter what status the Synod had in different years, the essence remained the same: all this time, church power remained firmly integrated into the system of government. This corresponded to Peter’s worldview: he was a sincere and religious person, but he believed that the Church was called upon first of all to serve the state and society.
Damned days
By the time the overthrow of the autocracy began, the first person present in the Holy Synod was Vladimir (Epiphany), Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, who declared himself an opponent of “Rasputin’s influence.” Nikolai Raev, who was loyal to Rasputin, was appointed Chief Prosecutor of the Synod from August 1916. His comrade (deputy) in October 1916 was Prince Nikolai Zhevakhov, who left interesting memories of the Russian Church during the last years of the old regime. However, given Zhevakhov’s somewhat extravagant views, it is unlikely that all of his evidence deserves complete confidence.
On February 23, 1917, the first demonstrations began in Petrograd, which soon grew into powerful strikes. The Synod remained one of the legally functioning government bodies working in the capital (the Tsar himself stayed at the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command in Mogilev). What did the Synod do? After all, in the spirit of his calling, he had to exhort his subjects not to rebel against legitimate authority.
It was with this proposal that Zhevakhov turned to Metropolitan Vladimir on February 26: to publish a Pastoral Word condemning the unrest and calling on him to return to fulfilling his duty to the Fatherland and the Tsar. Those who disobeyed should be threatened with excommunication from church sacraments. Absolutely normal practice in such a situation. The next day, Chief Prosecutor Raev supported this proposal.
But the essence of the synodal system was that the chief prosecutor only supervised the legality of the course of affairs in the Synod, but himself, as a civilian official, did not have the right to vote and initiative in it. Metropolitan Vladimir resolutely refused to let the church in any way raise its voice in politics, especially on the side of the tsar, who was unloved by many. “When we are not needed, then we are not noticed,” according to Zhevakhov, the first-present metropolitan grumbled in response to this proposal, “and in times of danger they turn to us first for help.” He refused to convene a Synod to discuss the issue of the appeal.
A paradoxical situation arose when even the bishop of the Roman Catholic Church in St. Petersburg excommunicated the rioters from the sacraments, and the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, called upon to protect the power of the Orthodox sovereign, was not going to threaten the rioters with such measures of admonition!
Then events developed rapidly, but the Synod did not remain idle, but was sensitive to who would take it. As early as March 2, when Nicholas II did not abdicate the throne, the Synod declared its subordination to the Provisional Executive Committee of the State Duma. The next day, the executive committee of the Duma, which declared itself the Provisional Government, appointed a new chief prosecutor (Vladimir Lvov, later an activist of the “Union of Militant Atheists”). The first task of the new chief prosecutor was the ceremonial removal from the Synod of the royal throne that had stood there for two centuries. On March 6, despite the absence of an act on the removal of the entire House of Romanov from power (this could only be decided by the Constituent Assembly), the Synod decided to stop offering prayers for the House of Romanov, and instead pray for the “blessed Provisional Government.”
What about the Patriarch? Isn't he the head of the Church?
During this period, the Russian Church simply did not have a patriarch. It was he who was replaced by the Synod. But before we talk about this, let's figure out who has what power in the Church.
The head of the Church has always been and remains the Lord Jesus Christ Himself , Who created it about 2000 years ago from the community of His closest disciples - the twelve apostles. All power in the Church belongs to Christ. For Christians, there is no doubt that the One who said to the apostles: Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20 ), and today is really present with us, governing all aspects of the life of His Church, which the Apostle Paul called the body of Christ, composed of many members - individual believers (cf. 1 Cor 12 : 12-14).
But Christ wants this power to be exercised through people in the daily life of the Church. After all, the Church is not a purely spiritual community of people united with Christ by faith alone. This is also an earthly community structured in a certain way, in which the spiritual unity of Christians is realized practically (through prayer, sacraments, works of mercy, etc.).
This ecclesiastical authority, delegated by Christ to the people, was conciliar from the very beginning . Both the dogmas of faith and the specific rules of church life have always been approved not by some hierarch, even the most authoritative one, but by a council of bishops. This is how Christ’s commandment about the unity of believers was fulfilled: That they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me (John 17:21 ) . It was in the conciliar unity of bishops - representatives of individual church communities, together forming the fullness of the Church - that the Holy Spirit revealed Himself.
Church judgment was also carried out at councils - for example, over heretics.
But issues of daily management of church communities have always been dealt with by bishops - the heirs of the apostles . After all, decisions need to be made every day, and you cannot hold a Council every time. At the same time, since apostolic times, there has been a rule: “it is fitting for the bishops of every nation to know the first in them, and recognize him as the head, and not do anything that exceeds their authority without his reasoning.” The Patriarch became such a bishop - the first among equals. In the ancient local Churches, the title of Patriarch appeared from the end of the 4th - 5th centuries. In the Russian Church, the Patriarch was first elected by the Council of Bishops in 1589.
Trial of heretics
The patriarchs resolved issues related to the management of Local Churches as a whole, expressed the views of Christians to the outside world, and built cooperation between the Church and secular authorities. An important part of the Patriarch's ministry was to oversee the regular convening of Councils, which were supposed to approve all key decisions affecting the life of the Local Church. This is how it works to this day. In the Russian Orthodox Church, all the most important decisions made by the Holy Synod under the chairmanship of the Patriarch are then approved by the Council of Bishops.
The Patriarch has never been the head of the Local Church in the literal sense of the word. He was her face and enjoyed the “primacy of honor” among her bishops. In Russia, the Patriarch, in addition to this, is also the ruling bishop of the capital diocese - the city of Moscow.
Night Kremlin conversation
Late in the evening of the same day, the metropolitans arrived in the Kremlin, where they were received by Stalin in his office. The meeting was attended by V.M. Molotov and Karpov. At the beginning of the conversation, Stalin gave a positive assessment of the patriotic activities carried out by the Church, after which he invited the hierarchs to speak out about pressing problems. The metropolitans raised issues that had to be resolved as quickly as possible: holding a Council of Bishops to elect a patriarch; opening new churches and religious educational institutions; publication of a monthly magazine; organization of candle factories and other industries; granting the clergy the right to be elected to the executive bodies (church councils) of religious societies; easing the taxation of clergy; granting parish societies the right to allocate funds to religious centers. Nothing raised any objections from Stalin.
The request of Metropolitan Sergius to allocate premises for the Patriarch and the Patriarchate also met with support. True, he spoke about the abbot’s building of the Novodevichy Convent, and Stalin, pointing out its disrepair, suggested a mansion in Chisty Lane, 5, in which the German ambassador Schulenburg was located before the war. Anticipating questions, Stalin emphasized that the building (with all the property in it) was Soviet and was never the property of the embassy.
During the conversation, “inconvenient” questions also surfaced: about the fate of hierarchs who were convicted in different years and were in exile, camps, and prisons; on the lifting of restrictions on registration and choice of places of residence for clergy who have served their sentences. And here Stalin did not object, promised to look into each individual case and instructed Karpov to personally deal with this issue.
The meeting lasted until almost two o'clock in the morning on September 5. Molotov suggested taking a general photo of the meeting participants, to which Stalin said that it was too late and it would be better next time. Such an unusual meeting remained without a documentary photograph. The metropolitans were taken in a government car to a house located in Baumansky Lane, near the Epiphany (Elokhovsky) Cathedral, where Metropolitan Sergius lived.
A few hours later, a solemn service was held in the Epiphany Cathedral, after which Sergius informed the believers about the night meeting and about the Council of Bishops scheduled for September 8. On the same day, Pravda published a note about Stalin’s reception of the hierarchs (see document No. 1). For their part, the metropolitans considered it necessary to send Stalin a letter of gratitude for the meeting (see document No. 2).
Why was there no Patriarch during the Synodal period?
The position of Patriarch was abolished by the “Spiritual Regulations” - a special legislative act drawn up in 1720 at the direction of Peter I by his closest associate in church affairs, Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich). The “Spiritual Regulations” declared the patriarchal management system to be ineffective, bureaucratic, potentially competing with royal power and even gravitating towards papism. And the Synod is a collegial body, it will come to the truth sooner than an individual hierarch-autocrat, wrote Feofan (Prokopovich).
Many of these arguments were obvious stretches. The Orthodox Patriarch, unlike the Pope, was never perceived as the bearer of absolute power in the Church, and all his decisions were approved by the Councils. What motives really motivated Peter?
Of course, his interest in the way of life in the countries of Western Europe, where Protestantism and the ethics of the public good had dominated for two centuries, played a significant role. But first of all, Peter was guided by considerations of imperial logic: in the empire, absolutely everything serves the interests of the state, and there simply cannot be any other center of public life.
Peter wanted to put an end to the dispute started by his father, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and Patriarch Nikon: what is higher - the kingdom or the priesthood? This dispute became the cause of a protracted conflict between the sovereign and the Patriarch. Moreover, for Nikon the matter ended in deposition and exile, and for the entire Church - in a very difficult (and still not overcome) schism on the basis of “Nikonian” liturgical reforms.
The Russian Church emerged from this schism in a greatly weakened state. Russian hierarchs, taught by the bitter experience of Patriarch Nikon and Archpriest Avvakum, tried not to show unnecessary initiative. The situation was aggravated, as a rule, by the low level of education of the Russian clergy: it met less and less the expectations of Peter, who was carried away by the ideas of progress and enlightenment during his European trips.
Patriarch Adrian
Peter’s personal experience of relationships with church authorities was also not the most successful. The Tsar did not get along well with Patriarch Adrian, who headed the Russian Church in the last decade of the 17th century. Peter was especially angry when he began to petition him for pardon for the Streltsy, who had committed a riot in Moscow while Peter was traveling around Europe. When Adrian died, Peter did not convene a Council to elect a successor. For twenty years the Russian Church was ruled not by the Patriarch, but by the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky) of Ryazan and Murom, and the tsar’s relationship with him was also tense. All this strengthened Peter in his idea to completely abolish the Patriarchate. This is what was done in February 1721, with the establishment of the Synod. Even the title “Holiness,” formerly held by the Patriarch, passed to him. The patriarchy is a thing of the past.
And what did this change for the Church in essence?
The absence of the Patriarch, of course, did not call into question the very existence of the Church in Russia. The conciliar form of government of the Church was preserved, and the Eastern Patriarchs readily agreed to consider the Russian Synod their “brother in Christ.”
Another thing is that the figure authorized to conduct a dialogue with state authorities on behalf of the Church, express the views of the Church, and inspire Christians to live according to the Gospel has disappeared. The Russian Church has literally lost face.
All this led to the fact that the Russian Church was integrated into the state administrative apparatus.
On paper, everything looked smooth: the Church, as before, was governed by a council of bishops, because the Holy Synod was truly a collegial body. But they stopped convening real Local Councils. And the decisions of the Synod, like all church life in Russia, began to be increasingly determined by the will of secular officials and, ultimately, the emperor or empress. The composition of the Synod was approved by the emperor personally; all synodal resolutions up to 1917 were issued with the stamp “By order of His Imperial Majesty.” This could be explained by continuity in relation to Byzantium (in its church hierarchy, the emperor, as the anointed of God, really occupied a special place, was perceived as the “bishop of external affairs,” an intercessor before God for all the laity), if not for the much closer example of Protestant countries, the rulers who did not hesitate to declare themselves the heads of the local churches. But Peter took his example from them.
During the Synodal era, the Church was subordinated to the state. In their relationship, once harmonious, there was a sharp imbalance. This was a natural result of violating the rule of the holy apostles about the “first bishop.”
In fulfillment of Stalin's promises
The state took practical steps to implement the agreements of the “Kremlin Concordat”. On September 9, Merkulov presented Stalin and Molotov with a draft resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on the formation of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church (see document No. 6). On September 14, 1943, the resolution on the formation of a new body, which was placed under the direct jurisdiction of the Council of People's Commissars, was approved (see document No. 7), and its chairman Karpov, with the consent of Molotov, retained the position of head of the department in the structure of the NKGB, which helped him to solve many problems10. The council apparatus was temporarily located near the Patriarchate11.
And in those eight months following the “spring September” that Patriarch Sergius was destined to lead the Russian Church12, the real revival of Orthodoxy in the Soviet Union began. On this path, the Orthodox Church had to overcome many difficulties and find a way out of seemingly stalemate situations. But the main thing is that we managed to fully implement everything that Stalin and the Orthodox hierarchs agreed on in the night-time Kremlin conversation.
The publication uses documents from RGASPI (F. 82, 558), GA RF (F. R-5446) and AP RF (F. 3), to which selected materials from published sources have been added to complete the picture.
The publication was prepared by the chief specialist of RGASPI, Doctor of Historical Sciences Mikhail Odintsov and deputy head of the RGASPI department, Candidate of Historical Sciences Anna Kochetova.
What exactly did the state put pressure on the Church?
The Synodal period lasted almost two centuries, and at different times, state intervention in church affairs led to different consequences.
On the one hand, sometimes the emperor’s personal participation even helped. This happened, for example, in 1903, when Nicholas II gave up on the endless disagreements among the members of the Synod and ordered the canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov.
Nicholas II and the Grand Dukes carry the coffin with the relics of St. Seraphim of Sarov to a new burial place. July 18, 1903
On the other hand, by the voluntaristic decision of the tsar, completely odious figures could penetrate into the Synod (as, for example, during the reign of Anna Ioannovna - 1730–1740), and worthy archpastors, such as Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow, could, on the contrary, be removed from the Synod. exclude ill-wishers from entering the palace based on slander.
Already in the 19th century, the figure of the chief prosecutor - a secular official with the rank of minister - acquired enormous weight. According to his job description, he was supposed to only oversee the work of the Synod as an observer, but in reality he often used, as we would say today, administrative resources and imposed his personal decisions and views on the Church. Among the chief prosecutors there were people worthy and devoted to the Church. Such were, with all the ambiguity of their views, Alexander Nikolaevich Golitsyn (1803–1816), a friend of his youth and associate of Alexander I, and later Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev (1880–1905). But there were also rude, arrogant and even non-church people, such as Count Dmitry Andreevich Tolstoy (1865–1880), the author of one of the most unsuccessful reforms of religious education in Russia.
Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev
During the Synodal era, the Russian Church was under unprecedented control and pressure from the state. And this is the main feature of this period.
Official periodicals
Since 1859, local (diocesan) periodical (time-based) press began to be created; The first such publication was “Kherson Diocesan News”, the idea of which was earlier proposed by Kherson Archbishop Innokenty (Borisov) († May 26, 1857). The creation of a central official body was constrained by a number of circumstances and considerations, including fears of the possible involvement of such a publication in journalistic polemics, which became a characteristic feature of journalism during the “glasnost” period during the reign of Alexander II. Since 1859, “managerial orders for the department of Orthodox confession” - documents on behalf of the Holy Synod - were published in the weekly magazine “Spiritual Conversation”, published at the St. Petersburg Seminary and in 1862 passed into the private hands of Archpriest Ioann Yakhontov.
On November 27, 1874, the Synod decided to publish its materials in the official part of the Christian Reading magazine (published monthly by the St. Petersburg Academy since 1821); the publication received a separate status under the title “Church Bulletin, published by the St. Petersburg Theological Academy: The official organ of the Holy All-Russian Synod and the central institutions associated with it” (weekly magazine), the first issue of which was published in January 1875. The magazine retained its official status until 1888[10]; since 1916 with the subtitle: “<…> published by the Missionary Council at the Holy Synod.”
From 1888 to 1918, the central official body was the weekly publication “Church News, published under the Holy Governing Synod” with additions.
Since January 1890, the “Bulletin of the Military Clergy” was published on the same basis as the diocesan “Vedomosti”; in 1911 it was renamed “Bulletin of the Military and Naval Clergy” and was published until June 1917.
What specific problems and difficulties did this create for the Church?
One of the striking examples is the story of the translation of the Bible into Russian . Work on a modern (by the standards of the 19th century) translation of the Bible began back in 1815 on the initiative of Alexander I and proceeded under the leadership of Prince Alexander Golitsyn and St. Philaret (Drozdov). But in 1825 Nicholas I ascended the throne, and a year later he stopped this work. This decision was suggested to the emperor by a group of “zealots” who were convinced that the Bible should be read only in Church Slavonic. As a result, the first edition of the Bible in Russian (we now call this translation the Synodal) was published only in 1876.
The habit of looking back to authority in everything, developed among the members of the Synod by the middle of the 19th century, became the reason for the very slow canonization of saints . Only under Nicholas II did the glorification of God’s saints begin to gain momentum: during his reign, more ascetics were canonized as saints than in the previous 200 years!
The imposition of unusual functions on the Church over the lives of parishioners . Peter I entrusted especially many functions to priests. The most blatant requirement was to inform on people who came to confession and confessed to certain seditious acts, thoughts, or even such “crimes” as divulging false rumors about miracles, visions or prophecies ( Peter fought very energetically against superstitions, often considering innocent folk traditions as such). Later, the secret of confession was restored, but the state charged the priests with a lot of other duties: registering marriages, monitoring the regularity of communion for people who were listed as parishioners of their churches... All this, of course, did not increase trust in the Church.
By the way, it was during the Synodal period that the notorious tradition of taking communion once a year arose. It was born from the same attempt by the authorities to regulate the spiritual life of their citizens. Back in 1716, Peter issued a decree on compulsory annual communion for all Orthodox Christians. And until the beginning of the 20th century, civil servants were required to annually provide at their place of service a certificate of completion of the sacraments of Confession and Communion. All these requirements were introduced with a good purpose - to motivate Christians to take communion at least once a year. But the people quickly reinterpreted this as a norm prescribed by the state. They came to church once a year (most often during Lent), confessed, took the Chalice, took the coveted certificate from the priest - and disappeared until the next year, continuing to be considered Orthodox Christians.
But the flourishing of the Church is also associated with the Synodal period?
This is the paradox: this era, so controversial, became a time of unprecedented growth for the Church. True, the rise began already in the 19th century under such emperors as Alexander I and Nicholas I.
It was during this period that a coherent system of theological education arose in Russia: theological schools, seminaries and academies were established. A network of parochial schools developed throughout the country, in which almost half of the peasant children studied by the beginning of the 20th century. Theological science flourished, associated with the names of Metropolitans Platon (Levshin) and Philaret (Drozdov), Archbishop Philaret (Chernigov) and Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), many outstanding professors of the Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev Theological Academies, as well as such laymen as Alexey Khomyakov and Ivan Kireevsky. Brilliant spiritual writers appeared - Saints Ignatius (Brianchaninov) and Theophan the Recluse, daring ascetic shepherds - John of Kronstadt, Alexy Mechev, Joseph Fudel.
A group of students from the Moscow Theological Seminary with Fr. Rector Archimandrite Sergius
Monasticism and monasteries flourished. The best spiritual traditions associated with the names of Saints Paisius Velichkovsky, Seraphim of Sarov, Ambrose of Optina, and Father Valentin Amfitheatrov were revived.
Russian missionaries reached the Far East, Korea and Japan, reached the shores of the Arctic Ocean, founded Christian communities in the Aleutian Islands, Central Asia, and established the Russian Spiritual Mission in Palestine...
Statistics
By 1882, there were 40,596 Orthodox churches in Russia, in addition to 14,167 chapels and prayer houses. The total parish clergy in clergy positions consisted of up to 45,000, including over 37,000 archpriests and priests and 7,000 deacons, in addition, the number of psalm-readers and clerks extended to 40,000 (Katkov, M.N.)[13]
In 1914, according to official data from the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, the total number of representatives of the white clergy and clergy (archpriests, priests, deacons and psalm-readers) amounted to 112,629 people[14]. There were also 1,025 monasteries and communities in Russia: 550 male (with 11,845 monks and 9,485 novices) and 475 female (with 17,283 nuns and 56,016 novices)[14]. The church's income was measured in tens of millions of rubles. For example, in 1913, the income of Orthodox monasteries and bishops' houses amounted to 89.5 million rubles, and expenses - 23 million rubles[15].
In 1917, the number of people of the Orthodox faith in the Empire was about 117 million (more than two-thirds of the total population); there were 67 dioceses; there were about 80,800 churches and chapels, 1,025 monasteries (with 94,629 monastics), 35,000 primary church schools, 185 diocesan schools, 57 seminaries, 4 theological academies, 34,497 libraries; the number of clergy exceeded 66,000 people[16]. There were 150 bishops in the departments within the Empire (including 8 bishops of the Georgian Exarchate). 7 bishops served abroad (in the USA, Japan, China and Urmia) and 20 were retired. In total, the total number of bishops was 177 people[17].
And all this happened thanks to the active participation of the state in the life of the Church?
No, not all. Although the Church really owed the revival of some traditions to the state. Without the support of the emperors and Chief Prosecutor Alexander Golitsyn, the formation of Russian religious education would have been impossible. Even at the beginning of the 19th century, nobles often looked down on the clergy, considering them a backward and poorly educated class. But already in the 1820s the situation began to change before our eyes. Thanks to the development of spiritual education, the smartest people paid attention to the Church, communication began between the intelligentsia and the clergy (let us just remember Pushkin’s correspondence with Metropolitan Philaret), and by the end of the 19th century, representatives of the aristocracy began to integrate into the ranks of the clergy (a typical example is Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov)) .
Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov)
With the advent of theological academies, the flowering of theological thought was not long in coming.
Many statesmen (including members of the royal family) and aristocrats actively participated in supporting missionary activities and charity. The example of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich Romanov and his wife Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, who were members of the boards of trustees of many dozens of charitable organizations and stood at the origins of the Imperial Palestine Society, is indicative.
Public education is also almost entirely the merit of the synodal system of power: Chief Prosecutor Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev personally played a huge role in the development of parish schools.
But much in the life of the Church sprouted and sprouted not thanks to, but in spite of state policy. And above all, this concerns the revival of the living monastic tradition, clergy and eldership. During the reign of Catherine II (1762–1796), the monasteries fell into decay: having taken away land estates from the monasteries, the empress deprived them of any economic basis for existence, and government salaries were allocated extremely irregularly and on a residual basis. The favorable attitude of the emperors returned to the monasteries only in the 19th century. And yet, already from the end of the 18th century, a revival of monasticism began; pilgrims came here in search of spiritual mentors. And such mentors appeared.
Probably the most balanced answer to the question about the significance of the Synodal period for the Russian Church was given by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, who said: “The spiritual college, which Peter took over from the Protestant... God’s providence and the church spirit turned into the Holy Synod.” It is not so important who exactly governs the Church - the Patriarch or the Synod; it is not so important what powers are vested in the chief prosecutor, St. Philaret believed. Only one thing is important: how state power relates to the Church.
What was the reason for the restoration of the Patriarchate in 1917?
Ideas about the revival of the Patriarchate have been in the air since the beginning of the 20th century, but even at the opening of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in August 1917, few of its participants seriously discussed this possibility. The idea of restoring the Patriarchate became relevant only in the fall, when it became obvious that the Provisional Government was no longer in control of the situation in the country. Russia began to plunge into chaos before our eyes, power was increasingly clearly concentrated in the hands of the most radical forces with aggressive atheistic views and a willingness to shed blood.
At the local council in 1917
In this critical situation for the entire country, the Church, which had already lost a significant part of its powers (for example, the Provisional Government banned teaching the Law of God in schools), could not continue to remain faceless, controlled only by the Synod, over which even the emperor now did not stand. The general mood of the participants in the Local Council was well expressed by Bishop Mitrofan (Krasnopolsky) of Astrakhan. “In all the dangerous moments of Russian life, when the helm of the church began to tilt, the thought of the Patriarch was resurrected with special force,” he said. “The time imperatively demands feat, boldness, and the people want to see a living personality at the head of the life of the Church, who would gather the living forces of the people.”
The argument turned out to be convincing, and on November 5 (18), 1917, members of the Local Council elected St. Tikhon (Bellavin), at that time Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, to the Patriarchal Throne.
N 5. Speech of the newly elected Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Sergius on the day of enthronement
September 12, 1943
We see a great gathering of believing people today in the church at our church celebration. The head of our government was sympathetic to our church needs. To streamline church affairs, I convened a Council of Orthodox Bishops of the Russian Church. The Council of Most Reverend Archpastors, by its unanimous decision of September 8, decided to give me the title of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. Thus, by this act our Russian Orthodox Church received the fullness of canonical leadership, governance and prayerful intercession. But the strength of Christ’s Church does not lie in external beauty and greatness. The Church, like scarlet, is adorned with the blood of martyrs, the exploits of the saints, the great labors of saints and other saints of God; Therefore, I call on all the faithful children of the church to the exploits of Christian life, so that our Orthodox Church will be clothed in the beauty of Christian virtues.
In my situation, in appearance, nothing seemed to change with receiving the patriarchal rank. In fact, I have been bearing the responsibilities of a patriarch for 17 years. It only seems so in appearance, but in reality it is far from true. In the rank of patriarchal locum tenens I felt temporary and was not so much afraid of possible mistakes. If, I thought, a patriarch will be elected, he will correct all the mistakes made. Now that I have been invested with the high title of patriarch, it is no longer possible to say that someone else will correct mistakes and do unfinished work, but I myself must act without error, according to God’s truth, and lead people to eternal salvation. But where do you get the strength? I appeal to all the assembled archpastors and the believing people to strengthen their prayers for me so that through the prayerful intercession of the entire people the work of church governance will be established, and so that I, relying on the prayers of the entire Russian Church, will firmly lead the flock entrusted to me by God to eternal salvation.
Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1943. N 2. P. 8.
