Circumstances of convening the Council
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian Orthodox Church was going through hard times - many representatives of the clergy dreamed of freeing the church from the restrictions of the synodal system of government created by Peter I. The head of the church was the emperor, and it itself represented, in fact, one of the government departments with certain bureaucratic, propaganda, even police functions.
Some priests and representatives of the Orthodox intelligentsia did not support the policies of the head of the church and state, sharing the views of the opposition or the labor movement. Thus, the most prominent figure in the events of Bloody Sunday 1905 was the priest G. Gapon, who stood at the head of a mass procession of unarmed workers. At the same time, part of the clergy belonged to the monarchists and collaborated with extreme right-wing forces, such as the Black Hundreds.
Internal church contradictions also required solutions. For example, it was necessary to clarify the role and rights of the laity - whether they should participate in the management of the parish or the concept of the parish is administrative and subordinate only to the higher clergy. The position of the white (married) and black clergy also raised questions. Bishops were elected exclusively from among the latter, although in the early Christian church married priests could also become bishops.
ROC and revolution
Nicholas II did not give permission to hold the Council, although projects for church reforms were submitted to him starting in 1904. The emperor’s relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church was also influenced by personal circumstances - bishops and priests fell into disgrace for criticizing Nicholas II’s favorite G. E. Rasputin. In March 1917, the Russian Orthodox Church supported the abdication of the Tsar; moreover, many members of the clergy perceived this as the first step towards the revival of the Church and Russia.
In March-April 1917, a new composition of the Synod of Bishops was created, which included mainly supporters of reforms. Already on April 29, he issued a message announcing the imminent convening of the Local Council and the need for elections to occupy leading positions in the Russian Orthodox Church. Free elections of metropolitans took place in Petrograd and Moscow. It is significant that the population cast their votes for bishops who are morally impeccable and far from politics.
By a majority vote of the members of the Department, it was decided to introduce into the project for the transformation of the highest church administration a provision on the restoration of patriarchal power. However, a number of members of the Council, including many prominent scientists and church leaders, considered it necessary to first develop conciliar documents establishing the rights and duties of the Patriarch and the powers of the Council.
Bishop Mitrofan of Astrakhan objected to them: “You say: construct a Cathedral. But this cannot be done without the first hierarchy; Likewise, it is impossible to form a Synod without a First Hierarch. We are told: introduce a complete regulation on management, and not in the form of a separate formula. What do we do? Quit all work? The question of patriarchy is a very complex one. […] We need the Patriarch as the church-prayer leader of the Russian Church, a representative of feat and boldness and as a champion for the Russian Church. Nothing else matters. […] So that the restoration of the patriarchate does not frighten, we make an adjustment: the Patriarch is only the first among bishops equal to him. This sets the limits of the sole power of the Patriarch. This position is completely definite. The Patriarch will not absorb church power.”
Bishop Mitrofan pointed out that the patriarchate has been known in Rus' since the very adoption of Christianity, since in the first centuries of its history the Russian Church was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Under Metropolitan Jonah, the Russian Church became autocephalous, but the principle of the first hierarchal authority in it remained unshakable. When the Russian Church grew and became stronger, the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' appeared. The abolition of the patriarchate by Peter I became an anti-canonical act. The Russian Church was beheaded. “The Synod remained alien to the Russian heart; it did not touch the inner, deep strings of the soul, which were touched upon by a living representative. Therefore, the idea of the patriarchate remained in the minds of the Russian people. She lived like a golden dream."
Opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate accused their opponents of secret monarchical hopes. They argued that history knows many weak patriarchs who were unable to resist state power and obediently followed its lead. Or, on the contrary, they believed that history provides many examples of despotic primates of the Russian Church, next to whom the idea of conciliarity does not live well. They also argued that the restoration of this church institution would not save the Russian Church from the extraordinary circumstances of the time in which it found itself during the revolution, but, on the contrary, would throw it back into the 17th century, hopelessly lagging behind Europe.
Despite the resistance of some council members, the majority at the All-Russian Church Council of 1917–1918 spoke out in defense of the patriarchate. I. N. Speransky, in his speech at the plenary session of the Council, pointed out the deep internal connection between the existence of the primatial throne and the spiritual face of pre-Petrine Rus'. He believed that the main argument in favor of restoring the patriarchate was that the Orthodox Church was the conscience of the state as long as there was a supreme shepherd in Rus' - His Holiness the Patriarch.
One of the most powerful arguments in defense of the patriarchate was the history of the Church. Professor I. I. Sokolov reminded the Council of the bright spiritual appearance of the primates of the Church of Constantinople: Saints Photius, Ignatius, Stephen, Anthony, Nicholas the Mystic, Tryphon, Polyeuctus. During the time of Turkish rule, the ecumenical patriarchs Cyril Lukaris, Parthenius, Gregory V, Cyril VI died as martyrs. At the meetings of the Council, they also spoke about the high priestly feat of the metropolitans of the Russian Church - Peter, Alexy, Jonah, Philip, and the hieromartyr Patriarch Hermogenes.
Finally, on November 4, 1917, the All-Russian Church Council issued a ruling “On the general provisions on the highest governance of the Orthodox Russian Church,” which restored the patriarchate. The next step of the Council was the development of a procedure for electing the Patriarch. As a result, the members of the All-Russian Church Council decided that at the first election meeting, members of the Council would submit notes with the name of their proposed candidate for Patriarch. The person who receives an absolute majority of votes is considered elected as a candidate. The voting rounds will be repeated until three candidates receive a majority of the votes. And finally, the Patriarch will be chosen by lot from among them.
As a result of voting by the members of the Council, the three candidates for Patriarchs who received the most votes were: Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) - 159 votes as a result of the first vote; Archbishop Arseny (Stadnitsky) - 199 votes as a result of the second vote; Metropolitan Tikhon (Bellavin) - 162 votes in the third round of voting.
The election took place on November 5 in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow was elected Patriarch of the Orthodox Russian Church. On the twenty-first of November, on the feast of the Entry into the Temple of the Most Holy Theotokos, the Patriarch was enthroned in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin in an unusually solemn atmosphere. From now on, the Russian Church has again found its mourner and prayer book.
Representatives of that time perfectly understood the scale of what had happened. Professor S. N. Bulgakov recalled that in addition to church-canonical rights, the Patriarch also has a special hierarchical authority, since it reflects the living unity of the Local Church. He is the church pinnacle, rising above the local fence, seeing other pinnacles and being seen by them.
For many years, conciliar definitions concerning the status and competence of the Patriarch were supposed to ensure the stability of the newly formed institution of patriarchal power. History decided otherwise. The whirlwind of revolutionary events, the establishment of Soviet power with its atheistic structure, the persecution of the Russian Church in the first half of the 20th century made it impossible for the normal functioning of the highest church authority in the person of the Local Council, as well as the highest church administration headed by the Patriarch. Created by the All-Russian Church Council in 1917–1918, the system of higher church governance, which included the Local Council, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council headed by His Holiness the Patriarch, in extraordinary historical conditions was deprived of the means necessary for normal work: material, financial, organizational and human resources. The full functioning of the system of higher church government bodies was made dependent on the convening of the Local Council.
On September 20, 1918, the All-Russian Church Council adopted a resolution according to which the Patriarch was to convene a Local Council in the spring of 1921. It was not possible to do this, and therefore it was not possible to elect a new composition of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council. Thus, starting from 1921, the highest church government in the form in which it was formed by the Council in 1917–1918 ceased to exist. All church power was concentrated in the hands of the Patriarch, then the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, and even later - the deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens. “If until now,” writes Irinarch Stratonov, “the Patriarch was the bearer of the idea of church unity, now, under certain circumstances, he became the sole concentration of the fullness of church power.”
In 2008, Russia celebrated the 90th anniversary of the restoration of the Patriarchate in Rus'. From the time of Peter the Great, who abolished the patriarchal throne because Patriarch Adrian did not agree to come to terms with the historical breakdown, and until 1917 in Rus', the Holy Synod was in charge of the affairs of the Orthodox Church. But the main thing is that loyalty to Orthodoxy was maintained. Preserved at the cost of a great spiritual feat.
For seven and a half years of patriarchate, from 1917 to 1925, the name of Patriarch Tikhon was the most dear not only to the Russian people. The entire Christian world anxiously followed the progress of the confessional and martyrdom of the Moscow Patriarch. I admired him, blessed him and prayed for him.
Vasily Bellavin, the son of a village priest, Father John, from the ancient Russian city of Toropets, on the border of Pskov and Tver lands, was born in 1865. Since childhood, he decided to follow in his parents' footsteps. He studied first in theological educational institutions of the Pskov diocese, and in 1884 he was admitted to the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. From the very first days, classmates nicknamed him, a sedate, conscientious, zealous believer, “patriarch.”
After completing his studies in 1888, Vasily underwent spiritual and educational service in Pskov, Kazan, and Kholm. In 1891, while a teacher, he applied to become a monk. The tonsure was performed in honor of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, the famous Russian saint, with whose name in our monasticism the establishment of a special direction of spiritual life is associated - eldership. In 1897, Tikhon Bellavin was awarded the bishopric. The following year he was appointed to a priestly post in North America, where he headed the Aleutian and North American diocese. In 1905, the Americans elected Bishop Tikhon an honorary citizen of the United States.
In the same year, Bishop Tikhon received the rank of archbishop and returned to Russia, to Yaroslavl. The people of Yaroslavl with genuine tenderness called him the clear sun. The city of Yaroslav the Wise loved its archpastor so much that it showed him the exceptional honor of electing him an honorary citizen of the city. Then service in Vilna, where Tikhon passed his archpastoral path during difficult times of war. On June 23, 1917, the Mother See of Moscow, when electing an archpastor to the post of Metropolitan of Moscow, preferred the candidacy of the humble, simple Archbishop of Vilna and Lithuania Tikhon to all the loud and glorious archpastoral names.
In the most difficult time for the country, in November 1917, the All-Russian Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church opened. Archpastors, shepherds and church people shone on him: some with learning, some with eloquence, some with a big name, Tikhon did not shine, he was modest and humble. Muscovites complacently joked about him, “He’s quiet.” The main question immediately arose: the restoration of the patriarchate, which was stopped in 1700.
“The overwhelming majority focused their attention not on the stars of the first magnitude in the hierarchy, which were Antony of Kharkov and Arseny of Novgorod,” recalled the Minister of Confessions of the Provisional Government A.V. Kartashev, “but on the modest, good-natured, not learned and not proud, but a shining Russian people's simplicity and humility to the new Metropolitan of Moscow Tikhon. He was immediately given a spectacular majority of 407 votes out of 432 present at the meeting.” When they began to sort through candidates for the All-Russian Patriarchal throne, Tikhon’s name invariably began to be mentioned. True, among the candidates he took third place. On November 5, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the deep elder Hieroschemamonk Alexy, a recluse of the Zosimov Hermitage, took a lot from the casket and read out the name: Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow. Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev, who was celebrating the liturgy, exclaimed “Axios!”, in Greek - worthy. Both the clergy and the people unanimously echoed: “Axios!” Tikhon said: “How many tears will I have to swallow and groans in the patriarchal service ahead of me, and especially in this difficult time!” The speech turned out to be prophetic.
Entire estates and classes were swept off the face of the earth in a bloody whirlwind of brutal terror. The centuries-old way of state, social, and family life was subjected to violent disruption. But it seems that in no other area was terror brought to such refined cruelty as in the church area.
Already in 1919 there were villages and even cities without priests. Executions of clergy were often carried out without trial or investigation. In the new government system, church ministers were turned into persons without basic civil rights. Anti-religious propaganda has become widespread and systematic. The church was removed from influence on the school, family, and society. Theological educational institutions, house churches, and monasteries were closed. Parishes were taxed. These were the most difficult times for the Church, and therefore for the entire spiritual life of the people. The government, which sought to destroy Christian foundations, demanded concessions not in something secondary, but in the essence of faith. The renovationist schism began.
In the midst of general destruction and decay, Patriarch Tikhon managed to preserve the church canonical body in the strictest accordance with the requirements of holy laws and rules. Amid the storms, he managed to unite the believers into such a strong union that no one could destroy.
In April 1922, the trial of Patriarch Tikhon began. The Revolutionary Tribunal issued a ruling to bring him to criminal responsibility. Soon it was announced to him that he was under house arrest. On the night of May 19, the Patriarch was transported from his Trinity courtyard to the Donskoy Monastery. Here, under guard, in complete isolation from the world, he had to stay for a year. Then a month in the GPU, in Lubyanka, with continuous “conversations”.
They tried to confuse the Patriarch by introducing discord among the church hierarchy. From those convicted by the church court, even those defrocked and excommunicated, they decided to create an opposition to the Patriarch and the Russian Church he heads. Dissenters and sectarians, with the support of the Soviet state, began to create new church formations. Vladimir Putyata, deprived of his episcopal rank and excommunicated from the Church, became the head of the “New Church”. The married hierodeacon Ioannikiy Smirnov, dedicated by Putyata to the rank of bishop, headed the “Free Labor Church.” Former lawyer Alexander Vvedensky, calling himself the Archbishop of London, in company with the pharmacist Soloveichik, named Bishop Nicholas, founded the “Ancient Apostolic Church.” Vladimir Krasnitsky, who called himself protopresbyter, created the “Living Church”. Known throughout Russia for his noisy scandals, Antonin Granovsky, who was named Metropolitan, began building a kind of “church renaissance.” During the arrest of the Patriarch, all these new formations united and convened the “All-Russian Church Council”, which recognized Soviet power, condemned the Patriarch and elected their own “Synod”. The First Hierarch of our Church, exhausted by arrests and interrogations, was under constant pressure from the authorities, who continually presented him with a devilish choice: either accept one of the leaders of renovationism, or the bishops would not be released from prison.
In June 1923, the Patriarch was released, with a statement on his behalf that he was “not an enemy of the Soviet regime.” At the same time, reports began to appear in the press about the bishop’s serious illnesses. These persistent news prepared the public consciousness for something fatal. And on March 25 (April 7), 1925, on the day of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, the eleventh Patriarch of Russia, died. A message appeared that he died of “angina pectoris.” It seemed that the Patriarch’s angina pectoris, a long-term disease, had some special lightning-fast character. It was clear to everyone that the Patriarch’s death was a martyr’s. “Lived as a confessor, died as a martyr...”
Participants of the Council
The elective democratic principle was also in effect when forming the composition of the participants of the Local Council. Delegates were elected from each diocese - two representatives of the clergy and three laymen who had equal voting rights. Public institutions and government bodies - universities and the Academy of Sciences, the army, the State Duma, the military and scientific clergy - sent their representatives. The Synod and Pre-Conciliar Council, diocesan bishops, and abbots of the most important monasteries also took part in the Council. Two dozen advisory commissions were supposed to prepare decisions on key issues and then submit them to a general vote.
The working hours of the Council coincided with the key events of Russian history - the First World War, the proclamation of the Republic, the October Revolution, the beginning of the Civil War. The Council condemned the actions of the Bolsheviks, and the Council of People's Commissars, in turn, in January 1918 issued a Decree on the separation of church and state, but the new government has not yet interfered in the activities of the clergy.
The Patriarchate in Russia from restoration to the present day
Priest Vasily Sekachev, candidate of historical sciences, employee of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences, tells about the background and circumstances of the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia, as well as about the elections of all patriarchs from 1917 to 1990:
Colossal Office
In 1721, Peter I finally abolished the patriarchate in Russia, placing the Holy Synod at the head of the Church, headed by the chief prosecutor - an official wholly accountable to the tsar.
Although the Orthodox Church was recognized as “primary and dominant” in the Empire, and the chief prosecutors were called upon to implement the tsarist policy of care and concern for the Church, the Russian Church suffered a lot from the chief prosecutor’s arbitrariness. Chief prosecutors usually had no connection with the church environment, among them there were such freethinkers as brigadier I. I. Melissino (1763-1768), who proposed reforming Orthodoxy along the Protestant model (although he also banned corporal punishment of priests), such outspoken atheists, like the foreman P. P. Chebyshev (1768-1774), non-church mystics, like Prince A. N. Golitsyn (1803-1817), simply narrow-minded people, like Count D. A. Tolstoy (1865-1880), who believed that the words “There is no prophet in his own country” are folk wisdom. Almost the only exception to this sad rule was K.P. Pobedonostsev (1880-1905), who, being the grandson of a priest, was also a sincere believer.
At the same time, throughout the XVIII-XIX centuries. Protests were periodically heard in Russian society against the church system created by Peter. In the middle of the 19th century. criticism of the synodal system came from among the Slavophiles A. S. Khomyakov, Yu. F. Samarin and I. S. Aksakov. The latter exclaimed with special feeling: “... The soul has disappeared, the ideal has been replaced, that is, in the place of the ideal of the Church, the ideal of the state has found itself, and internal truth has been replaced by formal, external truth,” “The Church, from the point of view of its administration, now seems to us to be some kind of colossal office, applying, with the inevitable, alas, clerical lies, the order of German clericalism to the salvation of the flock of Christ.”
To a large extent, it was the bureaucratization of church administration associated with the abolition of the Patriarchate, the transformation of the Church into a “spiritual department” that pushed away in the 19th century. from the Church, the majority of the intelligentsia, and then at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. and the masses of ordinary people.
At the same time in the 1880s. within the walls of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy under the wing of the then Archimandrite Anthony (Vadkovsky), the future Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, in line with the revival of ascetic monastic ideals, they begin to talk about the restoration of the patriarchate - first of all, the future Bishop Mikhail (Gribanovsky) and the future Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) . In 1903, a separate publication published an article by the famous publicist, repentant Narodnaya Volya member Lev Tikhomirov, “The Requests of Life and Our Church Administration,” which spoke of the need to restore the patriarchate and resume the Councils, also canceled by Peter. The article attracted the sympathetic attention of Sovereign Nicholas II, who wished to convene an All-Russian Local Council, for the preparation of which the Pre-Conciliar Presence began to operate in 1906. In 1912, a Pre-Conciliar Conference was established under the Synod, which was also involved in preparing the Council.
Russian Western Wall However, the Cathedral opened already in revolutionary times - on August 15 (28), 1917. 564 people took part in its work. The episcopate was represented in full, with three laymen and two clergy from each diocese. The clergy included representatives of religious educational institutions and monasteries, as well as military clergy. There were also lay army representatives. A total of 314 lay people versus 250 clergy.
One of the central topics of its discussion, as before the work of the pre-conciliar bodies, was the restoration of the Patriarchate. At this time, only a few participants in the Council were convinced advocates of this restoration: Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop of Chisinau Anastasy (Gribanovsky), Archbishop of Tauride Dimitri (Abashidze), Bishop of Astrakhan Mitrofan (Krasnopolsky), Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky).
The congress of clergy and laity that had just taken place in June 1917 rejected the patriarchate by 34 votes against 12 with 8 abstentions. The Pre-Conciliar Council, which met after him in June-July, also did not support the patriarchate, despite certain efforts by Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Finland to achieve a decision on its restoration.
Opponents of the patriarchate were afraid that the patriarchate would threaten church conciliarity, in which they saw one of the main achievements of the 1917 revolution and which had already manifested itself during the free elections of bishops in the early summer of this year. Subsequently, conciliarity, according to this point of view, will have to manifest itself in the regular holding of Local Councils, in the election of the priesthood, in the participation of the laity in the work of episcopal consistories. The patriarchate is a manifestation of “obsolete monarchism,” “the Middle Ages,” and the “Eastern Papacy.” The most consistent opponents of the patriarchate went even further - they also denied bishoprics as a special case of patriarchy within one diocese.
Opponents of the patriarchate overestimated the possibilities of church democracy in 1917, inspired by the visible successes of political democracy. Meanwhile, the revolution, according to the very insightful remark of N.A. Berdyaev, “revealed spiritual emptiness among the people,” a lack of genuine religious energy. There was obvious de-churching of the people. Today people voted for holy people in the capital's episcopal sees, and tomorrow they could be carried away by life towards completely different goals. Under these conditions, it was hardly possible to give ecclesiastical power to the laity.
One of the most active representatives of the camp of opponents of the patriarchate was the professor of the Petrograd Theological Academy B.V. Titlinov (later a prominent ideologist of the renovation movement), behind him were many other teachers of this educational institution, who were also joined by representatives of the white clergy: archpriests A. Rozhdestvensky, N. Popov and others (let's not forget that the Council of 1917-1918 was mainly a council of priests and laity). Associate professor, later professor at the Moscow Theological Academy and confessor of the faith, lawyer N.D. Kuznetsov pointed out the inadmissibility of imitation of pre-Petrine patriarchal models. Kuznetsov considered the personality of Nikon, who did not take anyone into account, who placed himself above the entire Church, as the embodiment of all the most negative things that the patriarchate could give to the Church.
At the same time, a representative of the opposite camp, Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), called Patriarch Nikon “the greatest man in Russian history” and even arranged a trip for members of the council to his grave in the New Jerusalem Monastery, where he gave a whole lecture on the patriarchate. Based on newly discovered historical facts, Bishop Anthony considered Nikon a misunderstood supporter of the symphony of Church and state, slandered in Russian history.
In general, supporters of the restoration of the patriarchate pointed first of all to the 34th Apostolic and 9th canon of the Antioch Council, which literally read as follows: “Bishops... should be the first to know... as the head... to do to each only what concerns his diocese... but the first does nothing let him not create everything without reasoning...”
“We cannot help but restore the patriarchate,” said Fr. Hilarion (Troitsky), the future bishop and holy martyr, we must certainly restore him, because the patriarchate is the fundamental law of the supreme government of each local Church.” Bishop Mitrofan (Krasnopolsky), also a future martyr, emphasized that the Patriarch is needed “as a spiritual leader and leader who would inspire the heart of the Russian people, who would call for correction of life and feat, and who would himself be the first to lead.”
As St. Petersburg Church historian S. L. Firsov notes, the position of many participants in the Council, especially the bishops, was not so obvious at the beginning, because the Provisional Government, which inherited from the autocratic system the right to approve church decrees (for example, St. Tikhon could be considered a metropolitan only after receiving sanction government), it might well not have approved the decision of the Council, and this would have undermined church prestige. Therefore, the first two months of conciliar meetings were increasingly concerned with issues of conciliarity. And only after the report of the chairman of the cathedral department on issues of higher church administration, Bishop Mitrofan (Krasnopolsky) on October 11, in defense of the patriarchate, many cathedral members showed themselves to be supporters of the patriarchate.
Opponents of restoration relied, among other things, on the position of the famous church historian E.E. Golubinsky, who died in 1912 and feared, on the one hand, the unlimited power of the patriarch in relation to the Church, and on the other, his subordinate position in relation to the tsar.
However, the tsar was no longer there, the Provisional Government was retreating into the shadows, and the country was plunging into the chaos of civil war (the synodal message of July 22 said that an “internal fratricidal war” was already underway). Clouds were gathering over the Church. Already at the beginning of September 1917, the village priest Father Grigory Rozhdestvensky was killed by unknown, apparently deserters near Orel. In this situation, the Church needed a leader, protector, guardian, father. Archbishops Anastasius (Gribanovsky) and Sergius (Stragorodsky), the famous theologian Prince Evgeny Trubetskoy and many others spoke about this. Bishop Sergius prophetically said back in the summer that Russia was going through a kind of new appanage period, therefore the Church “needs a hierarch... who would be a common mourner and a moral center for everyone.”
The following case is interesting: Archimandrite Hilarion, having learned about the rejection of the patriarchate within the walls of his native Moscow Theological Academy, specially came for one day to Sergiev Posad and gave a lecture at the academy “Is it necessary to restore the patriarchate in the Russian Church?”, which lasted about three hours and convinced those gathered that the speaker was right. “Now the time is coming,” said Father Hilarion, “that the patriarchal crown will not be a “royal” crown, but rather the crown of a martyr and confessor, who will selflessly lead the ship of the Church in its voyage across the stormy waves of the sea of life.”
From the speech of Archimandrite Hilarion at the Council on October 23 (November 5): “Moscow is called the heart of Russia. But where does the Russian heart beat in Moscow? On the exchange? In shopping arcades? On Kuznetsky Most? It beats, of course, in the Kremlin... in the Assumption Cathedral... The sacrilegious hand of the wicked Peter brought the Russian High Hierarch from his centuries-old place in the Assumption Cathedral. The Local Council of the Russian Church, with the power given to it by God, will again establish the Moscow Patriarch in his rightful, inalienable place. And when, to the ringing of Moscow bells, His Holiness the Patriarch goes to his historical sacred place in the Assumption Cathedral, then there will be great joy on earth and in heaven.” “There is a “Wailing Wall” in Jerusalem... In Moscow, in the Assumption Cathedral, there is also a Russian Western Wall - empty patriarchal place. For two hundred years, Orthodox Russian people have been coming here and crying bitter tears about the church freedom and former church glory destroyed by Peter. What a grief it will be if this Russian wailing wall of ours remains forever! Yes, it won’t happen!..”
Choice of three hundred
Finally, on October 28 (November 10), 1917, the Council made a historic decision on the restoration of the patriarchate. At the same time, it was indicated that the highest power in the Church belongs to the Local Council, which must meet at certain times and to which the Patriarch must be accountable.
It was at this time that it became known in Moscow about the overthrow of the Provisional Government and the transfer of power to the Council of People's Commissars.
Then the procedure for electing the Patriarch was established. The voting was supposed to be secret, in two rounds. First, all council members had to submit notes with the name of one candidate, after which in the second round notes were submitted with three names from among those who received the most votes in the first round. And when three candidates emerged who received an absolute majority of votes, the bishops, just as happens in all Eastern churches, had to make the final election. But at the Council of 1917, the Russian bishops humbly renounced such a right and decided to transfer the final decision to the will of God by drawing lots.
Opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate ignored the election of the patriarch. A little more than 300 (out of, remember, 564) people were present in the hall.
The first round of voting was held on October 30 (November 12). The Archbishop of Kharkov Anthony (Khrapovitsky) received 101 votes, Archbishop of Tambov Kirill (Smirnov) - 27 votes, Metropolitan of Moscow Tikhon (Bellavin) - 23, Metropolitan Platon (Christmas) - 22, Archbishop of Novgorod Arseny (Stadnitsky) - 14, Metropolitan Vladimir Vladimir. (Epiphany), Archbishop Anastasius of Chisinau, Protopresbyter George Shavelsky - 13 votes each, Archbishop of Vladimir Sergius (Stragorodsky) - 5, Archbishop of Kazan Jacob (Pyatnitsky), Archimandrite Hilarion and layman A.D. Samarin, former Chief Prosecutor of the Synod and denouncer of Rasputin (his candidacy was withdrawn at the next meeting: they decided to consider only clergy candidates)—3 votes each. Other candidates (all bishops) received two or one vote.
The next day, a second round of voting was held, in which those for whom at least 155 votes were cast were to be considered elected candidates (309 people were present in the hall). The first candidate for Patriarchate was Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) (159 votes cast for first place), the next was Archbishop Arseny (Stadnitsky) (199 votes cast for second place) and the third was St. Tikhon (162 votes cast for third place) - as they said then they chose the smartest, the strictest and the kindest.
On November 5 (18), 1917, elections of the patriarch took place in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. At the beginning of the liturgy, Metropolitan Vladimir brought out a reliquary, into which he placed the lots with the names of the candidates. The reliquary was placed in front of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God, transferred from the Assumption Cathedral. And after the end of the liturgy, Elder Alexy from the Zosima Monastery came out of the altar and, after fervent prayer with prostrations to the ground, took out a lot on which was written: “Tikhon, Metropolitan of Moscow.” The choir rang out “axios” and everyone sang “We praise you God.”
On November 21 (December 4), on the day of the Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple, St. Tikhon’s enthronement as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin (the title of “All Rus'” appeared later, during the war). Based on the ancient rite of table
The rite of enthronement of the Patriarch of Constantinople was drawn up, which differed both from the pre-Nikon rite (when the installation was carried out through the unacceptable new episcopal consecration of the Patriarch) and the post-Nikon rite (when the Patriarch received the rod of St. Peter from the hands of the sovereign). The prayers missing in the Byzantine rite were borrowed from the rite of the Alexandrian Church. For the celebration of enthronement in the Kremlin Armory, we managed to obtain the staff of St. Peter, the cassock of the holy martyr Hermogenes, as well as the cross, mantle, miter and hood of Patriarch Nikon.
While the liturgy was going on, the Red Guard soldiers guarding the Kremlin behaved cheekily, laughed, smoked, and cursed. But when the Patriarch left the church, these same soldiers, taking off their hats, humbly knelt down for a blessing. The Patriarch made a tour of the Kremlin, but not on a donkey, as in the old days, but in a carriage with two archimandrites on either side. The Kremlin was surrounded by a huge crowd of people receiving the primatial blessing from the newly elected Patriarch. Bells were ringing everywhere. It seemed that after the civil strife and discord of the last days, when fierce battles between Red Guards and Junkers took place in Moscow, the desired peace was finally coming...
According to subsequent decisions of the Council, a Local Council was to take place every three years, the election of bishops was established (who were to be chosen by representatives of parishes), and the Diocesan Assembly of clergy and laity was proclaimed the highest body of the diocese, which elected the Diocesan Council and Court. The next most important bodies were declared to be dean's meetings, also composed of clergy and laity, and the revitalization of parish life was envisaged (albeit with the withdrawal from the laity of the right to choose the clergy introduced at the beginning). So the point of view of the supporters of conciliarity still won.
The permanent bodies of the highest church government between the convocations of local councils became the Holy Synod (questions of doctrine and theology; composition - only bishops) and the Supreme Church Council (administrative and economic functions; composition - 3 bishops, 1 monk, 5 clergy, 6 laity) - both under presided over by the Patriarch.
Before its forced dissolution on September 20, 1918, already at the height of the Civil War, the Council, foreseeing the possibility of the most hostile and disorganizing actions of the state against the Church, adopted a number of emergency measures that contradicted the original definitions. Thus, the Patriarch received the right of sole management of the Church in the event of the impossibility of the normal functioning of the All-Russian Central Council and the Synod, as well as the right to compile a list of persons whom he would like to see at the head of the Church after his death or if it is impossible to convene a Council.
Wartime Patriarch The next Patriarch was elected under extraordinary conditions. After a 25-year persecution of the Church and an 18-year ban on electing a Patriarch instead of Saint Tikhon, who died in 1925, Stalin late in the evening of September 4, 1943, summoned three bishops and allowed them to immediately elect a Patriarch and for this purpose hold a Council of Bishops. The cathedral was held on September 8, 1943 in the former mansion of the German ambassador Schulenburg in Chisty Lane in Moscow. This was the first cathedral since 1918. 19 bishops took part in its work - all those who were free at that time in the territories not occupied by the Germans. Many have been in prison and exile, some have only recently been released. They were transported to the Cathedral by military aircraft. When Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) of Leningrad invited those gathered to elect a Patriarch and said that he himself did not see any other candidate other than Patriarchal Locum Tenens Sergius (Stragorodsky), his words met with universal approval. Everyone stood up and sang “Axios!” three times. Then the Holy Synod was elected under the Patriarch from three permanent and three temporary members (since 1935 the Synod has not functioned). The Synod lost the provisions provided for by the Council of 1917-1918. independence and became a working body precisely “under the Patriarch.”
The Patriarch took the title of “Moscow and All Russia” - at the beginning of the century “All Russia” meant “the entire Russian Empire”, “all former lands of the Russian Empire”, but now this concept has become the same . The title of “all Rus'” was reminiscent of Kievan Rus' and the unity of the three East Slavic, Orthodox peoples.
The enthronement of the newly elected Patriarch took place in the Epiphany Patriarchal Cathedral on August 30 (September 12), 1943, on the day of remembrance of St. Prince Alexander Nevsky, which was very symbolic in the difficult times of the war.
Stalin sought to take control of the church revival that opened in the country with the beginning of the war and which was largely facilitated by the occupiers, pursuing, of course, their own goals. Therefore, on September 8, 1943, under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church was established under the chairmanship of G. G. Karpov, a colonel of the NKVD, who headed the department in this organization for the fight against church-sectarian counter-revolution and known for extreme rigidity, if not cruelty , in relation to clergy. The Council did not make its own decisions; it reported and received instructions from the government. Although Stalin said that Karpov should not be looked upon as a new chief prosecutor, it was obvious that the Church was becoming even more dependent on the state than before 1917.
Elected unanimously, Patriarch Sergius ruled the Church until 1944. He died on May 15 this year. According to his will, Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad was appointed locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne (such an appointment was precisely allowed by the Council of 1917-1918 in emergency circumstances). The Council for the election of the new Patriarch was Local, but clergy and laity were appointed to participate in the Council by their ruling bishops, and were not elected at diocesan meetings. In total, 46 bishops, 87 clergy and 38 laity took part in the Council, which met in the Moscow Church of the Resurrection of Christ in Sokolniki from January 31 to February 2, 1945.
However, only bishops elected the Patriarch. All of them, dressed in robes, in turn, starting with the youngest by consecration, answered the question of the manager of the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate, Archpriest Nikolai Kolchitsky, with the same words: “We elect the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', His Eminence Alexy, Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod.” When the speech reached Metropolitan Alexy himself, Fr. Nicholas asked to exempt the patriarchal locum tenens from voting due to the unanimity shown.
The enthronement of Patriarch Alexy I took place on February 4, 1945 in the Epiphany Cathedral in Moscow.
The Council of 1945 recorded significant changes in the life of the Church. Article 1 of the new “Regulations on the governance of the Russian Orthodox Church” no longer said anything about the controlling function of the Local Council. It was also not said that the Council would be convened “at a certain time.” In Article 7, it was clarified in this regard that the Patriarch usually convenes a Council of Bishops under his chairmanship, and then with the permission of the authorities, while the Council with the participation of clergy and laity is convened only when “when it is necessary to listen to the voice of the clergy and laity and there is an external opportunity.” Articles 14 and 15 were devoted to the election of the Patriarch, but did not talk about the composition of the Council convened for this election. The Patriarch was supposed to govern the Church together with the Synod.
The patriarchal elections in 1971, after the death of Patriarch Alexy I (Simansky), were also open and uncontested. Although now everywhere in the dioceses, under the chairmanship of the ruling bishops, congresses of clergy and laity were held, which were supposed to elect members of the Local Council (as in 1945, 1 clergy and 1 layman from the diocese) and even discuss the candidacy of the future Patriarch - to replace the one who died on April 17, 1970 His Holiness Patriarch Alexy.
Most of the diocesan congresses supported the election of Metropolitan Pimen (Izvekov) of Krutitsa as Patriarch, but candidates were also named for Metropolitans of Leningrad Nikodim (Rotov) and Alma-Ata Joseph (Chernov), the senior consecrator in the Russian episcopate and who had 25 years of camp experience. years. However, at the bishops' meeting that took place on the eve of the Council in the Novodevichy Monastery, at the instigation of Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), it was decided that only one candidate would be put forward for the vote - Metropolitan Pimen. At the same time, Archbishop of Brussels Vasily (Krivoshein), a former participant in the White movement and an emigrant until 1951, proposed that the vote should still be secret, but his proposal was not accepted. On June 2, 1971, in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 75 bishops of the Council, voting for themselves and for the clergy and laity of their diocese (in total there were 85 clergy and 78 laymen in the Council), named Metropolitan Pimen of Krutitsky and Kolomna as their chosen one. The enthronement took place the next day, June 3, 1971.
The election of His Holiness Alexy II: the triumph of Orthodoxy and... democracy. Unlike the elections of 1945 and 1971. The 1990 patriarchal elections were held freely, with a secret ballot and a number of candidates. They took place in the context of the Church gaining long-awaited freedom.
On May 3, 1990, Patriarch Pimen passed away. Until May 26, diocesan meetings were held to elect delegates to the Local Council according to the following quota: one clergy and layman from the dioceses, as well as one representative from monasteries, theological academies and seminaries. All ruling bishops automatically became members of the Council, according to the 1945 Charter. On June 6, the Council of Bishops elected three candidates for the patriarchal throne: Metropolitan Alexy (Ridiger) of Leningrad (37 votes), Metropolitan of Rostov Vladimir (Sabodan) (34 votes) and Metropolitan of Kyiv Philaret (Denisenko) (34 votes). Each bishop could vote for 1, 2 or 3 bishops, crossing off the rest from the list. Voting took place in two rounds, since initially Filaret and Metropolitan Juvenaly (Poyarkov) of Krutitsa received an equal number of votes - 25 each. It was also decided that the Local Council could increase the number of candidates.
On June 7, the Local Council opened in the Refectory Church of St. Sergius in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, in which 317 delegates took part: 90 bishops, 92 clergy, 88 laity (including 38 women), 39 representatives from monasteries and 8 delegates from theological schools. At the proposal of the Council of Bishops, the following election procedure was established: approval of three candidates proposed by the Council of Bishops, inclusion of additional candidates by secret ballot (persons who received the support of at least 12 members of the Local Council were included in the ballot, and those who received more than 50% of the votes were considered elected) and finally the election from among the candidates approved by the Council, one. The bishop who received more than 50% of the votes was considered elected Patriarch. If none of the candidates received more than 50% of the votes, a repeat vote was held on the two candidates who received the most votes.
In addition to the 3 candidates from the Council of Bishops, at the first meeting of the Local Council, according to the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1988, several more candidates were proposed: Metropolitans of Krutitsa Yuvenaly (Poyarkov), Minsk Filaret (Vakhromeev), Volokolamsk Pitirim (Nechaev), Stavropol Gideon (Dokukin ) and Anthony of Sourozh (Bloom). But the last two candidates were rejected because Bishop Anthony was not a citizen of the USSR, and Metropolitan Gideon was supported by less than 12 people. Thus, the names of only three metropolitans were included in the lists for secret voting. Of the 316 voters, Metropolitan Pitirim was supported by 128 council members, Metropolitan Philaret - 117 and Metropolitan Juvenaly - 106. The Chairman of the Council announced that since none of the additionally nominated candidates received the support of half the votes of the Local Council, necessary, according to the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, for the participation of these candidates in the subsequent vote, these candidates are removed.
Thus, only the candidates nominated by the Council of Bishops remained on the voting list. Archbishop Maxim (Krokha) of Mogilev proposed, following the example of the Local Council of 1917, to elect the Patriarch by lot, but this proposal was not accepted. A secret vote was held. In the evening, the chairman of the counting commission, Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, announced the results of the secret ballot: 139 votes were cast for Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad and Novgorod, 107 for Metropolitan Vladimir of Rostov and Novocherkassk and 66 for Metropolitan Philaret of Kyiv and Galicia. But, since none of the candidates received more than 50% of the votes, a second round of voting was held.
In the second round, 166 members of the Council voted for Metropolitan Alexy, and 143 members of the Council voted for Metropolitan Vladimir. After the announcement of the final voting results, the newly elected Patriarch, according to the custom established at the Council of 1971, accepted his election with the following words: “I accept the election of me by the consecrated Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church as Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' with gratitude and in no way contrary to the verb.”
https://www.nsad.ru/index.php?issue=52§ion=9999&article=1140
Restoration of the Patriarchate
One of the most important decisions of the Council was the resolution on the restoration of the Patriarchate, adopted in October 1917 at the first session. This was preceded by long discussions - some of the delegates saw the danger that the Holy Synod could become a simple advisory body under the Patriarch, and absolutism would flourish in the Russian Orthodox Church. Supporters of the Patriarchate insisted that in conditions of war and lawlessness, the Church needed a leader capable of opposing his authority to the pressure of external political forces.
The Patriarch did not become the highest authority of the Russian Orthodox Church; in his functions and rights he was more like a constitutional chairman of council institutions than a monarch. The Patriarch was accountable to the Local Council, which had judicial, administrative, and legislative powers. To carry out these functions, the Council was ordered to convene once every three years or in case of emergency, inviting laity and representatives of the clergy.
The day-to-day activities of the church were controlled by the Holy Synod, the Supreme Church Council and the Patriarch, and the council could demand an account from any of these institutions of the Supreme Church Administration. The Synod was in charge of issues of a hierarchical and canonical nature; the Supreme Church Council was responsible for the economy, finances, and education. The main task of the Patriarch was, first of all, the representation of the church in government bodies and intercession. Direct power functions were to be performed by the Synod and the Church Council.
Soon the elections of the Patriarch took place, which took place in several stages. First, a list of candidates was formed, then the three most popular ones were chosen by secret ballot, and finally, the winner was determined by lot. On November 5, 1917, Metropolitan Tikhon (Bellavin) was thus elected to the post of Patriarch.
Restoration of the patriarchate and election of the All-Russian Patriarch
The day came November 21st.
The winter day was still gray at dawn when members of the Council began to flock to the Kremlin. Alas! Moscow could not come to its native Kremlin even for the great historical celebration. The new owners of the Kremlin allowed very few people in there even on this exceptional day, and even these lucky few had to endure a whole series of ordeals before getting to the Kremlin. All these restrictions and difficulties of access to the Kremlin did not make any sense: they were not a hostile action of the new “government” in relation to the Church. It was just that stupid nonsense in the kingdom of which we now had to live. It was hard to walk through the empty Kremlin and see all its wounds unhealed. Three weeks have passed since the bombing of the Kremlin, but the Kremlin is still in chaos. It is painful to see traces of artillery shells on such historical sacred buildings as the Miracle Monastery, the Church of the Twelve Apostles, and it is absolutely terrible to see the gaping large hole in the middle dome of the Assumption Cathedral. Nothing is fixed; there are fragments of bricks and rubble everywhere. The St. Petersburg period of Russian history ends with such a national disgrace. This period began with the devastation of the Moscow Kremlin. After all, over the past 200 years, the Moscow Kremlin has so often resembled an archaeological museum, where only monuments of a former and now extinct life are kept. But now the spirit of national and church life must once again enter the empty, broken and desecrated Kremlin, together with the patriarch. The picture of the destruction of the Kremlin was hidden and forgotten as soon as they entered the wondrous and sacred Assumption Cathedral. Here, ancient icons and ancient wall paintings look as if they were alive. Representatives of the spirit of ancient Rus' rest here, and they also rest in incorruptible tombs. Russian bishops in robes and clergy in vestments gather at the Peace Chamber. There is semi-darkness under the arches of the ancient patriarchal chamber. The bishops sing a prayer service, which always happens during the naming of a bishop. Metropolitan Tikhon precedes all the bishops to the Assumption Cathedral. The Divine Liturgy begins as usual. After the Trisagion, those appointed to the patriarchate are sent to a high place. A prayer is read. The usual episcopal vestments are removed from the supplied one. Patriarchal clothes that had not been used for two hundred years were brought from the patriarchal sacristy. Immediately he is transformed into a patriarch. We saw these clothes, this miter of Patriarch Nikon only when we examined the patriarchal sacristy. Now we see all this on a living person. Three times they seat the new patriarch on the ancient patriarchal high place and proclaim: Axios. The protodeacon honors the Eastern Patriarchs for many years and after them “Our Holiness Father Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.” Our Russian patriarch has been introduced into the host of ecumenical patriarchs. The Divine Liturgy ended. The patriarch is dressed in a 17th-century cassock, an ancient patriarchal robe and the hood of Patriarch Nikon. The Metropolitan of Kiev hands him the staff of Metropolitan Peter on the salt. Led by two metropolitans, His Holiness the Patriarch goes to the patriarchal place at the front right pillar of the Assumption Cathedral, which has stood empty for two hundred years.
Other decisions of the Council
During the 13 months of its work, the local council managed to consider a wide range of pressing issues, for example, the admission of women to active participation in church ministry, the definition of church preaching, the decision on brotherhoods of learned monks, the possibility of nominating celibate candidates for bishops, including white priests and laity.
In relation to parishes, it was established that the diocesan bishop had the right to appoint clergy to the parish, but in this case the wishes of the parishioners were taken into account. An executive governing body - the parish council - was created from the church warden, representatives of the clergy and residents.
The last meeting of the Council took place on September 20, 1918. The modern official Russian Orthodox Church calls its main decision the restoration of the patriarchate, while an equally important definition is the transfer of church power to an elected body with laity in its composition. This reflects the early Christian view of the church as a body of believers, rather than an administrative-territorial corporation of clergy.
Choose an answer
The turning point of 1943: 75 years ago Stalin received the future Patriarch in the Kremlin
On the night of September 4-5, 1943, the Soviet government, after 25 years of anti-church war, entered into “peace negotiations” with the hierarchy of the Russian Church
From the Soviet Information Bureau. From the operational report for September 4, 1943:
During September 4, our troops in DONBASS continued to successfully develop the offensive and, having moved forward from 15 to 25 kilometers, occupied over 90 settlements, including the city and large railway junction of DEBALTSEVO, the city of ENAKIEVO, the city and railway junction of GORLOVKA, the city and large railway junction NIKITOVKA, city and large railway junction ILOVAISK...
In those warm September days, the Red Army successfully advanced to the West, liberating not only the long-suffering Donbass, but also hundreds of other Russian cities and villages. Ahead are almost two years of bloody battles, but not far off are the Moscow and then the Tehran conferences, at which the Soviet leadership unequivocally advocated the unconditional surrender of the fascist states as an indispensable condition for ending the war.
Tehran Conference. Photo: www.globallookpress.com
However, in another war, by no means the Great and not the Patriotic War, which the Bolsheviks unleashed even before they came to power, in the same days of 1943 they admitted defeat. Tactical. It is by no means unconditional. But one in which we had to sit down at the negotiating table and conclude a “separate peace.” Yes, from the position of the strongest, having already won a number of victories... which essentially turned out to be Pyrrhic.
Kremlin meeting
Yes, we are, of course, talking about the war of the Bolshevik party against Orthodoxy. A war in which many thousands of soldiers of Christ - the new martyrs of the Russian Church - had already fallen, but this only strengthened the faith of millions of people who, even during the official census of 1937, answering a by no means anonymous question about their attitude towards religion, in the majority called themselves "believers". And it was these believing people, in the days when their homeland was attacked by an enemy much more terrible than the Soviet militant atheists, who took up arms, standing up in defense of the Russian State, despite the fact that they tried to rename it into the impersonal abbreviation “USSR”.
And then came Sunday night from September 4 to 5, 1943. The night of the great Twelfth Feast of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Did the former Tiflis seminarian, one of the best graduates of the Gori Theological School, who exchanged priestly service for the class struggle, remember this? Hardly. But as usual, the lights were on all night in the main Kremlin office. However, the head of the Soviet government and supreme commander in chief did not just “work with documents” or call the next people’s commissar “on the carpet.”
In those late hours, Joseph Stalin, for the first and last time in his life, accepted almost the entirety of the hierarchy of the Russian Church (the vast majority of other hierarchs at that time were in prisons, camps, or already wearing martyr’s crowns before the Throne of God). The First Hierarch of the Russian Church, Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow and Kolomna, re-entered the Moscow Kremlin, a quarter of a century after the Lenin government settled here and the closure of the Assumption Cathedral. Accompanied by Metropolitans of Leningrad Alexy (Simansky) and Metropolitans of Kyiv and Galicia Nikolay (Yarushevich).
Church and War: Service and Struggle
By that time, the former pressure on the Church had already been weakened. The militant atheists from among the agitators of Emelyan Yaroslavsky (Minea Gubelman) turned out to be incapable of effective patriotic agitation. On the contrary, Orthodox clergy not only passionately supported the fight against the Nazi invaders, but also made impressive contributions to support this fight. Thus, the tank column “Dmitry Donskoy” and the squadron of combat aircraft “Alexander Nevsky”, created with church funds, are only the most striking, but by no means isolated examples of this.
Tank column named after Dmitry Donskoy, built at the expense of believers of the Russian Orthodox Church. Source: “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate”
And yet the Russian Church remained in a persecuted position. Although in the same occupied territories the Nazis, who had no sympathy for the Orthodox clergy, opened many parishes closed by the Bolsheviks for propaganda purposes. This is precisely what a number of historians, including Doctor of Historical Sciences Vladimir Lavrov, consider to be the main reason for the Kremlin meeting and the events that followed it:
I think the main reason that forced Stalin to meet the Russian Orthodox Church halfway is that a huge territory had to be liberated. But what about the believers in this territory? The liberation of Eastern Europe from the Nazis was to come. What's it like there? What, close churches?
Source: “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate”
But what did this “meet halfway” consist of? At that time, when compared with the past “godless five-year plans,” indeed, in many ways. Thus, the day before yesterday’s seminarian and yesterday’s persecutor expressed support for the Orthodox hierarchs on a number of issues that had previously caused the most severe rebuff from the Soviet authorities in the center and locally. Let us briefly analyze the main church “debt” of the past Kremlin meeting point by point:
- Permission to convene the Council of Bishops and elect the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', whose see has been widowed for 18 years, since the blessed death of St. Tikhon (Bellavin). To this end, at a “Bolshevik pace”, a number of archpastors of the Russian Church were released from places of imprisonment, who had previously found themselves “in chains and bitter labor” at the same pace. And already on September 8, in the new building of the Moscow Patriarchate (also provided by the Soviet government in an old mansion in the capital's Chisty Lane), the Council of Bishops opened, which brought together 19 bishops. On the same day, the Council unanimously elected Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) as the twelfth Moscow Patriarch.
- Permission to open a number of theological schools (at that time there were none left), some churches and monasteries (from among those that were not destroyed in the 1920s-30s).
- Permission to publish church literature - liturgical literature and the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, as well as to organize the work of candle factories and workshops for the production of church utensils and vestments.
- Granting deferments from the army to the clergy.
- Reducing income taxation.
In a word, a lot. Especially in comparison with the previous quarter of a century, when the Russian Church was practically destroyed by the same Soviet leadership. Driven into catacombs and isolated legal parishes, deprived of even such a small thing as the tradition of religious processions and ringing of bells on the Bright Resurrection of Christ - the Easter of the Lord.
Repentance or truce?
Of course, neither Stalin nor anyone from his circle that night uttered anything even remotely reminiscent of words of repentance. Everything was dry, strictly to the point, although not without some goodwill. Of course, no one can know what was going on in Stalin’s soul at that time, whether there was at least a minimal impulse to repentance. In any case, this does not follow from open historical sources.
And yet, the former anti-God intensity was significantly weakened. Thus, one of the leading experts on the history of church-state relations of this period, Doctor of Historical Sciences Mikhail Odintsov, in an interview with the author of these lines, very precisely defined what this September meeting became for the Russian Church and its hierarchy:
As of August 1943, the united centralized religious organization “Russian Orthodox Church” did not exist in the USSR. One of the first tasks of this meeting was legal recognition by the state of an organization that actually existed, but was in an extremely difficult situation. Most parishes were closed, many churches were literally wiped off the face of the earth, a considerable number of bishops and ordinary clergy were either imprisoned or shot. And, by the way, when they say that during this meeting Stalin imposed something on the Church, essentially “establishing” the Moscow Patriarchate, this is not true.
During the work of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1945. Photo: patriarchia.ru
Indeed, the Russian Church was and remains the Russian Church. Moreover, in the first post-war years, many “Catacomb” communities and individual Catacomb Christians returned to it. At the same time, the Soviet government, which did not abandon the task of atheistic propaganda and agitation for a minute, made it peripheral until the new wave of “Khrushchev” persecutions. And the officially appointed overseer of the Church - the chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, security officer Georgy Karpov - over time even became friends with the new Patriarch, who, since 1945, after the death of Patriarch Sergius, became the former Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod Alexy (Simansky).
Priest Evgeniy Krokos. Source: “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate”
And it was precisely in this, albeit purely pragmatic and by no means repentant, retreat of the Soviet regime that one of the most important guarantees of our Great Victory of 1945 lay. This victory was forged at the front and in the rear, in the trenches and dugouts, in factories and factories and, of course, in Orthodox churches, where throughout the days of the Great Patriotic War prayers were offered for the victory of our army. God's providence is inscrutable, but there is no doubt: that the Great Victory over the main historical evil - Hitler's Nazism - was won by historical Russia, and not by the godless "International", and it was the Russian Church that played the key role.
