Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) – Pastoral Theology (Harbin 1935).

In the world, Khrapovitsky Alexey Pavlovich, was born on March 17, 1863 in the family of an old Novgorod nobleman-landowner, public figure, former general and hero of the war of 1877-1878.

Raised by his mother in a church-ascetic spirit, after graduating from high school with a gold medal, he entered the St. Petersburg Theological Academy.

In his early youth he was greatly influenced by Dostoevsky, often visited him, talked with him a lot, establishing himself in Christianity, Orthodoxy and monasticism. Khrapovitsky's friends suggested that it was not from him that Dostoevsky wrote Alyosha Karamazov, especially since the name was the same.

At the end of the 4th year at the Academy, Alexey accepted monasticism with the name Anthony and in 1885 was ordained hieromonk. He led a modest and strict life, fulfilling the vows of monasticism.

Academic career

In 1885, upon graduating from the Academy, Anthony was retained there as a professorial fellow and at the same time, serving as assistant inspector of the Academy from 1885 to 1886.

In 1886 he was appointed teacher of Homiletics, Liturgy and Canons at the Kholm Theological Seminary.

In 1887, he was elected acting assistant professor at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in the department of Holy Scripture of the Old Testament. In "Church" Vestnik" for 1891 is mentioned as a teacher in the department of "Introduction to the Circle of Theological Sciences" of the same Academy until 1890.

In 1888 he received a master's degree in theology after defending a dissertation on the topic: “Psychological evidence in favor of free will and moral responsibility.” In the same year, he was appointed to the rank of Associate Professor at the Academy.

In 1889 he was appointed acting inspector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy.

In 1890, he was appointed to the post of rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary, with elevation to the rank of archimandrite, and a few months later he was transferred to the post of rector of the Moscow Theological Academy.

Under him, on November 8, 1891, the academic journal “Theological Bulletin” was founded.

According to the memoirs of Rev. Sergius Chetverikov, who was studying at the Moscow Academy of Sciences at that time, “Vladyka Anthony was the heart of our academic world... The doors of his chambers were always open to students. He himself often came to our evening prayers at the academic church and talked about something after prayer. He knew how to approach each of us, and the spirit of formalism and officiality was eliminated from our relations with him. We lived warmed by his love and affection. And at the same time, these relationships were alien to any familiarity. We felt his immeasurable superiority... He for the first time, perhaps, revealed to many of us the meaning of Orthodox shepherding as a loving and selfless acceptance of his flock into his soul, experiencing with her all the sorrows and joys, all the trials, temptations and falls of his spiritual children and rebirth and rebellion through the power of compassionate love and prayer.”

In 1895 he was appointed rector of the Kazan Theological Academy. This transfer occurred due to disagreements with Metropolitan Sergius (Lyapidevsky) of Moscow, who insisted that one should not become a monk before the age of 30.

Collected works. Volume I

Receiving the Priesthood[11]

Young people who have destined themselves for pastoral service love to ask whether to take holy orders immediately after completing their spiritual education or after spending some time in the rank of a secular person. We have nothing against the last desire of many young men: let the young man, who has just graduated from the walls of an educational institution, take a closer look at reality, get acquainted with living people, with life in general, let the young man acquire some life experience that will be useful to him in his future service, protecting it from many mistakes.

But we only wish that this young man’s acquaintance with life in the rank of a secular person would not last long, for fear that his youthful ardor for zealous pastoral activity would not cool, so that his usual youthful thirst for unselfish activity would not disappear, so that his still unspoiled sense of truth. This kind of fear is inspired by the fact that the years of life after leaving school for the majority are not years of moral development, but decline, laziness towards prayer, cooling off towards exploits, loss of chastity, development of self-interest and, in general, a time of hardening of the soul. In view of all this, for a young man who is not particularly distinguished by willpower, it is better to accept the priesthood without life experience, that is, after completing the course directly or after a year, rather than with those qualities of a person who has lived - an official, which so often remain an indelible stain on the priest until his death and instead of the shepherd of the flock of Christ, they turn him into just a bureaucrat in disguise.

Let us move on to a description of those feelings and actions that should be characteristic of a candidate appointed to a priestly position.

Preparation for receiving the sacrament of the Priesthood should consist of reverent contemplation, a heartfelt experience of the greatness, the importance of the priestly service and the responsibility for the flock that the future shepherd takes upon himself.

How should one assert oneself in such a mood?

First of all, not in the way of spending time that many candidates for the priesthood allow, who try to use the last weeks of their social life for amusements that are no longer available to the priest, wedding feasts, etc. It is not surprising that the soul and body, tired of various kinds of excesses, then find themselves completely incapable of tender prayer. The lifestyle of a young man preparing to take holy orders should be focused, pious, almost monastic. Unfortunately, with modern practices in this kind of exercise, there are significant perplexities that must be taken into account as much as possible. They also lie in the external conditions of accepting the priesthood. The first of these conditions is marriage and the doubts associated with it about the necessary quick choice of a bride instead of the mysterious quests, meetings, and novels sung by poets and prose writers. However, it seems to us that a man of ideas in general and, in particular, a servant of a religious idea cannot harbor that mystical idolization of his bride about whom novels are written. Yes, there is no need to look for this mystical love, in our opinion, because marriages based on it, in most cases, are unhappy due to satiety with groundless feelings. Therefore, a marriage based on strong mutual respect and calm, conscious love will be more consistent with the future religious activity of the shepherd and more durable for happiness.

The second external condition for accepting the priesthood is the choice of a place for pastoral activity.

The current practice, which bears so little resemblance to the previous election of a pastor, should not, however, serve as a cause of temptation for the unselfish zealots of the Church. When thinking about choosing a location, you need to take the following into consideration. If the church authority in the person of the bishop, based on knowledge of the needs of the flock of a certain area, is interested in the well-known personality of the new shepherd and finds him useful especially in a certain post or place, then, of course, the protege, out of duty of obedience, must accept him as the will of God, looking at himself as an instrument of the Church . If the spiritual administration leaves the choice of place to the will of the protege, then it is desirable that the latter’s motives in this case be disinterested. The protege should look for neither the parish of a rich man, nor a place where life is more carefree, but he must give himself an account of what business attracts him most, what kind of pastoral service finds the most sympathetic response in his heart. Pastoral places or positions are different. A shepherd can go to a village to serve the common people, or to a city to serve educated people, or to become teachers of the law and missionaries.

Each of these assignments requires the application of different gifts of the mind and heart, each has its own attractive sides and its own difficulties. There are such responsive, broad-minded natures that can quickly get used to any environment and serve usefully in the most diverse positions; It also happens that a young candidate for the priesthood does not know how to give himself an idea of ​​what exactly he is most capable of. In these two cases, and, perhaps, in all others, the seeker for the priesthood will do well if he leaves his fate to one of his spiritual leaders, that is, whether it is a confessor, or an inspector, or a rector, or a diocesan bishop, depending according to which of them he can receive the most attentive attitude to his request. The meaning of such obedience lies in the fact that any obedience is the crucifixion of one’s will, a feat, and a task begun with a feat can always be considered half done, because the first feat, combined with deprivation or constraint, develops in a person readiness for further ones, new exploits.

The path of initial obedience is a straight path, but not the only one: as has been said, the one who has directed himself to any specific type of pastoral service will not sin.

What reasons could there be for preferring each of these types?

A free preference for shepherding in the village can be based on the search for achievement and renunciation of any advantages of social status, characteristic of Christianity, especially Eastern Christianity, the desire to live in poverty and labor in order to be an irreproachable comforter to the poor. Such a mood, of course, is very commendable if it is alien to the thoughts of pride and condemnation of all comrades entering the cities, and, moreover, if it is not combined with a contemptuous view of the peasants as people who are supposedly the farthest from Christian perfection, but himself as their cultivator. A young shepherd, determined to be independent and proud, will remain forever alien to both the spirit of the pastor and the people themselves. If he wants to be close to the latter, then he must be imbued with the spirit of folk piety, look at the foundations of the people's life with respect and sympathy, and not be a learned foreigner in the eyes of the peasants. With all this, it is in vain that some students of seminaries or academies think that the life of a rural priest, compared with a city one, is completely unfavorable for keeping at the level of an educated person, as if it leads the pastor to coarseness. In fact, such a danger threatens much more strongly those rectors of urban merchant parishes who, if they succumb to the flow of life, then 15–20 years after entering the clergy are so absorbed in a well-fed life among the family celebrations of their parishioners that the content of their interests is no different from their own. little learned psalmists, although they were masters of theology.

On the contrary, a rural priest, if he himself is not overwhelmed by extreme need, looks down on the life around him and takes, willy-nilly, participation in all phenomena of the social, family and personal life of his closely united parish, being an active witness to the most striking suffering and deaths, experiences constant upsurges in his moral mood. Therefore, even if he is not rich in varied reading, even if he constantly limits himself to the Bible, the conversations of St. Chrysostom, "Church Gazette" and "Niva", can still find very varied and plentiful food for his mind and be a philosopher, a moralist, which are indeed much easier to find among the rural clergy than among the urban ones. Among the first there are many who are sincere idealists, who maintain a keen interest in science and social life until old age.

A pastor who has chosen the outskirts of the Russian Church as his place of service, for example, in Poland or the Baltic Sea region, encounters even more encouragement for spiritual development, especially mental development. There, the religious struggle encourages one to enrich the mind with knowledge, and the everyday situation of the clergy is much more favorable than inside the empire, both in terms of support and in terms of the attitude of society, in this case the bureaucracy, towards it. A pastor who wants to be useful not only for himself, but also for a parish on the outskirts, must familiarize himself with its situation, history and certainly study local languages. His saddest, although most frequently repeated, mistake would be if he set his task to resemble the bureaucratic people and try to introduce only the appearance of the church-state system of the internal provinces through the depersonalization of the given area from the religious-everyday side and from the side of the dialect. By doing this, he will appear in the eyes of the parishioners not as a shepherd, but as a wolf, not sparing the flock. Life of St. Stephen of Perm convinces us that the spiritual fusion of the Russian pastor with the foreign flock is not only the only means to its grace-filled enlightenment - this is the main task of the servant of God - but also its everyday rapprochement with the Russian people, which he would achieve in vain through constraining measures .

The third type of pastoral ministry occurs in a city parish, for example, in one’s hometown or in a capital city. Such service is also useful and honorable if it is chosen not for the sake of self-interest, not through reprehensible intrigues and struggle with the most worthy candidates. We must also remember that “no prophet is pleasant in his own country” and the life of a young priest among numerous relatives, if pleasant, is rarely useful; unless a person has a strong character, knows how not to obey the situation, but to subordinate the latter to himself. In any case, such a candidate must prepare himself to be a shepherd of all classes, and not just a householder and a rich tenant, as is often the case. In order to unite his parish into one real society, he must first of all fall in love with attics and basements, appear there with a benevolent hand and thereby set an example of an all-class parish brotherhood of charity, without which the city parish will remain a purely abstract concept.

He should not, however, turn his gaze away from the unfaithful and morally weak intelligentsia, but, if possible, be a master in the field of subjects that occupy educated people, so that these too would consider him theirs, and not some venerable archaism with which you have to cope on Christmas and Easter, saving for this a snack and a few questions about worship or holidays that are not at all interesting to anyone. Having prepared himself for such a unifying calling, the priest will immediately become superior to everyone else in the eyes of the parish and will be capable of the most serious moral influence.

The fourth type of priestly ministry is the title of teacher of the law. The candidate of theology who considers this title as the least powerless, the most free among other ministries of the priest, is mistaken. In fact, the dependence of the teacher of the law on the local authorities is much stronger than that of the parish priest. A teacher of the law who wants to introduce something new and living into his work will feel this difference with special force. If he chose such a service only so that no one could touch him, in order to be, so to speak, the least priest, the least separated in life and activity from officials, then, of course, he will bring nothing but evil into the life of the school, so how the influence of a teacher of law - both teaching and purely religious - is determined entirely by this condition: if, exhausted by the formalistic attitude of secular teachers, at least in the priesthood, students meet a father who values ​​not appearance, but who introduces into life the laws of inner truth, who appeals not only to external correctness , and above all to conscience. In a word, a teacher of the law must first of all be a priest and father, and then a teacher. Then only the study of his subject will be carried out diligently and diligently, without hatred and blasphemy.

The title of teacher of the law should be chosen by lovers of education, teachers by vocation, but also by people with a missionary fire, ready to zealously resist the many anti-Christian influences on the student environment and also various hobbies of the latter, for example, secularism, sensuality, daring, rationalism, etc. This Only such a priest succeeds who is not alien to familiarity and understanding of fashionable trends, scientific and especially literary matters, who has the ability to captivate young souls towards religious feats instead of destructive aspirations. The teacher of the law must also be able to despise and ridicule depravity and dandyism and at the same time always maintain a peaceful mood, free from fanaticism, and excel in the virtue of patience.

So varied and numerous are the mental and moral dispositions necessary for the salvation of the heterogeneous flock of Christ. These gifts can only be developed in embryo through the spiritual exercises of the future priest, but in their fullness they are given by the grace of the priesthood if it is received worthily. It was said that in order to receive it with dignity, one must prepare for it, despite the above-mentioned unfavorable conditions - wedding celebrations and intense search for a place. Behind all this, it is on everyone’s conscience to possibly distance the ordination from the wedding and precede the first: 1) preliminary fasting, 2) reading the word of God and ascetic scriptures, 3) moving away from worldly affairs and conversations with spiritual elders. Several days spent in such an environment leave a deep imprint on a person’s entire life. Especially the henchman’s confession should be treated with reverence and sincerity. These first steps of spiritual life are not repeated, and if they are done incorrectly, then it will be incomparably more difficult to correct in further steps and there will remain a reason for late repentance, perhaps for life. Those leaders of proteges who encourage them to behave reverently and read the rules “so as not to seduce their neighbors” also do bad things. The last concern is important, but far from essential. This most important motivation should be caring for one’s own soul, one’s own moral disposition. If a protege unaccustomed to praying can stand for an hour or two in prayer only with great self-compulsiveness, then such unpreparedness is experienced during prayer; Dryness of mood and boredom should not be a motivation to criticize the very institutions of the Church and evaluate them, but to the consciousness that you are lower than the spirituality expected in a Christian, that you need to develop to it, for the prayer rule and the church custom of holding oneself are developed by the practice of spiritual life great pillars of faith and love, which, of course, a frivolous student, rich only in external knowledge, but not in the gifts of the spirit, could not outgrow. With this way of thinking and with an effort to follow it, the gift of tenderness will not be slow to appear in the protege. Spiritual dryness and fatigue with prayer will awaken in him sadness about his callousness and a humble, repentant mood, the latter being a sufficient condition for spiritual delight and pleasure in prayer, which suddenly replaces the former sadness about his callousness. The proteges must strive with all the greater diligence to acquire and maintain such a prayerful mood during ordination, since the last days before ordination can greatly upset the soul under the current order, which seems to have been deliberately established so as to surround the mind and heart of the initiate with the most tempting clashes, completely inappropriate vanity and anxiety - we mean completing the paper form of the case, sometimes associated with repeated running from the consistory to the subdeacon and confessor, receiving reprimands from them for being late, embarrassment from ignorance of the sacred rites of ordination, etc. If the protege allows irritation in his heart, then will only harm your soul and will harm you for a long time. In order to avoid such embarrassment and in general in order to worthily approach the sacrament of the Priesthood and receive its saving gift, and not condemnation, the protege must prepare himself for it by proper fasting, reading the word of God and the fathers and correctly fulfilling the prayer rule. By doing this, he will become aware of the importance of the service ahead of him, of his own sinfulness and weakness, and of the terrible and great responsibility that will be required of him. Then he will be completely imbued with this consciousness and he will not be offended by the environment around him, by the rude treatment of the clerics during his tonsure. If he notices unworthy treatment at the altar of the clergy, he will leave them to the judgment of God and his own conscience, being himself suppressed by the consciousness of his own unworthiness and sinfulness. The ecclesiastical, say, monastic behavior of a protege before ordination is an external condition for worthy acceptance of the gift of grace. Another condition is the inner determination to give all of oneself to God, to selflessly devote one’s entire life to Him, with complete readiness to accept death for the word of truth. The Lord demanded such determination from the apostles who asked for primacy in the Church. Can you drink the cup that I will drink, or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?

(Matt. 20:22; Mark 10:38).

If one who approaches consecration reverently prepares himself for it, then the gracious gift of the sacrament will change him and he will emerge after the episcopal ordination as a truly different person; if he does not fulfill it, then the grace of God will be his condemnation.

You can point out signs by which it is easy to recognize someone who has accepted the priesthood as unworthy. Such a priest immediately returns completely freely to his former life and habits, even if unworthy of his new rank, and tries to show everyone that he remains the same person and that he can do the same thing that he did before, or he shows he looks to everyone and everyone that he is burdened by the cassock, complains that he is now not allowed to do this or that, which is permissible for the laity; in service he is dull and inanimate; when it is necessary to give a blessing or advice, he is embarrassed, does it reluctantly, with compulsion; or, on the contrary, he places all the dignity of his new title in reminding everywhere that he is now the authority, a person with authority; he shouts at his clergy, even venerable elders, and does not tolerate any indication of his liturgical errors from them; can be rude and unyielding. These are manifestations of unworthy acceptance of a gift.

Worthy acceptance of the rank changes a person, if not to the same extent as the apostles - the descent of tongues of fire, or Saul - the vision of Christ, then this change is still significant and wonderful. Having entered into a spiritual marriage with the Church, the shepherd acquires the properties of a spiritual father - the property of love and wisdom, bold determination and inspired prayer and the power of the word. These are and similar to them the external manifestations of the gift of grace, but its initial actions are internal and predominantly the following: 1) in the area of ​​​​his consciousness; 2) in the area of ​​feeling.

A touch of grace produces in a person something that he cannot achieve through theoretical reasoning. It is as if some kind of veil falls from a person’s eyes, which previously prevented him from seeing clearly, and he quite clearly defines all the life around him in one contemplation - the struggle between good and evil, the outcome of which is in the hands of God. Hence the path to that majestic equanimity and constancy that knows no despondency, with which the images of the great shepherds from Moses to St. Tikhon shine before us. The failures of external leaders plunge them into despair and force them to withdraw from the social struggle; on the contrary, the life of a shepherd, no matter how its positions change, remains an unceasing testimony of Christian truth and love.

In the area of ​​feeling, grace produces two types of effects - positive and negative. The positive consists in the installation of new grace-filled feelings in a person, the negative - in the victorious struggle against selfishness, against the content of the old person.

A person blessed in the sacrament of the Priesthood is completely indifferent to himself and no longer loves himself, but his flock as God’s gift, as his blessed family, and, moreover, before he sees them. With his love he embraces not only the worthy, but also those who, like the sick, require a doctor, not only individuals, but everyone in general; He looks at everyone as children entrusted by the Heavenly Father to guide him on the path to salvation. Such a gracious gift of self-denial and love for one’s neighbor speaks of the priest’s good mood and gives hope for the success of his pastoral work. Open the book of the Acts of the Apostles and you will see that both of these moods, in their positive and negative manifestations, embraced the minds and hearts of the saints. the apostles with their rapturously blessed insights; such is the speech of St. the Apostle Peter at Pentecost and the second after the healing of the lame man, such is the content of the prayer of the twelve, such is the senile confession of the apostle. Paul to the Philippians (see Phil. 1:16-28) And to Timothy (see 2 Tim. 4:6-9).

If we take into account[12] that we are talking about self-denial not empty and meaningless, but in the name of Christ on earth, clearly represented by us, then it is clear that to what extent our very religious feeling from slavish passes into the well-being of the friends of Christ, according to with His promise to those to whom He revealed His will (see John 15:15), so that part of His spiritual kingdom, which is entrusted by the Spirit of God to our fatherly care, becomes that same treasure as dear to our hearts as to her mother a newborn child before she could even see it, and only because it was her child. The shepherd is exactly the same: before he gets to know his flock, he already loves them passionately, loves them without distinguishing the good from the bad, and even the latter more, for “it is not the healthy, but the sick who require a doctor” (see Matt. 9:12; Mark 2, 17; Luke 5, 31), as Christ the Savior said. The famous righteous Seraphim of Sarov fulfilled His word, with the greater tenderness he accepted those who came to him, the more serious a sinner he turned out to be. Contrary to the nature of natural philanthropists, who openly admit that while they have love for abstract humanity, they often cannot not only love their neighbors, those around them, but also cannot bear them - despite this natural mutual disgust of people who have not died to the sin of selfishness, - the selfless shepherd is completely filled with love for his spiritual children and prefers communication with them to any other consolation, according to the word of the Chief Shepherd, who one day, looking around at those sitting around Him, says: here are My mother and My brothers; for whoever does the will of God is My brother, and sister, and mother

(Mark 3:34–35).

To give another similarity that can explain the origin of this grace-filled love out of the determination to die to the flesh and live for Christ and the Church, let us point to a girl who was trustingly devoted to her parents and disposed to love, but who lived in solitude, as was the case in ancient Russian life. Her father promises her to bring a groom and promises her marital happiness with him: need I say that her soul will immediately cleave to the groom and even before she sees him? This is what happens to a minister of the Word. He loves his future flock not for their virtues, does not dress them in his imagination with an aura of holiness, but knows that they are God’s vineyard entrusted for his grace-filled cultivation, he believes that grace will work here; he already foresees the powerful movements of the latter, he sees in the local church entrusted to him its true Bridegroom - Christ, he sees Christ's economic right hand, revealing himself to him in all appearances, in all the confessions heard in confession. Can he not love his flock to the point of self-forgetfulness, to the point of completely refusing to find happiness in anything else?

Speaking about the emergence of pastoral life in us, Divine Revelation here also refers to a comparison with the maternal feeling, consisting of the same two elements: self-denial or suffering and love, like shepherding, and both of these elements mutually determine each other, so that when one appears another is reborn to life. Maternal love, preceded by the pangs of birth, in them, of course, receives its source. These torments prompt a woman who lived, perhaps, cheerfully and carelessly, to suddenly lose all taste for her personal life and live solely for her children. A similar phenomenon is given by Holy Scripture to explain the spiritual pastoral rebirth of the disciples of the Word: when a woman gives birth, she suffers sorrow,

- says the Lord, -
because her hour has come;
but when she gives birth to a baby, she no longer remembers the sorrow for joy, because a man was born into the world (John 16:21).

Vicar of the Kazan diocese

On September 7, 1897, he was consecrated Bishop of Cheboksary, Vicar of the Kazan Diocese. The consecration was performed in Kazan by: Archbishop of Riga and Mitau Arseny (Bryantsev), as a representative of the Holy Synod, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas Vladimir (Nikolsky), Bishop of Samara Gury (Burtasovsky), Bishop of Sarapul Nikodim (Bokov) and Bishop of Balakhna Arkady (Karpinsky).

On March 1, 1899, he was appointed Bishop of Chistopol, first vicar of the Kazan diocese, retaining the position of rector.

The Reverend Anthony enjoyed the deep love of the youth and those around him, and his modesty and simplicity kept increasing the crowd of his followers. His enchanting charm “captivated the heart of every person into obedience to him from the first acquaintance, from the first meeting.” Those who did not know him closely were amazed at the irresistible power of his moral influence on the hearts and will of the students, and said that he had the power of “suggestion.”

He influenced people not with severity and legality, but with a kind, gentle word. Rev. Anthony has long gained wide popularity as a very zealous and zealous disseminator of spiritual enlightenment and theological science among the masses. At the St. Petersburg Academy, he was the soul of a circle of student preachers who carried the fruits of academic science to churches in extra-liturgical readings, public and private halls, factories, prisons, and shelters; He founded the same circles at the Moscow and Kazan academies.

An opponent of all administrative and educational strictures and restrictions, Rev. Anthony always strived to achieve student compliance with rules, regulations and programs of free will. Providence was pleased to take him to almost all academies, and everywhere he left a noticeable mark behind him. As a leader, teacher, scientist and educator, Bishop Anthony was an idol of student youth. Reverent at the height of monastic service, Bishop Anthony captivated academic youth with his mood and was one of the ideological founders of monasticism and the nurturer of a numerous new school of learned monasticism. Anthony (Vadkovsky) is considered the founder of learned monasticism. Bishop Anthony was the first to justify the lifestyle of academic-administrative monasticism, which broke ties with the monastic retreat. The monastic intelligentsia grouped around Bishop Anthony, and under his influence many accepted monasticism.

During the period of his rectorship at theological academies, Bishop Anthony tonsured more than 60 students, most of whom subsequently became bishops. Already in his later years, in his teachings, he spoke a lot and convincingly about the difficult life consequences that befall those who, intending to enter the path of monasticism, as if having heard the call of God, for some worldly reasons deviated from this path.

Bishop of Ufa and Menzelinsky

On July 14, 1900, he was transferred to the independent Ufa and Menzelin department.

At the suggestion of i.d. rector, inspector of the Kazan Academy on August 17, 1900, Rev. Anthony, Bishop of Ufa and Menzelinsky, was decided: to be elected as an honorary member of the Kazan Theological Academy in view of his eminence and fruitful activity, in view of his solid literary and scientific-theological works, in view of his outstanding church-oratorical talent and tireless preaching of the word of God and, finally, in view of his generous charity and financial assistance to needy students of the Academy.

At the Volyn department

On April 27, 1902, he was appointed Bishop of Volyn and Zhitomir, Holy Archimandrite of the Pochaev Dormition Lavra.

In 1906 he was elevated to the rank of archbishop.

In 1908, while ruling the Volyn diocese, he was the first of the Russian hierarchs to respond to judgments on the issue of restoring the patriarchate in Russia, publishing a brochure with the corresponding content as a supplement to the magazine “Russian Monk”. From a young age, Anthony was a great supporter of the patriarchate. On Illovaisky’s Russian history textbook, he wrote notes praising Patriarch Nikon and condemning Tsar Alexei.

In 1911 he was awarded a diamond cross to be worn on his hood.

In 1912 he was appointed a member of the Holy Synod, leaving him at his current chair.

At the Kharkov department

On May 14, 1914, he was appointed Archbishop of Kharkov and Akhtyrka.

On May 1, 1917, he was retired, according to the petition, with the appointment of his place of residence in the Valaam Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Savior of the Finnish Diocese.

On August 16, 1917, he was again appointed Archbishop of Kharkov and Akhtyrka.

In the fall of 1917, at the All-Russian Local Council there was one of three candidates for patriarch, along with Bishops St. Tikhon of Moscow and Arseny of Novgorod. At that time, popular rumor rated him as the “smartest” of the bishops of the Russian Church - in contrast to the “most strict” Arseny and the “kindest” Tikhon. A brilliantly educated and talented church writer, a prominent church figure in the last two decades of the synodal era, a longtime champion of the patriarchate, Vladyka Anthony enjoyed the broadest support of the council of the three candidates as a fearless and experienced church leader. During the voting, he received the largest number of votes, but the Lord took this lot away from him.

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

Anthony (Khrapovitsky)

Childhood and youth

Father - Pavel Pavlovich Khrapovitsky - Novgorod landowner, general, belonged to the noble family of Khrapovitsky. His father was the grandson of cabinet secretary Alexander Khrapovitsky. Mother, Natalya Petrovna Verigina, is the daughter of a landowner in the Kharkov province. The family had four sons; Alexey was third. In early childhood, when the family moved to St. Petersburg, Alexey began to take part in bishop's services - as a staff bearer and book bearer. I owe my religious upbringing to my mother[3].

Contrary to his desire to study at a theological school, at the age of nine he was sent to the 5th St. Petersburg gymnasium. At that time, he was deeply impressed by the lectures of Vladimir Solovyov (whose ideas he later criticized primarily for their pro-Catholic orientation [3]) and public speeches by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Later in Russia and the Russian emigration it was widely believed that Alyosha in Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov was written from the young Khrapovitsky; but, according to the latter, he was not personally acquainted with Dostoevsky[4].

In the 5th grade of the gymnasium, he wrote a service to Saints Cyril and Methodius, which subsequently, in 1887, was approved by the Synod for liturgical use and became part of the additional Menaion. An important event in the young man’s life was his acquaintance with Archimandrite Nikolai (Kasatkin)[3].

In 1881 he graduated from high school with a gold medal[3], then, against the will of his father[3], passed the entrance exams to the St. Petersburg Theological Academy; the admission of a nobleman who had graduated from high school to the Theological Academy was then an extremely unusual step, because it was mainly the children of the clergy who went there. Alexei Khrapovitsky's closest friends were Mikhail Gribanovsky (later Bishop of Tauride) and Ivan Stragorodsky (later Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus').

Monasticism; start of ministry

In 1885 he graduated with an academic degree of candidate of theology from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, taking monastic vows on May 18, 1885 - he was named Anthony in honor of the Monk Anthony the Roman; On June 12 he was ordained a hierodeacon, and on September 29 a hieromonk.

Remained at the academy as a professorial fellow and appointed sub-inspector. Since 1886, he taught homiletics, liturgics and church law at the Kholm Theological Seminary.

Since 1887 - acting assistant professor at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in the department of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament. In 1888, he was awarded a Master of Divinity degree after defending a dissertation on “Psychological evidence in favor of free will and moral responsibility.” In the same year he was confirmed with the rank of associate professor at the Academy. In 1889 he was appointed acting inspector of the Academy.

In 1890, Anthony was elevated to the rank of archimandrite and appointed rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary. During his studies and teaching in St. Petersburg, Anthony’s theological views were formed, which subsequently caused controversy; During these same years, he met John of Kronstadt, which continued during his rectorship at the Moscow Theological Academy. The experience of John of Kronstadt became one of the foundations of the course of pastoral theology compiled by Anthony[3].

Since 1891 - rector of the Moscow Theological Academy (MDA, at the age of 27 [3]).

In the summer of 1895, due to the disagreement of Metropolitan Sergius Lyapidevsky of Moscow with the innovative approaches of the young rector of the MDA to education and training, in particular encouraging students to become monastics, he was transferred to the position of rector of the Kazan Theological Academy (until 1900).

Episcopal ministry before the 1917 revolution

Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Cheboksary (photo from the magazine “Activeist” for December 1898) On
September 7, 1897, he was consecrated in Kazan as Bishop of Cheboksary, vicar of the Kazan diocese.

On March 1, 1899, in connection with the opening of the second vicariate in the Kazan diocese, he was appointed Bishop of Chistopol, first vicar of the Kazan diocese, retaining the position of rector.

On July 14, 1900, the report of the Synod on his appointment as Bishop of Ufa and Menzelinsky (an independent diocesan see in Ufa) was supremely approved[5]; On August 17, he was elected an honorary member of the Kazan Theological Academy.

On April 27, 1902, he was transferred to the Volyn See (diocesan center in Zhitomir) by the Bishop of Volyn and Zhitomir, Holy Archimandrite of the Pochaev Dormition Lavra. He built a warm Trinity Cathedral in the Lavra in the “Novgorod-Pskov style” (consecrated in 1912), the design of which was commissioned from the young architect Alexei Shchusev. He fought against bribery and extortion from the clergy, contributed to the revival of the Ovruch monastery and the Pochaev Lavra, chairman of the Volyn department of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society.

In 1905 - one of the organizers of the Union of the Russian People; honorary chairman of its Pochaev department. During the first Jewish pogroms, he issued an extremely harsh condemnation of violence. Thus, in a sermon he preached in Zhitomir dedicated to the Chisinau pogrom, he compared its participants with Judas and cannibal savages[6].

He was an honorary member of the Kazan Temperance Society and the Kazan Department of the Russian Assembly. He became the first bishop - a member of the Russian Assembly[7].

On April 22, 1906, he was elected a member of the State Council of the Russian Empire from the monastic clergy, and was a member of the right-wing group. On January 13, 1907, he resigned as a member of the State Council.

In March - December 1906, he was a member of the Pre-Conciliar Presence at the Holy Synod, where he presided over the VI department “On matters of faith: about common faith, Old Believers and other issues of faith.”

On May 6, 1906, he was elevated to the rank of archbishop.

In March - April 1908, he led the highest-ordered audit of the Kyiv Theological Academy, which led to the departure of its rector, Bishop Platon (Rozhdestvensky), which subsequently led to hostile relations between the two hierarchs in exile. According to the later opinion of Archpriest Georgy Florovsky, the audit “was not impartial, especially in the Kyiv Academy”[8].

In July 1908, he chaired the 4th All-Russian Missionary Congress in Kyiv. Awarded the Order of St. Vladimir III (1898) and II (1908) degrees.

In 1911, he published the 2nd collection of his works and on June 14 of the same year, the council of the Kazan Theological Academy was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology (confirmed with the title by the Holy Synod on July 15). Awarded a diamond cross to wear on his hood.

In January 1912, he chaired the 1st All-Russian Edinoverie Congress.

He denounced name-glorification as a heresy.

In 1912 he was appointed a member of the Holy Synod, remaining at the Volyn See; After the death of Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky), Chief Prosecutor Vladimir Sabler proposed his candidacy to replace the St. Petersburg see, but the proposal was not accepted by the emperor.

In 1912-1913 he participated in the work of the Pre-Conciliar Conference.

In February 1913, he was in St. Petersburg, taking part in the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the House of Romanov, in particular, on February 21, he concelebrated with Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch, who led the solemn liturgy in the Kazan Cathedral [9] (Archbishop Anthony was the initiator of the invitation of Patriarch Gregory to the celebrations) . A few days before the start of the anniversary celebrations, on his behalf, with the permission of the emperor[10], the Pochaev Icon was brought to St. Petersburg from Zhitomir (it was temporarily in Zhitomir due to the threat of war)

On May 14, 1914 he was appointed Archbishop of Kharkov and Akhtyrka.

After the February Revolution of 1917, the commissioner of spiritual affairs in Kharkov became the attorney Rapp, and then the constable Korniliev, sent by the Kyiv Ukrainian Church Council. Members of the Church Rada were nationalistic and wanted to remove the ruling Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) from Kharkov. On April 16, 1917, in the Annunciation Cathedral, part of the parishioners demanded the removal of the bishop from the diocese. The Commissioner of Spiritual Affairs ordered Archbishop Anthony to leave Kharkov within three days. However, under pressure from the believing people, this period was increased to five days and allowed to remain within the province until the decision of the Holy Synod. Archbishop Anthony submitted his request for retirement and left for the Svyatogorsk monastery of his diocese. However, the revolutionary provincial authorities did not allow him to stay within the Kharkov province. On May 15, 1917, by resolution of the Holy Synod, he retired to the Valaam Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Savior[11].

It is noteworthy that the Valaam Monastery belonged to the Finnish diocese, which at that time was ruled by Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky), a student of Archbishop Anthony. Not long ago, Archbishop Anthony wrote the essay “Dogma of Redemption,” which subsequently provoked sharp criticism of a theological nature. He was elected to the All-Russian Local Council (opened on August 15) from the monastics, but participated as a diocesan bishop, since in August he was again elected at the diocesan meeting in Kharkov to his former see (the election was approved on August 16).

In 1917-1920

Archbishop Anthony in 1917.
Artist Mikhail Nesterov. State Tretyakov Gallery Members of the Central Rada were opposed to the monarchist Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov. On April 16, 1917, during a service in the Annunciation Cathedral, “figures of the Ukrainian national movement” noisily demanded his removal from the pulpit.[12] “Commissar of Spiritual Affairs” of the Central Rada V.I. Rapp also demanded that he leave Kharkov. On May 1, 1917, Archbishop Anthony was retired to the Valaam Monastery, where he left on May 15, 1917.[12]

Later, from August 1917, Anthony was a member of the Local Council of 1917-1918, participated in the 1st and 2nd sessions, a fellow chairman of the Council, a member of the Council Council and the Judicial Commission at the Conference of Bishops, Chairman X and member II, V, XI, XII departments. The first (by the number of votes: received 309 votes; followed by Archbishop Arseny (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod - 159 votes, Metropolitan of Moscow Tikhon (Bellavin) - 148 votes) of the three candidates for the patriarchal throne.

On November 5, 1917, immediately after being elected to the patriarchal throne through the lot of Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow, he arrived with other bishops-members of the Council at the Trinity Compound (the residence of the Moscow Metropolitan), where he greeted the latter on behalf of the Council. In response, the named Patriarch, thanking all the bishops, turned personally to Archbishop Anthony, saying, in particular: “Let us remember how during the years of our study at the Academy of Blessed Memory, our mentors, the Reverend Anthony and Michael, and you, the now living Bishop Anthony, in conversations, and Often after evening prayer they spoke to students about the restoration of the patriarchate. Vladyka Anthony worked more than others in this matter, and we are witnesses of this. Let us sing to him for many years to come.”[13]

Since November 28, 1917 - Metropolitan of Kharkov and Akhtyrsky.

On May 30, 1918, he was elected Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia; in July he was elected chairman of the All-Ukrainian Church Council. In December 1918, after the occupation of Kyiv by the troops of the Directory, he was arrested along with Archbishop Eulogius (Georgievsky). Both bishops were sent by train to be imprisoned in the Uniate monastery in Buchach, where Bishop Niim (Krotkov) of Chigirin and his hierodeacon Nikolai were located; later transferred to a monastery in Bielany near Krakow. After his release, he lived for some time in Lvov.

In the fall of 1919, he was elected honorary chairman of the Temporary Higher Church Administration in the South-East of Russia, operating in territories controlled by the White movement [14].

In exile

He left Russia in March 1920, arriving from Novorossiysk to Athens, from where he moved to Athos, where he planned to stay, but stayed for about five months.

In September 1920, he was summoned by Peter Wrangel to Crimea, from where on November 6/19, 1920 he was evacuated along with his army and other refugees to Constantinople occupied by the Entente. On the same day, on board the ship “Grand Duke Alexey Mikhailovich”, together with Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky) of Odessa, Archbishop Feofan (Bistrov) of Poltava and Bishop Veniamin (Fedchenkov) of Sevastopol, he took part in a meeting of the Provisional Higher Church Administration in the South of Russia. The Russian Church Abroad considers this day as the beginning of its existence[15]

Peter Wrangel and Anthony Khrapovitsky in Yugoslavia. 1927

On February 14[16] 1921 he moved to Serbia (Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), where he was given a residence in Sremski Karlovci (former palace of the Karlovac Patriarchs). In November - December 1921, the All-Foreign Russian Church Meeting took place in Sremski Karlovci, which was later renamed the Cathedral. The Council formed the Supreme Russian Church Administration Abroad (VRCU), chaired by Metropolitan Anthony, and adopted a number of political documents of an anti-Bolshevik orientation.

In exile he supported the white forces in the Far East. The Vladivostok organization “Faith, Tsar and People” published an appeal from Metropolitan Anthony to the anti-Bolshevik armed forces of the Far East[17]. Anthony called for the creation of a people's militia to protect the “Orthodox faith and Russian custom”[17]. Anthony stated that his calls were analogous to the calls of the Nizhny Novgorod army in its campaign against Moscow in 1612[17]. According to Anthony, the main goal of the new militia is to revive “old Russia, real Russian Orthodox Russia with a tsar from the descendants of Patriarch Filaret and Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov”[17].

On September 5, 1927, the Provisional Foreign Synod of Bishops, having heard the message of the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius and the Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod (in Moscow) of July 16/29, 1927 (“Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius”), decided: “The foreign part of the All-Russian Church must cease relations with the Moscow church authorities due to the impossibility of normal relations with it and due to its enslavement by the godless Soviet government, which deprives it of freedom in its expression of will and canonical governance of the Church”[18]. By decree of the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens and under him the Patriarchal Holy Synod (in Moscow) “On the Karlovac Group” dated June 22, 1934 No. 50, it was decided to ban, among others, “the former Kyiv Metropolitan Anthony” from serving in the priesthood[19]. On September 10, 1934, the Council of Bishops in Sremski Karlovci, by a special resolution, rejected the decree of Metropolitan Sergius; The decree was signed by 17 bishops, not counting the signature of Metropolitan Anthony. At the same time, the trial of foreign bishops, which was mentioned in the decision of June 22, 1934, never took place[20].

Until his death in 1936, he headed the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. He was an ardent oppositionist to Metropolitan Sergius and the de facto Provisional Patriarchal Synod in Moscow, which he headed, which was under the complete control of the leadership of the USSR.

Until the end of his life he remained a convinced monarchist. He expressed the opinion that Jews were behind the Russian revolution; Thus, in his message dated September 12/25, 1929, in connection with the events on the Chinese Eastern Railway, he wrote: “<...> we, in the name of the Holy Church, in the name of Christ, pray to you, fathers, brothers and sisters in Christ, to rise from that distant the edges of our fatherland on this and even on the other side of the Chinese border, to rebel against the enemies of our homeland, against the evil godless and Christ-hating Jews who lead them, precisely those who stand behind the backs of the unreasonable Bolsheviks <...>”[21].

In the “Appeal to the Orthodox Russian People” on September 13, 1929, he recognized Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich as Emperor since 1924, although he had previously recognized Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich as the “Supreme Leader”.

He warmly treated the Yugoslav king Alexander I Karageorgievich, who was brought up at the Russian imperial court, and who was at one time considered by the ROCOR as a possible contender for the Russian throne. He welcomed the return to the throne in 1935 of the previously exiled Greek King George II, writing that he saw in this “the second and third step towards the return of the glorious past and great future of the Orthodox Empire,” the creation of which he dreamed of.

At the end of his life he tried to reconcile with Metropolitan Evlogii (Georgievsky) without consequences for the schism in the Russian church abroad.

In the last years of his life, Metropolitan Anthony could not get up and walk.

He died on August 10, 1936 in Sremski Karlovci. The funeral service in the cathedral church of Belgrade on August 12 was performed by Serbian Patriarch Varnava, who invariably provided protection and patronage to the deceased.

He was buried in the New Cemetery of Belgrade, in the crypt of the Iveron Chapel.

Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy I, while in Yugoslavia in 1945, celebrated a memorial service for Metropolitan Anthony[22].

Proceedings

In 1900, the complete collection of works of Metropolitan was published in Kazan. Anthony in three volumes. These three volumes allow us to form a fairly complete picture of him as a writer. His philosophical dissertation, modest in scope, is buried in them as an inconspicuous and uncharacteristic particle. The fact of free will is proven here from its “givenness” in our consciousness and self-awareness.

The next scientific work of Metropolitan. Anthony, which grew out of his professorial studies, is “Commentary on the Book of St. the Prophet Micah" (St. Petersburg, 1891), it was also included in the collection of his works. Having paid tribute to science, Anthony in the rest of his works appears in the typical guise of a publicist. His language is distinguished by liveliness and lightness, not alien to sharp abandon in places. A responsive temperament, a good literary education, an agile mind and insight when meeting people gave him great power over the spiritual students. The young men sat for a long time with their incredibly hospitable and affectionate rector. “This is a university,” one of them exclaims; “This is an ancient Greek academy: here, among chatter and jokes, ideas are sown, each of which is worthy of growing into a dissertation.” Often, as it happened, but much more young monks of a special color emerged from there.

Anthony's theological views are not devoid of individuality and even innovation, causing him at some points to even engage in direct polemics with fixed orthodoxies.

He emphasized the social mission of the Church, and in relation to this task, he developed a whole system of pastoral counseling, close to the interests of life and to the intellectual level of society.

The metropolitan's directness, bordering on harshness, made a negative impression on many, especially dissenters. One of his brother’s comrades in his youth asked him: “Do you, an intelligent, educated man, believe that Christ ascended to heaven, and that prosphora and wine turn into His Flesh and Blood?” “I cannot doubt,” answered Anthony, “if I doubted, then I would have no choice but to throw myself off the Liteiny Bridge headfirst.”

Everyone knew his wit of a somewhat rude nature. They said that he, it seems, while still a student, at a gala dinner, to a humorous question from a relative of the Khrapovitskys, Major General Krepke, why “metropolitan” and not “metro-shoot”, he answered: “And why, Your Excellency, “du- cancer”... Here he paused for a long time and calmly, looking into the eyes of the stunned general, finished in a lowered voice..., and not “du-fish”...

When the chief prosecutor proposed to the Synod to elevate the illiterate monk Barnabas to the rank of bishop, one of the members of the Synod began to object. Then it was made clear that this was what the Empress and Rasputin wanted. Metropolitan Anthony said (obviously sarcastically): “Well, well! We are ready to make a black hog a bishop, since they want it.”

For his learned theological works, which were originally published in Kazan and then republished by the book publisher I.L. Tuzov, Metropolitan Anthony received the title of Doctor of Theology.

He published his works mainly in academic publications: “Church. Vestn." (St. Petersburg Academician), “Theology. Vestn." (Moscow Academician), “Right. Social security.” (Kazan. Acad.), “Ufim. Eparch. Ved.,” “Church. Ved.", "Ms. Review", "Volog. Eparch. Ved.,” “Volyn. Eparch. Ved.,” Newspaper “Bell” (V. Skvortsov), etc.

In the above journals, Archimandrite. Anthony published many sermons and articles that were not included in our list of his works.

List of essays

“Psychological Evidence for Free Will and Moral Responsibility (Master's Thesis). St. Petersburg, 1887. Ed. 2nd St. Petersburg, 1888. “Conversations about the Orthodox understanding of life and its superiority over the teachings of L. Tolstoy.” St. Petersburg, 1889. “The superiority of Orthodoxy over the teachings of papism as presented by V. Solovyov.” St. Petersburg, 1890. Conversations about the superiority of the Orthodox understanding of the Gospel in comparison with the teachings of L. Tolstoy.” Ed. 2nd. St. Petersburg, 1891. “Interpretation of the Old Testament.” Issue 7. "Interpretation of the book of St. Prophet Micah." St. Petersburg, 1891. “Pastoral study of people and life according to the writings of F.M. Dostoevsky" (from "God. Vestn." 1893). [Source: BEL vol. III, stb. 778-780]. "From readings on Pastoral Theology." Kazan, 1896. “Critical review of the bibliographic message “Above the Gospel.” “Right. Social security.” 1897, February, p. 1. “Is moral life possible without the Christian religion?” (Regarding the “Critique of Dogmatic Theology” by L.N. Tolstoy). “Right. Social security.” 1897, April, p. 491-524. “The meaning of prayer for the shepherd of the Church.” “Right. Social security.” 1897, May, p. 587-607. “About love for neighbors” (Homily on Holy Thursday). “Right. Social security.” 1897, June, p. 727-731. “Word before the thanksgiving service at the end of the 3rd All-Russian Missionary Congress.” “Right. Social security.” 1897, September, p. 239-243. “What is the significance of faith in Jesus Christ as God for moral life.” Kazan, 1886. “Right. Social security.” 1896, September, p. 3-21. Moral teaching in Tolstoy’s work “The Kingdom of God is within you” before the court of Christian teaching. Ed. 2nd. M., 1897. Ed. 3rd. M., 1902. Word at the burial of the Most Reverend. Bishop Michael of Tauride on August 22, 1898. “Right. Social security.” 1899, January, p. 68. “The moral idea of ​​the dogma of the Holy Trinity.” Ed. 2nd, Kazan, 1898. A word before the memorial service about Pushkin. (Said at Kazan University on May 26, 1899). “Right. Social security.” 1899, June, p. 783-801. "On the spiritual gifts of youth." “Right. Social security.” 1899, October, p. 408-419. Lectures on Pastoral Theology. Kazan, 1900. Works in three volumes: Volume 1 - Sermons, Volume II - Articles of dogmatic content, Volume III - Articles of philosophical and critical content. The word at the memorial service for Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna, nun Anastasia, spoken in the Kazan Cathedral on April 17, 1900. “Right. Social security.” 1900, May, p. 481-485. In memory of K.P. Pobedonostseva. “Voice of the Church” 1912, March, p. 170-171. Russian truth. “Voice of the Church” 1912, October, p. 167-174. “Conversation between a Christian and a Mohammedan about the truth of the Holy Trinity.” 1903 “Son of Man.” “Theologian.” Bulletin", No. 11, 1903, p. 361-370. "A Tale of the Last Judgment and Contemporary Events." 1905 "Statement on Freedom of Religion in the 6th Section of the Pre-Conciliar Presence of May 19, 1906." Pochaev, 1906. “Letter addressed to K.P. Pobedonostsev in early November 1905." 1906 “On closer relations with the army of pastors and archpastors of the church.” 1906 "The Moral Meaning of the Fundamental Christian Dogmas." Vyshny Volochek, 1906. “On Orthodox shepherding.” M., 1906. “From the district message.” "Arr. to "CV" 1907, No. 31, p. 1259. “Word at the thanksgiving service after the elections to the Third State Duma.” 1907 “The Word about the Chisinau Events.” Chisinau, 1908. “On the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia.” Pochaev, 1908. “A good reminder to a Russian recruit from an Orthodox archpastor.” M., 1909. Collection of lectures and articles on Pastoral Theology. M., 1909. Article: “Temple of Glory and Temple of Sorrow.” "Arr. to "CV" 1909, No. 41, p. 1909. Article: “Pastoral Conversation.” "Arr. to "CV" 1910, No. 6, p. 228. Speech at the presentation of the staff to the newly ordained bishop. Gabriel of Ostrog in the Zhitomir Transfiguration Cathedral. "Arr. to "CV" 1910, No. 32, p. 1325. Sermon on the transfer of St. relics of St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk May 21, 1910. “Russian. Pilgrim." 1912, No. 42, p. 656. Word delivered in the seminary church on September 9, 1910 at the 150th anniversary of the Kholm Theological Seminary. "Arr. to "CV" 1910, No. 46, p. 1943. District message to the Volyn flock about fasting. "Arr. to "CV" 1911, No. 11, p. 463. Speech at the meeting of the sovereign in the Ovruchensky temple. "Arr. to "CV" 1911, No. 37, p. 1527-1528. Word for the day of memory of St. Sergius. "God. Vestn." 1892, November, p. 247. Word at the prayer service before the start of the teaching on September 12, 1893 “God. Vestn." 1893, October, p. 111. Word at the presentation of the bishop's staff to the newly installed Bishop Pachomius. "Arr. to "CV" 1911, No. 40, p. 1655. "Trouble from false brethren." M. 1912 and “Voice of the Church” 1912, October, p. 132-149. Message to all Old Believers separating from the Orthodox Church. "Arr. to "CV" 1912, No. 10, p. 395, “Voice of the Church.” 1912, March, p. 30-47, Dept. ed. St. Petersburg, 1913. A word about Divine providence, revealed in the events during the accession of the House of Romanov. "Arr. to "CV" 1912, No. 19, p. 771, “Voice of the Church” 1912, May, p. 18-26. A word of truth to the concealers of the truth. "Arr. to "CV" 1912, No. 28, p. 1143, “Voice of the Church.” 1912, September, p. 27-43. “How does the Orthodox faith differ from Western confessions.” (“From Miss. Review.”) 1901, July-August, p. 3. “How does serving the public good relate to concern for the salvation of one’s own soul?” “Russian. Pilgrim." 1912, No. 42, p. 656. Treatise: “The Church of Christ, as the guardian and interpreter of Divine Revelation.” “Russian. Pilgrim." 1912, No. 42, p. 656. Word at the memorial service for the removal of the body of the late Bishop Met. Anthony in the Lavra Cathedral. M., 1912. "Arr. to CV" 1912, No. 45, p. 1821. Lamentation on the death of Patriarch Joachim III. M. 1912. "Arr. to "CV" 1912, No. 46, p. 1860, “Goal. Church." 1912, December, p. 135-140. "The moral idea of ​​the dogma of the Church." Full composition of writings. vol. II, St. Petersburg, 1911. “Right. Social security.” 1913, January, p. 31. “On the new false teaching about the idolizer of names and on the “Apology” of Anthony Bulatovich.” "Arr. to "CV" 1913, No. 20, p. 869, “Russian. Monk" 1913, issue. 9, p. 554-556. “What does a bishop need to be most concerned about?” The word spoken when presenting the staff to the newly installed bishop. Dionysius April 20, 1913 “Approx. to “CV” 1913 “Approx. to "CV" 1913, No. 21, p. 939. Word at the burial of the Most Reverend. Arsenia, archp. Kharkovsky and Akhtyrsky on May 1, 1914. "Arr. to "CV" 1914, No. 28, p. 1229. First word to the Kharkov flock. "Arr. to "CV" 1914, No. 28, p. 1229. Speech by the Archbishop of Kharkov. "Arr. to "CV" 1914, No. 32, p. 1403. “Moral justification for the most important Christian dogma.” “Right. Social security.” 1915, November, December, p. 389. Word before the funeral service for the body of the deceased Metropolitan Flavian. "Arr. to "CV" 1915, No. 47, p. 2355. “Guidelines of Rev. Anthony, bishop Ufa, priests and other clergy in foreign and other parishes of the Ufa diocese.” "Arr. to "CV" 1901, No. 48, p. 1747-1751. District message to all Old Believers separating from the Orthodox Church. St. Petersburg, 1913. Letters to pastors. Speech at the presentation of the staff to Bishop Mitrofan of Sumy 5.IV.1916. "Arr. to "CV" 1916, No. 25, p. 607-608. "Orthodoxy". Dogma of the Atonement. Karlovtsy, 1926 “Two ways of shepherding - Latin and Orthodox.” (From Theological Vestn.). 1894. “On the Pastoral Vocation.” (From a manual for rural pastors). 1900[?]. “A new miracle from the Pochaev Icon of the Mother of God.” "Rus. Monk" 1911, July, issue. 12, p. 50. “Who should monasteries educate?” "Rus. Monk" 1911, December, issue. 48, p. 11-13. Project about deaconesses. "Rus. Monk" 1911, December, issue. 48, p. 58. Speech given to Kamenets-Podolsk pilgrims who came to the Pochaev Lavra on May 18, 1911. "Rus. Monk" 1911, May, issue. 10, p. 56. “On the reduction of inner life.” Word at the tonsure of Deacon Pavel Sosnovsky (Dionysius), a student at the Moscow Theological Academy. "Rus. Monk" 1913, No. 2, p. 101-104. “Monasticism is a feat of hope.” A word at the monastic tonsure of a student at the Moscow Theological Academy, Danilov (Stefan). "Rus. Monk" 1913, No. 3, p. 165-168. “How and with what to find peace of mind?” Word at the tonsure of volunteers of the Moscow Theological Academy Alekseev and Mashkin. Named: Micah and Serapion. "Rus. Monk" 1913, No. 4, p. 235. “Differences in the paths of monastic life.” Word at the tonsure of Moscow Theological Academy student Nikolai (Bessonov) Nikon. "Rus. Monk" 1913, No. 5, p. 291-294. "Abusive techniques of the enemy of the tempter." Word at the tonsure of Moscow Theological Academy student Vladimir Nikolsky (Andronik). "Rus. Monk" 1913, No. 6, p. 357. Speech at the meeting of Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch. "Rus. Monk" 1913, No. 6, p. 365. “On the sorrows of monastic life.” Word at the tonsure of master's student of the Moscow Theological Academy Vasily Meshcheryakov (Evdokim). "Rus. Monk" 1913, No. 7, p. 421-427. "Painful duality." The word spoken at the monastic tonsure of 4th year students of the Kazan Theological Academy: priest Nikodim Troitsky (Nafanael) and 2nd year student Valentin Lebedev (Barsanuphius). "Rus. Monk" 1913, No. 8, p. 494-498. “The voice of the calling of God in life’s trials.” Word at the tonsure of students of the Kazan Theological Academy, priests - Mikhail Pavlov (Makariy) and Pavel Raevsky (Feodosiya). "Rus. Monk" 1913, No. 10, p. 630-634. “What should Constantinople be?” "Rus. Monk" 1916, No. 1, p. 14-21. "The Experience of a Christian Orthodox Catechism." Metropolitan Eleutherius. “The catholicity of the Church is God’s and Caesar’s.” Paris. 1938. The public good from a Christian point of view and from a modern - positive point of view. “Theologian.” Vestn." 1892, June, p. 413. “Sign of the Times” (“Novices.” Tale by N. Leskov). “Theologian.” Vestn." 1892, February, p. 415. “Two extremes – papists and Tolstoyans.” “Theologian.” Vestn." 1895, February, p. 181, May, p. 179. “Biblical teaching about the Hypostatic Word of God.” “Theologian.” Vestn." 1904, November, p. 387. First response memo of the Holy Rule. Synod. “Theologian.” Vestn." 1905, December, p. 698. Homily on the Day of the Intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos. “Theologian.” Vestn." 1894, November, p. 213. Word over the tomb of the deceased V. Metropolitan Theognost of Kyiv and Galicia on January 27, 1903. Proceedings of K.D.A. 1903, March, p. 343. Homily on the day of St. Nicholas. "Izv. Kazan. ep." 1896, No. 24, p. 429-436. A word to the graduating students of the Missionary Courses, delivered on April 7, 1896. "Izv. Kazan. ep." 1896, No. 9, p. 248-251. Reflections on the saving power of Christ's passion. "Izv. Kazan. ep." 1907, No. 15, p. 436 p/line Lecture on the topic: “Was Christ a revolutionary.” "Izv. Kazan. ep." 1908, No. 1, p. 35-38. Nravstvennyja idei vaznejsich christianskich pravoslavnych dogmatov. New York 1963 (= N. Rklickij /Hg./, Zizneopisani... Bd. XI). FM Dostoevskij kak propovednik vozrozdenija (= Rklickij, Zizneopisanie... Bd. XII). Ucenie o pastyre, pastyrstve i ob ispovedi. New York 1966 (= N. Rklickij, Zizneopisanie... Bd. XIII). Nravstvennoe ucenie Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi. New York 1967 (= N. Rklickij, Zizneopisanie... Bd. XIV). Slova, besedy i reci (O zizni po vnutrennemu celoveku), New York 1968 (= N. Rklickij, Zizneopisanie... Bd. XV). I. Soglasovanie evangel'skich skazanij o voskresenii Christovom. II. Psychologiceskija dannyja v pol'zu svobody voli i nravstvennoj otvetstvennosti. New York 1969 (= N. Rklickij, Zizneopisanie... Bd. XVI). Novyj opyt ucenija o bogopoznanii i drugija stat'i. New York 1969 (= N. Rklickij, Zizneopisanie... Bd. XVII). Conversations between an Orthodox Christian and a Uniate. About the errors of the Latins and Uniates of the Greek Catholics. Sremski Karlovci. Ed.... 1922. 32 p. Experience of the Christian [Orthodox] Catechism. Dedicated to His Beatitude Gregory IV, Patriarch of Antioch and the All East. Sremski Karlovci. Ed.... 1924. [147 p.]. Pastoral theology. [This collection is a collection of articles and lectures by His Beatitude Metropolitan Anthony on religious issues from the field of science of pastoral theology, and is a republished part of the 2nd volume of his Complete Works]. Harbin. Ed. Abode of Mercy. 1935. 179 p. Pushkin as a moral person and an Orthodox Christian. Belgrade. Ed. "The Tsar's Messenger". 1929. 24 p. Collection of Selected Works. With a portrait and biography of the author. Anniversary edition for the 50th anniversary of the priesthood. Belgrade. Ed. [Printing house “Slovo”]. 1935. 11 + 431 pp. Church teaching about the Holy Spirit. Paris. YMCA-PRESS. (1926). 40 s. Biography. Letters to various persons, 1919-1936. SPb.: Publishing house. Oleg Abyshko, 2006. 288 p. Collected works. T. 1-2. M.: Dar, 2007. Selected works, letters, materials. M.: PSTGU, 2007. 1056 p.

Literature

• “Church. Ved." 1897, No. 34, p. 337, 1899, No. 11, p. 61, 1900, No. 30, p. 281, 1902, No. 18-19, p. 114, 1904, No. 46, p. 487, 1905, No. 22, p. 265, 1906, No. 18, p. 207, no. 25, p. 327, no. 34, p. 379, 1907, No. 2, p. 8, 1908, No. 38, p. 291, 1909, No. 24, p. 246, 1911, No. 19-20, p. 106, 1912, No. 19, p. 179, 1914, No. 21, p. 256, 1917, No. 28-19, p. 117, no. 35, p. 295.
• "Arr. to "CV" 1918, No. 5, p. 175.
• “Church. Ved." 1918, No. 21-22, p. 162-163.
• "Arr. to "CV" 1897, No. 38, p. 1340, 1900, No. 37, p. 1482-1487.
• “Right. Social security.” 1897, June, p. 232, 727-731, February, p. 177-189, October, p. 379-396, December, p. 9, 32, 1900, May, p. 481-485, September, p. 298, November, p. 7, 585, December, p. 701-705, 1901, January, p. 134, 1902, March, p. 81, 93, April, p. 139, 1905, July-August, p. 9, November, p. 545, 1907, March, p. 14, 1913, April, p. 189-190, December, p. 836, 1914, February, p. 3, March, p. 560, June, p. 1017, 1915, November, December, p. 392, 1899, January, p. 3, 9, 25.
• "Rus. Palom." 1911, No. 47, p. 750, 1912, No. 17, p. 255, No. 42, p. 656, 1914, No. 18, p. 287, no. 26, p. 417, 419-420.
• “Church. Vestn." 1891, No. 8, p. 113, 1894, No. 31, p. 991, No. 36, p. 1143, 1895, No. 36, p. 1143, 1908, No. 25, stb. 763, No. 27, stb. 841, No. 31, stb. 966.
• "Rus. Monk" 1911, issue. 10th, p. 59-61, no. 44th, p. 71-73, issue. 48th, p. 53-54, 1913, issue. 87th, p. 962.
• "ZhMP" 1931, No. 2, p. 5, 1946, No. 3, p. 28, no. 5, p. 40, 41, 1951, No. 6, p. 25, 1957, No. 12, p. 37, 1958, No. 12, p. 53.
• “Ms. Calendar" 1907, p. 128-129.
• "Rus. Antiquity" vol. CX, 1915, p. 632.
• "The truth about religion in Russia." M. 1942, p. 46.
• "Izv. Kazan. ep." 1892, No. 24, p. 707-708, 1897, No. 18, p. 484, 485, 491, No. 19, p. 531, 1898, No. 11, p. 478, 1899, No. 6, p. 239, no. 10, p. 439-440, 1900, p. 837-839, 1903, No. 16, p. 18, report, no. 20, p. 613, 1911, No. 27-28, p. 839, 840, 1912, No. 3, p. 89-90, No. 9, p. 300, no. 10, p. 344, No. 11, p. 374, no. 14, p. 454, 461, No. 15, p. 489, no. 16, p. 516, no. 36, p. 1078, no. 38, p. 1145, No. 41, p. 1242, No. 47, p. 1447, 1913, No. 1, p. 22, no. 4, p. 143, no. 19-20, p. 619-621, No. 21, p. 655, No. 23-34, p. 721-722, No. 36, p. 1092-1094, 1914, No. 19-20, p. 626.
• “Histor. Vestn." 1906, August, p. 592, 593, 598.
• "Rest. Christ." 1908, August-September, p. 59.
• “Samar. Ep. Ved." 1903, No. 15, p. 831.
• “Simbir. Ep. Ved." 1901, No. 17, p. 582.
• “Ms. Reviewed." 1902, December, p. 899.
• "Red Archive" 1928, vol. 26, p. 120.
• Bulgakov, p. 1389, 1401, 1416.
• Anniversary collection. M., 1914, p. 664, 665, 726.
• BEL vol. I, stb. 904-905, vol. III, stb. 778-780, vol. 7, stb. 727, 728.
• BES vol. I, stb. 197, 198, 547, vol. II, stb. 2215.
• NES vol. III, stb. 67, 68, 69 and additional. vol. I, p. 128.
• Vengerov. Brief biographer. words vol. I, p. 648-649.
• Iliodor. Notes about Grigory Rasputin. Petrograd, 1914, p. 6, 107, 128.
• Tuzov catalogue, p. 17.
• FPS I, No. 11, III, p. 1.
• “Composition of the Holy Rules. All R. Syn. and Ros. Church Hierarchies for 1917,” p. 40-41.
• "Memorable Book of Petrogr. Spirit. Academy for the 1915/1916 school year. year", p. 6.
• EB Nikon (Rklickij), Zizneopisanie Blazennejsago Antonija, Mitropolita Kievskogo i Galickago. New York 1956-1963. 10 Bande. 1. Band 2. Aufl. 1971.
• Archim. Iustin, Tajna licnosti Mitropolita Antonija i ego znacenie dlja pravoslavnago slavjanstva, in: Prav. Zizn' 1976, 8, 1-13.
• Joh. Chrysostomus, Kirchengeschichte I 79-84; 90-99; 176-179.
• Peter Hauptmann, Die Katechismen der Russisch-Orthodoxen Kirche. Entstehungsgeshichte und Lehrgehalt, mit 16 Bildtafeln. Gottingen 1971 (= Kirche im Osten. Monographienreihe Bd. 9), 92-105 und passim.

Reviews

Review of the essay by A.I. Voznesensky on the topic: “On the knowledge of God.” “Right. Social security.” 1899, March, p. 192-197. About the essay by Prof. P.A. Yungerova: “The Book of the Prophet Amos.” Introduction, translation and explanation. “Right. Social security.” 1899, March, p. 143-147. Based on an essay by Kazan Academy student N. Egorov on the topic: “Christian moral teaching according to Martensen compared with Christian moral teaching according to Bishop Theophan.” “Right. Social security.” 1900, February, p. 1-64. About the work of Archimandrite Innokenty (Pustynsky) on the topic: “Consecration to monasticism. Experience of historical and liturgical research." “Right. Social security.” 1900, April, p. 1-4. About the essay etc. Associate Professor spirit. Academy I.I. Yastrebov on the topic: “Missionary His Eminence Vladimir, Archbishop of Kazan and Sviyazhsk.” “Right. Social security.” 1900, April, p. 1-3. Report. About the essay by Prof. IN AND. Nesmelov on the topic: “Science of Man.” Volume one - Experience in psychological history and criticism of the basic issues of life." “Right. Social security.” 1900, June, p. 1-13. Report. Review of the essay by Archimandrite Palladius on the topic: “St. Pachomius the Great and the first monastic community. Based on newly discovered Coptic documents. Essay on the history of shepherding in monasteries." “Right. Social security.” 1901, May, p. 1-3, app. 2. About the essay by P.P. Ponomarev on the topic: “Fundamentals of Christian asceticism according to the works of the fathers, teachers and writers of the Church of the fourth century.” “Right. Social security.” 1901, October, p. 1-3, app. 2. About the essay by prof. scholar of Hieromonk Dionysius (Valedinsky) under the title “Ideals of Orthodox-Russian foreign missionary work,” recommended by reviewers for the Master of Theology degree. “Right. Social security.” 1902, April, p. 119. Report. About A. Sokolov’s essay on the topic: “Cult as a necessary accessory to religion.” “Right. Social security.” 1902, September, p. 1, app. 2. About the essay of Archimandrite Innocent (Yastrebov) on the topic: “Pastoral theology in Russia in the 19th century.” “Right. Social security.” 1902, September, p. 1, app. 3.

[1] In NES vol. III, stb. 67, BES vol. I, stb. 197 and BEL vol. I, stb. 904, the date of birth is erroneously indicated as 1864. See “Composition of the Holy Rule. All R. Syn. and Ros. Church Hierarchies" for 1917, p. 41

[2] cit. By: Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky). Biography. Letters to various persons. St. Petersburg, Ed. Oleg Abyshko, 2006. P.122

Reviews about it

• “Reverend Anthony (Detailed analysis of the Complete Works of all three volumes) / E.P. B-v. Petrozavodsk, 1900.
• Letters on Russian theology. “Distinctive features of the theology of Rev. Anthony (Khrapovitsky)". “Right. Social security.” 1905, November, p. 545.
• E.O. prof. V. Nikolsky and prof. Pavel Ponomarev. About the theological works of the Most Reverend. Antonia, archp. Volynsky and Zhitomirsky. The professors recommend that the Academy Council award the author the degree of Doctor of Theology. “Right. Social security.” 1913, October, p. 49-85. Report.
• Criticism. "The failure of vaunted Orthodoxy." Article by Prof. Milos Parfenta (Serbia). "Vestn. St. Syn. Etc. R. Ts." 1927, No. 3(16), p. 15-19.
• "The Good Shepherd" (A summary of writings on Pastoral Theology). In blessed memory the blessed one. Anthony, Metropolitan Kievsky and Galitsky (Khrapovitsky). V.M. Vladimirov. 1938, p. 28.