Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917. Moscow Sretensky Theological Seminary

LOCAL CATHEDRAL 1917–1918, the cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), outstanding in its historical significance, memorable primarily for the restoration of the patriarchate.

Preparations for the convocation of a higher congress, which was called upon to determine the new status of the church against the backdrop of those radical political changes that the February Revolution launched, unfolded by decision of the Synod from April 1917; while taking into account the experience of the Pre-Council Presence of 1905–1906 and the Pre-Council Meeting of 1912–1914, whose program remained unfulfilled due to the outbreak of the First World War. The All-Russian Local Council opened on August 15 (28) in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, on the day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; Tikhon (Belavin), Metropolitan of Moscow, was elected its chairman. Along with the white and black clergy, the number of participants included many lay people who for the first time received such significant representation in church affairs (among the latter were the former Chief Prosecutor of the Synod A.D. Samarin, philosophers S.N. Bulgakov and E.N. Trubetskoy, historian A.V. Kartashev - Minister of Confessions in the Provisional Government).

The solemn beginning - with the removal of the relics of the Moscow hierarchs from the Kremlin and crowded religious processions on Red Square - coincided with the rapidly growing social unrest, the news of which was constantly heard at the meetings. On the same day, October 28 (November 10), when the decision was made to restore the patriarchate, official news came that the Provisional Government had fallen and power had passed to the Military Revolutionary Committee; fighting began in Moscow. In an effort to stop the bloodshed, the cathedral sent a delegation led by Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky) to the headquarters of the Reds, but neither human casualties nor significant damage to the Kremlin shrines could be avoided. After that, the first conciliar calls for public repentance were proclaimed, condemning “raging atheism,” thus clearly delineating the “counter-revolutionary” line with which the cathedral was traditionally associated in Soviet historiography.

The election of the patriarch, which met the long-standing aspirations of the religious community, was revolutionary in its own way, opening a completely new chapter in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. It was decided to elect the patriarch not only by voting, but also by lot. Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kharkov, Archbishop Arseniy (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod and Tikhon, Metropolitan of Moscow received the largest number of votes (in descending order). On November 5 (18) in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the lot fell on St. Tikhon; his enthronement took place on November 21 (December 4) in the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral on the feast of the Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the temple. Soon the council adopted a decision On the Legal Status of the Church in the State(where they proclaimed: the primacy of the public law position of the ROC in the Russian state; the independence of the church from the state - subject to the coordination of church and secular laws; the need for the Orthodox confession for the head of state, the minister of confessions and the minister of public education) and approved the provisions on the Holy Synod and the Supreme church council - as the highest governing bodies under the supreme commanding supervision of the patriarch. After that, the first session concluded its work.

The second session opened on January 20 (February 2), 1918 and ended in April. In conditions of extreme political instability, the council instructed the patriarch to secretly appoint his locum tenens, which he did, appointing Metropolitans Kirill (Smirnov), Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) and Peter (Polyansky) as his possible deputies. The flow of news about devastated churches and reprisals against the clergy prompted the establishment of special liturgical commemorations of new confessors and martyrs who "died their lives for the Orthodox faith." Were accepted parish charter, designed to rally the parishioners around churches, as well as the definitions of diocesan governance (suggesting more active participation of the laity in it), against new laws on civil marriage and its dissolution (the latter should in no way affect church marriage) and other documents.

The third session was held in July - September 1918. Among its acts, a special place is occupied by Definition of monasteries and monastics; it restored the ancient custom of electing an abbot by the brethren of the monastery, emphasized the preference for a cenobitic charter, as well as the importance of having an elder or old woman experienced in the spiritual guidance of the monks in each monastery. Special Definition of Enlisting Women to Actively Participate in Various Fields of Church Ministry allowed parishioners to participate from now on in diocesan meetings and church service (as psalmists). A project has been developed Regulations on the provisional supreme administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, which became a significant step towards the establishment of autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodoxy. One of the last definitions of the council concerned the protection of church shrines from capture and desecration.

Under the conditions of increasing pressure from the authorities (for example, the premises where the cathedral in the Kremlin was held were confiscated even before it ended), the planned program could not be fully implemented. It turned out to be even more difficult to put the conciliar decisions into practice, since in the next two decades, severe persecution nullified any possibility of a normal, legally secured church government. In addition, the revolutionary terror, having strengthened retaliatory conservatism to the limit, eliminated the immediate prospects for a more energetic dialogue between the ROC and society. However, in any case, the council showed that Russian Orthodoxy by no means became a passive victim of unfortunate political circumstances: having fulfilled its main task, the election of a patriarch, it outlined a range of important issues for the future, which to a large extent have not been resolved to this day (therefore, at the time of glasnost and perestroika, the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church paid special attention to the fact that the documents of the cathedral were republished for their careful study).

On March 2, 1917, Emperor Nicholas II abdicated, power passed to the Provisional Government, formed by the Provisional Committee of the State Duma. The new rulers, who successively replaced each other in ministerial posts, failed to create a new statehood and improve life in the country. Devastation began in Russia, the front was approaching the capital, on the outskirts of the country, the separatists, without waiting for the Constituent Assembly, declared autonomies in person, paralyzing the activities of government services and local government institutions. Unauthorized expropriations took place everywhere. Corrupting trends also penetrated the church environment, articles appeared attacking the past of the Russian Church, in which half-truths were mixed with lies, groups were formed that openly proclaimed as their goal not only the renewal of church administration, but also the reform of Orthodox dogma.

Local Council 1917-1918 belongs to an important place in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. It united the efforts of 564 members - bishops, clerics and laity. Among many other Councils of our Church, it stands out in particular for a number of reasons. One of the most important acts of the Council - the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Church - has become firmly established in church life.

Another important point is that the Local Council of 1917-1918. radically transformed the structure of the Russian Orthodox Church. He restored catholicity in the life of the Church and sought to infuse the spirit of catholicity into all links of church administration. The Council's decree prescribed that Councils should be convened regularly. This was very significant, since during the synodal period there were no Councils for more than 200 years. His deeds begin the newest period in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In April 1917, the Synod, headed by Archbishop Sergius of Finland, appealed to the archpastors, clergy and laity to convene a Local Council, and on June 11 established a pre-conciliar council headed by the Exarch of Georgia, Archbishop Platon (Rozhdestvensky). The Pre-Council Council singled out 10 commissions for all branches of church life, and within 2 months all issues to be considered by the Council were prepared.

In early August 1917, general elections were held throughout Russia for members of the Local Council. The opening of the Cathedral was scheduled for August 15 in Moscow. The last act of the Provisional Government in relation to the Church was the approval on August 13 of the elevation of Archbishops Platon, Tikhon and Veniamin to the rank of metropolitan. Then, on the initiative of A. V. Kartashev, the state authorities renounced their rights to manage the Church and its property and transferred their rights to the Cathedral.

On August 15, in a solemn atmosphere, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow, the Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church opened, after more than a two-century break. It was attended by almost all the diocesan bishops, numerous representatives of the clergy and monastics, representatives of clergy and laity, professors of theological academies and those members of the State Duma who worked on church issues. The cathedral really represented the entire Russian Church.

The meetings took place in the diocesan house in Likhovy Lane, where the Divine Liturgy was served daily by members of the Council. From the very beginning, two currents emerged in the environment of the Cathedral. If there were no particular disputes regarding the transformation of church life and, in particular, the revival of the activities of parishes, then in the matter of restoring the patriarchate there was a strong opposition, consisting of academy professors, seminary teachers and most of the clergy. Almost all the hierarchs and most of the clergy and laity stood for the restoration of the ancient system.

On November 25/7, a communist coup took place in Russia, and on the same day a civil war broke out in Moscow. The military units loyal to the Provisional Government, mostly young junkers, locked themselves in the Kremlin and withstood a seven-day siege. On October 28, under the thunder of cannons shelling the Kremlin, the Council decided to stop the debate on the question of the patriarchate (there were still 90 recorded speakers) and go straight to the vote. Against the expectations of many, an overwhelming number of votes were cast for the restoration of the patriarchate. At a difficult moment experienced by the Church and the country, all disputes and disagreements were temporarily forgotten.

On October 31, the Council proceeded to elect three candidates for patriarchs. Archbishop Anthony received the most votes, then Archbishop Arseny (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod. Metropolitan Tikhon received the majority in the third ballot. Among the candidates was one layman, the well-known church and public figure Samarin.

On November 6, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, Saint Tikhon was elected patriarch. A deputation of members of the Council was sent to him, headed by Metropolitan Vladimir. The newly elected patriarch addressed the audience with a word in which he called on everyone to stand for the Orthodox faith.

The second session of the Council opened in Moscow on January 20, 1918. The day before, the patriarch issued a denunciatory message with his signature, in which he anathematized all persecutors of the faith and defilers of the sacred and called on all believers to defend the trampled rights of the Church.

The patriarch wanted to take full responsibility for the epistle, but on January 20 the Council issued an appeal in its own name, in which it joined the call of the patriarch.

The work of the Cathedral went on for three months very successfully. In February, decisions on diocesan administration were adopted, on April 2 - on vicar bishops and on county assemblies, and on April 7 - the parish charter and a reform of theological educational institutions was carried out. Thus, by the end of the second session, a new system of church life, from the patriarch to the parish, was finally developed and put into effect.

The third session of the Council took place in the summer in Moscow, but could not gather all the members of the Council, due to the fact that Russia was divided by the front line, and the southern dioceses remained unrepresented. Among the resolutions of the third session, it is necessary to note the restoration of the feast of All Saints in the Russian land who shone on the second Sunday after Pentecost.

The work of the Council lasted for more than a year. The third session ended on September 7/20, 1918, already under Soviet rule.

In the post-Council years, the burden of responsibility for the future of the Russian Church fell like a heavy burden on the shoulders of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. The Moscow primate fought to the last breath for the unity and freedom of the Church. He suffered severe persecution not only from the side of the godless authorities, but also from the side of the former brothers of the clergy, who formed a schismatic renovationist church. His Holiness the Patriarch endured many sorrows in connection with the provocative campaign to confiscate church valuables.

Saint Tikhon died after illness on the night of March 25-26. Back in December 1924, the patriarch appointed himself three successors in case of death; Metropolitans Kirill, Agafangel and Peter (Polyansky), his closest collaborator.

The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, held in 1917-1918, coincided with the revolutionary process in Russia, with the establishment of a new state system. The Holy Synod and the Pre-Council Council were called to the Council in full force, all the diocesan bishops, as well as two clerics and three laymen from the dioceses, the archpriests of the Assumption Cathedral and the military clergy, the governors of four laurels and the abbots of the Solovetsky and Valaam monasteries, Sarovskaya and Optina hermitage , representatives from monastics, co-religionists, military clergy, soldiers of the active army, from theological academies, the Academy of Sciences, universities, the State Council and the State Duma. Among the 564 members of the Council were 80 bishops, 129 presbyters, 10 deacons, 26 psalmists, 20 monastics (archimandrites, abbots and hieromonks) and 299 laity. Representatives of the same faith Orthodox Churches participated in the Council's activities: Bishop Nikodim (from Romanian) and Archimandrite Michael (from Serbian).

The wide representation at the Council of presbyters and laity was due to the fact that it was the fulfillment of two centuries of aspirations of the Orthodox Russian people, their aspirations for the revival of catholicity. But the Charter of the Council provided for the special responsibility of the episcopate for the fate of the Church. Questions of a dogmatic and canonical nature, after their consideration by the fullness of the Council, were subject to approval at a meeting of bishops.

The Local Council opened in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin on the day of its temple feast - 15 (28) August. The solemn liturgy was officiated by Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv, co-served by Metropolitans Veniamin of Petrograd and Platon of Tiflis.

After singing the Symbol of Faith, the members of the Council bowed to the relics of the Moscow saints and, in the presentation of the Kremlin shrines, went to Red Square, where all Orthodox Moscow had already flocked in processions. A prayer service was performed in the square.

The first meeting of the Council took place on August 16 (29) in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior after the liturgy served here by Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow. All day long greetings to the Cathedral were announced. Business meetings began on the third day of the activities of the Council in the Moscow Diocesan House. Opening the first working session of the Council, Metropolitan Vladimir delivered a parting word to the stratum: “We all wish success to the Council, and there are grounds for this success. Here, at the Council, spiritual piety, Christian virtue and high learning are represented. But there is something that raises concerns. This is a lack of unanimity in us... Therefore, I will recall the Apostolic call for unanimity. The words of the Apostle “be of one mind with yourselves” are of great significance and apply to all peoples, to all times. At present, dissent is affecting us especially strongly, it has become the fundamental principle of life... Dissent is shaking the foundations of family life, schools, under its influence many have departed from the Church... The Orthodox Church prays for unity and calls with one mouth and one heart to confess the Lord . Our Orthodox Church is organized “on the basis of the apostles and prophets, the cornerstone of which is Jesus Christ Himself. It is a rock against which all waves will break.”

The Council approved the holy Metropolitan of Kiev Vladimir as its Honorary Chairman. The Holy Metropolitan Tikhon was elected Chairman of the Council. A Council Council was composed, which included the Chairman of the Council and his deputies, Archbishops of Novgorod Arseny (Stadnitsky) and Kharkov Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Protopresbyters N.A. Lyubimov and G.I. Shavelsky, Prince E.N. Trubetskoy and Chairman of the State Council M .V.Rodzianko, who was replaced by A.D. Samarin in February 1918. V.P. Shein (later Archimandrite Sergius) was approved as the Secretary of the Cathedral. Metropolitan Platon of Tiflis, Archpriest A.P. Rozhdestvensky and Professor P.P. Kudryavtsev were also elected members of the Council Council.

After the election and installation of the Patriarch, His Grace Arseny of Novgorod, elevated to the rank of Metropolitan, presided over most of the council meetings. In the difficult task of directing conciliar acts, which often acquired a turbulent character, he showed both firm authority and wise flexibility.

The cathedral was opened in the days when the Provisional Government was in its death throes, losing control not only over the country, but also over the collapsing army. Soldiers fled in droves from the front, killing officers, causing disorder and looting, instilling fear in civilians, while the Kaiser's troops were rapidly moving deep into Russia. On August 24 (September 6), at the suggestion of the archpriest of the army and navy, the Council appealed to the soldiers to come to their senses and continue to fulfill their military duty. “With pain of soul, with heavy grief,” the appeal said, “the Cathedral looks at the most terrible thing that has recently grown in all people’s life, and especially in the army, which has brought and threatens to bring innumerable troubles to the Fatherland and the Church. The bright image of Christ began to cloud in the heart of a Russian person, the fire of the Orthodox faith began to go out, the desire for a feat in the name of Christ began to weaken ... Impenetrable darkness enveloped the Russian land, and the great mighty Holy Russia began to perish ... Deceived by enemies and traitors, betraying duty and the oath, by the murders of your own brethren, by robberies and violence, you have tarnished your high sacred title of a warrior, we implore you - come to your senses! Look into the depths of your soul, and your ... conscience, the conscience of a Russian person, a Christian, a citizen, will perhaps tell you how far you have gone along a terrible, most criminal path, what gaping, incurable wounds you inflict on your Motherland.

The cathedral formed 22 departments that prepared reports and draft definitions submitted to meetings. The most important departments were the Statutory, Supreme Church administration, diocesan administration, improvement of parishes, and the legal status of the Church in the state. Most of the departments were headed by bishops.

On October 11, 1917, the Chairman of the Department of the Supreme Church Administration, Bishop Mitrofan of Astrakhan, spoke at the plenary session with a report that opened the main event in the actions of the Council - the restoration of the Patriarchate. The Pre-Council Council, in its project for the structure of the Supreme Church Administration, did not provide for the First Hierarchal rank. At the opening of the Council, only a few of its members, mostly monastics, were convinced champions of the restoration of the Patriarchate. However, when the issue of the First Bishop was raised in the department of the Supreme Church Administration,

it met with widespread support. The idea of ​​restoring the Patriarchate with each meeting of the department gained more and more adherents. At the 7th meeting, the department decides not to delay with this important issue and to propose to the Council the restoration of the Holy See.

Substantiating this proposal, Bishop Mitrofan recalled in his report that the Patriarchate became known in Russia from the time of its Baptism, for in the first centuries of its history the Russian Church was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The abolition of the Patriarchate by Peter I was a violation of the holy canons. The Russian Church has lost its head. But the idea of ​​the Patriarchate did not cease to flicker in the minds of the Russian people as a "golden dream." “At all the dangerous moments of Russian life,” said Bishop Mitrofan, “when the helm of the church began to tilt, the thought of the Patriarch was resurrected with special force... would be living popular forces. The 34th Apostolic Canon and the 9th Canon of the Council of Antioch imperatively require that every nation should have a First Bishop.

The question of the restoration of the Patriarchate at the plenary sessions of the Council was discussed with extraordinary poignancy. The voices of the opponents of the Patriarchate, at first assertive and stubborn, sounded dissonant at the end of the discussion, breaking the almost complete unanimity of the Council.

The main argument of the supporters of the preservation of the synodal system was the fear that the establishment of the Patriarchate could fetter the conciliar principle in the life of the Church. Echoing the sophisms of Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich), Prince A.G. Chaadaev spoke of the advantages of a “collegium”, which can combine various gifts and talents, in contrast to individual power. “Catholicity does not coexist with autocracy, autocracy is incompatible with catholicity,” insisted Professor B.V. Titlinov, despite an indisputable historical fact: with the abolition of the Patriarchate, Local Councils also ceased to be convened. Archpriest N.V. Tsvetkov raised an allegedly dogmatic argument against the Patriarchate: it supposedly forms a mediastinum between the believing people and Christ. V. G. Rubtsov spoke out against the Patriarchate because it is illiberal: “We need to equalize with the peoples of Europe ... We will not return despotism, we will not repeat the 17th century, and the 20th century speaks of the fullness of catholicity, so that the people do not cede their rights to some then the head." Here we see the substitution of ecclesiastical canonical logic for a superficial political scheme.

In the speeches of supporters of the restoration of the Patriarchate, in addition to canonical principles, the history of the Church itself was cited as one of the most weighty arguments. In the speech of I.N. Speransky, a deep inner connection was shown between the existence of the First Hierarchal Throne and the spiritual face of pre-Petrine Russia: “While we had a supreme pastor in Holy Russia ... our Orthodox Church was the conscience of the state ... and the Church, in the person of the Patriarch, boldly raised its voice, no matter who the offenders were... In Moscow, there is a reprisal against archers. Patriarch Adrian - the last Russian Patriarch, weak, old ..., takes on the boldness ... "to grieve", to intercede for the condemned."

Many speakers spoke of the abolition of the Patriarchate as a disaster for the Church, but Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) said it wisest of all: “Moscow is called the heart of Russia. But where does the Russian heart beat in Moscow? On the exchange? In the malls? On the Kuznetsky bridge? It beats, of course, in the Kremlin. But where in the Kremlin? At the District Court? Or in the soldiers' barracks? No, in the Assumption Cathedral. There, at the front right pillar, the Russian Orthodox heart should beat. The eagle of Petrovsky, on the Western model of organized autocracy, pecked out this Russian Orthodox heart, the blasphemous hand of the wicked Peter brought the First Hierarch of Russia from his age-old place in the Assumption Cathedral. The Local Council of the Russian Church from God, by the power given to him, will again place the Moscow Patriarch in his rightful inalienable place.

The zealots of the Patriarchate recalled the state devastation experienced by the country under the Provisional Government, the sad state of the people's religious consciousness. According to Archimandrite Matthew, “recent events testify to the distance from God not only of the intelligentsia, but also of the lower strata ... and there is no influential force that would stop this phenomenon, there is no fear, no conscience, there is no first bishop at the head of the Russian people .. Therefore, we must immediately elect a spirit-bearing guardian of our conscience, our spiritual leader, His Holiness the Patriarch, after whom we will go to Christ.”

In the course of the conciliar discussion, the idea of ​​restoring the rank of First Hierarch was covered from all sides and appeared before the members of the Council as an imperative demand of the canons, as the fulfillment of age-old people's aspirations, as a living need of the times.

On October 28 (November 10), the debate was closed. The Local Council, by a majority of votes, passed a historic resolution:

1. “In the Orthodox Russian Church, the highest power - legislative, administrative, judicial and controlling - belongs to the Local Council, periodically, at certain times, convened, consisting of bishops, clergy and laity.

2. The Patriarchate is restored, and the ecclesiastical administration is headed by the Patriarch.

3. The patriarch is the first among the bishops equal to him.

4. The patriarch, together with the organs of church administration, is accountable to the Council.”

Based on historical precedents, the Cathedral Council proposed a procedure for electing a Patriarch: during the first round of voting, the Councilors submit notes with the name of their proposed candidate for Patriarch. If one of the candidates receives an absolute majority of votes, he is considered elected. If none of the candidates receives more than half of the votes, a second ballot is held, in which notes with the names of the three proposed persons are submitted. The person who receives the majority of votes is considered elected as a candidate. Rounds of voting are repeated until three candidates receive a majority of votes. Then the Patriarch will be chosen by lot from among them.

On October 30 (November 12), 1917, a vote was taken. Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov received 101 votes, Archbishop Kirill (Smirnov) of Tambov - 27, Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow - 22, Archbishop Arseniy of Novgorod - 14, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv, Archbishop Anastassy of Chisinau and Protopresbyter G.I. Shavelsky - 13 votes each, Archbishop Sergius of Vladimir (Stragorodsky) - 5, Archbishop Jacob of Kazan, Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) and former Chief Prosecutor of the Synod A.D. Samarin - 3 votes each. A few more persons were proposed to the Patriarchs by one or two councillors.

After four rounds of voting, the Council elected Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov, Archbishop Arseny of Novgorod and Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow as candidates for the First Hierarchal See, as the people said about him, “the smartest, most strict and kindest of the hierarchs of the Russian Church ...” Archbishop Anthony , a brilliantly educated and talented church writer, was a prominent church figure in the last two decades of the synodal era. A longtime champion of the Patriarchate, he was supported by many at the Council as a fearless and experienced church leader.

Another candidate, Archbishop Arseniy, a smart and authoritative hierarch with many years of church-administrative and state experience (formerly a member of the State Council), according to Metropolitan Evlogii, “was horrified at the opportunity to become Patriarch and only prayed to God that “this cup should pass him” . And St. Tikhon relied on the will of God in everything. Not striving for the Patriarchate, he was ready to take on this feat of the Cross if the Lord called him.

The election took place on November 5 (18) in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. At the end of the Divine Liturgy and prayer singing, Hieromartyr Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kyiv, carried the reliquary with lots to the pulpit, blessed the people with it, and removed the seals. From the altar came the blind elder monk of Zosima Hermitage Alexy. After praying, he took lots from the ark and handed it over to the metropolitan. The saint read aloud: "Tikhon, Metropolitan of Moscow - axios."

The jubilant thousand-mouthed "axios" shook the huge crowded temple. There were tears of joy in the eyes of those praying. After the farewell, Protodeacon Rozov of the Assumption Cathedral, famous throughout Russia for his mighty bass, proclaimed many years: “To our Lord, His Eminence, Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow and Kolomna, elected and named Patriarch of the God-saved city of Moscow and All Russia.”

On this day, Saint Tikhon celebrated the Liturgy at the Trinity Compound. The news of his election as Patriarch was brought to him by the embassy of the Council, headed by Metropolitans Vladimir, Benjamin and Platon. After the singing of many years, Metropolitan Tikhon uttered the word: “... Now I have uttered the words according to the order: “I thank and accept, and in no way contrary to the verb.” ... But, arguing according to a person, I can say a lot in spite of my present election. Your message about my election to the Patriarchs is for me the scroll on which it was written: “Weeping, and groaning, and grief,” and such a scroll was supposed to be eaten by the prophet Ezekiel. How many tears and groans will I have to swallow in my forthcoming Patriarchal ministry, and especially in this difficult time! Like the ancient leader of the Jewish people Moses, I will also have to say to the Lord: “Why are You torturing Your servant? And why did I not find mercy in Your sight, that You laid on me the burden of all this people? Have I carried all this people in my womb, and have I given birth to him, that you say to me: carry him in your arms, as a nurse carries a child. I alone I cannot bear all this people, because it is heavy for me” (Num. 11, 11-14). From now on, the care of all Russian churches is entrusted to me and I will have to die for them all the days. And to this who is satisfied, even from strong men! But God's will be done! I find support in the fact that I did not seek this election, and it came apart from me and even apart from people, according to the lot of God.

The enthronement of the Patriarch took place on November 21 (December 3) on the Feast of the Presentation at the Dormition Cathedral of the Kremlin. For the celebration of the feasting from the Armory were taken the baton of St. Peter, the cassock of the Hieromartyr Patriarch Hermogenes, as well as the mantle, miter and klobuk of Patriarch Nikon.

On November 29, at the Council, an extract from the “Determination” of the Holy Synod was read out on the elevation of Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov, Arseny of Novgorod, Yaroslavl Agathan Gel, Sergius of Vladimir and Jacob of Kazan to the rank of Metropolitan.

* * *.

The restoration of the Patriarchate did not complete the transformation of the entire system of church administration. The brief definition of November 4, 1917 was supplemented by other expanded "Definitions": "On the rights and duties of His Holiness the Patriarch ...", "On the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council", "On the range of affairs to be administered by the bodies of the Supreme Church Administration." The Council granted the Patriarch the rights that correspond to canonical norms: to take care of the well-being of the Russian Church and represent it before state authorities, to communicate with autocephalous Churches, to address the All-Russian flock with instructive messages, to take care of the timely replacement of bishops' chairs, to give bishops fraternal advice. The patriarch, according to the "Definitions" of the Council, is the diocesan bishop of the Patriarchal Region, which consists of the Moscow diocese and stavropegial monasteries.

The Local Council formed two bodies of collegiate governance of the Church in the intervals between Councils: the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council. Matters of a hierarchical-pastoral, doctrinal, canonical and liturgical nature were assigned to the competence of the Synod, and matters of church and public order, administrative and educational, school and educational, were assigned to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Church Council. And finally, especially important questions - about protecting the rights of the Church, about preparing for the upcoming Council, about opening new dioceses - were subject to a joint decision of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council.

The Synod included, in addition to its Chairman-Patriarch, 12 members: the Metropolitan of Kyiv in the cathedra, 6 bishops for the election of the Council for three years, and five bishops, called in turn for one year. Of the 15 members of the Supreme Church Council, headed, like the Synod, by the Patriarch, three bishops were delegated by the Synod, and one monk, five clergy from the white clergy and six laity were elected by the Council. Elections of members of the highest bodies of church administration took place at the last meetings of the first session of the Council before its dissolution for the Christmas holidays.

The Local Council elected to the Synod Metropolitan Arseniy of Novgorod, Anthony of Kharkov, Sergius of Vladimir, Plato of Tiflis, Archbishop Anastassy of Kishinev (Gribanovsky) and Volyn Evlogy.

The Council elected Archimandrite Vissarion, Protopresbyters G.I. Shavelsky and I.A. Lyubimov, Archpriests A.V. Sankovsky and A.M. Stanislavsky, psalmist A.G. professors S.N. Bulgakov, N.M. Gromoglasov, P.D. Lapin, as well as the former Minister of Confessions of the Provisional Government A.V. Kartashov and S.M. Raevsky. The Synod delegated Metropolitans Arseny, Agafangel and Archimandrite Anastassy to the Supreme Church Council. The Council also elected deputy members of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council.

On November 13 (26) the Council began to discuss the report on the legal status of the Church in the state. On behalf of the Council, Professor S. N. Bulgakov drew up a Declaration on the Relations of the Church and the State, which preceded the "Definition on the Legal Status of the Church in the State." In it, the demand for the complete separation of the Church from the state is compared with the wish “that the sun does not shine, and the fire does not warm. The Church, according to the inner law of her being, cannot refuse her calling to enlighten, transform the whole life of mankind, to penetrate it with her rays. The idea of ​​the high vocation of the Church in state affairs lay at the basis of the legal consciousness of Byzantium. Ancient Russia inherited from Byzantium the idea of ​​a symphony of Church and State. On this foundation the Kievan and Muscovite states were built. At the same time, the Church did not associate itself with a specific form of government and always proceeded from the fact that power should be Christian. “And now,” the document says, “when, by the will of Providence, the tsarist autocracy is collapsing in Russia, and new state forms are replacing it, the Orthodox Church has no definition of these forms from the side of their political expediency, but she invariably stands on such an understanding of power according to which all authority must be a Christian ministry. Measures of external coercion, violating the religious conscience of the Gentiles, were recognized as incompatible with the dignity of the Church.

A sharp dispute arose around the question of the obligatory Orthodoxy of the Head of State and the Minister of Confessions, which was supposed in the draft "Definitions". A member of the Council, Professor N.D. Kuznetsov, made a reasonable remark: “In Russia, complete freedom of conscience has been proclaimed and it has been declared that the position of every citizen in the state ... does not depend on belonging to one or another religion, and even to religion in general ... Calculate in success in this business is impossible." But this warning was not heeded.

In its final form, the “Determination” of the Council reads: “1. The Orthodox Russian Church, constituting a part of the One Ecumenical Church of Christ, occupies in the Russian state a public-legal position that is superior among other confessions, befitting it as the greatest shrine of the vast majority of the population and as the greatest historical force that created the Russian state.

2. The Orthodox Church in Russia in the teaching of faith and morality, worship, internal church discipline and relations with other autocephalous Churches is independent of state power ...

3. Decrees and instructions issued by the Orthodox Church for itself, as well as acts of church administration and court, are recognized by the state as having legal force and significance, since they do not violate state laws ...

4. State laws relating to the Orthodox Church are issued only by agreement with church authorities...

7. The head of the Russian state, the minister of confessions and the minister of public education and their comrades must be Orthodox...

22. Property belonging to the institutions of the Orthodox Church shall not be subject to confiscation and confiscation...”

Separate articles of the "Definition" were anachronistic in nature, inconsistent with the constitutional foundations of the new state, new state-legal conditions, and could not be implemented. However, this "Definition" contains an indisputable proposition that in matters of faith, its inner life, the Church is independent of state power and is guided by its own dogmatic teaching and canons.

The acts of the Council were also carried out in revolutionary times. On October 25 (November 7), the Provisional Government fell, and Soviet power was established in the country. On October 28, bloody battles broke out in Moscow between the junkers who occupied the Kremlin and the rebels, in whose hands the city was. Above Moscow was the rumble of cannons and the crackle of machine guns. They shot in the yards, from the attics, from the windows, the dead and wounded lay on the streets.

These days, many members of the Cathedral, having assumed the duty of nurses, walked around the city, picking up and bandaging the wounded. Among them were Archbishop Dimitry of Taurida (Prince Abashidze) and Bishop Nestor (Anisimov) of Kamchatka. The Council, seeking to stop the bloodshed, sent a delegation to negotiate with the Military Revolutionary Committee and the commandant's office of the Kremlin. The delegation was headed by Metropolitan Platon. At the headquarters of the Military Revolutionary Committee, Metropolitan Platon asked for an end to the siege of the Kremlin. To this he received the answer: “Too late, too late. We didn't spoil the truce. Tell the junkers to surrender." But the delegation could not get into the Kremlin.

“In these bloody days,” Metropolitan Evlogii later wrote, “a great change took place in the Cathedral. Petty human passions subsided, hostile squabbles ceased, alienation was erased ... The Cathedral, which at first resembled a parliament, began to transform into a genuine "Church Council", into an organic church whole, united by one will - for the good of the Church. The Spirit of God blew over the assembly, comforting everyone, reconciling everyone. The Council appealed to those at war with a call for reconciliation, with a plea for mercy to the vanquished: “In the name of God ... The Council calls on our dear brothers and children who are fighting among themselves now to refrain from further terrible bloody battle ... The Council ... implores the winners not allow no acts of revenge, cruel reprisals and in all cases spare the lives of the vanquished. In the name of saving the Kremlin and the salvation of our sacred things in it, the destruction and desecration of which the Russian people will never forgive anyone, the Holy Council begs not to subject the Kremlin to artillery fire.

The appeal issued by the Council on November 17 (30) contains a call for universal repentance: “Instead of the new social structure promised by the false teachers, there is a bloody strife of builders, instead of peace and the brotherhood of peoples, there is a confusion of languages ​​and bitterness, hatred of brothers. People who have forgotten God, like hungry wolves, rush at each other. There is a general darkening of conscience and reason... Russian cannons, hitting the shrines of the Kremlin, wounded the hearts of the people, burning with the Orthodox faith. Before our very eyes, God's judgment is taking place over a people that has lost its shrine... To our misfortune, there has not yet been born a truly popular government worthy of receiving the blessing of the Orthodox Church. And it will not appear on Russian soil until, with mournful prayer and tearful repentance, we turn to Him, without Whom those who build the city work in vain.

The tone of this epistle could not, of course, have contributed to softening the then tense relations between the Church and the new Soviet state. And yet, on the whole, the Local Council managed to refrain from superficial assessments and speeches of a narrowly political nature, recognizing the relative importance of political phenomena in comparison with religious and moral values.

According to the memoirs of Metropolitan Evlogii, the highest point that the Council spiritually reached was the first appearance of the Patriarch at the Council after the enthronement: “With what reverent awe everyone greeted him! Everyone, not excluding the "leftist" professors... When... the Patriarch entered, everyone knelt down... by the Holy Spirit, ready to fulfill His commands... And some of us that day understood what the words really mean: "Today the grace of the Holy Spirit gathers us..."

The meetings of the Council were suspended for the Christmas holidays on December 9 (22), 1917, and on January 20, 1918, the second session opened, the acts of which continued until April 7 (20). They were held in the building of the Moscow Theological Seminary. The outbreak of civil war made it difficult to move around the country; and on January 20, only 110 members of the Council were able to attend the Council meeting, which did not provide a quorum. Therefore, the Council was forced to adopt a special resolution: to hold meetings with any number of members of the Council present.

The main topic of the second session was the organization of diocesan administration. Its discussion began even before the Christmas holidays with the report of Professor AI Pokrovsky. Serious controversy flared up around the position that the bishop "governs the diocese with the conciliar assistance of clergy and laity." Amendments have been proposed. The aim of some was to sharply emphasize the power of the bishops - the successors of the apostles. Thus, Archbishop Kirill of Tambov proposed to include in the “Definition” the words about the sole administration of the bishop, carried out only with the help of diocesan administrative bodies and the court, and Archbishop Seraphim (Chichagov) of Tver even spoke of the inadmissibility of involving the laity in the management of the diocese. However, such amendments were also proposed that pursued opposite goals: to give clergy and laity broader rights in resolving diocesan affairs.

At the plenary session, an amendment by Professor I.M. Gromoglasov was adopted: to replace the formula "with the conciliar assistance of clergy and laity" with the words "in unity with the clergy and laity." But the episcopal conference, protecting the canonical foundations of the church system, rejected this amendment, restoring in the final version the formula proposed in the report: “The diocesan bishop, by succession of power from the holy apostles, is the Primate of the local Church, governing the diocese with the conciliar assistance of the clergy and laity.”

The Council established a 35-year age limit for candidates for bishops. According to the "Decree on Diocesan Administration", bishops must be elected "from monastic or non-married persons of the white clergy and laity, and for both of them it is obligatory to wear a cassock if they do not accept monastic vows."

According to the "Definition", the body, with the assistance of which the bishop manages the diocese, is the diocesan assembly, elected from clergy and laity for a three-year term. The diocesan assemblies, in turn, form their own permanent executive bodies: the diocesan council and the diocesan court.

On April 2 (15), 1918, the Council issued a "Determination on Vicar Bishops". Its fundamental novelty lay in the fact that it was supposed to allocate parts of the diocese to the jurisdiction of vicar bishops and establish for them their residence in the cities by which they were titled. The publication of this "Definition" was dictated by the urgent need to increase the number of dioceses and was conceived as the first step in this direction.

The most extensive of the resolutions of the Council is the "Determination of the Orthodox parish", otherwise called the "Parish Rule". In the introduction to the "Charter" a brief outline of the history of the parish in the ancient Church and in Russia is given. The parish life should be based on the principle of service: “Under the guidance of successively God-appointed pastors, all parishioners, constituting a single spiritual family in Christ, take an active part in the whole life of the parish, as best they can with their own strength and talent.” The “Charter” gives a definition of a parish: “A parish ... is a community of Orthodox Christians, consisting of clergy and laity, residing in a certain locality and united at the temple, forming part of the diocese and being under the canonical administration of its diocesan bishop, under the guidance of the appointed priest- abbot."

The Cathedral proclaimed the concern for the beautification of its shrine - the temple - a sacred duty of the parish. The "Charter" defines the composition of the nominal parish of the clergy: a priest, a deacon, and a psalmist. Increasing or reducing it to two persons was at the discretion of the diocesan bishop, who, according to the "Charter", ordained and appointed clerics.

The "Charter" provided for the election by parishioners of church elders, who were entrusted with the care of the acquisition, storage and use of church property. To resolve matters related to the maintenance of the temple, the provision of clergy and the election of officials of the parish, it was supposed to convene at least twice a year a parish meeting, the permanent executive body of which was to be the parish council, consisting of clergy, a church warden or his assistant and several lay people. - by choice of the parish assembly. The chairmanship of the parish meeting and the parish council was given to the rector of the church.

The discussion about common faith, a long-standing and complex issue, weighed down by long-standing misunderstandings and mutual suspicions, took on an extremely tense character. In the department of Edinoverie and Old Believers, it was not possible to develop an agreed project. Therefore, two diametrically opposed reports were presented at the plenary session. The stumbling block was the question of the episcopate of the same faith. One speaker, Bishop Seraphim (Aleksandrov) of Chelyabinsk, spoke out against the ordination of bishops of the same faith, seeing in this a contradiction to the canon-based territorial principle of the administrative division of the Church and a threat of separation of fellow believers from the Orthodox Church. Another speaker, Edinoverie Archpriest Simeon Shleev, proposed establishing independent Edinoverie dioceses; after a sharp controversy, the Council came to a compromise decision on the establishment of five Edinoverie vicar chairs subordinate to diocesan bishops.

The second session of the Council performed its deeds when the country was engulfed in civil war. Among the Russian people who laid down their lives in this war were also priests. On January 25 (February 7), 1918, Metropolitan Vladimir was killed by bandits in Kyiv. Having received this sad news, the Council passed a resolution which states:

"one. Establish the offering in churches during divine services of special petitions for those who are now persecuted for the Orthodox faith and the Church, and for confessors and martyrs who have died in failure...

2. Establish throughout Russia an annual prayer commemoration on the day of January 25 or the following Sunday (in the evening) ... confessors and martyrs.

At a closed session on January 25, 1918, the Council issued an emergency resolution that “in case of illness, death, and other sad opportunities for the Patriarch, invite him to elect several guardians of the Patriarchal Throne, who, in order of seniority, will observe the power of the Patriarch and succeed him.” At the second special closed session of the Council, the Patriarch reported that he had carried out this decision. After the death of Patriarch Tikhon, it served as a life-saving means for preserving the canonical succession of the primatial service.

On April 5, 1918, shortly before the dissolution for the Easter holidays, the Council of Archpastors of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted a resolution on the glorification in the face of the holy hierarchs Joseph of Astrakhan and Sophronius of Irkutsk.

* * *

The last, third, session of the Council lasted from June 19 (July 2) to September 7 (20), 1918. It continued work on the compilation of "Definitions" on the activities of the highest bodies of church government. The "Determination on the procedure for electing the Most Holy Patriarch" established a procedure that was basically similar to the one by which the Patriarch was elected at the Council. However, a broader representation at the electoral Council of clergy and laity of the Moscow diocese, for which the Patriarch is the diocesan bishop, was envisaged. In the event of the release of the Patriarchal Throne, the "Determination on the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne" provided for the immediate election of the Locum Tenens from among the members of the Synod by the united presence of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council.

One of the most important resolutions of the third session of the Council is the “Determination on monasteries and monastics”, developed in the relevant department under the chairmanship of Archbishop Seraphim of Tver. It establishes the age limit of the tonsured - not less than 25 years; for the tonsure of a novice at a younger age, the blessing of the diocesan bishop was required. The definition restored the ancient custom of electing abbots and viceroys by the brethren so that the diocesan bishop, if approved, would submit him to the Holy Synod for approval. The Local Council emphasized the advantage of cohabitation over special residence and recommended that all monasteries, if possible, introduce a cenobitic charter. The most important concern of the monastic authorities and brethren should be a strictly statutory divine service "without omissions and without replacing the reading of what is supposed to be sung, and accompanied by a word of edification." The council spoke of the desirability of having an elder or old woman in each monastery for the spiritual nourishment of the inhabitants. All monastic inhabitants were ordered to carry out labor obedience. The spiritual and educational service of the monasteries to the world should be expressed in the statutory divine service, clergy, eldership and preaching.

At the third session, the Council passed two "Determinations" designed to protect the dignity of the holy dignity. Based on the apostolic instructions on the height of sacred service and on the canons, the Council confirmed the inadmissibility of second marriage for widowed and divorced clergy. The second resolution confirmed the impossibility of restoring to the dignity of persons deprived of it by sentences of spiritual courts, correct in essence and in form. The strict observance of these "Definitions" by the Orthodox clergy, who strictly preserve the canonical foundations of the church system, in the 1920s and 1930s saved it from discredit, which was subjected to groups of Renovationists who corrected both the Orthodox law and the holy canons.

On August 13 (26), 1918, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church restored the celebration of the memory of all the saints who shone in the Russian land, timed to coincide with the second week after Pentecost.

At the final meeting on September 7 (20), 1918, the Council decided to convene the next Local Council in the spring of 1921.

Not all departments of the Council performed the conciliar action with the same success. Sitting for more than a year, the Council did not exhaust its program: some departments did not have time to develop and submit agreed reports to the plenary sessions. A number of "Definitions" of the Council could not be implemented due to the socio-political situation that has developed in the country.

In resolving issues of church construction, organizing the entire life of the Russian Church in unprecedented historical conditions on the basis of strict fidelity to the dogmatic and moral teachings of the Savior, the Council stood on the basis of canonical truth.

The political structures of the Russian Empire collapsed, the Provisional Government turned out to be an ephemeral formation, and the Church of Christ, guided by the grace of the Holy Spirit, preserved its God-created system in this critical historical era. At the Council, which became an act of its self-determination in the new historical conditions, the Church was able to cleanse itself of everything superficial, to correct the deformations that it had undergone in the Synodal era, and thereby revealed its otherworldly nature.

The Local Council was an event of epochal significance. By abolishing the canonically flawed and completely obsolete synodal system of church administration and restoring the Patriarchate, he drew a line between two periods of Russian church history. The “Determinations” of the Council served the Russian Church on its difficult path as a firm support and an unmistakable spiritual guideline in solving the extremely complex problems that life presented to it in abundance.

For centuries, church and state power in Russia were so inextricably linked, so firmly, that it seemed that the collapse of the Russian Empire would inevitably entail the collapse of the Russian Church. However, under the onslaught of revolutionary turmoil, the state fell, but the Church survived. This became possible only thanks to the Local Council of the Russian Church, which opened two months before the October Revolution. The Local Council was a real revolution in church life. All decisions taken at its meetings dramatically changed the practice of the Synodal Church. Council resolutions returned the Russian Church to a truly canonical system. None of the problems discussed by the councilors has become outdated to this day.

The reforms of Peter I turned the Church into one of the state institutions under the leadership of a secular official - the chief prosecutor, who was personally appointed by the emperor. The structure imposed by Peter was alien to the Church. The beginning of the 20th century, with its revolutionary moods and drastic changes in all spheres of society's life, posed many acute and painful questions for the Church. And it was simply impossible to resolve them by the old methods. The need to convene a Council that could, in the spirit of tradition, reform church life and give it correct guidelines, was discussed as early as 1906. But the emperor did not give permission for its holding, and even then he repeatedly recognized its convocation as untimely. Only the abdication of Nicholas II and the collapse of the monarchy made it possible to immediately convene the Local Council. It opened in Moscow on August 28, 1917, on the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And its first meetings were held within the walls of the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.

564 people were elected and appointed to work in this church forum. Most of the members of the Council were clergy or laity, which made it possible to represent all sections of the church people. “Lack of unity, disunity, discontent, even mutual distrust… — that was the state of the Council in the beginning,” recalls one of its participants. “But from the very first meetings, everything began to change ... The spirit of faith, the spirit of patience and love began to overcome ... The crowd, touched by the revolution, under the roar of cannons and machine guns near the walls of the cathedral chamber, began to degenerate into a harmonious whole, externally ordered, but internally solidary . People became peaceful, serious co-workers. This rebirth was obvious to every attentive eye, tangible for every Sobor figure ... "

The main issue of the Council was the question of the restoration of the legitimate and canonically correct supreme authority in the Church - the patriarchate. The voices of opponents of this, at first assertive and stubborn, at the end of the discussion sounded dissonant, breaking the almost complete unanimity of the Council. On November 10, 1917, the Council voted for the restoration of the patriarchate. After several rounds of voting, three candidates for the primatial throne were elected: Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov, Archbishop Arseniy of Novgorod, and Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow. About these candidates for patriarchs, the councilors said: “The smartest of them is Archbishop Anthony, the strictest of them is Archbishop Arseniy, and the kindest of them is Metropolitan Tikhon.” It was decided that the choice of the patriarch should be completely entrusted to the will of God, so the final election of the head of the Church was determined by lot.

Here is how one of the members of the Council describes the celebration of the election of the patriarch: “On the appointed day, the huge Cathedral of Christ the Savior was overflowing with people. The entrance was free. At the end of the liturgy, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv took out of the altar and placed on a small table in front of the icon of the Mother of God of Vladimir an ark with the names of candidates for patriarch. Then, from the altar, they led out under the arms of a blind old man - Schieeromonk Alexy, a resident of the Zosima Hermitage. Dressed in black robes, he approached the icon of the Mother of God and began to pray, making prostrations to the ground. There was complete silence in the temple. And at the same time, the general tension was growing. The old man prayed for a long time. After that, he slowly got up from his knees, went to the ark, took out a note with the name and handed it to the metropolitan. He read it and gave it to the protodeacon. And so the protodeacon, with his mighty and at the same time velvety bass, slowly began to proclaim many years. The tension in the temple reached its highest point. Whom will he call?.. “... To the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia…” And after pausing for a breath – “Tikhon!” And the choir burst out for many years! These were moments that deeply shocked everyone who had the good fortune to be present. Even now, after many years, they vividly stand in my memory. In the most cruel time, the most “kind” patriarch was elected. The most difficult trials of those experienced by the Russian Church fell on his lot. The belief that the lot really reflected the will of God helped the patriarch to go through all the hardships that the new government doomed him to.

In addition to the election of the patriarch, the Local Council discussed many important issues, looking for answers to them and making decisions. Each of these influences church life to this day, and some of the questions remain to be answered. The Council was an attempt to rethink from modern positions all aspects of church life - from the highest authority to the management of the parish, from worship to the court. But the most important thing that the Council managed to do was to establish the management of the Church in the new state, headed by His Holiness the Patriarch.

The cathedral worked for more than a year. At the final meeting on September 20, 1918, the Council decided to convene the next Local Council in the spring of 1921. However, this was not destined to come true. Persecution began, which showed the firmness in the faith of Orthodox Christians and their desire to suffer for Christ. “We must acknowledge with gratitude,” writes the historian, “that the reform of the Russian Church in 1917 undoubtedly gave her great help and external reinforcement in her difficult, persecuted situation.” And it is from this Council that the period of the modern history of the Russian Orthodox Church begins.

To the 100th anniversary of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church

M.V. Shkarovsky

THE ALL-RUSSIAN LOCAL COUNCIL OF 1917-1918: ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH IN THE SOVIET PERIOD

Great All-Russian Local Council 1917-1918 was a notable phenomenon in general Christian history, a number of its decisions and the formulation of the questions themselves ahead of the entire Christian world. It had the greatest significance for the Russian Orthodox Church itself. In fact, a program was created for the existence of this Church in a new era, and although many of its principles and provisions could not be put into practice during the Soviet period, they continued to live in the minds of the clergy and laity, determining their actions and way of thinking. In fact, the entire period of the existence of the USSR, the Russian Orthodox Church fought for the preservation and revival of the principle of catholicity, guided, as far as possible in those conditions, by the definitions of the Council of 1917-1918. A huge set of definitions and the experience of the work of the Council, which has not yet been implemented to a large extent, remain relevant today. Only a few years ago, a scientific study of his deeds began in Russia, and it is actively continuing at the present time.

Key words: Russian Orthodox Church, All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918, Soviet period, revolution, reforms.

On September 20, 1918, the Great All-Russian Local Council was forced to stop its 13-month-long work without completing it. However, he undoubtedly became a noticeable phenomenon in general Christian history, a number of his decisions and the very formulation of questions ahead of the entire Christian world. It had the greatest significance for the Russian Orthodox Church itself: in fact, a program was created for its existence in a new era. Many principles and provisions of the program could not be implemented in practice during the Soviet period, but they continued to live latently in the minds of the clergy and laity, determining their actions and way of thinking.

Among the resolutions adopted by the Council, one should note the determinations on the restoration of the Patriarchate; attracting women to active participation in church ministry; church preaching; brotherhoods of learned monks; order of glorification of saints to local veneration, etc. The Council managed to issue the statutes of the new conciliar structure of the entire Church, based on the principles of broad initiative and election - from the Patriarch to self-governing parishes, legitimizing a significant part of the transformations of the "church revolution" of 1917 and showing itself in this in terms of the "direct successor" of the pre-Council discussions of the early twentieth century. Without this renewal of the Russian Church, it would be much more difficult to survive the aggression of an atheistic state. Even the very course of discussions on various topical issues of that time: freedom of conscience, equality of confessions, the old and new calendar, the interpretation and implementation of the decree on the separation of the Church from the state, etc., had a noticeable impact on subsequent church history.

It is important to note that although the Cathedral of 1917-1918 did not recognize the legitimacy of Soviet power, and the Orthodox Church had various connections with the pre-revolutionary

Mikhail Vitalievich Shkarovsky - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Leading Researcher of the Central State Archives of St. Petersburg ( [email protected]).

Russia, she did not begin to conduct a political struggle and did not openly go over to the side of any of the opposing forces. The efforts of the Patriarchate were aimed at ending party and social strife and the fratricidal war that was flaring up. On November 2, 1917, during the fighting in Moscow, the Local Council appealed to both fighting sides with an appeal to stop the bloodshed, to prevent reprisals against the vanquished. On November 11, he decided to bury all the dead, as well as an appeal to the winners in the civil war, urging them not to defile themselves by shedding fraternal blood. The Orthodox Church basically adhered to this line in the future as well.

The process of genuine renewal of the Russian Orthodox Church that had begun was forcibly interrupted. As the historian D. Pospelovsky rightly wrote, had the Council lasted in 1919, the Church would have entered the turbulent 20th century as a “living dynamic organism”2, thus moving further along the path of reforms. The October Revolution, stopping the process of the revival of the Church, gradually eliminating the democratic transformations of its life and discrediting the very idea of ​​reformism by introducing in the 1920s. Renovationism, in fact, became a kind of religious "counter-revolution". In addition, the main ideologist of the reforms was the liberal church intelligentsia, which did not accept October and, on the whole, occupied more and more conservative positions. The pronounced anti-religious orientation of the activities of the Soviet government, the heaviest blows against the Church, inflicted already during the first year after the October Revolution and seriously shaking many of its foundations, also became one of the most important reasons for the failure of the peacemaking function of the Patriarchate. Anti-church actions had a strong impact on the consciousness of all the main social strata of Russia and were a significant factor in the intensification of the civil war. But the reformist impulse of the Council still persisted throughout the 20th century, and it was this impulse that in many ways allowed the Church to withstand the most severe persecution.

In different periods of Soviet history, various decisions of the Council came to the fore. During the years of the Civil War, his work to revitalize the church activities of the laity and, above all, the revival of parishes, was of particular importance. Adopted on April 20, 1918, the Parish Charter, having approved the unity of the Church under the authority of the hierarchy, at the same time consolidated the autonomy and independence of the parish, and provided for the creation of unions of parishes. As is well known, Soviet legislation reduced the Church to the so-called. "fifties", and then "twenties" - associations of believing citizens (parishioners) in the amount of at least 20 people, to whom all church property and temple buildings were transferred under the contract for use. The brunt of the struggle fell on the shoulders of these communities during the period of 1918-1920, which was extremely difficult for the Church. At this time, the expansion of the civil war was accompanied by a new tightening of the anti-religious policy of the Communist Party. The calculation was based on the complete and short withering away of the Church and religion, which were defined only as prejudices. It was believed that they could be quickly overcome by a "targeted system of education" and "revolutionary influence", including violent ones. Later, in Soviet atheistic literature, this period of struggle with the Church was called "storm and onslaught"3.

However, this “onslaught” failed, and the main reason for it was the revival of the parish, preaching and missionary activities of the Church. On January 27, 1918, the Council approved the appeal "To the Orthodox People", calling on the faithful to unite under church banners to protect the shrines. Crowded religious processions were held in various cities of the country, some of them were shot, services were held in public places in support of the Patriarchate, collective petitions were sent to the government, etc.

1 Regelson L. The tragedy of the Russian Church. 1917-1945. Paris, YMCA-press, 1977, p. 217.

2 Pospelovsky D. Russian Orthodox Church in the XX century. M. : Respublika, 1995. S. 45.

3 of the CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. T. 2. M., 1983. S. 114.

A massive religious upsurge began in Russia. In 1918, the Orthodox Church, persecuted and not dominant as before, received thousands of converts, including prominent members of the intelligentsia. The calamities of the civil war also contributed to the spread of religiosity. In Petrograd, and then throughout the country, mass organizations were created - unions, brotherhoods, committees of the laity, etc. There was an "All-Russian Union of United Parishes of the Orthodox Church"4.

In Moscow in March 1918, a Council of United Parishes was created, organized and headed by A. D. Samarin and N. D. Kuznetsov, whose task was to protect churches and monasteries that were threatened with closure. The Council published the "Ezhedelnik", where it published its resolutions, formed a guard group for the Patriarch at the Trinity Compound, when the Primate was threatened with reprisals. In the northern capital, the Brotherhood of the Parish Councils of Petrograd and the diocese, later transformed into the Society of Orthodox Parishes of Petrograd, played a particularly prominent role, and in total, more than 20 brotherhoods arose in the city on the Neva during the civil war, mainly created by the most active parish communities. They held two conferences, at one of which an exemplary fraternal charter was adopted, a council of the fraternal union was elected, which lasted until the spring of 1922.5

In contrast to pre-revolutionary times, now the main goal of the fraternities was the spiritual education of Christians who were able to preserve their lives by faith in conditions of persecution. A special role was played by the Alexander Nevsky Brotherhood, created in Petrograd in January 1918, which helped to save the Alexander Nevsky Lavra from liquidation at that time. Being under the “sword of Damocles” of repression throughout the years of its existence, the brotherhood showed amazing activity and a variety of activities. The history of the brotherhood testifies that it was one of the most optimal forms of uniting believers in conditions of godless persecution. The Alexander-dro-Nevsky brotherhood was a living dynamic organism - the specific types and forms of its work and inner life changed repeatedly, taking into account changes in socio-political and social conditions. In a certain sense, the Alexander Nevsky Brotherhood was the core of the life of the diocese, for fourteen years playing a prominent role in all the most important events of this life, in particular, actively fighting the Renovationist schism and opposing the Josephite division.

An important activity of the brotherhood was the creation of semi-legal monastic communities in the world, as well as the monastic vows of young people (including secret ones) in order to preserve the institution of monasticism in the face of the massive closure of previously existing monasteries. The fraternal fathers have always considered one of their main tasks to be the training of young educated clergymen, which, under conditions of limitation and then complete elimination of spiritual education, would make it possible to retain the cadres of the clergy, capable of carrying out the revival of the Church in the future. The activities of the brotherhood greatly helped to rally believers of all ages and classes in the face of fierce anti-church persecution. By 1932, the influx of educated young people continued - students, graduate students, students of technical schools, etc. The number of brothers rarely exceeded 100 people, but they were a group of believers outstanding in their spiritual qualities.

All the leaders of the brotherhood, except for the future Metropolitan of Leningrad Guriy (Egorov), died in 1936-1938, and the first generation of young monks who took tonsure before 1932 was almost completely destroyed. But mostly those brothers survived who were still teenagers at the time of the defeat . It is from this

4 Church records. 1918. No. 3-4. pp. 20-22; Petrograd Church Diocesan Bulletin. 1918. February 27, May 4; Central State Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 143. Op. 3. D. 5. L. 48-53, 72-73.

5 State Archive of the Russian Federation. F. 353. Op. 2. D. 713. L. 170-176; Archive of the Office of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, d. P-88399.

Four future prominent bishops came out of the layer - Metropolitans John (Wendland), Leonid (Polyakov), Archbishops Nikon (Fomichev), Mikhei (Kharkhorov), as well as other clergymen. The seeds sown by the fraternal fathers gave their fertile shoots. If not for the terrible repressions of the 1930s, there would have been much more such “shoots”6.

During the entire period of the civil war, the bodies of the Supreme Church Administration created by the Council were functioning - the Holy Synod, consisting of bishops, chaired by the Patriarch, and the Supreme Church Council (SEC), which included, in addition to the Patriarch and three members of the Synod, representatives of the parish clergy, monastics and laity. The decision of September 20, 1918 gave the Patriarch the authority to convene the next Council in the spring of 1921. It was also envisaged that the elected members of the Synod and the All-Russian Central Council would retain their powers until the election of a new composition of these bodies by the next Council. Thus, the norm was laid down for the regular holding of Local Councils at least once every three years. Since that time, for many decades, the principle of catholicity has been established in the church consciousness, the idea that the Sobor of bishops, clergy and laity has the supreme power in the Russian Orthodox Church, and the bodies of the Supreme Church administration are subordinate and accountable to it.

During the entire period of his reign, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon understood himself as a Patriarch acting on the instructions of the Council, and with all means available to him fought for the catholicity of the Church, repeatedly making attempts to convene a new Local Council. The activities of the Holy Synod and the All-Russian Central Council continued until April 1922, even the repeated arrests of the Patriarch did not lead to the cancellation of their meetings. One can fully agree with the conclusion made on the basis of rich archival material by the historian A. N. Kashevarov that “despite the obstacles and provocations from the Cheka, the Higher Church Administration continued to function normally on the whole”7. scheduled for 1921. Due to the opposition of the authorities, it was not possible to convene the council, and formally, due to the expiration of the three-year inter-council term of office of those elected in 1917-1918. members of the Synod and the All-Russian Central Council ceased, but in fact they were continued for an indefinitely long period until the future Council, until the Renovationist schism that occurred in May 1922 interrupted them.

Despite energetic protests against the decree "On the separation of church and state" and calls to believers to protect the Orthodox faith and the Church, it was the Council of 1917-1918 that laid the foundation for the tradition of finding compromises with the new Soviet government, which was already developed during the years of the civil war in the activities of Patriarch Tikhon. After the Soviet government moved from Petrograd to Moscow in the spring of 1918, the church leadership tried to enter into direct contact with it. On March 27, a conciliar delegation came to the Council of People's Commissars, expressing their disagreement with the January decree. During the negotiations, she was given to understand that the government does not insist on interpreting this law for the worse, and it can be supplemented by a new, more liberal decree. In the second statement of the church side, only the most unacceptable points were already noted, such as the nationalization of all church property. There was a basis for compromise. VD Bonch-Bruyevich, the head of the affairs of the Council of People's Commissars, promised to involve the clergy in further work on the law on cults, but this was never fulfilled. Gradually, the negotiations stalled, without leading to real results8.

And yet, the way was open to dialogue and agreements that would make church life possible in Soviet society. In the tradition of the conciliar majority, His Holiness

6 For more details, see: Shkarovsky M.V. Alexander Nevsky Brotherhood 1918-1932. SPb., 2003. 269 p.

7 Kashevarov A. N. Church and power: Russian Orthodox Church in the first years of Soviet power. SPb., 1999. S. 103.

8 Russian State Historical Archive. F. 833, op. 1, d. 56, l. 23-25.

On October 8, 1919, Patriarch Tikhon sent a message in which he called on the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church to refrain from any political speeches. This message appeared during the initial successful offensive of the White Guard troops of General A. Denikin on Moscow, and there could be no talk of any "adaptability" in those circumstances. The primate saw the inevitability of Bolshevism and saw salvation from it in spirituality, and not in a bloody war. Indeed, they became available in the 1990s. The documents of the Synod and the office of Patriarch Tikhon testify that initially the strength of the positions of the Soviet government did not at all seem unconditional. For example, at the beginning of March 1918, attempts were made to preserve the Petrograd Synodal Office, since the occupation of the capital by the Germans seemed “undoubted” to the Supreme Church Administration. But already on December 6, 1918, the Patriarch wrote to the Council of People's Commissars that he had not taken any action against the Soviet government and was not going to take it, and although he did not sympathize with many government measures, "it is not our business to judge the earthly authorities." These materials indicate that this evolution began earlier and was more consistent than previously thought9. The leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate continued the same line in its main features in a later period.

A significant role in the preservation of some of the monasteries until the early 1930s. played the changes that occurred in the life of the monasteries in 1917-1918. (including the definition of the Council "On Monasteries and Monastics" of September 13, 1918), - the introduction of an elective principle into monastic life, its revival, the transformation of a number of monasteries into moral and religious centers, the development of learned monasticism, eldership, etc. In 1918, some monasteries were transformed into agricultural artels and communes, and in this form they existed until the start of "complete collectivization."

Already in the years of the Civil War, the consideration by the Council of issues related to the fate of individual national parts of the Russian Orthodox Church and problems of relations with other Christian denominations was of certain importance. Thus, on May 29, 1918, the Council granted the autonomous status of the Ukrainian Church, while maintaining its jurisdictional connection with the Russian Mother Church, which was of significant relevance not only then, but also in our time. The cathedral departments also prepared reports on the Georgian autocephaly and the structure of the Orthodox Church in Finland, these issues were resolved already in the 1940s and 50s, but in many respects in the spirit of the conciliar decisions being prepared. On August 3, 1918, at the end of the third session of the Council, a department for the unification of churches was created, which, first of all, worked in line with expanding contacts with the Anglican and Old Catholic Churches. But at that time, representatives of all the main Christian denominations often jointly opposed the anti-religious actions of the Soviet authorities (an attempt by Orthodox, Catholics and Lutherans to hold a religious procession in defense of the teaching of the Law of God in the summer of 1918 in Petrograd, petitions for the repressed clergy of other denominations, a joint position in negotiations with authorities, etc.). Opening by the Cathedral 1917-1918 ecumenical measurements was of particular importance for the much later period of the second half of the twentieth century.

During the years of the civil war, the number of bishops of the Russian Church, as a result of repressions, emigration and natural death, was significantly reduced. And here the decision of the Council of April 15, 1918 “On Vicar Bishops” played an important role, according to which their powers were expanded and the number of vicariates increased. Despite significant obstacles, this decision was implemented. If in 1918 there were 4 episcopal consecrations, then in 1919 - 14, 1920 - 30, 1921 - 39, etc. Thus, the number of bishops increased several times and amounted to in the 1920s gg. more than 200. In conditions of persecution, when the ruling bishops were subjected to

9 Russian State Historical Archive. F.796. Op.445. D.246. L.4-19; F.831. Op. 1. D. 293. L. 5.

arrests, the management of the dioceses was taken over by the vicars who were temporarily at large. Moreover, until 1927, the exiled bishops could occupy the cathedra in the cities from which they were removed, thus maintaining a prayer-canonical connection with the diocese. The plurality of the episcopate became one of the reasons that allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to maintain apostolic succession, despite the most severe repressions.

By the beginning of the 1920s. it became clear that the Soviet authorities would not allow a normal flow of church life based on the principles of catholicity. Moreover, they tried to destroy the ideas created at the 1917-1918 Council. structures of the Higher Church Administration, having arrested the Patriarch, in fact liquidating the Synod and the All-Russian Central Council, and organizing the so-called. renovation split. Having formed their Higher Church Administration at the end of May 1922, the Renovationists attempted to master the tradition of catholicity, already established in the church consciousness. Initially, they publicly announced that the Local Council would be convened in the very near future. But it took place almost a year after the "May coup", and largely due to the position of the official authorities, who were not interested in stabilizing the situation in the Church, but in further deepening the schism. Thus, on May 26, 1922, the Politburo accepted Trotsky's proposal to take a wait-and-see attitude towards the three existing directions in the new church leadership: 1) the preservation of the Patriarchate and the election of a loyal Patriarch; 2) the destruction of the Patriarchate and the creation of a collegium (a loyal Synod); 3) complete decentralization, the absence of any central government (the Church as an "ideal" set of communities of believers). The stake was placed on intensifying the struggle between different orientations and delaying the convening of the Council for this purpose. Trotsky considered the most advantageous combination “when part of the church retains a loyal patriarch who is not recognized by the other part, organized under the banner of a synod or complete autonomy of communities”10. The influence of the supporters of Patriarch Tikhon was obviously erroneously underestimated. It was believed that their "remnants" could easily be dealt with through repression.

The peak of the history of renovationism was their "Second Local Council". It opened in Moscow on April 29, 1923. The hopes of a significant part of the clergy and believers that the Cathedral would reconcile, smooth out contradictions, and indicate the future path, did not come true. On May 3, it adopted a resolution, which was received with indignation by the overwhelming majority of believers, on depriving Patriarch Tikhon of his rank and monasticism and destroying the Patriarchate in Russia. On May 8, the delegation of the Council was allowed to see Vladyka, who was under house arrest, and handed over the verdict, but he only replied that he did not agree either in form or in substance. The council legalized the equivalence of married and celibate episcopate, and after some hesitation and second marriage of clergy, a new Gregorian calendar was introduced. The "cult of relics", the idea of ​​"personal salvation" was preserved. Monasteries were closed and turned into labor communes and church parishes. As a result, the reforms carried out by the Council turned out to be relatively small. As can be seen from archival documents, a significant part of the delegates collaborated with the GPU, and through them this department carried out the decisions it desired. And it was not interested in any serious transformations of the Church. Thus, renovationism, in essence, was a church-political movement.

As Professor G. Schultz rightly noted, declaring the 1923 Council the Second Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, that is, continuing the traditions of the 1917-1918 Council, was unjustified insolence. The general church community, the laity, and the parishes as a whole essentially played no role at the Council of 1923. Most of the parishes rejected the Renovationists. In 1925, the latter even turned to the Soviet government with a request to change the parish charter, since “it makes it possible for the kulak elements of the council to keep the priest in bondage because of

10 Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. F. 3. Op. 60. D. 63. L. 71-72. To the 100th anniversary of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church

economic need under the pressure of the council, leaving for the Tikhonovshchina”11. It was also proposed to put under the control of the Diocesan Administration the election of the clergy. Thus, the renovationist white clergy wanted to oust not only monasticism with the episcopate, but also the laity from church administration.

After the release of Patriarch Tikhon on June 27, 1923, the influence of the Renovationists fell sharply, although they were able to carry out the so-called. III Local Council in 1925 Returning to the management of the Church, the Patriarch immediately tried to continue the tradition of conciliar leadership, declaring by his decree, in accordance with the definition of the Supreme Church Administration, the creation of a new Synod and the All-Russian Central Council before the convening of the future Local Council. Due to the opposition of the authorities, this attempt was not successful, and by the resolution of the Primate of July 9, 1924, the activities of the Supreme Church Administration were terminated. But the Patriarch did not stop his efforts in search of opportunities to convene a Council and form an ecclesiastical government recognized by civil authorities. On February 28, 1925, he officially applied to the NKVD with a petition for the registration of the Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod of 7 hierarchs before the convening of the Local Council. In the same light, perhaps, one should also consider the message of the Patriarch to the Church, signed on the day of his death on April 7 and, when published in the newspapers, was unduly called "Testament". It stated: "... without allowing any compromises or concessions in the field of faith, in civil terms we must be sincere in relation to Soviet power and the work of the USSR for the common good, conforming the schedule of external church life and activity with the new state system." In this so-called. "Testament" The Patriarch was still talking about the "judgment of the Orthodox Council." The death of the Primate on April 7, 1925 was a great and irreparable loss for the Russian Church. On April 12, he was solemnly buried in the Donskoy Monastery. On the same day, 59 hierarchs who arrived at Tikhon's funeral, having familiarized themselves with the testament of the Patriarch on the Locum Tenens, signed a conclusion on the assumption of this position by Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky)12.

In fact, it was a Bishops' meeting. It should be noted the importance of the decision of the Council at a closed session on January 24, 1918, when, in view of the development of political events dangerous for the Church, the Patriarch was asked to elect several candidates for the Custodians of the Patriarchal Throne, who would take over his powers in the event that the collegiate procedure for electing the Locum Tenens proves to be impracticable. This decree served as a saving means for preserving the canonical succession of the primatial service. Already in 1918, the Patriarch appointed candidates for the Locum Tenens and reported to the Council on his appointment without announcing their names at the plenary session. As is now known, among these names was the future Metropolitan Peter, who at that time did not have a bishopric at all, which saved him from the corresponding suspicions on the part of the Soviet authorities. But although Vladyka Peter was appointed Patriarch Tikhon, the signatures of almost all Russian bishops who were at that time at liberty under the act on his assumption of the office of Locum Tenens gave the appointment the character of an election.

The Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter, and then his Deputy, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) tried to obtain permission from the authorities to convene a new Council and elect a Patriarch. The entire period of the second half of the 1920s - early 1940s. represents the time of the struggle of the Russian Church for catholicity and the revival of the Patriarchate. In this regard, we can recall an unsuccessful attempt to carry out, in secret from the authorities, the absentee election of the Patriarch in 1926 through the collection of signatures of the bishops. Vladyka Sergius, who headed the Church after the arrest of Metropolitan Peter, having made a number of significant concessions to the authorities, in the spring of 1927 received preliminary consent to the possible convocation of the Council.

11 Bulletin of the Holy Synod. 1925. No. 2.

On May 18, 1927, the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens convened a meeting of bishops in Moscow, at which he spoke with a project to organize a Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod (VPSS) of 8 members. On May 20, the NKVD reported Met. Sergius that "there are no obstacles to the activities of this body until its approval" (the Synod was approved in August). On May 25, an official meeting of the VPSS was held, on the same day a resolution was sent to the dioceses, in which the ruling bishops were asked to organize temporary (until the election of permanent ones) diocesan councils and register them with local authorities. Under vicar bishops, it was prescribed to establish deanery councils. This was the beginning of work on the creation on “legal grounds” of the entire church-administrative structure of the Patriarchate13. However, the authorities at that time did not allow the holding of the Council and the election of the Patriarch. Moreover, from the turn of 1928-1929. a long period of extremely militant, intolerant attitude towards the Church began.

Not all representatives of the clergy and laity approved the course of Metr. Sergius. In 1927-1928. a rather significant current of the so-called. "not remembering" (during worship) the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens. But, like the supporters of Met. Sergius, "not remembering" their hopes largely pinned on the future Council, which would resolve all differences. They also appealed to the authority of the Local Council of 1917-1918. Thus, one of the main demands of all the "unremembering" was the upholding of the conciliar resolution of August 15, 1918 on the freedom of political activity of members of the Church.

Almost all of the 1930s persecution of the Church was on the rise, reaching its peak in 1937-1938, when 165,000 people were repressed for church affairs, of which 107,000 were shot14. Almost the entire episcopate was destroyed; on May 18, 1935, Met. Sergius, at the request of the authorities, dissolved the Provisional Patriarchal Synod. The church organization was almost completely destroyed, but many believers remained, which was clearly shown by the results of the 1937 census, when 56.7% of the population (more than 55 million people) declared their faith in God. In the fact that the Church endured during this period, such fruits of the work of the Council of 1917-1918 as the revival of parish life and the increase in the role of women in it were of particular importance. Regardless of the mortal danger, parishioners everywhere resisted the closure of churches. And the vast majority in parish councils in the 1930s. were women. They have shown amazing courage and perseverance in their selfless service to the Church. It was women who went into exile to accompany and save their shepherds from death, gave shelter to the persecuted and provided underground life and church service. Many ascetics appeared who were not tonsured monastics, but lived in a monastic way, hundreds of so-called. "monasteries in the world". All this allowed the Church not only to endure, but also to be reborn, as soon as external circumstances changed.

If on the territory of the USSR in the 1920-30s. Since it turned out to be impossible to hold the Council, the conciliar tradition received a certain continuation abroad among the Russian church emigration. November 21, 1921 On the territory of Yugoslavia in Srem-sky Karlovtsy, the first meeting of the All-Church Assembly Abroad was held, which soon renamed itself the Russian All-Diaspora Church Council. It included almost all Russian bishops who found themselves abroad and members of the Local Council of 1917-1918, as well as delegates from parishes, the evacuated army and monastics. The Karlovac Cathedral formed the Supreme Church Administration (as part of the Synod of Bishops and the Supreme Church Council). However, in addition to church activities, he also engaged in purely political activities, appealing to the children of the Russian Church with an appeal to restore the monarchy in Russia. This was one of the reasons for the decision of the bodies of the Supreme Church Administration

13 Regelson L. The tragedy of the Russian Church ... S. 414-417.

14 Yakovlev A.N. According to the relics and oil. M., 1995. S. 94-95.

under the chairmanship of Patriarch Tikhon on May 5, 1922, on the recognition of the Karlovac Cathedral as having no canonical significance.

In the future, Bishops' Councils were repeatedly held in emigration, and in August 1938, the so-called "Sobor" was held in Sremski Karlovtsy. II Russian All-Diaspora Council with the participation of bishops, clergy and laity, at which, however, not all church emigration was represented. After the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War, members of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in the autumn of 1941 - in the spring of 1942. made several projects for the organization of the highest church authority in Russia. The central thought of these projects was the need to convene in Moscow “a Council of Russian bishops, the oldest of them, and the appointment by this Council of a temporary head of the Church and the rest of the church administration”, “which would subsequently convene an All-Russian Council to restore the Patriarchate and judge the further structure of the Russian Church”15.

Even after the terrible repressions and purges of the 1930s. the central role and program of the Council in 1917-1918. was not forgotten in Russia either. He continued to be for believers a kind of "church beacon", a kind of ideal to which one should strive. The first conference of bishops after a long break was held in March 1942 in Ulyanovsk (at which the creation of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church was condemned). And on September 8, 1943, after a well-known meeting in the Kremlin of I. Stalin with three metropolitans, a Council of Bishops was held in Moscow, at which 19 hierarchs unanimously elected Metropolitan Sergius as Patriarch, and also decided to restore the synodal administration. Under the conditions of those years, it was impossible to return to the decisions of the Council of 1917-1918. A new Synod of 3 permanent and 3 temporary members was formed under the Patriarch. The former, more independent status of the Synod during the years of persecution was lost, moreover, the experience of the 1920s and 30s. showed the special responsibility of the primatial ministry at a time of aggression, militant atheism, schisms and divisions.

After the death of Patriarch Sergius (May 15, 1944), on November 21-23, a Council of Bishops was held in Moscow, at which a draft regulation on governance in the Church was discussed and the procedure for electing a Patriarch was determined. When discussing the last issue, Archbishop Luka (Voyno-Yasenetsky) recalled the decision of the Local Council of 1917-1918. that the Patriarch should be elected by secret ballot and by lot from several candidates. This proposal did not meet with support, the only candidate was put forward - Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod Alexy (Simansky). On January 31, 1945, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church began its work in Moscow. There has not been such a plenipotentiary meeting of its clergy and laity since 1918. Orthodox Patriarchs and their representatives from Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, the countries of the Middle East, Georgia, and foreign Russian hierarchs were also invited to the Council for the first time. A significant difficulty in those conditions was the accommodation and provision of everything necessary for 204 participants. In general, the cathedral became the only one, excluding military, government meetings, a meeting of this magnitude during the war years.

This Council, like the Council of 1943, did not have the opportunity to restore the traditions established in 1917-1918. A different situation forced not to restore the former, but to create a new church structure. At the Council, the “Regulations on the Governance of the Russian Orthodox Church” were adopted, which did not contain instructions on the need to convene new Councils at certain dates. Local Councils were supposed to meet only when there was a need to listen to the voice of the clergy and laity and there was an “external opportunity”, while still the Local Council had the highest authority in the field of dogma, church administration and church court. The rights of the Patriarch, in comparison with those previously available, according to

15 Synodal Archive of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in New York. D. 15/41. L. 7. 10-12, 27-30.

decisions of the Council of 1917-1918, increased. The sole power of the bishop was also strengthened, the election of which remained the prerogative of the Holy Synod, chaired by the Patriarch, and the confirmation of the bishop already belonged entirely to the patriarch. The bishop could establish the Diocesan Council, this collegiate body was created only in accordance with his will. There was no talk of deanery meetings and councils in 1945, as well as the election of deans. The restoration of the Parish Charter did not happen either: according to the "Regulations", the rector of the parish did not depend on the bodies of the parish administration, having direct subordination to the diocesan bishop. Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) was unanimously elected patriarch and enthroned on February 4, 1945.

Thus, it is impossible to speak about the revival of the idea of ​​catholicity in 1945. Until 1971, no new Local Councils were convened, and there were no Bishops' Councils for more than 15 years. Although individual attempts were made to hold conferences of bishops during their meetings on the occasion of various church holidays, they also tried to create something reminiscent of a conciliar process by means of a written questioning of the bishops. Finally, after a long break, in July 1961, the Council of Bishops was held at the initiative of the Soviet leadership during the so-called. "Khrushchev's persecution" of the Church. In those conditions, the Patriarch even had to agree to change the "Regulations on the management of the Russian Orthodox Church." The essence of the “church reform” imposed on the leadership of the Patriarchate was the removal of clergy from the leadership of parishes. The role of the head of the community passed from the rector to the executive body - the parish council, to which all financial and economic activities were transferred.

The "reform" in many ways destroyed the traditional administration of the Church, its organization was legally dismembered. The clergy were separated from parish life and had to be hired by the community under an agreement to "fulfill religious needs." The clergy were not allowed to attend the assembly that elected the church council, where the authorities, who had the legal right to reject its members, gradually introduced their people. In fact, the leaders of the parish life were the elders, who were appointed by the district executive committees from people who were often completely non-church and sometimes even unbelievers, morally very dubious. Without their consent, a priest or bishop could not hire or fire even a cleaner in the temple. The legal status of the hierarchs and the Patriarch was not stipulated in any way at all, in legal terms they seemed to not exist, and they had no legal form of connection with parish life.

On April 18, 1961, the Holy Synod adopted a resolution "On measures to improve the existing system of parish life" imposed by the Council. It was to be approved by the Bishops' Council scheduled for July 18. The authorities were worried that he would not "get out of control" and would not reject the ongoing "reform". Three bishops who spoke negatively about the decision of the Synod were not invited to the Council, and Archbishop Hermogen (Golubev), who appeared without an invitation, was not allowed to the meeting. The Council approved changes to the “Regulations on the Governance of the Russian Orthodox Church”, and also increased the number of permanent members of the Synod, decided to join the World Council of Churches and approved participation in the World All-Christian Congress in Defense of Peace16.

The new cruel anti-religious persecutions that began in 1958 caused the emergence of a movement of church dissidents, which at the first stage (until 1970) was largely under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. One of the sources of this movement was the remnants of Orthodox brotherhoods that arose in the 1917-1920s, some youth religious seminars became the successors of their activities. Part of the church dissidents continued the tradition

16 Odintsov M. I. Letters and Dialogues of the “Khrushchev Thaw” (Ten Years in the Life of Patriarch Alexy. 1955-1964) // Domestic Archives. 1994. No. 5. S. 65-73.

peculiarly understood idea of ​​catholicity. So, existing in 1964-1967. The largest underground organization in the USSR, the All-Russian Social-Christian Union for the Liberation of the People, set itself the goal of building a social-Christian system in the country with the supreme authority - the All-Russian Supreme Council, in which at least a third of the seats would belong to the clergy17.

In the summer of 1965, a group of hierarchs submitted an application to Patriarch Alexy I with a proposal to amend the wording of the “Regulations on the Russian Orthodox Church” adopted by the Council of Bishops in 1961. This project proposed introducing rectors into parish assemblies and parish councils as chairmen. The document, drawn up by Archbishop Hermogen (Golubev), was signed by seven more bishops, but it was not successful. Dissatisfaction with the decision of the Council of 1961 was also expressed in the well-known open letters of 1965 by the priests of the Moscow diocese, Gleb Yakunin and Nikolai Ashliman.

A real surge of religious dissent was caused by the Local Council, which took place on May 30 - June 20, 1971. It was considered by many in line with the conciliar tradition that originated in 1917 as the highest governing body of the Church, capable of correcting all the most significant shortcomings in church life. Several open letters were sent to him. One of them - "Appeal to the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the theological activity of His Eminence Nikodim, Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod and other persons of like mind to him" - contained sharp criticism of this activity. Its authors, Priest Nikolai Gainov, laymen F. Karelin, L. Regelson, V. Kapitanchuk, tried to start a discussion on theological issues within the Church. Priest Georgy Petukhov, Hierodeacon Varso-nofiy (Khaibulin) and layman L. Fomin addressed the Council with another document, calling for the state to open churches and monasteries, teach the Law of God in schools, etc. Irkutsk priest Yevgeny Kasatkin also sent a message, describing the detrimental effects of the 1961 reform on parish life. A similar demand was expressed by at least 5 bishops. The most famous application was filed by Archbishop Veniamin (Novitsky) of Irkutsk.

At the hierarchal meeting held on the eve of the opening of the Council on May 26, 1971, Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein) of Belgium also spoke out against the "reform of 1961", but was not supported by the majority of the hierarchs. At the Local Council of 1971, the decision desired by the Soviet authorities was again imposed on the Church, the decision of the Council of Bishops of 1961 was approved. In addition, the bishops unanimously voted for the election of Metropolitan Krutitsy Pimen (Izvekov) as Patriarch. Finally, the Local Council, by its decision of July 2, 1971, canceled oaths to the old (pre-Icon) rites and to persons who adhere to them. Here, undoubtedly, the positive experience of determining the Council of 1917-1918 was used. about unity.

The Soviet authorities were forced to make the first major changes in their negative attitude towards the Church in 1988. That year, a Local Council took place, timed to coincide with the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia. It was he who, even under Soviet conditions, was able to partially revive the conciliar tradition and return to the practice of church life some definitions of the Council of 1917-1918. A new "Charter on the Governance of the Russian Orthodox Church" was adopted, according to which Councils were planned to be convened at regular intervals, in particular, the Local Council - at least once every five years. This can be considered a return to the ideas of the Council of 1917-1918. At the same time, as before, it was pointed out that the supreme authority in the field of dogma, church administration and court belongs to the Local Council. The patriarch, according to the Charter, has the primacy of honor among the bishops and is accountable

17 All-Russian Social-Christian Union for the Liberation of the People. Paris: YMCA-press, 1975. S. 7, 100.

Cathedral. He manages the Church jointly with the Holy Synod, the number of temporary members of which has increased to five.

The charter also restored the 1917-1918 provisions of the Council. diocesan meetings. They received the authority to elect for a period of one year half of the members of the diocesan council, with the help of which the bishop should manage the diocese. The main provisions of the 8th chapter of the Charter (“Parishes”) were given taking into account the historical realities of the late 1980s. in accordance with the decisions of the Council of 1917-1918. Thus, the definition of a parish given by the new Charter practically coincided with the wording of 1918, as well as the characteristics of the composition of the parish clergy. However, unlike the Parish Charter of 1918, members of the clergy could now be dismissed not only by court order and their own petition, but also “for church expediency.” In comparison with the definition of 1961, the rights of the rector of the temple were significantly expanded, he became the chairman of the parish meeting. A layman could also be the chairman of the parish council.

At the 1988 Council, questions were also discussed about the need to increase the production of religious literature and open new religious educational institutions. After the Council of 1917-1918. due to the unspoken prohibition of the authorities, issues of canonization could not be raised openly. And now this ban has been overcome, the Council of 1988 glorified 9 saints who lived in the KSU-XGX centuries for general church veneration. For the feast of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia, the Liturgical Commission prepared the "Ordinances of the Feast of the Baptism of Russia". According to the Charter, the service to the Lord God in memory of the Baptism of Russia should precede and be combined with the service to all the saints who shone in the Russian land. Thus, the testament of the Council of 1917-1918. was finally completed after 70 years. On the whole, at the 1988 Council, for the first time in all the years of Soviet power, clergy and laity could frankly discuss pressing church problems. And the Great Council of 1917-1918 was a model to follow for them.

A year later, on October 9-11, 1989, the Council of Bishops was held, one of the most important decisions of which was the canonization of Patriarch Tikhon. It was also stated about the need to revive parish life. In connection with the law “On Freedom of Conscience” being prepared at that time, the Church declared the need to introduce into it a clause on recognizing the church organization as a legal entity as a whole. Thus, the Council of Bishops openly raised the question of revising the relations that are discriminatory for the Church with the state.

The last Local Council in the Soviet period took place shortly after the death of Patriarch Pimen (May 3, 1990). At the preceding Council of Bishops, for the first time since 1917, three candidates for the Patriarchal see were elected by secret ballot. The delegates of the Local Council that opened on June 7, 1990 put forward several more candidates, but none of them received the necessary support. There was even a proposal to use lots to elect the Patriarch, as in 1917, but the majority of the councilors did not support it. So the traditions of the Council of 1917-1918. reminded themselves. The voting was secret. In the second round, Metropolitan Alexy (Ridiger) of Leningrad and Novgorod, who became the fifth Patriarch in the history of the USSR, received the majority. The Council of 1990 decided to canonize Father John of Kronstadt and instructed the Commission for the Canonization of Saints to prepare materials for the glorification of the New Martyrs who suffered for their faith in the 20th century. The appeal to the feat of the new martyrs testified that the Russian Church remembers the former persecutions and hopes for the restoration of conciliar life, referring to the experience of the Council of 1917-1918.18

It should be remembered that it was this Council that adopted the definition: “To establish the offering in churches during divine services of special petitions for those who are now persecuted for the Orthodox faith and the Church and who have died their lives, confessors and martyrs ... Establish

18 Firsov S.L. The Russian Church on the Eve of Changes (late 1890s - 1918s). M.: Spiritual Library, 2002. S. 570-573.

throughout Russia, an annual prayer commemoration on the day of January 25 or the Sunday following it ... confessors and martyrs”19. Other thematically close definitions of the Council “On the procedure for glorifying the saints for local veneration” of September 3, 1918 and “On the restoration of the celebration of the day of memory of all Russian saints” (on the 2nd week after Pentecost) from August 13, 1918 Already in 1992, by the decision of the Council of Bishops, a Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia was established (on the week following January 25), and in 1993 the Canonization Commission restored the procedure for the canonization of local saints of the 11th-15th centuries, adopted Cathedral in 1917-1918.

Summing up, it should be concluded that the entire period of the existence of the USSR, the Russian Orthodox Church fought for the preservation and revival of the principle of catholicity, being guided, as far as possible in those conditions, by the definitions of the Council of 1917-1918. A huge set of definitions and the experience of the work of the Council, which has not yet been implemented to a large extent, remain relevant today. Only relatively recently a scientific study of his deeds began in Russia, and it is actively continuing at the present time.

Sources and literature

1. Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. F. 3. Op. 60. D. 63.

2. Archive of the Office of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. D. P-88399.

3. State archive of the Russian Federation. F. 353. Op. 2. file 713.

4. Russian State Historical Archive. F. 796. Op. 445. D. 246; F. 831. Op. 1. D. 293; F. 833. Op. 1. D. 56.

5. Synodal Archive of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in New York. D. 15/41. L. 7. 10-12, 27-30.

6. Central State Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 143. Op. 3. D. 5.

7. All-Russian Social Christian Union for the Liberation of the People. Paris: UMSA-rgeBB, 1975.

8. Kashevarov A. N. Church and power: Russian Orthodox Church in the first years of Soviet power. - St. Petersburg. : Publishing House of St. Petersburg. state tech. un-ta, 1999. - 328 p.

9. CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. In 16 volumes. T. 2. - M .: Politizdat, 1983.

10. Odintsov M. I. Letters and dialogues from the times of the “Khrushchev thaw” (Ten years from the life of Patriarch Alexy. 1955-1964) // Otechestvennye archives. - 1994. - No. 5. - S. 65-73.

11. Pospelovsky D. Russian Orthodox Church in the XX century. - M.: Respublika, 1995. - S. 45.

12. Regelson L. The tragedy of the Russian Church 1917-1945. - Paris, UMSA-rgeBB, 1977.

13. Collection of definitions and resolutions of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church in 1917-1918. - Issue. 3. - M., 1994.

14. Firsov S.L. The Russian Church on the Eve of Changes (late 1890s - 1918). - M.: Spiritual Library, 2002. - S. 570-573.

15. Shkarovsky M.V. Alexander Nevsky Brotherhood 1918-1932. SPb. : Orthodox chronicler of St. Petersburg, 2003. - 269 p.

16. Yakovlev A.N. By relics and oil. - M. : Eurasia, 1995. - 192 p.

17. Bulletin of the Holy Synod. 1925. No. 2.

20. Church records. 1918. No. 3-4.

19 Collection of definitions and resolutions of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917-1918. Issue. 3. M., 1994. S. 55-56.

Mikhail Shkarovskiy. All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918: Its Influence in the Life of Church in the Soviet period.

The All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918 was a notable phenomenon in Christian history, and a number of its decisions were ahead of their time in terms of the treatment of the topic elsewhere in the Christian world. Of course, the Council had the greatest importance for the Russian Orthodox Church. In fact, a program was created for the existence of the Russian Church in a new era, and although many of the principles and provisions of the Council could not be realized in practice during the Soviet period, they continued to live in the consciousness of the clergy and laity, determining their actions and way of thinking. In fact, throughout the entire period of the existence of the USSR, the Russian Orthodox Church fought for the preservation and revival of the principle of conciliarity, guided, as far as possible under those conditions, by the definitions of the Council of 19171918. Largely not yet implemented in practice, the large set of decisions of the Council and the conciliar experience of the Council remain relevant today. The scientific study of the acts of the Council began in Russia only a few years ago and is actively continuing at present.

Keywords: Russian Orthodox Church, All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918, Soviet period, Russian revolution, reforms.

Mikhail Vitalyevich Shkarovsky - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Senior Researcher at the Central State Archives of St. Petersburg, Professor at St. Petersburg Theological Academy [email protected]).