This final article, dedicated to renovationism, is based on documents that were found in the archives of Moscow on the renovationist schism. They are scattered and little connected, but they give an idea of ​​what the situation was like in the parishes at that time. Some documents are published for the first time.

Alexander Ivanovich Vvedensky - archpriest, in the renovationist schism - metropolitan Contents:

From the very beginning, the Renovationists tried to get to the administrative and church center - Moscow. The key events of the Renovationist Church took place in this city: the illegal seizure of the patriarchal office and the formation of the Higher Church Administration (VCU), the All-Russian Congress of the White Clergy, as well as the Second and Third All-Russian Local Councils were held here. Moscow was the administrative center of the renovationist movement: in the Trinity Metochion the VCU (Higher Church Administration) was located, in the Polytechnic Museum there was a heated struggle in public discussions between two well-known speakers throughout Moscow - the renovationist Alexander Vvedensky and the Hieromartyr Hilarion, Archbishop of Vereisky - a zealous and firm champion of Patriarch Tikhon and him right hand. The same museum hosted a trial at which 11 people, mostly clergy, were sentenced to death. It was in this city, Lubyanka, that the GPU developed a strategy to destroy the Church.

So, if we talk about documents covering the events of those years in the Church, first of all it is worth special mentioning the campaign to confiscate church values ​​that preceded the Renovation schism.

The work of confiscating church valuables was very dangerous. The authorities were afraid of sharp protests and unrest associated with the seizure. In order to avoid mass bloodshed, local authorities first forced the rectors of the robbed churches to take responsibility for all possible unrest and resistance.

A telephone message has been preserved, which contains the indicated principle of action of the Soviet authorities:

“Secret. Telephone message No. 17.To the Chairman of the Krasno-Presnensky District Commission for ConfiscationvaluesComrade Pashinev

Call the rectors of about twenty to thirty churches and get them to sign that they personally bear full responsibility for possible unrest and excesses of parishioners during the seizure of valuables from churches, and also oblige them to prepare clergy registers and an inventory of church property and have the keys ready from churches at any time of the day, so that the Commission could begin work on the seizure without delay, while finding out the addresses of church officials. Summon them today to the Council to the Chairman of the District Commission.

Any resistance shown to the seizure commission by Orthodox believers was grounds for the arrest and deportation of their priest.

Chairman of the State Budgetary Institution of the Commission "Medved".

Any resistance shown to the seizure commission by Orthodox believers was grounds for the arrest and deportation of their priest. The well-known process of confiscation of church valuables took place at the Polytechnic Museum, at which Patriarch Tikhon himself acted as a witness. By decision of this court, 11 clergy were sentenced to death, and only at the request of Patriarch Tikhon, 6 people were pardoned, as discussed in more detail in one of the previous articles.

Renovation documents that reveal their position in Moscow are also very important for us.

As soon as the Renovationists took power into their own hands, they immediately began sending out circulars throughout Moscow and the Moscow diocese, in which all clergy obligated themselves not to remember the name of Patriarch Tikhon during services, calling it “a sign of political counter-revolutionism.” It is quite obvious what threat lay behind these words.

“Circularly for the Deans of Moscow and Moscow. Diocese No. 929.

To the name MEU[Moscow Diocesan Administration] The following decrees of the VCU were received:

1) dated November 17, 1922for No. 1446 that the VCU in meetings of the Prezidium from 15-IXthis year [this year]Pstopped in order to combat church reaction and parish counter-revolution, uniting under the common name “Tikhonovtsy” - accept the deans and rectors of Moscow under the direct jurisdiction of the VCU Head of the Administrative and Organizational ISTB.VCU;2) dated November 17, 1922 for No. 1447 that the VCU at the meeting of the Prezidium from 15-IX this year. [this year], recognizing the name of the Patr. Tikhon, with a counter-revolutionary act and the introduction of politics in the affairs of the Church, decreed: prohibit commemoration of patriarchs. Tikhon in all churches of the Russian Church and entrust it to the head of the Administrative and Organizational Istb. VCU Deputy Chairman Prot. IN.D.Krasnitsky to monitor the implementation of this decree in the churches of Moscow, placing responsibility for failure to comply with this decree personally on the deans and rectors of churches;

3) from November 281922for No. 1551 that the VCU reaffirms the strict execution of the order dated 1-IX this year. [this year]for No. 821 on the cessation of offerings during Divine services in churches of the diocese named after Patr. Tikhona warns that failure to comply with this order will be taken as a sign of obvious political counter-revolution, for the commemoration of Patr. is not even an “ecclesiastical” act under existing conditions, but an obvious public political demonstration and also not just non-submission to the orders of the VCU, but a certain political game under the auspices of the church. Bearing responsibility for the Social Peace, the church VCU offers the Managementdto speak about persons who disobey this,themselves immediately dismissing from their positions all rectors of churches where such orders will not be carried out. About this, the MEU issued an urgent decree to the deans and the clergy under their supervision.

Dry, stingy, laconic lines cannot convey everything that happened then in Moscow

In pursuance of this, MEU offers to fathersdean this circular with the contents of the orders of the VCU set out in it to declare to the members of the clergy of the spirit under your command a personal subscription to this obligatory for each of them and deliver it back to the MEU within a week. About facesunwilling to obeyfathersthe deans report.

This decree was carried out. The following document depicts how a devoted man and his family were thrown into the street without a piece of bread:

“Meeting of members of the Moscow Diocesan Administration on 13Aug. 1923

Listened:Dean's statementVIth env. Bronnitsky districtmouth. V. Sobolev about the dismissal of Deacon Konstantin by the Milin churchyard parishNikolsky for his reluctance to remember during the service b. Patriarch Tikhon.

Resolved:Explain through Fr. dean of the Parish Council of St. George's churchyard, Milin, Bronnitsy districton the illegal removal of Deacon ConstantineNikolsky from his service, and the rector of the same church, Demetrius of Kazan, for inciting one part of the masses against another, was dismissed from his position with a ban on priestly service, and the parish was entrusted to the supervision of Fr. deanSobolev."

The following circular makes it clear that renovationism did not take root in Moscow: ordinary believing people did not want to accept the renunciation of the Patriarch and innovations. In times of disaster, as has always been the case, it is the simple people who are the incorruptible and undaunted repository of the true faith.

"To the fathersDean Orthodox churches Moscow No. 1581.

The sad Church events that played out,which led to the rupture of Church unity, the cause of which was the speech of the former patriarch. Tikhon, who cause irreparable harm to the Orthodox Church and have a serious impact on the clergy, are subject to serious attention and resolution. To our deepest regret, the clergy is again involved in the mass of “believers” flocking around the church, using the name of the former. Patr. Tikhon to create an organization of resistance against the power of Workers and Peasants, using for this the influence of the Church and the clergy;DiocesanThe Council created by the Renovation Church Movement,takes into account that the new involvement of the clergyin a political counter-revolutionary adventure will bring colossal harm to the church and personally to the clergy himselfwu, because a whole series of undesirable excesses have already occurred, where the suffering party is mainly the clergyin the interests of the Orthodox Church and the clergy themselves personally, invites you to arrive at the Trinity Compound together with the rectors of the churches on August 3 at 2 o’clock in the afternoon to receive information and appropriate instructions.

As you know, the renovationists wanted to resolve these “sad phenomena” at the so-called “Local Council.”

As was already said at the end of the first chapter, the renovationists set out to ensure the election of loyal delegates before convening the Local Council. To do this, they resorted to the simple method of expelling patriarchal priests from churches and replacing them with renovationists. All that was needed was a reason, which was always there. This document serves as a striking example.

« Protocol No. 3 WithAnnouncements of the Commission for the Approval of Religious Societies from 20 sSeptember this year

Listened: Application for registration from a religious island attached to the so-called church. Peter and Paul, which included 82 people in the Transfiguration.

Reference:No statements were submitted from the previous group of believers, and the leaders of this group considered various kinds of unrest at the temple in the person of the minister of worship, Count. Polsky and gr. Kholodnago and Losnikov,were held accountable for counter-revolutionary activities.

It was decided: to approve the society by transferring to it the temple along with the property under the contract and to propose to submit an inventory of the church’s property within 2 weeks.”

The next one is very similar to the previous one.

With the release of Patriarch Tikhon, the rapid loss of influence of the Renovationists on the souls of believers begins, and this is clearly visible in their messages and circulars,

« Protocol No. 5 WithAnnouncements of the Commission for the Approval of Religious Societies dated 26thSeptember 1923.

Listened:Applications from two religious societies of the churches of the Vagankov cemetery for the use of religious buildings.

Information: The previous group of believers, using churches under the agreement, violated paragraphs 4 and 5, in addition, they allowed preachers with a counter-revolutionary direction to speak, and were engaged in the sale of anti-Soviet literature; allowed repeated violations of public peace and order.

Resolved: To refuse approval of the charter to the former group,approve the charter of the second group of 70 people and transfer the building to themcult with property under contract".

They found another, no less original reason:

« Protocol hmeeting of the Commission for the approval of religious societies from 13 daysDecember this year(1923).

Listened:Application from a group of 68 believers regarding the transfer of a religious building for their use, so-called.n. Peter and Paul, on Novaya Basmannaya,and on the registration of their charter;Statement from another group of believers in the stake. 102 people about re-registration of the right to use a religious building, etc.n. Peter and Paul, on Novaya Basmannaya Street.

Resolved:Taking into account that the previous group of believers who applied for re-registration in the stake. 102 people,previously did not sufficiently care about preserving the national property transferred to it under the agreement and allowed the theft on the night of March 31, 1921, when the attackers stole all the valuable property, and therefore considered it likely that the same attitude towards their duties on the part of this group would continue decided to refuse the application for re-registration, and to approve a new community of believers in the number of 68 people, giving it a religious building under the contract and obliging it to submit an inventory of property to the Administrative Department of the Moscow Council within 2 weeks.”

Now these are just archival documents gathering dust on a shelf. But it is difficult to imagine what kind of grief and suffering lies in the words “hand over the temple”, “ban from priestly service”, “not remember the former Patriarch Tikhon”. Dry, meager, laconic lines cannot convey everything that happened then in Moscow, what torments and pains, fears and concerns the clergy faithful to the Patriarch experienced. But even from these documents one can judge the tragedy that swept through Moscow at that time.

With the release of Patriarch Tikhon, there was a massive return of believers, especially the clergy, from renovationism under the omophorion of the Patriarch. The Renovationist Church was rapidly losing its influence - people did not support it, this became especially noticeable by 1924. In this situation, the renovationists began to massively issue propaganda circulars against the Patriarch. In the document below you can read point by point all the accusations that the renovationists used to discredit His Holiness (the most significant parts of the document are highlighted by me. - Ed.).

“Response of the Holy Synod to “Messages of the Group (...) of the Orthodox Canonical Church”, headed by P. Tikhon from 7-VI-24 years at 8 points.

Holy Synod [renovationist], accepting the final words of the letter with the covenant of the apostle: do nothing out of selfish ambition or vanity. Let each one not take care of himself, but each one of others (Phil. 2-3-4), considers it his duty to clarify all the untruths of the message[Patriarch Tikhon], both to those who wrote and to those to whom they sent, may they “not remain in lies,” “but may they know the truth and the truth set them free.” Let’s not engage in “dispute”; let’s ignore the abuse and unproven accusations of individuals. It's not a matter of personality, but an idea.

The first three points of the message indicate that the acceptance of Krasnitsky and other members “Living Church” by P. Tikhon has not yet been accomplished, that Krasnitsky must publicly repent andin the Church and in the press, abandon the “Zh.Ts.” program and before the Council, not to take part in the affairs of government, otherwise the Church would have separated from him, would have looked at him as the person heading the “Zh.Ts.” and voluntarily left the Orthodox Canonical Church.

What can the authors of the message say now that in Izvestia Central Election Commission No. 146 from 3 02 VI authentic documents with the signatures of Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Tikhon, Seraphim and Peter were printed, where, without any conditions, Krasnitsky and co. included in the VCS,when Krasnitsky, on the basis of this agreement, arrangedwanders around templesMoscow meeting and in No. 151 of VII explains the legality of its actions.

Renovationists raised the issue of Russification of liturgical texts.

Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the message accuse the Synod of seeking to overthrow the Patriarch, of denouncing him and other hierarchs, in a word, of persecuting the church.

The Holy Synod was formed in August 1923, when P. Tikhon, by the Council of 1923 in May, was already deprived not only of the patriarchate, but also of monasticism. There is no point in trying to overthrow the deposed; it would mean breaking into an open door. On the contrary, the Holy Synod, from the first days of its existence, has been striving for reconciliation, and It was not the fault of the Synod, but due to Tikhon’s lust for power, that negotiations were interrupted. The Holy Synod has never refused to petition for the release of those prisonerswho turned to him, abandoning the counter-revolutionary Church policy.

Saint Tikhon (Belavin), Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. Soviet Power, possessing a powerful state apparatus, does not at all need the agency services of the Synod. The Holy Synod has never degraded itself to the role of a political agent. Not considering itself morally responsible for the good of the Church, the Holy Synod had to explain to the Orthodox people the double-mindedness and criminal deception of those hierarchs who, at the direction of their head, under the guise of true, canonical Orthodoxy, dragged the Church into politics, and the gullible people into the horrors of counter-revolution.

By doing this, the Holy Synod fulfilled the true covenants of Christ and the Apostles,who forbade us to confuse the work of God with the work of Caesar and commanded us to obey the powers that be.

Regarding the concerns of the Holy Synod of the Church, the bestproof is what the Synod managed to do: the opening of theological academies and schools, publishing and petition to the government on behalf of the Holy Synod on the legal and financial situation of the Church and the spirit.

P. 5 rejects the invitation of the Holy Synod to come to the Pre-Conciliar Conference. The meeting already took place on June 10-18, there were 400 delegates,elected through organized congresses of all dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church. Of the 216 bishops who recognize the Holy Synod, 83 participated in the meeting. To call them all graceless and prohibited from the priesthood is madness, for according to the canons of Rightsfamous Tikhon Church, condemned by the Council, not only does not have the right to prohibit others, but he himself should not dare to perform sacred acts. The 1923 cathedral is also canonical,like the cathedral of 1917, The Synod is recognized by the Eastern Patriarchs and does not recognize it - means to separate from the Ecumenical Orthodox Church.

The resolution of the Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory VII and his Holy Synod of May 6 on the removal of Tikhon from the administration of the Russian Orthodox Church calls “trifles.” Meanwhile, the Ecumenical Councils (II, 3; IV, 7 and 28 and VI, 30) - awarded the title of Ecumenical to the Patriarch of Constantinople - he alone is given the right to accept appeals to Local Councils, he is the Supreme Judge for Orthodox Christians of all countries. Russia, in addition, received baptism precisely from the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the entire Russian Church has always considered and continues to consider the Church of Constantinople as its Mother. I have always held this opinion b. Patriarch Tikhon and only now, clinging to power, shows believers the criminal temptation of church anarchy and church schism.

On paragraph 8 with a call for a Conference on repentance and submission “His Holiness” - the Great Pre-Conciliar Conference has already answered categorically: “The Holy Synod is the only canonically legitimate Supreme body governance of the Russian Orthodox Church: the only dogmatic-canonical basis of church construction is the conciliar principle: “the patriarchate, having brought enormous disasters to the Russian Church, must be irrevocably, forever buried.”

Tikhonovtsy,in most cases, those who are deceived can be accepted into canonical communion. Former patriarch, and now layman V.I. Bellavin henceforth a member or head of the Tikhonov sect or schism, but not the head of the Russian Orthodox Church.

There is only one outcome for him - national repentance for their grave sins in front of the Church and humble expectation as a favor, forgiveness, but without any hope of leadership in church affairs.

The Holy Synod offers the above for the attention and guidance of the Diocesan Administration.

For the Chairman of the Holy Synod, MetropolitanBenjamin."

Two months later, a circular is issued again, in which the renovationists make new step: they propagate not so much against Patriarch Tikhon, but against the very institution of the patriarchate.

Circularly.Moscow Eparch. Control

After hearing the report of Professor A. Pokrovsky.

The institution of the Patriarchate, whose historical roots go back to the ideals of pagan Rome, was a reflection of the state system. It was in Byzantium and here in Russia (worldliness, bureaucratization). This growth on the body of the Church, without giving anything positive to the Russian Church, was the source of enormous disasters in the Church, disorder, division of Churches, the Russian schism of the Old Believers, the Ukrainian Lipkovshchina, our modern church devastation. Therefore, regardless of even the personality of its modern bearer that worries us all, the very institution of the Patriarchate must be completely eliminated from us and irrevocably and forever buried in the grave of historical oblivion, from where it was accidentally and mistakenly recently removed in a difficult moment of our confusion and loss of spirit, which is why we are now and we can consider ourselves finally liberated.

For Pres. Holy Synod MetropolitanBenjamin."

In September, an appeal is already being issued that is not as calm and measured in content as the above circulars. This document shows all the fervor of the information struggle of the renovationists with the Patriarch. One gets the impression that in the address a powerless anger that cannot do anything is splashed out. At this time there was a large outflow of clergy and believers from the Renovationist Church to the Patriarchal Church. The document is very interesting, and we decided to give it in full

“Circular No. 198.September 1924Moscow Eparch. Control

Appeal to the Archpastors and Pastors of the Russian Orthodox Church from the Holy Synod.

From the long-term devastation of the church, the hearts of true and sincere believers are bleeding: they carefully (correction: in vain) are looking for a way out of the created impasse. And along with them, the majority of those led by “their patriarch,” who raised the church storm, do not see and do not want to see this sad church storm. It seems to them that everything is going well in the church. They idolize “their patriarch”; they consider his every action, no matter how prudent it may be, to be a sacred act. And who dares to point out his wrongness, who seeswhat abyss does it lead to? Church of Christ, and boldly declares this, they, with the blessing of their “high leader,” curse them and revile them in every possible way, not being embarrassed by any techniques : lies and slander are their usual companions in the fight against dissenters. They don't want to see and understandthat in this way they, like no one else, are destroying that great and holy cause, which they think to honestly serve.

We would not like to pay attention to this shamefully destructive activity of theirs - its lies are too obvious for the sighted and reasonable, but such must be the inexorable law of the attractiveness of lies that it is precisely to it that the masses are drawn and move away from the truth. Its dirty waves reach and confuse even those who were with us, and now, unfortunately, some of them have left us. And how many are there who, exhausted in the fight against a dishonest enemy, call us to a shameful reconciliation at all costs with Tikhon and his followers. All this forces us to turn to you, honest fighters for church-Christian truth, with an invigorating word of appeal to your prudence.

You tired of the struggle, not seeing success from it. You suffer hardships and insults. Your moans reach our ears. But tell me honestly, could you really hope for a quick victory in such a complex and difficult matter as the revival of church life? If so, then you have forgotten the past history of the church. Remember in what torment it always developed and took shape. What sacrifices did its creators make? But they did not lose heart, did not retreat back, and, moreover, did not reconcile with the obvious enemies of church truth (correct: untruth). Surely now, after two years of struggle and labor with stubborn enemies, we must return back to the old church past; to that past, which erased the last of all ideological ideas from our souls, which forced us to serve not so much God as Caesar, which drove out all living and better things from our ranks. After all, the voices of protest from the best archpastors, pastors and laity have long been heard against the monarchical monastic government that has taken root in the church and the substitution of the foundations of church life given by Christ and the Apostles with the “traditions of the elders” and the types and goals of the autocratic civil power, which divided subjects into classes in worldly life and carried out that the same principle, to our shame, into church life. Remember the diocesan congresses during the period from 1905-1917. What strong calling voices were heard then for a new church life. What accusatory speeches were heard against mustiness in all aspects of the church system. For an illustration, read “Journals and minutes of the Meetings of the Pre-Conciliar Conference for 1906-1907.” or diocesan statements for the specified period. In them you will see what reforms were planned then and what bright prospects opened up for the future. But unfortunately, all this was erased by the cathedral of 1917-18. It reflected with particular depth the reactionary mood of the leaders of life who had outlived their time, who were naturally dissatisfied with the emerging new system of state and social life. It was through the churchmen that they decided to give a desperate battle to both the new government and the best aspirations of the clergy, especially the white ones. For this very purpose, the patriarchate was restored and Patriarch Tikhon was elected as a proven and firm monarchist. To be convinced of this, read the speeches in the acts of the Council of 1918 before the election of the patriarch. And Tikhon brilliantly justified the hopes of his voters: he, like a mannequin, turns in the direction they want, completely forgetting that he is the patriarch of the Church, and not Caesar. Words of the truth of Christ were never heard from his lips, but only anger came out, which intensified the already inflamed passions in society. He clothed the Church of Christ with a gloomy shroud. Before us pass the shadows of those who died prematurely, unaccountably surrendering to his leadership. We are trying to find at least one bright spot in his activities, but we are not finding it. Horror emanates from his senile personality, which in his deeds is related to the worst hierarchs of a long time ago, and, however, you say, they are following him, but they do not recognize us and do not listen to us. Really, we, the leaders of people’s religious life, should follow Tikhon only because the people follow him. After all, this is the most unreliable argument: they go and should go after the truth, and not after those, albeit the majority, for whom the truth is concentrated in the stomach and pocket. Those who bear the title of archpastors and shepherds, of course, should not be guided by such interests. We must firmly remember our title and calling and not rush around to please the politicos and stomachs of both banks, like our powerful brothers who welcomed us, and then shamefully and perjuriously bowed down to Tikhon.

True, we are called to unite with Tikhon and his followers in the name of Christian forgiveness and church peace - honorable reasons and, of course, worthy of attention. But do you really think that we are alien to Christ’s love and do not want church unity? We are ready to embrace everyone with love and cover everyone with forgiveness. But if this love is not accepted. If the perpetrators do not admit their guilt, but on the contrary, they place it on others, if those blinded by pride cut us off from the Church of Christ without any guilt or judgment, declaring us graceless and extra-church, if in the structure of church life they are guided by the former monarchical principles, then is it really possible to cover their actions with love and from uniting with them? wait for peace for the church. No, let the church storm rage. Let the waves rise and carry those who are unstable away from us to Tikhonov’s untruth. We cannot and refuse to combine truth with untruth, reaction with progress. We cannot return the church to its former structure - the henchmen of earthly nobles and the bishop's autocracy, who often turned it into their fiefdom with slave shepherds. For all who value the interests of the Church, who love Christ and His truth, there is no other way to the confirmation and glory of the Divine Founder of the Church than to guide the collective mind of her faithful children. Another path, although it now seems smooth, tempting and easy to many, will undoubtedly lead the Church to destruction. External greatness combined with internal falsehood is short-lived, it can blind the unreasonable, it can please the ears and delight the hearts of people who live in the moment and in a certain selfish mood. But the Church, being eternal in its purpose, should be built not according to the external forms dominant in the world at a certain moment, not according to the changeable whims of the crowd, but according to the eternal principles of Christ corresponding to its nature. Compare, but only impartially, the Church of the past, led and supported today former patriarch Tikhon, according to its internal and external structure, from the church times of the Apostles, and tell me what remains of their spirit in it. Isn’t everything here petrified, isn’t everything secularized? The head of the church - Christ the Savior - is forced out of the people's consciousness by the worldly head - Tikhon; the meekness and humility commanded by him by his successor are replaced by anger and pride. “You will know them by their fruits,” Christ said about his followers. Look at Tikhon, who calls himself the father of fathers, look at his followers and tell me in all conscience what he sows around him and with what [they]breathe. But what of this? They followed Caiaphas, considered Barabbas higher than Christ, preferred the Severians (...) and the like to the great Chrysostom.”

Literally a month later, the renovationists issue a new circular, according to the content of which they are more concerned not so much about luring away believers, but about confusion and confusion within their church. From the circular one can judge that there were strong sentiments of repentance and returning back under the omophorion of the Patriarch.

Renovationist reformers also demanded that the iconostasis be abolished so that the actions of the priest would be visible to those praying.

Recently, under the influence of false rumors spread everywhere by Tikhonites about the Synod and the clergy subordinate to it,Locally, even the leaders of church life notice confusion and confusion. The fight with the former Patriarch Tikhon seems fruitless to many, and they consider the best way out of the current situation for the church to be reconciliation with Tikhon, which they strongly suggest that we do.

The Holy Synod indignantly rejects this measure, considering it not salvation, but destruction for the Church: the one who once plunged the Church into the crucible of disasters cannot be its savior. This former church leader, despite the fact that he still has a numerical superiority in followers and capital on his side, cannot organize any government under himself. Everyone should take this into account and not get carried away by its illusory power. Peace with Tikhon, we repeat, is death for the Church, this should be remembered by everyone who is not devoid of common sense;The sharper the line between Tikhon and us is drawn, the sooner victory will come. There is no reason to give up our positions especially now. Tikhon is at the moment weaker than ever: life itself will sweep him away and uproot him like a barren fig tree. “Already the ax lies at the root of the tree.” Don’t give up, honest and faithful workers. Don't look back -“ stretch forward, forgetting the past.” Once and for all, give up the idea of ​​conciliating with those who disagree: anyway, the Synod will never follow this path. He can see the salvation of the Church more clearly than you, so trust him, and with redoubled energy expose Tikhon’s lies and do not look in vain for ways to reconcile with the irreconcilable. Remember, Tikhon is not the leader of the Orthodox Church, but the head of a sect, going against the life and interests of the true Orthodox Church of Christ. Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory VII, in response to the request of the Greek churches of Vladikavkaz, which bishop to obey: the Synodal or Tikhonovsky, replied that the only legitimate bishop is the Synodalny.
Deputy Pred. Holy Synod MetropolitanBenjamin."

1924-1925 - a time of mass return of the clergy and believers to the Patriarchal Church. The renovationists did not expect such a turn of events. Until this moment, everything had gone well for them and foreshadowed complete victory. However, with the release of Patriarch Tikhon, a rapid loss of influence of the Renovationists on the souls of believers begins, and this is clearly visible in their messages and circulars, where any lie and slander are used to discredit His Holiness. This was, first of all, an indicator of their weakness and lack of confidence in their abilities. At the same time, renovationists began to be active in another, no less important aspect of the life of the Church - liturgical, where they tried to attract believers to themselves through reforms and innovations.

In the early 20s. Renovationists called for liturgical reforms. This was a period of the most rapid innovations and searches. True, later they had to abandon all this - the people did not support it.

In 1924, the head of the renovationist union “Church Revival” Antonin Granovsky stated: “The reformation trend is the basis, nerve and soul of the Union of Church Revival [“Union of Church Revival” - one of the renovationist groups].” A. Vvedensky, on the eve of the council of 1923, called: “The liturgical reform is no less necessary... Tikhonov’s Church does not want reform: it is inert in psychology, reactionary politically, it is reactionary in the religious field. No justification for what has already become obsolete is possible; Church reform, the most radical reform, is inevitable.”

The program of church reforms outlined by the Living Church (another of the renovationist groups) in 1922 put forward the following demands:

"1.Revision of the church liturgy and the elimination of those layers that were introduced into Orthodox worship by the experienced period of the union of church and state and ensuring freedom of pastoral creativity in the field of worship.

2. Elimination of rituals that are a relic of the pagan worldview.

3. The fight against superstitions, religious prejudices and signs that grew out of popular ignorance and monastic exploitation of the religious feelings of the gullible masses.

4. Bringing worship closer to popular understanding, simplifying the liturgical rite, reforming the liturgical charter in relation to the requirements of local and modern conditions.

5. Exclusion from worship of expressions and ideas that are contrary to the spirit of Christ’s all-forgiving love.

6. Wide involvement of the laity in worship, up to and including church teaching.”

Renovationists raised the issue of Russification of liturgical texts. Here is what the journal of living churchmen “Church Time” wrote about this: “We would like to make certain changes in the area of ​​church services and the missal with the admission of new rituals and prayers in the spirit of the Orthodox Church. What is most desirable is changes in the liturgical language, which is largely incomprehensible to the masses. These changes must be strictly carried out in the direction of bringing the Slavic text closer to the Russian one. Renewal must proceed gradually, without wavering in the beauty of Orthodox worship and its rituals.”

The same can be read in the program of another group of renovationists SODATS (“Union of Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church”), compiled by A. Vvedensky: “We stand for the purification and simplification of worship and bringing it closer to popular understanding. Revision of liturgical books and monthly books, introduction of ancient apostolic simplicity into worship, native language instead of the compulsory Slavic language."

Bishop Antonin (Granovsky) moved from words to deeds and in 1923 compiled a reformed rite of liturgy in Russian. The Liturgy was served in the evening in Moscow at the Zaikonospassky Monastery. At the council of the Union of Church Revival in 1924, the following resolution was adopted:

"1.Recognize the transition to the Russian language of worship as an extremely important and valuable acquisition of religious reform and carry it out steadily as mighty weapon emancipation of the believing masses from the magic of words and driving away superstitious servility before the formula. Living dear and everyone mutual language one gives rationality, meaning, freshness to religious feeling, lowering the price and making a mediator, translator, specialist, sorcerer completely unnecessary in prayer.

2. RThe Russian liturgy, celebrated in Moscow churches of the Union, should be recommended for celebration in other churches of the Union, displacing with it the practice of the Slavic, so-called Chrysostom liturgy.”

Renovationist reformers also demanded that the iconostasis, a centuries-old tradition of the Church, be abolished so that the actions of the priest would be visible to those praying. This is what Bishop Antonin did in the Zaikonospassky Monastery, moving the throne from the altar to the solea. This is what he said about it: “The people also demand that they be able to contemplate, to see what the priest does in the altar during the service. People want not only to hear the voice, but to see the actions of the priest. The Church Revival Union gives him what he needs.”

The “Living Church” was unanimous in this with the Church Revival: “We warmly welcome the celebration of the most important service of the Holy Eucharist openly in front of those praying, with the direct participation of the entire Body of the Church of Christ - archpastors, pastors and laity.”

All of the above innovations were practiced mainly in the SCV. In renovationism there was no specific unified reformed charter. But the following document is an attempt to streamline and bring uniformity to liturgical life.

Great All-Russian Pre-Conciliar Conference,Having heard the report of His Eminence Demetrius on the liturgical language and liturgical reform,defines:

1. Form a permanent commission under the Holy Synod,directing private and collective efforts to correct and simplify the liturgical text and on issues of liturgical reform in general;

2. to recognize as acceptable and desirable the reading according to the Russian Synodal translation of proverbs, gospels and apostles, as well as the singing of stichera and canons,already translated into Russian,where lay believers are prepared for this;

3. introduce partially, where possible, the performance of private and public divine services, not excluding the liturgy in Russian, in the edition approved by the Holy Synod;

4. worship serviceUkrainian and other languages ​​are allowed without hindrance;

5. changes in liturgical rites and regulations,regulating in general the life of believing monks and laity, is not allowed without the sanction of the Council;

6. to present freedom of creativity for Divine services, in accordance with the resolution of the Council of 1923, with the indispensable condition of the blessing of new reforms of the service by the local Diocesan authorities, which, if necessary, communicates with the Holy Synod.

Pred. St. Syn. metropolitanBenjamin."

As noted above, many of the documents are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time and are cited in full in this article. This is due, first of all, to the fact that today there is no complete collection of documents on the Renovationist schism.

In conclusion, we repeat that renovationism did not last even a quarter of a century as an independent movement. It didn't catch on for a number of reasons. Due to specific historical and political circumstances, when sincere reformers were pushed into the background by opportunists of the state apparatus. The renovationists also made a mistake in their tactics - believers were not ready for such radical reforms. Finally, their scandalous connection with the GPU dealt a big blow to the reputation and authority of the reformers. Renovationism became, as Trotsky originally intended, a “miscarriage.”

Babayan Georgy Vadimovich Right there. L. 112-113. "Church Banner" 1922. 15 September No. 1 // Modern renovationism - Protestantism of the “Eastern Rite”. P. 37.

"For Christ." 1922. No. 1-2 // Modern renovationism - Protestantism of the “Eastern Rite”. P. 37.

Levitin-Krasnov A., Shavrov V. Essays on the history of Russian church unrest. - M.: Krutitskoye Patriarchal Compound, 1996. - P. 580.

Proceedings of the first All-Russian Congress or Council of the Union “Church Revival”. - M., 1925. - P. 25 // Modern renovationism - Protestantism of the “Eastern Rite”. P. 40.

"Church Banner" 1922. 15 September No. 1 // Modern renovationism - Protestantism of the “Eastern Rite”. P. 40.

CIAM. F. 2303. Op. 1. D. 12 h. 2. L. 93.

The Orthodox Church, unlike other Christian denominations, is called orthodox in most European languages. Nowadays, this word has acquired a negative connotation, often denoting inertia, extreme conservatism and retrogradeness. However, in Explanatory dictionary In Russian, the word “orthodox” has a completely different meaning: it characterizes strict adherence to the original teaching, its letter and spirit. In this sense, the name “orthodox” for the Orthodox Church on the part of Western Christians is very honorable and symbolic. With all this, one can often hear calls for renewal and reform in the Church. They come both from within the church body and from without. Often these calls are based on a sincere desire for the good of the Church, but even more often they are the desire of the authors of these calls to adapt the Church to themselves, to make It convenient, while discarding two thousand years of tradition and the very Spirit of God from the church body.

One of the most painful attempts to change the Church to please people was the Renovationist schism of the first half of the 20th century. The purpose of this article is to attempt to identify problems in the Russian Church that required solutions by the beginning of the 20th century, to consider how they were solved by the legitimate church leadership, primarily the Local Council of 1917-1918, and by what methods the leaders proposed to solve them various groups inside, and then outside, the Local Russian Church.

The main problems that confronted the Russian Church at the beginning of the twentieth century were the following:

• 1. On the highest church government
• 2. About relations with the state
• 3. About liturgical language
• 4. About church legislation and court
• 5. About church property
• 6. On the state of parishes and the lower clergy
• 7. About spiritual education in Russia and a number of others.

All of them became the subject of discussions at two Pre-Conciliar Meetings convened by Emperor Nicholas II in 1905-1906 and 1912. They used the materials of the “Reviews...” of diocesan bishops at the request of the Holy Synod about desirable transformations in the Orthodox Russian Church. The materials of these discussions subsequently became the basis for the agenda of the Local Council.

At the same time, in St. Petersburg, under the chairmanship of the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Bishop Sergius (later - His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'), religious and philosophical meetings were held, at which the largest Russian intellectuals and pastors discussed the existence of the Church in the modern world, the problems of the Church. The main conclusion that could be drawn from these meetings banned by K.P. Pobedonostsev in 1903, is the desire of the intelligentsia to adapt the Church “for themselves”, and not to accept the Church themselves with everything that She has accumulated over two thousand years of Christianity. This, it seems, was precisely what later became the reason for a large number of intellectuals and representatives of the learned priesthood and monasticism to leave for the Renovationist schism.

The movement for the “renewal” of the Orthodox Russian Church arose in the spring of 1917: one of the organizers and secretary of the “All-Russian Union of Democratic Orthodox Clergy and Laity,” which arose on March 7, 1917 in Petrograd, was priest Alexander Vvedensky, the leading ideologist and leader of the movement in all subsequent years . His colleague was the priest Alexander Boyarsky. The “Union” enjoyed the support of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod V.N. Lvov and published the newspaper “Voice of Christ” with synodal subsidies. In their publications, the renovationists took up arms against traditional forms of ritual piety and the canonical system of church government.

With the coming to power of the Bolsheviks and the outbreak of the civil war, the renovationists became more active, and new schismatic groups appeared one after another. One of them, entitled “Religion in combination with life,” was created in Petrograd by the priest John Egorov, who in his church arbitrarily removed the throne from the altar to the middle of the temple, changed the rites, tried to translate the service into Russian and taught about ordination “with his own inspiration.” . Among the episcopate, the renovationists found support in the person of the supernumerary Bishop Antonin (Granovsky), who performed divine services in Moscow churches with his own innovations. He altered the texts of prayers, for which he was soon banned from ministry by His Holiness the Patriarch. Archpriest A. Vvedensky did not stand aside, heading the “St. Petersburg Group of Progressive Clergy” in 1921. The activities of all such societies were encouraged and directed by the state authorities in the person of the Cheka, which intended “through long, intense and painstaking work to destroy and decompose the Church to the end.” Thus, in the long term, even the renovationist church was not needed by the Bolsheviks, and all the leaders of renovationism only flattered themselves with empty hopes. Patriarch Tikhon, repelling the encroachments of schismatics, on November 17, 1921, addressed his flock with special message“on the inadmissibility of liturgical innovations in church liturgical practice”: the divine beauty of our truly edifying in its content and graciously effective church service, as it was created by centuries of apostolic fidelity, prayerful fervor, ascetic labor and patristic wisdom and imprinted by the Church in the rites, rules and regulations, must be preserved in the holy Orthodox Russian Church inviolably as its greatest and most sacred property.”1

A new round of internal church troubles, accompanied by a conflict between the Church and state power, began with an unprecedented famine in the Volga region. On February 19, 1922, Patriarch Tikhon allowed church valuables that “have no liturgical use” to be donated to the famine-stricken, but already on February 23, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee decided to remove all valuables from churches for the needs of the starving. All over the country in 1922-1923. There was a wave of arrests and trials of the clergy and believers. They were arrested for concealing valuables or for protesting against seizures. It was then that a new rise of the renovation movement began. On May 29, 1922, the “Living Church” group was created in Moscow, which on July 4 was headed by Archpriest Vladimir Krasnitsky (in 1917-1918 he called for the extermination of the Bolsheviks). In August 1922, Bishop Antonin (Granovsky) separately organized the “Union of Church Revival” (UCR). At the same time, the SCV saw its support not in the clergy, but in the laity - the only element capable of “charging church life with revolutionary religious energy.” The charter of the Central Eastern Church promised its followers “the broadest democratization of Heaven, the widest access to the bosom of the Heavenly Father.” Alexander Vvedensky and Boyarsky, in turn, organize the “Union of Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church” (SODATS). Many other, smaller, church reform groups also appeared. All of them advocated close cooperation with the Soviet state and were in opposition to the Patriarch, but otherwise their voices ranged from demands for a change in the liturgical rite to calls for the merger of all religions. The philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev, summoned to the Lubyanka in 1922 (and soon expelled from the country), recalled how “he was amazed that the corridor and reception room of the GPU were full of clergy. These were all living churchmen. I had a negative attitude towards the “Living Church”, since its representatives began their work with denunciations against the Patriarch and the patriarchal church. This is not how reformation is done.”2

On the night of May 12, Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky with two of his like-minded people, priests Alexander Boyarsky and Evgeny Belkov, accompanied by OGPU officers, arrived at the Trinity Compound, where Patriarch Tikhon was then under house arrest. Accusing him of a dangerous and thoughtless policy that led to confrontation between the Church and the state, Vvedensky demanded that the Patriarch leave the throne in order to convene a Local Council. In response, the Patriarch signed a resolution on the temporary transfer of church power from May 16 to Metropolitan Agathangel of Yaroslavl. And already on May 14, 1922, Izvestia published the “Appeal to the Believing Sons of the Orthodox Church of Russia,” written by the leaders of the Renovationists, which contained a demand for a trial of “the perpetrators of church destruction” and a statement about ending the “civil war of the Church against the state.”

Metropolitan Agafangel was ready to fulfill the will of Saint Tikhon, but, by order of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, he was detained in Yaroslavl. On May 15, the delegation of the Renovationists was received by the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee M. Kalinin, and the next day the establishment of a new Supreme Church Administration (VCU) was announced. It consisted entirely of supporters of renovationism. Its first leader was Bishop Antonin (Granovsky), elevated by the renovationists to the rank of metropolitan. The next day, the authorities, in order to make it easier for the Renovationists to seize power, transported Patriarch Tikhon to the Donskoy Monastery in Moscow, where he was kept in strict isolation. His relations with other archpastors and the remaining members of the Synod and the All-Russian Central Council were interrupted. At the Trinity Compound, in the chambers of the high priest-confessor, an unauthorized VCU was installed. By the end of 1922, the renovationists were able to occupy two-thirds of the 30 thousand churches operating at that time.

The undisputed leader of the renovation movement was the rector of the St. Petersburg Church in the name of Saints Zechariah and Elizabeth, Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky. Recipient of six diplomas higher education, who quoted “from memory... on different languages whole pages” (according to V. Shalamov), after February he joined the group of clergy that took the position of Christian socialism. Vvedensky had a lot of the fashionable judicial speaker and operetta actor. One such description is the following: “When in 1914, at his first service as a priest, he “began to read the text of the Cherubic Song; the worshipers were dumbfounded with amazement, not only because Father Alexander read this prayer... not secretly, but out loud, but also because he read it with painful exaltation and with that characteristic “howl” with which decadent poems were often read.” 3

In the first years of the communists’ stay in power, Vvedensky more than once participated in very popular public debates about religion at that time, and he ended his debate with People’s Commissar A. Lunacharsky about the existence of God like this: “Anatoly Vasilyevich believes that man descended from a monkey. I think otherwise. Well, everyone knows his relatives better.” At the same time, he knew how to show off, be charming and win people over. Returning to Petrograd after seizing church power, he explained his position: “Decipher the modern economic term “capitalist”, convey it in the Gospel. This will be the rich man who, according to Christ, will not inherit eternal life. Translate the word “proletariat” into the language of the Gospel, and these will be those lesser, bypassed Lazari, whom the Lord came to save. And the Church must now definitely take the path of saving these neglected smaller brethren. It must condemn the untruth of capitalism from a religious (not political) point of view, which is why our renovationist movement accepts the religious and moral truth of the October social revolution. We openly say to everyone: you cannot go against the power of the working people.”

Even at the Kyiv Theological Academy, Bishop Antonin (Granovsky) stood out for his brilliant academic success and ambition. He became an outstanding expert on ancient languages, devoted his master's thesis to restoring the lost original of the Book of the Prophet Baruch, for which he drew on its texts, both in Greek and in Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Georgian and other languages. Based on some of the surviving texts, he proposed his own version of the reconstruction of the Hebrew original. After graduating from the academy in 1891, he taught for many years at various theological schools, surprising students and colleagues with his eccentricities. Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky) said in his memoirs: “In the Donskoy Moscow Monastery, where he lived at one time, being the caretaker of a theological school, he got a bear cub; the monks were unable to survive because of it: the bear climbed into the refectory, emptied pots of porridge, etc. But that was not enough. Antonin decided to do this New Year visits accompanied by a bear. I went to see the manager of the Synodal Office, did not find him at home and left a card “Hieromonk Antonin with a bear.” The outraged dignitary complained to K.P. Pobedonostsev. An investigation has begun. But Antonin was forgiven a lot for his extraordinary mental abilities.” Bishop Eulogius also recalled about Antonin that, when he was a teacher at the Kholm Theological Seminary, “something tragic was felt in him, hopeless spiritual torment. I remember he goes home in the evening and, without lighting the lamp, lies in the dark for hours, and I hear through the wall his loud moans: oooh-oh... oooh-oh.” In St. Petersburg, as a censor, he not only allowed everything that came for his approval to be published, but found special pleasure in stamping his visa on literary works prohibited by civil censorship. During the revolution of 1905, he refused to remember the name of the sovereign during worship, and in “New Time” he talked about the combination of legislative, executive and judicial powers as an earthly likeness of the Divine Trinity, for which he was dismissed. During the Local Council of 1917-1918. he walked around Moscow in a torn cassock, when meeting with acquaintances he complained that he had been forgotten, sometimes he even spent the night on the street, on a bench. In 1921, for his liturgical innovations, Patriarch Tikhon banned him from ministry. In May 1923, he presided over the Renovationist Church Council, and was the first of the bishops to sign a decree depriving Patriarch Tikhon of his rank (the Patriarch did not recognize this decision). But already in the summer of 1923 he actually broke with other leaders of the renovationists, and in the fall of the same year he was officially removed from the post of chairman of the Supreme Church Council. Antonin later wrote that “by the time of the council of 1923, there was not a single drunkard, not a single vulgar person left who would not get into the church administration and would not cover himself with a title or miter. The whole of Siberia was covered with a network of archbishops who rushed to the episcopal sees directly from drunken sextons.”

The former chief prosecutor of the Synod, V.N., also became a prominent figure in renovationism. Lviv. He demanded the blood of the Patriarch and the “cleansing of the episcopate”; he advised the priests, first of all, to throw off their cassock, cut their hair and thus turn into “mere mortals.” There were, of course, more decent people among the renovationists, for example, the Petrograd priest A.I. Boyarsky at the trial of the Metropolitan Petrogradsky Veniamin testified in favor of the accused, for which he himself risked ending up in the dock (as a result of this trial, Metropolitan Benjamin was shot). The true conductor of the church schism was the security officer from the OGPU E.A. Tuchkov. Renovationist leaders in their circle called him “abbot,” but he himself preferred to call himself “Soviet chief prosecutor.”

Under the onslaught of anti-Christian and schismatic propaganda, the persecuted Russian Church did not retreat; the great host of martyrs and confessors of the Christian faith testified to its strength and holiness. Despite the seizure of many thousands of churches by renovationists, people did not come to them, and in Orthodox churches services were performed with a crowd of people praying. Secret monasteries arose; even under the hieromartyr Metropolitan Veniamin, a secret monastery was created in Petrograd convent, where all the services prescribed by the charter were strictly performed. A secret brotherhood of zealots of Orthodoxy arose in Moscow, which distributed leaflets against the “living church members.” When all Orthodox publications were banned, handwritten religious books and articles began to circulate among believers. In the prisons, where dozens and hundreds of confessors languished, entire hidden libraries of religious literature accumulated.

Part of the clergy, who did not share the reformist aspirations of the “living church”, but frightened by the bloody terror, recognized the schismatic VCU, some out of cowardice and fear for their own lives, others in anxiety for the Church. On June 16, 1922, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Vladimir, Archbishop Evdokim (Meshchersky) of Nizhny Novgorod and Archbishop Seraphim (Meshcheryakov) of Kostroma publicly recognized the renovationist VCU as the sole canonical church authority in the so-called “Memorandum of Three.” This document served as a temptation for many church people and laity. Metropolitan Sergius was one of the most authoritative archpastors of the Russian Church. His temporary retreat was probably caused by the hope that he would be able to outwit both the renovationists and the GPU standing behind them. Knowing his popularity in church circles, he could count on the fact that he would soon find himself at the head of the All-Russian Central Church and gradually be able to straighten the renovationist course of this institution. But, in the end, Metropolitan Sergius was nevertheless convinced of the disastrous consequences of issuing the memorandum and excessive reliance on his ability to cope with the situation. He repented of what he had done and returned to the fold of the canonical Orthodox Church. From the Renovationist schism, Archbishop Seraphim (Meshcheryakov) also returned to the Church through repentance. For Archbishop Evdokim (Meshchersky), the fall into schism turned out to be irrevocable. In the magazine “Living Church,” Bishop Evdokim poured out his loyal feelings towards the Soviet regime and repented for the entire Church of his “immeasurable guilt” before the Bolsheviks.

In a hurry to legitimize their rights as soon as possible, the renovationists set a course for convening a new Council. The “Second Local All-Russian Council” (the first renovationist) was opened on April 29, 1923 in Moscow, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior taken away from the Orthodox Church after the Divine Liturgy and solemn prayer service performed by the false Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia Antonin, co-served by 8 bishops and 18 archpriests - delegates Council, reading the letter of the Supreme Church Administration on the opening of the Council, greetings to the Government of the Republic and personal greetings from the Chairman of the Supreme Church Administration, Metropolitan Antonin. The Council spoke out in support of Soviet power and announced the deposition of Patriarch Tikhon, depriving him of his dignity and monasticism. The patriarchate was abolished as "a monarchical and counter-revolutionary way of leading the Church." The decision was not recognized as legitimate by Patriarch Tikhon. The Council introduced the institution of a white (married) episcopate, and priests were allowed to remarry. These innovations seemed too radical even to the renovationist “first hierarch” Antonin, who left the pre-conciliar commission, breaking with the “living church members” and branding them in his sermons as apostates from the faith. The VCU was transformed into the Supreme Church Council (SCC). It was also decided to switch from June 12, 1923 to Gregorian calendar.

Patriarch Tikhon at the beginning of 1923 was transferred from the Donskoy Monastery to the GPU prison on Lubyanka. On March 16, he was charged under four articles of the Criminal Code: calls for the overthrow of Soviet power and inciting the masses to resist legal government regulations. The Patriarch pleaded guilty to all charges: “I repent of these actions against the state system and ask the Supreme Court to change my measure of restraint, that is, to release me from custody. At the same time, I declare to the Supreme Court that from now on I am not an enemy of the Soviet regime. I finally and decisively disassociate myself from both foreign and domestic monarchist-White Guard counter-revolution.” On June 25, Patriarch Tikhon was released from prison. The authorities’ decision to compromise was explained not only by the protests of the world community, but also by the fear of unpredictable consequences within the country, and Orthodox Christians even in 1923 constituted a decisive majority of the Russian population. The Patriarch himself explained his actions in the words of the Apostle Paul: “I have a desire to be resolved and be with Christ, because this is incomparably better; but it is more necessary for you to remain in the flesh” (Phil. 1:23-24).

The release of His Holiness the Patriarch was met with universal rejoicing. He was greeted by thousands of believers. Several messages issued by Patriarch Tikhon after his release from prison firmly outlined the course that the Church would henceforth follow - fidelity to the teachings and covenants of Christ, the fight against the Renovationist schism, recognition of Soviet power and renunciation of all political activity. A massive return of clergy from the schism began: tens and hundreds of priests who had gone over to the Renovationists now brought repentance to the Patriarch. Temples captured by schismatics, after the repentance of the abbots, were sprinkled with holy water and re-consecrated.

To govern the Russian Church, the Patriarch created a temporary Holy Synod, which received powers not from the Council, but personally from the Patriarch. Members of the Synod began negotiations with the Renovationist false metropolitan Evdokim (Meshchersky) and his supporters on the conditions for restoring church unity. The negotiations were not successful, just as it was not possible to form a new, expanded Synod and the All-Russian Central Council, which would include the figures of the “Living Church” who were ready to repent - Krasnitsky and other leaders of the movement did not agree to such a condition. The administration of the Church, thus, still remained in the hands of the Patriarch and his closest assistants.

Losing supporters, the renovationists, hitherto not recognized by anyone, were preparing to deal an unexpected blow to the Church from the other side. The Renovation Synod sent messages to the Eastern Patriarchs and the primates of all autocephalous Churches with a request to restore the allegedly interrupted communion with the Russian Church. His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon received a message from the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VII wishing him to retire from the administration of the Church and at the same time to abolish the patriarchate “as having been born in completely abnormal circumstances... and as considered a significant obstacle to the restoration of peace and unity.” One of the motives for such a message from His Holiness Gregory was the desire to find an ally in the person of the Soviet government in relations with Ankara. The Ecumenical Patriarch hoped, with the help of Soviet power, to improve the position of Orthodoxy on the territory of the Turkish Republic and to establish contacts with the government of Ataturk. In a response message, Patriarch Tikhon rejected the inappropriate advice of his brother. After this, Patriarch Gregory VII communicated with the Evdokimov synod as the supposedly legitimate governing body of the Russian Church. His example was followed, not without hesitation and pressure from outside, by other Eastern Patriarchs. However, the Patriarch of Jerusalem did not support this position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and in a letter addressed to Archbishop Innocent of Kursk, he declared recognition of only the Patriarchal Church as canonical.

Vvedensky invented for himself a new title of “evangelist-apologist” and launched a new campaign against the Patriarch in the renovationist press, accusing him of hidden counter-revolutionary views, insincerity and hypocrisy of repentance before the Soviet regime. This was done on such a grand scale that it is not difficult to detect behind all this the fear that Tuchkov would stop supporting renovationism, which did not live up to his hopes.

All these events were accompanied by arrests, exiles and executions of clergy. The propaganda of atheism among the people intensified. Patriarch Tikhon's health noticeably deteriorated, and on April 7, 1925, on the feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, he died. According to the will of the saint, the rights and duties of the Patriarch passed to Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), who became the Patriarchal Locum Tenens.

Although the death of the Patriarch increased the hopes of the Renovationists for victory over Orthodoxy, their position was unenviable: empty churches, poor priests, surrounded by the hatred of the people. The very first message of the Locum Tenens to the all-Russian flock contained a categorical refusal to make peace with the schismatics on their terms. Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod was also irreconcilable towards the Renovationists, who in the past joined them for a short time.

On October 1, 1925, the renovationists convened the second (“third” according to them) Local Council. At the Council, Alexander Vvedensky announced a false letter from “Bishop” Nikolai Solovy that in May 1924, Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) sent a blessing with him to Paris to Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich to occupy the imperial throne. Vvedensky accused the Locum Tenens of collaborating with the White Guard political center and thereby cut off the opportunity for negotiations. The majority of the members of the Council, believing the report they heard, were shocked by such a message and the collapse of hopes of establishing peace in the Church. However, the renovationists were forced to abandon all their innovations.

Tuchkov, knowing the vulnerability of the position of the renovationists and their unpopularity among the people, did not lose hope of using the legitimate first hierarch of the Orthodox Church in his interests. Intensive negotiations between Metropolitan Peter and Tuchkov began on resolving the situation of the Orthodox Church in the Soviet state. The discussion was about the legalization of the Church, the registration of the VCU and diocesan departments, the existence of which was illegal. The GPU formulated its conditions as follows: 1) publication of a declaration calling on believers to be loyal to the Soviet regime; 2) the elimination of bishops who are objectionable to the authorities; 3) condemnation of foreign bishops; 4) contact with the government represented by a representative of the GPU. The locum tenens saw that his arrest was inevitable and close, and therefore entrusted Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny Novgorod with the performance of the duties of the patriarchal locum tenens in case of his inability for some reason to fulfill them. The sole disposal of the patriarchal throne and the appointment by will of a Deputy Locum Tenens were not provided for by any church canons, but in the conditions in which the Russian Church lived at that time, this was the only means of preserving the patriarchal throne and the highest church authority. Four days after this order, the arrest of Metropolitan Peter followed, and Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) assumed the duties of Deputy Locum Tenens.

On May 18, 1927, Metropolitan Sergius created the Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod, which soon received registration with the NKVD. Two months later, the “Declaration” of Metropolitan Sergius and the Synod was published, which contained an appeal to the flock to support the Soviet government and condemned the emigrated clergy. The Synod issued decrees on the commemoration of the authorities during divine services, on the dismissal of exiled and imprisoned bishops and the appointment of bishops who returned to freedom to distant dioceses, because those bishops who were released from camps and exile were not allowed to enter their dioceses. These changes caused confusion and sometimes outright disagreement among believers and the clergy, but these were necessary concessions for the sake of the legalization of the Church, the registration of diocesan bishops with their diocesan councils. The goal set by Patriarch Tikhon was achieved. Legally, the Patriarchal Synod was given the same status as the Renovation Synod, although the Renovationists continued to enjoy patronage from the authorities, while the Patriarchal Church remained persecuted. Only after the legalization of Metropolitan Sergius and the Synod did the Eastern Patriarchs, first Damian of Jerusalem, then Gregory of Antioch, send a blessing to Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod and recognition of him as the temporary head of the Patriarchal Church.

After the legalization of the Provisional Patriarchal Synod under Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in 1927, the influence of renovationism steadily declined. The final blow to the movement was the decisive support by the USSR authorities of the Patriarchal Church in September 1943, under the conditions of the Great Patriotic War. In the spring of 1944, there was a massive transfer of clergy and parishes to the Moscow Patriarchate; By the end of the war, all that remained of all renovationism was the parish of the Church of Pimen the Great in Novye Vorotniki (New Pimen) in Moscow. With the death of “Metropolitan” Alexander Vvedensky in 1946, renovationism completely disappeared.

1. Quote according to Shikhantsov, A., What did the renovationists update?//Historistka. Official website of the home church of St. Martyr Tatiana at Moscow State University. M.V.Lomonosov.www.taday.ru
2. See also there
3. See also there
4. Russian Orthodox Church and the communist state. 1917-1941. M., 1996
5. Krasnov-Levitin, A. Deeds and days. Paris, 1990.
6. Prot. V. Tsypin. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. M., 2007
7. Shikhantsov, A. What did the renovationists update?//Historistka. Official website of the home church of St. mts. Tatiana at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov. www.taday.ru

At the first opportunity, participants in the renovation movement hastened to take Church administration into their own hands. They did this with the support of the Soviet government, which wanted not only the collapse of the previously united Russian Church, but also the further division of its split parts, which occurred in renovationism between the Congress of the White Clergy and the Second Local Council organized by it.

Local Russian Council Orthodox Church 1917-1918

Formation of the “Living Church”

The “Church Revolution” began in the spring of 1922 after the February decree on the confiscation of church valuables and the subsequent arrest of Patriarch Tikhon during the spring.

On May 16, the renovationists sent a letter to the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee with a message about the creation of the Supreme Church Administration. For the state, this was the only registered church power, and the renovationists turned this document into an act of transferring church power to them.

On May 18, a group of Petrograd priests - Vvedensky, Belkov and Kalinovsky - were allowed into the Trinity courtyard to see the Patriarch, who was being held under house arrest (he himself described this event in his message of June 15, 1923). Complaining that church affairs remained unresolved, they asked to be entrusted with the patriarchal office to organize affairs. The Patriarch gave his consent and handed over the office, but not to them, but to Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) of Yaroslavl, officially reporting this in a letter addressed to the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. But Metropolitan Agathangel was unable to arrive in the capital - after refusing to join renovationism, he was not allowed into Moscow, and was later taken into custody.

As planned, the renovationists are using a campaign of confiscation of church valuables in order to discredit the Patriarch.

On May 19, the Patriarch was taken from the Trinity Compound and imprisoned in the Donskoy Monastery. The courtyard was occupied by the renovationist Supreme Church Administration. To make it appear that the administration was legal, Bishop Leonid (Skobeev) was inclined to work at the VCU. Renovationists took the helm of church power.

Without wasting time, the VCU (Higher Church Administration) sends out an appeal to all dioceses “to the believing sons of the Orthodox Church of Russia.” In it, as planned, the renovationists use a campaign of confiscation of church valuables in order to discredit the Patriarch. Here are excerpts from it: “Blood was shed so as not to help Christ, who was starving. By refusing to help the hungry, church people tried to create a coup d'etat.

Saint Tikhon (Bellavin), Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'

The appeal of Patriarch Tikhon became the banner around which counter-revolutionaries, dressed in church clothes and sentiments, rallied. We consider it necessary to immediately convene a local Council to judge those responsible for church destruction, to decide on the governance of the church and to establish normal relations between it and the Soviet government. The civil war, led by the highest hierarchs, must be stopped.”

On May 29, a founding meeting was held in Moscow, at which the following clergy were accepted into the VCU: chairman - Bishop Antonin, his deputy - Archpriest Vladimir Krasnitsky, business manager - priest Evgeny Belkov and four other members. The main provisions of the Living Church were formulated: “A revision of church dogma in order to highlight those features that were introduced into it by the former system in Russia. Revision of the church liturgy with the aim of clarifying and eliminating those layers that were introduced into Orthodox worship by the people who experienced the union of church and state, and ensuring freedom of pastoral creativity in the field of worship, without violating the celebratory rites of the sacraments.” The magazine “Living Church” also began to be published, edited first by priest Sergius Kalinovsky, and then by Evgeniy Belkov.

The propaganda campaign began. Everywhere it was announced that the Patriarch transferred church power to the VCU on his own initiative, and they are its legal representatives. To confirm these words, they needed to win over to their side one of the two deputies named by the Patriarch: “In view of the extreme difficulty in church administration that arose from bringing me to the civil court, I consider it useful for the good of the Church to temporarily appoint, until the convening of the Council, at the head of the church administration or Yaroslavl Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) or Petrograd Veniamin (Kazan)” (Letter from Patriarch Tikhon to the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee M. I Kalinin). Attempts were made to enter into negotiations with Vladika Benjamin.

The influence of Vladyka Benjamin was very great on believers. The renovationists could not come to terms with this.

On May 25, Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky visited him with the notification “that he, according to the resolution of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, is a plenipotentiary member of the VCU and is sent on Church affairs to Petrograd and other areas of the Russian Republic.” Metropolitan Benjamin refused. And on May 28, in a message to the Petrograd flock, he excommunicated Vvedensky, Krasnitsky and Belkov from the Church.

Alexander Vvedensky - archpriest, in the Renovationist schism - metropolitan

This was a heavy blow to the authority of the Living Church. The influence of Vladyka Benjamin was very great on believers. The renovationists could not come to terms with this. Vvedensky came to him again, accompanied by I. Bakaev, who was responsible for church affairs in the provincial committee of the RCP (b). They presented an ultimatum: cancel the message of May 28 or create a case against him and other Petrograd priests for resisting the seizure of church valuables. The Bishop refused. On May 29 he was arrested.

From June 10 to July 5, 1922, a trial took place in Petrograd, in which 10 people were sentenced to death and 36 to imprisonment. Then 6 sentenced to death were pardoned by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, and four were shot on the night of August 12-13: Metropolitan Veniamin (Kazan), Archimandrite Sergius (chairman of the Local Council 1917-1918, in the world - V.P. Shein), chairman of the board society Orthodox parishes Yu. P. Novitsky and lawyer N. M. Kovsharov.

A group of clerics accused of inciting riots were also tried in Moscow. Patriarch Tikhon was summoned as a witness to the trial. After the interrogation of the Patriarch on May 9, 1922, Pravda wrote: “Downloads of people crowded into the Polytechnic Museum for the trial of the “dean” and for the interrogation of the Patriarch. The Patriarch looks down on the unprecedented challenge and interrogation. He smiles at the naive audacity of the young people at the judge's table. He carries himself with dignity. But we will join the gross sacrilege of the Moscow tribunal and, in addition to judicial issues, we will ask another, even more indelicate question: where does Patriarch Tikhon have such dignity?” By decision of the tribunal, 11 defendants were sentenced to death. Patriarch Tikhon appealed to the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee Kalinin about pardoning the convicts, since they did not offer any resistance to the confiscation and were not involved in counter-revolution. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee pardoned six persons, and five - Archpriests Alexander Zaozersky, Vasily Sokolov, Khristofor Nadezhdin, Hieromonk Macarius Telegin and layman Sergei Tikhomirov - were executed. The tribunal also ruled to bring Patriarch Tikhon and Archbishop Nikandr (Fenomenov) of Krutitsky to trial as defendants.

A similar situation occurred throughout the country. An institute of authorized representatives of the VCU was created under diocesan departments. These commissioners had such power that they could overrule the decisions of diocesan bishops. They enjoyed the support of government institutions, primarily the GPU. 56 such commissioners were sent to dioceses. Their task was to gather around them locally the bishops and priests who recognized the VCU and wage a united front against the Tikhonites.

Things were going well for the renovationists. A big event for them was the accession of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Vladimir to the “Living Church” and the appearance in the press on June 16, 1922 of a statement by three hierarchs (“memorandum of three” - Metropolitan Sergius and Archbishops Evdokim of Nizhny Novgorod and Seraphim of Kostroma - in which the VCU recognized “ the only canonically legitimate ecclesiastical authority"). As the authors of this document later admitted, they took this step in the hope of leading the VCU and turning its activities into a canonical direction, “saving the position of the Church, preventing anarchy in it.” Also, this act of such a wise hierarch as Metropolitan Sergius was due to the fact that there was no other administrative center, and the life of the Church without it seemed impossible. According to them, it was necessary to preserve church unity. Many of the bishops switched to renovationism, following the example of Metropolitan Sergius - such was his authority.

An institute of authorized representatives of the VCU was created under diocesan departments. These commissioners had such power that they could overrule the decisions of diocesan bishops.

A considerable part of the priests obeyed the VCU, fearing both reprisals and removal from office. The latter was common. The chairman of the VCU, Bishop Antonin, in a conversation with a correspondent of the Izvestia newspaper, admitted to the crude methods of work of the renovationists: “I receive complaints from different quarters about it (the Living Church), about its representatives, who with their actions and violence cause strong irritation against it "

In July 1922, “out of 73 diocesan bishops, 37 joined the VCU, and 36 followed Patriarch Tikhon.” By August, power in most dioceses passed into the hands of the Living Church. The renovationists were gaining more and more strength. They enjoyed a great advantage - they had an administrative center and security officers ready for reprisals. But they did not have what would give them a real victory - the people.

A participant in the events of that era, M. Kurdyumov, recalled that ordinary people saw the lies of the “Soviet priests.” “I remember one incident in Moscow in the fall of 1922 - I had to find a priest to serve a memorial service in the Novodevichy Convent at the grave of my confessor. They showed me two houses nearby where the clergy lived. Approaching the gate of one of these houses, I looked for a long time for the bell. At that time, a simple woman of about 50, wearing a headscarf, walked past me. Seeing my difficulty, she stopped and asked:

Who do you want?

Father, let's serve a memorial service...

Not here, not here... she became frightened and worried. Live bait lives here, but go to the right, there’s Father Tikhonovsky, the real one.”

“The Red Church,” recalls another witness to the events from among ordinary parishioners, “enjoyed the secret patronage of the Soviets. Obviously, they could not take her as their dependent, due to the same decree on the separation of Church and state.

Agathangel (Preobrazhensky), Metropolitan

They counted on its propaganda and attracting believers to it. But this turned out to be the case, the believers did not go, its churches were empty and had no income either from services or from plate collection - there was not enough money even for lighting and heating, as a result of which the churches began to gradually collapse. This is how the mural painting in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior - the work of our best masters - has completely deteriorated. First, mold spots appeared on it, and then the paints began to peel. This was the case back in 1927.” The people stood for the patriarchal Church.

But the trouble was that there was no administrative center: when the Patriarch was taken into custody, it was lost. However, before his arrest, the Patriarch appointed Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky), who was at that time in Yaroslavl, as his deputy. Through the efforts of the renovationists, the Metropolitan was deprived of the opportunity to come to Moscow. In view of the current situation, on July 18, 1922, he issued a message in which he called the VCU illegal and called on the dioceses to switch to independent, autonomous management. Thus, some of the bishops who did not accept renovationism switched to autonomous governance. That was very important matter for the patriarchal Church - a path appeared along which it was possible not to join the renovationists, who, with the help of the authorities, were preparing their so-called organizational “Congress”.

"All-Russian Congress of White Clergy"

On August 6, 1922, the First All-Russian Congress of White Clergy “The Living Church” was convened in Moscow. 150 delegates with a casting vote and 40 with an advisory vote arrived at the congress. The Congress decided to defrock Patriarch Tikhon at the upcoming Local Council.

Bishop Antonin (Granovsky)

At this congress, a charter consisting of 33 points was adopted. This charter proclaimed “a revision of school dogma, ethics, liturgics and, in general, the cleansing of all aspects of church life from later layers.” The charter called for “the complete liberation of the church from politics (state counter-revolution).” Particularly scandalous was the adoption of a resolution that allowed white episcopacy, widowed clergy were allowed to enter into a second marriage, monks to break their vows and marry, and priests to marry widows. The Cathedral of Christ the Savior was recognized as the center of the renovation movement.

Archbishop Antonin (Granovsky) was elected to the Moscow See with subsequent elevation to the rank of Metropolitan. What kind of person he was can be judged from the memoirs of his contemporaries. Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) gave the following description: “I fully accept the possibility that among the forty thousand Russian clergy there were several scoundrels who rebelled against the Holy Patriarch, headed by a well-known libertine, a drunkard and a nihilist, who was a client of a mental hospital twenty years ago. " A man from the artistic community and a Catholic by religion gave Antonin an interesting description: “I was particularly impressed by Archimandrite Antonin from the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. What was striking was his enormous height, his demonic face, his piercing eyes and pitch-black, not very thick beard. But I was no less amazed by what this priest began to say with incomprehensible frankness and downright cynicism. The main topic of his conversation was the communication of the sexes. And so Antonin not only did not go into any exaltation of asceticism, but, on the contrary, did not at all deny the inevitability of such communication and all its forms.”

They enjoyed a great advantage - they had an administrative center and security officers ready for reprisals. But they did not have what would give them a real victory - the people.

The introduction of the marriage episcopate dealt a strong blow to the authority of the Renovationists. Already at the congress itself, aware of all the consequences of such a decision, Bishop Antonin tried to object, to which Vladimir Krasnitsky answered him: “You shouldn’t be embarrassed by the canons, they are outdated, a lot needs to be abolished.” This could not have gone unnoticed. The newspaper “Moskovsky Rabochiy” did not miss the convenient opportunity to caustically comment on Bishop Antonin’s polemic with Krasnitsky: “Now, by abolishing all penalties for renouncing monastic vows and granting the episcopal title to white, married clergy, she (the Church) assures that only at the present time is she being elected the path prescribed by the Fathers of the Church, Councils, and church rules. We must tell the believers - look: the church rules, what the drawbar is, where you turn, that’s where it came out.”

The council demanded the closure of all monasteries and the transformation of rural monasteries into labor brotherhoods.

The question was raised about the organization of church government. The supreme governing body, according to the approved project, is the All-Russian Local Council, convened every three years and consisting of delegates elected at diocesan meetings from the clergy and laity, enjoying equal rights. At the head of the diocese is the diocesan administration, consisting of 4 priests, 1 clergy and 1 layman. The chairman of the diocesan administration is the bishop, who, however, does not enjoy any advantages. That is, as can be seen, white clergy predominated in the diocesan administrations.

Metropolitan of the New Orthodox Church Alexander Vvedensky with his wife at home

Also, the participants of the congress made attempts to reorganize the financial system of the Church. The report “On the Unified Church Cash Fund” was read out. The first paragraph of this report was directed against the parish councils, which, by decree of 1918, determined intra-church life. According to the report, it was supposed to remove all sources of income from the jurisdiction of parish councils and transfer them to the disposal of the VCU. However, the government did not accept such a proposal, and the renovationists could only be participants in the disposal of funds in the parish councils.

This congress was the beginning of the collapse of the Living Church. The last hopes for the beneficence of the reforms disappeared - the canons were trampled upon, the foundation of the Church was destroyed. It was clear that the Orthodox would turn away from such reforms. This could not but cause acute contradictions within the movement itself. Renovationism has cracked.

Thus, some of the bishops who did not accept renovationism switched to autonomous governance.

An internal struggle began. Metropolitan Antonin, insulted at the council, on September 6, 1922, at the Sretensky Monastery, spoke about the white renovationist clergy this way: “The priests are closing the monasteries, they themselves sit in the fat places; let the priests know that if the monks disappear, they too will disappear.” In another conversation, he stated the following: “By the time of the council of 1923, there was not a single drunkard, not a single vulgar person left who would not get into the church administration and would not cover himself with a title or miter. The whole of Siberia was covered with a network of archbishops who rushed to the episcopal sees directly from drunken sextons.”

It became clear that the Renovationists had experienced the peak of their meteoric rise - now their slow but irreversible decomposition began. The first step towards this was a split within the movement itself, consumed by contradictions.

Division of the renovation movement

The process of dividing renovationism began on the 20th of August 1922 after the end of the first All-Russian Congress of White Clergy.

On August 24, at the founding meeting in Moscow, a new group was created - the “Union of Church Revival” (UCV), headed by the chairman of the VCU, Metropolitan Antonin (Granovsky). It is joined by the Ryazan committee of the “Living Church” group, most of the Kaluga group, and the diocesan committees of the Living Churches of Tambov, Penza, Kostroma and other regions. In the first two weeks, 12 dioceses crossed over.

The All-Russian “Union of Church Revival” has developed its own program. It consisted in bridging the gap between the renovationist clergy and the believing people, without whose support the reform movement was doomed to failure. The Central Orthodox Church demanded only liturgical reform, leaving the dogmatic and canonical foundations of the Church untouched. Unlike the “Living Church,” the SCV did not demand the abolition of monasticism and allowed the installation of both monks and white clergy, but not married ones, as bishops. Second marriages for clerics were not allowed.

The introduction of the marriage episcopate dealt a strong blow to the authority of the Renovationists.

On September 22, Bishop Antonin officially announced his withdrawal from the VCU and the termination of Eucharistic communion with the “Living Church.” There was a split within a split. Archpriest Vladimir Krasnitsky decided to resort to proven force - he turned to the OGPU with a request to expel Bishop Antonin from Moscow, because “he is becoming the banner of the counter-revolution.” But there they pointed out to Krasnitsky that “the authorities have no reason to interfere in church affairs, have nothing against Antonin Granovsky and do not at all object to the organization of a new, second VCU.” Trotsky's plan came into effect. Now mass anti-religious propaganda has begun, without exception, against all groups. The newspaper “Bezbozhnik”, the magazine “Atheist”, etc. began to be published.

Krasnitsky had to take a different path. He writes a letter to Bishop Antonin, in which he agrees to any concessions in order to preserve the unity of the renovationist movement. Negotiations began. But they came to nothing. And at this time another split occurred. Among the Petrograd renovationist clergy, a new group was formed - the “Union of Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church” (SODATS). The founder of this movement was Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky, who was previously a member of the “Living Church” group, and then moved to the Central Church.

The SODAC program occupied an intermediate position between the Living Church and the Union of Church Revival groups. Although it was more radical in its social tasks than the latter, it resolutely demanded the implementation of the ideas of “Christian socialism” in public and intra-church life. SODATZ strongly advocated a revision of dogma. This revision was to take place at the upcoming Local Council: “The modern morality of the Church,” they said in their “Project of Church Reforms at the Council,” “is thoroughly imbued with the spirit of slavery, we are not slaves, but sons of God. The expulsion of the spirit of slavery, as the basic principle of morality, from the system of ethics is the work of the Council. Capitalism must also be expelled from the moral system, capitalism is a mortal sin, social inequality is unacceptable for a Christian.”

The SODAC program required a revision of all church canons. With regard to monasteries, they wanted to leave only those that “are built on the principle of labor and are of an ascetic and ascetic nature, for example Optina Pustyn, Solovki, etc.” A married episcopate was allowed; in their speeches, members of the union also spoke out in favor of the second marriage of clergy. On the question of the forms of church government, the SODAC demanded the destruction of the “monarchical principle of administration, the conciliar principle in place of the individual.” In the liturgical reform they advocated “the introduction of ancient apostolic simplicity in worship, in particular in the setting of churches, in the vestments of clergy, the native language instead of the Slavic language, the institution of deaconesses, etc.” In the management of parish affairs, equality was introduced for all members of the community: “In the management of the affairs of communities, as well as their associations (diocesan, district, district), elders, clergy and laity participate on equal rights.”

This congress was the beginning of the collapse of the Living Church. The last hopes for the beneficence of the reforms disappeared - the canons were trampled upon, the foundation of the Church was destroyed.

Then, in addition to the three main groups, the renovationists began to split into other smaller groups. Thus, Archpriest Evgeny Belkov founded the “Union of Religious and Labor Communities” in Petrograd. The internecine war threatened the failure of the entire movement. A compromise was needed. On October 16, at a meeting of the VCU, it was decided to reorganize the composition. Now it consisted of the chairman, Metropolitan Antonin, deputies - archpriests Alexander Vvedensky and Vladimir Krasnitsky, business manager A. Novikov, 5 members from SODAC and SCV and 3 from the “Living Church”. A commission was created to prepare the Council. According to the Renovationists, he had to settle all disagreements within the movement and consolidate the final victory over the Tikhonites.

"Second All-Russian Local Council"

From the very beginning of the seizure of church power, the Renovationists declared the need to convene a Local Council. But the authorities did not need this. According to the Soviet leadership, the Council could stabilize the situation in the Church and eliminate the schism. Therefore, back on May 26, 1922, the Politburo of the RCP(b) accepted Trotsky’s proposal to take a wait-and-see position regarding the existing trends in the new church leadership. They can be formulated as follows:

1. preservation of the Patriarchate and election of a loyal Patriarch;

2. destruction of the Patriarchate and creation of a loyal Synod;

3. complete decentralization, absence of any central control.

Trotsky needed a struggle between supporters of these three directions. He considered the most advantageous position “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.” It was beneficial for the Soviet government to stall for time. They decided to deal with supporters of the Patriarchal Church through repression.

The All-Russian “Union of Church Revival” has developed its own program.

Initially, the Council was planned to be held in August 1922, but these dates were postponed several times due to known reasons. But with the beginning of the division of the renovationist movement, the demands for its convocation became more insistent. Many hoped that a compromise would be found that would suit everyone. The Soviet leadership decided to make a concession. According to Tuchkov, “the Cathedral was supposed to be a springboard for a jump to Europe.”

On December 25, 1922, the All-Russian meeting of the members of the All-Russian Central Council and local diocesan administrations decided to convene the Council in April 1923. Until this time, the renovationists set themselves the task of providing for their delegates. For this purpose, deanery meetings were convened in the dioceses, which were attended by the rectors of the churches with representatives from the laity. For the most part, the abbots were renovationists. Naturally, they recommended sympathetic laymen. If there were Tikhonov abbots, they were immediately removed, replacing them with Renovationist ones. Such manipulations allowed the Renovationists to have an overwhelming majority of delegates at the upcoming Council.

The council was held under the total control of the GPU, which had up to 50% of its notice. It opened on April 29, 1923 and took place in the “3rd House of Soviets.” It was attended by 476 delegates, who were divided into parties: 200 - living church members, 116 - deputies from the SODAC, 10 - from the Central Orthodox Church, 3 - non-party renovationists and 66 deputies called “moderate Tikhonites” - Orthodox bishops, clergy and laity, cowardly submitting to the renovationist VCU.

There were 10 issues on the agenda, the main ones being:

1. On the attitude of the Church to the October Revolution, to Soviet power and Patriarch Tikhon.

2. About the white episcopate and the second marriage of the clergy.

3. About monasticism and monasteries.

4. About the project of administrative structure and management in the Russian Orthodox Church.

5. About the relics and reform of the calendar.

The Council declared full solidarity with October Revolution and the Soviet government.

On May 3, it was announced that His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon was deprived of his holy orders and monasticism: “The Council considers Tikhon an apostate from the true covenants of Christ and a traitor to the Church, and on the basis of church canons, hereby declares him deprived of his dignity and monasticism with a return to his primitive worldly position. From now on, Patriarch Tikhon is Vasily Bellavin.”

Since church society was resolutely against changes in Orthodox doctrine and dogma, as well as reform of worship, the Council was forced to limit the scope of reformism. However, he allowed priests to marry widows or divorcees. The monasteries were closed. Only labor brotherhoods and communities were blessed. The idea of ​​“personal salvation” and the veneration of relics were preserved. On May 5, the Gregorian calendar was adopted.

The Council, as the governing body of the Church, elected the highest executive body of the All-Russian Local Council - the Supreme Church Council (“Council” sounded more harmonious than “Administration”), chaired by Metropolitan Antonin. It included 10 people from the “Living Church”, 6 people from SODAC and 2 people from “Church Revival”.

According to the approved “Regulations on the Administration of the Church,” diocesan administrations were to consist of 5 people, of whom 4 people were elected: 2 clergy and 2 laymen. The bishop is appointed as chairman. All members of the diocesan administration had to be approved by the WCC. Vicar (district) administrations were to consist of 3 people: a chairman (bishop) and two members: a clergyman and a layman.

"Metropolitan of Siberia" Peter and Archpriest Vladimir

The Krasnitsky Council granted Archpriest Vladimir Krasnitsky the title of “Protopresbyter of All Rus'.” And Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky was made Archbishop of Krutitsky and after his consecration he moved to Moscow, where he approached the leadership of the Renovationist Church.

It seemed that the Council proclaimed the victory of the renovationist Church. Now the Russian Orthodox Church has taken on a new look and taken a new course. The Patriarchal Church was almost destroyed. There was practically no hope. Only the Lord could help in such a plight. As the saint writes. Basil the Great, the Lord allows evil to gain triumph and victory for a time, seemingly completely, so that later, when good triumphs, man would thank none other than the Almighty.

And God’s help was not slow to come.

Babayan Georgy Vadimovich

Keywords Keywords: renovationism, congress, Council, reforms, division, repression.

Kuznetsov A. I.

2002. - P. 216.

Shkarovsky M. V. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 18.

Regelson L. The tragedy of the Russian Church. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2007. - P. 287.

Shkarovsky M. V. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - pp. 18-19.

Regelson L. The tragedy of the Russian Church. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2007. - P. 286.

Right there. P. 293.

Right there. P. 294.

Shkarovsky V. M. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - pp. 19-20.

Tsypin V., prof. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal and newest periods(1700-2005). - M.: Sretensky Monastery, 2006. - P. 382-383.

Shkarovsky M. V.

Regelson L. The tragedy of the Russian Church. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2007. - P. 303.

Pospelovsky D. V. Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century. - M.: Republic, 1995. - P. 70.

Shkarovsky M. V. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 20.

Shishkin A. A. The essence and critical assessment of the “renovationist” schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970. - P. 101.

Soloviev I. V. Short story so-called “Renovationist schism” in the Russian Orthodox Church in the light of new published historical documents // Renovationist schism. Society of amateurs church history. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2002. - P. 26.

Right there. P. 29.

Kuznetsov A. I. Renovationist schism in the Russian Church. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House,

2002. - P. 260.

Right there. P. 264.

Tsypin V., prof.

Right there. pp. 385-386.

Kuznetsov A. I. Renovationist schism in the Russian Church. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House,

2002. - P. 265.

Shishkin A. A. The essence and critical assessment of the “renovationist” schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970. - pp. 187-188.

Shkarovsky M. V. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 24.

Kuznetsov A. I. Renovationist schism in the Russian Church. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House,

2002. - P. 281.

Tsypin V., prof. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal and modern periods (1700-2005). - M.: Sretensky Monastery, 2006. - P. 393.

Shishkin A. A. The essence and critical assessment of the “renovationist” schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970. - P. 205.

Shkarovsky M. V. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 26.

Shishkin A. A. The essence and critical assessment of the “renovationist” schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970. - P. 210; TsGA TASSR. F. 1172. Op. 3. D. 402. L. 43.

See also: Reform program at the Renovation Council of 1923, proposed by the “Living Church” on May 16-29, 1922 // URL: https://www.blagogon.ru/biblio/718/print (access date: 08/04/2017 of the year).

Right there. P. 214.

Shishkin A. A. The essence and critical assessment of the “renovationist” schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970. - pp. 214-216.

Shkarovsky M. V. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 27.

Right there. P. 23.

Regelson L. The tragedy of the Russian Church. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2007. - P. 327.

Kuznetsov A. I. Renovationist schism in the Russian Church. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2002. - pp. 304-305.

Russian Orthodox Church XX century. - M.: Sretensky Monastery, 2008. - P. 169.

Shishkin A. A. The essence and critical assessment of the “renovationist” schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970. - P. 232.

Russian Orthodox Church XX century. - M.: Sretensky Monastery, 2008. - P. 170-171.

Shishkin A. A. The essence and critical assessment of the “renovationist” schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970. - pp. 232-239.

The emergence of the renovation movement in Russia is a difficult topic, but interesting and even relevant to this day. What were its prerequisites, who stood at the origins and why the young Soviet government supported the renovationists - you will learn about this in this article.

In the historiography of the renovationist schism, there are different points of view on the issue of the origin of renovationism.

D. V. Pospelovsky, A. G. Kravetsky and I. V. Solovyov believe that “the pre-revolutionary movement for church renewal should in no way be confused with “Soviet renovationism” and even more that between the movement for church renewal before 1917 and "Renovationist schism" 1922–1940 It’s hard to find something in common.”

M. Danilushkin, T. Nikolskaya, M. Shkarovsky are convinced that “the Renewal movement in the Russian Orthodox Church has a long prehistory, stretching back centuries.” According to this point of view, renovationism originated in the activities of V.S. Solovyov, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy.

But as an organized church movement, it began to be realized during the First Russian Revolution of 1905-1907. At this time, the idea of ​​renewing the Church became popular among the intelligentsia and clergy. Among the reformers are Bishops Antonin (Granovsky) and Andrei (Ukhtomsky), Duma priests: Fathers Tikhvinsky, Ognev, Afanasyev. In 1905, under the patronage of Bishop Antonin, a “circle of 32 priests” was formed, which included supporters of renovationist reforms in the church.

One cannot look for the motives for creating the “All-Russian Union of Democratic Clergy”, and subsequently the “Living Church” (one of the church groups of renovationism) only in the ideological field.

During the Civil War, on the initiative of former members of this circle, on March 7, 1917, the “All-Russian Union of Democratic Clergy and Laity” arose, headed by priests Alexander Vvedensky, Alexander Boyarsky and Ivan Egorov. The union opened its branches in Moscow, Kyiv, Odessa, Novgorod, Kharkov and other cities. The “All-Russian Union” enjoyed the support of the Provisional Government and published the newspaper “Voice of Christ” with synodal money, and by the fall it already had its own publishing house, “Conciliar Reason”. Among the leaders of this movement in January 1918, the famous protopresbyter of the military and naval clergy, Georgy (Shavelsky), appeared. The union acted under the slogan “Christianity is on the side of labor, and not on the side of violence and exploitation.”

Under the auspices of the Chief Prosecutor of the Provisional Government, an official reformation arose - the “Church and Public Bulletin” was published, in which the professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy B.V. Titlinov and Protopresbyter Georgy Shavelsky worked.

But one cannot look for the motives for creating the “All-Russian Union of Democratic Clergy”, and subsequently the “Living Church” (one of the church groups of renovationism) only in the ideological field. We must not forget, on the one hand, the area of ​​class interests, and on the other hand, the church policy of the Bolsheviks. Professor S.V. Troitsky calls the “Living Church” a priestly revolt: “It was created by the pride of the Petrograd metropolitan clergy.”

Petrograd priests have long occupied an exceptional, privileged position in the Church. These were the most talented graduates of theological academies. There were strong ties between them: “Do not be afraid of the court, do not be afraid of important gentlemen,” St. Philaret of Moscow admonished Metropolitan Isidore, his former vicar, to the St. Petersburg see: “They care little about the Church. But be careful with the St. Petersburg clergy - they are the guard."

Renovators are beginning to actively participate in political life countries, taking the side of the new government.

Like all white clergy, the St. Petersburg priests were subordinate to the metropolitan, who was a monk. This was the same academy graduate, often less gifted. This haunted the ambitious priests of St. Petersburg; some had a dream of taking power into their own hands, because until the 7th century there was a married episcopate. They waited only for the right opportunity to take power into their own hands, and hoped to achieve their goals through a conciliar reorganization of the Church.

In August 1917, the Local Council opened, on which the renovationists had high hopes. But they found themselves in the minority: the Council did not accept married episcopacy and many other reform ideas. Particularly unpleasant was the restoration of the patriarchate and the election of Metropolitan Tikhon (Bellavin) of Moscow to this ministry. This even led the leaders of the Union of Democratic Clergy to think about breaking with the official Church. But it didn’t come to that, because there were few supporters.

The Petrograd group of reformers greeted the October Revolution generally positively. She began publishing the newspaper “God’s Truth” in March, in which she Chief Editor, Professor B.V. Titlinov, commented on the Patriarch’s appeal of January 19, which anathematized “the enemies of the truth of Christ”: “Whoever wants to fight for the rights of the spirit must not reject the revolution, not push it away, not anathematize it, but enlighten, spiritualize , implement it. Severe rejection irritates anger and passions, irritates the worst instincts of a demoralized crowd." The newspaper sees only positive aspects in the decree on the separation of Church and state. From this it follows that the renovationists used the appeal to discredit the Patriarch himself.

Renewalists begin to actively participate in the political life of the country, taking the side of the new government. In 1918, the book of the renovationist priest Alexander Boyarsky, “Church and Democracy (a companion to a Christian Democrat),” was published, which propagated the ideas of Christian socialism. In Moscow in 1919, priest Sergius Kalinovsky attempted to create a Christian Socialist Party. Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky wrote: “Christianity wants the Kingdom of God not only in the heights beyond the grave, but here in our gray, weeping, suffering land. Christ brought social truth to earth. The world must heal new life» .
The head of the renovationists, Metropolitan Alexander Vvedensky, During the years of the Civil War, some supporters of church reforms sought permission from the authorities to create a large renovationist organization. In 1919, Alexander Vvedensky proposed a concordat, an agreement between the Soviet government and the reformed Church, to the Chairman of the Comintern and the Petrosovet G. Zinoviev. According to Vvedensky, Zinoviev answered him the following: “The Concordat is hardly possible at the present time, but I do not exclude it in the future... As for your group, it seems to me that it could be the pioneer big movement on an international scale. If you can organize something in this regard, then I think we will support you.”

However, it should be noted that the contacts that the reformers established with local authorities sometimes helped the position of the clergy as a whole. So in September 1919 in Petrograd, plans were made for the arrest and expulsion of priests and the seizure of the relics of Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky. To prevent this action, Metropolitan Benjamin sent the future Renovationist priests Alexander Vvedensky and Nikolai Syrensky to Zinoviev with a statement. Anti-church protests were cancelled. It should be noted that Alexander Vvedensky was close to Bishop Veniamin.

It should be noted that the contacts that the reformers established with local authorities sometimes helped the position of the clergy as a whole

Bishop Benjamin himself was no stranger to some innovations. So, under his patronage, the Petrograd diocese began to use the Russian language for reading the Six Psalms, hours, individual psalms and singing akathists.

However, the Patriarch, seeing that innovations began to become widespread in the dioceses, wrote a message about the prohibition of innovations in church liturgical practice: “The divine beauty of our truly edifying in its content and grace-effective church services must be preserved in the Holy Orthodox Russian Church inviolably, as Her greatest and most sacred property..."
The message turned out to be unacceptable for many and caused their protest. A delegation consisting of Archimandrite Nikolai (Yarushevich), Archpriests Boyarsky, Belkov, Vvedensky and others went to Metropolitan Veniamin. As the latter later recalled, in a conversation with Bishop they “received his blessing to serve and work as before, regardless of Tikhon’s will. This was a kind of revolutionary step on Benjamin's part. In other dioceses, Tikhon’s decree is being taken into account and implemented.” For unauthorized innovations in worship, Bishop Antonin (Granovsky) was even banned. Gradually, a group of clergy was formed that was in opposition to the church leadership. The authorities did not miss the chance to take advantage of this situation within the Church, adhering to strict political views to current events.

In 1921-1922, the Great Famine began in Russia. More than 23 million people were hungry. The pestilence claimed about 6 million human lives. Almost twice his victims exceeded the human losses in civil war. Siberia, the Volga region and Crimea were starving.

The country's top government officials were well aware of what was happening: “Through the efforts of the Information Department of the GPU, the state-party leadership regularly received top secret reports on the political and economic situation in all provinces. Thirty-three copies of each are strictly for receipt by the addressees. The first copy is for Lenin, the second is for Stalin, the third is for Trotsky, the fourth is for Molotov, the fifth is for Dzerzhinsky, the sixth is for Unschlicht.” Here are some messages.

From the state report of January 3, 1922 for the Samara province: “There is starvation, corpses are being dragged from the cemetery for food. It is observed that children are not taken to the cemetery, leaving them for food."

From the state information report dated February 28, 1922 for the Aktobe province and Siberia: “Hunger is intensifying. Cases of starvation are becoming more frequent. During the reporting period, 122 people died. The sale of fried human meat was noticed at the market, and an order was issued to stop selling fried meat. Famine typhus is developing in the Kyrgyz region. Criminal banditry is reaching threatening proportions. In Tara district, in some volosts, hundreds of people are dying of hunger. Most feed on surrogates and carrion. In Tikiminsky district, 50% of the population is starving.”

The famine presented itself as the most successful opportunity to destroy the sworn enemy - the Church.

From the state information report dated March 14, 1922, once again for the Samara province: “Several suicides occurred due to hunger in Pugachevsky district. In the village of Samarovskoye, 57 cases of starvation were registered. Several cases of cannibalism have been registered in Bogoruslanovsky district. In Samara, 719 people fell ill with typhus during the reporting period.”

But the worst thing was that there was bread in Russia. “Lenin himself recently spoke about its surplus of up to 10 million poods in some central provinces. And Deputy Chairman of the Central Commission Pomgola A.N. Vinokurov openly stated that exporting bread abroad during a famine is an “economic necessity.”

For the Soviet government it was more important task than the fight against hunger is the fight against the Church. The famine presented itself as the most successful opportunity to destroy the sworn enemy - the Church.

The Soviet government has been fighting for a monopoly in ideology since 1918, if not earlier, when the separation of Church and state was proclaimed. All possible means were used against the clergy, including repression by the Cheka. However, this did not bring the expected results - the Church remained fundamentally unbroken. In 1919, an attempt was made to create a puppet “Ispolkomdukh” (Executive Committee of the Clergy) led by members of the “Union of Democratic Clergy”. But it didn’t work out - the people didn’t believe them.
So, in a secret letter to members of the Politburo dated March 19, 1922, Lenin reveals his insidious and unprecedentedly cynical plan: “For us, this particular moment is not only extremely favorable, but also the only moment when we can with 99 out of 100 chances for complete success to smash the enemy headlong and secure the positions we need for many decades. It is now and only now, when people are being eaten in hungry places and hundreds, if not thousands of corpses are lying on the roads, that we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of church valuables with the most furious and merciless energy, without stopping in the face of the pressure of any kind of resistance.”

While the government was puzzling over how to use the next famine political campaign, The Orthodox Church immediately responded to this event after the first reports of famine. As early as August 1921, she created diocesan committees to provide relief to the hungry. In the summer of 1921, Patriarch Tikhon addressed an appeal for help “To the peoples of the world and to the Orthodox man.” The general collection has begun Money, food and clothing.

On February 28, 1922, the head of the Russian Church issued a message “about helping the hungry and confiscating church valuables”: “Back in August 1921, when rumors about this terrible disaster began to reach us, we, considering it our duty to come to the aid of our suffering spiritual children , addressed messages to the heads of individual Christian Churches(To the Orthodox Patriarchs, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of York) with an appeal, in the name of Christian love, to collect money and food and send it abroad to the population of the Volga region dying of hunger.

At the same time, we founded the All-Russian Church Committee for Famine Relief, and in all churches and among individual groups of believers, we began collecting money intended to help the starving. But such a church organization was recognized by the Soviet Government as unnecessary and all sums of money collected by the Church were demanded for surrender and handed over to the government Committee.”

As can be seen from the Message, it turns out that the All-Russian Church Committee for Famine Relief from August to December 1921 existed illegally. All this time, the patriarch fussed with the Soviet authorities, asking them for approval of the “Regulations on the Church Committee” and official permission to collect donations. The Kremlin did not want to approve it for a long time. This would be a violation of the instructions of the People's Commissariat of Justice of August 30, 1918 on the prohibition of charitable activities by all religious organizations. But still they had to give in - they were afraid of a world scandal on the eve of the Genoa Conference. On December 8, the Church Committee received permission.
Saint Tikhon (Bellavin), Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. Further, in his message dated February 28, 1922, His Holiness the Patriarch continues: “However, in December the Government invited us to make, through church governing bodies: the Holy Synod, the Supreme Church Council, donations in money and food to help the hungry. Wanting to strengthen possible assistance to the population of the Volga region dying of hunger, We found it possible to allow church parish councils and communities to donate precious church items that have no liturgical use to the needs of the hungry, which we notified the Orthodox population on February 6 (19) of this year. a special appeal, which was authorized by the Government for printing and distribution among the population.... We allowed, due to extremely difficult circumstances, the possibility of donating church items that were not consecrated and had no liturgical use. We call upon the believing children of the Church even now to make such donations, with only one desire: that these donations be the response of a loving heart to the needs of one’s neighbor, If only they really provide real help to our suffering brothers. But we cannot approve the removal from churches, even through voluntary donation, of sacred objects, the use of which is not for liturgical purposes is prohibited by the canons of the Universal Church and is punishable by Her as sacrilege - the laity by excommunication from Her, the clergy - by defrocking (Apostolic Canon 73, twice . Ecumenical Council. Rule 10).

The reason for the schism already existed - the confiscation of church valuables.

With this document, the Patriarch did not at all call for resistance to the confiscation of church valuables. He just did not bless the voluntary surrender of “sacred objects, the use of which is prohibited by the canons for purposes other than liturgical purposes.” But this does not mean at all, as the renovationists later said, that the Patriarch calls for resistance and struggle.

By February 1922, the Orthodox Church had collected more than 8 million 926 thousand rubles, not counting jewelry, gold coins and in-kind famine relief.

However, only part of this money went to help the starving: “He (the Patriarch) said that this time too a terrible sin was being prepared, that the valuables confiscated from churches, cathedrals and laurels would not go to the starving, but to the needs of the army and the world revolution. No wonder Trotsky is so furious."

And here are the exact figures of what the hard-earned money was spent on: “They sent popular prints through the proletarian clubs and Revkult drama sheds - those that were bought abroad for 6,000 gold rubles on Pomgol’s account - they shouldn’t waste the good in vain - and hit the newspapers with a strong word of “party truth” against the “world-eaters” - “kulaks” and “Black Hundred priesthood”. Again, on imported paper."

So, they waged a propaganda war with the Church. But this was not enough. It was necessary to introduce division within the Church itself and create a schism according to the principle of “divide and conquer.”

The Central Committee of the RCP(b) and the Council of People's Commissars were well aware and knew that there were people in the Church who were opposed to the Patriarch and loyal to the Soviet government. From the report of the GPU to the Council of People's Commissars on March 20, 1922: “The GPU has information that some local bishops are in opposition to the reactionary group of the synod and that, due to canonical rules and other reasons, they cannot sharply oppose their leaders, so they believe that with the arrest of the members of the Synod, they have the opportunity to organize a church council, at which they can elect to the patriarchal throne and to the synod persons who are more loyal to Soviet Power. The GPU and its local bodies have sufficient grounds for the arrest of TIKHON and the most reactionary members of the synod.”

The government tried to establish in the minds of the population the legitimacy of the Renovationist Church.

The government immediately headed for a split within the Church itself. In a recently declassified memorandum by L. D. Trotsky dated March 30, 1922, the entire strategic program of the activities of the party and state leadership in relation to the renovationist clergy was practically formulated: “If the slowly emerging bourgeois-compromising Smenovekhov wing of the church developed and strengthened, then it would become much more dangerous for the socialist revolution than the church in its current form. Therefore, the Smenovekhov clergy should be considered as the most dangerous enemy of tomorrow. But exactly tomorrow. Today it is necessary to bring down the counter-revolutionary part of the churchmen, in whose hands the actual administration of the church is. We must, firstly, force the Smenovekh priests to completely and openly link their fate with the issue of confiscation of valuables; secondly, to force them to bring this campaign within the church to a complete organizational break with the Black Hundred hierarchy, to their own new council and new elections of the hierarchy. By the time of the convocation, we need to prepare a theoretical propaganda campaign against the Renovationist Church. It will not be possible to simply skip over the bourgeois reformation of the church. It is necessary, therefore, to turn it into a miscarriage.”

Thus, they wanted to use the renovationists for their own purposes, and then deal with them, which will be exactly done.

The reason for the split already existed - the confiscation of church values: “Our entire strategy in this period should be designed to create a split among the clergy on a specific issue: the confiscation of valuables from churches. Since the issue is acute, a split on this basis can and should take on an acute character” (Note from L. D. Trotsky to the Politburo, March 12, 1922).

The seizure has begun. But they started not from Moscow and St. Petersburg, but from the small town of Shuya. An experiment was set up - they were afraid of mass popular uprisings in big cities. The first incidents of shooting a crowd of believers, which included old people, women and children, took place in Shuya. This was a lesson for everyone else.

Bloody massacres swept across Russia. The bloodshed scandal was used against the Church. The clergy were accused of inciting believers against Soviet power. Trials against the clergy began. The first trial took place in Moscow from April 26 to May 7. Of the 48 defendants, 11 were sentenced to death (5 were shot). They were accused not only of obstructing the implementation of the decree, but also mainly of disseminating the Patriarch’s appeal. The trial was directed primarily against the head of the Russian Church, and the Patriarch, greatly discredited in the press, was arrested. All these events prepared fertile ground for the renovationists for their activities.

On May 8, representatives of the Petrograd Group of Progressive Clergy, which became the center of renovationism in the country, arrived in Moscow. The authorities welcomed them with open arms. According to Alexander Vvedensky, “G. E. Zinoviev and the GPU Commissioner for Religious Affairs E. A. Tuchkov were directly involved in the schism.”

One cannot think that the renovationist movement was entirely a creation of the GPU.

Thus, the interference of the Soviet government in internal church affairs is undeniable. This is confirmed by Trotsky’s letter to members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) dated May 14, 1922, fully approved by Lenin: “Now, however, the main political task is to ensure that the Smenovekhov clergy does not find itself terrorized by the old church hierarchy. The separation of church and state, which we have carried out once and for all, does not at all mean that the state is indifferent to what is happening in the church as a material and social organization. In any case, it is necessary: ​​without hiding our materialistic attitude towards religion, not to bring it forward, however, in the near future, that is, in assessing the current struggle, to the fore, so as not to push both sides towards rapprochement; Criticism of the Smenovekhov clergy and the laity adjoining them should be conducted not from a materialistic-atheistic point of view, but from a conditionally democratic point of view: you are too intimidated by the princes, you do not draw conclusions from the dominance of the monarchists of the church, you do not appreciate all the guilt official church before the people and the revolution, etc., etc.” .

The government tried to establish in the minds of the population the legitimacy of the Renovationist Church. Konstantin Kripton, a witness of that era, recalled that the communists everywhere announced that the renovationists were representatives of the only legitimate church in the USSR, and the remnants of “Tikhonism” would be crushed. The authorities saw in the reluctance to recognize renovationism the new kind crimes that were punishable by camps, exile and even execution.

Evgeniy Tuchkov

The leader of the renovationist movement, Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky, issued a secret circular addressed to diocesan bishops, which recommended, if necessary, to contact the authorities to take administrative measures against Old Church members. This circular was carried out: “God, how they torture me,” Metropolitan Mikhail (Ermakov) of Kiev said about the security officers, “they extort from me recognition of the “Living Church,” and threatened me with arrest otherwise.”

Already at the end of May 1922, the GPU requested money from the Central Committee of the RCP(b) to carry out the anti-Tikhon campaign: “Limiting the funds for the publication of printed organs, propaganda, movement around the republic and other work that requires immediate implementation would be equivalent to the clergy working with us. the atrophying of this activity, not to mention the maintenance of an entire staff of visiting clergy, which, given limited funds, places a heavy burden on Political Science. Management".

E. A. Tuchkov, head of the secret VI department of the GPU, constantly informed the Central Committee about the state of the intelligence work of the Higher Church Administration (VCU). He visited various regions of the country to control and coordinate “church work” in local branches of the GPU. Thus, in a report dated January 26, 1923, based on the results of an inspection of the work of the secret departments of the GPU, he reported: “In Vologda, Yaroslavl and Ivanovo-Voznesensk, work on clergy is going tolerably well. In these provinces there is not a single ruling diocesan or even vicar bishop of Tikhon’s persuasion left, thus, on this side, the road has been cleared for the renovationists; but the laity reacted negatively everywhere, and for the most part the parish councils remained in their previous compositions.”

However, one cannot think that the renovationist movement was entirely a creation of the GPU. Of course, there were many priests like Vladimir Krasnitsky and Alexander Vvedensky, dissatisfied with their position and eager for leadership, who did this with the help government agencies. But there were also those who rejected such principles: “Under no circumstances should the Church become depersonalized; its contact with Marxists can only be temporary, accidental, fleeting. Christianity should lead socialism, and not adapt to it,” believed one of the leaders of the movement, priest Alexander Boyarsky, with whose name a separate direction in renovationism will be associated.

Babayan Georgy Vadimovich

Keywords: renovationism, revolution, causes, Church, politics, famine, confiscation of church values, Vvedensky.

Soloviev I. V. Brief history of the so-called “Renovationist schism” in the Russian Orthodox Church in the light of new published historical documents.//Renovation schism. Society of Church History Lovers. - M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2002. - P. 21.

Shkarovsky M. V. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. - St. Petersburg, 1999. - P. 10.

Dvorzhansky A. N. Church after October // History of the Penza diocese. Book one: Historical sketch. - Penza, 1999. - P. 281. // URL: http://pravoslavie58region.ru/histori-2-1.pdf (access date: 08/01/2017).

Shishkin A. A. The essence and critical assessment of the “renovationist” schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970. - P. 121.

On August 3, the Italian newspaper La Stampa published an article under the remarkable headline “The Pope wants a “Holy Alliance” with the Moscow Patriarch.” According to Roman journalists, “signs of a new, unprecedented interaction between the Russian Orthodox and Catholic churches are already visible at the diplomatic level.” Such information revived talk about the church reform being prepared in the bowels of the Moscow Patriarchate.

“AN” decided to find out what is actually happening in the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) now and whether such an alliance will be concluded with the Vatican.

New dad - new orders

With the advent of Pope Benedict XVI to the Holy See, relations between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church have warmed somewhat. The new pope is strikingly different from his predecessor, the Pole John Paul II, who, according to some Russian priests, represented a very aggressive current of Catholicism - he pursued an aggressive policy towards Orthodoxy.

It is believed that Benedict XVI, unlike the “Polish pope,” loves Orthodoxy - many in Moscow consider him an outstanding theologian. As they say, Patriarch Kirill is also somewhat softer towards the Vatican than his predecessor Alexy II. This is confirmed by the Italian press: “Recently, Orthodox believers’ understanding of the signals coming from the Vatican has clearly changed. Just look at how the words of Benedict XVI are perceived today: with great attention and with a positive response in advance,” asserts the same La Stampa.

However, in relations between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, everything is not as rosy as it might seem at first glance. According to experts, most Orthodox priests and their large flock consider Catholics heretics. They quite sharply oppose any rapprochement with the Vatican and the church reforms carried out by Patriarch Kirill. In their opinion, despite the personality of the pope, Catholics will not want to be on equal terms with the Orthodox and will still strive to subjugate them.

Mysterious death in Rome

Opponents of innovation call Patriarch Kirill a “philo-catholic” (from the Greek phileo - I love). According to them, the love of Catholicism was instilled in him by Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), ​​who raised a whole galaxy of bishops. Now his students occupy the most important places in the Russian Orthodox Church. Nicodemus traveled to Rome several times and saw nothing wrong with rapprochement with Catholics. Interestingly, he even died in the Vatican. This mysterious and incredible story still attracts attention.

On September 3, 1978, Nicodemus arrived at the Vatican at the head of a delegation on the occasion of the enthronement of Pope John Paul I. On the morning of September 5, during an audience with the pope, his heart suddenly stopped. The incident gave rise to many conspiracy theories. According to one of them, he was poisoned by poison added to the drink he was offered. Some believe that the Metropolitan drank it by accident, and that the cup was intended for the Pontiff himself. Suspicions are strengthened by the fact that 23 days later John Paul I also died of a myocardial infarction. Some Russian priests perceived the death of Nicodemus as a sign of God - “disapproval of the haste and enthusiasm with which the Metropolitan carried out the work of rapprochement with Rome.”

Quiet reforms

According to experts, this whole story undoubtedly has an impact on Patriarch Kirill. Under the influence of the church majority, he is forced to pursue his policy more carefully, trying not to lose his authority. Immediately after the election of the patriarch, everyone expected a sharp start to reforms, but Kirill stopped positioning himself as a reformer. On the contrary, the church leadership began to renounce all such definitions. Nevertheless, there are reports from internal church circles that small steps towards reform are being made constantly. Perhaps a decision has been made to carry out all the changes quietly, without unnecessary publicity.

According to experts, this is not difficult to do. Arrangements that most people will find out about after a few years can be made in closed doors. As an example of such a policy they cite the scandalous "Balamand Agreement" with the Vatican. It was signed in 1993, but became widely known not so long ago. A document in which the Russian Orthodox Church and the Vatican “mutually recognize each other as sister Churches”, was endorsed by a representative of the Moscow Patriarchate, as well as representatives of nine local Orthodox churches.

Swift and noisy reforms are impossible for another reason. There is a strong opinion that if the ongoing policy of rapprochement with the Vatican continues, a new split is possible in the Russian Orthodox Church. Moreover, people who know the church situation from the inside confidently declare - there will definitely be a split. They estimate that most of the church will, of course, follow the leadership. The majority will not want conflicts - they will talk him out and persuade him not to speak out against it. However, approximately a quarter of priests will absolutely not reconcile and agree with the changes being carried out.

This does not automatically mean leaving the church 20-25% parishes No one can say now in what specific actions the split will be expressed - forms of protest can be very diverse. But it is clear that there will be a rupture in the overall church body - trust will disappear. Therefore, opponents of reforms hope that “the patriarch will show prudence and will not allow a situation to arise in which a split becomes possible”.

Now in the Russian Orthodox Church there are many priest-leaders, serious shepherds. They are very strong in their theological knowledge and in their stance against reform - they are loved and respected by their parishioners. Whole parishes of such people can leave - people will follow them. Moreover, they can die for them. And this is not an exaggeration. No one can say whether they will go to die for the reformers.

Calendar and language

In addition to rapprochement with the Vatican, plans to switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar are causing sharp opposition from the church majority. Many priests and monks call it Masonic. In addition, the introduction of a new style will break the liturgical time for 13 days, which will fall out of church life. There will be a reduction in some posts, and the Petrovsky fast will disappear altogether in some years. There is one more important point. As the priests say, the Easter holiday will coincide with the Jewish Passover, and this is strictly prohibited by the canons.

There is also no agreement on the issue of transition from Church Slavonic to modern Russian. Supporters of the reforms believe that everyday Russian, understandable to everyone, will help attract a new flock to the church - almost 80% of the country's population. In their opinion, Church Slavonic is the main obstacle to new people coming to the church.

But many priests are against this. They believe that the Church Slavonic language cannot be compared with the everyday language at all - it is a “mystical language for worship”, it has evolved and been transformed over the centuries. However, changes are still taking place in it - some words are changed and removed. But everything should proceed naturally over several generations. Otherwise, all the beauty of worship will be lost.

Opponents of innovation categorically disagree that everyday Russian will bring new people to churches. In their opinion, on the contrary, the temples will be empty. People who go to church now generally understand Church Slavonic, and the innovation may turn them away from the church. Those who do not attend church do not go there because the language is incomprehensible - the real reasons, as a rule, are different.

According to materials

"Arguments of the Week"

Victor Krestyaninov