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 Petrogradsky Veniamin(Kazansky)" (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, according to the resolution of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, he 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 see 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 submitted to 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 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 point 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 Kaluga group, diocesan committees of the living churchmen 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 SCV.

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.

Cathedral as governing body The Church elected the highest executive body of the All-Russian Local Council - the Supreme Church Council (“Council” sounded more harmonious than “Management”), 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 (county) 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.

Much has been said about the difficulties of the Orthodox Church in Soviet times. What is there - it was simply not recognized by the atheist state for many years. Yet not all Christians were disliked by the government.

There was a renovation movement - almost the only religious movement approved by the Soviet government. How did the renovationists of the Russian Orthodox Church appear in general and what were they guided by? Let's talk about them in this article.

Renovationism is a movement against the patriarchate in Orthodoxy

this year a new movement arose in the Russian Church - Renovationism

Renovationism in Orthodoxy is a movement that officially arose in the Russian Church in 1917, although there were prerequisites earlier. Main hallmark- the desire to get rid of old foundations, reform the Orthodox Church, renew religion, based on one’s ideas.

It is impossible to say unequivocally who the renovationists in Orthodoxy are. The reason is that they became such for various reasons. The Renovationists were united by one goal - to overthrow the patriarchate. They also advocated close cooperation with the Soviet authorities. But what to do besides this - everyone imagined in their own way.

• some spoke about the need for changes in liturgical traditions.
• others thought about the prospect of uniting all religions.

Other ideas were also expressed. How many people, so many motives. And no agreement.

As a result, only the main initiators of the renovation movement - representatives of the Bolshevik government - benefited. It was important for them to pursue an anti-church policy, and therefore the renovationists were given every support.

The atheistic power of the Bolsheviks benefited most from renovationism

Thus, the Bolshevik government provoked a renovationist schism in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Of course, the new government was not going to give the renovationists enough freedom and freedom. It was simply convenient for them for some time to keep on a short leash a sort of “pocket” religion that would destroy the Russian Orthodox Church from within.

Leader of the Renovationists - Alexander Vvedensky: an extraordinary but ambitious priest

The Soviet government did not even have to invent anything, since they already had priests in mind who were dissatisfied with the current state of affairs in the Church. The main ideologist of the schism was the priest Alexander Vvedensky.

Despite the fact that he played a negative role in the history of the Orthodox Church, we must give him his due - he was an outstanding person. Here are interesting facts about his personality:

• smart and charismatic;
• excellent speaker;
• a talented actor who can win over;
• holder of six higher education diplomas.

Alexander Vvedensky could quote entire pages in foreign languages. However, contemporaries noted that this priest suffered from ambition.

He was radically opposed to the patriarchate, although he was in the minority with his supporters. He once wrote in his diary:

Alexander Vvedensky

Church leader

“After the election of the Patriarch, one can remain in the Church only in order to destroy the patriarchate from within”

Vvedensky is not the only opponent of the patriarchate; he had enough supporters among the clergy. However, the renovationists were in no hurry to create a split. Who knows what development the whole story would have had if the Bolshevik government had not intervened.

Renovationism gained strength in 1922 and won over many representatives of the traditional clergy.

On May 12, 1922, GPU officers brought Vvedensky and supporters of renovationism to the arrested Patriarch Tikhon, so that they could convince him to temporarily renounce his powers. The idea was a success. And already on May 15, the conspirators established the Supreme Church Administration, which consisted exclusively of supporters of renovationism.

Patriarch Tikhon (in the world Vasily Ivanovich Belavin) was born on January 19, 1865 in the city of Toropets, Pskov province, into the family of a priest.

After the restoration of the patriarchate, abolished by Peter I, Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow and Kolomna was elected to the Patriarchal Throne on November 5, 1917, who became the herald of the path that the Russian Church was called to follow in new difficult conditions.

Patriarch Tikhon was an ardent opponent of the renovationists, for which he was persecuted and arrested. Later released.

The Soviet government actively supported renovationist structures. To this end, she sent appropriate orders everywhere. The higher clergy, under pressure, tried to force them to recognize the authority of the Supreme Church Administration.

Among those who signed their signatures that the VCU is the only church authority:

• Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky);
• Archbishop Evdokim (Meshchersky);
• Archbishop Seraphim (Meshcheryakov);
• Bishop Macarius (Znamensky).

This gave impetus to the further spread of renovationism. By the end of 1922, 20 thousand Orthodox churches out of 30 were occupied by representatives of renovationism. Priests who opposed this were arrested and exiled.

Even the Patriarch of Constantinople was misled and convinced to recognize the legality of the actions being taken. He also forced other Eastern Churches to follow his example.

Alexander Vvedensky became Metropolitan and permanent leader of the Renovationists.

For the next five years, the Renovationist Orthodox Church was the only religious organization that was recognized on the territory of the Soviet Union.

Renovationism did not have a single idea and quickly split into small organizations

However, one should not overestimate the success of renovationism. The Bolsheviks did not care much about the fate of renewed Christianity. The attitude towards the clergy remained disdainful. Atheists ridiculed “priests” in cartoons. The new Church had already played its role, and the authorities were not very concerned about its future fate.

Internal problems also arose within the new Church itself. Not only did everyone have their own reasons why renovation movements arose in the Church, but also their views on how to proceed further differed.

The disagreements reached such a scale that other religious organizations began to separate from the renovationists:

• church revival union;
• union of communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church.

And all this already in August 1922! Educated structures began to fight among themselves for influence. It is possible that the GPU itself provoked these civil strife. After all, the Bolsheviks never declared any intention of allowing any religious trend continue to operate peacefully on the territory of the Soviet Union.

Renovationism was fragmented into small organizations.

The innovations of the Renovationists at the Second Local All-Russian Council shook its position

in April of this year the Second Local All-Russian Council was held which became the first renovationist

At it, the renovationists decided to depose Patriarch Tikhon. The following changes have also been introduced:

• the patriarchate was abolished;
• a resolution was passed to support Soviet power;
• the church switched to the Gregorian calendar;
• second marriage of clergy was legalized;
• monasteries were closed;
• married and celibate bishops began to be considered equivalent;
• the highest church administration was transformed into the Supreme Church Council;
• Participants of the Council in Sremski Karlovci were excommunicated from the Church.

The Cathedral in Sremski Karlovci is also known as the First All-Diaspora Council.

It was organized in 1921 after the White movement lost the Civil War.

It was mostly a political event, where calls were voiced for the overthrow of the new regime by world powers in order to restore the previous power in Russian lands.

These decisions did not help strengthen the position of the Renovationists among believers. The course of the new leadership disappointed more and more people and caused criticism among the governing clergy. For example, Archimandrite Palladius (Sherstennikov) noted the following negative aspects of the new church policy:

Palladium (Sherstennikov)

Archimandrite

“Previously, it used to be that the high rank of metropolitan was given only for special services to the Church, bishop’s miters adorned the heads of only a few, the most worthy, and there were even fewer metropolitan priests, but now, look at what kind of merits the renovationists gave their white-bowed ones metropolitans in countless numbers, and such an uncountable number of persons were decorated with archpriestly miters?

Many and even very many ordinary priests were decorated with mitres. What is it? Or are there so many highly worthy among them?

Other clergy also noticed that orders, awards and titles were distributed to just anyone. Any idea of ​​gradual upward mobility disappeared. The newly minted priests did not want to wait years. They were allowed to “skip” from the rank of bishop directly to archbishops, just to stroke their pride. As a result, there were an outrageously large number of representatives of the higher clergy.

But the lifestyle of these people was far from consistent with the usual idea of ​​\u200b\u200bpriests. On the contrary, drunkards walked everywhere in robes, who not only listened to God, but did not even know how to fulfill their duty to their flock.

Renovationists distributed church ranks and titles to just anyone

In 1923, Patriarch Tikhon was released from prison. His power was still recognized by the Church, and he, in turn, did not recognize renovationism. As a result, many priests began to repent.

The Orthodox Church was reborn into the familiar, patriarchal one. The Soviet government did not welcome this, did not recognize it, but could not stop it. The most that the Bolsheviks could do was declare the old Church illegal.

However, the position of the Soviet government is not as terrible as the fate that befell renovationism. It began to lose followers and experienced a crisis.

Renovationism gradually faded away, and traditional Orthodoxy regained influence, until the Church united again in 1946

In the same year, the Bolsheviks came up with a new strategy - to unite all renovationist organizations, make them a manageable structure, support it, and work on the attractiveness of renovationism for believers.

this year Patriarch Tikhon banned representatives of the Renovation Church from serving as ministers

VCS was renamed to Holy Synod, put a new metropolitan in charge. But the essence remains the same. The organization was still managed by Alexander Vvedensky, and the Renovation Church no longer wanted to follow the lead of the authorities.

In 1924, Patriarch Tikhon took even more severe measures than before. From now on, he banned representatives of the Renovation Church from serving as ministers.

The Soviet government tried to spread renovationism abroad, but was only slightly successful in the United States.

Even the death of Patriarch Tikhon could not correct the affairs of the Renovation Church.

this year the patriarchal church was legalized

In 1927, the patriarchal church was legalized. From that moment on, the Soviet government no longer needed renovationists. They began to be arrested and persecuted. Their territorial influence also decreased.

Gradually, the Renovation Church was destroyed, no matter what steps it took. But, nevertheless, she was even able to survive the Great Patriotic War. And yet, no attempts helped the renovationists regain power.

After the death of Alexander Vvedensky in 1946, the Russian Orthodox Church became united again. Only a few bishops refused to repent. But they no longer had enough resources to save the situation. The last renovationist leader, Metropolitan Filaret Yatsenko, died in 1951.

Article from the encyclopedia "Tree": website

Renewal- an opposition movement in Russian Orthodoxy in the post-revolutionary period, which led to a temporary split. It was inspired and for some time actively supported by the Bolshevik government, with the goal of destroying the canonical “Tikhon” Church.

The head of the 6th department of the secret department of the GPU, E. Tuchkov, wrote on December 30:

“Five months ago, the basis of our work in the fight against the clergy was set the task: “the fight against Tikhon’s reactionary clergy” and, of course, first of all, with the highest hierarchs... To carry out this task, a group was formed, the so-called “Living church "consisting predominantly of white priests, which made it possible to quarrel between priests and bishops, much like soldiers and generals... Upon completion of this task... a period of paralysis of the unity of the Church begins, which, undoubtedly, should happen at the Council, i.e. e. a split into several church groups that will strive to implement and implement each of their own reforms" .

However, renovationism did not receive widespread support among the people. After the release of Patriarch Tikhon at the beginning of the year, who called on believers to observe strict loyalty to Soviet power, renovationism experienced an acute crisis and lost a significant part of its supporters.

Renovationism received significant support from recognition from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which, in the conditions of Kemalist Turkey, sought to improve relations with Soviet Russia. Preparations for " Pan-Orthodox Council", at which the Russian Church was to be represented by renovationists.

Used materials

• http://www.religio.ru/lecsicon/14/70.html Trinity Monastery of the city of Ryazan during the period of persecution of the Church // Ryazan Church Bulletin, 2010, No. 02-03, p. 70.

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 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 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 graciously effective church service 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. Behind 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 a call, 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 of February 28, 1922 His Holiness Patriarch continues: “However, in December, the Government invited us to make, through church governing bodies: the Holy Synod, the Supreme Church Council, donations of 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, 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 schism already existed - the confiscation of church valuables: “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.

Attention, this article is not finished yet and contains only part of the necessary information

Article from the encyclopedia "Tree": website

Renewal- an opposition movement in Russian Orthodoxy in the post-revolutionary period, which led to a temporary split. It was inspired and for some time actively supported by the Bolshevik government, with the goal of destroying the canonical “Tikhon” Church.

The head of the 6th department of the secret department of the GPU, E. Tuchkov, wrote on December 30:

“Five months ago, the basis of our work in the fight against the clergy was set the task: “the fight against Tikhon’s reactionary clergy” and, of course, first of all, with the highest hierarchs... To carry out this task, a group was formed, the so-called “Living church "consisting predominantly of white priests, which made it possible to quarrel between priests and bishops, much like soldiers and generals... Upon completion of this task... a period of paralysis of the unity of the Church begins, which, undoubtedly, should happen at the Council, i.e. e. a split into several church groups that will strive to implement and implement each of their own reforms" .

However, renovationism did not receive widespread support among the people. After the release of Patriarch Tikhon at the beginning of the year, who called on believers to observe strict loyalty to Soviet power, renovationism experienced an acute crisis and lost a significant part of its supporters.

Renovationism received significant support from recognition from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which, in the conditions of Kemalist Turkey, sought to improve relations with Soviet Russia. Preparations for the “Pan-Orthodox Council”, at which the Russian Church was to be represented by renovationists, were actively discussed.

Used materials

• http://www.religio.ru/lecsicon/14/70.html Trinity Monastery of the city of Ryazan during the period of persecution of the Church // Ryazan Church Bulletin, 2010, No. 02-03, p. 70.