Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917 1918 Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (1917-1918)

Alexandra answers

PRIEST VLADIMIR SERGEIEV ANSWERS

Acts of the Council of 1917 on the issue of the oath to Sovereign Nicholas II declassified
The local council of 1917–1918, known mainly for the fact that the patriarchate was restored at it in the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), is devoted to a lot of historical literature. However, with regard to issues connected in one way or another with the overthrow of the monarchy, the position of the Council continues to remain practically unexplored. The purpose of this article is to partly fill this gap.

The local council was opened in Moscow on August 15, 1917. 564 people were elected and appointed to take part in its work: 80 bishops, 129 persons of presbyter rank, 10 deacons from the white (married) clergy, 26 psalmists, 20 monastics (archimandrites, abbots and hieromonks) and 299 laity. The cathedral worked for more than a year. During this period, three of its sessions were held: the first - from August 15 (28) to December 9 (22), 1917, the second and third - in 1918: from January 20 (February 2) to April 7 (20) and from June 19 (July 2) to September 7 (20).

On August 18, Metropolitan Tikhon (Bellavin) of Moscow was elected chairman of the Council: as the archpastor of the city in which the church forum met. Archbishops of Novgorod Arseniy (Stadnitsky) and Kharkiv Anthony (Khrapovitsky) were elected co-chairs (deputies, or in the terminology of that time - comrades of the chairman) from among the bishops, from priests - protopresbyters N.A. Lyubimov and G.I. Shavelsky, from the laity - Prince E.N. Trubetskoy and M.V. Rodzianko (until October 6, 1917 - Chairman of the State Duma). "All-Russian" Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) (in 1892-1898 he was Exarch of Georgia, in 1898-1912 - Metropolitan of Moscow, in 1912-1915 - St. Petersburg, and from 1915 - Kyiv) became honorary chairman of the Council.

To coordinate the activities of the cathedral, solve "general issues of internal order and unify all activities," the Cathedral Council was established, which did not stop its activities during the breaks between the sessions of the Cathedral.

On August 30, 19 departments were formed as part of the Local Council. Their jurisdiction was subject to preliminary consideration and preparation of a wide range of conciliar bills. Each department included bishops, clerics and laity. To consider highly specialized issues, these structural divisions of the cathedral could form subdivisions. According to the Charter of the cathedral, the procedure for considering cases at it was as follows. To present their materials to the Council, departments could nominate one or more speakers. Without the order or permission of the department, no issues discussed could be reported at the conciliar meeting. In order to adopt a conciliar resolution, a written report should have been received from the relevant department, as well as (at the request of the participants in its meetings) dissenting opinions. The conclusion of the department should have been stated in the form of a proposed conciliar resolution. On the meetings of the departments, written minutes were drawn up, which recorded the time of the meeting, the names of those present, the issues considered, the proposals made, decisions and conclusions.

Since in the spring and summer of 1917 the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church in the center (Holy Synod) and in the localities (bishops and various church congresses) somehow already expressed their point of view regarding the overthrow of the monarchy, then at the Local Council consideration of issues related to the political events of the February revolution was not planned. This was brought to the attention of the Orthodox, who in August-October 1917 sent at least a dozen relevant letters to the Local Council. Most of them were directly addressed to Metropolitans Tikhon of Moscow and Vladimir of Kyiv.

The letters expressed a certain confusion that arose among the laity after the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne. They talked about the inevitable outpouring of God's wrath on Russia for the overthrow of the monarchy and the actual rejection of God's anointed by the Orthodox. The Council was asked to declare the inviolability of the person of Nicholas II, to stand up for the imprisoned sovereign and his family, and also to fulfill the position of the Zemsky Sobor's 1613 charter on the need for the loyalty of the people of Russia to the Romanov dynasty. The authors of the letters denounced the shepherds for their fake betrayal of the tsar in the February-March days of 1917 and for welcoming the various "freedoms" that led Russia to anarchy. The clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church were called to repentance for their activities in support of the overthrow of the monarchy. Urgent requests were made to the local council to allow the people of Russia to revoke their former oath of allegiance to the emperor. (In March 1917, as you know, the Holy Synod ordered the flock to be sworn in to the Provisional Government without releasing the flock from the former - loyal, previously brought to the emperor).

Thus, according to the authors of the letters, from the first days of the spring of 1917 the sin of perjury weighed heavily on the people of Russia. And this sin needed a certain conciliar act of repentance. The Orthodox asked the church authorities to resolve their conscience from perjury.

However, despite the long time of its work, the Council did not take any action in response to the letters mentioned: no information about this was found in the minutes of its meetings. There is every reason to believe that Metropolitans Tikhon and Vladimir, considering these letters "objectionable" for announcing and "unuseful" for discussion, put them, as they say, "under a cloth." This position of the hierarchs becomes all the more understandable if one considers that both Bishops were members of the Holy Synod in February-March 1917, with Metropolitan Vladimir taking precedence. And the questions raised in the letters of the monarchists, one way or another, prompted a revision and reassessment of the political line of the Russian Church in relation to the overthrow of the autocracy, set by the members of the Holy Synod in the first days and weeks of the spring of 1917.

Nevertheless, one of the letters, similar to those mentioned, was given a move at the Local Council. It was written on November 15, 1917 by a peasant of the Tver province M.E. Nikonov and addressed to Archbishop Seraphim (Chichagov) of Tver. The letter began with the words: "His Eminence Vladyka, I ask for your hierarchal blessing to convey this message to the Most Holy All-Russian Council." Thus, in fact, it was a message to the Local Council. Vladyka Seraphim, accordingly, brought it to the consideration of the supreme body of the Russian Church.

In a letter to M.E. Nikonov, among other things, contained assessments of the actions of the hierarchy during the period of February 1917. The author said: “[...] We think that the Holy Synod made an irreparable mistake, that the bishops went towards the revolution. We don’t know this reason. Is it for the sake of Judea? nevertheless, their act in the believers created a great temptation, and not only among the Orthodox, but even among the Old Believers. Forgive me for touching on this issue - it is not our business to discuss it: this is the business of the Council, I only put on the mind the people's judgment. Among people such speeches that, allegedly by the act of the Synod, many sane people are misled, as well as many among the clergy […] The Orthodox Russian people are sure that Holy Cathedral in the interests of the Holy Mother of our church, the fatherland and the Father of the Tsar, impostors and all traitors who have scolded the oath will be anathematized and cursed with their satanic idea of ​​​​revolution. And the Most Holy Council will indicate to its flock who should take the helm of government in the great State. […] Not a simple comedy, the act of the Holy Crowning and anointing with the Holy Chrism of our kings in the Assumption Cathedral [of the Moscow Kremlin], who received from God the power to rule the people and give an answer to the One, but not to the constitution or to any parliament. "The message ended with the words: "All of the above that I wrote here is not just my personal composition, but the voice of the Orthodox Russian people, a hundred million rural Russia, in whose midst I am."

The letter was handed over by Bishop Seraphim to the Council Council, where it was considered on November 23 (through the words of Patriarch Tikhon). In the office documentation, the day after us, the "Message" was described as "... about anathematizing and cursing all traitors to the motherland who abused the oath, and about taking measures to encourage the pastors of the Church to comply with the requirements of church discipline." The Cathedral Council forwarded the "Message" for consideration to the department "On Church Discipline". The chairman of this department at that time was Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv, on January 25, 1918, who was killed in Kyiv by unidentified people (not without the assistance of the inhabitants Kiev-Pechersk Lavra) .

Approximately two months after the publication of the Soviet decree "On the separation of church from state and school from church" dated January 20 (February 2), 1918, a special structural subdivision was created within the framework of the cathedral department "On Church Discipline" - Subdivision IV. Its task was to consider several issues, the first of which was "On the oath to the Government in general and to the former Emperor Nicholas II in particular". On March 16 (29), 1918, the first organizational meeting of this subdepartment took place in the Moscow diocesan house. In addition to its chairman, Archpriest D.V. Rozhdestvensky and secretary V.Ya. Bakhmetyev was attended by 6 more people. The second (first working) meeting of the subdivision was held on March 21 (April 3), 1918. It was attended by 10 persons of spiritual and lay ranks. A report written back on October 3, 1917 to the department "On Church Discipline" by priest Vasily Belyaev, a member of the Local Council by election from the Kaluga diocese, was heard. It touched on essentially the same problems as in the letter to M.E. Nikonova: on the oath and perjury of the Orthodox in February-March 1917. The report was as follows:

“The revolution caused such phenomena that, while remaining in the ecclesiastical-civil plane, extremely embarrass the conscience of believers. First of all, such phenomena should include the oath of allegiance to the former Emperor Nicholas II. That this issue really worries the conscience of believers and puts pastors in a difficult position, one of the Zemstvo school teachers addressed the writer of these lines in the first half of March demanding a categorical answer to the question of whether she was free from the oath given to Emperor Nicholas II. so that she would be given the opportunity to work with a clear conscience in the new Russia.In May, the writer of these lines had a public conversation with one of the Old Believers, who called all Orthodox perjurers because, without being released from the oath to Emperor Nicholas II, they recognized the Provisional Government Finally, in September, the author of the report received from one of the priests the following letter: “I dare to ask you, as a delegate of our diocese, whether it is possible for you to raise a question before the members of the Council about the release of Orthodox believers from the oath given to Nicholas II upon his accession to the throne, since true believers are in doubt about this issue.”

Indeed, the question of the oath is one of the cardinal questions of church discipline, as a matter of conscience in connection with the practical implementation of civil rights and obligations. The attitude depends on this or that decision of this question. Orthodox Christian to politics, the attitude towards the creators of politics, whoever they are: are they emperors, or are they presidents?.. And it is absolutely necessary for the Orthodox Christian consciousness to resolve the following questions:

1) Is an oath of allegiance to rulers acceptable at all?

2) If it is permissible, then is the effect of the oath unlimited?

3) If the effect of the oath is not unlimited, then in what cases and by whom should believers be released from the oath?

4) The act of renunciation of Emperor Nicholas II - is it a sufficient reason for the Orthodox to consider themselves free from this oath?

5) Do the Orthodox themselves, each individually, in certain cases consider themselves free from the oath, or is the authority of the Church required?

7) And if the sin of perjury lies on us, then shouldn’t the Council free the conscience of the faithful?”

Following the report of Vasily, a letter was read to M.E. Nikonova. There was a discussion. In the course of it, it sounded that the Local Council really needed to release the flock from the effect of the allegiance oath, since in March 1917 the Holy Synod did not issue a corresponding act. However, judgments of a different nature were also expressed: that the solution of the questions raised should be postponed until the socio-political life of the country enters a normal track. The question of anointing was recognized by some members of the subdivision as a “private issue”, that is, not deserving of conciliar attention, and by others as a most difficult problem, the solution of which requires great intellectual effort and time for discussion. Skeptics voiced the point of view that the permission set by the priest V.A. Belyaev and peasant M.E. Nikonov questions are beyond the power of the subsection, since it requires a comprehensive study from the canonical, legal and historical sides, that these issues are more likely not related to church discipline, but to the field of theology. Accordingly, a proposal was made to abandon their development. Nevertheless, the subdivision decided to continue the discussion at further meetings. It was necessary to attract scientists from the members of the Local Council to it.

The next consideration of the identified issues took place at the fourth meeting of the IV subsection, held on July 20 (August 2). There were 20 people present - a record number for the IV subdivision, including two bishops (for some reason, the bishops did not sign up as participants in the meeting). Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy S.S. Glagolev. After a brief review of the concept of an oath and its meaning from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century. The speaker summarized his vision of the problem in six points. The last one went like this:

"When discussing the issue of violation of the oath to the former sovereign Emperor Nicholas II, it must be borne in mind that it was not the abdication of Nicholas II, but his overthrow from the Throne, and not only the overthrow of him, but also the Throne itself (principles: Orthodoxy, autocracy If the sovereign voluntarily retired to rest, then there could be no question of perjury, but for many there is no doubt that in the act of abdication of Nicholas II there was no moment of free will.

The fact of breaking the oath in a revolutionary way was calmly accepted: 1) out of fear - undoubted conservatives - some part of the clergy and nobility, 2) by calculation - merchants who dreamed of putting capital in the place of the aristocracy of the family, 3) people of different professions and classes, who believed in varying degrees in good consequences of the revolution. These people (from their point of view) for the sake of the supposed good have committed real evil - they have violated the word given with an oath. Their guilt is beyond doubt; one can only speak of extenuating circumstances, if any. […] [Apostle] Peter also denied, but he brought worthy fruits of repentance. We also need to come to our senses and bring worthy fruits of repentance."

After the report of Professor Glagolev, a debate arose in which 8 people participated, including both hierarchs. The speeches of parish pastors and laity were reduced to the following theses:

- It is necessary to clarify the question of how legal and obligatory the oath of allegiance to the emperor and his heir was, since the interests of the state are sometimes in conflict with the ideals of the Orthodox faith;

– We must look at the oath taking into account the fact that before the abdication of the sovereign from the throne, we had a religious union with the state. The oath was mystical in nature, and this cannot be ignored;

- Under the conditions of the secular nature of power, the previously close connection between the state and the church is broken, and believers can feel free from the oath;

“It is better to have at least some power than the chaos of anarchy. The people must fulfill those requirements of the rulers that do not contradict their religious beliefs. Any power will require the people to take an oath to themselves. The Church must decide whether to restore the oath in the form in which it was, or not. The oath of anti-Christian authority is illegal and undesirable;

- With the theocratic nature of power, the oath is natural. But the further the state moves away from the church, the more undesirable the oath is;

- Members of the State Duma in the February-March days of 1917 did not violate their oath. Having formed an Executive Committee from among their members, they performed their duty to the country in order to keep the beginning of anarchy;

- One could consider oneself freed from the allegiance oath only in the event of the voluntary abdication of Nicholas II. But later circumstances revealed that this renunciation was made under duress. Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich refused to take the throne also under pressure;

- Any oath is aimed at protecting peace and security. After the restoration of order in Russia in state and public life, the pastors of the Russian Church must fight the left-wing radicals who propagate the idea that it is unnecessary to take any oaths. It is necessary to educate the people in loyalty to the oath;

– As early as March 1917, the Holy Synod should have issued an act on the removal of the Anointing from the former Sovereign. But who dares to raise a hand against the Anointed One of God?

- The Church, having ordered to replace prayers for the emperor with a commemoration of the Provisional Government, did not say anything about the grace of the royal anointing. The people were thus confused. He was waiting for instructions and appropriate explanations from the highest church authorities, but still did not hear anything about it;

– The church was damaged by its former connection with the state. The people's conscience must now receive instructions from above: should it consider itself free from the previous oaths taken first to allegiance to the tsar, and then to the Provisional Government? to bind or not to bind oneself with an oath of new power?

- If Orthodoxy ceases to be the dominant faith in Russia, then the church oath should not be introduced.

In the speech of Archbishop Mitrofan (Krasnopolsky) of Astrakhan, there was a point of view that had been commonplace since the spring of 1917, that by abdicating the throne, the sovereign thereby freed everyone from the allegiance oath. At the end of the debate, Anatoly (Grisyuk), Bishop of Chistopolsky, took the floor. He said that the Local Council needed to issue its authoritative opinion on the issue of swearing an oath to Emperor Nicholas II, since the conscience of believers should be appeased. And for this, the question of the oath must be comprehensively investigated at the Council.

As a result, it was decided to continue the exchange of opinions next time.

The fifth meeting of the IV Subdivision was held on July 25 (August 7), 1918. Like all meetings of the Subdivision, it was not numerous: 13 people were present, including one bishop. A report was made by S.I. Shidlovsky - a member of the Local Council elected from the State Duma. (Earlier, Shidlovsky was a member of the III and IV State Dumas, since 1915 he was one of the leaders of the Progressive Bloc, and in 1917 he was also a member of the Provisional Executive Committee of the State Duma formed on the evening of February 27, which played a well-known role in the February Revolution) . The speech was only indirectly related to the original subject of discussion. It was reduced to the assertion that the abdication of the throne of Tsar Nicholas II was voluntary.

In the course of a small debate, Bishop Anatoly of Chistopol said: “The abdication took place under conditions that did not correspond to the importance of the act. I received letters in which it was stated that the abdication, all the more voluntary, should have taken place in the Assumption Cathedral, for example, where the wedding took place In abdication in favor of a brother and not a son, there is a discrepancy with the Fundamental Laws: this is contrary to the law of succession. In another remark, the bishop pointed out that the highest act of March 2 said that the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II was carried out "in agreement with the State Duma." However, after some time, "the Sovereign was deprived of liberty by the government that arose on the initiative of the same Duma." Such "inconsistency" of the Duma members served, in Vladyka Anatoly's opinion, as evidence of the violent nature of the transfer of power.

Some of the members of the subdivision during the discussion were inclined to the opinion that the renunciation was illegal. To which Shidlovsky remarked: “Before the State Duma, in the situation then created, two ways were open: either, remaining on the basis of strict formal legality, completely step back from ongoing events that in no way fall within its legal competence; or, breaking the law, try to direct the revolutionary movement on the least destructive path. She chose the second path and, of course, she was right. And why her attempt failed, this will all be revealed by an impartial history. "

In response to a proposal from one of the participants in the discussion (V.A. Demidov) to the Local Council to declare that the Orthodox have the right to consider themselves exempt from the effect of the allegiance oath, the chairman of the subdepartment, Archpriest D.V. Rozhdestvensky remarked: “When the Law of God was expelled from the school or one of the priests was imprisoned in the Butyrka prison, the Cathedral reacted to this in one way or another. . He was supported by Bishop Anatoly, pointing out that the highest acts of March 2 and 3, 1917 are far from being legally irreproachable. In particular, they do not mention the reasons for the transfer of power. In addition, Vladyka made it clear to those present that by the beginning of the Constituent Assembly Grand Duke(uncrowned emperor? - MB) Mikhail Alexandrovich could have abdicated in favor of further successors from the House of Romanov. “The team to which the power transferred by Mikhail Alexandrovich passed,” continued Bishop Anatoly about the Provisional Government, “changed in its composition, and meanwhile the Provisional Government was given an oath. It is very important to find out what we have sinned in this case and what we need to repent ".

From V.A. Demidov, among other things, it sounded: "The Council would not have calmed the conscience of many believers if it had not made its final decision on this issue. The Church crowned the Sovereign to the kingdom, performed the anointing; now she must perform the opposite act, annul the anointing." To which Archpriest D.V. Rozhdestvensky remarked: "This should not be brought before the plenary session of the Church Council. We must find out what threatens the church ahead; whether the oath will not be pressure from the state on the church, is it not better to refuse the oath." At the suggestion of the secretary of the subdivision, a commission was formed to develop the following questions: "Is the oath necessary, is it desirable in the future, is it necessary to restore it." The commission included 3 people: Professor S.S. Glagolev, S.I. Shidlovsky and Archpriest A.G. Albitsky (the latter also previously was a member of the IV State Duma, being one of the representatives of the Nizhny Novgorod province in it). At this meeting was completed.

How much Mr. S.I. Shidlovsky, the rapporteur of the Sub-department on "royal problems" and a member of the corresponding commission, mastered the topic under discussion, one can conclude on his question, posed on August 9 (22) at a meeting of the Sub-department to priest V.A. Belyaev: "I'm interested in knowing what the coronation (of an emperor. - M.B.) is and whether there is a special rank[?]". What from Professor S.S. Glagolev, the answer was received: "The coronation is not a prayer service, but a sacred ceremony of high importance and significance, performed according to a special order."

In this regard, in our opinion, it seems highly paradoxical: what the Tver peasant knew about the royal coronation and its religious significance was unknown to a member of ... the highest body of church authority (!) ...

Thus, the initial direction of the work of the subdepartment, set by the report of the priest V.A. Belyaev and a letter from a peasant M.E. Nikonov, has been changed. Questions from a purely practical plane were transferred to an abstract-theoretical one. Instead of discussing the pressing issues of concern to the flock about perjury during the February Revolution and the permission of the people from the action of a loyal oath, they began to consider problems of general content that have very little relation to reality.

The sixth meeting of the subdivision in the presence of 10 people took place on August 9 (22) - less than a month before the closing of the Local Council. On it, on behalf of the commission formed two weeks earlier, by Professor S.S. Glagolev outlined "Provisions on the meaning and importance of the oath, on its desirability and admissibility from the point of view of Christian teaching." (The text of this document was not preserved in the records management of the IV subdivision). There was an exchange of views. In the process, some speakers talked a lot about the terminology of the issue: the need to distinguish an oath (a solemn promise) from an oath. Others asked questions about whether it is permissible to take an oath according to the gospel teachings? can the church serve the affairs of the state? What is the difference between the state oath and the oath taken in the courts? if the Local Council recognizes the civil oath as unacceptable, and the government requires it to be taken? It was said that in the future the ceremony of taking the oath of allegiance to the rulers should not take place in a church setting, that the Name of God should not be mentioned in its text. At the same time, questions were seriously raised: if the government demands that the Name of God be sworn in, then how should the Russian Church behave in this case? can she make a corresponding concession of power?

Questions of a different nature were also proposed for discussion: can the coronation of a ruler take place under the conditions of the separation of church and state? and the same - but with the liberation of the church from enslavement by the state? Or should coronation under these conditions be abolished? Is coronation permissible with the abolition of the obligatory church oath?

One of the speakers, speaking about the relationship between church and state, puzzled the listeners with the formulation of a new problem: “We can expect that we will have to go through five or six more [state] coups. The current government has decisively severed all connection with the Church; dubious dignity of the authorities, who wish to restore the union of the state with the Church. How to be then?

Practically on all discussed questions there were arguments both "for" and "against". In general, the discussion was reminiscent of "mind games". It is clear that the realities of internal church, as well as social and political life, were far from the new problems that began to be discussed in the subsection.

Quite remarkable are some statements made then by one of the "rulers of thoughts" of the IV subdivision - S.I. Shidlovsky. For example: "Now we live in such conditions that the issue of the oath is untimely, and it is better not to initiate it. The issue of obligations in relation to Emperor Nicholas II can be considered completely eliminated. Before the coup, the sovereign was the head of the Church: he had an institution, which he used to exercise his power over the Church, as well as any other state institutions.True church people have always protested against the fact that [would] the Orthodox Church be an organ of state administration.... The separation of the Church from the state has taken place, and one should not return to the former position of things". In his last remark, questioning the "old-mode" view of the allegiance oath, he summed up the general discussion of the issue as follows: "Now the atmosphere [in the country] is such that it makes it impossible to concentrate and engage in an abstract examination of this issue (about the oath in general and the in particular. – M.B.). Therefore, it is better to refrain from a direct categorical answer to it.” Immediately after these words, the subdivision decided: "To continue the discussion at the next meeting."

A day after that, on August 11 (24), the Soviet authorities adopted and published on the 17th (30) the "Instruction" for the implementation of the decree "On the separation of church from state and school from church". According to it, the Orthodox Church was deprived of property rights and legal personality, i.e., as a centralized organization, it legally ceased to exist in Soviet Russia. And the clergy, among other things, were deprived of all rights to manage church property. Thus, from the end of August, the Russian Church found itself in new socio-political realities, due to which (primarily due to lack of funds) the meetings of the Local Council were prematurely terminated on September 7 (20).

Judging by the fact that there is no information about the seventh meeting of the IV subsection in the clerical documentation of the highest body of church authority, we can conclude that it did not take place. In "Memoirs" S.I. Shidlovsky, in which the author briefly described the work of the said subdepartment, also does not mention the outcome of its meetings. In the list of reports announced by the cathedral departments, but not heard by the Local Council, the issue considered in the named subsection does not appear. Accordingly, the question "On the oath to the Government in general and to the former Emperor Nicholas II in particular", which had worried the conscience of the Orthodox since March 1917, remained unresolved.

It is worth noting the fact that on all days (except March 21 (April 3)), when the first issue on its agenda was discussed in the IV subsection, the members of the Local Council were free from attending general meetings. Based on this, and also taking into account the consistently small number of participants in the discussions, it can be argued that the issues considered at the meetings of the named subsection seemed to the majority of the Sobors either irrelevant or deserving much less attention than other problems developed in other structural divisions of the Council.

In general, the departure of members of the Local Council from discussing the issues raised is understandable. After the actual revision of the official church policy in relation to the allegiant oath, the next step could be to raise the question of the need to disavow a series of definitions and messages issued by the Holy Synod in March and early April 1917. And the members of the "same" composition of the Holy Synod not only made up the leadership of the Local Council, but also stood at the helm of the Russian Orthodox Church: on December 7, 1917, the members of the Holy Synod (out of 13 people), which began to work under the chairmanship of Patriarch Tikhon (Bellavin), of Moscow and All Russia, included the Metropolitans of Kyiv Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky), Arseniy of Novgorod (Stadnitsky) and Sergius of Vladimir (Stragorodsky). All four were members of the Holy Synod of the winter session of 1916/1917.

However, questions about perjury and the need to release the Orthodox from the effect of the loyalty oath remained important and worrying the flock over the years. This can be concluded from the contents of the "Notes" of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas (since September 12, 1943 - Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia). Dated December 20, 1924, it was entitled: "The Orthodox Russian Church and the Soviet Power (for the Convocation of the Local Council of the Orthodox Russian Church)". In it, Vladyka Sergius shared his thoughts on issues that, in his opinion, should have been submitted for consideration by the nearest Local Council. Among other things, he wrote: “The council’s reasoning […], I think, must certainly touch on the extremely important fact for believers that the vast majority of the current citizens of the USSR Orthodox believers were bound by an oath of allegiance to the royal then (until March 1917 - M.B.) to the emperor and his heir. For the unbeliever, of course, this is no question, but the believer cannot (and should not) take it so lightly. An oath by the name of God is for us the greatest obligation that we can not without reason Christ commanded us: "do not swear at all", so as not to be in danger of lying to God. True, the last emperor (Michael) (sic! - M.B.), having abdicated in favor of the people, but this fact somehow remained in the shadows, was not indicated with sufficient clarity and certainty either in conciliar resolutions, or in archpastoral letters, or in any other official church speeches of that time. Many believing souls, perhaps, are now painfully perplexed before the question of how they should now deal with the oath. Many who are forced by circumstances to serve in the Red Army, or in general in the Soviet service, may be experiencing a very tragic split [between] their current civic duty and the formerly sworn oath. There may be many such that, out of the mere need to break an oath, they later waved their hand at faith. Obviously, our Council would not have fulfilled its pastoral duty if it had passed over in silence questions about the oath, leaving the believers themselves, who knows, to understand it.

Nevertheless, none of the later local or episcopal councils of the Russian Orthodox Church turned to the consideration of the issues of the oath, which began to be discussed in the IV subsection of the department "On Church Discipline" of the Local Council of 1917-1918. and repeated in the named "Note" of Metropolitan and future Patriarch Sergius. The clergy, as they say, were "lowered on the brakes" on these issues.

----------------------

In the "Code of Laws of the Russian Empire" and in other official documents, up to 1936 (in particular, in the materials of the Local Council of 1917–1918 and in the well-known "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) dated 16 (29) .07.1927 .) the name "Orthodox Russian Church" was mainly used. However, the names "Russian Orthodox", "All-Russian Orthodox", "Orthodox Catholic Greco-Russian" and "Russian Orthodox" Church were often used. Due to the fact that on September 8, 1943, by the decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, the title of the Patriarch of Moscow was changed (instead of "... and all Russia" it became "... and all Russia"), the Orthodox Church received its modern name, being called "Russian" (ROC). Accordingly, the use of the abbreviation "ROC" and not "PRC" has been established in historiography.

See, for example: Kartashev A.V. Revolution and Council 1917–1918 (Outlines for the history of the Russian Church of our days) // Theological Thought. Paris, 1942. Issue. IV. pp. 75–101; Tarasov K.K. Acts of the Holy Council of 1917-1918 as a historical source // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchy. 1993. No. 1. S. 7–10; Kravetsky A.G. The problem of the liturgical language at the Council of 1917–1918 and in subsequent decades // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchy. 1994. No. 2. P.68–87; He is. Sacred Cathedral 1917–1918 on the execution of Nicholas II // Uchenye zapiski. Russian orthodox university app. John the Evangelist. Issue. 1. M., 1995. S. 102–124; Odintsov M.I. All-Russian Local Council of 1917–1918: disputes about church reforms, main decisions, relations with authorities // Church Historical Bulletin. 2001. No. 8. S. 121–138; Tsypin Vladislav, archpriest. The Question of Diocesan Administration at the Local Council of 1917–1918 // Church and Time. 2003. No. 1 (22). pp. 156–167; Solovyov Elijah, deacon. Cathedral and Patriarch. Discussion about higher church administration // Church and time. 2004. No. 1 (26). pp. 168–180; Svetozarsky A.K. Local Council and the October Revolution in Moscow // Ibid. pp. 181–197; Peter (Eremeev), hieromonk. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917–1918 and reform of theological education // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2004. No. 3. S. 68–71; Belyakova E.V. church court and problems of church life. Discussions in the Orthodox Russian church beginning of the 20th century. Local Council 1917–1918 and the pre-council period. M., b/i. 2004; Kovyrzin K.V. The Local Council of 1917–1918 and the Search for the Principles of Church-State Relations after the February Revolution // Patriotic History. M., 2008. No. 4. S. 88–97; Iakinf (Destivelle), priest, monk. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917–1918 and the principle of catholicity / Per. from French Hieromonk Alexander (Sinyakov). M., ed. Krutitsky patriarchal farmstead. 2008.

Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917–1918 M., State Archive Russian Federation, Novospassky Monastery. 1994, vol. 1, pp. 119–133.

Acts of the Holy Council ... 1994. Vol. 1. Act 4. S. 64–65, 69–71.

Sacred Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church. Acts. M., ed. Cathedral Council. 1918. Book. 1. Issue. 1. S. 42;

The draft "Charter" of the Local Council was developed by the Pre-Council Council, on August 11, 1917, it was approved by the Holy Synod and finally adopted by the Local Council on the 17th of the same month (Acts of the Holy Council ... 1994. Vol. 1. S. 37, Act 3. pp. 55, Act 9. pp. 104–112).

Acts of the Holy Council ... 1994. T. 1. S. 43–44.

See about this: Babkin M.A. Parish clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917 // Questions of history. 2003. No. 6. S. 59–71; He is. The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917 // Questions of history. 2005. No. 2. S. 97–109; He is. Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy in Russia (spring 1917) // Patriotic history. 2005. No. 3. S. 109–124; He is. The reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church to the overthrow of the monarchy in Russia. (Participation of the clergy in revolutionary celebrations) // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 8: History. 2006. No. 1. S. 70–90.

State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 36–37rev.; D. 522. Sheet 37–38rev., 61–62, 69–70, 102–103, 135–136, 187–188, 368–369rev., 444, 446–446rev., 598–598rev., 646– 646rev.

The letters in question are published: The Russian Clergy and the Overthrow of the Monarchy in 1917. (Materials and archival documents on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church) / Comp., author. foreword and comments by M.A. Babkin. M., ed. Indrik. 2008, pp. 492–501, 503–511.

See about this: Babkin M.A. The clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy (the beginning of the 20th century - the end of 1917). M., ed. State Public Historical Library of Russia. 2007. pp. 177–187.

That is, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. – M.B.

Paraphrasing the gospel words: [John. 19, 38].

Obviously, this refers to a set of measures taken by the Holy Synod in March 1917 to welcome and legitimize the overthrow of the monarchy.

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 36–37rev.

There, l. 35.

See about this, for example: Acts of the Holy Council ... 1999. Vol. 7. Act 84. S. 28–29; Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., Church-Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia". 2000. V. 1. S. 665–666.

News of the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of Peasants', Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. Pg., 1918. No. 16 (280). January 21. S. 2; Additions to the Church Gazette. Pg., 1918. No. 2. S. 98–99.

Among the other 10 questions planned for the discussion of the IV subsection were the following: "On the reverent celebration of worship", "On repentant discipline", "On the trampling of the images of the Cross", "On trade in the temple", "On the behavior of the laity in the temple", " On the behavior of choristers in the temple", etc. (GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 1).

There, l. 13.

There, l. 33–34.

In the office work of the IV subdivision preserved in the GARF funds church department"On Church Discipline" another letter (message) has been preserved, similar in content and timing of sending to the letter of the peasant M.E. Nikonov. Its authors were listed anonymously: "Patriots and zealots of Orthodoxy of the city of Nikolaev [Kherson province]." In this message, addressed to the Local Council, much was said about the need to restore Tsar Nicholas II to the Russian throne, about the fact that the patriarchate "is good and very pleasant, but at the same time it is inconsistent with the Christian Spirit." The authors developed their idea as follows: “For where His Holiness the Patriarch is, there must be the Most Autocratic Monarch. The Big Ship needs a Pilot. But there must be a Compass on the Ship, because the Pilot without a Compass cannot steer the Ship. […] Where the legitimate Monarchy does not reign, lawless anarchy rages. This is where the Patriarchy will not help us."

On the original message, at the top of the sheet, a resolution was put by the hand of an unidentified person: "To the department on church discipline. 1/XII. 1917" (Ibid., fol. 20–22v.). Along the clerical corridors, it fell into the IV subdivision of the named structural division of the Local Council. But judging by the transcripts of the sessions of the IV subsection, the message was neither read out nor mentioned in any way at all. That is, it actually "laid down under the cloth", thereby sharing the fate with a dozen other similar above-mentioned letters of the monarchists to the highest body of church authority.

There, l. 4–5.

The third meeting in the presence of 6 people took place on March 29 (April 11). It was completely devoted to the discussion of the question "On trade in the temple." After a short discussion, the subdepartment worked out an appropriate conclusion, which was submitted to the "head" department (Ibid., pp. 6–7).

This refers to the Gospel story about the denial of the Apostle Peter, see: [Mark. 14, 66–72].

Paraphrasing the gospel words: [Matt. 3, 8].

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 41–42.

Meaning the words Holy Scripture: "Do not touch my anointed" and "Who, having raised his hand against the anointed of the Lord, will remain unpunished?" .

On March 6–8 and 18, 1917, the Holy Synod issued a series of definitions, according to which, at all divine services, instead of commemorating the “reigning” house, prayers should be offered for the “Blessed Provisional Government” (see for more details: Babkin M.A. Clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church … Decree cit., pp. 140–176, Russian clergy and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917, pp. 27–29, 33–35).

There, l. 42–44, 54–55.

GARF, f. 601, op. 1, d. 2104, l. 4. See also, for example: Church Gazette. 1917. No. 9-15. pp. 55–56.

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 47rev.

Over the 238 days of its existence, the Provisional Government has changed 4 compositions: homogeneous bourgeois (02.03–02.05), 1st coalition (05.05–02.07), 2nd coalition (24.07–26.08) and 3rd coalition (25.09–25.10) ( see for more details: Higher and Central State Institutions of Russia (1801–1917) / Editor-in-Chief D.I. Raskin, in 4 vols. St. Petersburg, Nauka Publishing House, 1998, v. 1. Higher State Institutions. 232).

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 48.

There, l. 45–49.

There, l. 52.

Obviously, this refers to the Holy Synod and the chief prosecutor's office.

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 49–52rev.

News of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of Peasants', Workers', Soldiers' and Cossacks' Deputies and the Moscow Soviet of Workers' and Red Army Deputies. 1918. No. 186 (450). August 30th. S. 5; Collection of legalizations and orders of the workers' and peasants' government for 1918. M., b/i. 1942. No. 62. S. 849–858.

At the very beginning of the 1920s, sharing his memories of the work of the Local Council with future readers, Shidlovsky wrote:

“At the council, I don’t remember in which commission and why, the question of the sovereign’s abdication was raised: whether it was forced or voluntary. This had something to do with the issue of the oath: if the abdication followed voluntarily, then the oath obligations disappear, and if it was forced, then they remain.This purely scholastic question was of great interest to some priests, who attached great importance to it.

Since I was the only member of the cathedral who was aware of this, I was invited to a meeting of this commission to give relevant evidence, and then asked to write the history of this entire revolutionary episode, which I did.

I was most interested in this whole matter, what is considered forced and what is voluntary: is renunciation, made under the pressure of circumstances, equivalent to forced; or the compelled were to recognize only such a renunciation, which was made under the influence of direct violence. This kind of casuistic reasoning, in general, always found many lovers in the composition of the cathedral, although, of course, they had no practical significance.

characteristic feature Sobor, I don’t know whether in general or only this composition, there was a great inclination to discuss such, meaningless, purely theoretical questions; the vital stream in his works was felt very little. "(Shidlovsky S.I. Memoirs. Berlin, Published by Otto Kirchner and Co. 1923. Part 2. P. 180–181).

Acts of the Holy Council ... 2000. V. 11. Protocol 170. S. 218.

From the pages of the official publication of the Russian Orthodox Church on the Local Council of 1917-1918. sounds pathetic: “It can be said without exaggeration that the Council considered almost the entire range of issues that confronted the Church in connection with the changed (first after February 1917, and then after October of that year) state system” (Tarasov K. K. The Acts of the Holy Council of 1917-1918 as a historical source // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. M., 1993. No. 1. P. 7). However, as the materials of, for example, the discussion discussed above on the allegiance oath, perjury in February 1917, etc., show, consideration of these issues did not at all lead to their solution. And therefore it cannot be presented as some kind of achievement of the Council.

On July 20 (August 2), July 25 (August 7) ​​and August 9 (22), 1918, general meetings of the Local Council were not held (Acts of the Holy Council ... 1999. Vol. 8. S. 258, 2000. Vol. 10. C . 254–255).

For example, at the conciliar meetings held in the last decades of March and July (O.S.) 1918, from 237 to 279 were present (of which in the episcopal rank - from 34 to 41), as well as from 164 to 178 (in bishopric - from 24 to 31) people, respectively. Similar figures for the first ten days of August (OS) 1918: a minimum of 169 participants in meetings and a maximum of 180 (including bishops - from 28 to 32) (Acts of the Holy Council ... 1999. Vol. 8, 2000. Vol. ten).

These acts legalized the overthrow of the monarchy, the revolution was actually declared "the accomplished will of God", and prayers of this kind began to be offered in churches: "... prayers for the sake of the Mother of God! Help our faithful ruler, whom you have chosen to rule over us, and grant them victory against enemies" or "All-singing Mother of God, ... save our pious Provisional Government, you commanded him to rule, and give him victory from heaven" (our italics. - M.B.) (Church Gazette. Pg., 1917. No. 9-15. S. 59; Ibid. Free supplement to Nos. 9-15, p. 4, Free supplement to No. 22, p. 2, Free supplement to No. 22, p. 2).

Acts of the Holy Council ... 1996. Vol. 5. Act 62. S. 354.

Cit. Quoted from: Investigation case of Patriarch Tikhon. Collection of documents based on the materials of the Central Archive of the FSB of the Russian Federation / Ed. comp. N.A. Krivova. M., PSTBI, Monuments of historical thought. 2000, pp. 789–790.

The mood in society and the Church. The Council included 564 members, including 227 from the hierarchy and clergy, 299 from the laity. Present were the head of the Provisional Government Alexander Kerensky, the Minister of the Interior Nikolai Avksentiev, representatives of the press and the diplomatic corps.

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  On August 10-11, 1917, the Holy Synod adopted the “Charter of the Local Council”, which, in particular, somewhat changed the norm of the “Regulations” regarding membership in the Council: “The Council is formed from Members by election, by position, and at the invitation of the Holy Synod and itself Cathedral". The "Charter" was accepted as a "guiding rule" - until the adoption by the Council itself of its charter; the document determined that the Local Council had full ecclesiastical authority to organize church life "on the basis of the Word of God, dogmas, canons and tradition of the Church."

  Composition, powers and bodies of the Council

  According to the “Regulations on Convening a Local Council of the Orthodox All-Russian Church in Moscow on August 15, 1917” adopted by the Pre-Council Council on July 4, 1917, the Council included Members by election, by position and by invitation of the Holy Synod. To participate in the sessions of the Holy Council were called ex officio: members of the Holy Governing Synod and the Pre-Council Council, all diocesan bishops (the full-time episcopate of the Russian Church, vicar bishops - by invitation), two protopresbyters - of the Assumption Cathedral and the military clergy, abbots of four Laurels, abbots of Solovetsky and Valaam monasteries, Sarov and Optina deserts; also by election: from each diocese, two clerics and three laymen, representatives of monastics, co-religionists, spiritual Academies, soldiers of the active army, representatives of the Academy of Sciences, universities, the State Council and the State Duma. Elections from the dioceses, according to the “Rules” developed by the Pre-Council Council, were three-stage: on July 23, 1917, electors were elected in parishes; on July 30, electors at meetings in deanery districts elected members of diocesan electoral meetings; on August 8, diocesan meetings elected delegates to the Local Council. In total, 564 members were elected and appointed to the Council: 80 bishops, 129 presbyters, 10 deacons and 26 psalmists from the white clergy, 20 monks (archimandrites, abbots and hieromonks) and 299 laity. Thus, the laity made up the majority of the members of the Sobor, which was a reflection of the aspirations then prevailing for the restoration of “cathedralism” in the Russian Church. However, the charter of the Holy Council provided for a special role and powers of the episcopate: issues of a dogmatic and canonical nature, upon their consideration by the Council, were subject to approval at the Conference of Bishops.

  As its Honorary Chairman, the Council approved the oldest hierarch of the Russian Church, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev (Bogoyavlensky); Metropolitan Tikhon  (Bellavin) of Moscow was elected Chairman of the Council. The Cathedral Council was formed; 22 departments were established, which prepared preliminary reports and draft definitions submitted to the plenary sessions.

  The progress of the Council

  The first session of the Council. Election of the Patriarch

  The first session of the Council, which lasted from August 15 to December 9, 1917, was devoted to the reorganization of the highest church administration: the restoration of the patriarchate, the election of the patriarch, the definition of his rights and duties, the establishment of conciliar bodies for the joint management of church affairs with the patriarch, as well as a discussion of the legal status Orthodox Church in Russia.

  From the first session of the Council, a heated discussion arose about the restoration of the patriarchate (a preliminary discussion of the issue was within the competence of the Department of Higher Church Administration; the chairman of the Department was Bishop Mitrofan of Astrakhan  (Krasnopolsky)). The most active champions of the restoration of the patriarchate, along with Bishop Mitrofan, were members of the Council, Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov (Khrapovitsky) and Archimandrite (later Archbishop) Hilarion (Troitsky). The opponents of patriarchy pointed out the danger that it might fetter the conciliar principle in the life of the Church and even lead to absolutism in the Church; Among the prominent opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate were Professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy Pyotr Kudryavtsev, Professor Alexander Brilliantov, Archpriest Nikolai Tsvetkov, Professor Ilya Gromoglasov, Prince Andrei Chagadaev (a layman from the Turkestan Diocese), Professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy Boris Titlinov, the future ideologist of renovationism. Professor Nikolai Kuznetsov believed that there was a real danger that the Holy Synod, as an executive authority operating in the inter-council period, could turn into a simple advisory body under the Patriarch, which would also be a derogation of the rights of the bishops - members of the Synod.

  On October 11, the issue of the patriarchate was submitted to the plenary sessions of the Council. By the evening of October 25, Moscow already knew about the victory of the Bolsheviks in Petrograd.

  On October 28, 1917, the debate was closed. In his concluding speech, Bishop Mitrofan of Astrakhan said: “The matter of restoring the patriarchate cannot be postponed: Russia is on fire, everything is perishing. And is it possible now to argue for a long time that we need an instrument for gathering, for uniting Russia? When there is a war, a single leader is needed, without whom the army goes astray. On the same day, it was adopted, and on November 4, the episcopal meeting approved the “Determination of general provisions about top management Orthodox Russian Church "(the first provision was adopted in the edition of Professor Peter Kudryavtsev):

  At about 13:15 on the same October 28, Chairman Metropolitan Tikhon announced that "an application signed by 79 members of the Council was received for the immediate, at the next meeting, election of three candidates for the rank of patriarch by notes."

  At a meeting on October 30, the issue of the immediate start of the election of candidates for patriarchs was put to a vote and received 141 votes in favor and 121 against (12 abstained). The procedure for electing the patriarch in two stages was worked out: by secret ballot and by lot: each member of the Council submitted a note with one name; based on the submitted notes, a list of candidates was compiled; after the announcement of the list, the Council elected three candidates by submitting notes indicating three names from among those indicated in the list; the names of the first three who received an absolute majority of votes relied on the holy throne; the election from among the three was decided by drawing lots. Despite objections from a number of members of the Council, it was decided "this time to choose a patriarch from among the persons of the sacred rank"; Immediately afterwards, the proposal of Professor Pavel Prokoshev was adopted, which allowed voting for any person who did not have canonical obstacles to doing so.

  Based on the results of counting 257 notes, the names of 25 candidates were announced, including Alexander Samarin (three votes) and Protopresbyter George Shavelsky (13 votes); Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) received the largest number of votes (101), followed by Kirill  (Smirnov) and Tikhon (23). Shavelsky asked to withdraw his candidacy .

  At a meeting on October 31, the candidacies of Samarin and Protopresbyter Nikolai Lyubimov were rejected with reference to "yesterday's decision" (Lubimov, moreover, was married). Elections were held for three candidates from among the candidates on the list; out of 309 submitted notes, Archbishop Anthony received 159 votes, Archbishop Arseniy of Novgorod (Stadnitsky) - 148, Metropolitan Tikhon - 125; the absolute majority, therefore, received only Antony; the announcement of his name by the Chairman was met with exclamations of "Axios". In the next round of voting, the absolute majority was received only by Arseniy (199 out of 305). In the third round, out of 293 notes (two were empty), Tikhon received 162 votes (the result was announced by Archbishop Anthony).

  At a meeting on November 2, the Council listened to spontaneous stories of people who, headed by Metropolitan Platon of Tiflis  (Rozhdestvensky), made up an embassy from the Cathedral to the Moscow Military Revolutionary Committee for negotiations on ending the bloodshed on the streets of Moscow (Platon managed to have a conversation with a person who introduced himself as "Soloviev") . A proposal was received from thirty members (the first signatory was Archbishop Evlogy  (Georgievsky) “Today to make a procession with the whole Cathedral,<…>around the area where the bloodshed takes place. A number of speakers, including Nikolai Lyubimov, urged the Council not to hasten with the election of the Patriarch (scheduled for November 5); but the scheduled date was adopted in the November 4 meeting.

  Sergei Bulgakov believed: “The bill was developed precisely in the consciousness of what should be, in the consciousness of the normal and worthy position of the Church in Russia. Our demands are addressed to the Russian people over the heads of the present authorities. Of course, the moment may come when the Church must anathematize the state. But without a doubt, that moment has not yet come.”

  "one. The management of church affairs belongs to the All-Russian Patriarch together with the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council. 2. The Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council are responsible to the All-Russian Local Council and submit to it a report on their activities during the inter-council period.<…>»

  Thus, the supreme power in the Church was organized through its division between three bodies - according to the model that had existed since 1862 in the Patriarchate of Constantinople (in accordance with the provisions of the "General Rules" ( Γενικοὶ Κανονισμοί ). The jurisdiction of the Holy Synod included matters of a hierarchical-pastoral, doctrinal, canonical, and liturgical nature; within the competence of the Supreme Church Council - matters of church and public order: administrative, economic, school and educational; especially important issues related to the protection of the rights of the Church, preparations for the upcoming Council, the opening of new dioceses, were subject to consideration by the joint presence of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council.

  On December 8, the “Determination on the rights and obligations His Holiness Patriarch Moscow and All Russia" (December 8, 1917), which read:

  "one. The Patriarch of the Russian Church is its First Hierarch and bears the title "His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia". 2. The Patriarch a) has care for the internal and external well-being of the Russian Church, in necessary cases proposes appropriate measures to the Holy Synod or the Supreme Church Council and is the representative of the Church before the state authorities; b) convenes Church Councils, in accordance with their regulations, and presides over the Councils; c) presides over the Holy Synod, the Supreme Church Council and the combined presence of both institutions;<…>» .

  Second session of the Council

  The second session of the Council, which took place from January 20 to April 7 (20), 1918, considered issues related to diocesan administration, parish life and the organization of parishes of the same faith.

  The political situation in the country brought to the fore other issues different from those planned, and above all, the attitude towards the actions of the new government that affected the position and activities of the Orthodox Church. The attention of the members of the Council was drawn to the events in Petrograd, where on January 13-21, 1918, by order of the People's Commissar of Public Charity Alexandra Kollontai, the red sailors tried to "requisition" the premises of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, during which Archpriest Peter Skipetrov was killed; the events provoked a grandiose religious procession and "nationwide prayer" for the persecuted Church. The rector of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, Bishop Procopius  (Titov) informed the Cathedral about the events around the Lavra; the report became the subject of discussion on the very first day of the second session of the Council. Archpriest Nikolai Tsvetkov assessed the events in Petrograd as "the first clash with the servants of Satan."

  On January 19 (O.S.), on his birthday, Patriarch Tikhon issued an Appeal that anathematized “madmen,” who were not named specifically and clearly, but were characterized as follows: “<…>persecution has raised open and secret enemies of this truth on the truth of Christ and strive to destroy the cause of Christ and, instead of Christian love, sow everywhere the seeds of malice, hatred and fratricidal warfare. The appeal addressed the faithful: “We conjure all of you, faithful children of the Orthodox Church of Christ, not to enter into any communion with such monsters of the human race.” The message called for the defense of the Church:

  “The enemies of the Church seize power over her and her property by the power of a deadly weapon, and you oppose them with the power of faith of your nationwide cry, which will stop the madmen and show them that they have no right to call themselves champions of the people's good, builders of a new life at the behest of the people's mind, for they even act directly contrary to the conscience of the people. And if it is necessary to suffer for the cause of Christ, we call you, beloved children of the Church, we call you to these sufferings together with us with the words of the Holy Apostle: Who will not separate from the love of God? Is it sorrow, or oppression, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or trouble, or a sword?“(Rom.). And you, brethren, archpastors and pastors, without delaying a single hour in your spiritual work, with ardent zeal, call your children to defend the now trampled rights of the Orthodox Church, immediately arrange spiritual unions, call not by need, but by good will to become in the ranks of spiritual fighters, who will oppose the power of their holy inspiration to external power, and we firmly hope that the enemies of the church will be put to shame and squandered by the power of the cross of Christ, for the promise of the Divine Crusader Himself is immutable: “I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.” .

  On January 22, the Council discussed the “Appeal” of the Patriarch and adopted a resolution approving the appeal and calling on the Church “to unite now around the Patriarch so as not to allow our faith to be desecrated.”

  On January 23, the approved Council of People's Commissars was issued on January 20 (February 2), 1918 "Decree on the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church", which proclaimed freedom of conscience in the Russian Republic, forbade any "advantages or privileges based on the religious affiliation of citizens ”, declared the property of religious societies “public property” (paragraph 13), depriving them of the right of a legal person and the opportunity to teach the dogma in general educational institutions, including private ones.

  On January 25, the Holy Council issued a "Conciliar Resolution on the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars on the Separation of the Church from the State":

  "one. The decree issued by the council of people's commissars on the separation of the Church from the state is, under the guise of a law on freedom of conscience, a malicious attempt on the entire order of life of the Orthodox Church and an act of open persecution against it.
  

  2. Any participation both in the publication of this legalization hostile to the Church, and in attempts to put it into practice, is incompatible with belonging to the Orthodox Church and brings punishment on the guilty, up to excommunication from the Church (in accordance with the 73rd rule of the holy apostles and 13th rule of the VII Ecumenical Council) . »

  In addition, on January 27, the Council issued the Appeal of the Holy Council to the Orthodox People on the Decree of the People's Commissars on Freedom of Conscience, which read:

  "Orthodox Christians! From time immemorial, the unheard of has been happening with us in Holy Russia. People who came to power and called themselves people's commissars, themselves strangers to the Christian, and some of them to any faith, issued a decree (law) called "on freedom of conscience", but in fact establishing complete violence against the conscience of believers.<…>»

  On January 25, 1918, after the capture of Kyiv by the Bolsheviks, Metropolitan Vladimir Kyiv was killed, whose death was perceived as an act of open persecution of the clergy. On the same day, the Council adopted a resolution instructing the Patriarch to name three persons who could become patriarchal locum tenens in the event of his death before the election of a new patriarch; names were to be kept secret and to be made public in the event that the Patriarch was unable to perform his duties.

  On Sunday, March 11 (O.S.) in the Church of Christ the Savior, after the celebration of the liturgy, a council of bishops headed by the Patriarch and a host of other clergy, including members of the Local Council, “with outstanding solemnity, the “rite in the week of Orthodoxy” was performed”; during which “Protodiak. Rozov, standing on an elevated pulpit placed in front of the bishop's pulpit near the salt, read the confession of faith and proclaimed an "anathema" to heretics, apostates, blasphemers of the holy faith, as well as "those who speak blasphemous against our holy faith and rise up on holy churches and monasteries, encroaching on church property, reviling and killing the priests of the Lord and the zealots of the faith of the fathers.

  “The definition of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church on the measures caused by the ongoing persecution of the Orthodox Church” dated April 5 () 1918 read:

  "one. Establish the offering of special petitions for those now persecuted for Orthodox Faith and the Church and about the confessors and martyrs who have died.
  

  2. To make solemn prayers: a) memorial for the repose of the departed with the saints and b) thanksgiving for the salvation of the survivors.<…>
  

  3. Establish throughout Russia an annual prayer commemoration on the day of January 25, or on the following Sunday (in the evening) of all the confessors and martyrs who have died in the current fierce hour of persecution.<…>»

  The Holy Council, moreover, considered the question of the status of the common faith that had existed in the Russian Church since 1800; the adopted "Definition" of February 22 (March 7), 1918 read:

  "one. Fellow believers are children of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, who, with the blessing of the Local Church, with the unity of faith and government, perform church rites according to the Liturgical books published under the first five Russian Patriarchs, while strictly preserving the old Russian way of life.
  2. Edinoverie parishes are part of Orthodox dioceses and are governed, by the decision of the Council or on behalf of the ruling Bishop, by special bishops of the same faith who are dependent on the diocesan Bishop.<…>»

  On September 12, the Council discussed and adopted the definition "On the protection of church shrines from blasphemous seizure and desecration", which, in particular, read:

  «<…>3. None of the Orthodox Christians, under pain of excommunication, dare to participate in the removal of holy churches, chapels and sacred objects located in them from the actual possession of the Holy Church.<…>»

  On the same day, addressing the audience, Patriarch Tikhon announced the termination of the work of the Council.

  Timeline of the 1917 Revolution in Russia
  Before:	Opening on August 15 (28), 1917 of the Local Council of the Orthodox Russian Church Bykhovskoe seat ( September 11 - November 19)	After: Bolshevization Soviets See also Directory, All-Russian Democratic Conference, Provisional Council of the Russian Republic

  Memory

  Based on the decision of the Holy Synod of December 27, 2016 (Journal No. 104), the Organizing Committee for the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the opening of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church and the restoration of the Patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church was formed, chaired by Metropolitan Varsonofy  (Sudakov) . During the meetings on February 21, March 15 and April 5, 2017, the organizing committee determined the "General plan of anniversary events" in 39 points and a separate "Plan of anniversary events in spiritual educational institutions» at 178 points. Plans of events include holding conferences, lecture halls and exhibitions in Moscow and other cities, a number of scientific and popular publishing projects, as well as coverage of anniversary topics in media mass media. The central celebrations are scheduled for August 28 - the 100th anniversary of the opening of the Cathedral, November 18 - the 100th anniversary of the election of Patriarch Tikhon and December 4 - the day of his Patriarchal enthronement.

  Cathedral of the Fathers of the Local Council of the Russian Church 1917-1918

  On May 4, 2017, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church included in the liturgical calendar the conciliar memory of the "Fathers of the Local Council of the Russian Church 1917-1918". The date of November 5 (18) is set as the day of memory - the day of the election of St. Tikhon to the Moscow Patriarchal Throne.

  By the decision of the Holy Synod of July 29, 2017, the troparion, kontakion and magnification by the Holy Father of the Local Council of the Church of Russia were approved.

  Notes

  1. Holy Cathedral of the Orthodox Russian Church. Acts. - M.: Ed. Cathedral Council, 1918. - Prince. I, no. I. - p. 3.
  2. Holy Cathedral of the Orthodox Russian Church. Acts. - M.: Ed. Cathedral Council, 1918. - Prince. I, no. I. - S. 11.
  3. Holy Cathedral of the Orthodox Russian Church. Acts. - M.: Ed. Cathedral Council, 1918. - Prince. I, no. I. - S. 38-51.
  4. Holy Cathedral of the Orthodox Russian Church. Acts. - M.: Ed. Cathedral Council, 1918. - Prince. I, no. I. - S. 39.
  5. . - Edition of the Cathedral Council, M., 1918, Prince. I, no. I, pp. 12-18.
  6. Sacred Cathedral of the Orthodox Russian Church. Acts . - Edition of the Cathedral Council, M., 1918, Prince. I, no. I, p. 12.
  7. Tsypin V. A. Local Sobor 1917-1918 // Church law. Part III. Church authorities. The supreme administration of the Russian Orthodox Church in the period 1917-1988.
  8. "Great joy on earth and in Heaven" St. Hilarion (Trinity) and his contribution to restoration of the patriarchate. Pravoslavie.Ru.
  9. Professor Kuznetsov in the book " Transformations in the Russian Church. Consideration of the issue according to official documents and in connection with the needs of life"(M. 1906) substantiated the harmfulness of the restoration of the patriarchal system in the Church as being able to "deliver significant support to clericalism so detrimental to us". - S. 64.
  10. Sacred Cathedral of the Orthodox Russian Church. Acts. - Pg.: Ed. Cathedral Council, 1918. - Prince. III. - S. 6.
  11. Sacred Cathedral of the Orthodox Russian Church. Acts. - Pg.: Ed. Cathedral Council, 1918. - Prince. III. - S. 9-10.
  12. Collection of definitions and resolutions of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church in 1917-1918.- M., 1994 (reprint). - Issue. 1. - p. 3.
  13. Sacred Cathedral of the Orthodox Russian Church. Acts. - Pg.: Ed. Cathedral Council, 1918. - Prince. III. - S. 16.
• 4. The first anti-church measures of the Soviet government (late 1917 - early 1918) Decree on the separation of the Church from the state and the reaction of the Church to it.
• 5. Bolshevik terror against the Russian Church during the Civil War (1917-1920). The most famous new martyrs of this period.
• 6. Messages and appeals of St. Tikhon during the Civil War (1917-1920).
• 7. Karlovac Cathedral in 1921 and its decisions.
• 8. Campaigns for the seizure of church property. The goals of the Bolshevik leadership and the results achieved.
• 9. Arrest of St. Patriarch Tikhon and the Formation of the Renovationist Church in May 1922. The "Memorandum of the Three" and Its Consequences.
• 10. The most prominent renovationist figures. Schisms in Schism (1922-1923).
• 11. Renovationist false council of 1923 and its decisions.
• 12. Liberation of St. Patriarch Tikhon in 1923. Its causes, circumstances and consequences.
• 13. Attempts by the authorities to compromise St. Patriarch Tikhon in the eyes of believers in 1923-1924. (commemoration of the authorities, new style, "repentance" of V. Krasnitsky, "death testament").
• 14. Events of church life under the Patriarchal Locum Tenens of St. Metropolitan Petre in 1925. The Second Renovationist False Council. Arrest schmch. Peter.
• 15. The emergence of the Gregorian schism and the fight against it by Metropolitan Sergius in con. 1925 - early 1926
• 16. Events of church life in the spring-autumn of 1926. The dispute about the locum tenens between Metropolitans Sergius and Agafangel. Attempt to conduct secret elections of the Patriarch and its results.
• 17. Change in the church policy of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927. Reasons for the change of course, specific expressions of the change and consequences.
• 18. "Right" church opposition to Metropolitan Sergius. The main representatives and their views. St. Metropolitan Kirill of Kazan.
• 19. Martyrdom of St. Metropolitan Peter Krutitsky in 1926-1937 His attitude to the activities of Metropolitan Sergius.
• 20. Internal conflicts in the Russian ecclesiastical diaspora in 1920-1930.
• 21. Relations between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad in the 1920s-1930s.
• 22. "Godless five-year plans" and their results.
• 23. The policy of the German authorities towards the Orthodox Church in the occupied territories of the USSR.
• 24. Change in the policy of the Soviet authorities towards the Russian Church during World War II and its causes. Bishops' Council 1943
• 25. Liquidation of the renovationist split. Local Council of 1945
• 26. Russian Church in the foreign policy of the USSR in the 1940s. Fight against the Vatican. Orthodox Meeting of 1948 in Moscow and its decisions.
• 27. Khrushchev's persecution of the Russian Church. Its character and results.
• 28. Bishops' Council of 1961. Circumstances of holding and resolution.
• 29. The Russian Church and the ecumenical movement in the 1960s and 70s.
• 30. The main speeches of "church dissidents" in the 1960-80s.
• 31. The main events of church life in America after World War II. The granting of autocephaly to the American Church.
• 32. Russian Church under Patriarch Pimen. Local Councils of 1971 and 1988
• 33. Revival of church life under Patriarch Alexy II. Bishops' Councils of the 1990s

3. Local Council 1917-1918 Restoration of the patriarchate. Review of other important decisions of the Council.

Pomest. Cathedral (PS) coincided with revolutionary process in Russia, with installed new state system. They were called to the PS Holy Synod (SS) and Pre-Council Council in full force, all Eparch. Archbishop, as well as two clerics and three laymen from the dioceses, governors of four laurels and abbots of Solovets and Valaam mon-ray, Sarov and Optics of the desert, representatives from the monks, co-religionists, from the spirit of the academies, the Academy of Sciences, universities, State. Council and State Duma (564 members of the Council). In the acts of the PS participation. representatives of the same faith HRC: ep. Nicodemus (from Romanian) and archim. Michael (from Serbian). The wide representation of presbyters and laity at the PS was connected with the striving for the revival of catholicity. But the Statute of the PS provided for the special responsibility of the episcopate for the fate of Ts-vi. Questions of dogma. and canon. har-ra after their consideration by the fullness of the cathedral were subject to approval at a meeting of bishops. The PS was opened in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin on the day of its temple feast - 15 (28) August. The liturgy was celebrated by Met. Vladimir Kyiv-th with Metropolitan. Veniamin Petrograds. and Platon of Tiflis. 1st PS meeting. status 16 Aug. in hr. Christ the Savior after the Liturgy, Met. Moscow Tikhon. Honorary Chairman of the PS approved. Met. Kyiv. Vladimir. The chairman was elected Met. Tikhon. Compiled was Sob. Council in which entered pre-tel and his deputies, archbishop. Novgorod. Arseny (Stadnitsky) and Kharkov. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Chairman of the State Council M.V. Rodzianko, who in February. 1918 was replaced by A.D. Samarin. etc. PS opened in the days when the Time. rights agonizedlo, losing control not only over the country, but also over the collapsing army. Cathedral formed 22 departments, which. prepared reports and projectsdefinitions. The most important departments were Statutory, Higher. Church. Administration (VCU), Diocese of the Administration, the legal position of the Church in the state. Chairman of the Department of the HCU ep. Astrakh th Mitrofan spoke at the plenary session (PS) with a report on the Revolt. Patr. Question about Restoration. Patr-va in the plenary. session discussed sharply. Main the argument of the supporters of the preservation. synod. systems: 1) the patriarch can forge the cathedralbeginning in the life of the Church(Prince A.G. Chaadaev repeated the theses of F. Prokopovich about the advantages of the "collegium", archpriest N.V. Tsvetkov - patriarch - mediator between the believing people and Christ). In the speeches of the supporters of Patr-va, in addition to the canons. principles, the history of the Church was also cited; Right, about the sad state of the people. religious life. Oct 28 The PS determined: “In the ROC, the highest power is legislationbody, administrative, judicial and supervisory- belongs to the PS, in the definition. terms to be convened, composed of bishops, clerics and laity. The elections of Patr-ha and the Church were approved. The management is headed by Patr and is the 1st among equal bishops. Patr's together with the organs of the Church. The administration is accountable to the Council. The council elected archbishop as candidates for Patr. Kharkov Anthony, archbishop. Novgorod Arseny and Metropolitan. Moscow Tikhon. The election will take place on November 5 at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. The cathedral granted the Patriarch the rights, correspondingly. canonical norms: to take care of the ROC and represent her before the government, communicate with the autocephalous. C-you turning to the flock withteaching messages, take care of substituted. departments. Patr's yavl. diocesan Bishop of the Patriarchal Region (Moscow diocese + stavropegic monasteries). The PS has formed two collegiate bodies. management of the Church between the cathedrals: Rev. Synod and Supreme. Church. Council (VCC). Matters are assigned to the competence of the Synod hierarchical-pastoral, doctrinal, canonical and liturgical characterra, and the WCC - affairs church-public order: administrative-household and school-enlightenment. Particularly important issues - about the protection of the rights of Tsvi, about preparing for the council, about the opening of new dioceses - were subject to a joint decision of the Synod and the All-Russian Central Council. The Synod included, in addition to Patr-kha, 12 members: 1) Met. Kyiv by department, 2) 6 bishops for three years and 3) five bishops called in turn for one year. Of the 15 members of the All-Russian Church Council, headed, like the Synod, by the Patriarch, there were: 1) three bishops, delegated by the Synod, 2) one monk, 3) five clerics, 4) six laymen were elected by the Council. PS elected to the Synod: Met. Novgorod. Arseny, Kharkovsky Anthony, Vladimir. Sergius, Plato of Tiflis, archbishop. Chisinau Anastasia (Gribanovsky) and Volynsk. Eulogia. Among the members of the All-Russian Central Council were: archim. Vissarion, Prince. E.N. Trubetskoy, professor S.N. Bulgakov. Olegalthe position of C-vi in ​​the state-ve: 1) The Russian Orthodox Church, as part of the One Ecumenical Church, occupies in the state a public law position that is superior among other confessions, befitting it as the greatest shrine of the vast majority of the population and as the historical force that created the RG. 2) The ROC in the teaching of faith and morals, worship, internal church discipline and relations with other autocephalous Churches is independent of state power. 3) Decrees and instructions issued for themselves by the ROC, as well as acts of the Central Administration and the court, are recognized by the WG as having legal force and significance, since they do not violate the state. laws. 4) The laws of the RG concerning the ROC are published only by agreement with the government of Ts. 5). The head of the WG, the Minister of Confessions and the Minister of Public Education and their comrades must be Orthodox. 6). The property belonging to the ROC is not subject to confiscation and seizure. Definitions about Eparch. Management 1) The eparch-e Archbishop, by succession of power from the holy apostles, is the Primate of the local Church, managing the diocese with the conciliar assistance of the clergy and laity, 2) a 35-year age limit was established for candidates for bishops, 3) “from monastic or non-married persons of the white clergy and laity, 3) The archbishop governs the diocese with the assistance of the Diocesan Council, elected from among the clergy and laity for a three-year term. Eparch. Council, in turn, form their permanent executives. bodies: the diocesan council and the diocesan court, 4) the vicar bishops were supposed to allocate parts of the diocese and establish for them a seat in the cities for which they were titled (due to an increase in the number of dioceses).

The Orthodox Church was in an ambiguous position: on the one hand, she continued to prepare for the convocation of the Council, and on the other, she understood that her prospects were not clear and even doubtful. In this position, with a load of old unresolved problems, the Church met the year 1917. The Council, whose voices have not been heard in Russia for more than 200 years, was never convened, the Patriarch was not elected, the burning issues of the reform of the parish, the theological school, the organization of metropolitan districts, as well as many others, were postponed by the imperial command "until better times."

Having come to power, the Provisional Government, in its desire to build a liberal-democratic society as soon as possible, annulled all discriminatory religious provisions contained in Russian legislation. The overthrow of the autocracy in Russia entailed the change of all administrative persons associated with the former regime. Changes also affected the church sphere. On April 14, 1917, the Provisional Government represented by Chief Prosecutor V.N. Lvov announced the termination of the winter session of the Synod and the release of all its members from further participation in resolving issues within the competence of the Synod. At the same time, an order was issued to convene a new composition for the summer session, which, except for Archbishop Sergius of Finland, did not include any of the bishops of the pre-revolutionary Synod. Such actions of the government aroused the indignation of the Most Reverend Bishops, who believed that the new composition was formed in an uncanonical way. Archbishop Sergius was condemned for his tacit agreement with obvious injustice. Vladyka was reproached for the lack of solidarity, referring to the fact that he had previously assured his brethren that he would not cooperate with the new composition of the Synod. It is not known what he was guided by at that time, but most historians agree on the opinion that Archbishop Sergius believed that in the beginning period of upheaval, the Orthodox Church should serve it with all its experience, knowledge and energy.

On March 20, 1917, the Provisional Government abolished religious and national restrictions, emphasizing that "in a free country, all citizens are equal before the law, and that the conscience of the people cannot tolerate the restriction of the rights of individual citizens depending on their faith and origin." Thus, the legal status of confessions in democratic Russia was determined by the secular authorities, who took care of the preservation of freedom of religion. Naturally, such actions of the new government could not but cause concern on the part of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church. The only way to "secure" the Church from any surprises and variously understood "religious freedoms" was the convening of the Council.

On April 29, a Pre-Council Council was formed at the Holy Synod, chaired by Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Finland. Speaking on June 12, 1917 at the opening of the Pre-Council Council, Archbishop Sergius noted: “Now, in view of the changed conditions of life, it is necessary to completely rework the rules developed under the old regime. In addition, new questions appeared that were not considered by the Pre-Council Presence: about the relationship of the Church to the state, about monasteries, about church finances.

On July 13, he adopted a draft of the main provisions on the position of the Orthodox Church in the state.After consideration at the Local Council, it was supposedelk to submit to the Constituent Assembly. According to thisproject, the Orthodox Church was supposed to take the firstamong religious organizations of the country, public lawposition. She had to become completely independentfrom state power: “in matters of its structure, legislation, administration, judgment, teachings of faith and morality, worship, internal church discipline and external relations with other churches.” The actions of someor ecclesiastical bodies were subject to the supervision of the statesolely in relation to their compliance with the laws of the countryus. According to the church project, especially revered Orthodoxpublic holidays were to be erected by the state on non-present days, the head of the country and the minister of confessionsmust have belonged to the Orthodox faithniyu. Among other things, the ROC was supposed to receive annual subsidies from the state treasury within the limits of its needs “under the condition of reporting in the amounts receivedmax on a common basis.

At about the same time, in early July, the Provisional Government prepared a draft law on the relationship between the Russian state and various churches. In terms of the nature of its provisions, it practically repeated the bill worked out by the Pre-Council Council. It assumed the cooperation of church and state. The government bill should also be considered by the Constituent Assembly, which was supposed to legally formalize the model of relations between the state and the church, which suits both sides. The bill of the Provisional Government read: “1) Each church recognized by the state enjoys complete freedom and independence in all its affairs, being governed by its own standards, without any direct or indirect influence or interference of the state. 2) The organs of the church are under the supervision of state power only insofar as they carry out acts that are in contact with the area of ​​​​civil or state legal relations, which are: metrication, marriage, divorce, etc. 3) In cases of this kind, the supervision of state power is limited solely by the regularity of actions organs of the church. 4) The body of such supervision is the Ministry of Confessions. The final resolution of cases of illegal actions of church bodies belongs to the Governing Senate as the highest body of administrative justice. 5) The state participates by appropriating funds for the maintenance of churches, their organs and institutions. These funds are transferred directly to the church. A report on the expenditure of these funds is reported to the relevant state institution.

Four days before the opening of the Local Council, on August 11, a decree of the Provisional Government on his rights was published. The draft law drafted by the Council "On the new order of free self-government of the Russian Church" was to be submitted "for respect" to the state authorities. Those. theoretically, the Provisional Government could refuse to sanction the conciliar resolution on the form of intra-church government. In this sense, the Local Council was not legally free.

The Pre-Council Council developed a draft "Charter of the Local Council". On August 10 - 11, it was approved by the Holy Synod and adopted as a "guiding rule" - until the final decision at the council on the issue of its "Charter". In this document, in particular, it was said that the Local Council has all the fullness of church authority to organize church life “on the basis of the Word of God, dogmas, canons and traditions of the Church”, that it establishes the image of the highest administration of the ROC. The opening of the Local Council was to be performed by the first member of the Holy Synod, and in his absence, by the first member present. Any participation of the emperor (as well as any persons from the royal house) in the activities of the cathedral was not expected. However, in historical practice, church councils were held with the direct participation of Orthodox basils. Moreover, the participation of emperors was so significant that, for example, Ecumenical Councils, according to some theologians, "are unthinkable without royal leadership."

Opened in Moscow on August 15, 1917, the Local Council of the Orthodox Russian Church (the highest governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church, which has full church power) attracted public attention. "The entire Plenitude of the Russian Church - bishops, clergy and laity" took part in its work. 564 church leaders were elected and appointed to the council: 80 bishops, 129 presbyterians, 10 deacons from the white (married) clergy, 26 psalmists, 20 monastics (archimandrites, abbots and hieromonks) and 299 laity. It was perceived as a Church Constituent Assembly. To coordinate the activities of the cathedral, solve "general issues of internal order and unify all activities," the Cathedral Council was established, consisting of the chairman of the Local Council (he is also the head of the Council), six deputies, the secretary of the cathedral and his assistants, as well as three members elected by the cathedral: one bishop, one cleric and one layman.

In the structure of the Local Council there was also such a body as the Conference of Bishops, which was made up of all the bishops - members of the council. Persons not of episcopal rank were not allowed to attend meetings of this body. Each decision of the council was subject to consideration at the Conference of Bishops, where it was checked for "compliance with the Word of God, dogmas, canons and tradition of the Church." In fact, the Conference of Bishops could veto any resolution of the Local Council.

On August 18, Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow was elected chairman of the cathedral, his deputies (comrades) from the bishops were the archbishops of Novgorod Arseniy (Stadnitsky) and Kharkov Anthony (Khrapovitsky), from the priests - archpriests N. A. Lyubimov and G. I. Shavelsky, from the laity - Prince E. N. Trubetskoy. Metropolitan of Kyiv Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) became its honorary chairman. On August 30, 19 departments were formed at the Local Council, which were responsible for the preliminary consideration and preparation of a wide range of council bills. Each department included bishops, clerics and laity.

The central issue, on which in the summer of 1917 no definite decision was worked out at the Pre-Council Council, was the question of the form of administration of the ROC. To resolve it, the departments "On the highest church administration" (6th) and "On the legal status of the Russian Church in the state" (13th) were formed. The latter was led by Novgorod Arseniy (Stadnitsky).

So, the main product of this epochal Council was the so-called "Definitions", which were published in four editions in 1918. These are “Definitions on the General Provisions on the Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Russian Church” (November 4, 1917), “Definitions on the Teaching of the Law of God at School” (09/28/1917), “Definitions on Church Preaching” (12/1/1917), “Definition on the Legal status of the Orthodox Russian Church" (December 2, 1917), "Determination on the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council" (December 7, 1917), "Definition of the rights and duties of His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia" (December 8, 1917), "Definition on the range of affairs subordinated to the bodies of higher church administration” (December 8, 1917), “Determination on the Diocesan Administration” (February 22/03/07/1918), “Determination on the formation of a general church treasury and the maintenance of teachers and employees of Theological Institutions until September 1/14, 1918 "(19/28. 03.1918) and others.

According to Professor Archpriest V. Tsypin: “These definitions constituted the present code of the Russian Orthodox Church, replacing” Spiritual regulation”, “The Charter of the Spiritual Consistory” and a number of more private acts of the Synodal era. In resolving issues of all church life on the basis of strict fidelity to the Orthodox dogma, on the basis of canonical truth, the Local Council revealed the uncloudedness of the conciliar mind of the Church. The canonical definitions of the Council served for the Russian Orthodox Church on its difficult path as a firm support and an unmistakable spiritual guide in solving the extremely difficult problems that life later posed before her in abundance. However, despite the global transformations in the field of church administration, many of these "Definitions" could not be implemented due to unfavorable conditions. With the coming to power of the Bolsheviks and the formation of the USSR, the Russian Church faced a number of difficulties. Times of relative calm gave way to a storm of gradual persecution of the Orthodox Church and broad atheistic propaganda. Representatives of the church administration had to look for a “common language” with the new government, but this was quite difficult, since the godless authorities looked at the Church as a relic of capitalism hostile to the new social and state system and a stronghold of the Russian monarchy. “They looked at the Church in the same way as a source of unimpeded filling of the state treasury,” writes the Russian church historian M. V. Shkarovsky. - In 1919, foreign trade operations began with speculation in values, including church values ​​... ".

On November 13 (26) the Council began to discuss the report on the legal status of the Church in the state. On behalf of the Council, Professor S. N. Bulgakov drew up a Declaration on the Relations of the Church and the State, which preceded the "Definition on the Legal Status of the Church in the State." In it, the demand for the complete separation of the Church from the state is compared with the wish “that the sun does not shine, and the fire does not warm. "The Church, according to the internal law of her being, cannot refuse the call to enlighten, transform the whole life of mankind, penetrate it with her rays. In particular, she is looking for statehood to fulfill her spirit, to transform it in her own image." “And now,” the declaration says later, “when, by the will of Providence, the tsarist autocracy in Russia collapsed, and new ones are coming to replace it. state forms, the Orthodox Church has no judgment about these forms from the side of their political expediency, but she invariably stands on such an understanding of power, according to which all power should be a Christian service ... As in the old days, the Orthodox Church considers herself called to rule in the hearts of the Russian people and wants this to be expressed in its state self-determination ". Measures of external coercion, forcing religious conscience Gentiles are recognized in the declaration as incompatible with the dignity of the Church. However, the state, if it does not want to tear itself away from spiritual and historical roots, must itself protect the primacy of the Orthodox Church in Russia. In accordance with the declaration, the Council adopts provisions by virtue of which "the Church must be in union with the state, but under the condition of its free internal self-determination." Archbishop Evlogy and member of the Council A. V. Vasiliev proposed to replace the word "primary" with the stronger word "dominant", but the Council retained the wording proposed by the department.

Particular attention was paid to the question of the "obligatory Orthodoxy of the head of the Russian state and the minister of confessions" proposed in the draft. The Council accepted the proposal of A. V. Vasiliev on the obligatory confession of Orthodoxy not only for the Minister of Confessions, but also for the Minister of Education and for the deputies of both ministers. Member of the Council P. A. Rossiev proposed to clarify the wording by introducing the definition "Orthodox by birth." But this opinion, quite understandable in the circumstances of the pre-revolutionary period, when Orthodoxy was sometimes accepted not as a result of religious conversion, nevertheless, did not enter into the position for dogmatic reasons. According to Orthodox doctrine, the baptism of an adult is just as complete and perfect as the baptism of an infant. A sharp dispute arose around the question of the obligatory Orthodoxy of the Head of State and the Minister of Confessions, which was supposed in the draft "Definitions". A member of the Council, Professor N. D. Kuznetsov, made a reasonable remark: “In Russia, complete freedom of conscience is proclaimed and it is declared that the position of every citizen in the state ... does not depend on belonging to one or another religion and even to religion in general ... Calculate in success in this business is impossible." But this warning was not heeded.

The Council formulated its final vision of state-church relations in its definition “On the legal status of the Orthodox Russian Church”, adopted on December 2, 1917. It was drawn up literally in an imperative form for the new (Soviet) government and began with the following words: The Church recognizes that in order to ensure the freedom and independence of the Orthodox Church in Russia, under the changed state system, the following main provisions shall be adopted by the State...”.

In its final form, the decision of the Council read: 1. The Orthodox Russian Church, being a part of the one Ecumenical Church of Christ, occupies in the Russian state a preeminent public legal position among other confessions, befitting it as the greatest shrine of the vast majority of the population and as a great historical force that created the Russian state ... 2. The Orthodox Church in Russia in the teaching of faith and morality, worship, internal church discipline and relations with other autocephalous Churches is independent of state power. 3. Decrees and legalizations issued by the Orthodox Church for itself ... likewise, acts of church administration and court are recognized by the state as having legal force and significance, since they do not violate state laws. 4. State laws relating to the Orthodox Church are issued only by agreement with the church authorities... 6. The actions of the organs of the Orthodox Church are subject to the supervision of the state authorities only in terms of their compliance with state laws, in judicial-administrative and judicial procedures. 7. The head of the Russian state, the minister of confessions and the minister of public education and their comrades must be Orthodox. 8. In all cases of state life in which the state turns to religion, the Orthodox Church shall have priority. The last paragraph of the definition concerned property relations. Everything that belonged to "the institutions of the Orthodox Church is not subject to confiscation and removal, and the institutions themselves cannot be abolished without the consent of the church authorities." Separate articles of the "Definition" were anachronistic in nature, not corresponding to the constitutional foundations of the new state, the new state-legal conditions, and could not be implemented. However, this "Definition" contains an indisputable proposition that in matters of faith, its inner life, the Church is independent of state power and is guided by its own dogmatic teaching and canons.

The ROC was supposed to give the public legal status of the “leading” confession in the country, to ensure the right to self-determination and self-government, to provide the opportunity for legislative state activity (in cases where government decisions affected church interests). The property of the ROC was recognized as not subject to confiscation and taxation, the state was expected to receive annual appropriations within the limits of church needs. Priests and full-time clergy were supposed to be released from various duties (primarily from military), orthodox calendar raise to the rank of state, recognize church holidays non-attendance (weekends), leave the church the right to keep parish registers, the obligatory nature of teaching the Law of God for Orthodox students in all educational institutions, and so on. In general, the concept of church-state relations developed by the Local Council did not take into account the presence of a monarch in the state - an “external bishop”, a “ktitor” of the church.

At the same time, one of the points of the conciliar definition was literally a challenge to the new government. It read: "Chapter Russian State, the Minister of Confessions and the Minister of Public Education and their comrades (deputies) must be Orthodox. Despite the fact that the head of the Soviet government formed on October 26 (November 8), 1917 - the Council of People's Commissars V. I. Ulyanov (Lenin) and the People's Commissar of Education A. V. Lunacharsky were atheists, and the Ministry of Confession was not formed, and even in its establishment was not planned. In general, the cathedral project directly ran counter to the program of the Bolshevik party that seized power, which spoke of the need to separate the church from the state and the school from the church. Literally in a few weeks, the clergy were expected not by their planned, but by fundamentally new relations with the authorities.

On December 7, 1917, the Local Council adopted a definition concerning church administration: “On the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council” (the title of the Synod was changed: the former passed to the patriarch). These two bodies, together with the patriarch, were given the right to manage church affairs. All of them were responsible to the periodically convened All-Russian Local Councils, to which they were obliged to submit a report on their activities for the inter-council period. The next day, December 8, the council adopted a definition "On the range of affairs to be conducted by the bodies of higher church administration." According to him, matters that were mainly related to the internal life of the Russian Orthodox Church were subject to the decision of the Holy Synod: dogma, worship, church education, church government and church discipline. And in particular: “supreme supervision and care for the inviolable preservation of the dogmas of faith and their correct interpretation in the sense of the teaching of the Orthodox Church; ...save text liturgical books, overseeing its correction and translation. Before the revolution, "the supreme protector and guardian of the dogmas of the dominant faith, the guardian of orthodoxy and every holy deanery in the Church," as God's anointed, was the emperor. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Church Council, according to the conciliar definition, began to include external affairs: church administration, church economy, school and educational, revision and control, as well as legal advisory (previously largely performed by the chief prosecutor's office).

Thus, the ecclesiastical authority of the king in fullleast passed to the clergy. Because the houseRomanov did not actually abdicate the throne (which has already been discussed in detail), then it can be argued that this was not a “natural” transfer of the tsar’s church rights to the clergy,but almost a forcible removal carried out undercover of the revolutionary secular authorities. Other layersyou, at the Local Council the clergy carried out a legal "withdrawal" in favor of the highest bodies of the churchnoah power the prerogatives of the emperor in the field of church and government administration (jurisdiction), the protection of the doctrine and control over church deanery.

The instructions of the People's Commissariat of Justice on the procedure for implementing the decree "On the Separation of the Church from the State" were discussed with particular urgency at the Council. According to this instruction, the clergy were deprived of all rights to manage church property. The only legal body entitled to receive church buildings and other church property on lease from the state was declared to be groups of laity - consisting of at least 20 people - "twenty". The participants in the Council were concerned that the transfer of all rights to the laity would lead to the penetration of atheists into church communities, whose activities would be aimed at corrupting the Church from within. Such fears were dispelled by the speech of Metropolitan Sergius, who had just returned from a trip to his diocese of Vladimir. Speaking at a meeting of the Council, he drew everyone's attention to the fact that in the conditions of unfolding persecution, only the faithful of the Mother Church, the laity, would agree to take the temple from the state on their responsibility. “Members of the Twenty,” Vladyka said, “will be the first to bear the brunt of the godless authorities.” Metropolitan Sergius urged the bishops to go to their dioceses instead of endless verbiage at the Council and work out local instructions for the application of new laws.

Unfortunately, persecution, secularization, church schisms, all sorts of attacks against the Russian Orthodox Church, provoked by the Soviet government, could not allow the Church to develop in the direction outlined at the Local Council of 1917-1918.

Firsov S.L. Orthodox Church and state in the last decade of the existence of autocracy in Russia. SPb., S. 596.

Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the Supreme Church Authority. 1917 - 1943. / Comp. M.E. Gubonin. - M., 1994. - S. 488.

On guard of unity / Russian Orthodox Church 988 - 1988. Issue 2. Essays on the history of 1917 - 1988. - M., 1988. - P. 43.

Firsov S.L. Orthodox Church and state in the last decade of the existence of autocracy in Russia. SPb., 1996. S. 506.

Candidate of Historical Sciences

All lectures of the cycle can be viewed .

The Sacred Council of the Orthodox Russian Church, which the believers had been waiting for so long before the revolution, which was not destined to meet before the revolution, opened in Moscow on the day of the Assumption Mother of God August 15, 1917 according to the old style and worked until September 1918. Within this period, three sessions of the Council took place. The first is from August to December - on the days before Christmas. The second is from January to the pre-Easter days of 1918. And a third session from July to September 1918.

One of the important differences in the composition and organizational structure of the Cathedral of 1917-1918 was that a significant number of laity worked in its composition. Many researchers evaluate this fact as a kind of invasion of the democratic elements of 1917 into the Church. But in fact, it is worth considering this issue more carefully, because the Council of 1917-1918 worked primarily within the framework of the social situation that already existed in the Church on the eve of the revolution and continued to persist in the first months of 1917. This social situation was a situation of class delimitation, which quite actively made itself felt, both during the period of the first Russian revolution and in the period of 1917, when the younger members of the clergy were actively in conflict with the older ones - with the priests. The clique was in conflict with the bishops and so on and so forth. And the flock itself, for example, in the countryside, quite actively opposed those or other objectionable clerics.

As a result, the large representation of the laity seems to have played an important and positive role. But everything is in order. 564 delegates came to the Council - it was a very serious representation, in fact, it was about the fact that all of Russia had come to the Council. Among these delegates, 80 were bishops, 22 were members of the monastic black clergy, 163 were white clergy, including junior members of the clergy - psalmists and 299 lay people. If in percentage terms, then we see that the cathedrals were divided into approximately three unequal groups, approximately 20% are bishops and monastics, approximately 30% are secular clergy and clergy and a little more than 50%, a little more than half are lay people. Moreover, the laity is very different, both representatives, for example, of theological academies, and peasants chosen from the most remote corners of Russia.

Such a significant representation of the laity, it seems to me, allowed the Council not to split into class groups, because we recall that it met in a situation of very sharp class contradictions, class enmity between psalmists and priests, between white clergy and monastics. And the laity in this case, moreover, having taken rather conservative positions, turned out to be a kind of such a counterbalance for various estate groups, they allowed the Council to formulate not a class program of transformations, but a general church one.

How did the Council function? The Council had a general meeting, or a plenary meeting of the Council, where certain bills were discussed. And the bills themselves were developed in the departments. The Council formed 23 departments on a variety of topics from the highest church administration, diocesan administration, mission, the question of the parish, to such issues, for example, as the future of the Orthodox Church in Transcaucasia under the conditions of autocephaly declared by the Georgians, they declared it without the consent of the Russian Church at that time .

The departments were formed by random registration, therefore, on the one hand, the cathedrals could participate in different departments, and besides, the number of participants in the departments was very different. In some cases, the number of members of the department reached several hundred, as, for example, 237 people signed up for the parish department. And in the already mentioned department of Transcaucasia there are only 12 people. It is clear that not everyone participated in their work at the same time, but it is clear that this was an indicator of a certain interest in certain topics. So, specific documents were developed in the departments, which were discussed in the general meeting of the Cathedral. It could correct the document, significantly correct it, or slightly correct it, or return it for consideration to the department, and already the vote of the general meeting itself would accept this or that document. But, if the document was very important, concerned the foundations of the faith, for example, then it was submitted for consideration by the so-called episcopal meeting - a body that included only bishops, members of the Council. We are not talking about a kind of upper house of parliament, no, since all these bishops were at the same time members of the general assembly of the Council and, naturally, members of different departments. And this is a kind of canonical hierarchical filter through which the most important documents of the Council passed, and only after the adoption of the relevant resolutions in the general meeting and the conference of bishops, the document became an ecclesiastical law, definition, or resolution of the Council and was printed in the corresponding issue of definitions and resolutions.

Liked the article? Share with your friends:
Facebook
Twitter
My world
In contact with
Google+
09.07.2020
News
The most interesting:

Vanga's predictions over the years about Russia and the world, determining fate by the date of birth of Edgar Cayce about the financial well-being and integrity of Russia

Online fortune-telling "Yes - No", free virtual fortune-telling

Divination oracle sphere. Divination online. The meaning of tarot cards in the layout for love