The obviously non-canonical administration of the Russian Synodal Church, which had existed since the time of Peter the Great's reforms, contributed to the ripening of new transformations in the church and public consciousness of the early 20th century. There were more or less sound proposals on how to reform church administration. For example, it was proposed to form metropolitan districts, in which Local Councils are convened twice a year, and All-Russian Councils of Metropolitans as the highest church authority. But, unfortunately, in 1905-1917. reformist ideas led not to a return to the "pre-Constantine" era of the catholicity of the Roman catacombs, but to a patriarchal renaissance in best traditions Byzantine-Nikonian papism. The consequences of this were not long in coming: the most grandiose turmoil and schism arose in the Russian Church, known as "Sergianism."
It is known that Emperor Nicholas II himself, who was one of the main initiators and organizers of the preparations for the convocation of the All-Russian Local Council, strove for church reform. It is also known that the attitude towards the then synodal hierarchy royal family was extremely negative, because she was very well aware of her complete moral decay (with the exception of some units). Empress Alexandra Feodorovna even once said:
“In the Synod, we have only animals.”
Being a supporter of the restoration of the patriarchate, the sovereign did not see a single candidate among the entire Russian episcopate who would be worthy of this high calling. Therefore, he proposed (and this is not a legend!) to make himself a patriarch, which caused amazement among the members of the Synod. Another noteworthy fact is the emperor’s serious intention to make the Old Believer “Belokrinitskaya” hierarchy dominant in Russia, about which consultations and negotiations were held. However, this caused panic among the Nikonian-Synodal elite and even the threat of excommunication of Nicholas II from the church. The Nikonian hierarchy, like a viper, hissed and “stuttered” so loudly at the sovereign that it forced him to abandon such an idea.
Finally, the Local Council was convened, but after the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne, which was enthusiastically hailed by the synodals as "the liberation of the church from state oppression." The emperor himself considered the convocation of the Council untimely, as well as the resuscitation of the patriarchate in a new political perspective. It soon became clear that the restoration of catholicity in the Russian Church was only illusory, not real. Not so much the restoration of catholicity as the restoration of the patriarchate became the main goal of the Local Council of 1917/18. The election of the patriarch turned into a new manifestation of papism, which led the Russian Church to the most undesirable consequences.
Patriarch Nikon was recognized as the ideological inspirer and symbol of the restoration of the patriarchate, to the worship of whose "relics" the patriarchists regularly made pilgrimages, led by their leader and ardent admirer of Nikon, Archbishop (later Metropolitan) Anthony (Khrapovitsky). In the same place, numerous prayers-requiems were performed by crazy patriarchs to Nikon for the granting of a patriarch to the Russian Church. In his memoirs, Comrade Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod, Prince N. D. Zhevakhov, gives the following assessment of the events. Despite the fact that he was a supporter of the synodal system of government (but in the presence of the Cathedral!), One can still agree with his views in many respects. The royal official wrote:
“One of the most incomprehensible achievements of the revolution was the so-called. The “All-Russian” Church Council, convened in November 1917 in Moscow, not only with the kind “permission” of the Provisional Government, which usurped the power of the Anointed of God, but also under the condition that the decisions of the Council be presented to this government “for respect”.
Neither the humiliating form of "permission" of the godless "government", which obviously had no right to either allow or forbid the convening of the Council ... nor the fact that such permission was only a new mockery of the Sovereign Emperor, who repeatedly recognized the convening of the Council as untimely ... nor the actual impossibility to ensure observance of the mandatory canonical requirements - did not deter the hierarchs from convening the Council, which was associated with so many diverse desires, so many joyful hopes ... Throw off the "age-old shackles of slavery", break free freedom of spirit Church, - became a spontaneous impulse of those who saw in the restoration of the patriarchate and the convening of the All-Russian Church Council the only means to achieve these goals. And the Council was convened, and the Church allegedly broke free.
In this spontaneous movement towards the patriarchate, everything was provided for, except for one condition ... the personal readiness and ability of the Patriarch to sacrifice oneself to the Orthodox Church. But it was precisely this condition that was not only envisaged by the Bolsheviks, but on which they built their program for the destruction of the Church, knowing that the times of the Hermogenes had passed and that the struggle with one Patriarch was much easier than with a council of bishops...
The Bolsheviks, evaluating events in terms of real facts and victorious in the struggle against the utopians, not only did not hinder the Council, but even welcomed the idea of restoring the patriarchate(highlighted by me - L. L. G.), well aware that ... in Russia there was not a single hierarch who could be a threat to them. On the contrary, they were sure that the restoration of the patriarchal rank would only make their task easier, for they knew what kind of trials were being prepared for the Orthodox Church, and that none of the candidates for Patriarchs outlined by the Council would withstand these trials.
In the opinion of the prince, there were still several worthy hierarchs, but they were either eliminated in advance from participating in the Council (like Metropolitan Macarius Parvitsky), or not admitted to the patriarchate by the hierarchs themselves (like Archbishop Anthony Khrapovitsky).
The Bolsheviks did not hide their patronage of the Cathedral: Trotsky personally donated two million rubles for its maintenance. And one high Bolshevik rank arrived directly at the Cathedral and, on behalf of the new government, greeted the cathedral. In response, Patriarch Tikhon bowed to him, kissed him and even offered to seat the Bolshevik on the presidium next to him as the personification of the new government.
The traditional notion that the renovationists were the only opponents of the idea of the patriarchate is groundless and unfounded. As among the Renovationists there were supporters of the patriarchate, so among the synodals there were many opponents of it. Prominent professors and theologians, a number of representatives of the clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as some bishops who had nothing to do with renovationism, warned about the danger of the emergence of papism on the basis of the restoration of the patriarchate and about other possible negative phenomena in this regard, but their voice was not heard at the Local Council. Before the supporters of the election of the patriarch, they posed a number of questions - moral, canonical, dogmatic, which were not completely resolved by the Council.
The debate on the restoration of the patriarchate began after the report of Bishop Mitrofan of Astrakhan, chairman of the Department on Higher Church Administration. The so-called. "Formula of transition" from the synodal administration to the patriarchal one. Here are the most interesting excerpts from the reports of opponents of the patriarchate.
Professor P. P. Kudryavtsev:
“... If we proceed to the article-by-article discussion, then we will have to establish the basic concepts included in the proposal, which has not been done by the Department. Let's take 1 and 2 tbsp. conclusions of the Department: “The Local Council has the highest authority in the Russian Church”, “the patriarchate is restored, which leads the management of church affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church”. Meanwhile, the concepts of patriarch and patriarchy are not clarified in the report. The speaker referred to the 34th Apostolic Canon, but it says that the bishops of each region should know the first among them. But in this case, the question arises of the Georgian first hierarch and the first hierarchs of other Orthodox peoples living within the borders of our state.
What is important is not the term used by the canon, but the concept of it. I will explain my thought. What is important is not the term patriarchy, but the concept of it. They say, applying to the 34th Apostolic Canon, that the patriarch will be the first bishop among equals. But in what sense: in the sense of grace-filled powers? After all, in one lecture in this hall it was said that the patriarch is given special powers of grace when he is elevated to this rank (here is the fourth degree of priesthood for you! - L. L. G.). The Reverend Rapporteur pointed out that the patriarch could communicate with the eastern patriarchs, visit different dioceses, etc. What would be the first among equal bishops?”
Layman N. D. Kuznetsov:
“The authority of the Council requires the presentation of sufficiently substantiated and discussed motives for the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. Subsequently, after all, they will refer not only to certain definitions of the Council, but also to the considerations that served as their basis ... The task of reforms at the conciliar beginning makes us first of all talk about the Council and its competence, and only then move on to the patriarchate. This is also required by the logic of the report itself, which for some unknown reason, contrary to the experience of history, calls the patriarchate "an executive institution at the Council." Those who believe in the institution of the patriarchate are thus led to the idea that the center of gravity of the entire reform in their minds lies in the patriarchate, and not in the Cathedral ...
The third provision, which, according to the interpretation of the report, is in the formula of transition, asserts that the patriarch is the first among bishops equal to him. What kind of patriarch are we talking about here? Is it about how he appears in Byzantine and Russian history, and at the present time in Constantinople? If we talk about this, then the role of the patriarch is not at all limited to being the first among bishops equal to him, but goes further. If here we have in mind a patriarch who did not exist in reality, but only appears in the imagination of many current supporters of this idea, then we need to talk about the first bishop, and not about the patriarch. The very title "patriarch" contains something more than the concept of the first bishop, established, for example, in the 34th canon of St. Apostles, and in practice, holders of the rank of patriarch received or even arrogated to themselves rights that did not fit into the concept of the first between equals - in the requirement of 34 Apostolic Canons, and clearly violated the rights of diocesan bishops established by the canons.
Finally, the fourth provision, derived from the formula: "the patriarch, together with the organs of church administration, is accountable to the Council." Try to figure out what it means! How can one be accountable to the Council not alone, but together with the organs of church administration? If the patriarch is the first among equal bishops, then, after all, the latter must also be accountable to the Council (and not to the patriarch, - L. L. G.): otherwise, in what way will the equality of the patriarch with the bishops be preserved? Therefore, accountability to the Council is not an essential feature of the concept of the first among equal bishops. If the patriarch only heads the bodies of church administration, and does not stand above them or separately from them, then it is necessary to talk about accountability to the Council not of the patriarch, but of precisely these governing bodies ...
The complete unsuitability of the transition formula adopted by the Department for resolving the issue of patriarchy is especially clearly revealed in the fact that even the report itself could not extract from it the very important position for the whole issue about the Synod as a permanent body of church government, and about the attitude of the patriarch towards it. Without clarifying the structure of the Synod and its competence, the question of the patriarchate cannot be resolved. This clarification is all the more necessary because the report, in explaining the formula for the transition, calls the patriarch the executive organ at the Council. If so, then what role will the Synod have in relation to the Council, and why even organize a Synod as an independent institution, if the patriarch himself will carry out all the decisions of the Council? Apparently, the supporters of the patriarchate have the idea of turning the future Synod simply into an advisory body under the patriarch (in fact, it has become so, - L. L. G.). If this is so, then a good equality of the patriarch with other bishops is being prepared by his supporters!”
Layman V. G. Rubtsov:
“... If we are going to ask the Russian Church, we must not forget the distant times when there was no patriarch. Then the Russian Church was headed by metropolitans. They competed with each other and kept their flock at the height of Christian influence. Let's move on to the era of the patriarchate. He receives little power, but he took power from the people and tenaciously held it, began to abuse power and split the Russian people. This ulcer is still festering even now... Not in the patriarch the alpha and omega of church renewal, but in the broad rights that the Lord has given to the people. There are no passages in Holy Scripture that speak of headship in the Church. Read the book of Revelation. It speaks of the angels of the church, that is, the bishops to whom God gave special revelation. A bishop cannot be called the father of fathers, the head, because there is only one head of the Church - Christ, and was and will be. The patriarchs did not bring us happiness, they did not unite, but divided us... I see salvation not in the patriarch, but in an elective principle that protects us and promotes our mental development... The patriarch is not the Holy Synod, not a collegium, but a person who can be with egoistic principles of life, putting his own self above others ... Everyone knows what the absolute supreme control led to. Church absolutism will lead to the same. Do not trust him: he will lead to destruction and death.
Prince A. G. Chagadaev:
“... Sole power is necessary for those events that require speed, and where speed can be sacrificed by the thoroughness of collegial discussion. The board is needed when the measure needs to be studied, discussed and weighed. And so we think that in church administration every measure should be comprehensively discussed, because mistakes here have enormous consequences, and we say: let these measures be discussed by several persons and discussed comprehensively ...
They point to the lack of feat and daring in the collegium. They say that one person is needed, a hero is needed who would return what was rejected, save Russia. Give, we are told, a father, a prayer book, an ascetic. We join these wishes: give us a father, give us a prayer book. But for this, if the Lord sent us a father and a prayer book, neither dignity nor titles are needed: if the Lord sends him, he will come in a sackcloth. But where do we find such a person in our sinful environment? Will the patriarch not make the same mistakes as our former tsar, who was with the best intentions, who, perhaps, wanted the good of the people, but could not do anything. Will he consult with a Council that is difficult to assemble?"
Archpriest N. V. Tsvetkov:
“…I want to say something about the patriarchate in essence: why shouldn’t one vote for the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia? We believe in the apostolic Church. By the apostolic Church I mean the episcopal Church (a very strange definition! - L. L. G.). I imagine a building with a facade and a roof. The roof is the bishops in the Church. Whoever pierces the roof, behind the roof would find only the sky, the Heavenly Head. Why should we make an unnecessary stronghold? Why this superstructure above the roof, which is higher than the bishop in the Church? Read the Gospel: “James and John came up to the Lord Jesus Christ and said to Him, let us sit with You, one by one. right side and to the other on the left in Your glory ... When they heard, ten began to be indignant at James and John ... Jesus, calling them, said to them: You know that those who are revered as princes of the nations rule over them, and their nobles rule over them, but let not will be so, and who wants to be big over you, let him be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you, let him be a slave to all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many”… These are the main provisions for apostolate, episcopacy in the Church. And after the ascension of the Lord to heaven, the Apostles understood their position in the Church precisely in this way: they did not put forward the first among equals, but acted together, collectively, and each acted as an equal among the first. And indeed, this is how the Apostles acted, in the feeling of the living Christ, and commanded the shepherds: “I implore your shepherds,” wrote the Apostle Peter, shepherd the flock of God, which is yours, not ruling over the inheritance of God, but setting an example for the flock. One learned patriarchophile said that I was not consistent on the issue of the patriarch: if there is a rector in a parish, a bishop in a diocese, then in the local Church there should be a head - a patriarch. I ask him: “And who is the head of the Universal Church?” And he received the answer: "The head of Christ is already there." It turns out that the closer the visible head, the further Christ moves away. I think otherwise. Christ is the head of the Church everywhere: both at ecumenical and local councils, and in diocesan life, and in parish life. Just as in the sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ is wholly manifest both in the whole Lamb and in the smallest particles of the Lamb: so also in the whole Church life and in every single act of it, Christ is invisibly present and must be felt. He is the one Head of both the universal and local Church and the diocesan Church, where the bishop is an authority not in himself, but as an executor of the will of Christ, and in the parish.
Here we are in this holy place and we are composing the Local Council. We regard both our current and honorary chairmen with full respect and recognize their authority. But this is not the final highest point of the Council: the Cross and the Gospel, lying on the lectern before the table of the presidium and reviving before us the Head of our Council, invisibly present and felt by us, Christ, is what heads our Cathedral. Bishops, and we clerics and laity - we all unite by the invisible Head of the Church and we say to each other: "Christ is among us and is and will be." Who can sit in the place of the lectern with the Gospel and the cross? His Grace Anastassy painted such a picture for us. Our Russian Church is like a building with a beautiful façade, but without a dome: we need to finish this building, give a visible head to our Church. This picture did not impress me. This is nature morte. This is a picture of an old artist depicting something bodily, something earthly. I would like to see another picture, another artist, where apostolate, episcopacy would be depicted in the form of, for example, lights, angels flying among the spiritualized body, and where the Face of Christ, the Head of the Church, uniting the whole picture, would be felt.
Archpriest N. P. Dobronravov:
“The abundance of speeches for the patriarchate leads me to only one conclusion: passion, an amazing passion for the desire to have a patriarch in the Russian Church and see in him the salvation of the Church and the state, which is far from consistent with the persuasiveness of the arguments cited. They say that canons require patriarchy, that the Church without a patriarch cannot be canonical. But if we read the canons objectively, without prejudice, we will see that the canons do not speak either for or against the patriarchate…”
Speaking about the false theory of universal unity around the patriarch, Fr. Dobronravov further says:
“In 1448 the Russian Church became completely independent. It can be said that the Russian metropolitan from that time became a patriarch, although he was not yet called by that name. Well, did this serve as a commissure for the Russian Church? Think back to what happened less than 10 years later. In 1485, the Kyiv Metropolis separated from the Moscow Metropolis, and remained so until 1687, for the entire period of the patriarchate. I ask: what is this spike? ... Saying all this, I do not want to say that the patriarchal administration is to blame for this: I am only stating the facts. I want to say: do not say that if there is a patriarch, then everything will certainly unite with us ... For me, the most difficult, most painful page in the history of the Russian Church is the one that describes 1666-67. That's the scariest thing for me. You only understand the horror of what happened: Russian people separated from the union with their Church; in the Church of Christ, I do not see many Russians of the same blood with me... I will not say that the patriarchs were guilty of this matter, but I establish the fact that this happened during the administration of the Church by the patriarch. A deep, bloody wound was inflicted on the Russian Church in 1666, but tell me, when was the plaster put on this wound? This happened in 1800 during the establishment of the common faith. Although it was an imperfect work, it nevertheless brought the Russian people to our Russian Church. Centrifugal or Centripetal? Soldering or soldering? I am not saying that the merits of the Holy Synod are here. I am only saying that the soldering principle is possible even under synodal government.
They say that if there was a patriarch, then there would be no autocephaly of the Georgian Church (we have already seen the opposite, - L. L. G.). I can't figure it out for myself. Remember the history of the annexation of Georgia and its entire history in the 19th century. Did Georgia demand that there be a patriarch in the Russian Church? It wasn't. They refer to the Bulgarian church, but this reference is also incomprehensible. The autocephaly of the Georgian Church and the Greek-Bulgarian strife are two parallel, similar phenomena: both the first arose from the dissatisfaction of the Georgians with the Russians (I do not consider how thorough it was) - and the second - from the dissatisfaction of the Bulgarians with the Greeks; but the first appeared under the synodal government, and the second under the patriarchal. Doesn’t this prove that this or that government has nothing to do with it, that church separation is possible both under the patriarchs and under the Synod? ...
They say: the patriarch is needed so that the Church has its own spiritual hero, the leader of his flock. Yes, in the life of the Church, in the life of the state, there are moments when heroes are needed. But in such cases it usually happens that the heroes themselves are visible to everyone, everyone knows them. Then they are offered power. Remember, for example, the time of St. Patriarch Tarasius... Saint Hermogenes was in full view of everyone. No wonder he was elected patriarch. We also need a church hero now. But where is he? Show: where is this leader Tarasius or Hermogenes? Among whom should one look for him? Tell!
Yes, God shows us a lot: He also points out that He should not be tempted... So, the examples of history say that there can be a leader only when he is in full view, and we do not see such a leader; he is not among us. But that is not all. Have we read the draft of the patriarchate, as it is given by the Department of the Cathedral? What do you give to the patriarch with this project? Nothing! This is some kind of pygmy, and you demand that he be a giant. You give him the strength of a midget, but you demand heroic deeds from him. You don’t give him anything, but say: “go, save,” and think that later you will say: “he got up and saved” ... One of two things: or say directly that you want to give the patriarch full power (i.e. e. make him a dad, - L. L. G.). But then we will tell you this: point out a person who would not be crushed by this power. The mouse will not become a lion, and you cannot decorate it with a lion's mane. He who is born to crawl cannot fly, and it is unreasonable to attach eagle wings to him. Or else - stop talking about heroes and leaders, and confess that the patriarch will not be a granite colossus in the church, but will become only a decoration, beautiful indeed, but hardly necessary. The speaker said more than once that the patriarchate is a golden dream. I am afraid that this dream, when realized, will turn into a grayish reality. I am afraid that those who now so passionately desire to have a patriarch would not say when the patriarchate is restored: “dreams, dreams, where is your sweetness?” ...
Archpriest N. G. Popov:
“Listening to what was said here about the need for patriarchy, I, unfortunately, come to the conclusion that we are somehow in a hurry with this issue. Moreover, I have the conviction that we decided in advance to introduce the patriarchate, not coping with what the history of the Church says. But we cannot forget the lessons of history. Our conscience does not allow this, and those who sent us to the Council and who will demand an account. And so, out of a sense of my responsibility, I decide to draw the high attention of the Council to what the patriarchs were like in the past, and whether the patriarchate can really be an all-healing remedy against all disorganizations in church life.
We know that the patriarchate, the patriarchs in the specific sense of the word, appeared in the 4th century (or rather, towards the end of the 4th century, - L. L. G.). And indeed, at the time of the Ecumenical Councils we know many high representatives of the patriarchate - the holy names of Anatoly, Gennady, John the Faster, Herman, Tarasius, Nicephorus, Methodius, Photius and many others (how many? - L. L. G.). Although during the time of the Ecumenical Councils the activities of the patriarchs in the person of these Councils in many respects found the necessary guidance for themselves, however, at that time, the patriarchate was not alien to shortcomings ... Unfortunately, it was no better later. One of the most prominent patriarchs, Photius, created the whole ideology of the patriarchate. He argued that the king is the ruler of the bodies of his subjects, and the patriarch is the ruler of their souls (and what is the ruler of Christ? - L. L. G.). But Photius was also unable to correct the people of Constantinople. In his 4 speeches, addressed to the Constantinople flock on the occasion of the invasion of the Rosses, such a characterization of the inhabitants of Constantinople and the entire empire is given, which is far from evidence that the patriarchate raised the moral character of the members of the Church highly. And what could be expected from the patriarchs of Constantinople, when emperors sometimes elevated minors to the patriarchal throne, like Prince Stephen? Yes, and elderly patriarchs, like, for example, Anthony Kavlei, did not always have the strength and courage to stop the violation of the canons of the Church. So, Anthony Kavlei could not do anything when, on the orders of Leo VI, his third wife Evdokia was buried on the first day of Easter, contrary to rule 68 of VI Ecumenical Council. Under the same emperor, the aged Patriarch Euthymius recognized the 4th marriage of the emperor, despite the fact that this act of the latter caused deep confusion and division in the Church. This division, rather than unity, continued until the beginning of the 11th century. There were also minor patriarchs later. We know the 16-year-old Patriarch Theophylact, the son of Emperor Roman I. He naturally indulged in the amusements characteristic of his age and youth. Horses were his main passion. Sometimes he even stopped worship to visit the inhabitants of his stable. And death befell this patriarch as a result of his fall from the horse he was riding.
The successor of this patriarch, known as the second Chrysostom, Patr. Polyeuctus anointed John Tzimisces, the murderer of Nicephorus Phocas, as king. He even summed up the basis for this coronation: as chrismation at St. baptism frees people from sin, so the anointing to the kingdom removed the sin of regicide. Something similar, and far from better, was allowed by Patriarch Alexy, the main organizer of the Studian Charter, who, after the funeral of Roman Argyr III, on Great Friday 1034, married his wife Zoya with her chosen one Michael Paflagon (we are also talking about the imperial court - L. L. G.)…
Patriarch Isaiah once entered the capital, accompanied by dancers, and the chronicler Nicephorus Gregory compares Patriarch Isidore with one unscrupulous domestic animal that loves to wallow in the mud. As for Patriarch Joseph II, it is known that he did not even think to subscribe to the decree of the Florentine Council to please the Emperor John Palaiologos.
We could cite many and many other names from among those 130 (approximately) patriarchs who were in Constantinople from the establishment of the patriarchate until the fall of the empire, as proof that the patriarchate in itself does not protect the holders of this high rank from falling and delusions. . The patriarchate did not save the empire from the fall and subjugation by the Turks. Therefore, one can hardly hope that even now the patriarchate can save us from extraordinary discord both in church and political life. True, there were among the patriarchs worthy bearers of the dignity, but there are many more of those who are better soon forgotten than remembered.
At the end of his speech, Rev. Popov concludes:
“Therefore, if the patriarchate were restored in our country in the form in which we observe it in the East, then it would be unnecessary foil and tinsel, an outgrowth on the living body of the catholic Church. I could agree at the present moment only to a titular patriarchate, in the sense in which, for example, Gregory the Theologian calls his father patriarch, and Gregory of Nyssa calls Meletios of Antioch. Concluding my speech, I once again dare to point out that the history of the patriarchate in general does not at all give us solid grounds for hoping for our correction and renewal precisely through the restoration of this institution in the Russian Church.
Layman P. P. Kudryavtsev:
“We differ in the definition of the relationship between the beginning of the conciliar and the individual, in the composition and executive body. While you, emphasizing the importance of the individual principle, speak about the principle of catholicity only in a concessive form, we, on the contrary, put forward the principle of catholicity to the fore. Both we and you equally recognize that our Church is upset and weakened; but while you want to heal it from above, from the head, we consider the establishment of a living connection between pastors and flocks, the involvement in the work of church building of all the living elements of the church body, no matter what place they occupy in the composition of the body, as a means of healing. Your design is designed to create a place above that could be used for the good of the Church by a living person placed in this place; ours is to create such a form of ecclesiastical organization that, on all rungs of the ecclesiastical ladder, would contribute to the manifestation of living ecclesiastical forces. You place all the strength of your hopes on one person, precisely on the one who will occupy the patriarchal throne that you are restoring. In the person of the future patriarch, you hope to find both a prayer book and a mourner for the Church and country, and an ascetic, and a leader in the fight against anti-church forces, and an administrator, and so on, and so on, and so on. We yearn no less than you for prayer books, ascetics and mourners for the Russian land; but we think that in itself the patriarchal throne does not ensure the combination in the person who occupies it, so many and - moreover - heterogeneous qualities, just as the placement on other steps of the church ladder does not prevent the manifestation of the spirit of prayerfulness, asceticism, etc. … I turn to the indication of those fears that are connected in my mind with the idea of establishing a patriarchate in our country.
First. Since, in my opinion, the patriarchate is not able to justify the too broad expectations that are placed on it, in the near future we will have to experience the collapse of these hopes, which will be all the more painful, the more extensive and intense the hopes were. The collapse of church hopes will hardly serve the good of the Church.
Secondly, history shows that in the field of governance, both ecclesiastical and civil, the individual principle tends to push back and even absorb the collective, conciliar principle. Only when the balance between the two principles is secured by precise definitions of the law can we hope that it will not fluctuate too much in one direction or the other. Unfortunately, the situation in which the idea of a patriarchate is ripening in our country does not give grounds for such a hope. Remember with what pathos we talk about the patriarchate, and when it comes to catholicity, the pathos cools down ... In such a situation, one cannot help but feel anxiety that with the establishment of the patriarchate, the conciliar principle will be little by little weakened and even completely suppressed ...
Earlier canons do not speak of a patriarch, but of a bishop of the first throne, or a first hierarch, who is to be venerated as the head of the bishops of each people. If we apply this canon to the Russian Church, then on the basis of it, each of the Orthodox peoples living within the Russian state can lay claim to a special first hierarch: how many peoples, so many first hierarchs. The later canons, however, which deal not with the first hierarch, but with the patriarch, do not know one patriarch for the Church, territorially coinciding with the boundaries of such a vast state as our Russia. In any case, for the Church, which is within the boundaries of the Byzantine state, the canons establish four patriarchates independent of each other. The canons do not say anything about any body uniting patriarchates located within the same state; such a patriarch as you establish, not for one region, but for the whole state, the canons do not know, and if any region of the Russian state claims to establish an independent patriarchate in it, the canons will not be on your side. Meanwhile, if there were no patriarch in Moscow, extending his power to all the dioceses within the Russian state, Kyiv or Siberia would not have incentives for church isolation from Moscow: after all, representatives of metropolitans are included in the composition of the conciliar (collective) body on an equal footing . The struggle begins where subordination takes place. The means to prevent the struggle in this case is not subordination, but coordination.
Archpriest A.P. Rozhdestvensky:
“My Orthodox conscience obliges me to tell the Holy Council those thoughts that prompt me to object to the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Church. These thoughts were especially strengthened in me after a talented speech at the last meeting of Fr. archim. Hilarion. He vividly depicted that centripetal force that in the history of the Orthodox Church united and soldered separate parts of the church body. First, the dioceses united into metropolitan districts, then dioceses were created from several metropolitanates, and finally the dioceses were divided into patriarchal regions, and each division was headed by a single person. But here, as in the speech of Fr. Hilarion, and in the speech of prof. P. D. Lapin (in the Department), an end has been put, while in history the centripetal force continued to act further. In the West, a single center was being formed for the entire Church, in the person of the Roman Patriarch; this center was recognized not only in the West, but also in the East, there were many voices, belonging even to holy men, who spoke of the Roman Patriarch as the guardian and head of the entire Church. The same centripetal movement that led to the Patriarchate ended with the Roman Papacy. And what, really, in the East, the movement towards the unification of the entire Church in a single earthly head stopped only because it was heading there to another center - to the "ecumenical" patriarch of the new Rome, because they wanted to consider not the Pope of Rome, but the Patriarch of Constantinople, as the head of the Church? I think not, that in the East a different, primordial ecclesiastical principle has come to the fore – catholicity, which stopped the further movement towards a single head. I think that the Russian Orthodox Church is destined to carry out this conciliar beginning from bottom to top, without the slightest deviation, and thereby clearly show the falsity of the Roman papacy. Indeed, if one stands on the point of view of personal unity of command in the local Church, then logic requires that over the entire Orthodox Church there should be a single head on earth, and all the arguments in favor of the patriarchate pointing to the beauty of the Church, to the requirements of the time, and so on. , - all this is even more applicable to the entire Orthodox Church and speaks as if - albeit unfairly - in favor of the Roman Church. It is said that the heading of the entire Church by an earthly high priest is impossible because it entails the recognition of him as infallible: the Church as a whole is infallible, therefore, her representative is also infallible. The logic is absolutely correct, but the Latins act according to it, referring to the fact that if Caiaphas, as “the bishop of this summer”, could prophesy, according to the testimony of the evangelist (John ch. XI century. 51), then the earthly head of the Church, even if unworthy, can prophesy, and his prophecy or teaching can be infallible... And so I fear that the establishment of the patriarchate might force some weak souls to go further down the inclined plane and fall into the abyss papism".
Priest L. E. Ivanitsky:
“It seems to me that as soon as the Council decides that the patriarchate, as the primacy in the Orthodox Church, is a fait accompli, as ... before the harsh judgment of the Russian church history we, the councilors, will turn out to be malicious insolvent debtors. Now our Cathedral, this spiritual bell of Holy Russia in the present mournful days, you should strain all your strength, all your mind solely to keep the church body worthy of its incorruptible and blessed Head (i.e., the Lord Jesus Christ), to the best of human strength. All this can be achieved not by external measures, not by appointing a patriarch at all costs, for the patriarch is not a magic wand, at the wave of which everything will have to be transformed, but only by planting on a wide scale true catholicity, which binds the children of the Church, without any external mediation. , the bonds of the beginning-creative, mutually penetrating Christian love - this age-old foundation of the Kingdom of God.
Speakers who spoke out against the idea of patriarchy, we can name to some extent even prophets, since everything that they predicted regarding the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Church came true to the last letter.
Despite the fact that the Council nevertheless developed several Definitions “On the Rights and Duties of the Patriarch” and “On the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council”, where the scope of their power was specified, it immediately became clear that these definitions are feasible only in normal church life. Even such a supporter of the patriarchate as Archbishop Anastassy (Gribanovsky) of Kishinev had to admit in his speech at the Council:
“... In what form the provision on the rights and duties of the patriarch will be developed, this will depend on the new requirements of life, our statehood, our church-state relations, which we cannot decide« .
These Definitions were both vague in wording and unclear in content. The immediate events showed that no restrictions on the scope of the powers of the patriarch are able to prevent the spontaneously developing trend of papism, generated by the restored patriarchal system. In the minds of the hierarchy and the people, the idea was firmly established that it was precisely sole form of government.
The patriarchate really did not live up to the hopes and hopes that were placed on it in the broadest church circles. On the issue of restoring the patriarchate, a simple majority won, and this factor, unfortunately, became decisive. But as happened more than once in history, this notorious majority miscalculated bitterly. The newly elected patriarch, as Prince N. D. Zhevakhov, an eyewitness of the events, notes, under the Bolsheviks
“I used only my title, but in fact I was a prisoner of the Jews, not being able to show my activity in anything, the less I could influence the nature of the unfolding events.”
The patriarch not only failed to save the church from the Bolshevik terror, but also failed to become a guarantor of its unity. Under Patriarchate Tikhon, the Russian episcopate and clergy literally fell apart into various sects – from Ukrainian autocephalists to various renovationists and living churchmen. Finnish, Polish and Georgian Church unilaterally declared autocephaly. Not only that: Tikhon committed so many anti-canonical deeds that he raised a protest even among those who remained faithful to him. This is a shameful concordat with the Renovationists, and the introduction of a new calendar style, and the dissolution of the foreign HCU, and, finally, cowardice in their "repentant" statements to the Bolshevik authorities. Tikhon did all this using his sole power granted to him by the Local Council of 1917-18. As a result, the entire church administration was concentrated in the hands of one person, who was manipulated by the Bolsheviks, who were terrified of the convening of a new Local Council and therefore prevented this in every possible way. Didn’t the opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate at the Local Council of 1917 warn against everything that had happened?
But the most terrible thing that gave rise to the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia was the emergence of “Sergianism”. If the patriarchate had not been resurrected, Metropolitan Sergius would never have found himself at the helm of the church, that stupid leapfrog with the "locum tenens" and their "deputies" would never have arisen, thanks to which Sergius seized church administration in his own hands. And he was there only thanks to the system of transfer of church power, which was established on the basis of the Decrees of the Local Council, which gave scope for independent activity to Patriarch Tikhon and the Locum Tenens Metropolitan Peter, acting on the direct orders of the Bolsheviks in violation of church canons (76 Apostles and 23 Antioch.). Sobornost, thus, was soon completely eradicated and only pathetic masks remained of it - either in the form of some completely non-canonical “Patriarchal Synod” (both under Tikhon and under Sergius), consisting of bishops specially selected by the Bolsheviks, then in the form of “ Bishops' Meeting "of 1925 (this parody of the Church Council), which approved Metropolitan. Peter as Locum Tenens. All conciliar institutions of power fell into insignificance, appointment again appeared in the place of election, the life of the Russian Church began to choke, as it were, in anticipation of something even more nightmarish.
Tikhon was replaced by Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsy, who had the strange title of “Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne,” provided for by the Local Council in 1918. This title once again shows how vicious the generally accepted ecclesiastical-hierarchical terminology is. In the word “locum tenens”, again, it is not the popular principle that comes to the fore, but the territorial one, in a narrow sense. In the literal sense, the bearer of this title does not look after the people, not his flock, and not even the territory, but the empty place patriarch. So, there is no patriarch, only his place, the throne, remains. It is this place that the locum tenens are called to “guard” like a dog. Even more curious is the title "Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens", coined by Metropolitan. Peter, contrary to any conciliar decrees in general. "Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens" is a person appointed for-place the one who watches empty place. Neither the church nor the flock of speech, therefore, is not there either. "Woe to the shepherds who feed themselves."
But also Mr. Peter was not a guarantor of church unity. Under him, a new schism arose - the "Gregorian". However, in fairness, we note that the "Gregorians" opposed Met. Peter and his "deputy" Met. Sergius precisely because of dissatisfaction with the sole management of the church, unwillingness to convene a Council, etc.
Metr. Sergius was a real church tyrant, like Nikon. One might think that the best aspirations of the patriarchophiles have come true. Sergius, by the way, considered his power as power, equal to the patriarch. Between the patriarch, the locum tenens and his deputy, he, in the scope of their powers, put an equal sign. Therefore, he managed all church affairs independently, as a "responsible person." In his church policy, he became a true successor to the work of Patriarch Nikon. According to Dr. W. Moss,
"Sergianism is a refined and paradoxical form of papism."
The paradox of this phenomenon lies precisely in the fact that it is an ominous synthesis of two extremes - papo-caesarism and caesar-papism,
“for on the one hand, Sergianism establishes an absolutely papist structure within the Church, and on the other hand, it completely subordinates the Church to the control of a godless state.”
And indeed, Mr. Sergius emphasized his sole power in resolving all ecclesiastical issues and based this right of his "to judge and dress up" according to his own arbitrariness on the decisions of the Local Council of 1917-18. He based the theses of his 1927 declaration on the statements and activities of Patriarch Tikhon, the first to actually proclaim the Church's loyalty to the theomachist anti-Christian authorities. Imitating Patriarch Nikon, the founder of Russian papism, Sergius did not think about what methods to achieve his goals. Using the punitive apparatus of the GPU, he physically dealt with the opposition to himself among the hierarchy and clergy and forced the remnants of it to go underground, as the Old Believers once did, avoiding persecution from the Nikonians. In his atrocities, Sergius far surpassed Nikon himself. Having suppressed and destroyed the church opposition, Met. Sergius at the end of his life reached the pinnacle of power - he became a patriarch. Since then, the patriarchal power in the Moscow Patriarchate has carried within itself elements of the strictest papism, which has permeated its entire structure from top to bottom. The whole building of the ROC MP, all its “spirituality”, which now reflects the practice of totalitarian sects and even surpasses it in some ways, was built exclusively on papism.
Now it is impossible even to assess the terrible consequences of the acts of the Council of 1917-18. - they are incommensurable with anything, especially when one has to admit that the patriarchal system gave birth to so many lawless people in cassocks who sold themselves to the Devil, who do not save, but kill the souls of people. And now these false shepherds are still continuing their pernicious work, enlisting the support of those whom spiritually immature blind people call "elders" and "confessors". These are actually the grave consequences of the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia in 1917.
The dream of the Russian patriarchate arose in the middle of the 16th century as the Russian Church realized the transition to it from the fallen Tsaregrad of the Ecumenical mission of Orthodoxy. On January 26, 1589, among the ancient patriarchal sees, a new one appeared - Moscow, which became proof of the spiritual authority of the Russian Church and the strength of the Russian state. Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, with the blessing of Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople, at a solemn ceremony chose the most worthy of the three candidates - Metropolitan Job of Moscow and handed him the symbol of patriarchal authority - the staff of St. Metropolitan Peter. In the Dormition Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, after the divine liturgy, Vladyka Job was seated three times in the patriarchal seat with the singing of “Is pollla these, despot!” (Lord, bless! (Greek)).
The tsar presented the first Russian patriarch with a golden panagia with precious stones “and a white klobuk knitted with stone, with a yacht and with pearls, at the top a square of gold is minted, and on it is a cross; on the hood, the fragments of gold are minted.
The actions of the first patriarchs coincided with the Time of Troubles, with the attempt of the Poles to destroy the Russian statehood. Saint Job, who did not recognize False Dmitry, became the first in a series of Russian patriarch martyrs. Supporters of the impostor seized him in the church during prayer, severely beaten and imprisoned in the Staritsky Monastery, where he died two years later. In that truly Troubled Time, Patriarch Job showed the strength of his will, unshakable firmness and great love for the Fatherland.
Patriarch Hermogenes, who continued the fight against foreigners, was imprisoned, where he died of hunger and thirst, but before his death he managed to send a curse to the traitors with faithful people, “and blessing and permission to you all in this century and in the future for standing up for the faith unshakably, and I must pray to God for you.”
More than once, the Russian Church, led by its hierarchs, sacrificing the body, but not the spirit, led the salvation of the Motherland from enslavement. But as soon as the earth calmed down from the shed blood, the Church, estranged from politics, became a peaceful pilgrimage, bringing spiritual commandments, moral laws, world outlook, beauty, memory of the past, customs and foundations to the people.
But on October 16, 1700, with the death of Patriarch Adrian, Emperor Peter I, fearing that the new patriarch elected by the Church Council would become the second sovereign in Russia and lead those dissatisfied with state reforms, decided to subdue the Church, destroying the patriarchate and, in imitation of Lutheranism, establishing for management of church affairs Theological Collegium, or Synod.
The Holy Synod received and was obliged to execute the decrees coming from the Senate, the Supreme Privy Council and the Cabinet of Ministers. The Chief Procurator of the Synod became the sovereign's eye in the Church, vigilantly supervising and authoritatively commanding. The state gradually absorbed both the governing bodies of the Church and its property and lands. But Orthodoxy in Russia, as before, remained a popular religion, its light penetrated into the most remote villages, ascetics of piety - St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Ambrose of Optina - preserved the heavenly purity of Christianity.
Neither in the XVIII nor in XIX centuries the idea of the return of the patriarch to Russia, the great people's saint, the most holy father of the Orthodox people, their Sorrower and Intercessor, did not die among the people.
The 20th century has come, the century of confusion and discord, the final loss of the power of tradition, the beginning of the collapse of the Russian state. And then suddenly everyone remembered the Russian Orthodox Church, which numbered more than a hundred million parishioners, two hundred thousand clergy, seventy-eight thousand churches, numerous communities in North America, Western Europe, Japan, China, Persia. They remembered that in every Russian house, in every office and shop, an icon hangs, and every Russian is baptized and anointed. They remembered that the only place in Russia, divided into classes, parties, rich and poor, where people feel the joy of unity, even for a short time, is the Church. The eyes of senior officials, many of whom did not even believe in God, turned to Orthodoxy with hope. They, having destroyed and ruined it for two centuries, now, fearing the collapse of the state, desired to save Russia with the help of a strong Church. The Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers, Count S. Yu. Witte, constantly urged Emperor Nicholas II to convene the Council. He was echoed by the highest Orthodox hierarchs, who were convinced of the need to fight against foreign "isms" that had deeply taken root in the Russian land - atheism, Marxism, anarchism. They hoped that with the restoration of catholicity and the patriarchate, constant interaction would be established between the clergy and laity, that all matters - both spiritual and state - would be decided by the whole world, conciliarly. The patriarch will become a good shepherd, the father of all spiritual children, a symbol of the conciliar principle
The restoration of the patriarchate, Archbishop Tikhon of the Aleutian and North American wrote to the Holy Synod, “would not only correspond to the dignity and greatness of the Russian Church, but also its administration would bring it closer to the order outlined in the canons.”
But party leaders, both liberals and conservatives, were of a different opinion. The "advanced intelligentsia" considered the Church a relic of the past and did not want her to embarrass the "new society" with her adherence to antiquity. Monarchists, on the other hand, were content with a Church obedient to the authorities and were afraid that, freed from the tutelage of the state, it would take the side of political reforms.
The left and right press unanimously unleashed an avalanche of clever words on readers, proving why it is impossible to restore the patriarchate.
Left. There will come an unprecedented dictatorship in the Church, and then farewell catholicity.
Rights. The patriarch will become a rival to the king.
Left. The people will demand splendor for the patriarch, and
the intelligentsia make fun of him because of this.
Rights. We have freedom of the press, and abuse in the press on
patriarch will have harmful consequences for the Church.
Left. If a humble person is elected to the patriarchs -
this is stupid, the power-hungry is terrible.
Rights. The patriarchate in Russia has already once caused a schism in the Church.
Skillful attacks on Orthodoxy were not limited to words. The manifesto on religious tolerance of April 17, 1905 loosened restrictions on sectarians and other non-Orthodox religions, and strengthened the influence of Catholicism in Russia. It seemed to many Orthodox hierarchs that the Church was abandoned to its fate, left without state support at the most critical moment in history. Yes, freedom of religion should exist. But this is an ideal that can be desired, which can be achieved only in an ideal state. Even in the country of freedom of conscience, as everyone likes to call Switzerland, there are many restrictions on other religions compared to the main state.
Tsar Nicholas II, yielding to the perseverance of the hierarchs, in the early spring of 1905 promised them that he would immediately order to convene a Council. But too many in the court world did not want this, and less than a month later, on March 31, the emperor changed his mind:
“I admit that it is impossible to accomplish such a great deed, which requires both calmness and deliberation, such as the convocation of a Local Council, in the troubled time we are now experiencing. I leave it to myself, when the time favorable for this comes, following the ancient examples of Orthodox emperors, to set this great cause in motion and convene a Council of the All-Russian Church for a canonical discussion of the subjects of faith and church government.
They hoped that the "favorable time for this" is not far off and will come in the Easter week. Meanwhile, the chaos in the country grew every day. Even in churches, theft and hooliganism during worship services became more frequent. But hope did not die, and in the next year, 1906, the Pre-Council Presence at the general meeting on June 1, by thirty-three votes against nine, decided to title the head of the Church patriarch. It was thought that now the end of the 200-6 year period of the decapitated Church had come to an end. But there was still a long decade ahead, the country had to plunge into a merciless world slaughter and shameful party verbiage before the people realized the need to restore catholicity and patriarchy.
On November 1, 1916, Cadet P.N.
On the night of December 29-30, the healer of the sick heir to the Russian crown, Grigory Rasputin, was villainously killed.
On March 2, 1917, God's anointed Emperor Nicholas II, under pressure from the "advanced public", abdicated the throne for himself and for his son.
By the summer of 1917, Russia was permeated with the spirit of complete disintegration, discontent, permissiveness. The soldiers refused to go to the front, the workers preferred rallies to work, the peasants burned and stole the landowners' property. Not in dense forests, but in crowded cities, gangs of deserters and criminals released from prisons roamed, instilling fear in civilians.
What happened after the overthrow of the monarchy with the Church, with the clergy, who never separated themselves from the autocracy? The clergy rebelled against their archpastors, the psalm-readers demanded additional rights for their "estate", the parishioners and the clergy were in constant quarrels over the management of the parishes. The Pre-Council Council, which opened on June 12, 1917 in Petrograd, quickly and decisively, at the behest of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod V. N. Lvov, decided: the patriarchate is contrary to catholicity, and therefore it should not be restored.
But every new day brought more and more menacing news about the situation at the front and in the rear. Finally, after Petrograd was once again stained with blood on July 4, and not in a battle with a foreign invader, but in a fratricidal massacre, the members of the Holy Synod realized that in the days of confusion and discord, the kingdom of robberies and murders, the coming famine and spiritual impoverishment, the last hope, the only means for uniting compatriots is the Council, and decided: “Recognizing it necessary, in view of the extraordinary circumstances of the present time, the immediate convening of the Local Council of the Orthodox Russian Church”, appoint its opening “on the day of the honest Assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos on August 15, 1917 city of Moscow".
Moscow in the summer of 1917, except for the stern Kremlin and golden-domed temples, did not resemble a God-saved city. Rather, it looked like a stinking cesspool, which absorbed all the meanness of the revolutionary time. Everything sincere, imbued with love for God and the sick Fatherland, drowned in the devilish temptation of permissiveness.
On June 27, front-line cripples crawled out to Red Square with the demand: “Healthy - everyone goes to war!” And nearby, on the Moscow boulevards, deserters full of health were calmly pouting at their cards. The city government flatly refused to give hotels for hospitals, explaining that these premises are too luxurious for the sick. But in May 1917, for the needs of the Council of Workers' Commissars, the two most fashionable ones, Dresden and Rossiya, were requisitioned.
In the churches, despondency, sparsely populated. Every day the same news from the war: we are retreating, we are retreating. From Petrograd, too, every day: we meet, we meet in all the palaces. From the provinces: we rob, we rob everyone and everything. Moscow inhabitants, or rather, those part of them who were not tempted by the beautiful-hearted call "Freedom, equality and fraternity" and the illusory Dream of a bright future, realized that the familiar world that had been built for centuries was collapsing. Despondency and indifference gripped the city.
And yet the day came when something like hope flashed across Moscow's faces - the feast of the Assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos, August 15, 1917. On this day, following the example of the ancient fathers, the Consecrated Church Cathedral was solemnly opened in Moscow. Muscovites for two centuries have lost the habit of antiquity, those who live today have seen only the wall paintings of churches, which depict the sedately seated saints. But the keepers of ancient traditions have not yet died out, the old people have not disappeared - connoisseurs of the Holy Scriptures, the teachings of the holy fathers, church traditions. It was they who explained to the curious that the Holy Apostles were still gathering at the Council. From different countries, where they dispersed to preach the Gospel, they arrived at the Divine call to Jerusalem on the day of the immortal Assumption of the Most Pure Mother of God. And just as in ancient times the holy apostles went to the tomb of the Mother of God, all the week before August 15, 1917, after Matins, there were processions from Moscow monasteries and parish churches to the Assumption Cathedral. Throughout the week, members of the Council, the chosen ones of Holy Russia, arrived from all over the bleeding Fatherland, and the first thing they did was go to Russian Zion - the Assumption Cathedral.
On the feast of the Assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos, after the Divine Liturgy, sixty saints of the Russian Orthodox Church stood on the platform in the center of the Assumption Cathedral. Other councilors surrounded them. The First Hierarch Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia Vladimir announced the deed on the opening of the Cathedral. The whole temple sang the Creed. And it was so good, so conciliar at that moment that it seemed that there would be enough strength to lead Russia on a pious path.
In a long line from the Assumption Cathedral, the procession went to the public prayer service. On Red Square, flooded with bright sun, religious processions from two hundred and fifty monasteries and churches of Moscow have already gathered. Thousands of banners shone, thousands of bells rang. The Korsun crosses, the altar icon of the Mother of God, were brought to the Execution Ground. The clergy and laity merged in a unanimous conciliar prayer:
“May the Lord be among those gathered in His Name, may He send upon them His Holy Spirit, instructing in all truth, may He help the Council to pronounce decisions and do deeds truly for His glory, for the building of His holy Church and for the benefit and peace of our dear and long-suffering motherland.
For a few more days - in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, in the Cathedral Chamber of the Moscow Diocesan House, in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra - celebrations continued on the occasion of the opening of the Cathedral, numerous greetings were read, in which the hope was expressed that the Cathedral would serve to reconcile and unite the entire Russian people, strengthen it spirit. Muscovites joked about the protracted festivities: The Cathedral is like a big bell, you can’t strike it right away - you have to swing it for a long time in advance.
On August 16, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, Metropolitan Tikhon delivered a word of greeting from the Moscow cathedra:
— With great joy I fulfill the sacred and at the same time pleasant duty to greet the extraordinary Council on behalf of the Moscow Church. Moscow has long been the bearer and exponent of church beliefs and religious hopes. Having not seen the Church Council for over two hundred years, she could not help but mourn. Her best sons, both archpastors and believing laity, lived with the dream of resuming the conciliar life of the Church, but according to the inscrutable plans of Divine Providence, they were not destined to live to truly happy days, all of them are testified in faith without receiving the promise. Like ancient Israel, they only contemplated from a distance what was promised to us from the Lord, but they could not enter the promised land. And we hope that with the convening of the Church Council, the whole life of our Church will be renewed, the Council will cause a surge of popular faith and religious aspirations.
Faithful Moscow expects assistance from the Cathedral in the organization of state life. Everyone knows that Moscow and its shrines in past years actively participated in the creation of the Russian state. Now our Motherland is in devastation and danger, almost on the verge of death. How to save her - this question is the subject of strong thoughts. The multimillion population of the Russian Land hopes that the Church Council will not remain indifferent to the difficult situation that our Motherland is experiencing. Contemplating the temple of our state existence, which is crumbling before our eyes, representing, as it were, a field strewn with bones, I, following the example of the ancient prophet, dare to ask: will these bones come to life?
Saints of God, shepherds and sons of men! Sprinkle dry bones, with the breath of the Almighty Spirit of God, spiritualize them, and these bones will come to life and be created, and the face of the Holy Russian land will be renewed!
576 cathedrals arrived in Moscow - 277 clergymen and 299 laity. Among them are ten metropolitans, seventeen archbishops and sixty bishops, well-known metropolitan archpriests and unknown rural priests, statesmen and scientists, officers and soldiers, merchants and peasants.
The meetings of the Council, whose chairman was elected Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow and Kolomna (407 votes in favor, 33 against), were held in the new Diocesan House in Likhovy Lane, and the cathedral members lived nearby - in Karetny Ryad, in the building of the Moscow Theological Seminary.
The day began at seven o'clock in the morning with a divine liturgy in the seminary church. At 10:15 a.m., in the Vladimir Church of the Diocesan House, the higher hierarchs sat at a large table in front of the altar, the rest of the delegates sat throughout the hall, from where they could see the altar, sparkling gilded icons, the cross and the seven-little candlestick. All this solemn atmosphere contributed to breathing new creative forces into church society, creating church authority adapted to the current difficult times, moving from estate interests to catholicity, infusing life-giving forces into parish activities, and restoring the canonical leadership of the Church.
But the first days upset, sowed fears that the Cathedral would not be able to cope with the tasks assigned to it. The honorary chairman of the Council, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv and Galicia, warned about the impending obstacles at the very beginning of business activities:
“We all wish success to the Cathedral, and there are reasons for this success. Spiritual piety, Christian virtue and high learning are represented here at the Council. But there is something that arouses fear. This is a lack of unanimity in us, as the preparatory work for the Council, which has been going on for the past twelve years, has indicated. Therefore, I recall the apostolic call to unanimity. These words of the apostle have universal significance and apply to all peoples, to all times, but at the present time dissent is affecting us especially strongly. It has been elevated to the guiding principle of life. Without factions, they say, state order is not guaranteed. Differences of thought dig under the foundations of family life, under the foundations of the school; under the influence of dissent, many broke away from the Church; under the influence of dissent, sometimes such transformations are adopted that contradict one another. Diversity is tearing the state apart. There is not a single side of life that would be free from bickering and disputes. You will say that power is needed for the good of society, you will be objected that all power is violence, and so on. What do we agree on? The Orthodox Church prays for unity and calls with one mouth and one heart to confess the Lord. Our Orthodox Church is built on the foundation of the Apostle and the Prophet, the cornerstone of which is Jesus Christ Himself. It is a rock against which all waves will break. The sons of the Church know how to subordinate their personal opinions to the voice of the Church. They are more ready to obey than to rule, and do not put anything higher than the submission of their words and actions to the yoke of Christ. The Savior prayed for the unification of His disciples: May they be one, as You, Father, are in Me and I am in You. We should also pray for this: “Father, sanctify them in Your truth. Your word is truth."
But, despite Vladyka Vladimir's passionate call for unanimity, the councilors began the first meetings with endless disputes about the legitimacy of the powers of this or that chosen one. They jumped up from their seats, interrupted the presiding officer, demanded the words “for one minute in motives for voting” and, having seized upon a speech, pounded water in a mortar, either wanting to show their remarkable oratorical abilities, or to record their overwhelming zeal before the Cathedral.
And yet the Lord condescended to the councilors, the majority realized the sin of their verbiage and showed unanimity, talking about the necessary: the Highest church administration, teaching the Law of God at school, treasury expenses, church preaching. But involuntarily, the conversation more and more often turned to the question of the restoration of the patriarchate. September 12 finally decided that it was time to consider it. More than 100 people signed up immediately. They spoke passionately and contradictorily, because the life of the country did not favor a calm and concentrated discussion.
Archbishop of Chisinau and Khotinsky Anastasy:
- The state is moving away from the beneficial influence of the Church. And the Church herself should not be afraid of this, because she relies on grace-filled forces: she is above everything, even the essence of the world. The Church becomes militant and must defend itself not only from enemies, but also from false brethren. And if so, then the Church needs a leader.
V. V. Radzimovsky, legal adviser to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod:
- I can’t vote for the patriarchate at all, because I don’t know what the scope of his power will be and what the procedure for his election will be.
Archpriest E. I. Bekarevich:
- Masons at the congress decided: seize the moment when the holder will be deposed in Russia; drive out the priests, ridicule religion - you will achieve this thanks to the darkness of the Russian people. This new religion is advancing on Russia... Ancient gnosticism, spiritualism, Kabbalah, theosophy, denying Christ, are spreading. And I think that we need a patriarch who leads the Church, who would take over the fight against the new religion.
Professor of the Petrograd Theological Academy B. V. Titlinov:
- If one Patriarch of Moscow appears, who will receive the title of All-Russian, then we cannot guarantee that in a few months we will have to remove the title of All-Russian. The danger of disunity is quite real, and the advantages of a patriarchate are ominous.
Professor of Moscow University, Prince E. N. Trubetskoy:
- How will the war end? It is possible that entire regions with an Orthodox population will be cut off from the state body. And now the power of the patriarch will extend beyond the borders of the state and will support the idea of national and religious unity in the minds and hearts of the torn-off regions.
Trade clerk V. G. Rubtsov:
“We must not forget the distant times when there was no patriarch. Then the Russian Church was headed by metropolitans. They competed with each other and kept their flock at the height of Christian influence. Let's move on to the era of the patriarchate. He receives little power, but he took power from the people and firmly held it, began to abuse power and split the Russian people. This ulcer is still festering at the present time.
Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Archimandrite Hilarion:
There is a wailing wall in Jerusalem. Old orthodox Jews come to her and weep, shedding tears for the lost national freedom and former glory. In Moscow, in the Assumption Cathedral, there is also a Russian "wailing wall" - an empty patriarchal place. For two hundred years Orthodox Russian people have been coming here and weeping bitter tears for the church freedom ruined by Peter and for the past glory. What a grief it will be if this Russian "Wailing Wall" of ours remains forever! Let it not!
Attorney at Law N. D. Kuznetsov:
- The authority of the Council requires the presentation of sufficiently substantiated and discussed motives for the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia.
Peasant T. M. Garanin:
— The history of the Russian Church taught the Russian people not to study in collegiate institutions. He knows the Trinity Lavra, the Pochaev Lavra, the Solovetsky Monastery, and who are in these monasteries, what saints and ascetics. We live by them, we hear their voices. Then the Patriarchs of Moscow, we live and move by their ideals. And if you thought of saying: "The patriarch should not follow" - the common people would be terribly sad.
Archpriest N. V. Tsvetkov:
Why shouldn't you vote for the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia? We believe in the apostolic Church. By apostolic Church I mean the episcopal Church. I imagine a building with a facade and a roof. The roof is the bishops in the Church. Whoever pierces the roof, behind the roof would find only the sky, the Heavenly Head. Why should we make an unnecessary stronghold? Why this superstructure above the roof, which is higher than the bishop in the Church?
Priest V. I. Vostokov:
- We know that the former patriarchs were mourners for the people, enlighteners, and when necessary, fearless accusers of the people and all those in power. Give the people a church father who would suffer for the grief of Russia, would beg not to destroy it, would grieve for the people, admonish them, and for the dark forces that lead the people away from Christ and the Church, even if they were sitting in government places, was a formidable accuser.
Magistrate Prince A. G. Chagadaev:
“Give us a father, give us a prayer book. But for this, if the Lord sent us a father and a prayer book, neither dignity nor titles are needed. If the Lord sends him, he will come in a sackcloth. But where do we find such a person in our sinful environment? Will the patriarch not make the same mistakes as our former tsar, who was with the best intentions, who, perhaps, wanted the good of the people, but could not do anything.
Merchant D. I. Volkov:
“When I found out that the Provisional Government held definite anti-Church and anti-Christian views, I saw that the Church remains left to itself and must have its strong protector and patron.
Archpriest N. P. Dobronravov, teacher of the Alexander Military School:
“You give him the strength of a midget, but you demand heroic deeds from him. You don't give him anything, but you say, "He got up and saved." One of two things: or say directly that you want to give the patriarch full power. But then we will tell you this: point out a person whom this government has not crushed? The mouse will not become a lion, and you cannot decorate it with a lion's mane. He who is born to crawl cannot fly, and it is unreasonable to attach eagle wings to him. Or, stop talking about bogatyrs and leaders and admit that the patriarch will not be a granite colossus in the Church, but will become a mere decoration, beautiful indeed, but hardly necessary.
Priest M.F. Marin, teacher of the real school:
- You can't love the people, for example, the ministry. The people need a one-man government, which he would love.
The cathedrals were arguing, and gunfire was heard more and more often outside the windows of the Diocesan House. Next door, on Sukharevka, where old books and worn shoes used to be sold, deserters now traded in uniforms and rifles. The workers fraternized with the soldiers and, singing the "Internationale", wandered around the lousy, drowning in mud capital city. Water supply and sewerage did not work in the city, trams were standing, factories were on strike. Every day could be the last for the meetings of the Council, and for its members, as, indeed, for every Moscow inhabitant.
On October 26, 1917, the Mayor of the Social Revolutionary V. V. Rudnev formed the Committee of Public Security. Bolsheviks - Military Revolutionary Committee. The workers' squads set up posts at the Crimean, Bolshoy Kamenny, Moskvoretsky and Ustyinsky bridges. Newspapers, except for the Bolshevik ones, are closed. By evening, detachments of cadets and officers concentrated in the Manege and near the Kremlin. The Council still had to hear ninety orators and only then vote whether the patriarchate should be restored or not. But from a group of council members of sixty people, Colonel of the Kuban Cossack army, Count P. M. Grabbe, made a proposal to stop the debate, because not today or tomorrow everything will be decided by the roar of cannons and the crackle of machine guns. He demanded an immediate vote to establish a patriarchate in the Russian Church.
October 27, 1917. Moscow has been declared under martial law. In the morning on Red Square they exchanged fire with junker deserters released from prisons. Trucks rush through the city, loaded with soldiers with rifles at the ready. The Bolsheviks entrenched themselves in the Kremlin. When the evening bells fell silent and the inhabitants of Moscow were returning home from the temples, the city was deafened by volleys of guns - there was a struggle for the Kremlin.
October 28, 1917. By morning, the junkers had driven the fifty-sixth regiment out of the Kremlin. The prisoners were released through the Spassky Gates. Here and there someone shot someone. The phones don't work, the banks are closed, there are guards, patrols, patrols everywhere, firing at each other. All sorts of committees compete: who will capture the most commissariats, printing houses, garages, warehouses. The roar of machine guns. Artillery entered the battle. Under the thunder of guns, the councilors adopted a resolution on the restoration of the patriarchate.
October 29, 1917. An attempt at reconciliation between the junkers and the revolutionary soldiers failed. Indiscriminate shooting does not stop in the city, from which mostly civilians die, who dared to run to the nearest bread shop. The soldiers captured the Zachatievsky convent. Bolshevik Izrailev arranged, despite the protests of the clergy, an observation post on the bell tower of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, from where he corrected aimed fire at the Kremlin. The trade union of railway workers "Vikzhel" put forward an ultimatum to immediately end the civil war in Moscow, otherwise threatened with a general railway strike. The worker-peasant government in Petrograd signed the "Decree on Peace" with a foreign enemy, and a war was unleashed with compatriots. On this Sunday, Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow and Kolomna was to serve the Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. But neither Vladyka nor his flock could get to the temple - they were met on the outskirts of the city center by machine-gun and rifle bullets. Bishop Nestor of Kamchatka, having stocked up on dressings, tried to help the wounded on the Moscow streets. During the day he was arrested several times, searched, interrogated, despite his pastoral attire and charitable occupation.
October 30, 1917. All day long, the hurricane fire of machine guns on Tverskoy Boulevard did not stop. The Bolsheviks occupied the post office and the telegraph. Evil soldiers are everywhere. At five o'clock in the evening began a heavy shelling of the headquarters of the Moscow military district. Some third armed force has appeared in the city, shooting at everyone who comes to hand. At the Council, Professor Sokolov read a report on the methods of electing a patriarch. It was decided to follow the example of the Church of Constantinople - first to vote for candidates who can be elected both from bishops, and from priests, and even from laity. Twenty-three candidates have been nominated.
October 31, 1917. Artillery hits and hits the telephone exchange, the City Duma, the Metropol, residential areas - from Presnya, Kudrinskaya Square, Zamoskvorechye. From the bell towers of the center of Moscow, they fire at the Junkers who have sat in the Kremlin and have already spent their last cartridges. The nerves of Muscovites, starving in the cellars of their houses, begin to fail from the continuous cannonade. The inhabitants of the Chudov Monastery, under the roar of exploding shells, transferred the relics of St. Alexis, Metropolitan of Moscow, to the underground church of the Hieromartyr Hermogenes, where church services did not stop day and night. The monks confessed, partake of the Holy Mysteries, prepared for death. The cathedrals in the Diocesan House lined up in long lines in front of the ballot boxes with the names of the intended candidates. The first and second votes gave the required majority to Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov and Akhtyrka (one hundred and fifty-nine votes) and Archbishop Arseny of Novgorod and Staraya Russa (one hundred and forty-eight votes). The third vote is for Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow and Kolomna (one hundred twenty-five votes). Thus, by free voting, three main candidates were designated for the patriarchal throne.
November 01, 1917. Shooting all over Moscow. The revolutionary troops took the telephone exchange with a fight. An intensive bombardment of the city center began. Heavy guns randomly hit the Kremlin. The revolutionary activist and astronomer P. K. Sternberg supervises the execution of the greatest Russian shrine. Artilleryman Tulyakov did not find a panorama that day - he had to aim at the Kremlin through the muzzle. The flight was twelve versts, five inhabitants were killed. The second shell hit the pipe of the Goujon plant, the third one hit the Zlatorozhsky shaft. The "bourgeois" press, as in previous days, did not come out. The Social-Democrat newspaper, which was published by people who had never sniffed front-line gunpowder, stated that "the very name of an officer became too hated by the people." The patriarch was to be chosen from the three candidates by the bishops alone. But they gave up their right, deciding to rely on the Lord. In the evening, in the assembly hall of the Moscow Theological Seminary, the cathedral members served a moleben for appeasement and sang "May the saints rest in peace"
for all the believers who died on the streets of Moscow in these bloody days; chose a deputation to go to the headquarters of the Bolsheviks - the governor's house, and then to the junkers - in the Kremlin and beg both of them to stop the fratricidal war.
November 02, 1917. The guns rumbled all night. By morning, the city, with the exception of the Kremlin, completely passed into the hands of the Military Revolutionary Committee. The Public Safety Committee took refuge in the Kremlin. Broken tram wires, broken glass, empty barricades are everywhere on the streets. Deserted Moscow, only pickets at crossroads and trucks with soldiers hurrying to their positions - to the walls of the Kremlin. And suddenly a strange procession. Archpriests Chernyavsky and Bekarevich in stole, behind them with the icon of the Hieromartyr Hermogenes in the hands of Archimandrite Vissarion of the Makaryevsky Zheltovodsky Monastery, in robes Bishop Dimitry of Tauride with the Holy Gospel and Bishop Nestor of Kamchatka with the Holy Gifts, Metropolitan Platon of the Caucasus in a white klobuk, with a holy cross. In front of the procession, the peasants Iyudin and Utkin, wearing skufyas on their heads, which makes them look like monks, carry white flags with red crosses sewn on them. The messengers of the Cathedral, singing "Save, O Lord, Thy people," walk down Petrovskaya Street, turning towards the Governor's House. On the way, they come across soldiers on horseback and on foot. Despite their revolutionary nature and red bows, many of them take off their hats and cross their eyes. Even at the outpost, where it was necessary to present a pass, the cathedral was not stopped. The young lady at the door of the Governor's house was the first to block their way.
- Where are you going?
- Delegation of the Church Council. We're going to ask for an end to the internecine strife.
The revolutionary commissars, after listening to the delegates, promised to keep the Kremlin intact, but warned: "We will stop shooting when the junkers lay down their arms." Sobors were not allowed to enter the Kremlin for negotiations with the junkers through the Bolshevik posts.
At the evening meeting of the Council, it was announced that the choice of the patriarch would be made by lot and would take place at the end of the street fighting. An appeal was sent to “our dear brothers and children” who were at war with each other: “The Holy Council, on behalf of all our dear Orthodox Russia, implores the victors not to allow any acts of revenge, cruel reprisals and in all cases to spare the lives of the vanquished. In the name of saving the Kremlin and saving our shrines in it, dear to all of Russia, the destruction and desecration of which the Russian people will never forgive anyone, the Holy Council begs not to subject the Kremlin to artillery fire.
November 03, 1917. The last shell was fired at the Kremlin at six o'clock in the morning. Junkers, left without cartridges, surrendered. The victorious Bolsheviks issued threatening orders for the immediate cessation of strikes, the opening of all shops, shops, and taverns. The Latvian section of the Bolsheviks passed a resolution on bringing the arrested junkers to trial. Metropolitan Tikhon, with a small group of Sobor, obtained permission to inspect the Kremlin. He saw the main shrine of Russia, the stronghold of the Russian spirit in hot, bleeding wounds inflicted by the hand of his own people. Holes in the main dome of the Assumption Cathedral, the walls of the Chudov Monastery. The Beklemishevskaya Tower was beheaded, the Cathedral of the Twelve Apostles gaping with holes, Rozhdestvensky and Arkhangelsky were damaged. Precious decorations of the patriarchs: mitres, handrails, as well as ancient church utensils, were thrown out of the windows of the Patriarchal sacristy and trampled into heaps of sand and ash. The walls of the Church of Nicholas of Gostunsky are covered with blasphemous inscriptions in Russian and German, and at the entrance to it, where a great shrine is kept - part of the holy relics of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, a latrine has been arranged. On the face of the icon of the Kazan Mother of God, which is on the Trinity Gates, there are bullet marks. The image of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker on the Nikolskaya Tower was also shot. There is a pool of blood on Cathedral Square, the corpse of a cadet.
November 04, 1917. The city is calm, even unusual without shooting. But neither banks, nor the telephone, nor the telegraph work. Trams stop. Rear soldier Muralov was appointed city commissar with the rights of district commander. A cross was knocked down from one of the domes of St. Basil's Cathedral. The Kremlin gates are closed, guards are near them. From that day on, the Moscow Kremlin - the main place of the Russian people - became inaccessible to the inhabitants of Russia without a special order from the authorities. The councilors decided to elect a patriarch on November 5, but not in the Assumption Cathedral, where the election of the patriarchs of pre-Petrine Russia always took place, but in violation of custom in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. But in order to keep the traditions, they decided to ask the new authorities for the miraculous Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God. Before this icon, the ancient Russian tsars knelt down when they were anointed to the throne, before it, when choosing patriarchs, they placed lots sealed with the royal seal with the names of candidates, before it the name of the chosen one was announced. The authorities promised to give the relic of the Assumption Cathedral to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior for one day, but they set a condition that the miraculous was transferred secretly, wrapped in cloth, without the procession of the cross usually accompanying it - so as not to “confuse” the townspeople.
On November 5, 1917, in the overcrowded Cathedral of Christ the Savior, which could accommodate twelve thousand people, after the hour, Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia Vladimir, on a special table placed in the holy altar on the left side of the throne, personally inscribed on parchments of the same type and size the names of three elected candidates for the patriarchate . Whereupon, Metropolitan Vladimir rolled each lot into a tube, put a rubber ring on them and put them in a special reliquary, where they were placed quite freely, shook the reliquary, closed it and tied it with a braid, the ends of which he sealed with a wax seal. Taking the reliquary in his hands, Metropolitan Vladimir carried it out of the holy altar onto the salt and placed it on a specially prepared tetrapod (Tetrapod - table (church.) ) on the left side of the royal doors in front of the small Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God.
During the entire time of the Divine Liturgy, the professor of the Kazan Theological Academy Lapin, the professor of the Petrograd Theological Academy Sokolov and the peasant of the village of Krasnaya Polyana, Golovetsky volost, Siberian diocese, Malov, were constantly at the reliquary. When the Apostles were being read, the miraculous Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was brought from the Dormition Cathedral and placed on the same tetrapod where the reliquary with lots had been. They listened to the gospel text about the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus and the healing of a bleeding woman. And it seemed that the daughter of Jairus was a symbol of the rebirth of the Russian Church, and the healing of the woman who touched the robe of Christ was the recovery of bleeding Russia. Oh, how I wanted to believe it! And they believed.
At the end of the Divine Liturgy and the prayer service, Metropolitan Vladimir ascended the solea, lifted the reliquary and shook it in view of all those present. Taking scissors in hand, Vladyka cut the braid and lifted the lid from the reliquary. An old man came out of the altar, a recluse of the Zosima Hermitage, Hieromonk Alexy, who had long ago lost the habit of seeing earthly things, but returned to the world to fulfill God's will. He prayed for a long time before the miraculous Vladimir Icon The Mother of God, and the whole church prayed with him, then he made the sign of the cross three times and reverently took out the lot from the ark "by the direction of God".
Metropolitan Vladimir unfolded it and read:
- Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow and Kolomna.
— Axios! (* Worthy! (Greek).) breathed out the temple.
— Axios! the metropolitan proclaimed
— Axios! Axios! Axios! sang the clergy, the choir and all the people.
It's done! From now on, strife will be forgotten, no more innocent blood will be shed, the state will not fall apart. From now on, the people have an intercessor, and the Russian Church is not abandoned by God. By the will of the Lord, the most worthy was elected to the patriarchal throne - full of love for people and extraordinary simplicity, benevolent and blameless archpastor of Russia Tikhon.
A solemn delegation of members of the Council went to Samoteka, to the church of the Trinity Compound, where Vladyka Tikhon prayed that day, and Metropolitan Vladimir solemnly announced:
— His Grace Metropolitan Tikhon, the Sacred and Great Council calls your shrine to the patriarchate of the God-saved city of Moscow and all Russia.
“Because the Holy and Great Council judged me, unworthy, to be in such a service, I thank, I accept and in no way contrary to the verb,” Vladyka Tikhon replied, bowing low to his people.
The chosen one understood that he, like the whole Church, would have to embark on the path of martyrdom. But on November 5, 1917 (November 18, New Style), in his visionary words, few discerned the foreshadowing of a prophet. They understood them a little later, in prisons, exiles, on the edge of hastily dug graves, near defiled relics, destroyed altars, the corpses of brothers and sisters tortured for the Orthodox faith.
Vladyka Tikhon said on the day of his election:
“Your message about my election as a patriarch is for me the scroll on which it was written: Weeping, and groaning, and sorrow, and what scroll the prophet Ezekiel was supposed to eat (Ezek. 2, 10; 3, 1). How many tears and groans will I have to swallow in my forthcoming patriarchal ministry, and especially in this difficult time! Like the ancient leader of the Jewish people, the prophet Moses, I will also have to say to the Lord: Why do You torment Your servant? And why did I not find favor in Your sight, that You laid on me the burden of all this people? Did I bear all this people in my womb, and did I give birth to them, that You say to me: Carry him in your arms, as a nurse carries a child ... I alone cannot bear all this people, because they are heavy for me (Num. 11, 11-14). From now on, the care of all the churches of Russia is entrusted to me and I will have to die for them all the days.
On November 7, Vladyka Tikhon departed for the Trinity-Sergius Lavra in order to prepare his spirit in this holy place for the triumph of enthronement to the patriarchal throne. The Cathedral Commission began to hastily work out the procedure for appointing patriarchs, long forgotten in Russia.
On the feast of the Entry into the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos, November 21, 1917, the enthronement took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin (Enthronement - solemn enthronement (lat.). A higher place is a place in the altar where the seat of the bishop is placed on a hill.) Patriarch Tikhon.
In the morning, the bells of forty forty Moscow churches rang incessantly. Processions from all parishes and monasteries flowed to Red Square in an endless stream. The wounded Kremlin, guarded by many armed soldiers, was opened with the permission of the authorities. But neither the Kremlin nor even Red Square could accommodate all the believers who came to the celebration, and they filled the nearby streets. It is cold in the Assumption Cathedral - the western wall is pierced by a large shell. On the eastern wall rises the Crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ with his hands torn off by a shell. Creepy symbol - what does it mean? Sacrificial lamps are lit. Everywhere, the faces of saints and miracle workers, yellowed from time to time. This main temple is still our own, dear, and I don’t want to think that it is no longer accessible to the Russian pilgrim.
The choristers enter the cathedral, followed by the members of the Council, followed humbly, with lowered eyes, by God's chosen Tikhon. In the middle of the temple they dress the Most Holy in magnificent clothes. The four oldest bishops begin the Divine Liturgy. And now the chosen one, supported by the clergy, enters the altar and stands on the High Place. "All the people, as if on Easter, hold lighted candles in their hands. Two metropolitans, Vladimir and Platon, take the Great Lord Tikhon by the arms and three times seat him on the empty patriarchal seat.
— Divine grace, infirm healing, impoverishing replenishing and providence always creating for its holy Orthodox Churches, places on the throne the holy primates of Russia Peter, Alexy, Jonah, Philip and Hermogenes - our father Tikhon, His Holiness Patriarch of the great city of Moscow and all Russia, in the name of Father. Amen... And the Son. Amen... And the Holy Spirit. Amen.
— Axios! Axios! Axios! - the choir and all the people sing in full voice.
The metropolitans, with the help of the deacons, clothe the patriarch in the ancient garments of his saints and great predecessors. “They fit right in... How sewn on it,” whisper in the crowd. Archdeacon Rozov, famous throughout Russia with his mighty voice, like a bell, "the king-deacon" - nicknamed by Muscovites, proclaims many years to Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and All Russia. “... And the God-protected Russian power,” his voice booms, “many-o-o-ogiya le-e-eta-a-a”
And where is she, power? ..
At the end of the Divine Liturgy, the First Hierarch of the Russian Church replaces the holy ancient vestments with the mantle and white hood of Patriarch Nikon - again they fit! - and, having accepted the staff of St. Peter from the hands of Metropolitan Vladimir, he addresses the people:
“By the dispensation of Divine Providence, my entry into this cathedral patriarchal church of the Most Pure Mother of God coincides with the all-honourable feast of the Entrance of the Most Holy Theotokos into the church. Create Zacharias a thing of stratum and amazing to everyone, when you introduce the Otrokovitsa to them the innermost tabernacle, into the Holy of Holies, do this according to the mysterious teaching of God. It is marvelous for everyone, and my current entry into the patriarchal seat, by God's dispensation, after it has stood empty for over two hundred years. Many men, strong in word and deed, testified in faith, men whom the whole world was not worthy of, however, did not receive the fulfillment of their aspirations for the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia, did not enter the rest of the Lord, the promised land where their saints were sent thoughts, for God has foreseen something better for us. But let us not fall from this, brethren, into pride. One thinker, welcoming my unworthiness, wrote: “Perhaps the granting of the patriarchate to us, which people stronger and more worthy than we could not see, serves as an indication of the manifestation of God’s mercy precisely to our weakness, to spiritual poverty.” And in relation to myself, the gift of patriarchy makes me feel how much is required of me and how much I lack for this. And now my soul is seized with holy trembling from this consciousness. Like David, I am small among my brethren, and my brethren are beautiful and great, but the Lord was pleased to choose me. Who am I, Lord, Lord, that You have raised and distinguished me so? You know Your servant and what He can say to You. And now bless thy servant. Thy servant among Thy people, so numerous, grant an understanding heart to guide the people wisely along the path of salvation. Warm my heart with love for the children of the Church of God and expand it, so that it will not be too tight for them to fit in me. After all, archpastoral ministry is primarily a ministry of love. A sheep has found a pea, the archpastor lifts it up on his own ramen. True, the patriarchate is being restored in Russia in terrible days, in the midst of fire and deadly cannon fire. It is probable that it itself will be compelled more than once to resort to forbidding measures in order to admonish the disobedient and to restore church order. But just as in ancient times the Lord appeared to the prophet Elijah not in a storm, not in a coward, not in fire, but in coolness, in the wind of a quiet breeze, so now to our cowardly reproaches: Lord, the sons of Russia have left Your covenant, destroyed Your altars, shot on temple and Kremlin shrines, they beat Thy priests - a quiet breath of Thy words is heard. Another seven thousand men did not bow the knee before modern Baal and did not betray the true God. And the Lord, as it were, says to me like this: “Go and look for those for whose sake the Russian land is still standing and holding on. But do not leave the lost sheep, doomed to perish, to the slaughter, the sheep, truly miserable. Feed them, and for this take this rod of goodwill. With him, find the lost one, return the stolen one, bandage the afflicted, strengthen the sick, exterminate the fat and violent. Feed them in truth." In this, may the Shepherd Himself help me, through the prayers and intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Saints of Moscow. God bless you all with His grace. Amen.
In all the grandeur of luxurious decoration, blessing the Orthodox people and the soldiers guarding the Kremlin from the people, the patriarch headed for Red Square. Joyful Muscovites cross themselves, kneel, greeting their Father. Even the Kremlin guards, proud of their atheism just a minute ago, put out their cigarettes and take off their hats.
“Our father, intercessor, pray for us,” the gray-haired peasant prays.
“Long years to you and many joys, father,” the young worker smiles.
And suddenly a woman with flowing hair burst out laughing:
“It won’t be long, you won’t be happy for long. They will kill, kill your patriarch!
Since then, Patriarch Tikhon has lived a little over seven years, enduring imprisonment and several attempts on his life, and passed away at the age of sixty. All the days of his primatial service were constant dying for his people, for all Russian churches, as he predicted to himself on the day of his election, a difficult way of the cross suffering and doubt, in comparison with which death is a blessing.
Life has ended, the life of a martyr has come.
An excerpt from the book of Patriarch Tikhon
The first big and important question for church life, which is resolved Church Council It's a matter of patriarchy. Soon after the opening of the Council, the activities of the cathedral members were concentrated in numerous departments, each of which had its own more or less close circle of affairs and interests. However, it can be said with certainty that in the conciliar atmosphere the question of the patriarchate was constantly raised. Back in September, the Council's department on higher church administration, while discussing the question of catholicity of church administration, involuntarily switched to the question of the patriarchate. The impetus for this was that the Pre-Council Council, which worked in Petrograd during the summer, issued a negative resolution on the patriarchate, finding it incompatible with the idea of church catholicity. A number of meetings of the department top management and occupied the debate about the patriarchate and catholicity in their relationship. But in parallel, there were a number of private meetings devoted entirely to the question of the patriarchate. In these private collections of conciliar members, reports were read almost exclusively against the patriarchate. Only Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov delivered a report in defense of the patriarchate. But after the reports, discussions usually opened, which often dragged on past midnight and occupied several meetings. Sometimes the debate was quite passionate. Nothing was talked about so much in the dormitory of the cathedral members as about the patriarchate. Finally, the Department of Higher Church Administration issued a resolution on the restoration of the patriarchate and proposed this resolution for consideration by the general meeting. On September 12, the Council began discussing the issue of restoring the patriarchate. Immediately, up to a hundred people signed up to speak on this issue, but it was already felt that in the general conciliar consciousness and mood this issue was resolved positively. That is why the Council did not listen to even half of the planned speeches, on October 28 it stopped the debate and decided by a huge majority of votes to restore the patriarchate destroyed by Peter I in the Russian Church. Meanwhile, events were brewing that testified to a serious illness of the Russian state body. October 28 in Moscow was the first day of bloody internecine strife. Shooting rumbled through the streets of Moscow, gun shots rumbled. The historical Kremlin, along with its shrines, was exposed to an unprecedented danger of destruction. Not without the influence of these terrible events, the Council decided to immediately implement its decision regarding the patriarchate, and therefore immediately proceeded to elect the All-Russian Patriarch. It was decided to elect three candidates, and the final election to be made by lot. The walls of the cathedral chamber were trembling from nearby cannon shots, and in the cathedral chamber there was an election of candidates for the All-Russian Patriarchs. Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow, Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov and Archbishop Arseny of Novgorod were elected as candidates. On November 5, as soon as the internecine strife on the streets of Moscow ended, a solemn liturgy and deliberate prayer singing were served in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. At this time, lots with the names of three candidates lay in a special sealed ark in front of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God. After the prayer service, a member of the Council, the reclusive elder of Zosima Hermitage, Hieromonk Alexy, drew lots, and the lot indicated that Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow and All Russia should be Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. A specially selected embassy from the members of the Council immediately went to the Metropolitan Trinity Compound with the good news of the election. After this gospel, the betrothed patriarch left for the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, where he remained until the day of his solemn enthronement to the patriarchal throne. A special commission was elected at the Council to develop the rite of "deposition" of the All-Russian Patriarch. Before this commission, first of all, the fact became clear that ancient Russia did not have its own rank of “imposing” a patriarch. Prior to Patriarch Nikon, the newly appointed patriarchs in our country performed the rank of episcopal consecration for the second time. But after Patriarch Nikon, the rank of appointing a patriarch was reduced to very few rites, and the importance of the Muscovite tsar was too strongly emphasized, from whose hands the patriarch also received the baton of Peter the Metropolitan. The commission, therefore, developed a special rank, combining in it the ancient (XIV century) Alexandrian rank of the appointment of the patriarch, the modern Constantinople practice and some Old Russian details. November 21 was appointed as the day of the solemn "deposition" of the patriarch. On November 19, the betrothed patriarch, who was in the Trinity Lavra, served a liturgy in the church of the Moscow Theological Academy, after which the corporation of professors brought him their greetings and presented the diploma prepared by that time for the title of Honorary Member of the Academy.
The day came November 21st. The winter day was still gray at dawn when the members of the Council began to flock to the Kremlin. Alas! Moscow could not come to its own Kremlin even for a great historical celebration. Even on this exceptional day, the new owners of the Kremlin let very few people in there, and even these few lucky ones had to endure a whole series of ordeals before they got to the Kremlin. All these restrictions and difficulties in accessing the Kremlin made no sense: they were not a hostile action of the new "government" in relation to the Church. It was just that stupid nonsense in the realm of which the test now fell to us to live. It was hard to walk through the empty Kremlin and see all his wounds unhealed. Three weeks have passed since the bombing of the Kremlin, but the Kremlin is still a mess. It is painful to see traces of artillery shells on such historical sacred buildings as the Chudov Monastery, the Temple of the Twelve Apostles, and it is absolutely terrible to see a gaping large hole in the middle dome of the Assumption Cathedral. Nothing is fixed; fragments of bricks and rubble everywhere. The Petersburg period of Russian history ends with such a national disgrace. This period began with the devastation of the Moscow Kremlin. Indeed, over the past 200 years, the Moscow Kremlin has so often resembled an archaeological museum, where only monuments of the former and now extinct life are kept. But now, together with the patriarch, the spirit of the people's and church life must again enter the empty, broken and defiled Kremlin. The picture of the destruction of the Kremlin was hidden and forgotten, as soon as they entered the marvelous and sacred Assumption Cathedral. Here, as if alive, ancient icons and ancient wall paintings look. Representatives of the spirit of ancient Russia rest here, and incorruptible coffins also rest.
Russian hierarchs in robes and clergymen in vestments gather at the World Trade Chamber. There - semi-darkness under the arches of the ancient patriarchal chamber. Bishops sing a prayer service, which always happens when they are named bishops. In the forefront of all the bishops, Metropolitan Tikhon follows to the Dormition Cathedral. The Divine Liturgy begins in the usual manner. After the Trisagion, the one delivered to the patriarchs is sent to a high place. A prayer is read. Remove regular episcopal vestments from supplied. From the patriarchal sacristy, two hundred years of patriarchal clothes that had not been used were brought. The one delivered to the patriarch is immediately transformed. We saw these clothes, this miter of Patriarch Nikon only when we examined the patriarchal sacristy. Now we see all this on a living person. Three times they seat the new patriarch on the ancient patriarchal mountain place and proclaim: Axios. The protodeacon has long lived the Eastern Patriarchs and after them "Our Most Holy Father Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia." Our Russian Patriarch has been included in the assembly of the Ecumenical Patriarchs. The Divine Liturgy is over. The patriarch is put on a cassock of the 17th century, an ancient patriarchal mantle and the hood of Patriarch Nikon. The Metropolitan of Kyiv hands him the staff of Metropolitan Peter on the salt. Led by two metropolitans, His Holiness the Patriarch goes to the patriarchal seat at the front right pillar of the Assumption Cathedral, which has stood empty for two hundred years.
Published according to the edition: Archimandrite Hilarion. Restoration of the patriarchate and election of the All-Russian Patriarch. - Theological Bulletin. 1917.X-XII.
Report on the election and appointment of Metropolitan Tikhon as His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.
The future All-Russian Patriarch, in the world Vasily Ivanovich Bellavin, was born on January 19, 1865 in Toropets in the family of a priest. He graduated from the Pskov Seminary and in 1888 the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Upon graduation, he was assigned as a teacher of basic, dogmatic and moral theology at the Pskov Theological Seminary. In December 1891 he took monastic vows, and on December 22 he was ordained a hieromonk. In March 1892 he was appointed inspector of the Kholm Theological Seminary, and in July of the same year he was appointed first rector of the Kazan and then the Kholm Theological Seminary. On October 19, 1897, he was consecrated bishop of Lublin, vicar of the Kholm-Warsaw diocese. On September 14, 1898, he was appointed Bishop of the Aleutian to North America. During his 19 years in America, St. Tikhon worked hard to strengthen and nurture Orthodoxy on this continent. On January 25, 1907, he was appointed archbishop of Yaroslavl and Rostov, and on December 22, 1913, archbishop of Lithuania and Vilna. Two days before the Local Council on August 13, 1917, Saint Tikhon was elected Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. During the Local Council of St. Tikhon chaired its meetings.
On the day of the Entry into the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos on November 21, 1917, according to the election of the Local Council and the drawing of lots in front of the Vladimir Icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow was solemnly elevated to the All-Russian Patriarchal Throne. And the crown of the patriarch becomes for St. Tikhon a real “crown of a martyr and confessor”, courageously and wisely defending the faith of Christ and the interests of the Church. On May 25, 1920, Patriarch Tikhon leads the episcopal consecration of Archimandrite Hilarion, and the newly appointed bishop becomes the closest associate and assistant of the Patriarch in his service to the Church.
Saint Tikhon reposed on the night of Tuesday to Wednesday, 1925, on the day of the feast of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos. The holy relics were found in February 1992. He was glorified as a saint by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on October 9, 1989. Commemorated on March 25/April 7 and September 26/October 9.
The first big and important issue for church life, which is resolved by the Church Council, is the question of the patriarchate. Soon after the opening of the Council, the activities of the cathedral members were concentrated in numerous departments, each of which had its own more or less close circle of affairs and interests. However, it can be said with certainty that in the conciliar atmosphere the question of the patriarchate was constantly raised. Back in September, the Council's department on higher church administration, while discussing the question of catholicity of church administration, involuntarily switched to the question of the patriarchate. The impetus for this was that the Pre-Council Council, which worked in Petrograd during the summer, issued a negative resolution on the patriarchate, finding it incompatible with the idea of church catholicity. A whole series of meetings of the department on higher management took up the debate on the patriarchate and catholicity in their relationship. But in parallel, there were a number of private meetings devoted entirely to the question of the patriarchate. In these private collections of conciliar members, reports were read almost exclusively against the patriarchate. Only Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov delivered a report in defense of the patriarchate. But after the reports, discussions usually opened, which often dragged on past midnight and occupied several meetings. Sometimes the debate was quite passionate. Nothing was talked about so much in the dormitory of the cathedral members as about the patriarchate. Finally, the Department of Higher Church Administration issued a resolution on the restoration of the patriarchate and proposed this resolution for consideration by the general assembly. On September 12, the Council began discussing the issue of restoring the patriarchate. Immediately, up to a hundred people signed up to speak on this issue, but it was already felt that in the general conciliar consciousness and mood this issue was resolved positively. That is why the Council did not listen to even half of the planned speeches, on October 28 it stopped the debate and decided by a huge majority of votes to restore the patriarchate destroyed by Peter I in the Russian Church. Meanwhile, events were brewing that testified to a serious illness of the Russian state body. October 28 in Moscow was the first day of bloody internecine strife. Shooting rumbled through the streets of Moscow, gun shots rumbled. The historical Kremlin, along with its shrines, was exposed to an unprecedented danger of destruction. Not without the influence of these terrible events, the Council decided to immediately implement its decision regarding the patriarchate, and therefore immediately proceeded to elect the All-Russian Patriarch. It was decided to elect three candidates, and the final election to be made by lot. The walls of the cathedral chamber were trembling from nearby cannon shots, and in the cathedral chamber there was an election of candidates for the All-Russian Patriarchs. Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow, Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov and Archbishop Arseny of Novgorod were elected as candidates. On November 5, as soon as the internecine strife on the streets of Moscow ended, a solemn liturgy and deliberate prayer singing were served in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. At this time, lots with the names of three candidates lay in a special sealed ark in front of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God. After the prayer service, a member of the Council, the reclusive elder of Zosima Hermitage, Hieromonk Alexy, drew lots, and the lot indicated that Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow and All Russia should be Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. A specially selected embassy from the members of the Council immediately went to the Metropolitan Trinity Compound with the good news of the election. After this gospel, the betrothed patriarch left for the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, where he remained until the day of his solemn enthronement to the patriarchal throne. A special commission was elected at the Council to develop the rite of "deposition" of the All-Russian Patriarch. Before this commission, first of all, the fact became clear that ancient Russia did not have its own rank of “imposing” a patriarch. Prior to Patriarch Nikon, the newly appointed patriarchs in our country performed the rank of episcopal consecration for the second time. But after Patriarch Nikon, the rank of appointing a patriarch was reduced to very few rites, and the importance of the Muscovite tsar was too strongly emphasized, from whose hands the patriarch also received the baton of Peter the Metropolitan. The commission, therefore, developed a special rank, combining in it the ancient (XIV century) Alexandrian rank of the appointment of the patriarch, the modern Constantinople practice and some Old Russian details. November 21 was appointed as the day of the solemn "deposition" of the patriarch. On November 19, the betrothed patriarch, who was in the Trinity Lavra, served a liturgy in the church of the Moscow Theological Academy, after which the corporation of professors brought him their greetings and presented the diploma prepared by that time for the title of Honorary Member of the Academy.
The day came November 21st. The winter day was still gray at dawn when the members of the Council began to flock to the Kremlin. Alas! Moscow could not come to its own Kremlin even for a great historical celebration. Even on this exceptional day, the new owners of the Kremlin let very few people in there, and even these few lucky ones had to endure a whole series of ordeals before they got to the Kremlin. All these restrictions and difficulties in accessing the Kremlin made no sense: they were not a hostile action of the new "government" in relation to the Church. It was just that stupid nonsense in the realm of which the test now fell to us to live. It was hard to walk through the empty Kremlin and see all his wounds unhealed. Three weeks have passed since the bombing of the Kremlin, but the Kremlin is still a mess. It is painful to see traces of artillery shells on such historical sacred buildings as the Chudov Monastery, the Temple of the Twelve Apostles, and it is absolutely terrible to see a gaping large hole in the middle dome of the Assumption Cathedral. Nothing is fixed; fragments of bricks and rubble everywhere. The Petersburg period of Russian history ends with such a national disgrace. This period began with the devastation of the Moscow Kremlin. Indeed, over the past 200 years, the Moscow Kremlin has so often resembled an archaeological museum, where only monuments of the former and now extinct life are kept. But now, together with the patriarch, the spirit of the people's and church life must again enter the empty, broken and defiled Kremlin. The picture of the destruction of the Kremlin was hidden and forgotten, as soon as they entered the marvelous and sacred Assumption Cathedral. Here, as if alive, ancient icons and ancient wall paintings look. Representatives of the spirit of ancient Russia rest here, and incorruptible coffins also rest.
Russian hierarchs in robes and clergymen in vestments gather at the World Trade Chamber. There is semi-darkness under the vaults of the ancient patriarchal chamber. Bishops sing a prayer service, which always happens when they are named bishops. In the forefront of all the bishops, Metropolitan Tikhon follows to the Dormition Cathedral. The Divine Liturgy begins in the usual manner. After the Trisagion, the one delivered to the patriarchs is sent to a high place. A prayer is read. Remove regular episcopal vestments from supplied. From the patriarchal sacristy, two hundred years of patriarchal clothes that had not been used were brought. The one delivered to the patriarch is immediately transformed. We saw these clothes, this miter of Patriarch Nikon only when we examined the patriarchal sacristy. Now we see all this on a living person. Three times they seat the new patriarch on the ancient patriarchal mountain place and proclaim: Axios! The protodeacon has been serving the Eastern Patriarchs for many years, and after them “Our Most Holy Father Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.” Our Russian Patriarch was inducted into the assembly of the Ecumenical Patriarchs. The Divine Liturgy ended. The patriarch is put on a cassock of the 17th century, an ancient patriarchal mantle and the hood of Patriarch Nikon. The Metropolitan of Kyiv hands him the staff of Metropolitan Peter on the salt. Led by two metropolitans, His Holiness the Patriarch goes to the patriarchal seat at the front right pillar of the Assumption Cathedral, which has stood empty for two hundred years.
Published according to the edition: Archimandrite Hilarion. Restoration of the patriarchate and election of the All-Russian Patriarch. - Theological Bulletin. 1917.X-XII.
Report on the election and appointment of Metropolitan Tikhon as His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.
The future All-Russian Patriarch, in the world Vasily Ivanovich Bellavin, was born on January 19, 1865 in Toropets in the family of a priest. He graduated from the Pskov Seminary and in 1888 the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Upon graduation, he was assigned as a teacher of basic, dogmatic and moral theology at the Pskov Theological Seminary. In December 1891 he took monastic vows, and on December 22 he was ordained a hieromonk. In March 1892 he was appointed inspector of the Kholm Theological Seminary, and in July of the same year he was appointed first rector of the Kazan and then the Kholm Theological Seminary. On October 19, 1897, he was consecrated bishop of Lublin, vicar of the Kholm-Warsaw diocese. On September 14, 1898, he was appointed Bishop of the Aleutian to North America. During the 19 years of his stay in America, St. Tikhon worked hard to strengthen and nurture Orthodoxy on this continent. On January 25, 1907, he was appointed archbishop of Yaroslavl and Rostov, and on December 22, 1913, archbishop of Lithuania and Vilna. Two days before the Local Council on August 13, 1917, Saint Tikhon was elected Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. During the Local Council of St. Tikhon chaired its meetings.
On the day of the Entry into the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos on November 21, 1917, according to the election of the Local Council and the drawing of lots in front of the Vladimir Icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow was solemnly elevated to the All-Russian Patriarchal Throne. And the crown of the patriarch becomes for St. Tikhon a real “crown of a martyr and confessor”, courageously and wisely defending the faith of Christ and the interests of the Church. On May 25, 1920, Patriarch Tikhon leads the episcopal consecration of Archimandrite Hilarion, and the newly appointed bishop becomes the closest associate and assistant of the Patriarch in his service to the Church.
Saint Tikhon reposed on the night of Tuesday to Wednesday, 1925, on the day of the feast of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos. The holy relics were found in February 1992. He was glorified as a saint by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on October 9, 1989. Commemorated March 25/April 7 and September 26/ October 9th.
This year marks a round date - 100 years since the revival of the patriarchate in Russia.
Strong Patriarchs
In order to understand under the influence of what historical factors the revival of the patriarchate became possible, one should recall the circumstances and reasons under which its abolition became possible.
This process began with the fact that the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia from 1619 to 1633, the first of the Romanov family, who bore this surname, the cousin of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich (son of Ivan IV the Terrible), the father of the first tsar of the Romanov family - Mikhail Fedorovich, anointed on the rule of Russia in 1613, Filaret (in the world Fyodor Nikitich Romanov), with his mind, strong will and diplomatic abilities, raised the patriarchal power to such a high level that he even took it into his head to lay claim to state power. Filaret had every reason to do so: the son of the influential boyar Nikita Zakharyin-Yuriev, the nephew of Tsarina Anastasia, the first wife of Ivan IV the Terrible, he was politically astute, smart and cunning. He was a highly competitive rival to Boris Godunov for the throne after the death of Fyodor Ioannovich in 1598. In the 1590s, the boyar Fyodor Nikitich Romanov held a number of state and military posts: he served as governor in Pskov, was a member of the delegation at the negotiations with the ambassador of Emperor Rudolph II, and served as governor in various regiments. Forced monastic vows on the orders of Godunov under the name of Filaret closed Romanov's direct path to the throne, but he did everything so that his son, who was born before the tonsure, took this place. As the parent of the sovereign, Filaret was officially considered his co-ruler, in fact, playing the leading role in this kindred tandem until the end of his life. Patriarch Filaret approved the title of "Great Sovereign" for himself, adding a hitherto (and later) combination of the monastic name Filaret with the patronymic Nikitich, which has never been seen before. Even the management of the patriarchal court, Filaret arranged according to the model of the sovereign. He also formed a new group of nobility, called "patriarchal nobles", and attracted boyar children. All of them served the “patriarch-sovereign” and received local salaries for their service.
On May 20, 1625, Filaret, as a king, issued a decree, according to which the Patriarch received the right to judge the spiritual and peasant population of the patriarchal region in all cases, except for tatba (theft) and robbery (“Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission.” - St. Petersburg, 1841). Thus, under Filaret, the patriarchal sphere finally took shape as a state within a state.
After Joasaph I and Joseph, in his turn, the burden of the patriarchate was taken on by another outstanding person of a national scale - Patriarch Nikon, who, in the struggle for power, entered into a confrontation with the sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich. Nikon tried to return, preserve and strengthen the same status and influence in the state that Patriarch Filaret had. Unlike his predecessor, a boyar of a noble family, who gave Russia a galaxy of sovereigns, Nikon (in the world - Nikita Minin) came from a poor peasant family, and his path to the patriarchal throne turned out to be a canvas of hardships and trials. He was self-taught, read a lot, learned Greek, and knew many liturgical texts by heart. At the age of 30, he convinced his wife (the couple had no children) to become monks and tonsured himself. Since then he has become a model monastic life, the fame of him, as a source of piety, spread throughout Russia. From the very first meeting, Nikon managed to win over the sovereign in such a way that he called him "to Moscow" and appointed him archimandrite Novospassky Monastery, and after the death of His Holiness Joseph, who died on April 25, 1652, as patriarch. Sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich even returned to Patriarch Nikon the title of “Great Sovereign”, who was called Patriarch Filaret, expanding it: “Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, by the grace of God, great lord and sovereign, archbishop of the reigning city of Moscow and all great and small and white Russia and all northern countries and Pomorie and many states Patriarch". And there was a reason: the zealot of piety Nikon acted as a worthy and wise adviser to the sovereign both in church and state affairs. He possessed truly royal power: great deeds were accomplished at his word. Within the radius of the main goal-setting activities of Patriarch Nikon was the construction of monasteries. In 1653, the first wooden buildings of the Iversky Monastery were erected on the island of Valdai Lake, in 1655 the stone Assumption Cathedral was laid, in 1656 Nikon obtained permission from the Tsar to found a monastery, now known as the Onega Cross Monastery on Kiy Island. In the same year, 1656, the New Jerusalem Monastery, the residence of Russian patriarchs near Moscow, was founded by the zeal of Patriarch Nikon. According to Nikon's plan, the center of the Orthodox world was supposed to be here in the future. He "owned" all these monasteries, that is, he formed his own "state within a state." However, soon the sovereign and the Patriarch quarreled. “Power… even against their will makes many offenders, excites anger in many, removes the bridle from the tongue and opens the doors of the mouth, as if blowing the soul with the wind and, like a boat, plunging it into the very depths of evil,” wrote St. John Chrysostom (51, 434). Either the Patriarch really encroached too much on the power of the tsar, or the slander of many enemies, dissatisfied with the close rapprochement of two powerful figures, had their effect, but Nikon was cast out not only from the patriarchate, but also from the priesthood. He became a simple monk, with which he began his life path ...
The conclusion is simple: as soon as the Church in the person of a "strong Patriarch" began to claim the leading role in the government of the state, violating the balance between the Church and the state in their influence on historical processes, the reigning persons put up powerful resistance.
strong king
The Russian rulers never thought of completely ceding power to the Church, encroaching on their power was a mistake, both strategic and taxonomic. In the course of Russian history, various models of relations between the Orthodox Church and the state developed. As a result, the so-called symphony became optimal for Russia. The Orthodox principle of the symphony of authorities was first formulated in the Code of Justinian I the Great in 534, and its Russian spokesman was the Monk Joseph Volotsky, an ardent supporter of the idea of public service to the Church.
Any process is like a pendulum: “having swung to the left, it will swing to the right,” as the poet Joseph Brodsky said. And in Russian history, a sovereign appeared who decided, if not to completely destroy the power of the Church, then practically reduce it to nothing. Peter I abolished the patriarchate and liquidated the intolerant under such an authoritarian sovereign autonomous system church authority, declaring himself the de facto head of the Church instead of the Patriarch. He created the Synod - more of a police institution than a church institution, turned the Church into a bureaucratic office, protecting the interests of the autocracy, serving it. For two hundred years, this state of affairs has catastrophically damaged the Church from the inside and undermined its authority and significance from the outside. “The falsity of the position of the Church was also in the fact that formally it was state, and therefore opponents could easily lay on it a share of responsibility for the repressive policy of the autocracy and all the social injustices perpetrated by the state apparatus,” Mikhail Shkarovsky rightly believes (“The Russian Orthodox Church in twentieth century").
Synodal government. Without a king
By the end of the nineteenth - early. In the 20th century, the Russian Orthodox Church was in a state of deep crisis. Of course, the holy ascetics have never been translated among us, but the moral state of the clergy as a whole, corrupted by the synodal system of denunciations and punishments, left much to be desired. The church lost the respect and trust of the people: the desecration of temples, the desecration of shrines, pogroms and even the murder of priests began. And they did not kill bribe takers, libertines and other apostates, but accusers of sin. “Everywhere there are robberies, arsons, murders of faithful servants of the Church and the Tsar! Killing a person now costs nothing! - lamented the Rev. John of Kronstadt. - What grief is everywhere now, what diseases, crop failures, and what is all this for? For our iniquities, which have no number; It’s time to come to your senses and stop creating them!” In 1905, in Yalta, Father Vladimir Troepolsky was stabbed to death in his house, in front of his wife and three young children, for fearless denunciations of the revolutionary moods that swirled stinkingly in the city. His last words to the assassins were:
- God will forgive!
On November 30, 1906, in the village of Gorodishchi, Tsaritsyno Region, the priest's family was martyred in their house: father Konstantin Khitrov, mother, five-year-old son Sergei and baby Nikolai. They were found with fractured skulls...
In 1910, the Exarch of Georgia, Archbishop Nikon, was assassinated in Tiflis.
In Optina Hermitage, a student of one of the theological academies, during the morning service, ran into the altar completely naked, jumped on the throne, threw off the sacred books and stood up to his full height in front of the worshipers, spreading his arms and legs like in a popular drawing by Leonardo da Vinci. When they tried to seize him, he offered fierce resistance, hit one of the monks with a heavy cross on the temple - he almost killed him. And earlier, on March 5, 1898, the brethren of the Kursk Znamensky Monastery were awakened at two in the morning by a terrible explosion. The cathedral was destroyed, but the miraculous icon of the Sign of the Mother of God remained intact and unharmed. In 1904, a new unheard-of blasphemy was committed: a great shrine of the Russian land was stolen from the Annunciation Cathedral in Kazan - miraculous icon Kazan Mother of God. “This event echoed in the Russian heart with pain, longing, a heavy foreboding of impending troubles,” Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) of Vologda and Totemsky mourned the incident.
Russia was kept on the edge of the abyss by the prayers of the Optina, Zosimov and Diveevo elders, by the prayers of the righteous, who burned brightly with lamps to the Lord, quietly and faithfully doing their charitable work. Alas, worthy ordinary clergy both in the parishes of the capital and in the provinces by that time were the exception rather than the rule. “If the light in the shepherd is darkened, then it is necessarily darkened in the flock: due to his close, spiritual connection with her; chapters with members. You stand firmly in spiritual virtues - and they are firm; you stand in prayer and pray fervently for them - and they feel it; If you strengthen spiritually, they also become strengthened; if you weaken, they also weaken,” taught St. John of Kronstadt in 1901. “On the eve of the revolution, the so-called. the searching intelligentsia traveled to the monasteries and turned to the clergy. And the clergy very well cited St. Fathers, but had no idea about the latest trends in modern life, and most importantly - a spiritual understanding of the processes in Russian society of that time, - writes Nikolai Kaverin in the article "Post-Missionary Decadence". - And the intelligentsia, disappointed by these lifeless answers, began to turn to fashionable energetic and avant-garde teachings: Marxism, spiritualism, freemasonry, decadentism - teachings that were filled with the vital energy of revolutionaries, spiritualists, masons, etc., because their bearers lived by what they preached . They were ready to sacrifice their lives for the sake of their ideals (often false ones). And the intelligentsia, not finding life in sermons that lost their salt and unsatisfactory answers to their questions in the church, rushed to where an active “life”, albeit an illusory one, was in full swing. The emissaries of the Pope also “worked hard” for the collapse of Russia - even the only son of St. Seraphim of Vyritsky converted to Catholicism. And among the peasants, sects similar in their destructive effect were rapidly spreading: Baptism and Stunda. Lev Tikhomirov considered Baptism to be a “preparatory class for destruction,” as well as nihilism, which “cannot organize anything firmly, but decomposes millions of people over the course of tens of years, tearing them away from their native faith, nationality, state and preparing huge masses of renegades for any destructive deed and movement." History has repeatedly confirmed the words of Tikhomirov. Especially terrible, in his opinion, is the turn to Baptism for apostates from Orthodox faith: “If someone left Orthodoxy, then, of course, he will not be satisfied with Baptism. Who can count the hundreds of thousands or millions who, having fallen away from the faith and the Church, and then with all the greater disdain, rejecting Baptism, were left with nothing, without faith, without spiritual content, passing into the category of deniers and destroyers of social and political? From this point of view, one has to consider Baptism not as a variety of Christian teaching, but as an instrument of anti-Christian and anti-social corruption of the people.
Under these conditions, many began to realize the need for long overdue reforms in the Church. And not only ordinary priests, but also bishops, and even members of the Synod. Contrary to the opinion of the Chief Prosecutor, in March 1905, according to polls, almost everyone spoke in favor of carrying out reforms, for which it was necessary to urgently convene the Local Council. On January 14, 1906, Emperor Nicholas II allowed the Pre-Council Presence to be convened for a preliminary discussion of topics scheduled for conciliar consideration. In addition to a number of hierarchs, leading professors of theological academies and universities took part in the Pre-Council Presence: professors of theology Samarin, Nikolai Glubokovsky, Alexander Brilliantov, historians academician Evgeny Golubinsky and Vasily Klyuchevsky, philosopher Professor Viktor Nesmelov, reports the open Orthodox encyclopedia "Tree". A lot of work has been done, topics have been prepared for development by the future Council. The local council, according to the new rules, was endowed with the highest power: legislative, governing, judicial, revision. It was proposed to elect the members of the Synod headed by the First Hierarch (previously they were appointed by the sovereign). But who will become this first hierarch: the tsar, the Patriarch, the head of the Synod? Many spoke in favor of restoring the patriarchate. Opponents of the restoration gave their arguments: Samarin argued that the sovereign would not agree with the alleged “diminution of his power”, although no derogation towards the tsar was expected, and Golubinsky believed that the patriarchate would oppress the conciliar principle in the Church (and this could not be) . As a result, the Patriarch was assigned the role of the English queen - he was removed from the true leadership, leaving it in his care to monitor the implementation of the decisions of the Synod and the course of affairs in synodal institutions and relations with other local churches and with state bodies. The only concession: the patriarch was allowed to directly intercede for church needs before the emperor.
However, most likely, fearing even greater vacillation and split in the society, which was already storming from the revolutionary consequences, the emperor was sure that the Council would “spur on turmoil”, lead to antagonism between the spiritual and secular authorities. On April 25, 1907, Nicholas II decided: "The Council should not be convened yet."
The emperor did not have confidence in the truth good intentions clergy. And he, as subsequent events showed, was right. Here is an excerpt from a letter from Hieromartyr Seraphim (Chichagov) dated November 14, 1910: “Before our eyes every day is a picture of the decay of our clergy. There is no hope for it to come to its senses, to understand its position! All the same drunkenness, debauchery, litigation, extortion, secular hobbies! The last believers shudder from the corruption or insensitivity of the clergy, a little more - and sectarianism will take over ... There is no one who could finally understand on what edge of destruction the Church is, and be aware of what is happening ... the state organism, a fracture of the disease can no longer happen and the clergy is rolling into the abyss, without resistance and strength to counteract. Another year - and there will not even be ordinary people around us, everything will rise up, everything will give up such insane and disgusting leaders ... What can happen to the state? It will die with us! Now it makes no difference which Synod, which Procurators, which Seminaries and Academies; everything is engulfed in agony and our death is approaching. And here is what St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) wrote: “It is hard to see to whom the sheep of Christ have been entrusted into the hands, to whom their guidance and salvation has been granted. But this is God's allowance... God's merciful long-suffering prolongs and delays the decisive denouement for a small remnant of those who are being saved, while those who are rotting or rotten reach the fullness of corruption. Those who are saved must understand this and use the time given for salvation ... May the Merciful Lord cover the remnant of those who believe in Him! But this remnant is meager: it is getting poorer and poorer… “Save and save your soul,” the Spirit of God said to the remnant of Christians.”
The February revolution and the Bolshevik coup gave that part of the clergy who yearned for reforms a false, ruinous hope "to solve everything without a tsar." On February 26, 1917, the members of the Synod refused to appeal to the people to support the monarchy. Moreover, on March 6, the Synod published a message in which it demanded support for the Provisional Government. And on March 2, 1917, Emperor Nicholas II abdicated.
Council and election of the Patriarch
However, without the king it was even worse. It was necessary to save the situation: to elect a Patriarch so that the Church could rely on the second of the key figures who have always constituted a powerful symphony in Russia. Following the results of three pre-council meetings - in 1906, 1912–1917 and 1917 - on August 15 (28), 1917, the All-Russian Local Council began its work in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin - the first since the end of the 17th century. Upon completion of the Liturgy, Metropolitan of Kyiv (future hieromartyr) Vladimir read out the letter Holy Synod about the opening of the Cathedral. The members of the Council prayed, venerated the relics of Saints Peter, Jonah, Philip and Hermogenes, and moved to the Chudov Monastery to venerate the incorruptible relics of Saint Alexis. Then they went to Red Square with Kremlin shrines, where Orthodox residents of Moscow have already flocked in processions. The next day after the liturgy in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior celebrated by Metropolitan Saint Tikhon of Moscow, the first meeting opened.
The Council consisted of 564 members: 227 - from the hierarchy and clergy, 299 - from the laity, the head of the Provisional Government Alexander Kerensky, Interior Minister Nikolai Avksentiev, representatives of the press and the diplomatic corps were present. The Council deprived the mandate of the deposed deputy A.V. Popovich, chosen from the laity of the Turkestan diocese as an illegal chosen one, and addressed the altar servers, warning them against betrayal and cowardice.
The councilors sat until September 7 (20), 1918. During this time, fatal events for Russia took place: the war with Germany; the rebellion of General Lavr Kornilov - an unsuccessful attempt to establish a military dictatorship; the proclamation of the Republic in Russia on September 1, 1917; the fall of the Provisional Government and the so-called October Revolution; the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the publication of the Decree on the separation of the Church from the state and the beginning civil war. The most important decision (of October 28, 1917) of the Council was the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church, which put an end to the synodal period in the history of our Church. The patriarchate, placed at the center of the highest church authority. Some councilors hoped that the restoration of the patriarchate would ensure victory not only in the spiritual sphere, but also in the state as a whole. Well, historically, that is exactly what happened.
On October 11, 1917, the chairman of the Department of Higher Church Administration, Bishop of Astrakhan (also a future hieromartyr) Mitrofan, delivered a report on the restoration of the patriarchate. The 32 members of the Department of Higher Church Administration remained of a different opinion: they decided that this issue was premature, although what a premature thing to talk about! There was shooting outside the windows, there was a real bloody battle, some temples of the Kremlin were damaged and even destroyed. Russian philosopher, jurist, publicist, public figure Yevgeny Trubetskoy predicted that the Patriarch would become the protector and guardian of the Church; prayer book, intercessor, intercessor and father Orthodox people. Then it was already possible to foresee one more hypostasis - a holy martyr for the Orthodox faith and his people. Archimandrite (also a future Hieromartyr) Hilarion (Troitsky) said: “Moscow is called the heart of Russia. But where is it beating in Moscow Russian heart? On the exchange? In the malls? On the Kuznetsky bridge? It beats, of course, in the Kremlin... in the Assumption Cathedral... The blasphemous hand of the wicked Peter brought the Russian primate from his age-old place in the Assumption Cathedral. The Local Council of the Russian Church from God, by the power given to him, will again place the Moscow Patriarch in his rightful, inalienable place. And when, to the sound of Moscow bells, His Holiness the Patriarch goes to his historical sacred place in the Assumption Cathedral, then there will be great joy on earth and in heaven!
On October 28, Archpriest Pavel Lakhostsky proposed to start voting. On this day, two days after the Bolshevik coup, the Council passed a historic decision on the restoration of the patriarchate in the form of a special decision.
And a special commission headed by the Archbishop of Chisinau
Anastasius developed the order of enthronement. Old Russian ranks were no longer suitable. Professor Ivan Sokolov, based on the works of St. Simeon of Thessalonica, restored the ancient rite of the appointment of the Patriarch of Constantinople - it was he who became the basis of the new rite. On November 17, the Council supplemented and approved this rite (“Review of the Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church in 1917/18” // Compiled by A.G. Kravetsky and Günther Schultz).
October 30 held the first vote. Archbishop of Kharkov Anthony (Khrapovitsky) received 101 votes, Archbishop of Tambov Kirill (Smirnov) - 27, Metropolitan of Moscow Tikhon (Bellavin) - 22, Archbishop of Novgorod Arseniy (Stadnitsky) - 14, Metropolitan of Kyiv Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky), Archbishop of Chisinau Anastasy (Gribanovsky) and Protopresbyter Georgy Shavelsky - 13 votes each, Archbishop Sergiy (Stragorodsky) of Vladimir - 5, Archbishop Jacob (Pyatnitsky) of Kazan, Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) and former Chief Procurator of the Synod Alexander Samarin - 3 votes each. After four rounds of voting, the Council elected Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov, Archbishop Arseny of Novgorod and Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow as candidates for the primatial throne: "the smartest, most strict and kindest of the hierarchs of the Russian Church." Archbishop Arseniy "was horrified at the possibility of becoming a Patriarch" in such a terrible time for Russia, and St. Tikhon did not aspire to the patriarchate, although he was ready to accept this cross from the Lord.
The election took place on November 5 at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. At the end of the Divine Liturgy, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv carried the reliquary with lots to the pulpit, blessed the people with it, and removed the seals. From the altar came the blind elder monk of Zosima Hermitage Alexy. After praying, he took out lots from the ark and handed it over to Metropolitan Vladimir, who read aloud: “Tikhon, Metropolitan of Moscow is an axios…”
“Your message about my election to the Patriarchs is for me the scroll on which was written “Weeping, and groaning, and grief,” and what kind of scroll the prophet Ezekiel had to eat, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon responded to this. “How many times I will have to swallow tears and let out groans about the upcoming patriarchal service for me, and especially in this difficult time…”
The enthronement took place on November 21 at the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin. For the celebration, the regalia of the Moscow primates were taken from the Armory: the rod of St. Peter, the cassock of the Hieromartyr Hermogenes, the mantle, miter and klobuk of Patriarch Nikon. From that day on, in all churches of the Russian Church, they began to commemorate the Patriarch instead of the Holy Synod.
What prayers should be read in the morning and evening
Hegumen Dionysius (Shlenov)
Temple of the Life-Giving Trinity on the Sparrow Hills of the Revelation of John the Theologian read adapted
The miracle of the prayer “Our Lady of the Virgin, rejoice The prayer of the mother of God is read 150 times
Can a husband and wife be godparents to a child Can a husband and wife become godparents