Of the year. The decree served as the basis for the beginning of the oppression of believers, which then turned into open persecution.
1. The church is separated from the state.
2. Within the Republic, it is prohibited to make any local laws or regulations that would restrict or restrict the freedom of conscience, or establish any advantages or privileges on the basis of the religious affiliation of citizens.
3. Every citizen may profess any religion or none. Any right deprivation associated with the confession of any faith or non-profession of any faith is canceled.
Note. From all official acts, any indication of religious affiliation and non-affiliation of citizens is eliminated.
4. The actions of the state and other public-legal public institutions are not accompanied by any religious Rites or ceremonies.
5. The free performance of religious rites is ensured insofar as they do not violate public order and are not accompanied by encroachments on the rights of citizens of the Soviet Republic.
Local authorities have the right to take all necessary measures to ensure public order and security in these cases.
6. No one may, referring to their religious views, evade the performance of their civic duties.
Exemptions from this provision, subject to the replacement of one civic duty by another, are allowed in each individual case by decision of the people's court.
7. Religious oath or oath is cancelled.
AT necessary cases only a solemn promise is given.
8. Civil status acts are conducted exclusively by the civil authorities, marriage and birth registration departments.
9. The school is separated from the church.
The teaching of religious beliefs in all state and public, as well as private educational institutions where general education subjects are taught, is not allowed.
Citizens can teach and learn religion privately.
10. All ecclesiastical and religious societies are subject to the general provisions on private societies and associations, and do not enjoy any advantages and subsidies either from the state or from its local “autonomous and self-governing institutions.
11. Coercive collection of dues and taxes in favor of church and religious societies, as well as measures of coercion or punishment by these societies over their members, are not allowed.
12. No ecclesiastical and religious societies have the right to own property. They do not have legal personality.
13. All property existing in Russia, church and religious societies are reduced to public property. Buildings and objects intended specifically for liturgical purposes are given, by special decrees of local or central state authorities, for the free use of the respective religious societies.
Signed:
Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars
Ulyanov (Lenin)
People's Commissars:
Podvoisky,
Trutovsky,
Menzhinsky,
Shlyapnikov,
Petrovsky.
Managing Director of the Council of People's Commissars
Vl. Bonch-Bruevich.
After the publication on December 31 of a draft decree on the separation of the Church from the state, Metropolitan Veniamin (Kazansky) of Petrograd on January 10 of the following year addressed a letter to the Council of People's Commissars, which stated:
"The implementation of this project threatens the Orthodox Russian people with great grief and suffering ... I consider it my moral duty to tell the people who are currently in power to warn them not to carry out the proposed draft decree on the seizure of church property" .
There was no official answer, but V. I. Lenin, having read the Metropolitan's letter, imposed a resolution in which he called on the collegium under the Commissariat of Justice to hurry with the development of a decree on the separation of the Church from the state.
Among the bishops, the decree was supported by Vicar Leonty (Wimpfen) of Astrakhan. On September 4, 1918, while the ruling hierarch Mitrofan (Krasnopolsky) was in Moscow, at the third session of the Local Council, Bishop Leonty composed a letter "To the Orthodox Population", which said in particular:
“As a local bishop, I consider it my duty to address the Orthodox population of Astrakhan and the Astrakhan region with the following lines. One of the next few days, the decree of the people's commissars on the separation of the Church from the state is to be read in the churches. This decree is the implementation and satisfaction of the long overdue and most painful issues in the relationship between the state and the Church, requiring the complete emancipation of the religious conscience of the people and the liberation of the Church and her clergy from a false position.
This act became the cause of his conflict with the ruling bishop Mitrofan (Krasnopolsky) and was condemned by the bishops' court, headed by the patriarch
Requisites
Dating:
Source:
Collection of legalizations and orders of the government for 1917-1918. Office of the Affairs of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR M. 1942, pp. 849-858.
Published in No. 186 of the News of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets of August 30, 1918.
Article number 685.
1. Under the decree "On the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church" (Sobr. Uzak., No. 18, art. 263), the following are suitable:
a) churches: Orthodox, Old Believer, Catholic of all rites, Armenian-Gregorian, Protestant and confessions: Jewish, Mohammedan, Buddhist-Lamaite, b) all other private religious societies formed for the practice of any cult, both before and after issuance of the decree “On the Separation of Church from State and School from Church”, as well as c) all societies that limit the circle of their members exclusively to persons of one religion and, at least under the guise of charitable, educational or other goals, pursue the goals of providing direct assistance and support any kind of religious cult (in the form of maintenance of clergymen, any institutions, etc.).
2. All specified in Art. 1 societies are deprived, according to the decree "On the separation of church from state and school from church", the rights of a legal entity. Individual members of these societies are only allowed to arrange clubbing for the acquisition of property for religious purposes and for the satisfaction of other religious needs.
3. Charitable, educational and other similar societies specified in paragraph “c” of Art. 1, as well as those of them that, although they do not hide their religious goals under the guise of charity or education, etc., but spend money for religious purposes, are subject to closure, and their property is transferred by the Soviets of Workers 'and Peasants' Deputies to the appropriate Commissariats or Departments.
4. Property, which by the time of the issuance of the decree "On the separation of church from state and school from church" were under the jurisdiction of the department of the Orthodox confession and other religious institutions and societies, according to the decree, are transferred to the direct management of the local Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies on the grounds set forth in the articles below.
5. The local Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies obliges representatives of former departments or persons of the corresponding religion, in whose actual possession the temple and other liturgical property is located, to submit in three copies an inventory of property specially intended for liturgical and ritual purposes. According to this inventory, the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies accepts property from representatives of the corresponding religious cult and, together with the inventory, transfers it for free use to all those local residents of the corresponding religion who wish to take the property into use; The Council of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies keeps the second copy of the inventory with the receipt of the recipients on it, and sends the third to the People's Commissariat of Education.
6. The required number of local residents who receive liturgical property for use is determined by the local Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies, but cannot be less than 20 people.
7. In case of refusal by representatives of the former department or those persons in whose actual possession religious property is located, to submit the inventory specified in Article 5, a representative of the local Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies in the presence of a group of persons to whom religious property is transferred for use, or their trustees, with the participation of invited witnesses from among local residents, actually checks the religious property according to the inventory and transfers it to a group of people of the corresponding religion who have expressed a desire to receive religious property for use.
8. Those who have accepted property for use undertake: I) to store and protect it as a national property entrusted to them, II) to repair the said property and the costs associated with the possession of property, such as: for heating, insurance, security, payment of debts, local fees, etc., III) to use this property exclusively to satisfy religious needs, IV) to compensate for all losses during the time of its use, being responsible for the integrity and safety of the property entrusted to them jointly and severally (by mutual guarantee), V) to have an inventory list all liturgical property, into which all newly received (through donations, transfers from other churches, etc.) objects of religious worship that do not represent the private property of individual citizens, VI) to freely allow persons authorized by the Council of Workers 'and Peasants' Deputies to periodic inspection and inspection of property and vii) in case of discovery by the Workers' and Peasants' Council abuses and embezzlement of their Deputies, immediately hand over their property to the Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies at its first request. All these conditions are included in the agreement concluded by a group of the above citizens with the local Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies (Appendix No. 1).
9. Temples and prayer houses of historical, artistic and archaeological significance are transferred in compliance with the special instructions developed by the Museum Department of the People's Commissariat of Education.
10. All local residents of the respective religion have the right to sign the agreement specified in Art. 5-8, and after the transfer of property, thus acquiring the right to participate in the management of liturgical property on an equal footing with the group of persons who originally received it.
11. In the event that no one is willing to take liturgical property under the aforementioned conditions, the local Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies publishes this three times in local newspapers and hangs a corresponding announcement on the doors of prayer buildings (temples).
12. If, after a week from the time of the last (publication), no statements are received about the desire to take property on the indicated grounds, the local Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies informs the People's Commissariat of Education about this. In its message, the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies indicates the time of construction of the prayer house values in economic, historical and artistic terms, the purposes for which the building is supposed to be used, and other considerations in this regard.
13. Upon receiving a response from the People's Commissariat for Enlightenment, the Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies implements the proposals of the People's Commissariat for Education, and in the absence of such, its own assumptions on this matter.
14. The so-called sacred objects located in the above buildings not used for religious purposes may be transferred to a group of persons of the corresponding religion on the grounds specified in Art. 5-8, or to the appropriate storage facilities of the Soviet Republic.
15. The construction of new churches and prayer houses is allowed without hindrance, subject to the technical and construction rules common for the construction of structures. The estimate and building plan are approved by the Architectural Commission of the local Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies. The completion of the construction is guaranteed by the builders by depositing a certain amount, established by the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies, into the deposit of the State Treasury, which is issued for the construction of the building as needed. The transfer for use of the built temple is carried out in accordance with Art. 5-8 of this Instruction.
16. Property of ecclesiastical and religious societies, as well as of former religious departments, not specially intended for liturgical purposes, such as: houses, lands, lands, factories, candle and other factories, fisheries, farmsteads, hotels, capital and all income-producing property in general Whatever they are, not taken up to the present time under the jurisdiction of Soviet institutions, are immediately selected from the aforementioned societies and former departments.
17. The local Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies demand that representatives of the former religious departments and branches of the People's Bank, savings banks and persons in whose actual possession the property subject to nationalization is located, to report the name under pain of criminal liability within two weeks of information about all belonging to local religious organizations or former departments of property.
18. The information received is subject to factual verification by persons authorized to do so by the Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies, and a protocol is drawn up on the results of the verification, which is attached, along with an inventory, to a special file on the property of former religious departments and church or religious societies. All papers and documents related to these properties must be attached to the same case. A copy of the inventory presented to the Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies and actually verified by it, the Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies forwards to the People's Commissariats of Education and State Control.
19. The discovered cash capitals of the former confessional departments and ecclesiastical or religious societies, whatever names these capitals may be and wherever they are, must be accepted by the Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies within a two-week period. (Appendix No. 2).
Note. The local Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies, in case of need, at its own discretion may leave at the disposal of a group of persons who have concluded an agreement referred to in Art. 5-8, a certain amount for current expenses for the performance of religious and ritual actions before the end of the current year.
20. The capital of the former religious departments and ecclesiastical or religious societies held by private individuals or organizations shall be subject to reclaim from them within a two-week period. The holders of the above-mentioned capitals, who have not fulfilled the requirements for the transfer of the said capitals held by them on time, are subject to criminal and civil liability, as for their embezzlement.
21. The capital received must be handed over by the Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies to the local Treasury not later than within three days from the date of receipt, for crediting to the income of the Republic, and receipts of the contribution of these capitals must be attached to the subject file. The Council of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies shall immediately notify the People's Commissariats for Education and State Control of the amounts indicated.
22. If ecclesiastical or religious societies have capital in savings banks, or in branches of the People's Bank, then savings bank books and relevant bank documents, at the first request of the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies, must be presented by their holders; these documents, upon making a mark on them about their cancellation, are attached to the relevant case, and the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies informs the savings banks and branches of the People's Bank that are subject to the immediate transfer of these capitals to the income of the Treasury. The People's Commissariats of Education and State Control are also notified of this.
23. For any illegal use of property belonging to the Republic, or for deliberate damage to it, the persons guilty of this are subject to criminal liability.
24. All actions for the taking away of church or religious property must be completed no later than 2 months from the date of publication of this Instruction, and information about its implementation must be submitted to the People's Commissariat of Education and to the VIII Department of the People's Commissariat of Justice.
25. Any subsequent dispute about the right of individuals to the property of former religious departments or religious and church societies, nationalized by virtue of the decree "On the separation of church from state and school from church" and on the basis of these Instructions, is resolved in a general civil claim.
26. Registers of births of all faiths for all years, for some reason not yet withdrawn from spiritual consistories, spiritual administrations, city governments (Jewish registers of births) and other provincial repositories of metrics, are immediately transferred to the provincial (regional) Departments of Civil Registry .
27. Registers of births for all years from urban and rural churches of all confessions are subject to immediate withdrawal by the Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies, and one (draft) copy is transferred either to the local (city and volost) Departments of the Civil Registry Acts, or to the appropriate notaries (where notary departments keep records of acts of civil status), and the other (white, laced) is to be sent to the Provincial Department of Civil Registry. After the seizure of the books, the ministers of worship are given the right, if they wish, to make the copies they need from the parish registers.
28. In accordance with the prohibition to make any marks in passports and other official identification documents indicating that citizens belong to a particular religion, it is forbidden for anyone to mark in their passports the performance of any religious rites (baptism, confirmation , circumcision, marriage and burial, etc.), as well as divorce committed by ministers of worship or institutions of all faiths.
29. In state and other public law public spaces definitely not allowed:
a) performance of religious rites and ceremonies (prayers, memorial services, etc.);
b) placement of any religious images (icons, paintings, statues of a religious nature, etc.).
30. The local Soviet government takes all measures to eliminate the phenomena indicated in the preceding article and contrary to the decree on freedom of conscience.
Note. Elimination of religious images that have artistic or historical meaning, and their further appointment is made with the knowledge of the People's Commissariat of Education.
31. Religious processions, as well as the performance of any kind of religious rites in the streets and squares, is allowed only with the written permission of the local Soviet authorities, which the organizers must each time receive in advance and in any case no later than 2 days before the public celebration of religious ceremonies. In issuing permits, the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies is guided by paragraph 5 of the decree "On the separation of church from state and school from church."
32. The local Soviet authorities shall remove or oblige the persons concerned to remove from churches and other prayer houses constituting the national property all objects that offend the revolutionary feeling of the working masses, such as: marble or other boards, inscriptions on the walls and on liturgical objects produced in for the purpose of perpetuating the memory of any person belonging to the members of the dynasty overthrown by the people, and its henchmen.
33. In view of the separation of the school from the church, the teaching of any kind of religious beliefs may in no case be allowed in state, public and private educational institutions, with the exception of special theological ones.
34. All credits for the teaching of religion in schools should be immediately closed and teachers of religious beliefs deprived of any kind of allowance. Not a single state or other public-legal public institution has the right to issue any amounts of money to teachers of religion, either for the present or for the time that has elapsed since January 1918.
35. The buildings of religious educational institutions of all faiths, as well as parochial schools, as a national property, are transferred to the disposal of local Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies or the People's Commissariat of Education.
Note. For lease or other use, these buildings may be provided by the Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies to special educational institutions of all faiths only on common grounds for all citizens and with the knowledge of the People's Commissariat of Education.
Signed by People's Commissar of Justice D. Kursky.
Appendix 1 to Art. 685.
We, the undersigned citizens a certain area or city), having their place of residence in it, have concluded this agreement with ... ( such and such) by the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies, represented by its authorized representative ( position, name and surname) is that this __ day of ____ month. . . 191__, accepted from the ________ Council of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies for unlimited, free use of the property ( there), (such a church building) with liturgical objects according to a special inventory, certified by us with our signatures, on the following conditions:
1. We, the undersigned citizens, undertake to protect the national property transferred to us and use it exclusively in accordance with its purpose, assuming full responsibility for the integrity and safety of the property entrusted to us, as well as for the observance of other obligations that lie with us under this agreement.
2. We undertake to use the temples and the liturgical objects located in them and make them available to all our fellow believers exclusively for the satisfaction of religious needs.
3. We undertake to take all measures to ensure that the property entrusted to us is not used for purposes inconsistent with Art. 1 and 2 of this agreement.
In particular, in the liturgical premises we have taken over, we undertake not to allow:
a) political meetings of a direction hostile to Soviet power,
b) distribution or sale of books, pamphlets, leaflets and messages directed against the Soviet power or its representatives.
c) delivering sermons and speeches hostile to Soviet power or its individual representatives, and
d) making alarms to convene the population in order to incite them against the Soviet power, in view of which we undertake to obey all orders of the local Soviet of Workers 'and Peasants' Deputies regarding the use of the bell towers.
4. We undertake to pay from our own funds all current expenses for the maintenance of the temple ( or other religious building) ... and the items in it, such as: for repairs, heating, insurance, security, for paying debts, taxes, local taxes, etc.
5. We undertake to have an inventory of all liturgical property, in which we must include all newly received (through donations, transfers from other churches, etc.) objects of religious worship that do not represent the private property of individual citizens.
6. We undertake to admit, without hindrance, during off-duty hours, persons authorized by the Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies to periodic checks and inspections of property.
7. For the loss or damage of the items transferred to us, we are liable jointly and severally, within the limits of the damage caused to the property.
8. We undertake, in the event of the delivery of the property accepted by us, to return it in the same form in which it was accepted by us for use and storage.
9. In cemetery churches and cemeteries, we undertake to accompany our co-religionists, if interested persons wish, with religious rites, in the sense of solemnity, the same for all, and for the same fee for all citizens without exception, the amount of which must be announced by us annually to the public. .
10. For failure to take all measures in our power to fulfill the obligations arising from this agreement, or for its direct violation, we are subject to criminal liability, to the fullest extent of revolutionary laws, and this agreement may be terminated by the Soviet of Workers 'and Peasants' Deputies.
11. If we wish to terminate the contract, we are obliged to inform the Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies of this in writing, and within a week from the date of submission of such a statement to the Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies, we continue to remain bound by this contract and bear all responsibility for its implementation, and also undertake to hand over the property accepted by us during this period of time.
12. Each of us, who signed the agreement, may withdraw from the number of parties to the agreement by submitting a written application to the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies, which, however, does not relieve the withdrawn person from liability for all damage caused to the national property during the period of participation of the retired person in the use and management property until the relevant application is submitted to the Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies.
13. None of us, and we all together, have the right to refuse any of the citizens belonging to our religion and not discredited by the court, to sign this agreement later this date and take part in the management of the property mentioned in this agreement on a common basis. grounds with all its signatories.
The original of this agreement is kept in the files of ... the Council of Workers 'and Peasants' Deputies, and a duly certified copy of it is issued to a group of citizens who have signed under it and received, according to the inventory, the use of liturgical buildings and objects located in them intended for religious purposes.
“….” …………. 191... g.
Appendix 2 to Art. 665.
|
Remaining at the disposal of the local Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies |
To be transferred to the People's Commissariat of Education. |
To be transferred to the People's Commissariat of Health |
To be transferred to the People's Commissariat for Social Security |
To be transferred to the People's Commissariat for Insurance and Fire Fighting |
To be transferred to Supreme Council National economy |
To be transferred to the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs |
To be transferred to the Main Directorate of the Russian Red Cross Society |
Can be refunded with the consent of the People's Commissariat for Social Security |
|
|
According to the Department of Public Education |
By Department Property of the Republic |
||||||||
|
Capitals |
Capitals |
Capitals |
Capitals |
Capitals |
Capitals |
Capitals |
Capitals |
Capitals |
|
|
1. Local churches |
1. Theological academies. |
1. Contributions for eternal remembrance. |
1. Medical. |
1. Consisting on the accounts of the diocesan guardianship of the poor of the clergy |
1. Mutual building insurance b. spiritual department. |
||||
The head of the Provisional Government Alexander Kerensky attended the opening of the Local Council in August 1917.
Photo from the site http://ru.wikipedia.org
In November 2007, solemn celebrations were held dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church. The election to the patriarchal throne of Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow was one of the main results of the first session of the Local Council, which lasted almost three months and came to replace two eras in Russian history.
In the early morning of August 15, 1917, on the feast of the Assumption of the Mother of God, religious processions began to reach the Kremlin from Moscow churches. Soon thousands of people gathered in Red Square; forest banners, remote icons, crosses, the sounds of church hymns. It was impossible to break through the Kremlin walls, where the main celebrations of the opening of the Local Cathedral of the Russian Church were held on Cathedral Square and in the Assumption Cathedral. Only members of the Council and honored guests were admitted there.
Among the members of the Provisional Government were present: Prime Minister Alexander Kerensky, Minister of the Interior Nikolai Avksentiev, Minister of Confessions Anton Kartashev. There were many representatives of the diplomatic corps, Russian and foreign press. Among the 80 bishops who gathered together for the first time after the two-hundred-year “captivity of the Church”, the white hoods of four metropolitans stood out – Vladimir (Epiphany) of Kyiv, Exarch Platon (Rozhdestvensky) of the Caucasus, and two newly appointed – Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow and Metropolitan Veniamin (Kazansky) of Petrograd. The last two put on their white klobuks (metropolitan insignia) only the day before - after the Provisional Government, by a special legislative act, renounced in favor of the Synod the royal privilege inherited from him to bestow white klobuks and mitres.
The opening celebrations ended on Red Square, where at about one o'clock a procession arrived from the Kremlin, consisting of cathedrals, honored Russian and foreign guests, representatives of Moscow churches and monasteries. The crowd of people, who saw Kerensky among the hierarchs, burst into a thunderous "Hurrah!" and gave an ovation to the "savior of Russia." A prayer service was held at the Execution Ground according to a special rite. Well-coordinated and solemn choral singing filled the square, immersed in majestic silence. Festive strikes of the bells of the Kremlin cathedrals were heard, and the ringing of all Moscow churches also flew here.
The next day at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, at the end of the service, which was led by Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow, the opening of the sessions of the Council took place. The first to greet the assembled on behalf of the government was Minister of Religions Anton Kartashev, who beautifully ended his speech with the words: “... I overshadow myself with you with a wide Orthodox cross". And then came greetings to the newly opened Council from the Synod, the Moscow Metropolitan See, various church institutions, academies, universities, corporations, the army, navy, and so on and so forth.
The local cathedral was opened in a difficult political situation. The Provisional Government was in agony, losing control over the country, the army was falling apart, and the Kaiser's troops were advancing almost unhindered into the depths of Russia. Public sentiment was far from in favor of the Council. The authoritative newspaper Russkiye Vedomosti stated a “decline in faith”, a lack of public interest in the Church Council, a decline in the authority of the Russian Church, in which “dead ritualism and police repressions” prevailed. It was echoed by the All-Russian Church and Public Bulletin, which stated: “The Orthodox clergy occupied a privileged position, but their moral authority among the population fell to an extremely low level. At the top stood the bishops, infinitely far from the laity, on whom Rasputinism cast its shadow, and below - the "priests", to whom the people treated with obvious hostility. The fact of a split in church society was also recognized by some Orthodox bishops. Popular in intellectual circles and among the people, Bishop Andrei (Ukhtomsky) of Ufa singled out three different directions of church life opposing each other: “church-monarchist”, “church opportunism”, “renovationist”.
Numerous non-Orthodox associations were also dissatisfied with the church policy of the Provisional Government. Their representatives, participating in the State Conference, convened on the eve of the opening of the Council to seek measures "to save the Motherland", reproached the "old authorities" for "persecution", and accused the new authorities of slowness and inconsistency in implementing the principles of freedom of conscience. The chairman of the Higher Russian Union of Evangelical Christians, Ivan Prokhanov, stated bluntly: believers expect from the government the "emancipation" of the state Church and its separation from the state, "equalization" before the law of all Churches and denominations.
On August 17, in the building of the Diocesan House (Likhov lane, 6), the members of the Local Council began their business meetings. During the first week, the chairman of the cathedral was elected - Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow, his comrades (deputies): from the hierarchs - Archbishop Arseny (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod and Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kharkov; from the clergy - Protopresbyter of the Assumption Kremlin Cathedral Nikolai Lyubimov and Protopresbyter of the Army and Navy Georgy Shavelsky; and from the laity - Evgeny Trubetskoy and Mikhail Rodzianko. It was planned that the first session would consider the issues of reorganization of the Supreme Church Administration: the restoration of the patriarchate, the election of the Patriarch, the definition of his rights and obligations, the establishment of conciliar bodies for the joint management of church affairs with the Patriarch, and also discuss the legal status of the Orthodox Church in Russia.
The delegates were endowed with the right of a decisive vote on all issues to be discussed. But the real power was concentrated in the hands of the episcopate. The Council of Bishops could reject any decision of the Council if, in their opinion, it did not correspond to the dogmas, canons and traditions of the Church. In this case, the decision was again submitted for discussion by the plenary session. If, after this, it was rejected by a three-quarters majority of the number of bishops present, then it completely lost the power of a conciliar decision.
To guide the activities of the Council, a Council Council was established, headed by Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow. Under the Council, 22 departments were formed: statutory, higher church administration, church court, diocesan administration, etc. They preliminarily considered the issues submitted for discussion and prepared draft decisions on them. The meetings of the Council were held in the Diocesan House: plenary - twice a week, and meetings of departments - on other days.
Soboryans, ecclesiastical and secular journalists were especially attracted by the work of the department for the reform of higher church administration. Here again, as in the months preceding the Council, there were fierce and furious disputes about the restoration of the patriarchate. Moreover, the sharpness and thoroughness with which the supporters of the patriarchate defended their positions actually crossed out the drafts of general church documents prepared the day before, aimed at putting a "collegiate body" at the head of the Church.
The most complete arguments "for" and "against" the restoration of the patriarchate were formulated in the reports of Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov and Professor Nikolai Kuznetsov. Archbishop Anthony, referring to the history of Christianity and the Russian Orthodox Church, on the one hand, convinced his listeners of the advantages of patriarchal leadership, and on the other hand, he painted before them the misfortunes that had befallen the Russian Church in the last two hundred years, during the period of synodal rule. In his opinion, the chief prosecutor's office acted as a "press" that stifled the national and religious feelings of the Russian people, the idea of the patriarchate. And because of this, such evil as the secularization of church property, the demoralization of monasteries, the decline of piety and religious feeling, spread freely throughout Russia, which turned the Church into an "abandoned orphan." From the speaker’s point of view, only the patriarchate could become a “religious and moral center” for Russian society, a support “in the fight against the shattering of all the foundations of religious thought and life,” and the newly elected Patriarch would become a “pastor-father” for every believer.
Professor Nikolai Kuznetsov consistently refuted the arguments of Archbishop Anthony in his speech, opposing the sole power of the Patriarch to collegial management of the Church. “The conciliar principle in the Russian Church,” he said, “it was precisely under the Patriarchs that it was especially suppressed ... The patriarch was the bearer of sole church authority ... The patriarchate in Russia played a sad role in the division in the depths of the Church, which caused the Old Believers.” According to Kuznetsov, the hopes for religious renewal associated with the election of the Patriarch are “good dreams,” and the concentration of power in the hands of one person will bring church discord into society instead of unity.
On October 11, after many days of stormy disputes in the Department on the highest church administration, which did not lead to a common opinion, the question of the patriarchate was submitted to the plenary sessions of the Council. On behalf of the Department, its chairman, Bishop Mitrofan (Krasnopolsky) of Astrakhan, spoke. The bishop's speech was a panegyric to the patriarchate, and he ended his speech with words that sounded almost like an incantation: “We need the Patriarch as a spiritual leader and leader who would inspire the heart of the Russian people, call for the correction of life and feat, and himself the first to go forward. There is no place without a leader, and also in church life.”
However, passions continued to rage in the council meetings, and it was difficult to give preference to supporters or opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate, it was impossible to predict what decision the Council would come to.
Although the Local Council focused on the issues of "church renewal" itself, its activities were also characterized by a quite definite political character. In the messages and appeals adopted by the Council in August-October to the “Russian people”, “army and navy”, “children of the Orthodox Church” and in others, the Church declared its support for the Provisional Government, calling on believers “without distinction of positions, estates and parties” to participate in the "new construction of Russian life."
But this "new Russian life" was not at all what it seemed to the civil authorities and the conciliar majority. In the diary of an employee of the Moscow Synodal Office, Archimandrite Arseny (Denisov), she appears as follows: “Defeats in the war. Deserters. Refugees. Agrarian unrest, fires, robberies, murders. Rising prices, scarce goods, monetary crisis, complete internal collapse. And at the same time, hysterical cries rush from Petrograd: “To the bitter end!” Kerensky appears here and there. In one place he screams, in another he is silent. Stuffy atmosphere of worthless fussy carelessness. The figure of Lenin emerges. One senses the approach of some decisive turn of events. This whole nightmare must somehow dissipate, dissipate, collapse, like the scaffolding of a house under construction... October is coming. The nightmare took on a lingering form. The collapse has intensified. Russia is bursting at the seams. Polish autonomy. Independence of Ukraine. Newly appeared short-term republics in Siberia, the Volga region, on the Black Sea. Germans in Russia. The desperate struggle of the parties. Complete compromise of the Provisional Government: its authority is no longer recognized by anyone.
The church was actively involved in the political life of the country, conducting an intensified polemic with the socialist parties, calling for voting in the elections to the Constituent Assembly for "Orthodox-minded" and "church-minded" citizens. The official publication of the Council, the All-Russian Church and Public Bulletin, characterized the Bolsheviks gaining strength in the following way: “What is Bolshevism? This is a mixture of internationalist poison with old Russian sivukha. With this terrible swill, the Russian people are drugged by a few incorrigible fanatics, supported by a bunch of German agents. And it is high time to put this poisonous drink in a jar in accordance with all the rules of pharmaceutical art, to place a dead head and the inscription "poison" on it.
But the Church did not have any tangible success, since the voters cast their votes, not so much focusing on the religion of the candidates, but on their political program. Leadership was clearly seized by representatives of parties of a socialist orientation, which was later confirmed by the final results of the elections to the Constituent Assembly. Yes, and at the meetings of the Council, words were repeatedly heard about the ever greater "distance" of the peasants and workers from religion and the Church. The emissaries of the Council, who were delivering religious and ecclesiastical literature, appeals and appeals of the Council to the warring troops, spoke with particular regret about the cooling of the religious and patriotic feelings among the soldiers.
On October 25, at the morning session of the Council, a heated debate continued on the question of the restoration of the patriarchate. Both those who are “for” and those who are “against” spoke. Among the latter was Petr Kudryavtsev, a professor at the Kyiv Theological Academy, who spoke of the "dangers" that await the Church and the country in the event of the restoration of the patriarchate. His words were not heeded, while some of them turned out to be prescient. In particular, addressing the “patriarchists,” he said: “You are introducing the patriarchate at a time when the struggle between the Church and the state is ready to begin. In the person of the Patriarch, you want to have a leader in this struggle. But after all, if the future Patriarch accepts your program, he has no choice but to become the leader of a certain political party, something like the Catholic Center in Germany. In other words: the establishment of a patriarchate can lead to the growth of that phenomenon which is called clericalism. I don't know about you, but we consider this phenomenon as harmful to the Church as it is to the state, and therefore we are afraid to introduce an institution fraught with such consequences. But that's not all. You are establishing the patriarchate at a moment in our history when the new forms of our state life have not yet taken shape. In any case, our centrifugal currents are now immeasurably stronger than centripetal ones, and the possibility of our state turning into a federal republic, or at least into a republic consisting of a number of autonomous regions, is not excluded. You think that the patriarchate will serve to unite Russia not only ecclesiastical, but also politically, but we think quite the opposite: we think that the patriarchate will only strengthen the action of the centrifugal forces.”
At the end of the plenary session, members of the Council, who had just arrived from Petrograd, appeared in the hall. They reported the news that stunned everyone: the Provisional Government was overthrown, the Bolsheviks came to power! The cathedral hastily interrupted the work.
By evening, all of Moscow knew about the events in Petrograd. Crowds of people took to the streets, stretched into the city center. Here and there spontaneous rallies arose. Newspapers that had come down from Petrograd, as well as Moscow Social-Democratic publications with reports of the revolution, were passed from hand to hand. Cars appeared on city squares, from which leaflets were scattered with slogans: “Long live the power of the revolutionary proletariat!”, “All power to the Soviets!”, “Long live the proletarian-peasant republic!”.
There were two centers of power in the city. On the one hand, the Committee of Public Security under the City Duma, headed by the Socialist-Revolutionary V.V. Rudnev and the commander of the Moscow Military District, Colonel Konstantin Ryabtsev. To the Duma, where this body met, officers, ensigns and cadets, who remained loyal to the Provisional Government, were drawn up.
On the other hand, in former home Governor-General on Skobelevskaya Square housed the Council of Workers' Deputies and the Military Revolutionary Committee. Detachments of the Red Guard and volunteers moved here from the working outskirts, occupying the post office, telegraph, and telephone exchange along the way. On the night of October 26, troops loyal to Ryabtsev went on the offensive: they blocked the Kremlin, where a detachment of Red Guards and soldiers of the 56th Infantry Regiment were held hostage; occupied the Manege and the streets and squares adjacent to the city center. Martial law was declared in Moscow. The Military Revolutionary Committee was given an ultimatum to hand over their weapons and cease opposition to government forces. The Bolsheviks rejected the ultimatum and began to lay siege to the Kremlin, where supporters of the old government had taken refuge. The first shots were fired, the first blood was shed, and thus a fierce civil war was unleashed in the city.
The diocesan house, where the meetings of the Council were held, and the building of the theological seminary (Bozhedomsky per., 3), where the members of the Council lived, were in the zone of direct armed conflict. In addition, many hierarchs and priests lived in the Kremlin at various church institutions and were actually blockaded there. Rifle fire, the crackle of machine guns, shots from cannons, armed groups of people, looters and robbers made any attempt to go out into the street dangerous. Those of the daredevils who, risking their lives, made their way to the Diocesan house, could no longer go back and spent the night in a hostel. The situation in the city became so threatening that many councilors demanded that the governing bodies of the Council stop the protracted dispute over the restoration of the patriarchate.
On the morning of October 28, although not in full force, the cathedral was finally able to gather in the Diocesan House. In the course of a difficult discussion, the supporters of the patriarchate finally managed to convince those present to stop the debate and move on to voting. On October 30, with a small majority of votes (141 in favor, 112 against, 12 abstained), the Council decided to proceed with the immediate election of the Patriarch. In the following days, despite the fact that a fierce civil war continued in the city, the procedure for electing the Patriarch was worked out, and three candidates for the patriarchal throne were determined by secret ballot: Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop Arseniy (Stadnitsky) and Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) . According to the decision of the Council, the election of the Patriarch was to be carried out by lot.
In the conditions of fierce fighting in the city, individual members of the Council tried to mediate between the warring parties, to call for a truce and negotiations. To this end, on November 2, a delegation of the Council, headed by Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky) of Tiflis, visited the house of the Governor-General, where the Moscow Military Revolutionary Committee was located. However, she failed to achieve a positive decision.
On November 4, 1917, when the Bolsheviks occupied the Moscow Kremlin, the Council adopted the Decree on the supreme administration of the Russian Orthodox Church, according to which the patriarchate was restored and the supreme power henceforth belonged to the Local Council. On Sunday, November 5, a solemn divine service and the election of the Patriarch were scheduled. Since access to the Kremlin was closed and it was impossible to hold elections in the Assumption Cathedral, where Russian Patriarchs were traditionally elected, it was decided to do this in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. The cathedrals and believers who gathered in the temple could see a table standing on the salt, on which a sealed reliquary with lots was placed in front of the highly revered shrine of Russia - the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God, brought from the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. The elder of the Zosima Hermitage, Alexy, approached him. Having signed himself with the cross three times, he pulled out a note with the inscription: "Tikhon, Metropolitan of Moscow."
On November 21, on the feast of the Presentation of the Mother of God, a solemn service was held in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, during which Tikhon was elevated to the rank of Patriarch of All Russia. Responding to the requests of the Church, the new civil authorities not only allowed this act to be carried out in the Assumption Cathedral, but also issued the mantle and cross of Patriarch Nikon, the cassock of Patriarch Hermogenes from the patriarchal sacristy.
At the end of the service, according to ancient tradition, the newly appointed Patriarch had to go around the Kremlin, sprinkling holy water on its walls, pilgrims and people who simply met on the way. At about two o'clock the procession left the Trinity Gate. Ahead, in the first cab, rode a patriarchal subdeacon with a patriarchal cross. Behind him, in the second carriage, was Patriarch Tikhon, flanked by two archimandrites. Countless crowds fell to their knees as the Patriarch approached. The soldiers took off their hats. The Patriarch blessed the people. No cheers from the crowd - reverent silence. The Kremlin guards looked askance at the procession, but did not dare to express displeasure. A few tens of meters from the Spasskaya Tower, where those killed in the days of the civil war in Moscow were buried in mass graves, stood a large group of soldiers. The Patriarch wanted to sprinkle them too, but they suddenly turned their backs on him, and the orchestra, standing among them, struck out the Marseillaise... That was the first meeting of the newly elected Patriarch with the new Russia, unknown to him.
┘ Back in mid-November 1917, in parallel with the reorganization of the highest bodies of church administration, the Council began discussing the Definition "On the legal status of the Russian Orthodox Church." His project was presented at the plenary sessions by Sergei Bulgakov, professor at the Moscow University, and Fyodor Mishchenko, professor at the Kyiv Theological Academy. Both speakers believed that the old state-church relations had outlived their usefulness and there could be no return to them. At the same time, both considered it impossible to build them on the principle of separation of the Church from the state.
Sergei Bulgakov, describing the project, singled out two main ideas that, in his opinion, underlie the document. “The first is that,” he said, “that a certain distance must be created between the Church and the state; the second is that the relationship of union must nevertheless be preserved. There is no doubt that the excessively close connection between the Church and the state, as it existed in Russia in the past, when the Church was fettered by the chains of the state and the rust of these chains ate into her body, this connection is broken. The disaster for the Church was that it was nationalized.”
The members of the Council, believing that the "current authorities" would not last more than one or two months, were guided by the development of the document to preserve the "allied" relations of the Church with the state and strengthen its special position in society, the expansion of rights and powers. It is no coincidence that the same Bulgakov said: “The bill was developed precisely in the consciousness of what should be, in the consciousness of the normal and worthy position of the Church in Russia. Our demands are addressed to the Russian people over the heads of the present authorities. Of course, the moment may come when the Church must anathematize the state. But, without a doubt, that moment has not yet arrived.
The project was discussed until December 2, 1917, when it was adopted at the plenary session of the Council. With this document, the Church, on the one hand, revealed its official position regarding the "church policy" of the Bolsheviks, and on the other hand, offered society and the state its own vision of the "ideal" model of the relationship between the state and the Church, to which both sides should strive. .
Among the 25 points of the Definition, we highlight the most important ones: the obligatory affiliation of the head of state, the ministers of confessions and public education (and their deputies) to the Orthodox confession; recognition of the Orthodox calendar as a state calendar, and Orthodox holidays as non-present days; transfer of the record and accounting of acts of civil status into the hands of the Church; the introduction in public schools of compulsory teaching of the Law of God; preservation of the institution of the Orthodox military clergy and the rights of a legal entity behind the Orthodox "institutions"; the inviolability of church property and preferential taxation; allocation of state subsidies for the needs of the Church; preservation of the Church's "primary" position.
It is not difficult to see that the Church consistently and persistently defended her traditional idea of a “Christian state” and an inseparable “union of the Orthodox Church and the Russian state.” Voting for the Determination, the members of the Council did not take into account the political changes that had taken place in Russia, which seemed to them a "short-term nightmare"; ignored the legal acts of the new nascent state - the Soviet one.
Under these conditions, the fundamental orientation of the Definition and the content of its articles inevitably doomed the Church to confrontation with the state, with society, with non-Orthodox religious organizations and citizens supporting them. It was obvious that the satisfaction of all the requirements, conditions and obligations fixed in the Council's Resolution meant the clericalization of the state and society, a return to the institution of the state Church and its monopoly in the spiritual sphere. All this, of course, would cancel out the efforts of the democratic Russian public, which has advocated freedom of conscience and religion since the end of the 19th century, and those achievements that the Provisional Government ensured.
As for the new government - the Soviet one, which came out with the slogan of building a "secular state", then for it the course of the Church set forth in the Definition was not at all acceptable. Most of the provisions of the Council's Determination already contradicted the legal acts adopted by the new and, we emphasize, legitimate authorities. The decree on the abolition of estates and civil ranks abolished the estates and estate divisions of citizens, estate privileges, restrictions, organizations and institutions; the decree "On Land" transferred to the disposal of the volost land committees and district Soviets of peasant deputies all monastic and church lands; The “Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia” and the appeal “To all working Muslims of Russia and the East” abolished all and all national and religious privileges and restrictions, the division of religions into “dominant”, “tolerant and intolerant”.
In the last days of the work of the first session, the Council adopted acts related to the activities of the highest bodies of church authority. Thus, the Patriarch was endowed with the right to convene Church Councils and preside over them, communicate with other autocephalous Orthodox Churches, address epistles, visit dioceses and take care of filling bishops' chairs, bring guilty bishops to church court. The responsibility of the Patriarch in case of violation of his duties was also established.
The Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council became the permanent bodies of the Supreme Church Administration in the period between the Local Councils.
The Holy Synod consisted of the Patriarch (chairman) and twelve members from among the hierarchs. Matters of a doctrinal, canonical and liturgical nature were assigned to the competence of the Synod. The Synod took care "of the indestructible preservation of the dogmas of the faith and their correct interpretation", controlled the translation and printing of liturgical literature.
The Supreme Church Council consisted of the Patriarch and fifteen members (from hierarchs, priests and laity). He was in charge of establishing and changing central and diocesan church institutions, the appointment of officials in them, and the provision of pensions for the clergy and clergy.
On December 9, the first session of the Council completed its work, and its participants dispersed to the dioceses. The convocation of the second session was scheduled for the end of January 1918.
In parallel with the work of the Council, the authorities also turned to the problems of regulating state-church relations and the activities of religious associations. The decrees “On divorce” and “On civil marriage, on children and on the conduct of civil status acts” adopted by the Council of People's Commissars deprived church marriage of legal force. According to the decree “On the transfer of upbringing and education from the spiritual department to the jurisdiction of the People’s Commissariat for Education”, the positions of law teachers were abolished in all state educational institutions. At the same time, information was published in the central press about the imminent adoption of the Decree on the separation of the Church from the state, which would take into account all the provisions of the previously adopted acts on the “religious issue”.
Since December 11, a special commission formed by the Council of People's Commissars has been working on the development of a draft decree on the separation of the Church from the state. It included Pyotr Stuchka - People's Commissar of Justice, Anatoly Lunacharsky - People's Commissar of Education, Pyotr Krasikov - a member of the Board of the People's Commissariat of Justice, Mikhail Reisner - a well-known lawyer, professor of law at St. Petersburg University, Mikhail Galkin - a Petrograd priest.
Of course, both the Bolsheviks as a whole and the commission were largely dependent on the mood of the masses, who insistently demanded "complete freedom of conscience." The central government and local authorities received numerous petitions from soldiers' and peasants' congresses, from collectives of factories and factories demanding the separation of the Church from the state and the school from the Church, the introduction of universal compulsory secular education, the declaration of religion as a private affair of every citizen, the nationalization of the monastic and church property, establishing the equality of citizens regardless of their attitude to religion, ensuring the legal equality of all religious associations, etc. The editorial offices of central and local newspapers received many letters from various regions of Russia, in which the political position of the Church was sharply condemned not only in the past, but also at the present time. “For hundreds of years,” you can read in one of them, “a handful of nobles and landowners oppressed millions of peasants and workers. For hundreds of years they drank the blood and plundered the labor of the people. And then you blessed this system, said that this power was legitimate. And now that the people themselves have risen to power, the working people who are striving for peace, for fraternity and equality, you "spiritual fathers" do not want to recognize his authority. The people know who needs your precious mitres, golden crosses and expensive clothes.
On December 31, 1917, in the Socialist-Revolutionary newspaper Delo Naroda (and representatives of the left wing of this party were part of the government), a draft decree developed by the commission was published. In it, religion was declared "a private matter of every citizen of the Russian Republic", and therefore everyone could profess any religion or not profess any; it was forbidden to issue laws restricting the freedom of conscience; religious societies were equated with private societies; religious societies could not have the rights of a legal entity and the rights to own property; the property of "church and religious societies" was nationalized; religious oaths and oaths were abolished, as well as the teaching of "religious subjects" in state educational institutions, etc.
The church press also published the draft decree in full or in summary, with appropriate comments. Metropolitan Veniamin (Kazansky) noted in a letter to Lenin: “Of course, I am sure that every government in Russia cares about the good of the Russian people and does not want to do anything that would lead to grief and troubles for a huge part of it. I consider it my moral duty to tell the people who are currently in power to warn them not to carry out the alleged draft decree on the seizure of church property. The Orthodox Russian people never allowed such encroachments on their holy churches. And many other sufferings do not need to add new ones.
Thus, in questions about the essence of freedom of conscience, about the nature of state-church relations in the new Russia, the confrontation between church and secular authorities was revealed. There was a fundamental clash of different ideologies, different visions of the "spiritual essence" of the new social order being built. As if the “damned” and “bloody” question for many centuries of Russian history has risen from the ashes: what should be paramount - the kingdom or the priesthood? Each of the parties understood that the answer and the final decision in this dispute was with the people, and each hoped that he would be on her side.
The revolution of 1917 broke the stereotypes that had been formed in Russia for a very long time. There was a split in the two strongest structures of the country - the state and the church. At the beginning of the 20th century, when the founders of the Soviet state came to power, the main slogan was that the church, faith in God, religion, the Bible destroy society, the thoughts of the people, do not allow Soviet society to develop freely. The same appeal to the people spoke about the attitude of the Social Democrats towards the church, and what "reforms" would be carried out if they came to power. The main principle of the reform was the separation of church and state, so that the authorities could fight the religious "fog" in the minds of the workers.
So, from the very beginning of the formation of the RSDLP, the church became the main ideological rival in the state. Having come to power, decrees were proclaimed, their purpose was to change the ideology in the thoughts of people, to set people up in such a way that the church is evil, and it should not interfere with free development. In the schism, church and state existed for a very long time.
The first decree that laid the foundation for the separation of the state from church shrines was the "Land Decree". After its adoption, the entire economic base of the church was undermined, the church was deprived of its lands. All the wealth of the church was confiscated, making the church "poor". By decree, the lands belonging to the church were transferred to the landowners at the disposal of the land committees.
In 1917, after the revolution, a large amount of land was seized from the church, more than 8 million acres. The Orthodox Church, in turn, asked everyone to pray for the sins committed by the authorities, the seizure of land was perceived as the destruction of national shrines. With its sermons, the church asked for the return of power to the path of Christ.
The Russian Orthodox Church could not but react to the situation in the country. On December 2, 1917, the church declared itself the leader, and the head of state, the minister of education and all their followers must be Orthodox. According to the council, property belonging to the church should not be seized.
Everything that was proclaimed by the church during this period went against the policy of the new Soviet power. Given the policy pursued by the state, relations between the authorities and the Russian Orthodox Church were very tense.
On December 11, 1917, the government of the newly formed country adopted another decree depriving the church of its privileges. It said that the church should be deprived of all parochial schools and colleges. Everything lay down, right down to the land and buildings where these schools were located. The result of this decision was the deprivation of the church educational and educational base. After this decree appeared in the press, Metropolitan Veniamin of Petrograd addressed a letter to the government. It said that all the events carried out threaten the Orthodox people with great grief. The metropolitan wanted to convey to the government that this reform cannot be carried out, that it cannot be taken away from the church that which has belonged to it for centuries. It also said that the Bolsheviks were excommunicated, and the people were called to fight for church property.
By adopting their decrees, the Soviet authorities tried to provoke the church into a serious confrontation. This was followed by a decree "On the freedom of conscience, church and religious societies", and then "On the separation of church from state and school from church." Within the framework of these decrees, it was said about the need to give each person the right to independently choose the religion that he would worship.
The church was deprived legal law: all the property that previously belonged to the church was declared public property and transferred to the use of the people, it was forbidden to have any property, the buildings where services were held under special orders were transferred to the free use of the newly created religious societies. These articles nationalized all the churches, so that at any moment the property belonging to the church could be seized in favor of those in need. This is exactly what the authorities did in 1922, seizing property in favor of the starving Volga region.
Until the 1917th century, the church was in charge of marriages, but this opportunity was taken away from them. Now marriages began to be concluded by the state, religious marriage was declared invalid.
On January 23, 1918, the Decree was adopted, and already on July 10, 1918, all provisions were enshrined in the Constitution of the Soviet state.
It is impossible to say that by one decree they were able to separate the church from the state. The new government took this path for a year and clearly set itself the task of depriving the church of everything that it had before.
Before the Soviet government came to rule the country, the church was the richest cell of the state, subsequently it was deprived of everything that was in its use.
The decree on the separation of church and state, despite the fact that the whole council was under the sign of this possibility, turned out to be completely unexpected for the church. Meanwhile, this decree was not "arbitrariness" on the part of the government, and it was not "violence" against the church or the conscience of believers. This decree stemmed from the most fundamental principles of the constitution of the R.S.F.S.R. Soviet construction relies exclusively on its own human strength: "We will achieve liberation with our own hand." This is the triumph of humanism in the exact sense of the word. The human is opposed to the divine. Man overthrows God. Such is the psychology, such is the philosophy, such is the practice of the October Revolution. The state was consistent, logical, true to its basic principles. This decree is not, as strenuously interpreted (and still is sometimes interpreted) the whim of this or that communist, it flowed by itself from the basic idea of Soviet, communist construction.
This, of course, is not a persecution of religion, for the decree itself protects this freedom of conscience and, moreover, was issued to protect this real freedom. Thus, the decree provides, along with anti-religious propaganda, religious propaganda.
From the point of view of religion itself, this decree is a genuine religious good. Here is supposed to be an external limit to the temptations to serve the state. Here, too, an imperious limit is imposed on the state itself not to interfere in purely religious areas. In the latter, the Church can herself do everything to which her religious conscience, reason and will oblige. Here the exhaustive fullness of the religious self-disclosure of one's being is revealed to the end. Here returns, in these thoughts and principles of the decree, that great ecclesiastical freedom, which the state stole, captivating the soul of the church with golden chains, tinsel of outward splendor.
But, of course, the same decree gives the state a full legal opportunity to interfere in the affairs of the church, since these are not religious, but political matters. In the Soviet state there is freedom for the church as a purely religious institution, but there is not, and cannot be, any freedom for the church as a church-political organization.
Meanwhile, before the revolution of 1917, the church was undoubtedly an ecclesiastical-political organization. She remained the same after February 17, and only October puts a limit to this. He splits the church: he preserves her religion and destroys her politics. Therefore, this decree is welcomed by those for whom religion is the church, and the same decree is anathematized by those for whom the church and the counter-revolution are an organic whole.
For the cathedral, the church was, as we have seen many times already, such a counter-revolutionary organic whole.
The decree on the separation of church from state and school was the pretext for the sixty-sixth meeting of the cathedral.
This meeting was on January 20, 1918. On it, for the first time after the break, members of the cathedral gathered. At that time, the great October was roaring like a revolutionary hurricane. He swept away every untruth, every impurity of life. True, when a storm roars, the wind sometimes breaks, along with the sick, obsolete, and the whole, which is not quite stable, however. So is the October Revolution. It, as happens during any revolution, was accompanied by excesses, painful, but inevitable. The consciousness of the cathedral saw only these excesses. It has established itself in the idea that the very excesses of the revolution are the revolution. The revolution will destroy the church, Russia and all cultural folk values.
The meeting at which they began to discuss and condemn the revolution is so characteristic of the psychology of the responsible leaders of the church that met that I quote its minutes in full.
1. Before the resumption of the work of the Council, Metropolitan Arseny of Novgorod offered a prayer service to the Lord God.
2. The meeting was opened by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and All Russia in the Cathedral Chamber at 10:35 am, in the presence of 110 members of the Council (including 24 bishops).
On the agenda of the meeting: 1) Prayer. 2) Current affairs. 3) Report of the Department on diocesan administration - on the bodies of diocesan administration of the Orthodox Russian Church. Speaker: Seraphim, Bishop of Chelyabinsk.
3. His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. “I greet you, fathers and brethren, with the new year and wish that, by the grace of God, the new year will be favorable for the Church of God and the homeland in the summer of the Lord. I am very glad that you have gathered here again, because the current circumstances and the time that we are going through require unity so that we can act in defense of the Church of God with joint friendly efforts. You know that when the Council temporarily stopped its activities, during this break the government turned its unfavorable attention to the Church of God. It has issued a series of decrees which are beginning to be carried out and which violate the fundamental tenets of our Church. How to treat these decrees, how to oppose them, what measures to take - this is best discussed and decided at the Council. Therefore, the upcoming session of the Council, which, I hope on the mercy of God, will be favorable, in addition to the current tasks, has a special task: the discussion of how to relate to current events concerning the Church of God.
I call on God's blessing for the forthcoming works; at the present time, since the members of the Council did not gather in full force, about 100, but according to the Charter, the presence of 180 members is required for the legitimacy of the meeting, I ask you to arrange a private meeting under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Arseny, and I ask the members of the Synod to be allowed to retire to the meeting.
4. At 10:45 a.m. His Holiness the Patriarch leaves the Cathedral Chamber.
5. Chairman, Metropolitan Arseniy of Novgorod. I announce the meeting as a private meeting.
6. Archbishop Kirill of Tambov announces the message of His Holiness the Patriarch:
"Humble Tikhon,
By the grace of God, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, beloved in the Lord, archpastors, pastors and all the faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church.
“May the Lord deliver us from this present evil age” (Gal. I, 4).
The Holy Orthodox Church of Christ in the Russian Land is now going through a difficult time: open and secret enemies of this truth have raised persecution against the truth of Christ and are striving to destroy the cause of Christ, and instead of Christian love, seeds of malice, hatred and fratricidal warfare are sown everywhere.
Forgotten and trampled on are the commandments of Christ about love for one's neighbors: daily news reaches us of terrible and brutal beatings of innocent people and even on the sickbed of people lying on the bed, guilty only of honestly fulfilling their duty to the Motherland, that all their strength believed in serving the good of the people. And all this is done not only under the cover of night darkness, but in reality, with daylight, with hitherto unheard-of impudence and merciless cruelty, without any trial and with the violation of all rights and legality, is being carried out today in almost all the cities and villages of our homeland: both in the capitals and on remote outskirts (in Petrograd, Moscow, Irkutsk, Sevastopol and etc.)
All this fills our hearts with deep painful sorrow and compels us to turn to such monsters of the human race with a formidable word of reproof and rebuke according to the covenant of St. Apostle: “Reprove those who sin before all, that others may also fear (I Tim. 5:20).
Come to your senses, madmen, stop your massacres. After all, what you are doing is not only a cruel deed: it is truly a satanic deed, for which you are subject to the fire of Gehenna in the life to come, the afterlife, and the terrible curse of posterity in the present earthly life.
By the authority given to us by God, we forbid you to approach the Mysteries of Christ, we anathematize you, if only you still bear Christian names and although you belong to the Orthodox Church by birth.
We also conjure all of you, faithful children of the Orthodox Church of Christ, not to enter into any communion with such monsters of the human race: “remove evil from you yourself” (I Cor. 5, 13)
The most severe persecution has also been raised against the Holy Church of Christ: the sacraments of grace that sanctify the birth of a person or bless the marital union of a Christian family are openly declared unnecessary, superfluous, holy temples are either destroyed through execution from deadly weapons (the holy cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin) or robbed and blasphemous insult (the chapel of the Savior in Petrograd); the holy cloisters revered by the believing people (like the Alexander Nevsky and Pochaev Lavra) are seized by the godless rulers of the darkness of this age and declared to be some kind of supposedly national property; schools maintained at the expense of the Orthodox Church and preparing church pastors and teachers of the faith are recognized as superfluous and are converted either into schools of unbelief, or even directly into hotbeds of immorality.
The property of Orthodox monasteries and churches is confiscated under the pretext that it is the property of the people, but without any right and even without the desire to reckon with the legitimate will of the people themselves ... And, finally, the government, which promised to establish law and truth in Russia, to ensure freedom and order , shows everywhere only the most unbridled willfulness and sheer violence against everyone, and in particular over the Holy Orthodox Church.
Where are the limits to these mockeries of the Church of Christ? How and with what can one stop this offensive against her by the enemies of the frantic?
We call on all of you, believers and faithful children of the Church: Stand up for the defense of our now insulted and oppressed Holy Mother.
The enemies of the Church seize power over her and her property by the power of deadly weapons, and you resist them with the power of your faith, your powerful popular cry, which will stop the madmen and show them that they have no right to call themselves champions of the people's welfare, builders of a new life at the behest of the people. reason, for they even act directly against the conscience of the people.
And if it becomes necessary to suffer for the cause of Christ, we call you, beloved children of the Church, we call you to these sufferings together with us with the words of St. Apostle: “Who shall separate us from the love of God? Is it sorrow, or oppression, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or trouble, or a sword? (Rom. 8:35).
And you, brethren Archpastors and pastors, without delaying a single hour in your spiritual work, with fiery faith, call your children to defend the now violated rights of the Orthodox Church, immediately arrange spiritual unions, call not by need, but by good will to become in the ranks of spiritual fighters, who will oppose the forces of their holy inspiration to the outward power, and we firmly hope that the enemies of the Church of Christ will be put to shame and squandered by the power of the Cross of Christ, for the promise of the Divine Crusader himself is immutable: I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it ”(Matt. 16:18 ).
Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.
January 19th, 1918
7. Count G. A. Olsufiev. “I think that we should wholeheartedly welcome the listened message of the Patriarch. In this first experience of patriarchal service, we see the power of the restoration of the patriarchate. My opinion is that this message is significantly different in tone from the previous conciliar messages: one feels a living conscience, an individual human, and not a collective official paper. My opinion coincides with the opinion expressed in the newspapers by Belorussov, a representative of the Russian intelligentsia, that the Council has so far not spoken out enough, but rather unsubscribed. There was a dispute in the newspapers between two members of the Council, P. I. Astrov and Prince E. N. Trubetskoy, on the one hand, and Belorussov, on the other hand. My conscience is entirely on the side of Belorussov. I am not sympathetic to the very title of the article. E. N. Trubetskoy "Indignant indifference." On the contrary, referring to Belorussov's article, I must say that I have not met more heated attacks on the villains of the revolution than from this former revolutionary (he was even in exile in Siberia), and now an employee of Russkiye Vedomosti. He cannot be blamed for indifference. I don’t understand the reproaches of P.I. Astrov: “Why are you silent?” “We were not silent, I would say in Belorussov’s place, no, we opposed the villains of the revolution; we cannot go in the name of the Church.” And the Church and the Cathedral, in my opinion, acted very sluggishly. From the very beginning of the Council, I called not for compromises with those in power, but for a clear dissociation of myself. It would seem to me that excommunication measures should have been taken long ago. On the Petropavlovsk, sailors beat up some of the officers in March, then in September they beat up another part of the officers. Collective responsibility lies with the entire ship and the entire crew. It was necessary to immediately take a priest from him and close the temple. This elementary measure was not taken in the face of obvious villainy. In the villages, they say, it is impossible to close the temple, as there are old women who need a priest. And there were no old women on the Petropavlovsk. And what did they do in Kronstadt, in Sevastopol? This cannot be ignored. They say this applies to politics, party struggle, but we are not involved in politics. Perhaps it would be better to settle down with the Bolsheviks and receive a salary? We robbed the landowners, we were silent, we took away the factories, we were silent, we began to rob the laurels, we started talking. Forgive me, Vladyka, for me: I am sad that they started talking then, when the laurels began to be robbed. But all the same, it is good that they have now spoken. From the point of view of P. I. Astrov, the Church is not a spiritual department, but everyone makes up the Church. They robbed the landowners, robbed the laurels. In the criminal code, one is called sacrilege, the other robbery. In reality, both are the same robbery, and the Church cannot be silent.
Therefore, I welcome the word of the Patriarch and his loud word about anathematization. I will point to one case in the Saratov province, when, after the destruction of the landowner's estate, one priest stopped the church service: this had an effect on the village. They waited two weeks, and then they began to ask the priest to resume the church service. I know the influence of Protestant pastors on the German colonies in the Saratov province. Neither in 1905 nor in 1917 was there a single pogrom in these colonies, and there were no outrages in the colonies. This year, 20 Orthodox Bolsheviks came to the colony and wanted to rob. The Germans sounded the alarm and wanted to exterminate them. But the pastor said, "arrest them, but don't touch them." And here the influence of the pastor on his flock affected. At this time, all Christian churches must unite. Socialism has now been brought to its logical consequences. And only from the Russian Church so far we have not heard a protest against the violation at the present time of all ten commandments of God. It is clearly said: "You shall not covet your neighbor's livestock, nor his ox, nor his village, nor everything that is the essence of your neighbor." It is clearly stated: "Thou shalt not kill." They say that the Church should not interfere in politics. But the very first of these commandments is already intervention in politics. It is clear in the commandment against whom it is directed. From history we know about the disciplinary measures that were taken by the church. Metropolitan Alexy excommunicated the Ryazan diocese for disobedience to Moscow. Metropolitan Philip interfered in politics under Ivan the Terrible. Patriarch Hermogenes did not say that politics was not his business, but he directly understood that he needed to be in the camp of Minin and Pozharsky, and not Tushinsky thieves. It is clear that he interfered in politics, while we want to pursue a different policy, a policy of agreement, and thus wash our hands of what is happening at the present time. With sadness, I read in the newspapers that at the present time there is a world struggle between Christian principles and anti-Christ principles. There are voices in the Christian church calling for mutual struggle. It is heard that for the first time an anathema will be spoken in Kyiv against those who stand for Catholicism and for the union. I hope not so, namely in relation to this anti-Christian and satanic movement. All Christians - and Protestants, and Catholics, and Orthodox - must unite, and not anathematize each other. We anathematize Catholics and Protestants, and do not anathematize our Russian robbers. Less hypocrisy! I was on December 25 at the Panteleimon Church in Petrograd (quite famous); the church was full of worshipers. According to my observation, people pray more consciously in Petrograd than in Moscow, where there are forty forty churches. In Petrograd churches there is no hustle and bustle, walking around the church, as in Moscow churches. Reading in the Petrograd churches is diligent, understandable to the listeners, general singing is introduced. All this elevates the religious feeling and unites those who worship and those present in the temple. After the liturgy, the official, which became an anachronism, the notorious prayer service was performed for deliverance from twelve languages (instead of the Bolsheviks) ...
8. Presiding Holy Synod issued an order to cancel this prayer service.
9. Count D. A. Olsufiev. “Perhaps this is a misunderstanding ... And the powers that be were sung for many years in Petrograd. I felt a sad separation during the prayer service. I reported my impressions. Maybe they are not faithful... I understand that the Apostle called to obey all the authorities, but to sing to them for many years, hardly. I know how "the most pious, the most autocratic" was replaced by the "pious provisional government" of Kerensky and company. All this confuses the Orthodox conscience. And I think the time for unworthy compromises is over. It is necessary to dissociate ourselves, and I welcome the first step of such dissociation from satanism in the Russian land in the form of a message from the Patriarch. My deep gratitude to the Patriarch!”
10. Presiding: “I will tell you frankly, Count, that you did not accurately convey that the Council issued a message only upon the news of the destruction of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. On behalf of the Cathedral, a message was drawn up regarding the destruction of the landowners' estates and those atrocities that were shown, indifferently to the landlords and to the monasteries, to the churches and the clergy. We live one life, we may have disagreements, but we have no class differences. The Cathedral values its unity. God grant that in the future we hold on to this unity.
I ask for permission to read out the reports of the rector of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, Bishop Procopius, about the events taking place in the Lavra.
“On January 13, 1918, around noon, a detachment of sailors, under the command of several persons dressed in civilian clothes, appeared at the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, and, having placed guards at all exits from the Lavra, began to inspect the premises, demanding that none of them Lavra did not go out; at the same time, civilians with part of the detachment went up to the premises of the metropolitan office, where, after that, the headman of the Lavra militia I. A. Dokuchaev appeared, at the request of which the designated persons presented a paper, without a number, on the letterhead of the Ministry of State Charity, with the proper seal, signed by the People's Commissar of the said Ministry, Mrs. Kollontai; from this paper it was clear that the bearers of it were authorized to requisition (this word meant a preliminary inspection and clarification) of the premises of the Lavra, its real estate and funds, as well as ascertaining the number of monastic brethren. The purpose of this “requisition”, according to the bearers of the warrant, is then the immediate alienation of the Lavra, for the placement of disabled people and, in general, persons in need of charity, as for the monastics, it is proposed that the able-bodied of them leave the Lavra completely, and the disabled have to be placed on almshouses and orphanages. As it turned out later from the submitted documents, the above-named persons also turned out to be commissioners of the State Charity Department, namely, y.g. Adov, Drigo, Troinitsky and Tsvetkov. The rector of the Lavra, His Grace Bishop Procopius, was busy at that time serving in Cross Church akathist to the Dormition Holy Mother of God . Having learned that the Lavra had its own rector, the named persons insistently demanded an invitation from him to explain with them, and, despite the instructions of the Lavra policeman I. A. Dokuchaev that it was impossible to interrupt the church service, they were already ready to go to church themselves, but, fortunately , by this time the service had already ended, and the reverend rector could arrive at the office of the metropolitan, where all the named persons and part of the sailors were. At about this time, with a small military detachment, the adjutant of the commandant of the Rozhdestvensky district, the city of Latynin, arrived, summoned by some eyewitnesses of the sailors entering the Lavra, who eyewitnesses (mostly women) reported to Mr. Latynin that the sailors in the Lavra "cut and rob the monks" . Upon learning of such an accusation, the commissars and sailors protested terribly and were ready to accuse the monastics of “provocation”, but, upon clarification of the case, they only demanded that an act be drawn up stating that they had not committed any robberies and violence in the Lavra; this act, a copy of which is attached, was drawn up and signed both by the rector of the Lavra and the above-mentioned commissars, the adjutant of the commandant of the Rozhdestvensky district and the commissar of the sailors detachment Okunev. The Right Reverend Rector of the Lavra was required to submit a list of the Lavra's brethren, indicating the working capacity of each, as well as information about its financial resources, which requirement was fulfilled. Then the named persons made an inspection of the metropolitan's chambers and cottages, and at the same time, part of the sailors broke through the back door, breaking the latch at the door, into the premises of the Right Reverend Bishop Artemy, in his absence, and made a superficial search there. At about two o'clock in the afternoon, everyone left, and the commissioners of the Ministry of Charity warned that tomorrow a formal paper on the requisition of the Lavra with all its movable and immovable property, valuables and monetary capital would be sent. On January 14, in fact, in the name of the rector of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, the attitude of the People's Commissar for State Charity was received, dated January 13, for No. 423, in a copy attached herewith, with an order to hand over all affairs on the management of houses, property and the capital of the Lavra to an authorized person from the Ministry of State Charity. Upon receipt of this attitude, it was instructed to the Governor of the Affairs of the Spiritual Council, Hieromonk Vsevolod, to talk with the Commissioner for State Charity, Ms. Kolontai, and, if possible, to clarify the issue of the situation of the Lavra and its brethren. For this purpose, on Monday, January 15, Hieromonk Vsevolod visited the Ministry of Charity, where it was explained to him that Mrs. Kollontai was ill, and it was proposed to speak with the Commissioner of the city of Drigo and others. From the explanations given by Mr. Drigo, it was clear that the charitable department's main goal was to use the large premises in the Lavra for the construction of almshouses for the disabled and, in general, the disabled; the brethren are not supposed to be expelled, for they will have to serve the temples as before, and in addition, the brethren will be asked to carry out various duties at open shelters and almshouses. The chambers of Vladyka Metropolitan should be vacated, but expelling the Metropolitan, the chosen one of the people, from the Lavra is not at all meant, and if he wishes, he will be provided with another room in the same Lavra, but of a smaller size. Then it was promised, immediately upon the recovery of Ms. Kollontai, that Hieromonk Vsevolod be given the opportunity to speak personally with her, to which she allegedly already agreed. Hieromonk Vsevolod's request not to appoint a commissar to the Lavra until the matter was clarified through a personal conversation with Ms. Kollontai was answered with consent. Meanwhile, on January 16, Tuesday, at 2 pm, an unknown person, accompanied by two others, appeared to Bishop Procopius, and said that he had been appointed from the Ministry of Charity as the commissar of the Lavra, presented his mandate and demanded that the Lavra be handed over to him with all the capital movable and its real estate. To this demand, the reverend rector replied that the property of the Lavra was the property of the church and the people and could not be transferred: then the commissar, who turned out to be a certain city of Ilovaisky, declared that, in view of the unwillingness of the Lavra authorities to voluntarily surrender the Lavra, other measures would be taken and retired . From a short conversation between Bishop Procopius and the city of Ilovaisky, it was partly clear that the Lavra, as a monastery, would have to cease to exist, and it was not possible to find out the fate of the brethren. In the evening, on the same day, at the invitation of the Bishop, a general meeting of the brethren of the Lavra was held, at which the question of the Lavra was discussed and it was decided not to allow, by all possible means, the destruction of the Lavra as a monastery, and in general the transfer of the Lavra into the wrong hands and the expulsion of the Metropolitan. The next day, on January 17, in the morning the reverend rector went to the Ministry of Charity to deal with the affairs of the Lavra, and Archimandrite Ierofey, to Smolny, and the impression from all the negotiations was that the Bolshevik government had the ultimate goal - namely, the crushing of the Lavra, as monastic abode. In the absence of the bishop, Commissar Ilovaisky appeared again with the same demands for surrender, but, without waiting for a meeting with the rector, he left a note with a warning that he would come to receive the Lavra on the 18th and asked to send the head of the Lavra's real estate at his disposal. On the morning of January 18, Mr. Ilovaisky actually appeared to His Grace Procopius and, after a very short conversation, left with the same negative answer.
According to some information coming, on the one hand, as if from Ms. Kollontai, and on the other, from the manager of the Council of People's Commissars, Mr. Bonch-Bruevich, the case is supposedly only about the use of the most extensive premises for almshouses and shelters Laurels, but this still needs to be confirmed. The people, that part of the population of Petrograd, especially from the permanent pilgrims of the Lavra, expresses their readiness to defend it, but in what and how this defense can be expressed is an open question.
Two copies are attached to the report: 1) the attitude of the people's commissar for state charity, dated January 13, 1918, for 423 addressed to the rector of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, His Grace Procopius, as follows:
“As a result of the decision of the People’s Commissar on the requisition of all residential and vacant premises with all inventory and valuables belonging to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, you are hereby ordered to hand over all the affairs you have regarding the management of the houses, property and capital of the Lavra to an authorized person from the Ministry of State Charity, upon presentation them the relevant document.
(M.P.) People's Commissar (sub.) A. Kollontai. Secretary (sub.) Tsvetkov, and 2) a copy of the act dated January 13, 1918, in which act the following is stated:
“We, the undersigned representatives of the Ministry of State Charity, Commissioner V. Adov, members of the Commission for Social Survey P. Drigo, V. Troinitsky and Secretary of the People’s Commissar Tsvetkov on the one hand, and adjutant of the commandant of the Rozhdestvensky district S. Latynin, adjutant of the commandant P. Maksimov, foreman policeman T. Golubev, on the other hand, as well as the commissar of the Revel combined detachment of sailors I. Okunev, in the presence of the commissioner of the Lavra I. Dokuchaev and the Rector of the Lavra, Bishop Procopius, drew up this act as follows: 1) we, Adov, Drigo, Troinitsky and Tsvetkov came to the premises of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, in accordance with the instructions of the People's Commissar of State Charity, as well as Okunev with a detachment of sailors, to obtain proper information about the available vacant premises in the buildings of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, as well as to collect information on the number of clergy living in the Lavra ranks and requisitions of available capital. While executing the above instructions, someone unknown reported to the 1st Christmas Commissariat that the sailors were allegedly robbing and killing monks, after which the above-mentioned persons arrived - Latynin, Maksimov, and Golubev with guards, as well as a squad of policemen, moreover, when clarifying the case it turned out that no robbery or violence had been committed in the premises of the Lavra, in which a proper act was drawn up and certified by the signatures of the above-named persons. Adov, Drigo, Okunev, Latynin, Maksimov, Golubev, Troinitsky, Tsvetkov, Dokuchaev, and Bishop Procopius.”
11. Prince E.H. Trubetskoy. “I did not come forward to argue with Count Olsufiev, to whom Vladyko answered enough. If the count finds that the Council did not act strongly enough, then I agree with this, but that the Council did not act at all, this is not true. I will say that we must now act energetically. What they told us about the Lavra is not a private action hostile to the Church, but the implementation of a whole plan for the complete destruction of the very possibility of the existence of the Church. Now we are talking about the abolition of one monastery, this is only a trial step. The fate of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra threatens every monastery, and only monasteries? Entire churches are being secularized. The Gatchina Cathedral, according to rumors, is turned into an office. In a word, we entered a period of persecution of the Church. The Church must influence not only by exhortations, because the exhortations are too weak, but by the spiritual sword, by anathematizing those who commit actions that are clearly hostile to the Church, and all their accomplices. We know from the report of Bishop Procopius a number of persons subject to excommunication: Kollontai, Troinitsky, Tsvetkov, and others. During the holidays, a commission worked for us, which considered ways of responding to the acts of the modern government, in particular regarding the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. We were only waiting for the official report and the names that have now been named in order to submit to the Council for consideration a project for excommunicating the guilty from the Church. Further, one should fight by inviting the entire Orthodox people to come to the defense of the Church. I have no doubt that Kollontai and others should be excommunicated from the Church, and the force of excommunication should also be extended to those who carried out orders. There is an open war with the Church, not started by us. On our part, silence and inaction would be criminal. We must loudly raise our voice and raise the entire Orthodox people to the defense of the Church. Otherwise, we will be accused of weakness, inactivity and criminal cowardice. You can't delay. With this, the sessions of the Council should begin. The read report should be submitted to the commission, which will work out a response.
12. Archpriest A. A. Khotovitsky. “Now, when the Patriarch, by his open courageous denunciation of the enemies of the Church and his appeal to her faithful sons to stand up for her, dooms himself to the feat of the cross, to confession, all Orthodox Russia must use every effort to make this feat the most fruitful, so that the great sacrifice was not brought by our Most Holy Father in vain. We pray to the Lord that He save His Holiness the Patriarch from misfortunes, but let's be frank: we know how cruelly the rapists in power punish the courageous word of truth. And therefore, reverently bowing before the stand of our spiritual leader for the Faith and the Church, we cry out: may the saving fruits for Orthodox Russia grow on this feat. How to achieve this? We will achieve then if we do not leave His Holiness the Patriarch alone in his call and readiness. We hear in his message how he calls all of us to confession, to struggle and feat. We feel how our heart is now trembling with the thirst for this feat, we strive for it, but often do not know how and where to find it. We have heard both from our flock and from those who have never placed a priest high, cries: “Shepherds! raise your voice, stop the violence!”. And we are ready, but we do not know how to sacrifice ourselves. We do not know, because life is now being built so intricately that sometimes you do not have time to determine the correct attitude towards its manifestations. Right now, we hear the call: do not communicate with rapists! They are excommunicated from the Holy Church, and any contact with them fills us not only with a sense of spiritual disgust, but also with a sense of horror. We would like to move away from them, but life confronts us with them. And even if we pastors fail to figure out how to position ourselves in relation to them, will our flock always figure it out, responding with heart and believing mind to the formidable excommunication of rapists from the Holy Church and fearing to be among their henchmen and incur anathema? For example, there is now a strike going on in almost all state institutions as a protest against Bolshevism and its horrors. How should we, churchmen, react to this phenomenon? Yes, of course, this is a manifestation of protest, unwillingness to go hand in hand with detractors of truth and order. The strikers dissociated themselves from the rapists. But take a closer look at this phenomenon and its consequences. I openly declare that from the beginning I spoke out against the strike. Why? I know very well the meaning of strikes, their structure, and I am not against them at all. But in this case, was it really necessary to let go of the affairs of state only because the rapists appointed their own commissars? Didn't the strike achieve results exactly the opposite of what was desired? The possibility of influencing the course of affairs and the environment that could be saved from the further corrupting influence of rapists was immediately lost. Until now, perhaps, as ignoramuses of the state, they would have been driven out of the course of our state life by the very course of events, or crushed in their strength. And now? Hunger strike of strikers, constant compromises, going from the black porch to the Bolsheviks for service, strikebreaking, a break with the poorly enlightened mass of the people, who see in the strike sabotage and abuse of their dreams, and triumphant jubilation among the rapists, etc. Conscientious souls turn to the priest every now and then : how to be? Need, a sick mother, a huge family ... Starvation ... I myself had to speak with the commissioner many times, asking him not to refuse to pay salaries to employees of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior: watchmen and psalmists receive 30 rubles each. per month, multi-family. To go to the Bolsheviks or not? And now these bewilderment and confusion of the soul will intensify even more. What to say? Is it possible to expand this further? In the letter of the Patriarch, the prohibition can be misunderstood by many and give birth to grief. It is necessary that our conciliar family become as fully as possible an active guide to the life and understanding of the people of the spirit and meaning of this appeal of our Most Holy Father. And we will try to extract the greatest happiness from the sacrificial patriarchal feat. How to do it? I will not, of course, give a complete answer, and it is difficult to give one. I feel that life itself will prompt when our readiness to suffer for Christ must be put into action. But in the field of my small office priest at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior-vision, I will try to outline something in this direction.
The Cathedral of Christ the Savior is one of the centers that needs to be brought closer to the consciousness of the people, and to justify its historical existence. It was created, so to speak, on the bones of Russian knights, who laid down their lives in the most difficult time of history for what our Patriarch calls us to give our lives for. The temple was built in memory of 1812, when the very heart of Russia, Moscow, was at stake, and Russia, as it were, was destined to perish. Bring this holy of holies of Russian church building closer to the hearts of the people, and in this most difficult time, try with the spirit of the Russian heroes who died in battle to resurrect among the people those holy impulses of standing up for their native Church and the earth, which are embodied in them, and which the majestic Cathedral of Christ narrates so loudly. Savior. Does not life say that this temple can now become the temple of the Savior for our earth? Don't make him richer! Relive his now cold walls! This is not a state-owned Moscow Cathedral. It was built not by the Moscow Consistory, but by Russia. May it be an all-Russian church pulpit!
May he be the chair of the Patriarch in his constant communion with the people! With a capacity of up to 15,000 people, will not the Church of the Savior enable the thousands and thousands of Russian people who have gathered under its vaults to see their Father, making the Bloodless Sacrifice for the Russian people, teaching the flock, blessing it? Let the Russian people know where to find their Most Holy Patriarch. Let the patriarchal service be performed here day after day, every Sunday, every holiday with possible splendor, let the inspired word of the best preachers sound here, let the voices of the best singers sound here and, with the common people's chest, all the people's singing. Let the formidable word of rebuking the enemies of the church of our Holy Father be heard here at the right time! Not the Patriarch to parish churches, but parishes in all the multitude of people, with banners and crosses, let them march here to their Father, under the shadow of the Savior's temple. And if it would please the Lord to judge our Most Holy Patriarch by death to seal his sacrificial feat, then slain at the altar of the Lord in the center of Moscow, this new sacrifice will never be blotted out from the memory of the people, and the spirit of the new righteous will merge with the spirit of those righteous who fell for their homeland and for Christ. And the dead Russian land will rise again! And not in vain will there be a sacrifice! And the Patriarch will not remain alone, and we will not be alone, for the people are with us and yearn for achievement no less than we do; he is already calling us and asking how to save the motherland. The hour has come when, following the Holy Father, our Holy Council must, dooming itself to sacrifice, tell the people who it should be and who it should follow.”
13. D. I. Bogolyubov. I will not detain your attention on the various events of the last days. I will now note only the joy that we all feel from the consciousness that, at last, that voice of the Patriarch, which Orthodox Russia has long been waiting for, has been heard. I have said before that it is necessary to anathematize people who openly rebel against Christ and His Church. However, let us not delude ourselves about the influence of the Patriarchal message on the working masses. I must say that Bolshevism is not dead; it still captures the masses; but in the popular consciousness there is a certain shift in the other direction. I personally witnessed how crowds of people of various conditions flocked to religious lectures in Voronezh, and very many of them were ready to stand up for the Orthodox faith. After one lecture on the theme of Christ, the Savior of the world, people told me that the Bolsheviks were ready to deal with bullets with those who divert the attention of the people to the side; but they are not afraid of them. The commissar, resolving my other lecture on the Church Council, said: “What desire do you have to deal with such trifles!” But the people knew that the Council was not a trifle, and they were ready to lay down their bones for the Orthodox faith. Until recently, the broad masses of the people lived in other and downright godless moods. Thus a shift in folk psychology is undoubtedly taking place. Here is another proof of that. There were many soldiers in the car in which I was traveling to Moscow from Voronezh; one could think that it was a whole echelon returning from a position, but they were, as it turned out, released merchant soldiers; almost all of them were against the Bolsheviks. It is very important that even among the soldiers there is a certain shift away from Bolshevism. When I told my soldier companions that a soldier in a hat had come to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra Cathedral and, in response to a remark about this, replied that there was no shrine for him, these words made a depressing impression on the soldier’s carload. So I say to myself: with such godless soldiers, for whom nothing is sacred, is it possible to start a “holy war”, as our commissars declared the other day? ..
Now we are entering a period of terror and anarchy, the moment when every believer will be dealt with with a bayonet and a bullet. Obviously, the time has come for the Church to say its authoritative decisive word on this matter. We will die for the Russian Orthodox Church. This is our voice; but it can be overheard in a wide variety of social circles. So, recently in Voronezh, seminarians, having learned that the Bolsheviks intended to end the academic year on January 30 with the obvious goal of taking them to the trenches for the “holy warrior,” declared that they would go “better to Kaledin than to follow the Bolsheviks.” And I consider it indisputable that whoever had contact with the people knows that there is still gunpowder in the flasks. The Orthodox mass has not yet died out, but it has not been co-organised. I also pray to the Lord God that the Patriarchal message will serve as a kind of church alarm, that trumpet sound, which is destined to draw general attention to the criminal actions of the people. If the Council, following the Patriarch, does not set out on the road of cross-bearing, then Russia will be finally dispersed. The psychology of the moment is such that the Russian people need resolute statements by their leaders, in their resolute actions. Therefore, I welcome the Patriarchal Epistle as a great national cause, as a bright dawn of a better future in our lives.
How dark and gloomy our present is, how strong our ecclesiastical disorder is, I can point to such a “everyday” report received by the Voronezh Consistory. In one village, the peasants expelled the priest and elected a deacon in his place, over whom they decided to perform a special “civil ordination”. The deacon went out to the pulpit and said: "I swear by Almighty God that I will not take more than what is due for the demand." The people sang "axios". The deacon also said, "I swear by Almighty God that I will do your will." The people sang "axios". After that, the deacon put on the priestly vestments "and began." "Blessed be our God..."
Elsewhere, the priest was harnessed to a sledge and rode on it.
Such ugly blasphemers must be anathema: then, perhaps, their hearts will tremble. Otherwise, mischief has reached the edge with us; there is nowhere else to go. Rifles were handed out to the masses of the people, and now the shooting is going on everywhere.
14. At 12 o'clock. 3° min. break is announced.
15. The meeting resumes at 1 pm.
16. Archpriest A. M. Stanislavsky: “D. I. Bogolyubov said that a shift away from Bolshevism is now being noticed in the people's consciousness, but I, on the contrary, got a completely different impression. Leaving Moscow on December 10 in a train car full of soldiers. All turned out to be Bolsheviks, and all the way we heard rotten words and threats to throw the priests out of the car. The impression was not the same as that of D. I. Bogolyubov. We arrived in Kharkov, where the Bolsheviks seized power and established their own rules. At the station, dirt, noise, screams, arrests of bourgeois, officers are being made. I go to the spiritual consistory and there I see the new authorities - the Little Russian soldier-commissar, who declared that he was entrusted with supervision, control over the consistory, that he had special powers and could establish special orders. From Kharkov I'm heading home to Bogodukhov; I'm going in a hot tub. All the time one could hear talk about the clergy in the most rude terms; the soldiers were not embarrassed by the presence of either women or children. They said that we all need to be destroyed as enemies of the people. On the way they had lunch and dinner, and not a single soldier crossed himself once. These are the soldiers I saw. And no one stopped them, no one said: "be ashamed of the priest, women and children."
What did I see next? I come to Bogodukhov, and it is in the power of the Bolsheviks. They smashed a wine warehouse, and the alcohol was partly sent by the Bolsheviks to Kharkov, partly plundered by the local population. The children also took part in this activity. The whole road to the wine cellar was littered with drunks, both adults and children aged 6-7. Hundreds were drunk to death. You can imagine what a moral decline must come from this in children. Following the destruction of the wine warehouse, the destruction of the landowners' estates began. The flourishing estates of Kharitonenko, Koenig, and others, in which there was an exemplary economy, were so destroyed that no stone was left unturned. And what is striking is that it was not only the poor peasants who robbed, no: the wealthy peasants, who had 5-6 horses, also robbed. "All ours," said the robbers. But they were not limited only to robbery, but also set fire to the landowners' houses. There were cases when the whole family of the landowner was brought on a cart, they showed them how their houses were burning, and then they were taken to the station or simply expelled. The terrible thing is that neither money, nor things, nothing was given to the expelled. The attitude was the most cruel, inhuman, bestial. I was struck by such a manifestation of the inhumanity of Bolshevism, you will not find anything like it in the history of another people. I wanted to know what was the matter, and asked a Bolshevik, the husband of a servant, a sailor from the Baltic fleet, to come to me. And so he said that both in the navy and in the army, a plan for the destruction of the Orthodox Church was being carried out with a skillful hand. Soldiers and sailors are told that the land and will must belong to the people, but to achieve this, the Orthodox Church must be destroyed. It is necessary to destroy both the priests and the bourgeoisie; and who destroys the priests and the bourgeois, he is doing a good deed for the motherland. Out of 200 million, 10 million can be killed, this is a good deed, because then there will be paradise for the rest. The Bolshevik peasant and worker is firmly convinced that if he kills, he does not commit a sin. This is the root of evil. And not only did I not notice any shift, on the contrary: I saw the flowering of Bolshevism. Everywhere the Bolsheviks seized power; What a shift when we see that peasants, even rich ones, are taking possession of other people's estates! Not only that, they rob all property. The peasants end up with pianos, candelabra, expensive paintings and other things that they have divided among themselves. They say that they have taken their-people's property. How can a peasant soon give up forest, land and loot? But now they will still divide the land in the spring, then we need to expect an even sharper struggle and black terror. Maybe only then will the people wake up from their madness and ask for firm power.
What we should to take emergency measures, and what should these measures be?
The first measure we have already heard is the message of His Holiness the Patriarch. But we know the messages that were sent before: their soldiers tore. The message of the Patriarch is penetratingly composed and it authoritatively denounces the madmen, but now even its presence will hardly fully reach the goal. What to do? They talk about extraordinary feats, about the need to go to any lengths.
I will say that the time has come for us to unite in this. We were too timid. We are told: everyone should go for a feat, for self-sacrifice. And this self-sacrifice has not yet been shown. Now you need to come up with the necessary actions.
It is necessary to arrange a public prayer with processions of the cross, and at the same time tell the people what troubles the Church is exposed to from the enemies of Orthodoxy. It is necessary that the word be fearless, it is necessary to awaken the conscience of the people. After all, there has never been a more sad and terrible moment in the history of the Russian Church! We need to understand each other and discuss measures for unification immediately. In a week, maybe it will be too late, You can’t be late, you have to start, decide on self-sacrifice and go to the defense of the Orthodox Church.
18.JI. K. Artamonov. “It was painful for me to listen to the speech of Count D. A. Olsufiev. This is a belated repentance of our intelligentsia. But let's leave this: is it necessary now to reproach anyone with the past? We need to think about what to do now. We need the right step, and such a step, and on the right path, has already been taken by our Holy Father. Everything that has been said on this subject here can be treated with sympathy and with no sympathy. I will answer Archpriest A. A. Khotovitsky. I am not embarrassed about how to deal with those who are subject to excommunication from the Church, with whom one should not have church communion. The Apostle Paul does not speak of physical communication with them, which he also allowed. I am compelled to enter into communion with the occupants of power for the sake of the urgent needs of those whom I have to take care of, but this should not be done for personal gain, to have communion with them in the sense of like-mindedness and sharing their course of action. Suppose that I would be bound hand, and the robber at this time would strangle a person dear to me. No doubt I would kiss his hands and feet, beg him to spare his victim. But if the bound began to praise the strangler in order to stay alive himself, this would be complicity in a crime. You will inevitably have to have fellowship with people, otherwise you cannot live. But it is extremely important to understand what motives are guided by such communication. A strike by officials, for example, is, in my opinion, a gross mistake: if they had held everything unanimously and firmly in their hands, perhaps all state affairs would have gone differently. The Mongols, for example, defeated the Chinese, but relatively soon the winners disappeared among the Chinese. They spoke in Chinese, and with contempt began to talk about their Mongolian language. The bureaucratic world is of great importance in the state. Emperor Nicholas I said that Russia was governed by 100,000 officials (heads of the clerk). The world of officials, remaining in their places, would have worn out the wheels of Bolshevism. But the deed is done. We need to be imbued with those lofty ideas that the diploma of His Holiness the Patriarch breathes. And I thank God that my weak voice was one of the first and persistent in the restoration of the patriarchate. And how pitiful were the attempts to interfere with us! Perhaps the success of the opponents of the patriarchate would have led to the complete destruction of the Church.
To the question of the impact on the dark, unbridled mass that now dominates, I will allow myself to give an example from recent travel impressions. I had to go to Yaroslavl. About 80 people, almost all "comrades", but there were women, children, officers and 4 Jewish merchants, crowded into a summer, unheated carriage of the 3rd class. The frost was 10-12 degrees. Outside, people were freezing, not getting into the car and holding on to the handles of the car, begging to be let inside to warm up, but in response to their pleas they answered with laughter and dirty jokes. But then an indignant, sharp, passionate and accusatory voice was heard: “Why, have you forgotten God, have you forgotten honor and conscience? What are you doing? After all, these are also people, and they want to live just like you do. It was the voice of a woman. The result was that the rude jokes fell silent, everyone made room and let the freezing ones in, one door was opened ajar. To my shame, I was silent, like other men, feeling that I had no impulse and inner strength to influence the "comrades". The story told once again convinces me that one of the most important measures to stop the ruin in our people should be recognized as the involvement of a woman in assisting our clergy, in preaching the word of God and in spreading correct Christian views among the wavering mass of confused simpletons and children. I would say: “The larger the crowd, the more difficult it is to inspire good moods, because the crowd, especially our Russian common people, perceives the word in a somewhat strange way. Forgive the authority that I allow myself, but over the course of 42 years of service I had frequent contact with soldiers, peasants and workers, and I became convinced that they perceive thoughts differently than we, who consider ourselves intellectuals. A sermon with foreign words is perceived badly. The sermon is clear, short, like the slogans of the Bolsheviks, that's what the people need. To be successful in such a crowd of people, you must have people who sympathize with you. And this can only be acquired with the participation of assistants. This is one of the ways to which the most serious attention must now be paid, so that the word of God will fall on the prepared soil and become valid. The help of believing women is especially important in this regard.
I was very happy when I learned about the message of the Patriarch. It would be high time to raise your voice on the part of the church leader, and if the believing people hear this voice, they will follow your spiritual leader and will not be passive towards hooligans. It should be discussed at the Council regarding the position of those priests who are threatened with murder. What should they do, whether to stay in the parish or leave.
20. The meeting was adjourned at 2:10. day.
The council meets again two days later.
The cathedral has definitely become the guard of the counter-revolution, as believers look at it from all sides. The counter-revolutionary wave has already overwhelmed the genuine church consciousness. Hatred for the Bolsheviks blinds the eyes of churchmen.
The Church is in danger!
Here is the slogan of the church after October.
All eyes are fixed on the cathedral. Greetings are sent to him, he is encouraged, he is encouraged and he is ... pushed.
On January 22, at a meeting of the cathedral, a presentation from the general meeting of pastors, parish councils and representatives of the monastics of Odessa is heard: “The general meeting of pastors, parish councils and representatives of the monastics of the city of Odessa, imbued with a feeling of filial love and joy, with one mouth and one heart welcomes you , Your Holiness, as the first-chosen and spiritual leader of the All-Russian Orthodox Church on the Patriarchal throne of Moscow and the whole throne, which has been widowed for two too many centuries. May the Lord raise in your person, following the example of the bright memory of the great primatial hierarchs and miracle workers of Russia, a man of strength and reason and a great prayer book and mourner for the fate of the united great and holy Russia in the difficult time of the terrible trial sent down to her. May our Lord Jesus Christ, the Great Shepherd, give Your Holiness, as the spokesman of the Orthodox Russian idea in the universal Church and as the custodian of the unshakable foundations of the catholicity and canonicity of the Russian church system, the strength and strength to stand firmly on guard of these age-old principles of the native church against any encroachments on them, and may the Almighty God preserve the one holy All-Russian Church, headed by Your Holiness. Chairman of the General Meeting Pavel Kapliarevsky. Cathedral Archpriest Vasily Florovsky and Archimandrite Kirill.
And at the same time from Semipalatinsk: “The District Assembly of the Mountains. Semipalatinsk welcomes the election of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. Accepts the present election as a guarantee of the speedy resurrection of the motherland. Chairman of the meeting Stankevich.
There are many such documents. I took the first ones that came. All the reactionaries wish to see the cathedral, the patriarch, as their banner. Through them, they hope for the restoration of the past order dear to their hearts.
Having heard this "message", the council proceeds to the question of the activities of the government, which, in pursuance of the decree, begins to requisition church property here and there. This terribly unnerves the cathedral. Forgetting the service to "heaven", the council discusses the issues of "land", and even the land of "one's own", "own". Everything is typical here, from speech to remarks.
The report is made by Fr. P. N. Lakhostsky: “The case of the seizure of the Synodal Printing House by the Commissar for Public Education began a long time ago and was carried out systematically, as was evident from the speeches of those elders of the printing house who were in contact with the Council of Works and the soldiers' deputies. One must think that already at the end of October or in the first days of November they had active relations with the Council, but then the conditions of the surrounding reality were not yet recognized as ripe for considering violence against the church timely. In order to commit this violence, they used the following maneuver: to seize the synodal printing house by the decision of the workers themselves, the working people themselves, and, in this way, “nationalize” it, or, as they say, “socialize” it at the desire of the people themselves, so that at the disposal of the workers were all the machines and all the inventory of the printing house were transferred, as a result of their own labor. The result of this decision was the next steps towards the capture of the printing house. 12 elders, all Bolsheviks, were in contact with the assistants to the commissar for public education, Zalkind and Lebedev-Polyansky. The elders examined some documents of the Holy Synod, unknown to me how they became available to them. They particularly found fault with the fact that printing capital had been formed under the Holy Synod. They completely misinterpreted this capital as belonging precisely to the printing house, that is, to the workers. But in Petrograd, events were brewing in this area (at the request of the church of its property). The mood of the elders rose every day. When I came to the printing house on December 19, I found a small meeting there. The workers did not start work (although it was already time to start it), but heatedly discussed the issue of seizing the printing house. I asked permission to participate in the discussion; at first I was refused, but then they invited me to the council of elders; here it turned out that the representatives of the workers (there were only three of them) would be pleased if the workers of the Petrograd printing house were given the same increases that the workers of the Moscow Synodal Printing House received. But one half-drunk headman said: “This is not about raises. What awards are there: everything is ours, the entire printing house is transferred to the jurisdiction of the Council of People's Commissars. None of the elders objected to him. I asked that the issue be referred to the general meeting of workers. This approach was found to be correct. On the 21st of December, in the general meeting, a huge part of the workers - three-quarters or three-fifths - were on the side of the Holy Synod. They expressed that they would be pleased if they granted their requests for the same increases that were assigned to the workers of the Moscow Synodal Printing House. The elders were dissatisfied with this outcome, they wanted to disrupt the meeting, but they still managed to bring it to an end. An official resolution was drawn up, which was sent to His Holiness the Patriarch. Then the elders, seeing that such a maneuver of seizing the printing house through the workers themselves was not possible, tried to resort to external force - to bring what had happened to the attention of the assistant commissar for public education, Lebedev-Polyansky. At the second general meeting of workers on January 3, Lebedev-Polyansky spoke for an hour and a half, full of rudeness and blasphemy. He stated that he was well acquainted with the spiritual department, that he himself allegedly studied at the theological academy, but that he was sick of it there, and he ran away to the university. I began to listen carefully to his speeches and, judging by his attacks, I realized that all this was a blatant lie. He said, for example, that Christ and the apostles nowhere taught: “Let every soul obey those in power,” that the priests invented this; said that he was authorized to declare to the workers that they would be given 300 bonus rubles each, and they would be provided with a salary for three months, even if there was no work, “even if, as this priest (points to me) said, you will thrown out into the street." And I really said that the workers may be left without work, since the Holy Synod will not publish their publications. Then Polyansky asked: “Why don't you give us work? We will print the gospels!” I replied that this was a great thing: “Here you are blaspheming here too: how can you be instructed to print St. gospel? You make 5 mistakes per line while typing, you have no one to correct them. Will the Holy Synod really allow you to distort and spoil the Word of God?” Polyansky made another attack: “If,” he said to the workers, “if you follow us, you will receive 300 rubles each, and if you follow the priests, you will remain hungry, because they don't exist." However, the workers stood their ground. Then he declared that he was authorized, in case of resistance, to make arrests and take those who resisted to prison. Then one woman, Vetrova, who has been working in a printing house for 19 years, made the following statement: “I have been working in a printing house for many years and have never heard such intimidation in 19 years. And I see you for the first time, and you threaten with a prison. Obviously we can't get along." Then Lebedev-Polyansky pounded his fist and said that he was authorized to bring in the Red Guards. It turned out that armed forces were already prepared somewhere in the yard. Several Red Guards appeared at the door, general confusion arose, and sobs were heard.
After the capture of the printing house, very frequent meetings of the Petrograd clergy, representatives of parishes, general meetings of parish councils, first of Petrograd alone, then of the entire diocese, began. It was found that all captures occurred in a known system. At the very first meeting of the parish councils, on January 11, it became known that various commissars came to the rector of the seminary, and to the theological school, and to the metropolitan and declared that it was easy to deal with the Synod, that it was decided to declare all the property of the Synod the property of the people; the Jew Svalbard gave a lecture at the former Mikhailovsky Artillery School. Declaring himself a commissioner for church affairs, he declared that since some authorities did not obey the Council of Commissars, measures would be taken against them, that Metropolitan Veniamin also did not obey, therefore he would be evicted from the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. At a meeting of representatives of the parish councils on January 11, resolutions were worked out, including a resolution to seize the printing house. The resolution says that thousands of believers consider the seizure of the printing house as a robbery, they protest against it, and they will talk about it not only in the church, but also on trams, in the squares, that they, the parish councils, see a clear persecution of the Orthodox Church by those who calls himself the government of the people. I wanted to present this resolution to Lunacharsky, but it is impossible for us, small people, to catch him, a tall man. He sends Lebedev-Polyansky to me. The treatment I received from this official was contemptuous and rude; he did not want to hear anything, he did not accept written statements; I took one paper in my hands, but wanted to tear it up; the paper was signed, and I barely managed to snatch it back from him. However, in the end, I was told that Lunacharsky would receive me, and the day and place were appointed. I arrived ten minutes before the appointed hour, but Lunacharsky was not there; the porter told me, "They haven't arrived yet." When he arrived, he did not get out of the car, but sent Polyansky away. I turned to Polyansky: "After all, you yourself said that I would be received today." He replied: “You never know what I said, he is a busy man, is he up to you!” So, Lunacharsky did not come out. I told Polyansky that I had documents, that they should be presented to Lunacharsky, that I would send them. To these he replied with a curse: “Send these papers to hell!” Polyansky is a small, nimble person. I told him that even though you sign Lebedev-Polyansky, I think you are neither Lebedev nor Polyansky.
On January 14, in the hall of the Society for Religious and Moral Education on Stremyannaya, a huge meeting of parish councils and parishioners took place. Here a statement was made about the capture of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. Metropolitan Veniamin, unfortunately, was not there, he was busy serving and talking elsewhere, but His Grace Procopius was there. Many spoke in the congregation and spoke with great enthusiasm. It was indignantly emphasized that only the Orthodox Church was being persecuted, while other confessions enjoyed patronage. It was necessary to develop some practical measures, and now one soldier, a member of the Council of Soldiers' Deputies, took part in the discussion. At first he stood behind, then moved forward and took part in the conversation. He told us the following: "I myself am a member of the Council of Soldiers' Deputies." At first they did not believe him, but the more he spoke, the more we became convinced of his sincerity. He said that in Smolny, in closed meetings, the question of requisitioning the printing house and the Lavra was discussed several times. But there were Protestants among the workers (he did not mention the soldiers). “But we, he said, were impudently deceived that they would print cheap books, that the priests took 5 rubles for the Gospel, and we would give almost for free, that the money went into the pockets of the bishops, and similar absurdities. And now, having listened to speeches here, I see, continued the soldier, that the seizure of printing houses is a brazen robbery. And they said about the Alexander Nevsky Lavra that its requisition would be better even for the monks themselves, that it was supposedly being done for best use premises of the Lavra in the interests of the believers themselves. Here we agreed. Arriving at Smolny, I will conduct propaganda among the soldiers there today. I, as the chairman of the meeting, asked him: “Is there any hope that there will be like-minded people there, will they sympathize with you?” He confidently said that there would be, that although there are many unbelievers, non-Russians, non-Orthodox, there are also believers. Then a cleverly practical speech was made by a woman who stated that “she went around the barracks and persuaded the believing soldiers to come to the defense of the Holy Church. And this measure was approved and adopted by the assembly. Another measure was immediately proposed: to entrust the soldiers with the protection of churches. The same soldier, a member of the Soviet of Soldiers' Deputies, pointed out that such a measure was premature, that the only result would be that all these soldiers would be killed, that it was necessary to wait with this measure. This is where they stopped. What then happened in Petrograd, I do not know, since I left there. I just know that the disasters of the workers of the Synodal Printing House have already begun. There is no work. They undertook to type two newspapers, but the Red Guards burned them, since at that time for 8 days there was no periodical press, except for the Bolshevik one. The workers of the printing house (headmen) began to print their own magazine, Labor Weekly, where the Holy Synod was vilified. Everything is led by the elders; and the rest of the workers are with them only outwardly, because they were bribed, received awards. How to be further? We decided to find another printing house for printing the Church Public Bulletin; but this proved impossible, because the rotary machines were all requisitioned. But to leave the clergy, especially the rural ones, now in the dark ignorant of what is going on, is to play into the hands of the Bolsheviks. In any case, even one report of information about the measures that are being taken in Petrograd, Moscow and other places to protect the Orthodox faith and its shrines has an encouraging effect on the ground. Nevertheless, they managed to find a printing house for printing "Church Gazette". I ask the Holy Council to give sanction to our decisions: to stop for the time being, until a more favorable time, the publication of the Church Public Bulletin and to expand the unofficial part of the Church Gazette.
I must add that our meetings were accompanied by such an uplift of spirit, such speeches in defense of the Church, about her sufferings, that I am sure that yesterday, which was decisive for the Petrograd Church, passed off successfully, although perhaps not without sacrifices; I am sure that the procession in Petrograd showed that the strength, the power of the people, not in bayonets, but in readiness and suffering, and even sacrifices, will defend the shrine. This power is invincible."
After Lakhostsky, the floor is given to M. F. Glagolev, who reports on the activities of Spitsberg.
26. M. F. Glagolev. “I consider it my duty to report to the Holy Council information of a general fundamental nature that explains the events of the last days. I had to attend a lecture by Comrade People's Commissar, as he was recommended, Spitsberg, Ivan Anatolyevich, whom Fr. Archpriest Lakhostsky. This lecture was on the topic: Modern Church and the family in covering the revolution. This lecture in essential features is this: the teaching of the Church is completely inconsistent with the teaching of the Great teacher of morality, the man Jesus Christ. Patriarch Tikhon is an impostor. How was it made a "shrine", who made it a "shrine", what counter-revolutionary speeches were made on this subject, and why could it not be otherwise? The fate of the richest property of the non-possessive Church. The extinction of the gods-kings-the resurrection of Mankind ”(with a capital letter). Here in my hands is an invitation card on which these points are printed. When I arrived at the hall, it was mostly filled with soldiers and sailors. This lecture, from the point of view of a religious person, had the most blasphemous character. What was said here about the person of Jesus Christ and about the Blessed Virgin Mary was transmitted in the language that soldiers use when passing jokes to each other. Religious feeling could not help being indignant at this; but all the same, this part of the speech could not be as disturbing as the conclusions drawn by the comrade commissar. “I am, he declared, the author of the decree on divorce and marriage, and I must inform you that an even more difficult revolutionary process lies ahead. We have overthrown the earthly king, but we must also overthrow the heavenly one. A decree is to be issued stating that it is forbidden to perform the sacrament of Communion as a witchcraft, and then, secondly, a decree is to be closed on the closure of all churches. This he added, cruelly, but we must resort to it. The French Revolution arrived at this idea in its fourth year, while we arrived at it in the very first year of the revolution. Worship will be forbidden and church vessels will be taken away as a means for witchcraft; the clergy would be declared suspicious by the revolution. All spiritual institutions must be requisitioned. As for the school, it should be secular.”
The audience was set up entirely in favor of the lecturer and accepted all positions with enthusiasm and applause. When the lecturer was reading one synodal decree, I loudly shouted: "Juggling!", And when false information about the Council was communicated to him, I said: "Lie!" - For this I was almost taken out. Reporting on the Council, the author said that in the election of the Patriarch, the lot was drawn by a monk who evaded military life. "He's a ninety-year old man!" I said. The lecturer was apparently embarrassed, but they again wanted to take me out; the lecturer calmed the crowd and declared: "We will punish him with silent contempt."
It seems to me that this lecture is of extraordinary importance: it is important for the Council and all Orthodox to know what is supposed to be done in relation to the Orthodox Church. Therefore, it is necessary that the Council invite all diocesan Bishops to make an order that all parishes be informed about what is being prepared for our Holy Church.”
We continue the protocol in all its inviolability. After Glagolev, P. Astrov speaks.
28. P. I. Astrov: “I want to say only a few words about the practical implementation of the measures caused by the recent events of the seizure of the Petrograd Synodal Printing House. Of course, the matter here concerns church economy, but in this case the most important thing here is the violation of the rights of the Church, and I think that the issue should be referred to the joint meeting of two departments - the department on the legal status of the Church in the state and the department on church property and economy. .
29. Presiding: “Will the Council accept the proposal of P.I. economy.
30. Resolved: proposal P. II. Astrov accept.
32. Archpriest P. I. Serbinov: “Yesterday, with great difficulty and danger to my life, I arrived from the Crimea. What is being done in Crimea defies description. The horrors surpass what happened in Moscow. The Black Sea Fleet, which would have been a stronghold of order, went over to the side of the Bolsheviks. Before that, until January 9, there was order. At the head was a Council of 3 commissars who did not obey the Bolsheviks. Russian officers began to form a cadre of sailors, mainly from the Muslim population, who kept order. But now the sailors from the Bolsheviks began to seize ships and cities. A provocative rumor was spread in Feodosia that the Tatars were arming themselves in order to slaughter the Russians. This provocation excited the dark people.
In Feodosia, there were only 100 people on the side of the order. Guns from a battery from ships in the bay were aimed at the city, but violence against the clergy and destruction of temples was not observed.
In January, the Bolsheviks captured Simferopol and began to tolerate violence against the clergy and churches. Tatar troops fled. At the rallies, they began to say that the priests were to blame for the betrayal of Russia, that they should be shot.
On the night from Saturday to Sunday officers were searched for and shot. Up to 50 people were shot, and up to 200 were arrested, and what fate befell them is unknown. At the same time, a rumor was spread that there was a machine gun at the cathedral, and that the clergy should be arrested.
On Sunday there were few people in the cathedral due to fear. But Archbishop Dmitry came to the cathedral and celebrated the liturgy. After the liturgy, he addressed the people with a speech: “They say that there is a machine gun on the bell tower; Who wants to, see if it's true? Some of those in the temple went there and reported that there was no machine gun. Nevertheless, the bombardment of the cathedral began and the bell tower was damaged. Archpriest Nazarovsky was arrested and they wanted to shoot him, but he still survived. All the clergy hid, and Archbishop Dmitry kept the key. But Archbishop Dmitry boldly went to the revolutionary headquarters and demanded an investigation; impudence reached the point that the chairman said: "I myself saw a machine gun." The archbishop succeeded, however, in insisting that a commission be appointed. On Tuesday, the Archbishop himself served the liturgy according to the rite of priestly service, and I and some members of the clergy sang and read.
Patrols scattered around the area and violence took place. 20 miles from Simferopol, soldiers broke into the temple, began to ask why the ribbon on the lamp was green and not red, they brought Fr. John of Uglyansky up the hill and shot there. On Sunday, January 14, Archbishop Dmitry's house was searched more than once, everything was broken into and ripped open. They entered the Bishops' Church with cigarettes and in hats, pierced the altar and the throne with a bayonet. The seminary and theological school were captured. “We are tired of living in the barracks in the mud,” the soldiers said. In the theological school, they seized the assistant superintendent, Archpriest Bessonov, but left him on the porch, while they themselves entered the temple. We were here for about a quarter of an hour, but managed to break open the altar and the closet in the difference. The diocesan candle factory is destroyed, the wine is drunk and poured out. In total, more than a million rubles was lost. Here is a summary of the terrible events in the Crimea; I will report on them in more detail at a private meeting.
Our poor, unfortunate Yalta! For six days they fired at her from two military ships. There are 15 thousand patients in Yalta. It was difficult to run: in the direction of Alupka there were mountains, and in the direction of Livadia the Bolsheviks were standing. They fired for two hours during the day and two hours at night. Not a single piece of glass remained. The people went mad with fear. The exact result of the shelling is unknown to me, since I left on Monday. Both the cathedral churches and the Armenian church, which looks similar to ours, suffered. The Rossiya Hotel no longer exists, Oreanda was destroyed, an orphanage was destroyed, and about 25 children died. Anger was manifested towards everything, since Yalta, according to the Bolsheviks, is a bourgeois city. There is hatred for the clergy. When I was in the car, one soldier said: “Ah, priest, you should have aimed at him!” But nothing, the danger has passed. In general, in the south of the city taken by the Bolsheviks, blood flows like a river. I must once again note the fearlessness of Archbishop Dmitry. In Sevastopol, he buried the priest Chepranov, who was killed by sailors for admonishing St. secrets condemned to death. The body of the priest was not found, as it was probably thrown into the sea. A member of the Spassky Cathedral has been arrested.”
33. Archpriest A. P. Rozhdestvensky. “The heavy feeling that we experienced while listening to the terrible events should result in a prayer for the victims, and together with a prayer for Archpriest Peter Skipetrov, who died, mortally wounded at the time when he addressed the Red Guards with a word of admonition.”
34. The cathedral sings: "God rest with the saints."
35. Archpriest A.P. Rozhdestvensky. “Regarding all these horrors that we heard about, and especially about the seizure of the holy property of the Church, we had the consolation the other day to hear in the church the message of His Holiness the Patriarch, in which he firmly and fearlessly denounces all these lawlessness that are being created by real power. With regard to this message, a special, small commission under the Council of the Council proposes to the Holy Council to make the following definition: “The Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church welcomes with love the message of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, punishing the evil likhodey and denouncing the enemies of the Church of Christ. From the height of the patriarchal throne, the word of rebuke was thundered and the spiritual sword was raised against those who commit continuous desecration of the shrines of the faith and conscience of the people. The Holy Council testifies that it is in complete unity with the father and prayer book of the Russian Church, heeds his call and is ready to sacrificially confess the faith of Christ against its blasphemers. The Holy Council also calls on the entire Russian Church, headed by its archpastors and pastors, to unite now around the Patriarch, so as not to allow our holy faith to be desecrated.”
36. Presiding: "Would you like to accept the proposal of the commission under the Council of the Council?"
37. Decided: to accept the proposal of the Commission under the Council.
38. Archpriest A.P. Rozhdestvensky: “Then, regarding the seizures of church property, the Cathedral Council formed a special small commission to work out the measures that the Holy Council could take against all these seizures.
This commission was formed by the Council of the Council on a private basis, because the idea of this commission arose when the Council temporarily ceased its activities on the occasion of a break for a holiday. The committee included the following persons: Prot. A.II. Rozhdestvensky, P. I. Astrov, S. N. Bulgakov, N. D. Kuznetsov, A. A. Salov, Prince E. N. Trubetskoy, V. I. Shein. The commission was engaged in the development of a draft definition, which will now be submitted for consideration by the joint meeting of two departments - on the legal status of the Church in the state and on church economy and property. The draft resolution of the Holy Council, developed by a special commission formed at the meeting of the Council on December 5, will also be sent to this united assembly: Archbishop of Tver, Bishop Andronicus of Perm, Archimandrite Matthew, Professor S. N. Bulgakov, P. I. Astrov and others. Regarding this project, the following decision of the Holy Synod of December 18-20 was already made: “Having listened to the aforementioned project, I recognized for my part that the issuance by the Holy Council of the draft resolution would be expedient and appropriate to the circumstances of the present time, about which it determines: to transfer the extract to the Cathedral Advice". Here is the draft resolution of the Holy Council:
“Recently, there have been more frequent reports from the diocese addressed to diocesan bishops - members of the Holy Council about robberies in parish churches and monasteries, often combined with blasphemous desecration of the Lord's shrine, as well as about the forcible taking away of church and monastery lands with all household equipment and other property as residents of the surrounding villages, as well as persons who call themselves the bearers of power.
Taking into account that the movable and immovable property of parish churches and monasteries, being the property of the whole church, at the same time is the property of parishes and monasteries, which they received from their holy and pious ancestors, and which we must preserve and transfer intact to our believing descendants, the Sacred The Council invites the Holy Synod to immediately address the diocesan bishops and through them to the parish clergy, parishioners, monasteries and their pilgrims, indicating:
1) Not by any means to voluntarily give away the holy heritage of the Church in all its forms to anyone, but to protect it, following the example of our pious ancestors.
2) The rector of the temple or monastery must respond to the violent demands of anyone for the issuance of this or that church and monastery property with a refusal, with their appeal to the rapists with the appropriate word of admonition.
3) Report the robbers and invaders of church and monastery property (whose names are known) to the diocesan bishop for excommunication from church communion in cases of especially outrageous. (St. Gregory Neok. Pr. 3).
4) If an entire village turns out to be guilty of sacrilegious and blasphemous deeds, in such cases the diocesan saints are allowed to stop the performance of sacred rites (except for the sacrament of baptism and parting words of the sick with the Holy Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ) and to close the churches in these villages, until the sincere repentance of the guilty, which must be evidenced by the return of the completely stolen from the temple or monastery.
5) In cases of violence against clergy, apply the measure indicated in the previous paragraph to the guilty.
6) Immediately organize Orthodox brotherhoods at parish churches and monasteries to protect church and monastic property.
7) To charge the parish and monastery clergy with sermons from the church ambo to call the people to repentance and prayer, clarifying the meaning of current events from a Christian point of view.”
Thus, this decree provides for violence against the property of the Church. It is proposed to take some measures. Then they said here that it was impossible to print the "Church Gazette". Here, the manager of the Moscow Synodal Printing House said that it was possible to print these Vedomosti in Moscow, if only the format of Vedomosti was changed.
39. Chairperson: “The commission will sort it out. And now I am putting to the vote the proposal to submit for consideration by the joint meeting of two Departments - on the legal status of the Church in the state and on church property and economy - a draft ruling on measures against the seizure of churches and church and monastery property by rapists.
40. Decided: to accept the offer.
41. At 12 o'clock. day is adjourned.
42. At 12 o'clock. 40 min. the meeting is resumed, and His Holiness the Patriarch arrives at the Cathedral Chamber. The Council sings: "Polla these despots."
43. Protopresbyter N. A. Lyubimov: “With the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch and Our Father, next Sunday, January 28, there will be a religious procession, if possible, from all the churches of Moscow to Red Square. On that day, His Holiness the Patriarch will celebrate the Liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral and then, with the removal of the shrines, will also proceed to Red Square, where, in the presence of religious processions from Moscow churches, will make a prayer for the persecution raised against the Church of God. Let us pray for an end to these persecutions, and let us endeavor that all classes of the urban population take part in prayer. I appeal to the members of the Council with a request to take the trouble to spread the news of the proposed celebration among the inhabitants of Moscow and, as was the case earlier when the acts of election and appointment of the Most Holy Patriarch were announced, to personally visit for this purpose the churches in whose parish they live. The diocesan authorities, for their part, will attend to the appropriate notification of the city clergy. Measures will also be taken to ensure that the notice appears in the periodical press. We believe that a religious upsurge will be revealed in the forthcoming feat of prayer, which will serve as a decisive warning to the invaders, which will show them that the Church has defenders, although unarmed, but ready with selflessness to stand on the fence of all her work, all her foundations, rights and property. We call for this feat of prayer and for the defense of the church.”
44. Archpriest N. V. Tsvetkov: “In the speeches of the listened speakers, a mournful list of painful impressions experienced by the homeland and the church is unfolded before us. We reverently bow before the great feat of His Holiness the Patriarch, expressed in the promulgation of the message. But the aforementioned mournful leaf testifies how the holy cathedral is touched by the ongoing events, and encourages us not to be silent, but to join His Holiness the Patriarch. The council must draw up an act or a message in which its attitude to current events would be definitely expressed. Everything that needs to be expressed is expressed in the Patriarch's epistle, and the Council fully subscribes to everything said there. Apparently, the Council itself has nothing left to say. But I would ask permission to speak about what else the Council could say on its own. First of all, all well-intentioned people in the organs of the time press are accused of being counter-revolutionaries, of standing in the way of the government, of not wanting to assist it in its striving to bestow blessings on the people. The message must indicate that what the government gives to the people is not a blessing, but a great crime against the people. At the last meeting it was said that allegedly the Church spoke out only when its property was touched. The message must indicate that this is not true, that in the entire message of the Patriarch there is not a single line about church property, that he was prompted to this feat by emotional excitement at the sight of the death of Russia and the Church. This should be emphasized. Further, the strongest point in the message of the Patriarch is the anathematization of the enemies of the Motherland and the Church and the prohibition to enter into communion with them. Although this passage, for all its brevity, is very expressive, it still requires explanation. I will not allow myself to criticize anything in the message of His Holiness the Patriarch, who wrote it in the excitement of the soul with the blood of the heart, but it is necessary to comment on it. When I myself read the epistle in church, I had to accompany it with my explanations, just as we explain the words of St. scriptures. Thus, the Council should have found out who the Most Holy Patriarch is anathematizing. I would speak out, as I spoke earlier, for the fact that the current authorities, who plotted to treacherously destroy the homeland and the Church, are subject to anathematization. But it must be borne in mind that there are persons in the government who, according to their faith and nationality, cannot be anathematized. The Council should express its attitude towards these non-Christian persons, who play a great and pernicious role. Then the conscious executors of the orders of the government and the unconscious elements who, out of ill will and cowardice, carry out the orders of this government, should be subject to anathematization. The Council needs to dwell in particular on the question of how to implement the demand of the patriarchal epistle to refrain from communion with enemies of the homeland and the church. In my commentary on this passage, proposed to the parishioners, I should have said that one should not have fellowship with such people in the ideas with which they are imbued. However, it is also necessary to indicate in which cases it is forbidden to have personal contact with them. For example, it seems to me a very serious question about the attitude of church society to power. Should church society recognize it, or follow the example of the rector of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, His Grace Prokopn, Bishop of Elizavetgrad, who courageously declared to the representatives of power who came to him that he did not recognize and does not recognize the latter, and thereby forced these worthless people, by nature cowards , retreat for a while from their intentions regarding the Lavra? Whether it is necessary to recognize power or not is a difficult question. If we do not recognize the servants of the Antichrist who have now taken possession of Russia, then how should we treat petty executors of their will? The Apostle Paul gave the commandment to pray for the authorities - at a time when the authorities were still pagan. Perhaps we should establish a distinction between the pagan authorities, who did not understand Christianity, and the rulers who push on satanic deeds and want to overthrow the King of Heaven. One of the speakers pointed out that, due to the duties of his priestly service, he was forced to have relations with representatives of the authorities. We, parish priests, really have to be in touch with the authorities. For example, the commissariats send us permission certificates for the burial of the dead, on the basis of which we perform burials, deliver passports for inscriptions, etc. The Council needs to indicate the manner of behavior in such cases so that there is no doubt in church society and among pastors. Then you need to work out general provisions regarding the seizure of church property.
For example, they seize a church house. How should I proceed? Should I bring myself to death in defense of him? However, private property may be abandoned before the time. But what to do when they enter the church, when they say “do not serve”, they begin to dispose of everything and touch what they should not touch? The council should give guidance on how to proceed in such cases. It seems to me that I should stand in the church doors and die defending the shrine. These are the considerations that arose in me yesterday and today in connection with the message of the Patriarch and the speeches of the orators, about which I considered it necessary to tell the council.
Regarding the events that took place in Petrograd, I would suggest sending there, if not a telegram, which is now impossible, then a live embassy expressing deep condolences and prayerful wishes that the first clash with the servants of Satan would serve as the beginning of saving the homeland from destruction and the church from enemies. Finally, I would suggest calling Bolshevism itself "Satanism" or anti-Christianity."
45. Presiding: “Work hard, Fr. archpriest, put your proposal on paper to submit it to the commission that is discussing the measures that need to be taken in connection with modern events.
46. A. V. Vasiliev: “Let us thank the Lord for the fact that we have finally waited to hear the truly ecclesiastical voice of our Holy Father and Patriarch. For the first time in this time of confusion, during a truly satanic campaign, a true church word was spoken. A word has been uttered on the occasion of events about which nothing has been said so far, and a pastoral judgment has been pronounced on all those who are guilty of these events. I want to comment on what was said here o.o. Archpriests Khotovitsky and Tsvetkov. I find that it is not possible to publish such a conciliar epistle, in which it would be determined to the smallest detail how Christians and pastors should act in each individual case. The Christian conscience must suggest to each of us what he can and cannot yield, and when he should lay down his life for the truth. They are perplexed as to whom the prohibition referred to in the message of His Holiness the Patriarch should fall on. Indeed, we have been experiencing a real satanic campaign against the Church of Christ, these fratricides, robberies and mutual hatred not since yesterday, not since the arrival of the Bolsheviks. At the very beginning of the revolution, the authorities committed apostasy (voices: "That's right!"). Prayer was forbidden among the troops, banners with a Christian cross were replaced with red rags. Not only the current rulers are to blame for this, but also those who have already left the stage. Let us hope that the current rulers, who are now shedding blood, will leave the stage. The message notes that the current government deceives society, promises one thing, but does another, condemns lynching, reprisals and fratricide. I have already said before, and I will repeat once again, that world history does not know such atrocities and such crimes as are happening in our country for a whole year. In our Council there are members of that government which started the devastation.
This government issued Order No. 1, by which the officers were given to be torn to pieces by the senseless mass of soldiers. What is scary is not that atrocities happen here and there. An individual and a crowd can go on a rampage, but this phenomenon is fleeting: they will come to their senses, will regret what they have done, and those around them will condemn them. The terrible thing is that for about a year we have been witnessing how everywhere a bunch of scoundrels, in front of many other people, commit evil deeds, torment, torment, carry out lynching, and this does not meet with interference from anyone. Then all these murderers are members of Christian families, they return to their relatives, meet with acquaintances and they are accepted, communication is maintained with them. It is to them that the prohibition contained in the message to have communion with the enemies of the Motherland and the Church should apply. If the father, mother, brothers and sisters did not accept the villain returning to them, expelled him and told him: “You scoundrel, your hands are covered in blood, you are not our son, not brother!” Then the atrocities would stop. But the villains are all tolerant. I allow myself to express to the Holy Council the wish that the epistle be read in churches not once, but read at every divine service, for all days, until these robberies, thefts and fratricides stop. All pastors must explain to the believing people their obligation to fulfill the requirements of the epistle, to call on each and every one to fulfill his Christian duty. With regard to that Council Determination that has already taken place, I would express the wish that it clearly states that the call is addressed not only to the entire Church, but also to every believer, to every Christian family, that everyone, in their Christian conscience, must rise up against evil, against that satanic act that I did in Russia.
47. Presiding: “You, too, present your considerations in writing to transfer them to the formed commission.
Here we shared our Impressions from the field about the painful events that are now being experienced. Others may report even more painful impressions. Do not exhaust all of them. I believe that enough has been said. It is important to indicate what should be included in the proposed conciliar message. I would ask the members of the Council to submit specific written proposals to the commission, which will consider them and, on the basis of the statements made, develop a draft message. If we talk at all, we will only waste time. It is necessary to do business, and not engage in verbal disputes and not express your impressions. The word belongs to the member of the Council A. M. Semenov.
48. Priest V. I. Vostokov. Too much has been said in this hall about the horrors experienced, and if all of them were still listed and described, then this huge hall could be filled with books. So I won't talk about horror anymore. I want to point to the root from which these horrors were created. I understand our present meeting as a council of spiritual doctors over a dangerously sick motherland. When doctors come to treat a patient, they do not stop at the last manifestations of the disease, but look deep into the root cause of the disease. So in this case, you need to find the root of the disease experienced by the homeland. From this pulpit, in front of the altar of the Enlightener of Russia, St. Prince Vladimir, I testify with my priestly conscience that the Russian people have been deceived, and so far no one has told them the full truth.
The moment has come when the Council, as the only assembly currently legitimate and truly elected by the people, must tell the people the holy truth, fearing no one but God alone. What is the truth? So much has been said here about the horrors inflicted on the country by Bolshevism. But what is Bolshevism? Natural, logical development of socialism.
After all, every movement and phenomenon has its own logical development and successively reaches its full flowering. The highest manifestation, for example, of Christianity, is high Christian asceticism. Socialism - an anti-Christian movement, in the final conclusion gives Bolshevism, its own higher development, and gives rise to those phenomena that are completely contrary to the principles of Christian asceticism, which we are experiencing. Bolshevism grew on the tree of socialism. It is a bright, mature fruit of socialism. If we fight only with the fruits of the tree, and leave the tree itself and its root untouched, let its fruit grow stout from the juices of the fat Russian field, then on the tree of socialism, still bitter fruits will grow - merciless anarchism. For clarity, I will put my thoughts in comparison. A huge train was going along an endless long way; the path was not carefully guarded, and the leaders of the train did not always stand at the height of knowledge of the matter and conscientiousness. The path became clogged, the sleepers rotted, the rails bent in places, the brigade, instead of a vigilant attitude to the movement, either dozed or engaged in conversations and entertainment. The crash was near. It was possible to prevent the collapse by clearing the way, changing the rotten sleepers, calling in skillful and honest train leaders. But they frivolously took a train from us and threw it over, that is, the life of our country, on a completely new path ... Well, our train flew off the rails, jumped along the sleepers, then, having no solid foundations, flew down a slope ... This push of the historical train off the track occurred at the end of February 1917, which was facilitated primarily by the Jewish-Masonic world organization, which threw the slogans of socialism, slogans of illusory freedom at the masses. The masses of the people, exhausted by the free tavern, and the remnants of serfdom, and the criminal war, against which, unfortunately, the representatives of the Christian Church and the Orthodox, Catholic, and Lutheran did not raise their voices, fell into this diabolical bait of socialism, which, when it denies private property and allows terror for its own purposes, in essence, crosses out the two commandments of the law of God: “do not steal”, “do not kill”. Unfortunately, many of our professors and writers dressed up socialism in beautiful clothes, calling it similar to Christianity, and in this way they, together with the agitators of the revolution, misled the unenlightened people. Fathers and brothers! What fruit did you expect from socialism when you not only did not fight it, but sometimes defended it, or almost always remained timidly silent in the face of its infection? In the Miracle Monastery in March 1917 at a meeting of the Brotherhood of Moscow Saints Orthodox priest said that anarchy awaits Russia, and slavery, either German or socialist-Jewish, awaits it. German slavery will mainly affect the body of the economy, and Jewish slavery, in addition to economic oppression, will crush and poison the soul of the people. Anarchy is inevitable unless reasonable and resolute measures are taken immediately, unless the people are explained to the people of everything that has happened in Russia, and what socialism is, and to what vital consequences it leads the people. The priest was listened to with silent indifference. And one of the liberal priests in the diocesan organ called that priest a pogrom-monger for this speech. But I will not remember the old, I will not reproach anyone. We need to serve the Church faithfully and save the country from destructive currents, and for this it is necessary to immediately tell the people the whole truth: what is socialism and what does it lead to? Better to do it late than never. The council must say that in February-March a violent coup was carried out, which for an Orthodox Christian is perjury, requiring purification by repentance. All of us, starting with Your Holiness and ending with me, the last member of the Council, should kneel before God and ask Him to forgive us our connivance in the development of evil teachings and violence in the country. Only after nationwide sincere repentance will the country be reconciled and revived, and God will exalt us His mercy and grace. And if we only anathematize, without repentance, without declaring the truth to the people, then they will tell us, not without reason: “And you are guilty of leading the country to crimes for which anathema is now being distributed. With your cowardice, you condoned the development of evil, and hesitated to call the facts and phenomena of state life by their real names.
Who among us did not know that grapes do not grow on burdock. Who did not know that socialism is a phenomenon opposite to Christianity and that from its waves the ferocious snout of the Antichrist will emerge? Who did not know that every revolution is an organized rebellion and can it bear good fruit? We knew the historical idea that had grown mighty Russia for six hundred years. And this idea in March of last year, some trampled, spat on, others did not defend it, but cautiously hushed it up. We should have raised our voice at the same time against the false path onto which Freemasonry had thrown the unfortunate country, but we did not, and so we lived to see a bloody baptism. Sorrow is our purification, but the people, however, are in darkness. Let's say to the people: forget yours, Russian people, new idolatry, worship of form, system, false freedom, turned into complete impudent self-will! New forms have been introduced, but where is the renewal of life? Forms will not save countries. Save individuals. History and progress are driven by talented and honest individuals.
Now a new idol has been set up for the people - the International.
But have we told the people what an international is? After all, this is the etching of conscience, heart, everything sacred from the soul of the people. We are indignant at the seizure of church property, but let them take away all the property, only the Russian people's soul would be left healthy. The healthy soul of the people will again soon and powerfully create everything necessary for cultural life. Freemasonry, socialism and the international all together strive to rob the soul of the people. Pastors of the Church, protect the soul of the people!
And if we don’t tell the people the full truth, if we don’t call them immediately to nationwide repentance for certain sins, then we will leave this chamber of the Council as traitors and traitors to the Church and Motherland. I am so unshakably convinced of what I am saying now that I would not even think about repeating it if I were to die now ... It is necessary to revive in the hearts of people the idea of pure, central power, stifled by all-Russian deceit. We overthrew the king and submitted to the Jews!!..
49. Comrade Chairman Metropolitan of Novgorod Arseniy: “I ask you to observe silence. This is not a rally."
50. Priest V. I. Vostokov. “The only salvation of the Russian people is the orthodox Russian wise tsar. Only through the election of a pro-Orthodox, wise, Russian tsar can Russia be put on the path of a good, historical one and the good order restored. Until we have an Orthodox-wise tsar, we will not have order, but people's blood will flow, and centrifugal forces will divide a single people into hostile groups, until our historical train is completely broken, or until foreign peoples enslave us as a crowd incapable of an independent state life.
The real conclusions from everything I have said are the following: it must be said that the Russian people have embarked on a false path called socialism, that the Orthodox faith is threatened with terrible persecution from the Masonic clique, that everyone Orthodox Christian must begin a personal active feat, live according to the faith of Christ. We must all unite in one Christian family under the banner of the Holy Life-Giving Cross and under the leadership of His Holiness the Patriarch, to say that socialism, which allegedly calls for brotherhood, is clearly an evil anti-Christian phenomenon, that the Russian people have now become the plaything of Jewish-Masonic organizations, behind which the Antichrist is already visible in the form of an international king, that, playing with false freedom, he forges Jewish-Masonic slavery for himself. If we say this honestly and openly now, then I don’t know what will happen to us, but I know that Russia will be alive then!”
50. Prof. I. M. Gromoglasov. “I will try to keep it short and dry. And above all, I strongly refuse to call you to the path of any decisions regarding the political forms that should save us. Our only hope is not that we will have an earthly king or president, whatever you want to call him, but that there will be a Heavenly King-Christ: in Him alone we must seek salvation. Together with you, I reverently bow before the courageous and stern word of the Patriarch, which it was high time to say. I will not hide the fact that I had a moment of bewilderment caused by the fact that the patriarchal message appeared on the eve of the resumption of conciliar sessions, as if the Patriarch wanted to dissociate himself from the Council, from the all-church representation. But, thinking more deeply into this circumstance, I am inclined to see its explanation in the fact that His Holiness the Patriarch was pleased to personally accept all the consequences that may occur in connection with his message. As a result of this, the feeling of reverent gratitude for the feat he has raised increases even more and increases. However, we should not forget that, according to the consciousness of the outstanding leaders of Christian thought, even the Heavenly King-God cannot save us without us, i.e. if we ourselves do not participate in the work of our salvation. And we would be mistaken if we thought that with the Patriarch's message the matter was over and there was nothing more for us to do. I believe that we must properly define our attitude to the events we experience. The measure of folly and lawlessness has been filled, and it would be unreasonable to refrain from using the strongest remedy that the Church has. The Church has no other, more powerful weapon than excommunication. This is a great thing, but it is also the last thing the Church has besides hope for the boundless mercy of God, and woe to us if the word of excommunication hangs in the air, not filled with real content. And so, after the word of the Patriarch sounded, it is our turn, as representatives of the Church, who must take care that the word of excommunication does not remain directed into space, to an unknown address. It is necessary to determine firmly and clearly who exactly those enemies of Christ and the Church are raised against whom this formidable weapon is raised, and, most importantly, for the sake of which I ascended the pulpit, it is necessary that the excommunication be a real, real alienation, a separation of those who , with all his soul devoted to the Church, from her enemies and persecutors. The moment of our self-determination has come; everyone must decide for himself in the face of his conscience and the Church, to say who he is, a Christian or not, whether he remained faithful to the Church, or betrayed Christ, is he faithful to the banner of the Church, or abandoned him, tramples on his feet and follows those who tramples on our shrines. There shouldn't be any timid ones. Everywhere in the localities, after a definite indication of the enemies of the Church, let everyone be asked to confess whether he is a Christian or not, whether he is in the Church or outside the Church.
Let every believer know that excommunication also imposes certain duties on him. Let everyone remember that the one who is in communion with the excommunicated is already a traitor. It is necessary that all the faithful of the Church gather under one holy banner, so that there is no uncertainty in this respect, so that the traitors to this banner do not have the opportunity to use the grace-filled means of Christian communication. - Therefore, my specific proposal boils down to the following: not only here, in commission or in the Department, it is necessary to determine the specific content that should be filled in the general formula of the Patriarchal message, not only it is necessary to say: “if anyone does this, let him be excommunicated”, but also to take measures to ensure that local it has been clarified in what exactly the excommunication should be expressed, and how it should be carried out in life, and that we ourselves, if necessary, go to the places by God's messengers in order to carry out this act of self-determination as soon as possible. This is what we must do if we want to save Russia. If we do not do this, if we go into uncertainty, we reassure ourselves that the Patriarch has done everything necessary, that in the future he will do everything that is required by the circumstances of the moment, then the word of the Patriarch will do nothing - it will hang helplessly in the air. The word of the Patriarch is powerful through our assistance. Here the idea of catholicity was repeatedly revealed, testifying to the fact that the strength of the Church lies in the fullness of unity. The Council is the representative of the entire Orthodox Church, and in the fullness of its assistance is the guarantee of the creative influence of the Patriarchal word. Neither the Patriarch without us nor we without the Patriarch will do anything. The entire church society must be mobilized for the salvation of our shrines, and if we unite in this, then the salvation of the homeland and the Church will be accomplished.”
52. Bishop Ephraim of Selenginsky. The “terrible message of His Holiness” of the Patriarch, like a thunder in the midst of a raging storm, thundered with a bold word of destruction to all the destroyers of the homeland and enemies of the Church of Christ. It was so timely and so to the hearts of the suffering believers that it is impossible to read it without tears, it is impossible to listen to it without spiritual shock.
Therefore, yesterday at the liturgy and the day before at the vigil during the reading of this message, the churches of Moscow were filled with weeping, sobs and groans of the believing people, filled with a feeling of touching gratitude to their Holy Father, who boldly and courageously came to the defense of our mother, the Orthodox Church.
But now, at the last session of the Council, attempts were made from this pulpit to clarify the opportuneness of this decisive step taken by His Holiness the Patriarch. Some speakers, based on their personal observations, said that a shift towards recovery was noticeable among the people, but there was no organization, no leaders, while the message of the Patriarch gave a strong impetus to this recovery through the forces of the Church. Others, on the contrary, also on the basis of their observations, drew a conclusion of a completely opposite content: according to their conviction, at present not only there are no signs of the improvement of the people's health, but the darkness hanging over the homeland continues to thicken much more than before, the revolution is deepening, and its deepening no end in sight; but once the speech has been made, measures must be taken to ensure that the formidable word of ecclesiastical rebuke does not hang in the air: this is the holy duty of the Council.
It seems to us that in these judgments they take the wrong criterion, the wrong foundation, a calculation about the timeliness and inopportuneness of politics, as they say, for the purposes of tactics, while the Council is the voice of the Church, and therefore our judgments must be carried out on the plane of the church, in the light of faith.
Indeed: what are the events experienced in the eyes of a believer? This is the punishment of God. Remember what happened in recent years in the life of the state, church, public: we know this very well, and there is no need to portray this before this meeting. There is no doubt that whole classes of people serving public, state, church are to blame for this: pride, self-importance, unbelief, denial, a stupid desire to etch, trample, destroy everything sacred, theomachism, undermining power, vice in all its nakedness - this is the atmosphere, in which the life of our country proceeded. And here is the wrath of God: war. The words of Emperor Wilhelm that he was sent by God to punish and admonish the peoples are the absolute truth. But this turned out to be insufficient for the Russian people to come to their senses, come to their senses and repent. On the contrary, the abundance of funds thrown into public circulation by the war finally corrupted the people morally. It is worth recalling Moscow's meeting of the unfortunate year 1917, according to the description of local newspapers, in order to see that in such an element of evil and vice there is no place for repentance! Then, by God's permission, the collapse of the state system and the revolution with its boundless deepening. What does this deepening of the revolution represent in the eyes of a believer? It is nothing else than the gradual intensification of God's punishment to the Russian people who do not want to come to repentance: consciousness of guilt and repentance will come, the Lord will stop the wrath of His rage; if not, then we still have a deepening of the revolution ahead of us, and then, like God's punishment, purely physical natural disasters - famine and pestilence, already standing at the door, and there, depending on the development of our moral state, death or resurrection!
What does the present moment represent in this respect, when he raised his voice Holy Father Russian Church - Patriarch of All Russia?
Let's not talk about the common people, in whose name everyone wants to act, who wants to lead the state organization of that people, which is now an instrument of God's punishment: I want to believe that this, like the elements, our people, raging like the elements, when its mission is over - to be the scourge of God who for two hundred years trampled on his Orthodox soul, diligently eradicating all that is holy from it, will soon turn to God with humble repentance - this is our guarantee - his living faith and hitherto always former deep devotion to the Mother Church.
But now, has our intelligentsia come to repentance, which has worked so hard to create the collapse of the state system and is now the only and main culprit of the shame and death of our Motherland? We see that, first of all, the wrath of God struck her with all the fury, the punishing right hand of God descended on her with all the weight, calling her to the consciousness of guilt and to repentance.
Let's take the military intelligentsia: isn't it, not in moderation and not at the time liberal in the mass of officers, in the person of its highest representatives who surrounded the supreme power, went on a coup, forgetting the oath? And now, for the same reason, it has now been wiped off the face of the earth, and only those persons of the highest command staff who, at a critical moment, left the supreme power alone and stood against it, remained alive - they were kept intact by Providence, one must think, in order to to see with one's own eyes the fruits of the deeds of their own hands - that horror and shame into which they plunged Russia.
Let us take, further, the intelligentsia that made politics: where is it now? Where is her strength, which she boasted of? Where is her press, with which she created destruction? Her strength, with which she threatened the supreme power, turned out to be a myth, but she herself is crushed, beaten by lynching, and only the main culprits for the death of her homeland are left alive by the Hand of God: the IIIingarevs and Kokoshkins were sent to the forefathers, and the “first citizens”, whom Free Russia was going to put monuments, live (and God forbid they live to a ripe old age!), no doubt, on the subject to contemplate the fruits of their labors, to see with their own eyes what they did to Russia with their hopeless madness ... and bitterly repent of the motherland they ruined !
But did all this lead our intelligentsia to the realization of their delusions, which turned out to be fatal for the life of our country?
Must say no. There are not even signs of consciousness of one's guilt, one's criminality, there are no signs of repentance, except for the letter of A. V. Kartashev, published in the newspapers at the past Christmas time. This is evidenced by the everyday press of the Cadet trend, filled with bitter sorrow that power has fallen from the hands of those who took it by coup, but the same press, now called bourgeois, is completely silent about its sins against the motherland and native to itself in the spirit of the intelligentsia. : there is no consciousness that all the bitter reality that is now being experienced is the ripened fruit of those seeds that the intelligentsia itself so diligently sowed for many years. And what is the attitude of this intelligentsia towards the church now? When with all its might the punishing right hand of God descended over her, does she go to church, to the regenerating power of religion - to God? Not! In this direction, her position is the same that she adopted a year, five, ten or more years ago: both then and now, despite the pity and insignificance of her present position, for her the church is an empty place, she does not see beyond she is of no importance, she is not considered, she is ignored, as if by agreement, hushing up her life in such major manifestations as a real Council. Wouldn’t it be a typical illustration of this that one of the three or four newspapers of this kind still eking out their existence places this, so significant message of His Holiness the Patriarch on the last page, among the last rubbish of its literary material, and another similar newspaper, placing yesterday an editorial about persecution against the church, repeats according to the established pattern that “there were many sins behind the old official church”, but here we have few or none at all. No, neither the press, nor public organizations, nor the previous congresses and meetings give us any signs of the spiritual recovery of our intelligent society. In the meantime, the roots will be bitter, we will not see sweet fruits: "figs do not grow from thorns, nor clusters from bushes." It will not be easier for the church when the current persecutors of it leave the stage, and those who started this persecution return to power, having in their political program also the task of separating the church from the state, cleaning its land property - those who, with no less cruelty, in At one time, he already fulfilled this task not by issuing decrees aimed only at persecuting the churches, but by the very deed - by wild intrusion into the church, dispersing the legitimate structure of church power by the same violence, arresting bishops in whole batches, overthrowing them from their pulpits by dozens, moreover, by all means trying to defame them, to disgrace them, which the current occupiers of power have not yet allowed themselves, those, we say further, who, trampling on divine laws and church laws, at their own personal “revolutionary” discretion, began to legislate and rebuild the structure and life of the Church, which, again, , the current invaders of power do not allow themselves, those who, during the six months of their tenure in power, have so ruined the church and caused her such evil, what all her powerful enemies put together could not inflict on her during the two hundred years of her previous existence, and from which, as it is now clear, she will not recover soon.
Our clergy, who are also intellectuals in their own way, did not remain aloof from the common sin, from this truly satanic suggestion that is now being experienced.
Recently, on the pages of a "bourgeois" newspaper, the publicist Belorussov, having denounced the silence of the church at the sight of the death of the state, reproachfully emphasizes that the church is inactive, having in itself an apparatus of power and strength that has not yet been destroyed, which is neither in the state, nor in any public organizations are long gone. Belorussov, as a typical Russian intellectual, for whom the church has always been an empty place, and for which he is now clutching like a drowning man at a straw, could not know that the church, in the person of the Cathedral, had already made a number of speeches of a political nature, hanging in the air, so precisely He does not even know the collapse of the church apparatus of power and strength, in which he places his last hope. He obviously does not know to what insignificance all the organs of church government have been reduced, to what feeble position the church authorities have been placed by the rampage of the chief prosecutor from the Lvov revolution, by the madness of the purely robbery and hooligan diocesan congresses, he does not know that the clergy in the mass, like pitiful in its mental and moral content, our Soviet intelligentsia, easily succumbed to the revolutionary psychosis, in which it continues to remain until now, despite the cruel blows of the time, despite the obvious manifestation of God's wrath, punishing and calling to repentance. Until now, the same thing is happening in the church as in the state: the trampling of shrines, the struggle for power, the desire to reduce the Church of God from its canonical foundation, to introduce the same democratic rules in it, to secularize and put it in the ranks of ordinary human institutions. We see that the ongoing spiritual epidemic has struck our clergy no less than the worldly intelligentsia. Raging at its meetings and congresses, it greeted the worldly destroyers of the church with telegrams, and at the same time, with furious fury, attacked the bearers of church authority, the bishops, who sought to protect the basic foundations and shrines of the church. And how many clerics left their service to the holy church and went to the service of the revolution - to committees, cooperatives, police, to political activity in the ranks of the socialists up to the Bolsheviks, inclusive, without removing, just in case, their sacred dignity. How do the clergy of the present time characterize such facts as the violence of a priest over his bishop, the fact of the arrest of a bishop by a priest who came to the bishop’s apartment for this “canonical” act with an armed gang of soldiers and workers and with the threat of using armed force in case of disobedience or resistance! Or, what do such facts, which were reported yesterday from this pulpit, signify as the practice of "civil" ordination of a deacon to the priesthood? How will the clergy of such an attitude react to the message of His Holiness the Patriarch? Will not this message hang in the mass of cases only because it hurts very, very many spiritual fathers, who at congresses, and at their own and other people's meetings, and in the press, not excluding diocesan newsletters, themselves persecuted and persecuted the church, separating it from the state, banishing the Law of God from schools or passing resolutions on the non-obligation of its teaching in schools, at the same time destroying the internal structure of church life, becoming in opposition to the legitimate church authority, persecuting and despising believing Christians who have become in opposition to them? Is it not necessary, therefore, first of all, for the healing of church forces: the repentance of the clergy themselves, hitherto for the most part walking hand in hand with the revolution, that revolution which, in the order of its natural development, ended in a bouquet of Bolshevism, against which the message of His Holiness the Patriarch is in essence directed?
All this suggests that the Council, together with His Holiness the Patriarch, without philosophizing about the timeliness or inopportuneness of a decisive action, should loudly call to reason and repentance ... but not only those who have now become an instrument of God's wrath, but also those who who did not impute the kissing of St. Cross and the Gospel, who corrupted the people's soul, calling out of it a beast that now rushed at the Church. Let the Church Council, at least with the forces of the intelligentsia that found themselves in its composition, call on our intelligentsia to come to their senses, confess their fatal errors, humble themselves, become churchgoers, come to churches with repentance, recognize human insignificance and the power of God in the destinies of kingdoms and peoples, as this was nobly said by A. R. Kartashev, and, under the prayer cover and blessing of the Church, in close unity with the forces of the church, healed and revived, as it was in the old days, again proceed to the state dispensation of the homeland, firmly remembering that “if not the Lord will create house, builders toil in vain.
53. Chairperson: "There are several other speakers, but today we will hear only one, as he promised to speak briefly."
54. A. M. Chernoutsan. “I thought about giving up the word after what was said by the priest Vostokov and prof. Gromoglasov; I will go straight to the specific proposal and speak briefly. It is necessary that the voice of the Patriarch be heard more often, that there be closer contact between the Orthodox and the Patriarch, that his messages appear more often, and not only appear, but also be read. Unfortunately, even in Moscow the message of the Patriarch was not read everywhere; for example, in the church of Pimen the Old, where I was, it was not read. In the provinces, the conciliar epistles were also not read everywhere: for some reason they were afraid to read them, then one had to hear complaints that these epistles were weak and colorless. I would ask His Holiness the Patriarch to appeal to the faithful more often, even in the shortest messages, even in a few lines. This is especially convenient at the present moment, when the weeks of the Publican, the Prodigal Son and the Last Judgment. Then the Patriarch needs to reveal himself, to acquaint the community of believers with him more closely. For example, it would be possible to distribute the portrait of the Patriarch”...
55. Presiding: “The question of the portrait, this is the personal matter of the Patriarch ... There are still four speakers left. I would think that the debate on the general question should be closed: a lot has already been said, and now we should start our direct work - the consideration of the regulation on diocesan administration. Perhaps you will allow these speakers to speak at the next meeting and thus end the general debate. Remained V. G. Rubtsov, S. P. Rudnev, N. M. Orekhovsky, A. V. Vasiliev for the second time. I must say that at the current moment they began to talk about the absence of a legal composition of members, and now this composition exists and we need to get down to work.”
56. Decided: to accept the proposal of the Chairman.
57. Chairperson: “The next meeting is on Wednesday at 10 am. The subjects of the classes are current affairs and the continuation of the discussion of the report on the diocesan administration. As for the Departments, I ask you to use your free time this evening and tomorrow morning, especially those Departments that must hastily submit reports, especially about the arrival: its chairman complains that there is no time, but it is now. Likewise, other Divisions should also get to work. Tomorrow at 10 o'clock in the morning a joint meeting of the Departments on the property and legal status of the clergy and on the legal status of the Church in the state.
58. The meeting was adjourned at 2 pm.”
