PartIII... Church in the era of the Red Project.
Warning
This text is not about faith, but about religion. We do not touch upon the issues of faith and God in any way - this is too personal a matter for each individual person. As for religion, church institutions are created by people and differ little from ordinary state or social organizations, and therefore they can and should be analyzed and evaluated.
As we wrote in the first part, this text may seem too large for the modern reader. However, it should be noted that these few pages are the result of looking at several thousand, carefully reading hundreds, and carefully considering dozens of pages of scientific, theological and journalistic works on a variety of topics. So we would compare it with the 14-page presentation of Tolstoy's four-volume War and Peace, which is being offered today in schools to our children of the USE era. For these same children, we present a lot of all kinds of biographies and stories that seemed to us appropriate and interesting - so that it would not be so boring ..
We deliberately do not make links to sources - what if someone is interested and wants to search. There are enough materials on this topic, as well as points of view. Those wishing to check and clarify something - Google and Yandex to help.
introduction
We did not plan to write a separate article about the life of the Russian Orthodox Church during the period of the Red Project, since this period partly "dropped out" from the logic of our narration about the consequences of the dispute between the Josephites, non-possessors and Judaizers. However, a more detailed study of the history of our church in the "Soviet" era of the 20th century showed us that much of what happened in this difficult time for the church "fits" into our concept, and without it it will be impossible to fully assess correctly what is happening to it today ...
Based on the foregoing, we will try to briefly highlight the most important stages in recent church history. In the course of the story, we will, as always, describe in more detail the events and personalities that seemed to us the most interesting from the point of view of our narrative.
We thank everyone who took part in the discussion of previous articles for a number of interesting comments and opinions, and once again we would like to remind you that we are ready for any discussion of the topic, as long as it is constructive. I would like to emphasize once again that everything we are setting out is not a criticism of the Church, as some have understood, but only an attempt, on the basis of our hypothesis, to understand the deep causes of the processes that are taking place in it today, and partly to predict options for future development.
Let us briefly recall that from our point of view, the victory of the Josephites at the beginning of the XIV century made it possible to build the church hierarchy in the era of Holy Russia. At the same time, it was not possible to achieve a symphony of secular and spiritual power, since the quite predictable process of its absorption by the vertical of secular power began (Part I). Then, during the time of the Empire, this religious vertical finally dissolved into the state machine, which led to the abolition of the institution of the Patriarchate and the transformation of the church into an ordinary ministry (Synod) of the "Orthodox faith" (Part II). The spiritual component, as has been shown, in the 19th century shifted towards the elders and, in part, the Old Believers. The Church as an institution ceased to fulfill its role of "restraining", which by 1917 was expressed in the general total deviation of society from Orthodox norms and traditions.
Considering the history of the church during the Soviet period, the following provisions should be especially emphasized, which will help us understand the logic of what was happening:
1. The red project provided for the complete replacement of the ruling layer of the country (similar to what was happening during the creation of the Peter the Great Empire). As a matter of fact, in the history of Russia this stratum, unfortunately, has never been particularly large - no more than 1-2% of the total population. As a result of the unification of the Russian Church and the state at the previous stage, it, in fact, became an integral part of the state system, which had to be completely destroyed in the transition to a qualitatively different system of government.
2. The new building-up system of government did not need the presence of the old traditional religion in society, which was replaced by its own images and symbols - from “relics” (Red Square as a new cemetery) to commandments (“Moral Code of the Builder of Communism”). From this point of view, the church was also doomed.
In addition, most of the church hierarchs, imbued by the previous 400-year development of the Russian Church with the "Josephite" spirit, had to look for any ways of "symphony" with any new government, even to the detriment of the foundations of faith.
Let's see how correct we were in our assumptions.
Local Cathedral 1917-18 and restoration of the patriarchate
The February Revolution, which destroyed the Empire, could not but affect the position of the Russian Church, which by that time was tightly embedded in the system of government. As we have already mentioned, during the synodal period, the authority of the official church fell quite strongly, and the last years of the Rasputinism also hardly contributed to its strengthening. Let us recall that, according to polls, 95% of the intelligentsia recognized themselves as free-thinkers, and the number of those taking communion in the army in 1917 fell to less than 10%.
The fall of the Empire could open up opportunities for the Church to gain independence and make the necessary changes taking into account the new situation. However, unfortunately, the Church failed to exert any significant influence on the events taking place in the country. Most likely, this was caused by the already ingrained habit of looking for the possibility of building a "symphony" with any authority.
Undoubtedly, the transformations taking place in the country could not but affect the internal structure of the Church. Groups were formed that set themselves the goal of carrying out church reform, which would subsequently lead to the emergence of the Renovationist movement. Among them, for example, included the "Union of Church Renewal" group, which was later transformed into the "All-Russian Union of Democratic Clergy and Laity". Also, tendencies of isolation of its individual parts on the basis of national chauvinism appeared - in fact, the Georgian Church separated, and the Ukrainian Church followed the same path.
On April 29, the Holy Synod announced the need to convene a Local Council, as well as the introduction of an elective principle at all levels of church government, including for bishops. A variety of ideas emerged, including the abolition of monasticism and the replacement of the "black" episcopate with the "white" one.
In June, the provisional government issued a decree on the transfer of parish schools and seminaries to the Ministry of Public Education. In July, the law on freedom of conscience was published.
The Church was preparing for the Council on the basis of the programs of 1905-1906 and 1912-1914 (at that time Nicholas II did not dare to hold the Council, which was understandable from the logic of Peter's reforms). There were debates about the need to restore the institution of the Patriarchate in Russia.
On August 15, the All-Russian Local Council opened in the Kremlin's Assumption Cathedral. A special feature of the Council was the large number of laymen and ordinary priests (out of a total of 564 members). This was explained both by the desire to revive the principle of conciliarity and by the liberal trends of the revolution.
On October 28, the Council passed several decisions that were historic for the Church, primarily on the restoration of the patriarchate in the country. However, on the same day, the news of the arrest of the Provisional Government arrived in Moscow. At the same time, revolutionary events swept over Moscow. Officers, junkers, Cossacks and students defended the Kremlin. The mediation of the participants in the Council, who strove to end the fratricidal bloodshed, was not crowned with success. After shelling and storming, the Kremlin fell. For the first time, the Reds buried their dead near the Kremlin wall with revolutionary songs - funeral services and prayer services were prohibited. The new government found its first relics, which are still in the Kremlin wall.
Memorial necropolis near the Kremlin wall (Red Square) - the country's most central cemetery with mass graves. Prior to the Red Project, according to the Byzantine tradition, tsars, princes, metropolitans and patriarchs (“inside the fence”) were buried in the Kremlin (Cathedrals of the Archangel and the Assumption). After the revolution, mass graves began to be made near the Kremlin ("behind the fence"). The Kremlin wall has turned into a columbarium for urns with ashes; mass graves are located along the wall from the side of Red Square. The first mass grave appeared there on November 10, 1917, in which 240 Bolsheviks who died during the Moscow uprising were buried. Since 1924, a mausoleum has been installed on the square. In total, there are more than 15 mass graves, several individual graves and 114 urns with ashes (it turns out that at parades, spectators sit right above the graves on the sides of the ziggurat). In the 50s, it was proposed to transfer all burials to a special Pantheon. The last burial (Chernenko) was made at the end of the existence of the Soviet Union.
The election of a patriarch at the Council was slightly strange and unusual both for Russia and, incidentally, for all other autocephalous Orthodox churches in the world. The election of the patriarch was decided to be entrusted to a lot of three candidates, chosen after several rounds of voting. Metropolitan Tikhon and Archbishops Anthony and Arseny became the candidates. It should be noted that Anthony (Khrapovitsky), later one of the founders of the ROCOR, received the largest number of votes during the first round of secret voting (Anthony - 101 votes, Tikhon - 23, Arseny - 14). According to the general opinion, among those present, Anthony was the smartest, Arseny was strict, and Tikhon was kind.
On November 5, at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, in the presence of a large number of people, blind schema monk Alexy, during the drawing of lots, drew out a note with the name of Metropolitan Tikhon, who, as a result, became the first Patriarch in the Soviet period of our history. It should be noted that until now these were the only elections of the patriarch by lot. The enthronement of the newly elected patriarch took place in the Kremlin's Assumption Cathedral, which was partially destroyed as a result of shelling.
For the Church there were completely different times, for which, as subsequent events showed, she was not ready.
Patriarch Tikhon(Belavin Vasily Ivanovich). Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (the first patriarch after the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia). Born in the Pskov province in the family of a hereditary priest. He graduated from a theological school, seminary and the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. He was the rector of theological seminaries. Bishop of Aleutian and Alaska (under him dozens of new churches were opened in the USA). Archbishop of Vilna and Lithuania. Honorary Chairman of the Yaroslavl branch of the Union of the Russian People. It was very popular among the people. In June 1917 he was elected the ruling bishop of Moscow. Member of the All-Russian Local Council 1917-1918. He was chosen by lot to be the Patriarch (of the three contenders, Tikhon previously received the smallest number of votes). Entronization took place on December 4 in the Kremlin's Assumption Cathedral. The author of the "Appeal" (1918), which called for an end to the fratricidal war, condemned the execution of the former emperor Nicholas II. However, in his activities he constantly sought a compromise between church and state, condemning opposition to the authorities (the Church recognizes and supports Soviet power, for there is no power not from God). He condemned the decisions of the foreign church council (Charles Cathedral). In May 1922, he was brought to criminal responsibility for the seizure of church valuables and was on trial (placed under house arrest in the Donskoy Monastery). In a letter to the Supreme Court, he admitted his guilt and asked for pardon (the case was dropped in March 1924). At the beginning of 1925 he was interrogated in the case of the "spy organization of churchmen". He was attacked twice (the last time his cell-attendant was killed, who covered the Patriarch with himself). He died in March 1925 (among the believers of that time, the version about his poisoning was widespread). He was buried in the Donskoy Monastery. The authenticity of Patriarch Tikhon's dying testament raises reasonable doubts. In 1981, Patriarch Tikhon was glorified among the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia by the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. In 1989 he was canonized by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.
PLAN FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE CHURCH
In fact, by that time, the Bolsheviks already had a fairly effective long-term plan to fight the Church, which was consistently implemented in the future. According to this plan (in the development of which, in particular, Trotsky participated) it was necessary to exert pressure on the church both from the outside and from the inside. In general, it provided for the following:
- Separation of church from state and prohibition of church teaching in schools
- Initiation of a schism within the church
- Repression against clergy
- Confiscation of church property
- Conducting anti-religious propaganda
- Creation of a single center for the coordination of anti-church activities
We can briefly review each of these points separately.
Separation of church from state
As we have already indicated, for the new Soviet government, the Church was an integral part of the previous imperial system of government, which, in essence, corresponded to the reality of the last two hundred years of the synodal period.
At the very end of 1917, the Bolsheviks published a draft decree on the separation of the Church from the state in the newspaper Delo Narodu. The decree itself, called the "Decree on the Separation of Church from State and School from Church", entered into force on January 23, 1918. Signed by the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars Ulyanov, a small decree in its first article stated: 1. The church is separated from the state. By the same decree, education became completely secular. For the first time in many centuries of Russian history, the State has declared that it no longer needs the Church.
The day before, a detachment of sailors took away the Alexander Nevsky Lavra from the monks, killing the priest who was hindering them - the new government showed that its words do not differ from their deeds.
In the new Constitution of 1918, the clergy and monastics were deprived of the right to vote. It is interesting to compare who else was deprived of this right under Article 65:
They do not elect and cannot be elected, even if they belonged to one of the above categories: a) persons resorting to hired labor for the purpose of making a profit; b) persons living on unearned income, such as: interest on capital, income from enterprises, income from property, etc .; c) private traders, trade and commercial intermediaries; d) monks and clergymen of churches and religious cults; e) employees and agents of the former police, a special corps of gendarmes and security departments, as well as members of the house that reigned in Russia; f) persons recognized in the prescribed manner as mentally ill or insane, as well as persons under guardianship; g) persons convicted for mercenary and defamatory crimes for a period established by law or a court sentence.
Subsequently, the 1936 Constitution proclaimed the equality of all citizens, including "clergymen".
Internal church schism
The topic of the schism in the Russian Church in the 20th century was not as simple as it was initially thought. First of all, because in a relatively short period by historical standards, in the church, with the support of the Bolsheviks, a reform movement was born and was soon destroyed by them, which the authorities used to fight the "orthodox" part of the church.
As we remember from the first parts, according to our hypothesis, in the church, starting from the XIV century, three main directions arose, which in the Russian tradition received the names "Josephs", "non-possessors" and "Jews". We considered the first two directions in sufficient detail. The third is to say at least a few words about him so that the logic of the Bolsheviks' actions is clear.
A subconscious negative connotation immediately arises in our country, with the inherent “natural” anti-Semitism inherent in some of the inhabitants), in fact, what was called the Reformation in the West at about the same time. From a political and economic point of view, we can partly say that if the "Josephites" were the mainstay of the feudal serf system, then the "Judaizing" reformers acted as supporters of the emerging bourgeoisie. It is quite natural that at that time of great development in our country, the "reformers" (we will call them that way - it will be more accurate and without any "second" meanings that are useless to anyone and lead away from the true state of affairs) could not receive due to the absence of the bourgeoisie ... This explains the spread of reformers in the North and their sharp suppression by the emerging central government - we have already mentioned how the most prominent representatives of this movement were burned in public in wooden cages.
The first thing the Bolsheviks did was they closed all monasteries (mainly in 1918-1923), thereby destroying the basis of the "non-possessors" movement, the main threat to new government from this side. This explains the monstrous process of desacralization of monasteries, when prisons, concentration camps and colonies were established on the site of closed monasteries.
Then a complex (and at first glance paradoxical) program of comprehensive support of the reformist, inherently bourgeois-democratic, church movement was launched. Oddly enough, in the history of our country, the reform movement was able to revive and strengthen only after the revolution of the 20th century, which destroyed the bourgeois class.
In fact, the truncated Russian Reformation, which later became known as the "Living Church" or "Renovation Church", by this time had already completed a certain, albeit relatively short, path. For example, since 1905 there was a so-called "group of 32" priests, then renamed the "Union of Church Renewal" - they advocated changes in the Russian church administration and the convocation of a Local Council. There is evidence that they relied on the ideas of A.S. Khomyakova. Among other things, it was proposed to create small dioceses to strengthen ties between bishops and their flock, to create Christian communities and unions in cities, and to reform theological schools. Later, the movement was transformed into the "Brotherhood of Zealots of Church Renewal." In addition, there were other numerous, albeit scattered movements aimed at reforming the Church and Synod. One can, for example, recall the All-Russian Union of Democratic Orthodox Clergy and Laity, established by the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod VN Lvov, and his newspaper Voice of Christ.
It was on this idea that Trotsky proposed to rely. By the way, Trotsky, and not Lenin at all, was the initiator and ideological inspirer of the destruction of the church, to which there are numerous testimonies in the form of notes, reports, decrees, etc. Here, for example, is Trotsky's characteristic note to the Central Committee, which clearly sets out the entire plan for initiating a schism in the church, which was then consistently carried out even after Trotsky was removed from power. The note is comparatively long, but it is worth citing in full. For those in a hurry, we have highlighted especially interesting places with color:
L. D. Trotsky's note to the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on policy towards the church
March 30, 1922
TOP SECRET
IN THE POLITBURO.
1. The October Revolution has come to the church only now. Reasons: ideological weakness of the church and its servility. Transition from “autocratic” to “faithful provisional government”. During the transition to Soviet power, the separation of church from state helped the spineless church hierarchy to adapt and keep silent. But there is no doubt that during the Soviet era, the church hierarchy, feeling “persecuted” (because it was unprivileged), was preparing and is preparing to take advantage of the favorable moment. Around her are certain counterrevolutionary cadres and political influence through religious influence.
2. The European Church has gone through a stage of reformation. What is Reformation? Adapting the church to the needs of bourgeois society. It was preceded by sects among artisans and peasants. A sect is the religious guerrilla of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie in general. The bourgeoisie raised the sects to the level of the Reformation, having bourgeois religion and the church, and thus gave it more vitality and stability (England).
3. Our opposition against church bureaucracy did not go further than sects. The bourgeoisie was too insignificant to create a reformation (like a democratic regime). The intelligentsia was a freak in the religious field - each in its own way. The Church remained formal, bureaucratic and, as it is said, inserted into its ritual instead of the "most autocratic" - "noble provisional government."
4. Thus, the church, all saturated with feudal, bureaucratic tendencies, which failed to carry out the bourgeois reformation, now stands face to face with the proletarian revolution. What could be her future fate? Two trends are outlined: clearly, openly counter-revolutionary with a Black Hundred monarchist ideology and - "Soviet". The ideology of the “Soviet” clergy, invisible, like Smenovekhovskaya, that is, bourgeois-conciliatory.
5. If the slowly emerging bourgeois-conciliatory Smena Vekhi wing of the church developed and strengthened, it would become much more dangerous for the socialist revolution than the church in its present form. For, assuming a patronizing “Soviet” coloration, the “advanced” clergy thereby opens up the possibility of penetrating into those advanced strata of the working people who constitute or should form our support.
6. Therefore, the Smena-Vekhi clergy should be regarded as the most dangerous enemy of tomorrow. But precisely tomorrow. Today we must bring down the counter-revolutionary part of the churchmen, in whose hands the actual government of the church. In this struggle, we must rely on the Smena-Vekhi clergy, not getting involved politically, and even more so on principle. (Shameful editorials in the party newspapers that "the Mother of God is more pleased with the prayers of fed children than dead stones", etc.).
7. The more decisive, abrupt, stormy and violent the break of the Smena-Vekhovian wing with the Black Hundreds takes, the more advantageous our position will be. As said, under the "Soviet" banner, attempts are being made to bourgeois reformation of the Orthodox Church. It takes time for this belated reformation to take place. We will not give her this time, forcing events, not allowing the Smenovekh leaders to wake up.
8. The campaign about hunger is extremely beneficial for this, for it sharpens all the questions on the fate of church treasures. We must, firstly, force the Smenovekh priests to completely and openly link their fate with the issue of confiscating valuables; second, to force them to bring this campaign within the church to a complete organizational break with the Black Hundred hierarchy, to their own new council and new elections of the hierarchy.
9. During this campaign, we must give the Smena-Vekhi priests the opportunity to speak openly in a certain spirit. There is no more furious scolding as opposition pop. Already now, some of them in our newspapers denounce bishops by name of sins of Sodom, etc. I think that they should be allowed and even instilled in the need for their own organ, say, a weekly, to prepare for the convocation of a council at a certain time. Thus, we will receive invaluable propaganda material. It may even be possible to put several such publications in different parts of the country. Until the end of the withdrawal, we focus exclusively on this practical task, which we continue to pursue exclusively from the perspective of helping the hungry. Along the way, we deal with the counter-revolutionary priests responsible for Shuya, and so on, using Vechekist methods.
10. By the time the council is convened, we need to prepare a theoretical and propaganda campaign against the renewed church. It will not be possible to simply jump over the bourgeois reformation of the church. It is necessary, therefore, to turn her into a miscarriage. And for this it is necessary first of all to arm the party with a historical and theoretical understanding of the fate of the Orthodox Church and its relationship with the state, classes and the proletarian revolution.
11. It is necessary now to order one program-theoretical brochure, perhaps with the involvement of MN Pokrovsky in this case, if he has the slightest opportunity.
PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS FOR THE MEETING OF SECRETARIES OF GUBPARTKOMS AND PRE-GUBBITSKOMS.
1. Conduct an agitation campaign on the widest scale. Eliminate both tearful piety and mockery.
2. Split the clergy.
3. To remove the value as it should be. If connivance was allowed, correct.
4. Deal with the Black Hundred priests.
5. Encourage the Smenovekh priests to decide and speak openly. Register them. Support informally.
6. Theoretically and politically prepare for the second campaign. Allocate for this one party "specialist" in church affairs.
L. Trotsky
“For - Molotov”;
“For Zinoviev”;
“- Stalin”;
“For L. Kamenev”.
From the Memorandum it becomes obvious exactly what we tried to show at the very beginning - Trotsky, no matter how we treat him, understood well the essence of internal church problems. In our terminology, he proposed to support the creation of a "reformist" trend in the church, in order to use it to fight the "Josephites". At the same time, as we see from the Memorandum, he was aware of the fact that the "reformers" are inherently more serious enemies of the new government, who would need to be quickly eliminated immediately after they weaken the "Josephites".
As a matter of fact, this is what happened later.
In May 1922, immediately after the verdict in the case of Moscow priests (see below), a group of prominent "renovationists" arrived in Moscow from Petrograd. On May 12, at night, a group of priests (Vvedensky, Krasnitsky, Belkov, Kalinovsky and Stadnik), accompanied by officers of the GPU, visited the Trinity courtyard, where at that time Patriarch Tikhon was under house arrest. Accusing the Patriarch of being guilty of passing death sentences to Moscow priests, they insisted that the patriarch leave the throne and hand over his powers to the locum tenens Metropolitan Agafangel (in fact, the metropolitan had already been detained and could not take office). On May 18, the Renovationist Higher Church Administration (VTsU) was formed, which became the official fact of the split in the ROC. The Patriarch was placed under arrest in the Danilovsky Monastery, and the VTsU, headed by the Renovationist Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia, Antonin (Granovsky), settled on the Trinity Compound.
Like any revolution, october coup brought to power a wide variety of characters, who at any other time did not have a great chance of achieving significant career success. From this point of view, the composition of the leadership of the Renovationist movement is also quite characteristic - the already mentioned Metropolitan Antonin (soon removed from his post), the rector of one of the St. Petersburg churches, Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky (the last leader of Renovationism), Archpriest Vladimir Krasnitsky (a former member of the Union of the Russian People, who had previously called for the extermination of the Bolsheviks), the former chief prosecutor of the Lvov Synod, and others. It is curious, for example, that one of the leaders of the Renovationists, Metropolitan Platonov, in the 30s generally renounced the faith and became a staff member of the State Museum of Atheism in Leningrad, who read anti-religious lectures there.
Metropolitan Alexander (Vvedensky Alexander Ivanovich). Leader of the Renovationist movement, a permanent member of the Renovationist Holy Synod. He called himself “Metropolitan-Apologist-Evangelist”. Born into the family of a gymnasium teacher. Graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. Externally passed the exams for the course of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. He was a regimental priest. Since March 1917, secretary of the Union of Democratic Orthodox Clergy and Laity. One of the organizers of the "Higher Church Administration" (VTsU). An active participant in the renovationist "Second All-Russian Local Sacred Council". Married several times. Permanent member of the renovationist Holy Synod. Self-proclaimed Metropolitan. Professor and rector of the Moscow Theological Academy. He was the rector of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. In October 1941 he became the "First Hierarch of the Orthodox Churches in the USSR" with the title of "His Holiness and Beatitude the Great Lord and Father", at the same time he appropriated the title of "Patriarch". Died in July 1946.
By the end of 1922, renovationists occupied two-thirds of the existing churches. For example, by the summer of 1923 in Petrograd, after the arrest of Bishop Nikolai (Yarushevich), not a single non-Renovation Orthodox bishop remained in the city. Renovationists served in 113 churches (out of 123).
Excerpts from the report of the head of the VI branch of the Secret Department of the GPU Tuchkov of the Anti-Religious Commission of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) "on Tikhonovism" (October 30, 1922):
REPORT ON TIKHONOVSHIN
Five months ago, the basis of our work in the fight against the clergy was set the task of “fighting against Tikhon's, reactionary clergy,” and of course, first of all, with the higher hierarchs such as: metropolitans, archbishops, bishops, etc.
To carry out this task, a group was formed, the so-called "LIVING CHURCH", consisting mainly of white priests, which made it possible for us to quarrel the priests with the bishops, approximately like a soldier with generals [s], for there was enmity between the white and black clergy long before this time, since the latter had a great advantage in the church and protected itself by the canons from the competition of white priests for the highest hierarchical posts. We took this circumstance into account and from this point on, we began to carry out the indicated task ...
Within five months, this task was more than half completed, for example: to date, in the 68 dioceses existing in the 68 dioceses, about 100 people have been dismissed for retirement, 11 people have been appointed to the diocese by the ruling bishops of newly consecrated widows and unmarried priests by living churches, plus 11 non-ruling priests. 4 people, appointed and transferred by the old bishops who served under Tikhon, who were loyal to Soviet power and church renewal - 10 people and the same were left by the ruling in the dioceses about 20 people, 9 dioceses are completely without bishops, and finally, 5 ardent Tikhonians remain unreplaced. Thus, even if half of these “loyalists” are attributed to the Tikhonites, it turns out that half of the Tikhonov bishops have been replaced by Renovationists and semi-Renovators ...
Upon completion of this task, i.e. when Tikhonovism is broken and discredited, which to this day is still of paramount importance, hence the logical conclusion that a period of paralysis of the unity of the church is coming, which undoubtedly should take place at a council, i.e. split into several church groups that will strive to implement and implement each of their reforms ...
In June 1923, Patriarch Tikhon appealed from prison to the Supreme Court with a statement:
IN THE SUPREME COURT R.S.F.S.R.
STATEMENT
I am submitting this application to the Supreme Court of the R.S.F.S.R. [,] I consider it my duty of pastoral conscience to state the following:
Having been brought up in a monarchist society and being under the influence of anti-Soviet people until my arrest, I was really hostile towards Soviet Power, and hostility from a passive state at times passed to active actions, somehow: an appeal about the Brest Peace in 1918, anathema in the same year, the Authorities and finally an appeal against the decree on the confiscation of church valuables in 1922. All my anti-Soviet actions, with a few inaccuracies, are set out in the indictment of the Supreme Court. Recognizing the correctness of the court's decision to bring me to justice under the articles of the criminal code specified in the indictment for anti-Soviet activities, I repent of these misdeeds against the state system and ask the Supreme Court to change my preventive measure, i.e. release me from custody. At the same time, I declare to the Supreme Court that from now on I am not an enemy of Soviet Power. I finally and decisively dissociate myself from both foreign and domestic monarchist White Guard counter-revolutions.
Having confessed his loyalty to the Soviet regime, the patriarch was released and immediately declared the non-canonical nature of the Renovationist VCU, after which a confrontation began between the Renovationists and the Tikhonists, which was in line with the plans of the Bolsheviks, which we mentioned earlier. Such a statement was quite to be expected from the “Josephite” patriarch in the logic of our reasoning about their inherent desire to “fit into” any current government. Despite this, Patriarch Tikhon until the end of his life (March 1925) was under supervision, and in fact under arrest. An investigation was conducted against him, and the last case under Articles 59 and 73 of the Criminal Code was terminated only "due to the death of the person under investigation."
After the death of Patriarch Tikhon, the most loyal bishop, Sergius (Stragorodsky), was found in his place in the hierarchy of the "Josephites". In fact, according to the will (not entirely unambiguous) of Tikhon, his rights and duties were transferred to the local tenants, in order: to Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov), and in case of impossibility to take office - to Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) and further to Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky). Metropolitans Cyril and Agafangel were already in exile. Metropolitan Peter became the locum tenens, who at the end of the same year was arrested and spent the rest of his life in prison for his disloyal attitude to the Soviet regime and unwillingness to give up the position of locum tenens - after the end of his next term of imprisonment he was automatically awarded the next term, until finally he was shot in 1937 by the decision of the troika. The Deputy Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius, became the acting patriarch.
Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky). From a family of hereditary priests. Was born in the city of Arzamas. Graduated from St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Member of the Orthodox Spiritual Mission in Japan. Rector of St. Petersburg Theological Seminary and St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Member of the Holy Synod. For several months he was in Butyrka prison and in exile. He was in the Renovationist schism, but was received back by the patriarch in the Russian Orthodox Church after national repentance. Since December 1925, Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens on the basis of the testamentary order of Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky). In November 1926 he was arrested. In July 1927, he issued a famous declaration, after which he was released and re-entered the management of the ROC. In August 1943, after a meeting with Stalin at a council of hierarchs, he was elected Patriarch. Died in May 1944. Buried in the Epiphany (Yelokhovsky) Cathedral.
Sergianism - a negative term widely used by the ROCOR and opposition church movements in relation to the official ROC. Indicates the policy of conciliation and unconditional loyalty to the communist government in the USSR. It came into circulation after the publication in July 1927 in the Izvestia newspaper of the so-called "Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius". It, in particular, said:
Now the lot to be the interim Deputy Primate of our Church again fell on me, unworthy Metropolitan Sergius, and together with the lot fell upon me the duty to continue the work of the Deceased and strive in every way for the peaceful arrangement of our church affairs ...
Now, when we are almost at the very goal of our aspirations, the actions of foreign enemies do not stop: murders, arson, raids, explosions and similar phenomena of the underground struggle are before our very eyes. All this disrupts the peaceful course of life, creating an atmosphere of mutual distrust and all kinds of suspicion. The more it is necessary for our Church and the more obligatory for all of us who cherish Her interests, who wish to lead Her on the path of a legal and peaceful existence, the more obligatory for us now is to show that we, church leaders, are not with the enemies of our Soviet state and not with insane instruments of their intrigues, and with our people and with our government ...
... We want to be Orthodox and at the same time recognize the Soviet Union as our civil Motherland, whose joys and successes are our joys and successes, and our failures are our failures. Any blow directed at the Union, be it a war, a boycott, some kind of social disaster, or simply a murder from around the corner, like the one in Warsaw, is recognized by us as a blow directed at us. Remaining Orthodox, we remember our duty to be citizens of the Union “not only out of fear of punishment, but also,” as the Apostle taught us (Rom. 13: 5). And we hope that with the help of God, with your general assistance and support, this task will be solved by us ...
The declaration of Metropolitan Sergius led to an additional schism in the church - the ROCOR finally dissociated itself from the ROC, and a True Orthodox (aka "catacomb") church arose in the country.
As a matter of fact, objectively, the declaration was quite explicable from the point of view of the Josephite church, especially in conditions when it was actually faced with the fact of the possibility of its liquidation in the presence of a competitive renovationist alternative. The sharp reaction of those who viewed the new atheist government as their enemy and “antichrist” is also understandable, especially since the declaration itself gave a weighty reason for this. For example, the "Warsaw" murder meant the murder of Voikov, one of the organizers of the execution of the royal family.
There is the Voykovskaya metro station in Moscow, named after the Voikov Moscow Iron Foundry, which was once located upstairs. Few Muscovites know after whom this station was named.
Voikov Petr Lazarevich (he is Pinkhus Weiner, he is Petrus, Intelligent, Blond). Revolutionary, Soviet party leader, diplomat. Was born in Kerch. He was expelled from the gymnasium for politics. In 1903 he joined the RSDLP (Mensheviks). The organizer of the unsuccessful assassination attempt on General Dumbadze, after which he fled abroad. In emigration, he married profitably and studied at the Geneva and Paris universities (chemistry, which later came in handy). He returned with Lenin in a sealed carriage. Since 1917, a member of the Military Revolutionary Committee in Yekaterinburg, supply commissar for the Ural region. He actively participated in the execution of Nicholas II and his family (he was a supporter of the execution, organized a provocation with an imaginary attempt to free the tsar). In memory of the murder, he carried with him a ring with a ruby, which he personally removed from the corpse of the empress. As a chemist, he used acid to destroy traces of a crime. Then he worked in the People's Commissariat for Food, the People's Commissariat for Foreign Trade. Participated in the sale abroad of the treasures of the Armory Chamber and the Diamond Fund. In 1922, he was appointed diplomatic representative to Canada, but did not receive an agreman due to his involvement in the murder of the royal family. Subsequently, he was appointed plenipotentiary in Poland. In June 1927, he was shot during a shootout with a Russian émigré student Koverda, who was acting alone. In response, the government executed several members of the royal nobility in Moscow. Solemnly buried at the Kremlin wall. In the country there were (and still exist) more than a hundred streets named after him.
Naturally, many, many believers could not agree with this position of the de facto official head of the Russian Orthodox Church. For example, the Karlovatskaya Church (ROCOR), many of whose members, starting with Metropolitan Anthony, were staunch monarchists, came out very sharply against it. ROCOR was founded on the basis of the Provisional Higher Church Administration (VVCU), which operated in the territories controlled by the White Movement. After the forced emigration, VVCU was transformed into ROCOR at the cathedral in Serbian Sremski Karlovtsy (where it remained until the end of World War II). The independent Karlovy Vary Synod was headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) - the same one who once won the most votes of the participants in the Council in the elections of the Patriarch.
Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky Alexey Pavlovich). Bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, the first chairman of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Theologian, philosopher. A nobleman, born into the family of a general. While studying at the gymnasium, he attended lectures by Vladimir Solovyov, as well as public speeches by Fyodor Dostoevsky (according to legend, he served as a prototype for Alyosha Karamazov in Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov). He graduated from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, where he was left as a teacher, then as an assistant professor and rector. Rector of the Moscow and Kazan Theological Academy. One of the organizers of the Union of the Russian People. Bishop of several dioceses. An active supporter of the restoration of the patriarchate. Member of the Local Council of 1917-1918, one of three candidates for the patriarchal throne (won the most votes, but was not elected Patriarch by drawing lots). In July 1918. was elected chairman of the All-Ukrainian Church Council, headed the Supreme Church Administration of the South of Russia in the territories controlled by the White movement. He left Russia in March 1920, returned to Crimea and was evacuated with Wrangel's army to Constantinople. In November - December 1921 the First Foreign ("Karlovatskiy") Cathedral was held. He headed the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. He was an ardent opponent of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and the Provisional Patriarchal Synod in Moscow headed by him. He remained a staunch monarchist (the well-known words "I can not stand words ending in" uzia ": constitution, revolution, prostitution ..."), an opponent of Judaism and Freemasonry. Buried in Belgrade.
Thus, after 1927, the once united Russian church practically officially split into many separate and completely independent churches and movements, which are in confrontation with each other. The largest of them were:
- "Tikhonov" Church ("Josephites")
- Renovation Church ("reformers")
- Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
- True Orthodox (Catacomb) Church (opponents of Sergianism)
Under such conditions, it was not so difficult for the new government to bring Trotsky's plan to its logical conclusion.
It was difficult to do anything with ROCOR due to its natural remoteness. From the very beginning, the Catacomb Church was subjected to incessant persecution, as a result of which by the 60s the remnants of its leadership were arrested, and the church itself practically ceased to exist.
As for the renovationists (reformers) and traditionalists (Josephites), until 1943 the final decision was not taken. At the same time, in accordance with the mentioned plan, both churches were successively bleeding out. Large-scale repressions of 37-38 years affected them equally (while the renovationists began to be massively repressed from the 35th year), as well as the closure of dioceses. Due to the specifics of Trotsky's plan, the reformers had much less chance - "as the most dangerous enemy of tomorrow."
It is characteristic that in October 1941 the remnants of the top church leadership were evacuated to Ulyanovsk, and Vvedensky, Stragorodsky, and the head of the Old Believer church were in the same carriage (and almost in the same compartment). The authorities have not yet decided which of them to leave.
And this decision was made in September 1943. Before that, Stalin summoned the church curator Karpov (see below), also an NKVD colonel, who later wrote down the content of this conversation. Here are the questions Stalin asked him: “A) What is Metropolitan Sergius (age, physical condition, his authority in the Church, his attitude to the authorities); b) a brief description of Metropolitans Alexy and Nicholas; c) when and how Tikhon was elected to the Patriarch; d) what kind of connections does the Russian Orthodox Church have abroad; e) who are the Ecumenical Patriarchs, Jerusalem Patriarchs and others; f) what I know about the leadership of the Orthodox Churches in Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania; g) in what material conditions are Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nicholas now; h) the number of parishes of the Orthodox Church in the USSR and the number of episcopates. "
This was followed by Stalin's famous meeting with Metropolitans Sergius (Stragorodsky), Alexy (Simansky) and Nikolai (Yarushevich), at which the fate of the church schism and, accordingly, the Renovationists was decided. Gained fame and a landmark story that clearly characterizes Sergius and his position in relation to power:
Metropolitan Sergius declared the need for the widespread opening of theological schools, since the Church does not have a cadre of clergy. Stalin suddenly broke the silence: "Why do you have no personnel?" - He asked, taking the pipe out of his mouth and looking at his interlocutors. Alexy and Nikolai were embarrassed ... everyone knew that the personnel had been killed in the camps. But Metropolitan Sergius was not embarrassed: "We have no personnel for various reasons. One of them: we are preparing a priest, and he becomes a Marshal of the Soviet Union."
In a very short time, the bishops who were still at large (19 people in total), who on September 8, 1943, elected Metropolitan Sergius as Patriarch, were delivered to the mansion of the former German embassy in Chisty Pereulok, which was given to the Russian Orthodox Church by airplanes.
By the way, as we see it, one of the reasons for Stalin's “reconciliation” with the church was his far-reaching strategic plans to turn the USSR into the center of the Orthodox world (see above the list of Stalin's questions to Karpov) after the victorious end of the war. At the same time, negotiations began with the Orthodox patriarchs about holding an Ecumenical Council of Orthodox Churches in Moscow under the auspices of the Moscow Patriarchate - an event quite in the spirit and scale characteristic of Stalin. The patriarchs, however, ultimately refused.
At the same time, Vvedensky, for his family reasons, had to leave Ulyanovsk for Moscow. However, already on the train, under a completely ridiculous pretext, his pass was withdrawn, and returned back only two weeks later. During this time, the fate of the Renovationist Church was decided, and its rapid mass "cleansing" took place with the closure of the remaining churches and the liquidation of the dioceses. The Renovationist movement finally ceased to exist with the death of Metropolitan Alexander (Vvedensky) in 1946. Immediately after that, by decision of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, his archive was destroyed.
We did not consider here the features of the reforms of the Renovationist Church. In the current conditions, all the changes aimed at democratizing church life were severely curtailed due to the incessant opposition from the authorities. There is no doubt that the reformers-renovationists were initially doomed: any government that sets itself the task of liquidating the church, ultimately with inexorable logic, had to make contact with the Josephites, who were more loyal to any institution of power as such.
Repression
A bit of demography (the data are averaged and rounded): in 1897 the population of Russia (excluding Finland) was about 126 million people, of which the clergy and families accounted for about 590 thousand people, which was about 0.5 percent of the population. Here is a comparison of these figures with data for other classes:
Hereditary nobles 1%
Personal nobles and officials with families 0.5%
Clergy with families 0.5%
Merchants with families 0.2%
Bourgeois 10%
Peasants 77%
In 1914, the population was 172-175 million, of which about 95 thousand were monastics (of whom 130 were bishops) and about 120 thousand were white clergy and church officials (of whom 53 thousand were priests). With family members, the category of priesthood (Christian) could most likely be attributed to about 650-700 thousand people, which was approximately the same half percent of the population.
Why did we need demographics? It's just that when describing repressions, data is often given, it is not clear where it was obtained and by whom it was calculated. Sometimes, when calculating, the figure of the repressed (by which they usually mean only those who were shot) appears in 100 thousand and even 200 thousand priests, then in the light of the demographic data presented above, it seems strange.
In general, unfortunately, we often had to deal with, say, suspicious data and documents from fairly recent history, which are repeatedly mentioned and quoted everywhere without elementary verification of the sources. For example, not so long ago, the acting patriarch once again mentioned on TV Lenin's document of May 1, 1919, called "Instruction of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and Council of People's Commissars No. 13666/2" (allegedly addressed to Dzerzhinsky): "... it is necessary to end the priests and religion as soon as possible. Popov should be arrested as counterrevolutionaries and saboteurs, shot mercilessly and everywhere. And as much as possible. Churches are to be closed. The premises of the temples should be sealed and turned into warehouses. " Here, even the most inexperienced researcher should have caught the eye of clear evidence of the mocking humor of the authors of the "document" - there were never any "instructions" from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (historically at that time it issued only decrees and decrees). A beautiful combined "devilish" number should further "aggravate" the impression of the document. Now, this is the first and last "instruction" (I wonder where the previous 13665 instructions have gone?) Are cited by everything - up to the patriarch, as we can see - and no one has any questions. And there are more than enough such documents and "evidence". Apparently, they should also include Lenin's letter to Molotov and members of the Politburo (dictated by telephone) dated March 19, 1922 regarding the seizure of church values, which is more suitable in terms of ideas and presentation of Trotsky's style.
Apparently, documents of this type are intended to further convince people of the anti-clerical nature of the new regime. So that there are absolutely no doubts about it. It would be better if they directed their efforts to search for reliable statistical data or helped a small group of employees of the central archive to disassemble documents that have not yet been opened - there, only during the period of the revolution, more than a million storage units have not yet been disassembled.
There is no need to come up with anything special - the Bolsheviks did not like alien class elements too much, to which they included clergymen (not only Orthodox, by the way). In fact, one should simply recall the instructions of one of the prominent security officers Latsis (Jan Sudrabas, shot in 1938) on the methods of investigation: “We are not waging war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. Do not look at the investigation for materials and evidence that the accused acted in deed or word against the Soviet regime. The first question that we have to ask him is what class he belongs to, what kind of background he is, upbringing, education or profession. These questions should determine the fate of the accused. This is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror ”. As it turned out, all these words applied with the same success to the clergy.
The first victims among the Orthodox clergy appeared in the second half of 1917 - it is believed that one of the first was the murder of the village priest Rozhdestvensky in the Oryol province back in September. But the killing of priests really began after the October Revolution. Archpriest John Kochurov, who served in the Catherine Cathedral in Tsarskoye Selo, is considered the first martyr of this era. On October 31, he was arrested along with other priests for organizing a procession and shot at a local airfield (as John Reid wrote about).
A significant event soon became the murder of Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia Vladimir in Kiev by the Red Guards - the new government clearly showed that high church positions will not save anyone. Already on March 31, at the liturgy, the newly elected Patriarch Tikhon prayed for the repose of those killed for the faith and the church - by that time there were already 19 priests on the list.
In the ensuing civil war, numerous crimes were committed against the clergy. Unfortunately, the scale of the killings of clergy in the non-religious war was unprecedented. As well as the cruelty of execution. Priests and monks were shot en masse and one by one, drowned, scalped, tied to horses, doused with water in the cold, burned, buried in the ground - the fantasy of murderers and sadists, who until recently in their mass considered themselves to be believers, was boundless. Undoubtedly, the sympathy of the overwhelming number of clergy was not on the side of the Reds. However, Patriarch Tikhon, who adhered to a policy of non-interference, refused to bless the representatives of the white movement.
1918, there were executions of religious processions in several cities (in Tula, Kharkov, Shatsk, etc.). The priests supported the uprising in Yaroslavl. According to the official data of the Cheka, in 1918, 827 clergymen were shot, in 1919 - 19. Unofficial figures are much higher. At the same time, most of the monasteries were closed, which were often converted into prisons and concentration camps. For example, from 1919 to 1922, 12 concentration camps were set up in Moscow, mainly in closed monasteries.
The second wave of repressions against clergy began in 1922 during the seizure of church valuables under the pretext of helping the starving. In fact, at this time, the authorities moved to a large-scale attack on the church, at the same time provoking its split. Trials are underway across the country, in which the most prominent priests and lay people are accused. It was in the middle of the twenties that a new wide wave of repressions occurred, accompanied by a massive closure of churches. By the end of 1924, more than 66 bishops were in prisons and exile - almost half of the Russian episcopate. Not everyone returned alive, but there were no mass executions. During this time, the repressed were mainly imprisoned in prisons or camps, of which one of the most notorious is the Solovetsky Special Purpose Camp.
Children's game “find 10 differences” - domes with crosses have finally appeared on the new banknote of 2010 at the Solovetsky Monastery.
Solovetsky monastery
Solovetsky monastery - Spaso-Preobrazhensky stavropegic monastery. Included in the UNESCO World Heritage List. Located on the Solovetsky Islands in the White Sea. Founded at the beginning of the 15th century by Zosima, Savvaty and German. The stone buildings were erected by the rector Philip (later the Metropolitan of Moscow, killed by Ivan the Terrible). According to legend, Stepan Razin came to the monastery on pilgrimage. In the years 1669-1676. during the schism, the monastery was besieged (Solovetsky sitting), as a result of which the monks were killed during the assault. In 1854, during the Crimean War, withstood the siege of the British fleet. Thanks to the labor of monks, the necessary infrastructure was developed on the island, a complex system of canals was built, and a botanical garden, unique for the polar latitudes, was planted. The main time of the year the island is cut off from the mainland - shipping on the White Sea is possible only in the summer months. In Soviet times, the island housed a camp, a prison, a school for the young men of the Northern Fleet and the Solovetsky Museum-Reserve.
-
Take this Kant, but for such proofs for three years in Solovki! - Ivan Nikolayevich thumped quite unexpectedly ...
But the proposal to send Kant to Solovki not only did not impress the foreigner, but even delighted him.
“Precisely, precisely,” he shouted, and his left green eye, turned to Berlioz, sparkled, “he belongs there!
The "second" life of the Solovki
It would be wrong to say that it was the Bolsheviks who first guessed to turn monasteries into colonies and prisons. They just gave this process a completely different scale. In fact, we had a centuries-old practice of exiling and imprisoning all kinds of people in monasteries. Here is also the upper class, for which the "dynastic tonsure" was originally applied as monks according to the good old Byzantine tradition - from the tsar's wives who fell out of favor (see, for example, the biographies of the eight wives of Ivan the Terrible) and applicants for the highest government positions (as Fedor Romanov - future Patriarch Filaret). And many disagreeing with the "general line" of the church - Old Believers, heretics, non-possessors, etc. And just criminals, including criminals (for example, the already mentioned Saltychikha - a maniac-murderer "a la chikatilo" of Catherine's times). And sometimes just mentally ill people (like the Decembrist Fyodor Shakhovskaya, who has gone mad). However, the monastic confinement, considered much more difficult than usual, ultimately, according to numerous testimonies, inevitably led to madness. Such a centuries-old and rather massive "collateral" use of existing monasteries is characteristic, perhaps, only for our country. As a rule, in other countries, they were still more respectful of workers in the field of "smart doing".
In this respect, the Solovetsky Monastery has become one of the most "popular" torture chambers, not least due to the severity of the surrounding nature and the low probability of escape. The monastery has become a political and church prison since the 16th century. First, these were cells and stone "bags", then the famous earthen pits (a completely inhuman invention) and, finally, individual buildings on the monastery territory. Among the first known prisoners, we can mention the famous Trans-Volga non-possessor, Abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Artemy, who was one of the few who managed to escape from the island to Lithuania (like Kurbsky). He was replaced in dungeons, by the way, one of his opponents - Archpriest Sylvester, who also became a non-possessor at the end of his life. At the same time there were also supporters of the heretical pro-Western movement of Matvey Bashkin. In post-Petrine times, mostly "religious" prisoners were significantly diluted by civilians - politicians and sometimes just criminals, including very high-ranking officials, such as, for example, the former head of the Secret Chancellery, Count Pyotr Tolstoy or Prince Vasily Dolgoruky. The last ataman of the Zaporizhzhya Sich Pyotr Kalnyshevsky also ended his life here. It is believed that from the time of Ivan the Terrible to the closure of the prison at the end of the 19th century, the total number of prisoners in the Solovetsky Monastery exceeded five hundred people.
The sad tradition was renewed by the new government. In 1920, the monastery was closed and a forced labor camp was established in its place. In 1923, the Solovetsky special purpose camp was established (SLON, later the Solovetsky special purpose prison, closed in 1939). A peculiarity of the camp was that, in addition to criminals, the camp contained a significant number of clergy, officers, nobles, intellectuals, cultural and art workers, members of opposition parties. The total number of prisoners is difficult to establish due to the lack of documentary evidence, but the camp was originally built for 8,000 people. The number of prisoners varies from 2,000 to 60,000 by year. Similarly, it is difficult to determine the number of deaths (and here the numbers vary from 7 to 43 thousand people, taking into account those who died from hunger and typhus epidemics in all the ELEPHANT camps) - “ownerless” mass graves on Solovki continue to be found today.
The first priests (convicted in the process of confiscating church valuables) appeared in the camp already in 1923. Then came the priests who violated the decree on the separation of church from state and did not commemorate Metropolitan Sergius and the state power during the divine services. The total number of clergy in Solovki was up to 500 people (maximum estimate). It is interesting that after 1925, when all political prisoners were transferred to the mainland, priests worked for all positions related to material values \u200b\u200b(accounting, distribution of food, etc.) - where special honesty was required. Sectarians (“Christos” in the camp terminology), who in principle did not recognize the Bolsheviks as the rule of the Antichrist, were especially strongly persecuted - this category of prisoners was almost completely destroyed for refusing to go to work.
About 40-50 bishops passed through Solovki. History knows the "Cathedral of Solovetsky Bishops" (an unofficial meeting of imprisoned bishops in 1926-1929), which issued four epistles on topical issues of relations between church and state, including the well-known "Solovetsky Epistle" on the subject of the statement of Metropolitan Sergius.
In 2000, the ROC glorified over thirty new martyrs and confessors of the Solovetsky.
According to the repressive authorities themselves, in 1923-1924. 2469 clergymen were arrested, and in 1931-1932. their number has already reached 19,812 (clergymen of different confessions).
The third, one of the most difficult periods of repression against the clergy falls on 1937-38. By operational order No. 00447 of July 30, 1937, signed by Yezhov, the repression of former kulaks, criminals and other anti-Soviet elements was envisaged. In the explanations, the “other anti-Soviet elements” included “sectarian activists, clergymen and others held in prisons, camps, labor settlements and colonies”. In addition, some regions additionally asked to increase their clergy quotas.
According to the official, undoubtedly incomplete data, among the convicts there were (of all confessions):
1937:
- "Churchmen", "Ministers of Religions. cult "(by social composition) - 33 382 people
- "Church-sectarian counter-revolution" (by the nature of the crime) - 37,331 people
1938:
- "Church-sectarian counter-revolution" - 13 438 people
It should be recalled that in those years, out of the total number of those arrested, about half were sentenced to VMN (or VMSZ - the highest measure of social protection, as they said in 37). Repressions against the clergy continued until 1943 - the holding of the Council of Bishops and the beginning new policy in relation to the church.
12.07.2012 “Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev presented to Russian President Vladimir Putin a plan for the relocation of federal authorities to the village of Kommunarka. It depends on the consent of the president whether this plan will be implemented and whether all government agencies will move to a new location, the Kommersant newspaper writes.
We are talking about a village 5 km from the Moscow Ring Road, which became part of New Moscow. There, according to the newspaper, the presidential administration, ministries, government apparatus, the Accounts Chamber, the Prosecutor General's Office and the Investigative Committee should move there. An office complex with an area of \u200b\u200babout 3.5 million square meters will be built for officials. Its construction will cost 350 billion rubles, but the move will not require money from the budget. According to the source of the newspaper, the government proposes to build on borrowed money, and then return it by selling the vacated buildings in Moscow. The office complex is expected to be built in 2013-2016. "
For the first time, the Parliamentary Center in Kommunarka was proposed by the current Chief Orthodox Builder of All Russia Resin (see our materials on the project for the construction of 200 Lego churches in Moscow). Today it is planned to place the entire government there at once. Probably, those who proposed this place have a fair amount of black humor - at one time in Kommunarka, at the beginning of the war, the entire government of Mongolia was shot. And a bunch of people whom Stalin was afraid to leave alive under the threat of Moscow surrendering to the Germans. There they found their last refuge (shot on the spot or brought for burial) such "recognizable" figures as Yagoda, Bukharin, Rykov (together with his wife), Efron, Antonov-Ovseenko, Berzin, Peters and many more representatives of the ruling elite - legendary divisional commanders, commissars, ministers, diplomats, general staff officers, security officers, professors and academicians.
However, maybe the choice is also explained by the fact that the current leadership would be pleased to be accommodated in the place where earlier, like at the Butovo training ground, the Chekists were settled in dachas and garden associations - there, for example, there was a large summer cottage of Yagoda (aka Enoch Yegoda ). Chekists gathered there for production meetings and subsequent recreation with fishing on the pond and other amusements films 11 pcs. "and" Rubber artificial penis 1 "). Undoubtedly, after the move, the continuity will be maintained at the proper level ...
The Butovo training ground was assigned to the Moscow administration of the NKVD, and Kommunarka was assigned to its central apparatus, which is of a higher rank. In any case, choosing between Butovo and Kommunarka, the preference for the relocation of the current rulers should be given to the latter, as a more “elite” place. I wonder if the "Komsomolets" crawler excavator, with the help of which they dug mass graves, remained there on the move?
According to the latest data, 6.5 thousand people were buried in Kommunarka. In Butovo, about 21 thousand people were shot, including 15 thousand "political". These 15 thousand included about 940 people of the so-called "shot for their faith." However, this classification seems a little strange (apparently, these are those who had an indication of their religion in their files) - much more precisely the figure of 268 people who were canonized by the ROC in the early 2000s. Of the 60 bishops who were shot in those years, seven found their rest at the Butovo training ground.
Large-scale repressions against the clergy ended in September 1943 - after Stalin's meeting with three hierarchs and the subsequent holding of the Council of Bishops with the election of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) as Patriarch.
Today it is difficult to determine exactly how many clergymen were subjected to repression, were in camps and prisons, died in custody, were executed by convictions or killed without trial. Various sources cite different numbers, often conditioned solely by their ideological preferences. The last figure recently heard on TV from one of the now famous priests was 300,000 clergymen shot during the years of Soviet power. Given the demographics above, this seems a little odd.
The scale of the repressions can be more or less reliably represented by the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church and the CPI - due to their positions, the fate of each can be traced from more or less high degree reliability. Below is the minimum data
As we remember, before the revolution, there were 130 bishops in the ROC. All in all, in the official church (without the Old Believers, the True Orthodox Church and the Renovationists, and with a part of the ROCOR) for 1917-1997. (80 years) served at least 856 bishops, archbishops, metropolitans and patriarchs. Of these 80 years, the period of mass repression accounts for about a third of the time. Over this time:
Was imprisoned: 160 people
Killed in custody: 18
Killed: 14 people
Shot: 86 people
That is, for 1917-1943. about 60% of the bishops were repressed, of whom about 40% perished.
In the Russian True Orthodox (catacomb) church, at least 87 hierarchs were shot or died in prisons.
In 1937, the power reached the Renovationists. In full accordance with Trotsky's plan, the time has come for the destruction of those whom he called "Smenovekhovtsy". The authorities, which stopped dividing the "new" and "old" churches, began to arrest and physically exterminate prominent leaders of Renovationism - dozens of Renovationist bishops disappeared without a trace
In 1943, at the end of the period massive reduction clergy, on the already mentioned Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on the orders of Stalin managed to gather only 19 people.
Confiscation
The new government could not immediately begin to "expropriate" church values \u200b\u200b- as we could see earlier, even Peter I himself did not dare to do this immediately, and it took more than half a century before the reforms of Catherine II. The Bolsheviks, of course, were not going to wait that long.
As a result of nationalization (decree on land, decree on the separation of church from state), the church was deprived of land, houses, land, factories, hotels, etc. By 1918, the church had 8 million acres of land, 84 factories, 1,816 tenement houses and hotels, 277 hospitals and orphanages, which were confiscated in favor of the state. However, the church still retained the values \u200b\u200bit had accumulated over the centuries. A pretext was required for their removal, and this pretext was soon created.
In the summer of 1921, a severe drought began in the country (the Volga region, the Urals, southern Ukraine and some other regions). It exacerbated the effects of the famine that began in some areas as early as 1920 as a result of a bloody civil war... A large number of people "under arms" could not help to overcome it. According to statistics, in 1922 famine affected 35 provinces with a total population of 90 million people, of which at least 28 million were officially declared hungry. The number of victims of famine varies from source to source, but undoubtedly it was in the millions.
Initially, the church was actively involved in the fight against hunger. Patriarch Tikhon turned to foreign churches with a request for help, in the churches began collecting money for the hungry, under the leadership of the church was formed the organization "All-Russian Committee for Aid the Hungry" ("Pomgol"). However, this organization was soon dispersed - the authorities received an excellent pretext for the forcible selection of values.
There are numerous references to Lenin's letter members of the Politburo on the events in the city of Shuya (March 19, 1922): “By all means, we need to carry out the confiscation of church valuables in the most decisive and fastest way, than we can secure ourselves a fund of several hundred million gold rubles (we must remember the gigantic riches of some monasteries and laurels). "
However, there are also quite reasonable doubts about its authenticity. Here the recollections of Molotov, who well revealed the essence of the unfolding anti-church campaign, will be more reliable: “1921, the beginning of NEP, famine. The conversation started - you need to buy bread abroad. This requires values. Lenin says: we need the churchmen to help. If we take these values, the priests will behave more calmly. If they start to resist - again it is to our advantage, they will undermine their authority on this: they hold on to their wealth when the people are starving. In any case, we will win in terms of fighting religious sentiments. "
In February, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued a directive to remove all precious things from churches, including items used for worship. The Church, which had already sacrificed church jewelry and objects that had no liturgical use, could not but protest against the essentially blasphemous order. Patriarch Tikhon, despite his conciliatory position, was forced to make a special address on February 15:
“We allowed, in view of extremely difficult circumstances, the possibility of donating church items that were not consecrated and did not have liturgical use. We call upon the believing children of the Church even now to such donations, only one wishing that these donations would be a response of a loving heart to the needs of our neighbor, if only they would really provide real help to our suffering brothers. But we cannot approve the withdrawal from churches, even through a voluntary donation, of sacred objects, the use of which is not for liturgical purposes is prohibited by the canons of the Ecumenical Church and is punished by It as sacrilege, a layman by excommunication from Her, a clergyman by an eruption from dignity ... ”.
Almost immediately, in the city of Shuya, there was a clash between the police and military personnel with the people, who tried to prevent the commission from seizing relics from the city cathedral. Machine-gun fire was opened - the intentions of the authorities were more than obvious. In total, according to a number of data, weapons were used at least a thousand times during the seizure of valuables.
At the same time (March 30, 1922), Trotsky wrote to the Politburo the aforementioned note on the attitude towards the church and the use of the current situation to initiate a church schism. The note sets out the program, which was subsequently implemented almost completely (see above). Including there instructions are given on the seizure of valuables:
“… Until the completion of the seizure, we are focusing exclusively on this practical task, which we continue to carry out exclusively from the point of view of helping the hungry. Along the way, we deal with the counter-revolutionary priests responsible for Shuya, and so on, using Vechekist methods.
There is another instruction from Trotsky regarding the seizure of church valuables - for the press (dated March 24, 1922). It is also worth bringing it to understand the logic of further actions of the authorities.
Secret
The newspaper campaign for the confiscation of valuables is not being carried out correctly. It is directed against the clergy in general. Funny satirical poems are published against priests in general. This satire hits the lower clergy and rallies the clergy into one whole. The political task of the moment is not at all the same, but the exact opposite. It is necessary to split the priests, or rather deepen and sharpen the existing split. And in St. Petersburg, and in Moscow, and in the provinces there are many priests who agree to the withdrawal of valuables, but are afraid of the top. The discontent at the top, which puts the lower ranks of the clergy in a difficult position in this matter, is very great.
We must proceed from this basic principle in agitation. now fact. We treat priests now, not as priests of some religion, but as a group of citizens who have been entrusted with values \u200b\u200bby the state under certain conditions. There is a split in this group of citizens. One part of it, regardless of its religious prejudices, which we are not interested in now, recognizes the need to convey values \u200b\u200bfor the salvation of the starving, the other part - the princes of the church, greedy, rapacious, corrupted, anti-people - are fighting against this in every possible way, terrorizing the lower classes. The task of agitation is now to support these lower strata against the upper classes, to make them understand and feel that the state will not allow the upper classes to terrorize them, since they seek to ensure the execution of the decrees of the workers 'and peasants' government.
Once again: the political task is to isolate the upper circles of the church, compromise them on the very specific issue of helping the starving and then show them the stern hand of the workers' state, since these upper circles dare to rebel against it.
Trials began in the country, in which the most active clergy and laity became accused, preventing the seizure of church valuables.
In April, a trial opened in the building of the Polytechnic Museum in Moscow, where 20 Moscow priests and 34 laymen were tried on charges of instigating riots in the confiscation of church valuables. In the already established best traditions of Soviet justice, it became clear from the first days of the tribunal that the verdict had already been decided. However, the court had its own, very characteristic features.
Before the trial began, the newspaper Pravda published a letter from twelve Petrograd priests (including the already well-known Renovationists V. Krasnitsky and A. Vvedensky) accusing the Patriarchate of refusing to help the starving people and of counter-revolutionary actions. But worse than that, the Renovationists sided with the prosecution as witnesses and experts. The defense, among other things, insisted that the church, when confiscating valuables, could not transfer sacred vessels to the civil authorities. However, experts Professor Kuznetsov, the charismatic renovationist Bishop Antonin, and the Moscow priests Kalinovsky and Ledovsky said that all the vessels could be transferred to the state. Patriarch Tikhon was summoned to the trial as a witness, who was arrested immediately after him.
The renovation priests could not fail to understand that their testimony would lead to the imposition of death sentences. Bishop Antonin, one of the leaders of the Renovationists, in response to the remark of the priest of Zaozersky about the sacrifices offered to God with the help of sacred utensils, loudly said to the whole hall: "I want mercy, not sacrifice!" - thereby condemning your fellow believers to sacrifice. And so it happened. The Tribunal sentenced 11 accused to be shot, of whom six were commuted to imprisonment. Five people were shot (including the main accused - Zaozersky, who, by the way, at the beginning of the campaign voluntarily surrendered absolutely all the valuables from his church).
A foundation was laid under the church schism, abundantly watered with the blood of some priests with the help of other priests.
The trial of Metropolitan Benjamin (Kazan), 1922
Soon after the Moscow trial, the St. Petersburg trial began. At the end of May, 86 people, headed by Metropolitan Benjamin (Kazan), were in the dock in the building of the former Noble Assembly. The metropolitan himself was very calm and apolitical, and, like the executed Moscow priesthood, in no way called for the overthrow of the government. But it was completely unimportant for the organizers - the 25-year-old baker, who headed the court, openly demanded "heads". During this process, the term "enemies of the people" was used. The prosecutor said: "The entire Orthodox Church is a counter-revolutionary organization. Actually, the whole Church should be imprisoned!" The Metropolitan and three other defendants were shot (he numbered the new martyrs in 1992).
And again, as in Moscow, the accusation was based on the testimony of the leaders of the Renovationist movement - the priests Krasnitsky and Vvedensky. By the way, according to the testimony of contemporaries, a portrait of Metropolitan Benjamin with a dedication inscription "To my great friend" was hanging at the Vvedensky house. Remained in history and the words of the Metropolitan, who said to Vvedensky, who approached him with a blessing: "Father Alexander, we are not in the Garden of Gethsemane." The GPU should have been satisfied with the way in which Trotsky's plan was carried out in practice. Only one thing the renovationists did not know - according to the same plan, Trotsky regarded them as temporary supporters who should have been destroyed after the defeat of the "Tikhonists".
In the same 1922, similar trials were replicated throughout the country (about 250 trials in cases related to the seizure of church valuables) with the imposition of death sentences. As a rule, the local bishop, several priests and the most active laity found themselves in the dock. At the same time, half of all the bishops were arrested.
As already indicated, the fight against hunger and the confiscation of church values \u200b\u200bwere only a very convenient pretext for starting the destruction of the official church. In fact, there were not so many confiscated valuables - despite the talk of a hundred million gold rubles. Here is what the summary statement of the Central Committee of Posledgol said about the results of the campaign as of November 1922:
I. According to the telegraphic information of the local Commissions for the confiscation of church [church] valuables, the following was seized:
1. Gold 33 p. 32 lbs.
2. Silver 23.997 p. 23 lbs.
3. Diamonds 35.670 pcs.
4. Other [precious] stones 71.762 pcs.
5. Pearls 14 p. 32 lb.
6. Gold coins 3.115 rubles.
7. Silver [oops] coins 19.155 rubles.
8. Various [valued] items 52 p. 30 f.
A total of 4,650,810 rubles were withdrawn according to an approximate estimate. 67 r.
Of these, about one million rubles were spent directly on eliminating the consequences of the famine.
At the turn of the 20s - 30s, a separate program for the liquidation and disposal of church bells was carried out. The ideological component here was closely intertwined with the economic one - to speed up the process and stimulate local authorities, up to 40 percent of the proceeds from the sale of non-ferrous metal remained in the localities. A number of especially valuable bells have traditionally been sold abroad (including the recently returned bells from Harvard).
In the fall of 1930, bell ringing is prohibited in Moscow and other cities of Russia. According to official Soviet statistics, to weaken the dependence of production on imports of non-ferrous metal for the period 1925-1933. across the RSFSR, Ukraine and Belarus, 385,310 bells with a total weight of 36.4 thousand tons of bronze were removed. Part of this bronze, by the way, can be seen today on the building of the Lenin Library - 100 tons were used to cast bronze high reliefs.
After campaigns to seize valuables and property, the church largely lost its economic base. She could not own real estate and enterprises (only church workshops for the production of icons and utensils remained). The state viewed the priests as private entrepreneurs.
For the destruction of churches, the criterion of ancient monuments developed in 1928 by the Glavnauka was summed up: (until 1613) inviolable, (1613-1725) changes "in case of special need", (1725-1825) preservation of facades; (after 1825) are not counted as monuments. The number of churches has declined sharply (these materials are taken from Wikipedia, without checking for sources):
|
Temples and houses of worship |
Bishops, priests and deacons |
Monasteries and inhabitants |
|
|
54923 hr., 23593 hours. |
130 arch., 53234 priest, 15694 diac., 48987 psalm. |
1025 mon., 94629 pop. |
|
|
78767 hr. and hour. |
130 arch., 120 thousand priest, deac. and a psalm. |
1256 mon., 107035 pop. |
|
|
Beginning of autumn 1939 |
4 arch. (2 ruling and 2 vicarious) 200-300 priests |
||
|
An increase of more than 3 thousand due to the new territories that entered the USSR in 1939. |
28 arch., 5665 priest. and deac. |
64 mon., 5100 us. |
|
|
104 mon., 4632 pop. |
|||
|
66 arch., 9617 priest. and deac. |
99 mon., 4668 pop. |
||
|
11407 priest and deac. |
42 mon., 3724 pop. |
||
|
75 arch., 6234 priest. and 618 diac. |
16 mon., 1200 us. |
||
|
74 arch., 6674 priest. and 723 deac. |
22 mon., 1190 monastics |
Anti-religious propaganda
Anti-religious propaganda played a significant role in the fight against the church. Initially, it was built, taking into account the general level of education of the population, on the principle of desacralization of religious consciousness.
The first well-thought-out and highly effective anti-religious campaign, designed to "blow up" the usual Christian thinking of the population, was the widespread (throughout the country) opening of the relics of saints. The People's Commissariat of Justice in February 1919 issued a decree on the autopsy of the relics by special commissions with the drawing up of protocols - the so-called "powerful epic", carried out by the 8th department of the People's Commissariat of Justice. In 1919-1920. dozens (at least 62) burials of relics were desecrated, including Mitrofan of Voronezh, Pitirim of Tambov, John of Novgorod, Nil Stolobensky, Joasaph of Belgorod, Savva Storozhevsky, Seraphim of Sarov, Sergius of Radonezh and others. Subsequently, many of them were transported from different monasteries. cities of Russia in the Leningrad Museum of Atheism and Religion (former Kazan Cathedral). Since, due to natural reasons, there were not many really imperishable relics, this company, covered by the Bolshevik press, received a fairly large response.
Orthodox churches were often not just closed, but turned, for example, into clubs. Closed monasteries, which were turned into colonies, prisons and psychiatric hospitals, faced an even more sad fate.
In order to replace cult events, Komsomol and communist "Easter", "Christmas" and "religious processions" were held.
There were also more "exotic" events, such as "meetings of a political tribunal to pass judgment on God."
“Red corners” appear in the organizations, in which propaganda materials are placed instead of previously traditional icons.
Anti-religious materials are published in central communist publications such as Pravda and Izvestia. The publication of specialized newspapers and magazines begins. One of the first atheistic journals was the periodical organ of the People's Commissariat of Justice "Revolution and church», on the pages of which were printed, including the highest party leaders. Scientific Society "Atheist" published a journal with the same name.
Perhaps the most famous publications were the weekly Atheist, the Atheist magazines (aka The Atheist at the Bench), The Godless Crocodile, etc. It is interesting that more neutral names were proposed, but Yaroslavsky insisted on the most defiant of them. The circulation of the newspaper at its peak reached half a million copies, the magazine - 200 thousand. These publications were published before the start of the war as the printed organs of the Moscow Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), and then the Council of Militant Atheists. The inscription on the cover of the first issue of the Atheist magazine, for example, read: “We have finished with the earthly kings, we take up the heavenly ones. God bless ”- this slogan determined the entire subsequent content of its numbers. It published both serious scientific and atheistic materials, as well as satirical works and cartoons. The target audience of these publications were workers, Red Army men and youth. Separate numbers were devoted to women's and peasant problems. Similar materials, but already on anti-Muslim topics, were published in the Tatar magazine Chayan.
On the basis of the authors and readers of the newspaper Atheists, the Society of Friends of the Newspaper was formed, which, in turn, in 1925 became the basis for the infamous Union of Atheists (later the Union of Militant Atheists). The Union published periodicals, published popular science literature, and promoted the ideas of atheism. Such well-known communist leaders as Lunacharsky, Bukharin, Krupskaya, and others actively collaborated with him. 5 million members. By this time, the circulation of books and brochures exceeded 50 million printed sheets.
With the outbreak of war, the Union of Militant Atheists practically ceased to exist. In the future, its functions were performed by the All-Union Society "Knowledge".
For all this consistent and large-scale anti-religious propaganda, the data of the 1937 census is indicative. At Stalin's direction, the questionnaire included the question of religious beliefs. The answers were indicative: according to the census in the USSR, there were more believers among people aged 16 and older than non-believers: 55.3 million believers and 42.2 million non-believers (56.7% versus 43.3% - of the total answered the fifth point of the questionnaire). Of the 30 million illiterates over 16 years old, 84% (about 25 million) declared themselves to be believers, and of the 68.5 million literate people, 45% (over 30 million). It should be borne in mind that not everyone answered, fearing the consequences - in reality, the numbers were even higher. ("Memo for the counter": "In particular, explain that the question about religion should be indicated by the current personal beliefs of the respondent (non-believer, believer - Orthodox, believer - Mohammedan, etc.), and not the religion to which the respondent or his parents were officially reckoned in the past tense "). These figures showed that the fight against religion was not as effective as it seemed to the state.
It was these mostly believers who, by the way, won the Great Patriotic War a few years later.
Subsequently, the intensification of anti-religious propaganda is observed in Khrushchev's times after the XX Party Congress. In connection with the increase in the general level of education, the emphasis was placed on the promotion of scientific atheism and Marxist-Leninist teaching in schools and universities, as well as through a network of full-time propagandists. In accordance with the decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Institute of Scientific Atheism was created at the Academy of Social Sciences, which existed until the 90s.
Center for the Coordination of Anti-Church Activities
Undoubtedly, under the new government, despite the declared separation of church from state, over time, a single center was to be formed, responsible for the practical implementation of policy in relation to the church. The strategy, undoubtedly, was determined by the top leaders of the Soviet regime - initially Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin and others, later members of the Central Committee and Politburo. By the decision of the Politburo in October 1922, the Anti-Religious Commission (ARC) was created under the Central Committee of the RCP (b), uniting representatives of all state bodies and determining the policy in the field of relations with the church. The commission met with a frequency of up to twice a month. The prominent Bolshevik Yaroslavsky played an important role in the commission's practical work for many years.
Yaroslavsky Emelyan Mikhailovich (aka Emelyan, Emelyanov, Sibiryak, Lapin, Krasilnikov, Soldier, Socialist, etc. He is also Gubelman Meit-Judah Izrailevich) - a party member since 1898. Born in Chita into a family of exiled settlers. Education of the 4th grade of the gymnasium, which did not prevent him from becoming an academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences. A delegate to various party congresses, a member of higher party bodies, a deputy to various councils, etc. In addition to his many responsibilities, he devoted a lot of time to anti-religious propaganda. Participated in the campaign for the autopsy of the relics (including St. Simeon of Verkhoturye), the confiscation of church valuables. In 1922-1940. was the organizer of anti-religious work in the USSR. Member and head of the Anti-Religious Commission under the Central Committee of the RCP (b) (his deputy was Tuchkov from the GPU - see below). Participated in compiling lists of clergy for further repression. He participated in the persecution of Patriarch Tikhon, led the Renovationist Council (1923), which condemned the Patriarch and removed him from office. Supervised the magazines "Atheist", "Antireligious" and "Atheist". Organizer of the Central Anti-Religious Museum in Leningrad. Organizer and chairman of the Central Council of the Union of Atheists of the USSR (hereinafter the Union of Militant Atheists). He was buried in Red Square near the Kremlin wall.
Initially, this was for some time dealt with by the interdepartmental commission under the People's Commissariat of Justice, then one of its departments (the so-called "liquidation" department). It was the People's Commissariat of Justice that monitored, for example, the execution of the decree on the separation of church from state, or the campaign to open the relics.
However, as the struggle with the church intensified, these functions more and more passed to the punitive bodies. Almost throughout the existence of Soviet power, direct work with representatives of the church was concentrated in the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD-KGB, which carried out the directives of the party leadership. Only the features of the work changed.
Back in April 1921, Dzerzhinsky wrote to one of his deputies, Jan Sudrabs (aka Martin Latsis, shot in 1938):
“In my opinion, the church is falling apart, we need to help this, but in no way revive it in a renewed form. Therefore, the church policy of collapse should be carried out by the Cheka, not by anyone else. Official or semi-official relations of the party with the priest are unacceptable. Our stake is on communism, not on religion. Only the VChK can maneuver for the sole purpose of decomposing the priests. Any connection with the priests of other organs will cast a shadow on the Party — this is a most dangerous thing. We'll have enough specialists alone. "
Bukharin's drawing (signature: "Symbion he is John the Baptist from G.P.U.")
I would like to say a few words about the role of Dzerzhinsky in this process. Here is how Berdyaev described his meeting with him in those days:
“Dzerzhinsky impressed me as a completely convinced and sincere person. I think that he was not a bad person and even by nature he was not a cruel person. It was a fanatic. In his eyes, he gave the impression of a man possessed. There was something eerie about him. He was a Pole and there was something subtle about him. In the past, he wanted to become a Catholic monk, and he transferred his fanatical faith to communism. "
Back in 1901, Iron Felix himself wrote in his diary “... as I used to hate evil, so now I hate it; as before, I strive with all my heart to ensure that there is no injustice, crime, drunkenness, debauchery, excesses, excessive luxury, brothels in which people sell their bodies or souls, or both together; so that there is no oppression, fratricidal wars, national enmity ... I would like to embrace the whole of humanity with my love, warm it and cleanse it of the dirt of modern life ... "
By analogy, it is very likely that under the leadership of such a person an organization was created that closely resembled both the Dominican and Jesuit Catholic orders. And it is very characteristic that it was the Pole with his Catholic roots who stood at its head. However, in our history there has already been a similar semi-monastic organization - the oprichniki. It is curious that Dzerzhinsky himself is preserved in the people's memory as a kind of "non-possessor" of the new "red" religion - a real "saint-unmercenary" who fought for a "pure" idea and did not acquire any earthly riches for himself. Isn't that why he is so often depicted in his simple long-length overcoat, similar to a monastic robe - no leather jackets and Mauser ... By the way, Dzerzhinsky was one of the very few leaders of the revolution who entered our history under his own surname.
The previously mentioned Martin Latsis quite clearly described the meaning of the Red Terror: "For us, there cannot and cannot be the old foundations of morality and humanity. We are not waging war against individuals. We are destroying the bourgeoisie as a class. Do not look for materials and evidence on the investigation. that the accused acted in word or deed against the Soviets. The first question you should ask him is what class he belongs to, what kind of background, education or profession he is. These questions should decide the fate of the accused. This is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror. "
It was this principle that guided the Chekists who conducted the affairs of clergy in the 1920s and 1930s. The materials of the cases clearly show the inapplicability of the principle of the presumption of innocence in relation to priests who refuse to agree with the new government. Undoubtedly, the punitive authorities first of all had to "knock out" the passionate and harmonious part of the ministers of various cults (not only Orthodox, by the way) to the fullest extent possible - by physical destruction and long terms of imprisonment, which often also end in their death.
Representatives of these same bodies became a kind of new chief prosecutors appointed by the state to oversee the church. One of the first such persons was the Chekist Tuchkov, who successfully carried out an operation to split the church through the support of the Renovationist movement (which, by the way, called himself the "Soviet chief prosecutor").
Tuchkov Evgeny Alexandrovich.An employee of the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD, head of the 6th department of the OGPU. Received four classes of education, worked in a pastry shop and in a leather and shoe workshop, later as a clerk in the rear headquarters. He joined the party after the revolution. Until 1929, he was the head of the 6th branch of the SB GPU - OGPU, whose competence included the fight against religious organizations in the USSR. He was directly responsible for the development and implementation of religious policy. Conducted the development of the "spy organization of churchmen", which, according to the plan, was headed by Patriarch Tikhon. Co-author of the "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius. He took an active part in organizing a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church (into Renovationists, Tikhonists, etc.). He was directly involved in the confiscation of church valuables. In 1931, he was appointed assistant to the head of the Secret-Political Department (STR) of the OGPU, retaining the post of head of the 3rd branch of the STR (agent-operational work on religious figures). In 1939-1947. was the executive secretary of the Central Union of Militant Atheists. Before his death, he asked Patriarch Alexy I to come to his hospital.
It is also interesting that the very idea of \u200b\u200brestoring the lost unity of the verticals under the leadership of the OGPU was put forward in opposition by the renovationists themselves at different levels. For example, the leader of a small Vologda renovation group "Russian People's Church" Burachek proposed “to put three persons at the head of the Russian Orthodox Church…: the head of the GPU, the Bishop (for religious affairs) and him - Burachka. He wants to make the six hundred priests of the diocese agents of the GPU, so that through them, with amicable solidarity, to a large extent expand information from the localities and open a mighty struggle against anti-state elements. " He was not alone in such proposals. As a matter of fact, this is generally how it happened.
Subsequently, religious issues passed into the competence of the NKVD (with the temporary delegation of part of the powers of the Central Commission on Cults under the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee in the 1930s).
During the war, under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults were created, later united into a single council. In practice, the leadership of the Council for Religious Affairs was carried out by the ideological department of the Central Committee of the CPSU in close contact with the NKVD and the KGB. It is characteristic that the first head of the Council was the Major General of the NKVD.
Karpov Georgy Grigorievich- Major General of Security. Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the ROC under the Council of Ministers of the USSR (until 1960). From a family of workers. He graduated from theological seminary, studied at the Petrograd University, worked at a factory. In the organs of the Cheka since 1922. He served in various positions in the OGPU - NKVD. Head of the 4th section of the 3rd department of the NKVD (the fight against the church-sectarian White Guard counter-revolution and insurgency in the regions of the RSFSR). Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1960, by decision of the CPC under the Central Committee of the CPSU, he was expelled from the CPSU for violations of socialist legality in 1937-38, but then reinstated in the party with a severe reprimand. He was buried at the Novodevichy cemetery.
It was General Karpov, by the way, who during the war put an end to the Renovationist movement grown by his predecessor, betting on the Sergian ROC, which by that time was already completely loyal to the state. It is also interesting that by the end of his work, Karpov began, not without success, to defend the Russian Orthodox Church from attacks by Mikhail Suslov, not least for which he was removed from his post. Kuroyedov, who replaced him during the years of Khrushchev's persecution of the church, traditionally criticized his predecessor: “The main mistake of the Council for Orthodox Church Affairs was that it inconsistently followed the line of the party and the state with respect to the church and often slipped into the position of serving church organizations. Taking a defensive position in relation to the church, the council led the line not to fight against violations of the legislation on cults by the clergy, but to protect church interests. "
The removal of Khrushchev also changed the relationship between the state and the church. As a matter of fact, by this time the church was already organizationally weakened enough to move from total suppression to more subtle types of control. The Council for Religious Affairs, together with the 5th department of the KGB, formed in 1967, began to pay more attention to the issues of working with clergymen, their cooperation with the authorities and the introduction of their "trusted" people into them.
However, it is quite understandable that by the end of the Soviet regime, those who showed even a shadow of dissatisfaction with this power could no longer get into the ranks of church hierarchs. The materials of the Yakunin-Ponomarev Commission (1990) on the ties between the KGB and the Russian Orthodox Church in Soviet times, listing the names of KGB agents in the church environment, leaves no doubt about this.
The end of the period of persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church can be considered the time of preparation for the celebration of the Millennium in 1988.
The 20th century gave the Russian Orthodox Church a large number of new martyrs. The Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1992 decided to celebrate the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia on January 25 (February 7), if this day coincides with Sunday, and if it does not, then on the next Sunday. By the decision of the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000, both famous and unknown martyrs and confessors of the faith were glorified. As of January 1, 2011, 1,774 people have been canonized by name in the Cathedral of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia of the 20th century.
It should be noted that, in contrast to the new martyrs and confessors of Russia canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, there is almost no talk about the victims of the Renovationist and Catacomb Church.
For obvious reasons, this century is not characterized by a large number of "folk" saints, with the exception, perhaps, of Matrona of Moscow.
Blessed Eldress Matrona (Matryona Dmitrievna Nikonova). According to legend, she was born in 1881 in the village of Sebino, Epifan district, Tula province. According to Life, from the age of 8 Matryona treated the sick and predicted the future. At the age of 18, her legs were taken away. Around 1925 Matryona moved to Moscow. According to popular legend, in 1941 Joseph Stalin came to Matryona, to whom she predicted: “The Russian people will win, the victory will be yours. You will not leave Moscow from the bosses alone "(there is also an icon "Matrona and Stalin"). Until his death, continuing to accept people. She died on May 2, 1952. She was buried at the Danilovskoye cemetery in Moscow. In 1998 she was exhumed, transferred and placed in a special tomb in the church on the territory of the Intercession Monastery. In 1999 she was canonized as a locally revered Moscow saint. In October 2004, a church-wide canonization took place.
Brief conclusion:
After the October Revolution of 1917, the policy of the new Soviet government was aimed at weakening the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church with its subsequent liquidation as part of a change in the system of government.
After the liquidation of the Synod, the institution of the Patriarchate was restored, corresponding to the idea of \u200b\u200bbuilding a vertical of church power.
By decree of the Bolsheviks, the Church was separated from the state, and under the new Constitution, the clergy were defeated in their rights.
The new government, as a priority task, eliminated monasticism and monasteries as the basis of the "non-acquisitive" movement.
In accordance with the plan developed by Trotsky to fight the church, the authorities stimulated the development of the reformist church movement (which in our history earlier in the 14th century was labeled "Judaizers"). According to the plan of the Bolsheviks, the artificial development of the "reformers" was to weaken the traditionalist "Josephites". At the same time, the "reformers" were considered a stronger threat, which needed to be eliminated in the future after the tasks of the split were completed.
Under these conditions, the "Josephites" agreed to complete submission to the new government (the statement of Patriarch Tikhon and especially the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius), which caused an additional split in the Church.
Ultimately, after a period of severe persecution and repression against the clergy, it was the Josephites who managed to almost officially “fit into” the new system of power vertical.
To be continued…
Andrey Svetin and others.
The ideological struggle of the late 15th - early 16th centuries was expressed not only in heresies, it also affected the official Orthodox Church, which was forced to react to the above phenomena. Some of the clergy took the path of toughening their positions in relation to heresies and expanding church power as opposed to secular power. Already at the end of the 15th century, militant clergymen were grouped around the Novgorod Archbishop Gennady, who tuned in to a merciless struggle against heresy, following the example of the "Spanish" (Spanish) king. In Gennady's circle, ideas about the superiority of church authority over secular authority and the inviolability of monastic land tenure were developed. The "Tale of the White Klobuk" said that the white klobuk (the symbol of the power of the Novgorod archbishop) came to Novgorod from Rome, and this klobuk was "more honest" than the royal crown, that is, the royal power must submit to the church.
Abbot of the Volokolamsk (Volotsk) monastery Joseph Sanin (Volotskiy) was a disciple and follower of Gennady. His main work "The Book of Heretics", which received the name "Enlightener" in the 17th century, and other publicistic works are devoted to criticizing the views of Novgorod and Moscow heretics, substantiating the positions of militant clergymen (especially the protection of monastic land tenure). In the last years of his life, the Volotsk abbot tried to strengthen the alliance of the militant churchmen with the grand-ducal government. By establishing the strictest discipline in monasteries, raising external piety and suppressing all free thinking, Joseph Volotsky and his followers (Josephites) sought to raise the shaken authority of the church.
Joseph did not come to such views on royal power immediately. At first, the Josephites supported the specific princely opposition and opposed the grand-princely power, which sought to secularize church lands. At the council of 1503, they opposed the project of liquidation of monastic land tenure, which was put forward by non-possessors (they will be discussed below), supported by Ivan III. Needing the help of a strong church organization to fight heretical movements, Ivan III yielded on this issue: the "acquisitive" demands of the Josephites were satisfied. In return, Ivan III enlisted the support of the church.
At the council of 1504, the Josephites achieved the condemnation of the heretics and reprisals against them. From that moment on, the Josephites supported the idea of \u200b\u200bthe divine origin of royal power, put forward by their ideological leader Joseph Volotsky.
Philotheus of Joseph, the elder of one of the Pskov monasteries, during the reign of Vasily III, developed the idea of \u200b\u200bthe historical continuity of the power of the Moscow sovereigns from the Byzantine emperors. This theory ("Moscow - the third Rome") played an important role in the formation of the official ideology of the Russian autocracy. According to this theory, in the world there is an eternal state in its spiritual essence - Rome; its earthly outlines can change and can bear different names. Rome is the most powerful state in the world. The first Rome is the ancient Roman Empire, which over time became stagnant in sins and, according to God's thought, was destroyed by barbarians. The second Rome is its successor, the Byzantine Empire. Her sin is the imprisonment with the Catholics of the Florentine Union of 1439, after which the capture of her by the Turks became God's punishment. After that, Moscow became the third Rome as the only major stronghold of Orthodoxy, which is not only the capital of a powerful state, but also a stronghold of spirit and morality - “the earthly support of heavenly virtues,” which should stand forever. As Philotheus wrote, “two Romes have fallen, and the third is standing, and the fourth will never happen”. The theory "Moscow - the third Rome", despite its certain originality and completeness, is not a unique phenomenon. For example, the Turks who seized Constantinople had a similar theory, they also called their country Rome (Rum), and themselves - Rumians. This name was also used by their eastern neighbors.
Many of the highest church hierarchs of the 16th century emerged from among the Josephites: Metropolitan Daniel, Archbishop Vassian of Rostov (brother of Joseph Volotsky), bishops Savva Slepushkin, Vassian Toporkov (nephew of Joseph Volotsky), Akaki, Metropolitan Metropolitan and others. As an intra-church movement, Josephite lasted until the 17th century.
Nil Sorsky, who came from the Maikov family of clergy, suggested different ways of church reform in comparison with the Josephites. Having spent his youth on Athos in Greece, the Nile settled on the Sore River in the Trans-Volga region (hence his followers are sometimes called the “Trans-Volga elders”), where he began to preach his teachings. The views of Nil Sorsky were formed under the strong influence of medieval mystics, he had a negative attitude towards external piety and insisted on the need for asceticism and moral self-improvement. Unlike the Josephites, devoted to every letter of church literature, Nil Sorsky demanded a critical approach to church writings. His followers objected to the Josephite atrocities against heretics, and the trans-Volga sketes often became centers of heresies. The teachings of Nil Sorsky were used by the ideologists of the boyars, and above all by Vassian Patrikeev, who defended the idea of \u200b\u200bthe need to secularize the real estate of the church.
An open clash between Joseph Volotsky and Nil Sorsky took place at a church council in 1503, at which Nil Sorsky, supported by Ivan III, raised the issue of secularizing church holdings (hence the followers of the Nile are called non-possessors). The Josephly majority of the cathedral resolutely rejected the proposal to abolish the monastic land tenure. Ivan III, as already mentioned, took the side of the Josephites in this dispute.
The struggle between the Josephites and the non-possessors continued. At a church council in 1531, the controversy ended with the condemnation of the teachings of the non-possessors.
Maxim the Greek and the Lackers
The years of the reign of Basil III (1505 - 1533) were a time of further strengthening of the grand ducal power. The decisive struggle against the noble boyars was preceded by a period when Vasily III tried to rely on non-possessors in his secularizing policy and increase his domain. He brought Vassian Patrikeev closer to him. A special code forbade the residents of a number of regions of the Russian state, as well as the descendants of the Yaroslavl, Suzdal and Starodub princes, to sell and give their fiefdoms to monasteries for the "commemoration of the soul" without the knowledge of the Grand Duke. In 1511, Bar-laam, who was close to the non-possessors, became metropolitan, who, in order to correct the liturgical books, summoned the learned monk Maxim the Greek (humanist-Greek Mikhail Trivolis) from Athos, who at one time was under the influence of Savonarola.
In Russia, Maxim the Greek became a prominent publicist who accepted the non-acquisitive ideas of Vassian Patrikeev. However, the rapprochement of Vasily III with the non-possessors turned out to be short-lived, for it turned out to be in contradiction with the main line of the grand ducal power, aimed at limiting the boyar's willfulness. The non-possessors and their allies, the boyars, were not inclined to support the autocratic aspirations of the Moscow sovereigns. In 1522, instead of Varlaam, who fell into disgrace, the disciple of Joseph Volopky, the head of the Josephites, Daniel, an ardent supporter of strengthening the grand prince's autocratic power, became the Metropolitan of Moscow. In 1525, the government uncovered a conspiracy led by one of the court officials, Bersen-Beklemishev. He defended the privileges of the feudal nobility and was indignant at the fact that "our sovereign locked himself in his bedside does all sorts of things", with the boyars, as before, without consulting. Bersen-Beklemishev was executed, the pursuit of non-possessors began. In 1525 and 1531, Maxim the Greek was twice condemned, who was imprisoned in a monastery. In 1531, after a trial, Vassian Patrikeev was imprisoned, too, who died shortly thereafter.
I will not retell the story of the conflict between the Josephites and the non-possessors - a lot has been written about this already. Let me just recall the essence. The non-possessors, whose ideologue was Nil Sorsky, believed that monasteries should not have any property, and that they should live exclusively through the labors of the monastic brethren; everything else about non-possessors is actually said in their name. At the same time, Joseph Volotskiy and his followers, in contrast to the idealist-non-possessors, stood on opposite, in fact, ideological and worldview positions, being a kind of church pragmatists. Joseph Volotsky believed that monasteries should own land, together with the serfs living on these lands, as well as other types of income. In fairness, however, it should be noted that Joseph Volotsky himself, as historical sources testify, led an extremely ascetic lifestyle, being the abbot of the monastery, he lived in a cell, which he himself built for himself by his own with my own hands, he forgave personal grievances, while showing truly miracles of Christian humility, and during a period of poor harvest, he set tables for all peasants from nearby villages, without exception, at the expense of the monastery reserves. So he was clearly not seeking profit for himself. He, nevertheless, was most likely guided by considerations of the good of the Church, the essence of which he himself, perhaps, understood falsely.
As we know from history, in the end, the point of view of the Josephites triumphed. In fact, it could not have been otherwise.
Personally, lately, I more and more often find myself thinking this. The Josephites went down in history under the name received by the name of their ideologist and inspirer Joseph Volotskiy, as was just said, at the same time non-possessors went down in history without being identified with anyone's name, despite the fact that they did not have less bright and fiery ideological and spiritual inspirer Nil Sorsky. And in this, perhaps, an amazing Christian humility was manifested, embodied in the form, if I may say so, of the collective subconscious.
However, here's another thing worth mentioning. We judge the Josephites and the non-possessors in many respects from the standpoint of today and our present knowledge and historical experience. From the standpoint of that era ... How do we, in the end, know what would have happened if the point of view of non-possessors had triumphed, what would have turned out to be their pure, simple-minded - albeit infinitely beautiful - idealism ?!
For some reason, an analogy comes to mind - of course, like any analogy that is clearly lame - with the activities of the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, so extolled by the progressive intelligentsia of the 19th and 20th centuries, who tried to establish monotheism in pagan Egypt, which since ancient times professed polytheism. Once, I remember, the English writer Clive S. Lewis read such an argument that, they say, such activities of Akhenaten really seem to us today to be worthy of respect, while we, in fact, do not know and cannot to know all the circumstances of that era, and therefore, naturally, we cannot guarantee that if (although history, as is known, does not have a subjunctive mood) then in Egypt it was possible to introduce monotheism in its then understanding (and in no other understanding of it in that time could not be, and here it is superfluous to explain anything at all), then it would not take on such ugly forms that it would be even worse than any of the most disgusting paganism, therefore the Lord God did not allow Akhenaten to implement it - even if initially, possibly good intentions.
Up to a certain point, there were practically no serious conflicts and reprisals on religious grounds in Russia. While the infamous Holy Inquisition was spreading in the Catholic West, and countries like Bohemia and France were torn apart by religious wars between different currents of Latins and Protestants, Orthodoxy reigned supreme in Muscovite Russia. The dogmas of the Orthodox Church seemed unshakable, but by the end of the 15th century we too had a disagreement over a number of issues related to internal church life, which soon turned into a lot of blood.
In contact with
Classmates
Arguments of the parties
In the 15th-16th centuries, a conflict occurred in the church environment over the ownership of monasteries, as a result of which the Orthodox were divided into two irreconcilable camps:
- non-possessors
- josephite.
Non-possessors include monks who follow the leader of the teachings of the holy elder Nil Sorskywho opposed the Church's possession of any property. During the monastic tonsure, a monk takes a vow of non-covetousness, which implies an absolute renunciation of property and life in trust in God's will, and therefore non-covetants considered the presence of lands in monasteries a violation of monastic vows.
The disciples of Nil Sorsky treated the prince with respect, considering him just, wise and therefore worthy to personally dispose of church property. Therefore, the land and buildings belonging to the Church, in their opinion, had to be transferred into the hands of the state, so that it could strengthen its borders and pay the nobles money for service.
In return, the non-possessors wanted the government to be able to freely express itself on various issues related to religion. Monks, however, were left without property, completely abandon all worldly affairs and engage only in "smart doing", that is, prayer. They were allowed to get food for themselves exclusively by their labor or alms.... At the same time, the monks themselves had to give alms to anyone who asked them.
In turn, the supporters of the founder of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery, the Monk Joseph of Volotsk, called by the Josephites after their leader, believed that the church should have all of its property, including libraries, farms, church utensils. This was necessary in order for the Church to subsequently lead next activity:
- carry out missionary tasks,
- do alms,
- support poor people,
- to supply the people with food in lean years.
The Josephites treated the ruler as the governor of God on earth and therefore believed that he should combine responsibility to the people with responsibility to the Church.
Another point in which the opinions of the non-possessors and the Josephites differed was the question of correcting the supporters of heretical teachings. In Russia in that era, the so-called. "Heresy of the Jews", and Orthodox pastors had to figure out how to ensure the reign of the canonical form of confession in the Christian world. Joseph Volotsky believed that it was necessary to fight against heresy by physically influencing heretics to the point of being burned alive at the stake.
In turn, Nil Sorsky believed that God was waiting not for the death of the sinner, but for his repentance, and therefore denied the possibility of using the death penalty against heretics, showing Christian mercy. Those who stubbornly did not want to leave the heresy, the elder proposed to isolate from society or send abroad, but not take their life.
Development and aggravation of the conflict
The role of princely power in the dispute
Considering the enormous influence of Christianity on the politics of European states, including Muscovite Russia in the 15th-16th centuries, it is not surprising that these disputes began to occupy the minds of high statesmen. Moscow Russia, small in area, could not provide all the nobles with worthy land plots, and therefore the head of the principality, Ivan III, at first inclined to the side of non-possessors who were ready to provide church lands for this. Wikipedia reports that as more and more officials and clerks, committed to the heresy of the Judaizers, were denounced, the prince's sympathy for the Josephites increased. However, almost until last days of his life, Vasily Ivanovich expressed a desire to receive church property into state ownership.
Formally, the struggle between the non-possessors and the Josephites did not have negative consequences for the Church. Both movements were in Eucharistic communion and unity, no facts of hostility between Joseph Volotsky and Nil Sorsky were found. The confrontation between the two church groups was sharply marked at the council of 1503, where representatives of both streams strongly condemned the heresy of the Judaizers, but could not find a consensus on the application of punishment for heretics. The Josephites, who constituted the majority at this council, were able to defend their position on the issue and on the property of the Church.
When in 1500 Prince Ivan III was struck by a serious illness, the son of his second wife Sophia Paleologue, Vasily Ivanovich, began to help him rule the principality. Joseph Volotsky had a tremendous impact on the prince, and four years later, Vasily Ivanovich, Ivan III, together with the cathedral of the episcopate made a decision not in favor of the heretics.
After that, in Russia, in fact, a homebrew analogue of the Catholic Holy Inquisition appeared... Both common people and influential officials and merchants, suspected of heresy, became victims of the fires. Some, instead of being burned, were sentenced to lengthy prison terms, which they usually did not experience. The consequence of this was that the party of the Josephites was in favor.
Another reason that the non-possessors were left out of work was a difficult period in the personal life of Prince Vasily III. He and his first wife, Solomonia Saburova, could not possibly have children. This was the reason that the prince divorced his wife and was combined in a marriage union with Elena Glinskaya (the future mother of Ivan the Terrible). Saburova, against her will, was imprisoned in a monastery, where she died on December 18, 1542 (canonized as a saint in 1984).
The head of the non-possessors, a well-known Orthodox figure, Prince Vasily Ivanovich Patrikeev (in monasticism Vassian), denounced Vasily III for this act, since Christian canons forbid divorce from his wife if she did not commit treason. Vasily III was angry with the monk, but did not dare to go into open confrontation, believing that over time this whole story would be forgotten.
However, in the near future, the prince provoked another conflict, which increased the intensity of the struggle between the non-possessors and the Josephites. Having summoned to Moscow from Chernigov representatives of the princely family of Shemyachichi, who had recently entered the service of the Moscow prince from the Polish king Sigismund I, Vasily Ivanovich warmly greeted them, but soon arrested and sent them to prison. Such a low and vile act again did not go unnoticed by Vasily Patrikeev, and the monk again publicly condemned the prince's betrayal. Vasily III refused to endure the accuser and the monk was forcibly imprisoned in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery with the Josephites, where he died (according to some reports, he was poisoned).
As the official reason for the arrest of Vassian, it was announced that he allegedly fell into heresy and rejected the doctrine of the dual - divine and human - nature of Jesus Christ, recognizing for Him only a divine essence. After that, the ideology of the Josephites was established as the dominant one in the Russian Orthodox Church..
The final victory of the Josephites
In 1551, at the Stoglava Cathedral, priest Sylvester tried to make a proposal to limit the land allotments in churches and monasteries, but the Josephites, who occupied the leading positions at the cathedral, did not accept this statement. Also the Josephites became one of the ideologists of the introduction of the oprichnina in the second half of the 16th century... Subsequently, this led to the fact that the repressions of Ivan the Terrible unfolded against the Church itself. Many priests and monks became its victims, including Metropolitan Philip (Kolychev), one of the most famous Josephites. Wikipedia reports about 4.5 thousand victims of guardsmen.
It was the Josephites who shrouded the institution of princely power in Russia with an aura of divine origin (which was then entrenched in the royal family of the Romanovs). Arguing that after the death of Byzantium and the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Russia remained the only stronghold of Orthodoxy in the world, the followers of Joseph Volotsky in 1589 managed to achieve the acquisition of the patriarchate status by the Moscow Metropolitanate... They also contributed to the emergence of the ideological concept "Moscow - the Third Rome". This could increase the authority of the state in the international arena.
Yakhimovich S.Yu.The dispute between two spiritual currents - "Josephites" and "non-possessors" at the turn of the 15th - 16th centuries is the apogee of the intra-church contradictions of this period, which coincided with a number of vital events in the history of our Fatherland. At the same time, many aspects of the spiritual quests of those years remain relevant, since, on the one hand, they left a deep imprint on our mentality, and on the other, the Russian Orthodox Church is still guided by them in its daily life today.
First of all, it is necessary to characterize the historical situation in the Russian land at this stage, since the Church has never separated itself from the fate of the country. Moreover, it was with the blessing and with the direct participation of the Church leaders that many of the main events took place.
The 15th century was in many ways significant for the Moscow state. First of all, these are the foreign policy successes of Russia revived after the Mongol-Tatar devastation. A century has passed since the bloody battle on the Kulikovo field, and the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III in 1480 managed to bring to a logical end what Dmitry Donskoy had begun - to finally legally secure complete independence from the inevitable disintegrating into a number of khanates of the Golden Horde. “The people were having fun; and the Metropolitan set up a special annual feast of the Mother of God and a procession of the cross on June 23 to commemorate the liberation of Russia from the Mongol yoke: for here is the end of our slavery. "
Simultaneously with the achievement of this goal, Moscow succeeded in the historic mission of collecting Russian lands into a single centralized state, bypassing its competitors in this process. Despite the fact that in the second quarter of the 15th century North-Eastern Russia was struck by a brutal feudal war, the Moscow princes managed to subjugate Tver, Novgorod and a number of other specific territories to their influence, as well as recapture a vast part of the western Russian lands from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
In addition, another event took place on the world stage, which greatly influenced the worldview of the Russian people, the spiritual and political situation in Russia. In 1453, under the blows of the Ottoman Turks, the Byzantine Empire fell, or rather the fragment that remained of it in the form of Constantinople and its suburbs. Muscovite Russia remained virtually the only independent Orthodox state in the world, feeling like an island in an alien sea. Together with the Byzantine princess Sophia Palaeologus and the double-headed eagle, as the state emblem, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe continuity of the power of the Russian prince from the Emperor of Constantinople and of Moscow as the last and true guardian of the Orthodox faith gradually penetrated into the consciousness of her society.
This idea was formulated in the circles of the Church. Monk Philotheus was not the first to express it, but in his letters to Vasily III and Ivan IV, it sounded most loudly and confidently: “The now united Catholic Apostolic Church of the East shines brighter than the sun in all the heavens, and only the Orthodox and great Russian tsar in all the heavens, like Noah in the ark, saved from the flood, governs and directs the Church of Christ and affirms the Orthodox faith. " The concept "Moscow - the third Rome" for a long time determined the spiritual priorities of Russia in the world, and at that time strengthened the foreign policy position of our country in Europe and the East. Even in the official title of the Grand Dukes, the Byzantine term "tsar", that is, the emperor, began to be used more and more often, although the Russian monarchs did not adopt all the traditions of Byzantium, but mainly only the Christian faith and the institution of the Orthodox Church. Thus, the idea of \u200b\u200bByzantine universality was closed within "all Russia", and many elements of ancient Greek philosophy, language and Roman antiquity were completely rejected.
The religious situation in North-Eastern Russia in the 15th - early 16th centuries remained extremely complex and ambiguous. Several problems have loudly declared themselves. The attempt of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to attract and prepare the Russian Church for the Ferrara-Florentine union with the Catholics led to the overthrow of the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia Isidore (Greek by origin) and opened the possibility of the Russian Church since 1448 to elect for itself metropolitans from among their own countrymen. Fearing the prospect of submission to the Latin faith, "Moscow was determined to violate the imaginary rights of the Uniate patriarch over the Russian Church." De facto, the Russian Orthodox Church became independent from Constantinople, and the Moscow princes gained even more influence on its politics.
At the same time, ten years later, from 1458, a long period of administrative division of the single Russian Orthodox Church into the Moscow and Kiev metropolises began, according to the spheres of influence of the Russian state and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (which included the southern and western regions of the former Kievan Rus).
This was the case in external church relations. In the 15th century, the Church with renewed vigor waged the most decisive struggle against the remnants of Old Russian paganism, as well as against the influential heresies that appeared in Russia. Subsequently, according to the methods of solving these issues, the "non-possessors" and the "Josephites" will sharply disperse.
Paganism and its vestiges still continued to pose a serious problem to the Church. The influence of pagan remnants on Russian people at the beginning of the 15th century is evidenced by the document of that period "The Word of a Christ-lover ...", which points to high level dual faith, and even ingrained paganism within Russia. In particular, an unknown author notes the addiction to pagan rituals and superstitions even of educated Christians: "And this is done not only by the ignorant, but also by the enlightened - priests and scribes." In addition, a number of northern Finno-Ugric peoples, included in the orbit of the Russian state, remained in paganism, and in the XIV-XVI centuries there was an active missionary activity of the Church to convert them to Christianity.
During the same period of time, dangerous religious doctrines penetrated into Russia, which, in fact, were not just heresies, but sometimes apostasy. The so-called heresies of the strigolniks and the Judaizers acquired a particularly strong influence. The teachings of the first had their roots in Russia from Bulgaria in the pre-Mongol period, a strongly modified Manichaeism of the Bogomils, based on the ancient Eastern dualism.
Another doctrine came to Novgorod in the second half of the 15th century from the west, together with free-thinking Polish-Lithuanian Jews who found refuge there. Their dogma contained a call to return to the true faith of the time of the Savior, or rather, to the religious experience of the first sects of Judeo-Christians with a large share of the Jewish religion proper, mixed with the rationalistic ideas of Western precursors of Protestantism. Since all this was presented from the standpoint of criticism of a fairly large part of the Orthodox clergy who did not meet the requirements imposed on them and were mired in bribery, drunkenness and debauchery, these heresies found a response in the hearts of not only ordinary people, but even the secular and spiritual aristocracy. Moreover, even Ivan III himself, after the conquest of Novgorod in 1479, “was fascinated by the talents and courtesy of the cunning free-thinkers-protopopes. He decided to transfer them to his capital. " For some time, the adherents of the sect were able to influence the government and state affairs, but soon their activities were outlawed, and Metropolitan Zosima, who protected them, was removed from power, officially accused of "excessive drinking".
In such a difficult situation, disputes within the Church itself over spiritual and moral guidelines appeared and began to grow more and more. At the turn of the 15th - 16th centuries, they took shape in two groups - "Josephites" and "non-possessors", who did not oppose each other and did not lead to a split in the Church, but in polemics looked for ways of further spiritual priorities in the new reality. The terms “Josephites” and “non-possessors” themselves have a later origin than the above events and are associated with the names of the two luminaries of Orthodox thought of this period, by whose works the Church lives and is guided in many ways today - these are Saints Joseph of Volotsk and Nil Sorsk, surrounded by their outstanding followers.
What is the essence of the differences between them? There were many controversial questions, but the central questions remained about church land ownership and about the structure of monastic life. The historian N.M. Nikolsky wrote in the late 1920s. in Soviet Russia, a very critical work on the history of the Church (as they say - in the spirit of the times), but even with it one cannot but agree that the Church during this period was a very large landowner. For example, as reported by the same MN Nikolsky, Ivan III, weakening the Novgorod freemen, subjected the local church lands to secularization, taking away from the Church only in 1478 10 sovereign volosts and 3 out of 6 monastic land holdings. Immense wealth often led to great temptations for the unjust distribution of income from the lands and the personal enrichment of church leaders, which negatively affected the entire authority of the Church. As a result, within the Church, the question arose about the need for land ownership and the enrichment of the Church (especially monasteries) in general.
On this occasion, the "non-possessors", headed by St. Nil Sorskiy (also called the "Trans-Volga elders"), who inherited the Byzantine tradition of hesychasm, had a strict opinion about the absence of any property not only from an individual monk, but also from the monastery as a whole. The idea of \u200b\u200bChrist-loving poverty forbade the members of the sketes “to be the owners of villages and villages, to collect rent and to trade,” otherwise, a different way of life did not correspond to the Gospel values. The Church itself was seen by the "non-possessors" as the spiritual shepherd of society with the right to independent opinion and criticism of the princely policy, and for this it was necessary, as little as possible, to depend on the rich awards of secular power. The "non-possessors" saw the understanding of monastic life in ascetic silence, withdrawal from worldly concerns, and in the spiritual self-improvement of the monks.
The “Josephites” viewed the problem of monastic land tenure somewhat differently. Extremely negative about personal enrichment, they supported the wealth of the monasteries as a source of social charity and orthodox education... The monasteries of the companions-in-arms of the Monk Joseph spent huge, for those times, funds to support the needy. The Uspensky Volotsky Monastery alone, which he founded, spent annually on charity up to 150 rubles (a cow then cost 50 kopecks); over 7 thousand residents of neighboring villages received material support; the monastery fed about 700 beggars and cripples, and the orphanage housed up to 50 orphans. Such large expenditures demanded a lot of money, which the Church, while maintaining its independence, could receive on its own, without princely donations.
In relation to heretics, Joseph Volotsky was more severe than the "non-possessors" who had the opinion that heretics should be discussed and re-educated. Nil Sorsky spoke in favor of refusing to repress the heretics, and those who repented of their delusions should not be punished at all, since only God has the right to judge people. In contrast to this point of view, relying on Russian and Byzantine sources of ecclesiastical law, Joseph decisively declares: “Where are they, who say that one cannot condemn either a heretic or an apostate? After all, it is obvious that one should not only condemn, but commit to cruel executions, and not only heretics and apostates: those who know about heretics and apostates and who have not reported to the judges, although they themselves are true believers, will accept the death penalty. Such harsh statements of the monk and the obvious sympathy of the "Josephites" for the Catholic Inquisition in the 19th century gave reason for some liberals to reduce the role of Joseph only to the inspirer of future repressions, Ivan the Terrible. However, the inconsistency of this judgment was proved not only by church historians, but even by researchers of the Soviet period. Vadim Kozhinov calls this "the purest falsification", citing as proof, for example, the fact that "the main denouncer of the cruelties of Ivan IV, Metropolitan of All Russia, Saint Philip was a faithful follower of Saint Joseph." In heresies, Joseph saw not only a threat to the Orthodox faith, but also to the state, which followed from the Byzantine tradition of "symphony", that is, the parity of cooperation between secular and ecclesiastical authorities as two forces of one body. He was not afraid to speak out against heretics as ordinary criminals, even when Ivan III and some erring church hierarchs favored him.
The differences of opinion between the "non-possessors" and the "Josephites" on the issue of the role and responsibilities of the Orthodox monarch seem to be important. “Non-possessors” saw the monarch as just, taming his passions (anger, carnal lusts, etc.) and surrounding himself with good counselors. All this closely correlates with the concept of the Zavolzhsky elders about personal spiritual growth... “According to Joseph Volotskiy, the main duty of the tsar, as the governor of God on earth, is to take care of the welfare of the flock of Christ,” the extensive powers of the head of state echo no less responsibilities to the Church. The sovereign was compared in his earthly life with God, since he had supreme power over people. Joseph Volotskiy proposes to correlate the personality of the monarch to Divine laws, as the only criterion "allowing to distinguish the legitimate king from the tyrant", which in fact implies in a certain situation the disobedience of subjects to their sovereign, which does not correspond to such qualities.
It is clear that for such reasons, Ivan III, who needed land for the serving nobility, initially sympathized with the "non-possessors". However, as the heresy of the Judaizers was exposed, he began to listen to the authority of the Monk Joseph, although the Grand Duke expressed his desire to seize the church lands until his death. This desire was facilitated by the elimination or obsolescence of previously hindered external factors - "the dependence of the Russian Metropolitanate on the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the close alliance of the metropolitans with the Moscow princes, the Horde policy of granting tarhans to the possession of the Church, and finally, the constant support of church institutions, which the Grand Duke used in the struggle against the inheritance. ... In the end, the debate of the two spiritual movements, expressed in numerous letters and messages of opponents, found their way out at a church council in 1503.
The decisions of the council summed up, in a way, the first result of the dispute between the two inner-church movements. Supporters of Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky (they themselves were also present at the council) mutually condemned the heresy of the Judaizers and other apostasy from the Orthodox faith. At the same time, the "non-possessors" opposed the persecution of heretics, but their position was in the minority. As for ecclesiastical land tenure, the "Josephites" managed to defend it, motivating their right with the "Gift of Constantine" and other legal acts of Orthodox (and not only) monarchs, confirming the donation and inviolability of church lands from the times of the Byzantine emperor Constantine the Great (IV century AD) .). Ivan III, who actively took part in the work of the cathedral, tried to secularize the lands of the Church in exchange for monetary compensation and grain maintenance (which would have led the Church to a fall in authority and put it in a strong dependence on the princely power), but a serious illness that suddenly struck him stopped this. an event that seemed quite real.
Thus, the "Josephites" won a victory in the struggle for the inalienable church property, and the grand ducal authorities had to look for new ways of coexistence with the Church in the next twenty years. Meanwhile, the spiritual image of the monk and his personal non-possession, as well as many elements of the monastery hostel on the model of Nil Sorsky, were finally established by the cathedral in monastic life.
The dispute between the "non-possessors" and the "Josephites" continued after the council and the death of the Monks Nilus and Joseph. Gradually, the "Josephites" gained the upper hand, especially after 1522, when their representatives began to invariably occupy the metropolitan throne. Oppression began against some prominent "non-possessors", as a result of which the "peaceful" stage of disputes ended and by the middle of the 16th century many sketes of the "Trans-Volga elders" were empty. And yet this cannot be called confrontation, since the dispute itself bore the character of true Christian humility. Thus, A. V. Kartashev emphasizes that “the quiet, noiseless victory of the“ Josephites ”is very indicative. Indicative and quiet, passive retreat of "non-acquisitiveness". " In Western Europe, for example, a somewhat similar spiritual controversy resulted in the Reformation, with its 150 years of bloody religious wars.
The "Josephites" who gained the upper hand, not rejecting the best from non-acquisitiveness, approved the Church as an independent institution, independent of the secular authorities, but outlined, at the same time, close cooperation with the state, bringing the subsequent "symphony" closer in their relations. At the same time, in a historical perspective, the constant strengthening of the absolute power of the monarchy led to its desire to subordinate the critical voice of the Church to its interests, which was realized in the 18th century by Peter I.