A dream about a bullfinch, like birds in general that visit you in a dream, means...
PartIII. Church in the era of the Red Project.
Warning
This text is not about faith, but about religion. We do not touch upon 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 are not much different from ordinary state or social organizations, and therefore they can and should be analyzed and evaluated.
As we already wrote in the first part, this text may seem too long for a modern reader. However, it should be noted that these few pages are the result of browsing through several thousand, carefully reading hundreds, and carefully pondering dozens of pages of scientific, theological and journalistic works on a variety of topics. So we would compare it with the 14-page summary of Tolstoy’s four-volume War and Peace, offered today in schools to our children of the Unified State Examination era. For these same children, we present many different biographies and stories that seemed relevant and interesting to us - so that it would not be so boring..
We deliberately do not make links to sources - what if someone becomes interested and wants to look for it themselves. There is quite enough material on this topic, as well as points of view. For those who want to check and clarify something, Google and Yandex can 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 “fell out” of the logic of our narrative about the consequences of the dispute between the Josephites, non-covetous people 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 during this difficult time for the church “fits” into our concept, and without it it will be impossible to fully correctly assess what is happening to it today .
Based on the above, we will try to briefly dwell on the most important stages of recent church history. As the story progresses, we will, as always, describe in more detail the events and personalities that seemed most interesting to us from the point of view of our story.
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 present is not a criticism of the Church, as some have understood, but only an attempt, on the basis of our hypothesis, to understand the underlying 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 14th century made it possible to build a church vertical in the era of Holy Rus'. At the same time, it was not possible to achieve a symphony of secular and spiritual power, since a completely predictable process of its absorption into the vertical of secular power began (Part I). Then, during the Empire, this religious vertical finally dissolved in the state machine, which led to the abolition of the institution of the Patriarchate and the transformation of the church into a regular ministry (Synod) of the “Orthodox faith” (Part II). The spiritual component, as it was shown, in the 19th century shifted towards eldership and, partly, the Old Believers. The Church as an institution ceased to fulfill its role of “holding”, which by 1917 was expressed in the general total retreat of society from Orthodox norms and traditions.
Considering the history of the church during the period of Soviet power, we should especially emphasize the following provisions that will help us understand the logic of what happened:
1. The Red Project provided for a complete replacement of the country's governing layer (similar to what happened during the creation of the Petrine Empire). As a matter of fact, in the history of Russia this layer, unfortunately, has never been particularly large - no more than 1-2% of the total population. As a result of the unification at the previous stage of the Russian Church and the state, it actually became an integral part of the state system, which should have been completely destroyed during the transition to a qualitatively different system of government.
2. The new emerging management system did not need the presence of the old traditional religion in society, which was replaced by its own images and symbols - starting from “relics” (Red Square as a new cemetery) and ending with 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 with the “Josephite” spirit due to the previous 400 years of development of the Russian church, had to look for any ways of “symphony” with any new power, even to the detriment of the foundations of faith.
Let's see how right 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 integrated into 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 Rasputinism also hardly contributed to its strengthening. Let us recall that according to surveys, 95% of the intelligentsia recognized themselves as freethinkers, and the number of those receiving communion in the army in 1917 fell to less than 10%.
The fall of the Empire could open up the possibility for the Church to gain independence and make the necessary changes taking into account the new situation. However, unfortunately, the Church was unable 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 power.
Undoubtedly, the transformations taking place in the country could not but affect the internal structure of the Church. Groups 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, was the group “Union of Church Renewal,” which was later transformed into the “All-Russian Union of Democratic Clergy and Laity.” Tendencies for the isolation of its individual parts on the basis of national chauvinism also appeared - the Georgian Church actually 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 elections 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 a “white” one.
The provisional government in June issued a resolution on the transfer of parochial schools and seminaries to the Ministry of Public Education. A law on freedom of conscience was published in July.
The Church was preparing to hold 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 based on the logic of Peter the Great’s reforms). Disputes arose about the need to restore the institution of the Patriarchate in Russia.
On August 15, the All-Russian Local Council opened in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. A special feature of the Council was the large number of laity 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 made several historic decisions for the Church, primarily on the restoration of the patriarchate in the country. However, on the same day, news of the arrest of the Provisional Government arrived in Moscow. At the same time, revolutionary events swept Moscow. Officers, cadets, Cossacks and students defended the Kremlin. The mediation of the Council participants, who sought to stop the fratricidal bloodshed, was unsuccessful. After artillery shelling and assault, the Kremlin fell. For the first time, the Reds buried their dead at the Kremlin wall under revolutionary songs - funeral services and prayer services were prohibited. The new government acquired its first relics, which are still located in the Kremlin wall.
Memorial necropolis near the Kremlin wall (Red Square) - the most central cemetery in the country with mass graves in terms of location. Before the Red Project, according to the Byzantine tradition, kings, princes, metropolitans and patriarchs were buried in the Kremlin (Arkhangelsk and Assumption Cathedrals) (“inside the fence”). After the revolution, mass graves began to be located 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 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 directly above the graves on the sides of the ziggurat). In the 50s, it was proposed to move all burials to a special Pantheon. The last burial (Chernenko) was made at the end of the Soviet Union.
The election of the patriarch at the Council was slightly strange and unusual both for Russia and, indeed, for all other autocephalous Orthodox churches in the world. They decided to entrust the election of the patriarch to a drawing of lots from three candidates chosen after several rounds of voting. The candidates were Metropolitan Tikhon and Archbishops Anthony and Arseny. 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 (Antony - 101 votes, Tikhon - 23, Arseny - 14). According to the general opinion among those gathered, Antony was the smartest, Arseny was the strictest, and Tikhon was the kindest.
On November 5, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, in the presence of a large number of people, the blind schema-monk Alexy, during the drawing of lots, pulled 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 to date this has been the only election of the patriarch by lot. The enthronement of the newly elected patriarch took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, which was partially destroyed as a result of artillery shelling.
Completely different times were coming for the Church, for which, as subsequent events showed, it 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 into the family of a hereditary priest. He graduated from theological school, seminary and 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 Russian People. He was very popular among the people. In June 1917 he was elected ruling bishop of Moscow. Participant of the All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918. He was chosen by lot as the Patriarch (of the three applicants, Tikhon previously received the fewest votes). The enthronement took place on December 4 in the Kremlin 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 the church and the state, condemning resistance to the authorities (the Church recognizes and supports Soviet power, for there is no power not from God). He denounced the decisions of a foreign church council (Karlovak Cathedral). In May 1922, he was brought to criminal responsibility in the case of confiscation of church valuables and was on trial (imprisoned 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 dismissed in March 1924). At the beginning of 1925, he was interrogated in the case of a “spy organization of churchmen.” He was attacked twice (the last time his cell attendant was killed, covering the Patriarch with himself). He died in March 1925 (the version of his poisoning became widespread among believers of that time). He was buried in the Donskoy Monastery. The authenticity of Patriarch Tikhon’s dying “Testament” raises reasonable doubts. In 1981, Patriarch Tikhon was glorified as new martyrs and confessors of Russia by the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR. In 1989 he was canonized by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.
CHURCH LIQUIDATION PLAN
In fact, by that time the Bolsheviks already had a fairly effective long-term plan for the fight against the Church, which was subsequently consistently implemented. According to this plan (in the development of which, in particular, Trotsky participated) it was necessary to put pressure on the church both from the outside and from the inside. In general, it provided the following:
- Separation of church and state and prohibition of church teaching in schools
- Initiating a schism within the church
- Repressions against clergy
- Confiscation of church property
- Conducting anti-religious propaganda
- Creation of a single center for coordinating anti-church activities
We can briefly look at each of these points separately.
Separation of Church and 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.
Already at the very end of 1917, the Bolsheviks published in the newspaper Delo Naroda a draft decree on the separation of Church and state. The decree itself, called the “Decree on the separation of the Church from the state and the school from the church,” came into force on January 23, 1918. Signed by the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, Ulyanov, the small-scale decree already stated in its first article: 1. The church is separated from the state. According to the same decree, education became completely secular. For the first time in many centuries of Russian history, the State declared that it no longer needed the Church.
The day before, a detachment of sailors took the Alexander Nevsky Lavra from the monks, killing the priest who prevented them - the new government showed that its words do not diverge from 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 has been deprived of this right under Article 65:
They are not elected and cannot be elected, even if they were included in one of the above categories: a) persons who resort 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 clergy of churches and religious cults; e) employees and agents of the former police, special corps of gendarmes and security departments, as well as members of the reigning house in Russia; f) persons recognized in accordance with the established procedure as mentally ill or insane, as well as persons under guardianship; g) persons convicted of mercenary and defamatory crimes for a period established by law or court verdict.
Subsequently, the Constitution of 1936 proclaimed the equality of all citizens, including “clergy.”
Intra-church schism
The topic of schism in the Russian Church in the 20th century turned out to be not as simple as it initially seemed. First of all, because in a relatively short period of time by historical standards, a reform movement was born in the church with the support of the Bolsheviks and was soon destroyed by them, which was used by the authorities to fight the “orthodox” part of the church.
As we remember from the first parts, according to our hypothesis, three main movements arose in the church starting from the 14th century, which in the Russian tradition received the names “Josephites”, “non-possessors” and “Judaizers”. We considered the first two directions in some detail. The third is worth saying at least a few words about it so that the logic of the Bolsheviks’ actions is clear.
“Judaizers” (what a word! - in our country, with the “natural” anti-Semitism inherent in some of the inhabitants, a subconscious negative connotation immediately arises) actually called what in the West at about the same time took shape as the Reformation. From a political-economic point of view, we can partly say that if the “Josephites” were the support of the feudal-serf system, then the “Judaizers” reformers acted as supporters of the emerging bourgeoisie. It is quite natural that at that time of great development in our country, “reformers” (we will continue to call them that way - it will be more accurate and without any “second” meanings that are unnecessary 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 publicly burned in wooden cages.
The first thing the Bolsheviks did was to close all the monasteries (mainly in 1918-1923), thereby destroying the basis of the “non-acquisitive” movement, the main threat to the new government from this side. This is precisely what explains the monstrous process of desacralization of monasteries, when prisons, concentration camps and colonies were established in place of closed monasteries.
Then a complex (and at first glance paradoxical) program of comprehensive support for the reformist, essentially bourgeois-democratic, church movement was launched. Strange as it may seem, 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 stripped-down Russian Reformation, which later became known as the “Living Church” or “Renewal Church,” had already traveled a certain, albeit relatively short, path by this time. For example, since 1905, the so-called “group of 32” priests operated, then renamed the “Union of Church Renewal” - they advocated changes in Russian church administration and the convening 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 the connection between bishops and their flocks, create Christian communities and unions in cities, and reform theological schools. Subsequently, the movement was transformed into the “Brotherhood of Zealots of Church Renewal.” In addition to this, there were other numerous, although scattered, movements aimed at carrying out reforms of the church and the Synod. One can, for example, recall the “All-Russian Union of Democratic Orthodox Clergy and Laity” established by the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod V.N. Lvov and its newspaper “Voice of Christ”.
It was this idea that Trotsky proposed to rely on. By the way, Trotsky, and not Lenin, was the initiator and ideological inspirer of the destruction of the church, for which there is numerous evidence in the form of notes, reports, resolutions, 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’s removal from power. The note is relatively long, but it is worth quoting in full. For those in a hurry, we have highlighted particularly interesting places in color:
Note from L. D. Trotsky 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 only now reached the church. Reasons: the ideological weakness of the church and its servility. The transition from “autocratic” to “benevolent provisional government.” During the transition to Soviet power, the separation of church and state helped the spineless church hierarchy adapt and remain silent. But there is no doubt that during the Soviet era the church hierarchy, feeling “persecuted” (because it was not privileged), prepared and is preparing to take advantage of the favorable moment. Around her are certain counter-revolutionary cadres and political influence through religious influence.
2. The European Church went through a reformation stage. What is Reformation? Adaptation of the church to the needs of bourgeois society. It was preceded by sects among artisans and peasants. A sect is a religious partisanship of the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie in general. The bourgeoisie raised sects to the level of reformation, bourgeoisizing religion and the church, and thereby giving it more vitality and stability (England).
3. Our opposition against church bureaucracy did not go beyond sects. The bourgeoisie was too insignificant to create a reformation (as a regime of democracy). The intelligentsia was eccentric in the religious field - each in his own way. The Church remained formal, bureaucratic and, as it is said, inserted into its ritual instead of the “most autocratic” the “blessed provisional government.”
4. Thus, the church, completely saturated with serfdom, bureaucratic tendencies, which did not have time to carry out the bourgeois reformation, now stands face to face with the proletarian revolution. What could be her future fate? Two trends are emerging: clearly, openly counter-revolutionary with the Black Hundred-monarchist ideology and the “Soviet”. The ideology of the “Soviet” clergy, apparently, is similar to Smenovekhov’s, i.e. bourgeois-compromising.
5. If the slowly emerging bourgeois-compromising Smenovekhov wing of the church had developed and strengthened, it would have become much more dangerous for the socialist revolution than the church in its current form. For, by adopting a patronizing “Soviet” coloring, the “advanced” clergy thereby opens up the possibility of penetrating those advanced strata of the working people who form or should form our support.
6. Therefore, the Smenovekhov clergy should be considered as the most dangerous enemy of tomorrow. But exactly tomorrow. Today it is necessary to bring down the counter-revolutionary part of the churchmen, in whose hands the actual administration of the church is. In this struggle, we must rely on the Smenovekhov clergy, without being politically engaged, much less in principle. (Shameful editorials in party newspapers about how “the Mother of God is more pleased with the prayers of fed children than with dead stones,” etc.).
7. The more decisive, sharp, stormy and violent the nature of the break between the Smenovekh wing and the Black Hundreds takes, the more advantageous our position will be. As stated, under the “Soviet” banner, attempts are being made to bourgeois reformation of the Orthodox Church. For this belated reformation to take place, it needs time. We will not give her this time, forcing events, not allowing the Smenovekhov leaders to come to their senses.
8. The famine campaign is extremely beneficial for this, because it focuses all 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 confiscation of valuables; secondly, 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 Smenovekh priests the opportunity to speak openly in a certain spirit. There is no more rabid scolder than an opposition priest. Already now, some of them in our newspapers are denouncing bishops by name for the sins of Sodom, etc. I think that they should be allowed and even impressed upon them with the need for their own organ, say, a weekly, to prepare for the convening of a council at a certain date. We will thus receive invaluable propaganda material. It may even be possible to install several such publications in different parts of the country. Until the withdrawal is completed, we are focusing exclusively on this practical task, which we continue to conduct exclusively from the point of view of helping the hungry. At the same time, we are dealing with the counter-revolutionary priests responsible for Shuya, etc., using Vechekist methods.
10. By the time the council convenes, we need to prepare a theoretical and propaganda campaign against the renewed church. It will not be possible to simply skip over the bourgeois reformation of the church. It is necessary, therefore, to turn it into a miscarriage. And to do 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 to order one program-theoretical brochure now, perhaps with the involvement of M.N. Pokrovsky in this matter, if he has the slightest opportunity.
PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS FOR THE MEETING OF SECRETS OF GUB PARTY COMMITTEES AND PRE-GUB EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES.
1. Conduct a propaganda campaign on the widest scale. Eliminate both tearful piety and mockery.
2. Split the clergy.
3. Remove valuables properly. If there was connivance, correct it.
4. Deal with the Black Hundred priests.
5. Encourage the Smenovekh priests to decide and openly speak out. Register them. Unofficially support.
6. Prepare theoretically and politically for the second campaign. Select one party “specialist” in church affairs for this purpose.
L. Trotsky
“For - Molotov”;
“For Zinoviev”;
“-Stalin”;
“for L. Kamenev.”
From the Note, it becomes obvious exactly what we tried to show at the very beginning - Trotsky, no matter how we treated him, well understood the essence of internal church problems. In our terminology, he proposed to support the creation of a “reform” trend in the church in order to use it to fight the “Josephites.” At the same time, as we see from the Note, he was aware that the “reformers” are inherently more serious enemies of the new government, who will 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 from Petrograd to Moscow. On May 12, at night, a group of priests (Vvedensky, Krasnitsky, Belkov, Kalinovsky and Stadnik) visited the Trinity Compound, where Patriarch Tikhon was under house arrest at that time, accompanied by GPU officers. Having accused the Patriarch of being guilty of imposing death sentences on Moscow priests, they insisted that the Patriarch leave the throne and transfer his powers to the locum tenens Metropolitan Agafangel (in fact, the Metropolitan was already detained and could not take office). On May 18, the renovationist Higher Church Administration (VCU) was formed, which became the official fact of a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church. The Patriarch was moved under arrest to the Danilovsky Monastery, and the VCU, headed by the renovationist Metropolitan of “Moscow and All Rus'” Antonin (Granovsky), settled in the Trinity Metochion.
Like any revolution, the October revolution brought to power a variety of characters who at any other time had little chance of achieving significant career success. Quite characteristic from this point of view is the composition of the leadership of the renovationist movement - 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 (former member of the Union of the Russian People, who previously called for the extermination of the Bolsheviks), former Chief Prosecutor of the Synod Lvov, etc. It is curious, for example, that one of the leaders of the Renovationists, Metropolitan Platonov, completely renounced the faith in the 30s and became a staff member of the State Museum of Atheism in Leningrad, giving anti-religious lectures there.
Metropolitan Alexander(Vvedensky Alexander Ivanovich). Leader of the renovationist movement, 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. As an external student, he passed exams for a course at 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” (HCU). Active participant of the renovationist “Second All-Russian Local Holy 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,” and then assigned himself 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), there was not a single non-renovationist Orthodox bishop left in the city. Renovationists served in 113 churches (out of 123).
Excerpts from the report of the head of the VI Department of the Secret Department of the GPU Tuchkov to the Anti-Religious Commission of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) “on Tikhonshchina” (October 30, 1922):
REPORT ON TIKHONOVSHIN
Five months ago, the basis of our work in the fight against the clergy was the task of “fighting Tikhonovsky, the reactionary clergy” and, of course, first of all with the highest hierarchs: metropolitans, archbishops, bishops, etc.
To carry out this task, a group of the so-called “LIVING CHURCH” was formed, consisting mainly of white priests, which made it possible for us to quarrel between priests and bishops, much like a soldier with generals, 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 with canons from the competition of white priests for the highest hierarchical positions. We took this circumstance into account and from this we began to carry out the designated task...
This task has been more than half completed within five months, for example: to date, in the existing 68 dioceses, about 100 people have been retired by Tikhon’s bishops, 11 people have been appointed to the diocese by the ruling bishops of newly ordained living churchmen, widowed and single priests, plus non-ruling priests. 4 people, old bishops who served under Tikhon and loyal to Soviet power and church renewal were appointed and transferred - 10 people, and about 20 people like that were left by the ruling dioceses, 9 dioceses are completely without bishops, and finally, 5 people remain unreplaced by ardent Tikhonites. Thus, even if half of these “loyal” ones are attributed to Tikhonovites, it turns out that half of Tikhonov’s bishops have been replaced by renovationists and semi-renovationists...
Upon completion of this task, i.e. when Tikhonovism, which to this day still has primary importance, is broken and discredited, from here the logical conclusion is that a period of paralysis of the unity of the church is coming, which undoubtedly should happen at the council, i.e. a split into several church groups that will each strive to implement and implement their own reforms...
In June 1923, Patriarch Tikhon appealed from prison to the Supreme Court with a statement:
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF 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 the duty of my pastoral conscience to declare the following:
Having been brought up in a monarchical society and being under the influence of anti-Soviet persons until my arrest, I was indeed hostile to the Soviet Power, and hostility from a passive state at times passed into active action: an appeal regarding the Brest-Litovsk Peace in 1918, anathema in the same year to 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 hold me accountable under the articles of the criminal code specified in the indictment for anti-Soviet activities, I repent of these offenses against the political system and ask the Supreme Court to change the measure of restraint for me, 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 the Soviet Power. I finally and decisively disassociate 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 Tikhonites, which corresponded to the plans of the Bolsheviks, which we mentioned earlier. Such a statement could well be expected from the “Josephite” patriarch in the logic of our reasoning about their inherent desire to “fit in” to any current government. Despite this, Patriarch Tikhon until the end of his life (March 1925) was under surveillance, 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 discontinued only “due to the death of the defendant.”
After the death of Patriarch Tikhon, the most loyal bishop to the authorities, Sergius (Stragorodsky), was found in his place in the hierarchy of the “Josephites”. In fact, according to Tikhon’s will (not entirely unambiguous), his rights and obligations were transferred to locums, in order: Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov), and in case of impossibility of taking office - to Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) and then to Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky). Metropolitans Kirill and Agathangel were already in exile. The locum tenens was Metropolitan Peter, who at the end of that 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 completing the next term of imprisonment, he was automatically awarded the next term, until finally he was shot in 1937 by decision of the troika. The acting patriarch was the Deputy Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius.
Patriarch Sergius(Stragorodsky). From a family of hereditary priests. Born in the city of Arzamas. Graduated from St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Member of the Orthodox spiritual mission in Japan. Rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary and St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Member of the Holy Synod. He spent several months in Butyrka prison and in exile. He was part of the Renovationist schism, but was accepted back by the patriarch into the Russian Orthodox Church after popular 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 well-known declaration, after which he was released and re-entered the administration of the Russian Orthodox Church. In August 1943, after a meeting with Stalin at a council of hierarchs, he was elected Patriarch. Died in May 1944. He was buried in the Epiphany (Elokhovsky) Cathedral.
Sergianism- a negative term widely used by the ROCOR and opposition church movements in relation to the official ROC. Denotes a policy of conciliation and unconditional loyalty to communist power in the USSR. It came into circulation after the publication in July 1927 in the newspaper Izvestia of the so-called “Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius.” It said, in particular:
Now the lot to be the temporary Deputy High Hierarch of our Church has again fallen on me, the unworthy Metropolitan Sergius, and along with the lot has fallen on me the duty to continue the work of the Deceased One and strive in every possible way for the peaceful arrangement of our church affairs...
Now that 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 underground struggle before our eyes. All this disrupts the peaceful flow of life, creating an atmosphere of mutual distrust and all sorts of suspicions. The more necessary for our Church and the more obligatory for all of us who care about Her interests, who want to lead Her onto the path of legal and peaceful existence, the more obligatory for us now to show that we, church leaders, are not with the enemies of our Soviet state and not with insane instruments of their intrigues, but with our people and 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 whose 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 aimed at us. While 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 God’s help, with your general assistance and support, this task will be resolved by us...
The declaration of Metropolitan Sergius led to an additional schism in the church - the ROCOR finally separated from the Russian Orthodox Church, and the True Orthodox (aka “Catacomb”) Church arose in the country.
As a matter of fact, objectively, the declaration was quite understandable from the point of view of the Josephite church, especially in conditions when it was actually faced with the possibility of its liquidation in the presence of a competitive renovationist alternative. The sharp reaction of those who viewed the new atheistic 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 a metro station in Moscow called Voikovskaya, named after the Voikov Moscow Iron Foundry that was once located at the top. Few Muscovites know in whose honor this station was named.
Voikov Petr Lazarevich(aka Pinhus Weiner, aka Petrus, Intellectual, Blonde). Revolutionary, Soviet party leader, diplomat. Born in Kerch. He was expelled from the gymnasium for politics. In 1903 he joined the RSDLP (Mensheviks). Organizer of the unsuccessful assassination attempt on General Dumbadze, after which he fled abroad. In emigration, he married favorably and studied at the universities of Geneva and Paris (chemistry, which later came in handy). He returned with Lenin in a sealed carriage. Since 1917, member of the Military Revolutionary Committee in Yekaterinburg, commissar of supplies of 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 of Food and the People's Commissariat of Foreign Trade. Participated in the sale of treasures from the Armory Chamber and the Diamond Fund abroad. In 1922, he was appointed diplomatic representative in Canada, but did not receive an appointment due to his involvement in the murder of the royal family. Subsequently appointed plenipotentiary representative in Poland. In June 1927, he was shot dead during a shootout with the Russian emigrant student Koverda, who acted alone. In response, the government executed several representatives of the royal nobility in Moscow. He was solemnly buried near the Kremlin wall. There were (and still exist) more than a hundred streets in the country 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 Karlovac Church (ROCA), 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 (VTsU), which operated in territories controlled by the White movement. After the forced emigration, the All-Russian Orthodox Church was transformed into the ROCOR at a council in the Serbian Sremski Karlovci (where it remained until the end of World War II). The independent Karlovac Synod was headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) - the same one who once received the most votes from the Council participants in the elections of the Patriarch.
Metropolitan Anthony(Khrapovitsky Alexey Pavlovich). Bishop of the Orthodox Russian Church, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, 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 the prototype for Alyosha Karamazov in Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov”). He graduated from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, where he remained a teacher, then an associate 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. Participant of the Local Council of 1917-1918, one of three candidates for the patriarchal throne (received the most votes, but was not elected Patriarch by lot). In July 1918 elected chairman of the All-Ukrainian Church Council, headed the Higher 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 along with Wrangel’s army to Constantinople. In November - December 1921, the First Foreign (“Karlovacki”) Council 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, which he headed. He remained a convinced monarchist (famous words: “I can’t stand words ending in “ucia”: constitution, revolution, prostitution...”), an opponent of Judaism and Freemasonry. Buried in Belgrade.
Thus, after 1927, the once united Russian church almost officially split into many separate and completely independent churches and movements that were in confrontation with each other. The largest of them were:
- “Tikhonovskaya” 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), the final decision was not made until 1943. At the same time, in accordance with the mentioned plan, both churches were sequentially bled dry. The large-scale repressions of 37-38 affected them equally (at the same time, the renovationists began to be massively repressed already in 1935), 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 leader of the Old Believer Church ended up in the same carriage (and almost in the same compartment). The authorities have not yet decided which of them to keep.
And this decision was made in September 1943. Before this, Stalin summoned the church curator Karpov (see below), part-time NKVD colonel, who later wrote down the contents of this conversation. Here are the questions that Stalin asked him: “a) What is Metropolitan Sergius like (age, physical condition, his authority in the Church, his attitude towards the authorities); b) a brief description of Metropolitans Alexy and Nicholas; c) when and how Tikhon was elected Patriarch; d) what connections the Russian Orthodox Church has abroad; e) who are the Patriarchs of the Ecumenical, Jerusalem and others; f) what do I know about the leadership of the Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania; g) in what material conditions are Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolai now; h) the number of parishes of the Orthodox Church in the USSR and the number of episcopates.”
This was followed by the famous meeting of Stalin with Metropolitans Sergius (Stragorodsky), Alexy (Simansky) and Nikolai (Yarushevich), at which the fate of the church schism and, accordingly, the renovationists was decided. A significant story has also become famous, clearly characterizing Sergius and his position in relation to power:
Metropolitan Sergius declared the need for the widespread opening of theological schools, since the Church lacks cadres of clergy. Stalin suddenly broke the silence: “Why don’t you have personnel?” - he asked, taking the pipe out of his mouth and looking straight at his interlocutors. Alexy and Nikolai were embarrassed... everyone knew that the cadres had been killed in the camps. But Metropolitan Sergius was not embarrassed: “We don’t have personnel for various reasons. One of them: we are training a priest, and he becomes a marshal of the Soviet Union.”
In a very short time, the remaining bishops (19 people in total) were flown to Moscow to the mansion of the former German embassy in Chisty Lane, which had been given to the Russian Orthodox Church, and on September 8, 1943, they elected Metropolitan Sergius as patriarch.
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 transform 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 on 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, due to his family circumstances, had to leave Ulyanovsk for Moscow. However, already on the train, under a completely ridiculous pretext, his pass was confiscated, and returned 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 dioceses. The renovationist movement finally ceased to exist with the death of Metropolitan Alexander (Vvedensky) in 1946. Immediately after this, 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. Under the current conditions, all changes aimed at democratizing church life were greatly curtailed due to the incessant opposition from the authorities. There is also no doubt that the reformers-renovationists were doomed from the very beginning: any government that set 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
Some demographics (data averaged and rounded): in 1897, the population of Russia (excluding Finland) was about 126 million people, of which the clergy and their families accounted for about 590 thousand people, which was approximately 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 people, of which about 95 thousand were monastics (of which 130 were bishops) and about 120 thousand were white clergy and church officials (of which 53 thousand were priests). With family members, the category of priesthood (Christian) could most likely be classified as about 650-700 thousand people, which was approximately the same half a percent of the population.
Why do we need demography? It’s just that when describing repressions, they often cite data that is not clear from where it was obtained or by whom it was calculated. Sometimes, when making calculations, the figure of 100 thousand and even 200 thousand priests who were repressed (by which they usually mean only those executed) appears, then in the light of the demographic data presented above it seems strange.
In general, we, unfortunately, often have to deal with, say, suspicious data and documents from fairly recent history, which are repeatedly mentioned and quoted everywhere without basic verification of sources. For example, not so long ago, the current patriarch once again mentioned on TV Lenin’s document dated May 1, 1919, called “Instruction of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People’s Commissars No. 13666/2” (ostensibly addressed to Dzerzhinsky): “... it is necessary to put an end to priests and religion as quickly as possible. Popovs should be arrested as counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs, and shot mercilessly and everywhere. And as much as possible. Churches are subject to closure. The temple premises should be sealed and turned into warehouses.” Here, even the most inexperienced researcher should have been struck by clear evidence of the mocking humor of the compilers of the “document” - there were never any “instructions” from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (historically, at that time it issued only resolutions and decrees). A beautiful combined “devilish” number should further “aggravate” the impression of the document. Now this first and last “instruction” (I wonder where the previous 13,665 instructions went?) is quoted by everyone - right up, as we see, to the patriarch - and no one has any questions. And such documents and “evidence” are more than enough. Apparently, they should also include Lenin’s letter to Molotov and members of the Politburo (dictated by telephone) dated March 19, 1922 regarding the confiscation of church valuables, which is more suitable in ideas and presentation to Trotsky’s style.
Apparently, documents of this type are intended to further convince people of the anti-clerical essence of the new regime. So that there is absolutely no doubt about this. It would be better to direct efforts to search for reliable statistical data or help a small group of central archive workers sort through never-before-opened documents - there are more than a million items of storage that have not yet been sorted out from the period of the revolution alone.
There is no need to come up with anything special - the Bolsheviks were already not too fond of class-alien elements, to which they included clergy (not only Orthodox, by the way). In fact, one should simply remember the instructions of one of the prominent security officers Latsis (Jan Sudrabas, executed in 1938) on investigative methods: “We do not wage war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. During the investigation, do not look for materials and evidence that the accused acted in deed or word against the Soviet regime. The first question we must ask him is to what class he belongs, what is his origin, 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 just as well to the clergy.
The first victims among the Orthodox clergy appeared already in the second half of 1917 - it is believed that one of the first was the murder of the rural priest Rozhdestvensky in the Oryol province back in September. But the killings of priests really began after the October Revolution. The first martyr of this era is considered to be Archpriest John Kochurov, who served in the Catherine Cathedral of Tsarskoye Selo. On October 31, he was arrested along with other priests for organizing a religious procession and shot at the local airfield (as John Reed wrote about).
A significant event soon became the murder of Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv and Galicia by Red Guards in Kyiv - the new government clearly showed that high church positions would not save anyone. Already on March 31, during the liturgy, the newly elected Patriarch Tikhon prayed for the repose of those killed for the faith and the church - by that time the names of 19 priests were already on the list.
In the subsequent civil war, numerous crimes were committed against the clergy. Unfortunately, the scale of killings of clergy in a non-religious war was unprecedented. As well as in the cruelty of execution. Priests and monks were shot en masse and individually, 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 considered themselves among the masses of believers, was limitless. 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-intervention, refused to bless the representatives of the white movement.
In 1918, executions of religious processions took place in several cities (Tula, Kharkov, Shatsk, etc.). The priests supported the uprising in Yaroslavl. According to official data from the Cheka, 827 clergy were shot in 1918, and 19 were shot in 1919. Unofficial data is much higher. At the same time, most monasteries were closed, which were often converted into prisons and concentration camps. For example, from 1919 to 1922, 12 concentration camps were established in Moscow, mainly in closed monasteries.
The second wave of repressions against clergy began in 1922 during the confiscation of church valuables under the pretext of helping the hungry. In fact, at this time the authorities launched a large-scale attack on the church, simultaneously provoking its schism. Trials are taking place across the country, in which the most prominent priests and laity are accused. It was in the mid-twenties that a new wide wave of repressions occurred, accompanied by the mass closure of churches. By the end of 1924, more than 66 bishops were in prison and exile—almost half of the Russian episcopate. Not everyone returned alive, but there were no mass executions. At this time, those 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 finally appeared on the new 2010 banknote at the Solovetsky Monastery.
Solovetsky Monastery
Solovetsky Monastery- Spaso-Preobrazhensky stauropegial monastery. Listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Located on the Solovetsky Islands in the White Sea. Founded at the beginning of the 15th century by Zosima, Savvaty and Herman. The stone buildings were erected by Abbot Philip (later Metropolitan of Moscow, killed by Ivan the Terrible). According to legend, Stepan Razin came to the monastery on a pilgrimage. In 1669-1676. During the schism, the monastery was subjected to a siege (Solovetsky seat), as a result of which the monks were killed during the assault. In 1854, during the Crimean War, it withstood the siege of the English fleet. Thanks to the work of the 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. During most of the year the island is cut off from the mainland - navigation on the White Sea is possible only in the summer months. During Soviet times, the island housed a camp, a prison, a school for cabin boys of the Northern Fleet and the Solovetsky Museum-Reserve.
-
Take this Kant, and for such evidence he would be sent to Solovki for three years! - Ivan Nikolaevich plumped completely unexpectedly...
But the proposal to send Kant to Solovki not only did not strike the foreigner, but even delighted him.
“Exactly, exactly,” he shouted, and his left green eye, facing Berlioz, sparkled, “he belongs there!”
“Second” life of Solovki
It would be wrong to say that it was the Bolsheviks who were the first to think of turning 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 the upper class, for which “dynastic tonsure” as a monk was initially applied according to the good old Byzantine tradition - from the royal wives who had fallen out of favor (see, for example, the biographies of the eight wives of Ivan the Terrible) and applicants for the highest government positions (like Fyodor Romanov - future Patriarch Filaret). And there are many who disagree with the “general line” of the church - Old Believers, heretics, non-covetous people, etc. And simply criminals, including criminals (for example, the already mentioned Saltychikha, a maniac killer “a la Chikatilo” of Catherine’s times). And sometimes simply mentally ill people (like the Decembrist Fyodor Shakhovskoy who went crazy). However, monastic imprisonment, which was considered much more severe than usual, ultimately, according to numerous testimonies, inevitably led to madness. Such centuries-old and quite massive “side” use of existing monasteries is, perhaps, typical only for our country. As a rule, in other countries they treated workers in the field of “smart work” with more respect.
In this regard, the Solovetsky Monastery became one of the most “popular” dungeons - not least due to the harshness of the surrounding nature and the low probability of escape. The monastery became a political and ecclesiastical prison in the 16th century. At 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-covetous, abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Artemy, who was one of the few who managed to escape from the island to Lithuania (like Kurbsky). By the way, he was replaced in the dungeons by 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, the mostly “religious” prisoners were significantly diluted with 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 Zaporozhye Sich, Pyotr Kalnyshevsky, also ended his life here. It is believed that from the time of Ivan the Terrible until the prison was closed at the end of the 19th century, the total number of prisoners at the Solovetsky Monastery exceeded five hundred people.
The sad tradition was resumed by the new government. In 1920, the monastery was closed and a forced labor camp arose in its place. In 1923, the Solovetsky Special Purpose Camp (SLON, later the Solovetsky Special Purpose Prison, closed in 1939) was established. The peculiarity of the camp was that, in addition to criminals, the camp contained a significant number of clergy, officers, nobles, intelligentsia, cultural and artistic figures, and 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 year to year from 2 to 60 thousand people. Likewise, 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 ELEPHANT camps) - “orphan” mass graves continue to be found on Solovki today.
The first priests (convicted in trials for the confiscation of church valuables) appeared in the camp already in 1923. Then came the priests who violated the decree on the separation of church and state and did not remember Metropolitan Sergius and state power during services. In total, the number of clergy on 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 in all positions related to material values (accounting, food distribution, etc.) - where special honesty was required. Sectarians (“Christians” in camp terminology) were especially persecuted, who fundamentally did not recognize the Bolsheviks as the power of the Antichrist - 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 messages on current topics in relations between church and state, including the famous “Solovetsky Epistle” on the topic of the statement of Metropolitan Sergius.
In 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church glorified more than thirty new martyrs and confessors of Solovetsky.
According to the repressive authorities themselves, in 1923-1924. 2,469 clergy were arrested, and in 1931-1932. their number has already reached 19,812 (clergy of different faiths).
The third, one of the most difficult periods of repression against the clergy occurred in 1937-38. According to operational order No. 00447 of July 30, 1937, signed by Yezhov, the repression of former kulaks, criminals and other anti-Soviet elements was provided for. In the clarifications, “other anti-Soviet elements” included “sectarian activists, churchmen and others held in prisons, camps, labor camps and colonies.” In addition, some regions additionally asked to increase their clergy quotas.
According to official, undoubtedly incomplete data, among those convicted were (of all faiths):
1937:
- “Clerics”, “Servants 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, 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 1937). Repressions against clergy continued until 1943 - the holding of the Council of Bishops and the beginning of a new policy towards 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 president’s consent 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. According to the publication, 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 about 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 newspaper's source, the government proposes to carry out construction with borrowed money, and then return it through the sale of vacated buildings in Moscow. The office complex is expected to be built in 2013-2016.”
For the first time, it was the current Chief Orthodox Builder of All Rus' Resin who proposed building a Parliamentary Center in Kommunarka (see our materials on the project to build 200 Lego churches in Moscow). Today it is planned to place the entire government there at once. Probably, those who suggested this place have a fair amount of black humor - at one time in Kommunarka at the beginning of the war the entire Mongolian government was shot. And a bunch of other people whom Stalin was afraid to leave alive in the face of the threat of the surrender of Moscow to the Germans. It was there that such “recognizable” figures as Yagoda, Bukharin, Rykov (along with his wife), Efron, Antonov-Ovseenko, Berzin, Peters and many more representatives of the ruling elite found their final refuge (shot on the spot or brought for burial). division commanders, commissars, ministers, diplomats, general staff officers, security officers, professors and academicians.
However, the choice may also be explained by the fact that the current leadership would be pleased to be located in a place where previously, as at the Butovo training ground, security officers were settled in dachas and gardening partnerships - there, for example, the large dacha of Yagoda (aka Enoch Yegoda) was previously located ). Security officers gathered there for production meetings and subsequent relaxation with fishing on the pond and other amusements (in the inventory of the former People's Commissar seized during the search, in addition to an incredible amount of various junk, such exotic items as “Collection of pornographic photographs 3904 pieces”, “Pornographic films 11 pieces" and "Rubber artificial penis 1"). Undoubtedly, after the move, continuity will be maintained at the proper level...
The Butovo training ground was assigned to the Moscow department of the NKVD, and Kommunarka - to its central apparatus, which was of a higher rank. In any case, when choosing between Butovo and Kommunarka, preference for the current rulers to move should be given to the latter, as a more “elite” place. I wonder if the Komsomolets crawler excavator, with which they dug mass graves, was still running there?
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” ones. These 15 thousand included about 940 people so-called “executed for their faith.” However, this classification seems a little strange (apparently, these are those who had an indication of religion in their files) - the figure of 268 people who were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church in the early 2000s is much more accurate. Of the 60 bishops executed in those years, seven found their final rest at the Butovo training ground.
Large-scale repressions against the clergy ended in September 1943 - after Stalin’s meeting with the 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 clergy were subjected to repression, were in camps and prisons, died in custody, were shot or killed without trial. Different sources give different figures, often determined solely by their ideological preferences. The last figure recently heard on TV from one of the now famous priests was 300 thousand clergy shot during the years of Soviet power. Given the demographics above, this seems a bit odd.
The scale of repression can be more or less reliably represented by the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church and the TOC - due to their positions, the fate of each can be traced with a more or less high degree of reliability. Below are the minimum data
As we remember, before the revolution there were 130 bishops in the Russian Orthodox Church. In total, in the official church (without the Old Believers, the True Orthodox Church and Renovationists, and with part of the ROCOR) for 1917-1997. (80 years) no less than 856 bishops, archbishops, metropolitans and patriarchs served. Of these 80 years, the period of mass repression accounts for about a third of the time. During this time:
There were 160 people in custody
Died in custody: 18 people
Killed: 14 people
Shot: 86 people
That is, for 1917-1943. About 60% of the bishops were subjected to repression, about 40% of them died.
In the Russian True Orthodox (Catacomb) Church, at least 87 hierarchs were shot or died in prison.
In 1937, power reached the renovationists. In full accordance with Trotsky’s plan, the time has come for the destruction of those whom he called “Smenovekhites.” The authorities, having ceased to separate the “new” and “old” churches, began to arrest and physically exterminate prominent renovationist leaders - dozens of renovationist bishops disappeared without a trace
In 1943, at the end of the period of massive reduction of the clergy, only 19 people were able to gather at the already mentioned Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the orders of Stalin.
Confiscation
The new government could not immediately begin to “expropriate” church values - 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, did not intend to wait that long.
As a result of nationalization (decree on land, decree on the separation of church and state), lands, houses, lands, factories, hotels, etc. were taken away from the church. By 1918, the church had 8 million acres of land, 84 factories, 1,816 apartment buildings and hotels, 277 hospitals and shelters, which were confiscated in favor of the state. However, the church still had the values it had accumulated over many centuries. A pretext was needed to seize them, and this pretext was soon created.
In the summer of 1921, a severe drought began in the country (Volga region, Urals, southern Ukraine and some other regions). It aggravated the consequences of the famine that occurred in a number of areas already in 1920 as a result of a bloody civil war. A large number of people “under arms” could not help 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 recognized as starving. The number of famine victims varies from source to source, but it was undoubtedly 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, collections of money for the hungry began in churches, and under the leadership of the church the organization “All-Russian Committee for Relief to the Starving” (“Pomgol”) was formed. 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 to members of the Politburo regarding the events in the city of Shuya (dated March 19, 1922): “ At all costs, we need to carry out the confiscation of church valuables in the most decisive and fastest way, by which we can secure for ourselves a fund of several hundred million gold rubles (we must remember the gigantic wealth of some monasteries and laurels).”
However, there are also fairly reasonable doubts about its authenticity. Here, the memoirs of Molotov, who well revealed the essence of the unfolding anti-church campaign, will be more reliable: “1921, the beginning of the NEP, famine. The conversation came up - we need to buy bread abroad. This requires values. Lenin says: the churchmen need to help. If we take these valuables, the priests will behave more calmly. If they begin to resist, again it is to our advantage; they will undermine their authority by doing so: they hold on to their wealth when the people are starving. In any case, we will win from the point of view of combating religious sentiments.”
In February, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued an order to confiscate all precious things from churches, including items used for worship. The Church, which had previously donated church decorations and objects that had no liturgical use, could not help but protest against the essentially blasphemous order. Patriarch Tikhon, despite his conciliatory position, was forced to make a special appeal on February 15:
“We have allowed, due to extremely difficult circumstances, the possibility of donating church items that are unconsecrated and have no liturgical use. We call upon the believing children of the Church even now to make such donations, with only one desire: that these donations be the response of a loving heart to the needs of one’s neighbor, if only they really provide real help to our suffering brothers. But we cannot approve the removal from churches, even through voluntary donation, of sacred objects, the use of which is not for liturgical purposes is prohibited by the canons of the Universal Church and is punishable by It as sacrilege, a layman by excommunication from Her, a clergyman by defrocking...”
Almost immediately in the city of Shuya there was a clash between the police and military personnel and the people who were trying to prevent the commission from confiscating shrines from the city cathedral. Machine gun fire was opened - the authorities' intentions were more than obvious. In total, according to some data, weapons were used at least a thousand times during the seizure of valuables.
At the same time (March 30, 1922), Trotsky wrote the already mentioned note to the Politburo about his attitude towards the church and the use of the current situation to initiate a church schism. The note outlined the program, which was subsequently implemented almost completely (see above). It also provides instructions on the removal of valuables:
“... Until the withdrawal is completed, we are focusing exclusively on this practical task, which we continue to conduct exclusively from the point of view of helping the hungry. At the same time, we are dealing with the counter-revolutionary priests responsible for Shuya, etc., using Vechekist methods.
There is another instruction from Trotsky regarding the confiscation of church valuables - for the press (dated March 24, 1922). It is also worth citing to understand the logic of further actions by the authorities.
Secret
The newspaper campaign regarding the seizure of valuables is being conducted incorrectly. It is directed against the clergy in general. Funny satirical poems against priests in general are published. This satire hits the lower clergy and unites the clergy into one whole. The political task of the present moment is not at all the same, but exactly the opposite. It is necessary to split the priests, or rather to 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 confiscation of valuables, but are afraid of the authorities. The dissatisfaction at the top, which puts the lower clergy in a difficult position in this matter, is very great.
We must proceed from this fundamental point in our agitation. Now fact. We now consider priests not as priests of some religion, but as a group of citizens to whom the state has entrusted values under certain conditions. There is a split in this group of citizens. One part of it, regardless of its religious prejudices, which are not of interest to us now, recognizes the need to transfer values to save the hungry, the other part - the princes of the church, greedy, predatory, corrupt, anti-people - fights in every possible way against this, terrorizing the lower classes. The task of agitation is now to support these lower classes 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 implementation of the decrees of the workers' and peasants' government.
Once again: the political task is to isolate the top of the church, compromise them on the specific issue of helping the famine and then show them the harsh hand of the workers' state, since these tops dare to rebel against it.
Trials began in the country in which the most active clergy and laity who prevented the seizure of church valuables became accused.
In April, a trial opened in Moscow in the building of the Polytechnic Museum, in which 20 Moscow priests and 34 laymen were tried on charges of inciting riots during the seizure of church valuables. In the already established best traditions of Soviet justice, from the first days of the tribunal it became clear that the verdict was already a foregone conclusion. However, the court had its own very characteristic features.
Before the start of the trial, the Pravda newspaper published a letter from twelve Petrograd priests (including the already famous renovationists V. Krasnitsky and A. Vvedensky), containing accusations of the Patriarchate of refusing to help the famine-stricken and of counter-revolutionary actions. But worse than that, the renovationists acted on the side of the prosecution as witnesses and experts. The defense also insisted that the church, when confiscating valuables, could not transfer sacred vessels to civil authorities. However, experts Professor Kuznetsov, charismatic renovationist Bishop Antonin and Moscow priests Kalinovsky and Ledovsky said that all the vessels could have been transferred to the state. Patriarch Tikhon was called to the trial as a witness, who was arrested immediately after it.
Renovationist priests could not help but understand that their testimony would lead to death sentences. Bishop Antonin, one of the leaders of the Renovationists, in response to the remark of the priest of Zaozersky about sacrifices made to God with the help of sacred utensils, loudly said to the whole hall: “I want mercy, not sacrifice!” - thereby dooming his fellow believers to sacrifice. And so it happened. The tribunal sentenced 11 defendants to death, of whom the execution of six was 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 temple).
A foundation was laid for the church schism, abundantly watered with the blood of some priests with the help of other priests.
Trial of Metropolitan Benjamin (Kazan), 1922
Soon after the Moscow trial, the St. Petersburg trial began. At the end of May, in the building of the former Assembly of the Nobles, 86 people, led by Metropolitan Benjamin (Kazan), found themselves in the dock. 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 this was completely unimportant for the organizers - the 25-year-old baker who headed the court openly demanded “heads”. At this trial the term “enemies of the people” was used. The prosecutor said: “The entire Orthodox Church is a counter-revolutionary organization. In fact, the entire Church should be put in prison!” The Metropolitan and three other defendants were shot (he canonized the new martyrs in 1992).
And again, as in Moscow, the prosecution relied on the testimony of the leaders of the renovation movement - priests Krasnitsky and Vvedensky. By the way, according to the testimony of contemporaries, a portrait of Metropolitan Veniamin hung near the Vvedensky House with a dedicatory inscription “To my great friend.” The words of the Metropolitan, who said to Vvedensky who came up to him for a blessing, remained in history: “Father Alexander, you and I are not in the Garden of Gethsemane.” The GPU should have been pleased with the way Trotsky’s plan was implemented in practice. There was only one thing the renovationists did not know: according to the same plan, Trotsky viewed them as temporary supporters who had to be destroyed after the defeat of the “Tikhonovites.”
In the same year, 1922, similar trials were replicated throughout the country (about 250 trials in cases related to the confiscation of church valuables) with death sentences being imposed. 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 bishops were arrested.
As already indicated, the fight against hunger and the confiscation of church valuables were only a very convenient pretext for starting the destruction of the official church. In fact, there were not so many valuables seized - contrary to talk about hundreds of millions of gold rubles. Here is what the summary statement of the Central Committee of the Posledgol said about the results of the campaign as of November 1922:
I. According to telegraph information from local Commissions for the confiscation of church valuables, the following was seized:
1. Gold 33 p. 32 f.
2. Silver 23.997 p. 23 f.
3. Diamonds 35,670 pcs.
4. Other precious stones 71,762 pcs.
5. Pearls 14 p. 32 f.
6. Gold coin 3,115 rubles.
7. Silver coins 19.155 rubles.
8. Various precious [valuable] things 52 clause 30 f.
In total, an approximate amount of 4,650,810 rubles was seized. 67 k.
Of these, about one million rubles went directly to eliminating the consequences of the famine.
At the turn of the 20s - 30s, a separate program for the liquidation and recycling of church bells was also implemented. 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 locally. A number of particularly valuable bells have traditionally been sold abroad (including the recently returned bells from Harvard).
In the fall of 1930, bell ringing was prohibited in Moscow and other Russian cities. According to official Soviet statistics, to weaken the dependence of production on imports of non-ferrous metals for the period 1925-1933. In the RSFSR, Ukraine and Belarus, 385,310 bells were removed with a total weight of 36.4 thousand tons of bronze. Some 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 confiscate valuables and property, the church largely lost its economic base. She could not own real estate and businesses (only church workshops for making icons and utensils remained). The state treated priests as private entrepreneurs.
The destruction of churches was subject to the criterion of ancient monuments, developed in 1928 by the Glavnauka: (until 1613) inviolable, (1613-1725) changes “in case of special need”, (1725-1825) preservation of facades; (after 1825) are not classified as monuments. The number of churches decreased sharply (these materials are taken from Wikipedia, without checking the sources):
|
Temples and houses of worship |
Bishops, priests and deacons |
Monasteries and monasteries |
|
|
54923 HR, 23593 hours. |
130 arch., 53234 priests, 15694 deac., 48987 psalms. |
1025 mon., 94629 us. |
|
|
78767 xr. and hour. |
130 arch., 120 thousand priests, deacon. and psalm. |
1256 mon., 107035 us. |
|
|
Beginning of autumn 1939 |
4 arch. (2 ruling and 2 vicar) 200-300 priests |
||
|
An increase of more than 3 thousand due to new territories that became part of the USSR in 1939. |
28 arch., 5665 priest. and diak. |
64 mon., 5100 us. |
|
|
104 mon., 4632 us. |
|||
|
66 arch., 9617 priest. and diak. |
99 mon., 4668 us. |
||
|
11407 priest and diak. |
42 mon., 3724 us. |
||
|
75 arch., 6234 priests. and 618 diac. |
16 mon., 1200 us. |
||
|
74 arch., 6674 priests. and 723 diac. |
22 monks, 1190 monastics |
Anti-religious propaganda
In the fight against the church, anti-religious propaganda played a significant role. 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 “explode” the habitual Christian thinking of the population, was the widespread (across the country) opening of the relics of saints. In February 1919, the People's Commissariat of Justice issued a decree on the opening 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) of the burial relics were desecrated, including Mitrofan of Voronezh, Pitirim of Tambov, John of Novgorod, Nile of Stolobensky, Joasaph of Belgorod, Savva of Storozhevsky, Seraphim of Sarov, Sergius of Radonezh, etc. Subsequently, many of them were transported from different monasteries and cities of Russia to the Leningrad Museum of Atheism and Religion (formerly Kazan Cathedral). Since, due to natural reasons, there were few actually incorruptible relics, this campaign, covered by the Bolshevik press, received quite a big response.
Orthodox churches were often not just closed, but turned, for example, into clubs. An even sadder fate awaited closed monasteries, which were turned into colonies, prisons and psychiatric hospitals.
In order to replace religious events, Komsomol and communist “Easters”, “Christmas” and “religious processions” were held.
More “exotic” events were also held, such as “meetings of a political tribunal to pass judgment on God.”
“Red corners” appear in organizations, in which, instead of previously traditional icons, propaganda materials are placed.
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 magazines was the periodical organ of the People's Commissariat of Justice “Revolution and church», on whose pages were published, among other things, senior party leaders. The scientific society "Atheist" published a magazine with the same name.
Perhaps the most famous publications were the weekly newspaper “Bezbozhnik”, the magazines “Bezbozhnik” (aka “Bezbozhnik at the Machine”), “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 in peaks 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 of Bolsheviks, and then the Council of Militant Atheists. The inscription on the cover of the first issue of the magazine “Atheist,” for example, read: “We’ve dealt with the earthly kings, let’s take on the heavenly ones. “God bless” - this slogan determined all subsequent contents of his numbers. It published both serious scientific and atheistic materials, as well as satirical works and caricatures. The target audience of these publications were workers, Red Army soldiers and youth. Separate issues were devoted to women's and peasant problems. Similar materials, but with an anti-Muslim theme,” were also published in the Tatar magazine “Chayan.”
Based on the authors and readers of the newspaper "Atheist", the Society of Friends of the Newspaper was formed, which, in turn, in 1925 became the basis of the notorious "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. In 1926, there were less than 100 thousand people in the Union, and already in 1930 there were more than 3.5 million, and in the subsequent 1931 - more 5 million members. By this time, the circulation of books and brochures exceeded 50 million printed sheets.
With the outbreak of the war, the Union of Militant Atheists practically ceased to exist. Subsequently, its functions were performed by the All-Union Society “Znanie”.
With all this consistent and large-scale anti-religious propaganda, the data from the 1937 census are indicative. At the direction of Stalin, a question about religious beliefs was included in the questionnaire. The answers were revealing: according to the census in the USSR, there were more believers among people aged 16 years and older than non-believers: 55.3 million believers and 42.2 million non-believers (56.7% versus 43.3% of the number respondents to the fifth point of the questionnaire). Of the 30 million illiterate people over 16 years of age, 84% (about 25 million) recognized themselves as believers, and of the 68.5 million literate people, 45% (more than 30 million). It should be taken into account that not everyone responded, fearing the consequences - in reality the numbers were even higher. (“Memo for the enumerator”: “In particular, explain that when asked about religion, it is necessary to indicate the current personal beliefs of the respondent (non-believer, believer - Orthodox, believer - Mohammedan, etc.), and not the religion of the respondent or his parents were officially counted in the past"). These figures showed that the fight against religion was not as effective as the state imagined.
It was these mostly religious people, by the way, who won the Great Patriotic War a few years later.
Subsequently, the intensification of anti-religious propaganda was observed in Khrushchev's times after the 20th Party Congress. In connection with the increase in the general level of education, emphasis was placed on promoting scientific atheism and Marxist-Leninist teachings in schools and universities, as well as through a network of full-time propagandists. In accordance with the resolution of the CPSU Central Committee, the Institute of Scientific Atheism was created at the Academy of Social Sciences, which existed until the 90s.
Center for Coordination of Anti-Church Activities
There is no doubt that under the new government, despite the declared separation of church and 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 highest leaders of the Soviet government - initially Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin and others, later members of the Central Committee and the Politburo. By decision of the Politburo in October 1922, the Anti-Religious Commission (ARC) was created under the Central Committee of the RCP (b), which united representatives of all government bodies and determined policy in the field of relations with the church. The commission met up to twice a month. For many years, the prominent Bolshevik Yaroslavsky played an important role in the practical work of the commission.
Yaroslavsky Emelyan Mikhailovich(aka Emelyan, Emelyanov, Sibiryak, Lapin, Krasilnikov, Soldier, Socialist, etc. aka Gubelman Meit-Juda Izrailevich) - party member since 1898. Born in Chita into a family of exiled settlers. Education in the 4th grade of a gymnasium, which did not prevent him from subsequently becoming an academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Delegate to various party congresses, member of the highest party bodies, deputy of various councils, etc. In addition to his many duties, he devoted a lot of time to anti-religious propaganda. Participated in the campaign to open the relics (including St. Simeon of Verkhoturye) and confiscate 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 Renovation Council (1923), which condemned the patriarch and removed him from office. He directed the magazines “Atheist”, “Anti-religious” 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 referred to as the Union of Militant Atheists). He was buried on Red Square near the Kremlin wall.
Initially, this was dealt with for some time by an interdepartmental commission under the People's Commissariat of Justice, then by one of its departments (the so-called “liquidation” department). It was the People's Commissariat of Justice that monitored, for example, the implementation of the decree on the separation of church and state, or the campaign to open the relics.
However, as the struggle against the church intensified, these functions were increasingly transferred to punitive authorities. 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 Lacis, shot in ’38):
“My opinion is that the church is falling apart, we need to help this, but in no way revive it in an updated form. Therefore, the policy of church collapse should be carried out by the Cheka, not anyone else. Official or semi-official relations between the party and the priest are unacceptable. Our bet is on communism, not religion. Only the Cheka can maneuver for the sole purpose of corrupting the priests. Any connection with the priests of other organs will cast a shadow on the party - this is a most dangerous thing. The specialists alone are enough for us.”
Drawing by Bukharin (caption: “Symbion aka John the Baptist from G.P.U.”)
I would like to say a few words about Dzerzhinsky’s role in this process. This is how Berdyaev described his meeting with him at that time:
“Dzerzhinsky impressed me as a completely convinced and sincere person. I think that he was not a bad person and was not even a cruel person by nature. It was a fanatic. In his eyes, he gave the impression of a man possessed. There was something creepy about him. He was 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.”
Iron Felix himself wrote in his diary back in 1901 “... just as I hated evil before, so I hate it now; as before, I strive with all my soul to ensure that there is no injustice, crime, drunkenness, debauchery, excess, excessive luxury, brothels in the world in which people sell their body or soul or both together; so that there would be no oppression, fratricidal wars, national enmity... I would like to embrace all humanity with my love, warm it and cleanse it from the dirt of modern life..."
By analogy, it is very likely that under the leadership of such a person an organization was created that was very similar to both the Dominican and Jesuit Catholic orders. And it is very characteristic that it was a Pole with his Catholic roots who stood at its head. However, in our history there was already a similar semi-monastic organization - the guardsmen. It is curious that Dzerzhinsky himself is preserved in popular memory as a kind of “non-acquisitive” of the new “red” religion - a real “unmercenary saint” who fought for a “pure” idea and did not acquire any earthly riches for himself. Is this why he is so often depicted in his simple long-skirted overcoat, similar to a monastic cassock - no leather jackets or Mausers... By the way, Dzerzhinsky was one of the very few leaders of the revolution who entered our history under his own name.
Martin Latsis, already mentioned earlier, quite clearly described the meaning of the Red Terror: “For us there are not 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 during the investigation. "that the accused acted by word or deed against the Soviets. The first question you must ask him is what class he belongs to, what origin, education or profession he is. These questions must decide the fate of the accused. This is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror."
It was this principle that guided the security officers who handled the affairs of clergy in the 20s and 30s. Based on the case materials, it is clearly visible that the principle of the presumption of innocence is inapplicable to priests who refuse to come to an agreement with the new government. There is no doubt that the punitive authorities, first of all, had to “knock out” to the fullest extent possible the passionate and harmonious part of the ministers of various cults (not only Orthodox, by the way) - through physical destruction and long terms of imprisonment, often also ending in their death.
Representatives of these same bodies became a kind of new chief prosecutors, appointed by the state to supervise the church. One of the first such persons was the security officer Tuchkov, who successfully carried out an operation to split the church through the support of the renovationist movement (who, by the way, called himself the “Soviet chief prosecutor”).
Tuchkov Evgeny Alexandrovich. Employee of the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD, head of the 6th department of the OGPU. He received four years of education, worked in a confectionery shop and a leather and shoe workshop, and later as a clerk in rear headquarters. He joined the party after the revolution. Until 1929, he was the head of the 6th department of the SO GPU - OGPU, whose competence included the fight against religious organizations in the USSR. Directly responsible for the development and implementation of religious policy. Led the development of a “spy organization of churchmen,” which, according to the plan, was headed by Patriarch Tikhon. Co-author of the “Declaration” of Metropolitan Sergius. He actively participated in organizing a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church (into Renovationists, Tikhonovites, etc.). Directly participated in the confiscation of church valuables. In 1931, he was appointed assistant to the head of the Secret Political Department (SPO) of the OGPU, retaining the post of head of the 3rd department of the SPO (intelligence and 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 restoring the lost unity of verticals under the leadership of the OGPU was put forward in counter by the renovationists themselves at different levels. For example, the leader of the small Vologda renovationist group “Russian People's Church” Burachek proposed “to put three persons at the head of the Russian Orthodox Church...: the chairman of the GPU, the Bishop (for religious affairs) and him - Burachek. He wants to make six hundred priests of the diocese agents of the GPU, so that through them, with friendly cohesion, he can significantly expand information from the localities and open a powerful struggle against anti-state elements.” He was not alone in such proposals. As a matter of fact, this is generally what happened.
Subsequently, religious issues came under the purview of the NKVD (with the temporary delegation of part of the powers of the Central Commission on Religious Affairs under the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee in the 30s).
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, subsequently united into a single council. In practice, the leadership of the Council for Religious Affairs was carried out by the ideological department of the CPSU Central Committee in close contact with the NKVD and the KGB. It is characteristic that the first leader of the Council was an NKVD major general.
Karpov Georgy Grigorievich- Major General of Security. Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of Ministers of the USSR (until 1960). From a family of workers. He graduated from theological seminary, studied at Petrograd University, and worked at a factory. In the bodies of the Cheka since 1922. He served in various positions in the OGPU - NKVD. Head of the 4th Department of the 3rd Directorate of the NKVD (fight against 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 ranks of 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 renovation movement nurtured by his predecessor, relying on the Sergian Russian Orthodox Church, which by that time was already completely loyal to the state. It is also interesting that by the end of his work, Karpov even began to defend the Russian Orthodox Church from the attacks of 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 the Affairs of the Orthodox Church was that it inconsistently followed the line of the party and the state in relation to the church and often slipped into positions of serving church organizations. Taking a defensive position in relation to the church, the council pursued a line not to combat violations of the legislation on cults by the clergy, but to protect church interests.”
Khrushchev's removal also changed the relationship between the state and the church. As a matter of fact, by this time the church had already been weakened enough organizationally to move from total suppression to more subtle types of control. The Council for Religious Affairs, together with the 5th Directorate of the KGB, formed in 1967, began to pay more attention to the issues of working with clergy, their cooperation with the authorities and the introduction of their “trusted” people into their composition.
However, it is quite clear that by the end of the Soviet regime, there was no way anyone who showed even a shadow of dissatisfaction with this government could become one of the church hierarchs. The materials of the Yakunin-Ponomarev commission (1990) on connections between the KGB and the Russian Orthodox Church in Soviet times, listing the names of KGB agents in the church environment, leave 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 Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1992 determined to celebrate the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia on January 25 (February 7), if this day coincides with a Sunday, and if it does not coincide, then on the next Sunday. By the decision of the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000, both known and unknown martyrs and confessors of the faith were glorified. As of January 1, 2011, 1,774 people were canonized by name at the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia of the 20th century.
It should be noted that, in contrast to the new martyrs and Russian confessors 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 “national” saints, with the exception, perhaps, of the Matrona of Moscow.
Blessed Elder Matrona(Matryona Dmitrievna Nikonova). According to legend, she was born in 1881 in the village of Sebino, Epifansky district, Tula province. According to the Life, from the age of 8 Matryona treated the sick and predicted the future. At the age of 18, her legs became paralyzed. 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, victory will be yours. From the authorities, you won’t leave Moscow 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, it was exhumed, transferred and placed in a special tomb in a temple 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 management system.
After the liquidation of the Synod, the institution of the Patriarchate was restored, corresponding to the idea of building a vertical of church power.
According to the Bolshevik decree, the Church was separated from the state, and according to the new Constitution, the clergy were deprived of their rights.
The new government, as a priority, eliminated monasticism and monasteries as the basis of the “non-acquisitive” movement.
In accordance with Trotsky’s plan for the fight against the church, the authorities stimulated the development of the reform church movement (which in our history, earlier in the 14th century, received the label “Judaizers”). According to the Bolsheviks, the artificial development of the “reformers” was supposed 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 completing the tasks of the split.
Under the current 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 the power vertical.
To be continued…
Andrey Svetin and others.
History of the dispute
The controversy between the non-covetous people and the Josephites dates back to the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, and unites the reigns of Ivan III, Vasily III and Ivan IV the Terrible. The parties to this dispute are:
- on the part of non-covetous people - Nil Sorsky, Maxim the Greek, Kirill Belozersky, Korniliy Komelsky and others.
- on the part of the Josephites - Joseph of Volokolamsk, Metropolitan Daniel, Vassian Toporkov and others, Metropolitan Macarius was sympathetic to the ideology of the Josephites, which made it possible to approve it as a general church position at the Stoglavy Council.
Intellectual context
The spiritual and intellectual environment of medieval Rus' at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries is characterized by two key ideas.
- Firstly, this is the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome”, which determined the purpose of the Russian state as the only power, after the fall of Constantinople in $1453, called upon to preserve the purity of Orthodoxy. This ideology had both spiritual and mystical significance and direct external and internal political expression within the framework of Russian history.
- Secondly, the activation of religious and philosophical thought in medieval Rus' during this period was influenced by the development of heresies. So, on the eve of its fall, Constantinople concluded the Ferraro-Florentine Union with the Catholic Church, which was met negatively in the Russian theological environment. From this moment on, the Russian Church begins to independently elect church hierarchs, fearing the influence of Catholicism.
Among the heresies that appeared in the Russian medieval environment, it is especially worth noting the heresy of the Bogomils, Strigolniks, and Judaizers. Both the non-possessors and the Josephites fought against these heresies with their theological works.
Dispute between non-possessors and Josephites
Note 1
The subject of the dispute between the non-covetous people and the Josephites was the question of whether the church should have wealth or not. From their understanding of this problem, they derived two socio-political concepts, each in its own way revealing the essence of the Orthodox faith, the place and role of the church in the life of society, its relationship with state power, and the concept of royal power.
By and large, non-covetous people and Josephites created two alternative paths of state development.
The position of non-possessors. The concept of non-covetousness, developed by Nil Sorsky, has its roots in hesychast teaching, the spiritual and mystical concept of Byzantine monasticism.
Religion is a matter of the inner life of an individual. It manifests itself not externally, but in the development of the level of a person’s inner life. Based on this, non-covetous people called on the church to renounce external wealth (the pomp of churches, monastic farms, etc.). The Church should deal exclusively with the soul of man; it should not be hampered by the desire to increase earthly wealth.
Non-acquisitive people did not agree with the fusion of state and church that was being established in medieval Rus'. They stand for the separation of religious and secular authorities. In addition, they believed that the state should leave public space for the manifestation of human freedom. This idea found expression in the concept of a people's advisory body within the framework of the state system of Rus', the idea of which was proposed by non-possessors.
The position of the Josephites. The spiritual inspirer of this theological movement, Joseph Volotsky, argued that the king and the power given to him were based on divine laws. The king was put in his place by God. The power of the state extends not only over a person’s body, but also over his soul.
Joseph creates a theocratic doctrine of the state in which the absolute power of the king is sanctified by the will of God. The power of the tsar, according to her, extends not only to state affairs, but also to church affairs. The purpose of royal power is to ensure the preservation of the purity of Orthodoxy.
On the issue of monastic property, the Josephites took the position of recognizing it. In their opinion, farming, on the one hand, had a beneficial effect on the economic situation, which strengthened state power; on the other hand, it was the basis for the social service of the Church.
In the 15th – 16th centuries in the Russian state, all progressive thought was inextricably linked with the church. At that time, issues of faith were extremely important. The form of confession and freedom of conscience implied certain behavior, ideology and extended to everyday life and politics. But it should be noted that in the rich variety of progressive thought, negative attitudes occupied a significant place. The introduction of such teachings into life has caused negative results in many countries.
This is how the Albigensian Wars broke out in France, which professes Catholicism. Orthodox Bulgaria was defeated and subjugated to Byzantium. In the Muslim world, the Ismaili and Qarmatian movements provoked massacres, lawlessness and tyranny. Negative attitudes penetrated into the Russian state at the end of the 15th century in the form of the heresy of the “Judaizers.” But the connection of this heresy with Judaism was very doubtful.
The leaders of the Russian church were smart and superbly educated people. They perfectly understood the danger that heresy posed to the future of the country. But there was no unity in the opinions and methods of combating heretics among prominent church figures. In this situation, the Josephites and non-covetous people - representatives of church trends - came to the fore. It was between them that a dispute broke out about methods of eradicating negative heretical trends that had gripped part of the Russian population.
Non-covetous people- supporters of the Trans-Volga elder Nil Sorsky (1433-1508), the founder of the monastery on Russian soil (canonized in the second half of the 17th century). His student and follower was Vassian Patrikeev (1470-1531). These people, while condemning heretics, denied the possibility of their violent death. They said that God does not desire the death of the sinner, but his repentance. Those who persist in heresy should be isolated and sent abroad, and not have their consciences dominated by threats of death.
Josephites– supporters of Joseph Volotsky (1439-1515), a prominent church figure, canonized by the Orthodox Church in 1579. These people were opponents of non-possessors. Condemning heresy, they insisted on drastic measures to eradicate it, including burning at the stake.
The administrative authorities were also drawn into the dispute between different church trends. In 1500, the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III became seriously ill, and for the last 5 years of his reign, Vasily Ivanovich, the son of his second wife Sophia Paleologus, was considered co-ruler of the sovereign. He came under the influence of Joseph Volotsky, and in 1504 a joint decision was made by Ivan III, the de facto ruler Vasily Ivanovich and the council of bishops. This decision doomed the heretics to death.
Bonfires burned throughout the Russian land. They burned many freethinkers, including major statesmen who supported heresy. Those who were not burned were put in prison, where these people died.
However, the disagreements between the Josephites and non-covetous people concerned not only the fight against heresy. Supporters of different church movements had different attitudes towards property owned by the church. Non-covetous people advocated transferring all church property to the treasury. Thus, the state could pay for the services of the nobles and strengthen the borders of the state. But in return they demanded the right to freely express personal opinions in accordance with their conscience.
The Josephites opposed the abandonment of church property. They expressed their readiness to support Vasily III Ivanovich, but only on the condition that all possessions would be left to the church, including the rich decorations of churches, beautiful libraries, and prosperous monastery farms.
At this turning point, the family circumstances of the Grand Duke of Moscow and the Sovereign of All Rus' turned out to be decisive. Here it is necessary to clarify that the first wife of Vasily III was Solomonia Yuryevna Saburova. This marriage was unsuccessful, as the couple had no children. This circumstance became the reason for the divorce. And although Saburova was categorically against it, she was exiled to a monastery, and Vasily III married young Elena Glinskaya (mother of Ivan the Terrible).
The Glinsky family was founded by a descendant of Mamai, who was defeated on the Kulikovo field by Russian squads. This descendant converted to Orthodoxy, became Prince Glinsky and got a job in Lithuania. Already his descendant Vasily Lvovich Glinsky moved to Moscow in 1508. His daughter Elena Glinskaya was noticed by Vasily III. She married the Grand Duke of Moscow and bore him two sons. True, evil tongues said that the true father of these children was not the sovereign of all Rus', but the young and handsome governor of the guard regiment, Prince Ovchina-Telepnev-Obolensky.
But we will not listen to gossip, but will continue to study the facts. And they indicate that the Orthodox Church intervened in the issue of divorce from Saburova. According to all Christian laws, it is impossible to leave your wife without her fault. This point of view was boldly expressed by Vassian Patrikeev. Moreover, he not only said, but sharply condemned the unmotivated divorce of the Grand Duke of Moscow. Thus, the leader of the non-covetous people displeased Vasily III.
However, the Sovereign of All Rus' did not aggravate the situation. He wisely remained silent, rightly believing that over time such a sensitive and scandalous matter of illegal divorce would be forgotten. But as soon as the first conflict ended, the second immediately followed, which the Josephites and non-possessors again perceived differently.
Vasily III invited the independent Shemyachichi princes (descendants of Dmitry Shemyaka) to Moscow from Chernigov. The Grand Duke of Moscow gave these people a letter of safe conduct, but as soon as the princes arrived, they were immediately treacherously arrested and imprisoned. The act, by all human standards, was clearly vile and insidious.
Vassian Patrikeev stated this publicly. He sharply condemned the Grand Duke, saying that he had violated his word of honor and was not worthy to be considered a Christian. This statement seriously angered Vasily III. Vassian Patrikeev was captured and forcibly taken to the Josephite monastery, ordering him strict obedience. A short time later, the leader of the non-covetous people died there, and the Josephites were victorious.
In 1551, the followers of Joseph of Volotsky took a dominant position at the Stoglavy Cathedral. They rejected the program for limiting church and monastic lands put forward by Archpriest Sylvester. Subsequently, they supported the establishment of the oprichnina.
The Josephites became the official ideologists of the Orthodox Church and the secular government inextricably linked with it. It was they who gave the theological justification for the divine origin of the power of monarchs. They insisted on changing the status of the Moscow Metropolitanate to the status of a patriarchate. This was motivated by the fact that after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the Russian state became the only successor and stronghold of Orthodoxy. The Moscow Metropolis received the status of patriarchate in 1589.
Alexander Semashko
JOSEPHLANES - a party to the special rule of Russian social thought (late 15th-16th centuries), best-named by name his main inspiration - Io-si-fa Vo-lots-ko-go.
The term “Josephites” was used by Prince A.M. Kurbsky; it appeared in scientific literature in the 2nd half of the 19th century
First of all, the Josephites stood up for the idea of the dominion of spiritual power over secular power. The ruler, according to the thought of Jo-si-fa Vo-lots-ko, is an earthly man and a simple performer of God in her power. Is this why he should be given “royal honor, and not divine honor.” If Ti-ran was waiting at the throne, then he should not show up, for he is “not God’s servant.” , but a devil, and not a king, but a tormentor.” The rapprochement of Jo-si-fa Vol-lots-ko with the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III Va-sil-e-vi-what caused the - Joseph’s lack of views on the nature of the great princely power. Recognizing her divine character, Jo-seph Vo-lots-kiy declared about the non-ob-ho-di-mo-sti under-chi-ne-niya pra -see-you of all the in-sti-tu-tov of the state-dar-st-va and the Church, while the “holy-st-vu” is from-you-so- What is the mission - to play the role of the spirit-how-to-go-to-go-su-da-rya.
In the church of the ru-be-zha of the 15th-16th centuries about the mo-na-styr-sky land-vla-de-nii, developed-on fo-not the decline of the internal dis-ci-p-li-ny of the communal habitations, the Josephites, in contrast to their ideological opponents kov - not-stya-zha-te-ley (see also Nil Sor-sky), side-ron-ni-kov skete-ni-che-form-we mo-na-she-st-va, you -stand for the preservation of the mo-na-sty-rays and the renewal of their internal life on the basis of the mandatory introduction of construction th-society-resident-no-go us-ta-va. The establishment of a strict society, in the opinion of the Josephites, made it possible to accommodate the growth of the Mo-na-Styr authorities tion with the principles of personal mo-na-she-go-no-st-ness and from-re-che-from the world. Joseph’s position on the issue of the Mo-na-Styr-sky land-le-vla-de-nii in-zob-la-da-la on the co-re of 1503, and pos- The day was confirmed by the co-bo-rum of 1531. For the Io-Sif-lian monasteries it would have been ha-rak-ter-but the special significance of the in-sti-tu-tu-old -st-va: every young monk has stood under the experience of a foreigner that strengthened the spirit- teach a new pre-em-st-ven-ness between the teacher and the scientist (Jo-sif Vo-lotskiy - Kas-si-an Bo-soi - Fo-tiy Vo- lot-kiy - Vas-si-an Kosh-ka). The Josephites were actively involved in the construction of the Styr-Tel-st-vo, transported and built the temples, so-bi -ra-li icons and books. Jo-sif Vo-lots-kiy pri-gla-sil for ros-pi-si mo-na-styr-skogo Us-pen-sko-go-bo-ra (see Io-si-fo-Vo- pilot mo-na-styr) the best living scribes - Dio-ni-siya and his sons Feodo-siya and Vladimir-ra; in the mo-na-sty-re the icons of the work of An-d-rey Rub-le-va were stored, the su-s-st-vo-va-li crea-to-riy and literary school. The Josephites, you stood against the extremes of as-ke-tiz-ma and saw the ideal of other people not in the distance from the outside world, but in active activities in all spheres of public life. The mo-na-she-st-vo, in their opinion, should influence all state institutions, support the government -the same power, to re-create the future ar-hi-pass-you-rey, the weight of the cultural-tur-but-about-light-tel-skaya and mis-sio -ner-sku-ra-bo-tu, pro-ti-to-sto-yat here-syam (so, in the co-bo-re of 1504, the Yo-Sif-Lyan-skaya in zi- tion in relation to here-ti-kov - “army and knife”, execution and for-that).
At the beginning of the 16th century, the Josephites for Ros-tovskaya (Vas-si-an Sa-nin), Ko-lo-men-skaya (Mit-ro-fan), Suz-dal-skaya (Si -me-on) and other departments. Under Metropolitan Da-nii-le of Moscow, many hierarchs of the Russian Church adhered to the pro-Io-Siph-lan-positions [epis- oscopes Aka-kiy Tver-skoy, Vas-si-an Ko-lo-men-sky (To-por-kov), Sav-va Smo-lensky, Io-na Ryazan-sky, Ma- kariy Nov-gorod-skiy]. Metropolitan Da-ni-il, in the past abbot of the Io-si-fo-Vo-lots-ko-monastery, actively supported-li-ti-ku ob- e-di-ne-niya of Russian lands, pro-vo-di-mu by the Grand Duke of Moscow Va-si-li-III Iva-no-vi-chem, established with church-no-ka-no-nichesky points of view of the divorce of the Grand Duke with S.Yu. Sa-bu-ro-voy, married him with E.V. Glinskoy. Vo-lots-kiye mo-na-khi taught-st-vo-va-li in the baptism of the future Tsar Ivan IV Va-sil-e-vi-cha, ru -ko-vo-di-li chi-nom in-gr-be-niya Va-si-lia III Iva-no-vi-cha, you-stu-pa-pa-the main about-vi-ni-te-la- mi on the processes of Max-si-ma Gre-ka and Vas-sia-na (Pat-ri-kee-va), M.S. Bash-ki-na and Feo-do-siya Ko-so-go. In the 1540-1550s, when Ma-kariy became mi-tro-po-ly of Mo-s-kov, and was close to the Josephites, everything was important. most of the churches for him were the only ones. On the Hundred-Headed So-bo-re (1551) the Io-Sif-Lyansky Bol-shin-st-vo (arch-bishop of Feodor-siy Novgorod-Rod-sky, epi- scopes Sav-va Kru-titsky, Gu-riy Smo-lensky, Tri-fon Suz-dal-sky, Aka-ky Tver-sky, Nikandr Ros-tovsky, Feo-do- this Ko-lo-men-sky, Ki-pri-an Perm-sky) okon-cha-tel-but rejected the un-stealthy program, proposed by-lo-wives -nuyu A.F. Ada-she-vym and Sil-ve-st-rum, and ut-ver-di-lo principle of not-from-chu-give-most churches-lands. The blessings of Metropolitan Ma-kariya and his “friends” were part of the “Great People” -nei” - a collection of “all that is mine” in Russia, living and teaching works, distributed according to the days of the year, about -we-de-on ka-no-ni-za-tion of more than 30 Russian saints (on the councils of 1547-1549), grand di-oz-nye pa- mint-ni-ki ar-hi-tek-tu-ry, glorifying the power of the Russian state (for example, Vasily Bla-zhen-no-go temple). Close to the Josephites was the monk of the Pskov Elea-za-ro-va monastery Fi-lo-fei, who formed and settled in his their co-chi-ne-ni-yah political concept “Mo-sk-va - the third Rome”.
In general, the union of the Sethian Church with the state su-dar-st was preserved until the 2nd half of the 16th century. Later, the practice of a large-scale land-ownership, the idea of not-from-someone-giving-the-most-of-the-church- but the imu-st-va-entered into pro-ti-vo-re-chie with the ideo-lo-gi-she for-mi-ru-sche-go-sa-mo-der-zha- viya. From the Go-lo-Siph-Lyan-Church-but-po-ly-tic doctrine in Russian history of the 17th century became a po-li-ti-ka pat. -ri-ar-ha Ni-ko-na, leading him to a conflict with Tsar Alek-se-em Mi-hai-lo-vi-chem.
Additional literature:
Za-ma-le-ev A.F. Philosophical thought in the Middle Ages of Russia (XI-XVI centuries). L., 1987;
Book centers of Ancient Russia: Io-si-fo-Vo-lo-ko-lam-sky monastery as a book center. L., 1991;
Ol-shevskaya L. A. Is-to-ria of the creation of Vo-lo-ko-lam-skogo pa-te-ri-ka, description of its editions and lists // Ancient Russian pa-te-ri-ki. M., 1999.
Until a certain point, there were practically no serious conflicts or massacres on religious grounds in Rus'. While the infamous Holy Inquisition was spreading in the Catholic West, and countries like the Czech Republic and France were torn apart by religious wars between different sects of Latins and Protestants, Orthodoxy reigned supreme in Muscovite Rus'. 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 intra-church life, which soon turned into great bloodshed.
In contact with
Classmates
Arguments of the parties
In the 15th-16th centuries, a conflict arose in the church environment over the property of monasteries, as a result of which the Orthodox were divided into two irreconcilable camps:
- non-possessors
- Josephites
Non-covetous monks are followers of the leader of the teachings of the holy elder Nilus of Sorsky. who opposed the Church owning any property. When taking monastic vows, a monk takes a vow of non-covetousness, which implies an absolute renunciation of property and a life of trust in God’s will, and therefore non-covetous people considered the presence of land in monasteries to be a violation of monastic vows.
The disciples of Nil Sorsky treated the prince with respect, considering him fair, wise and therefore worthy to personally dispose of church property. Therefore, the land and buildings that belonged to the Church should, in their opinion, be transferred into the hands of the state, so that it could strengthen its borders and pay the nobles money for their service.
In return, non-possessors wanted the government to have the opportunity to speak freely on various issues related to religion. The monks, being left without property, had to completely abandon all worldly affairs and engage only in “smart work,” i.e. prayer. They were allowed to earn their own food exclusively through their own labor or alms.. At the same time, the monks themselves had to give alms to anyone who asked them.
In turn, supporters of the founder of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery, St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, called Josephites after their leader, believed that the church must own all its property, including libraries, farms, church utensils. This was necessary so that the Church could subsequently lead next activity:
- carry out missionary tasks,
- give alms
- support poor people
- supply the people with food in lean years.
The Josephites treated the ruler as God’s deputy on earth and therefore believed that he should combine responsibility to the people with responsibility to the Church.
Another point on which the opinions of non-possessors and Josephites differed was the issue of correcting supporters of heretical teachings. In Rus' at that time the so-called “the heresy of the Judaizers,” 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 heresy through physical influence on heretics up to and including being burned alive at the stake.
In turn, Nil Sorsky believed that God does not expect the death of the sinner, but 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 heresy, the elder proposed to isolate them from society or deport them abroad, but not take their lives.
Development and worsening 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 Rus' in the 15th-16th centuries, it is not surprising that these disputes began to occupy the minds of high statesmen. Moscow Rus', which was not large in area, could not provide all the nobles with decent land plots, and therefore the head of the principality, Ivan III, initially leaned towards the non-covetous people who were ready to provide church lands for this purpose. Wikipedia reports that as more and more officials and clerks committed to the heresy of the Judaizers were exposed, the prince’s sympathies towards the Josephites increased. Nevertheless, almost until the 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 were found between Joseph of Volotsky and Nil of Sorsky. The confrontation between two church groups became sharply evident at the council of 1503, where representatives of both movements strongly condemned the heresy of the Judaizers, but were unable to find consensus on the issue of applying punishment for heretics. The Josephites, who made up the majority at this council, were able to defend their position on the issue of the property of the Church.
When Prince Ivan III was struck down by a serious illness in 1500, Vasily Ivanovich, his son from his second wife Sophia, began to help him rule the principality. Joseph Volotsky had a colossal influence on the prince, and four years later, Vasily Ivanovich, Ivan III, together with the council of episcopates ruled against the heretics.
After this, in Rus', in fact, a home-grown analogue of the Catholic Holy Inquisition has appeared. The victims of the fires were both ordinary people and influential officials and merchants suspected of heresy. Some, instead of being burned, were sentenced to long prison sentences, which they, as a rule, did not survive. The consequence of this was that the Josephite party was in favor.
Another reason that non-covetous people 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 have children. This was the reason that the prince divorced his wife and married 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-covetous people, a famous Orthodox figure, Prince Vasily Ivanovich Patrikeev (monastically Vassian), denounced Vasily III for this act, since Christian canons prohibit divorcing a wife if she has not committed 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-covetous people and the Josephites. Summoning to Moscow from Chernigov representatives of the princely family of Shemyachich, who had recently transferred to the service of the Moscow prince from King Sigismund I of Poland, Vasily Ivanovich greeted them warmly, but soon arrested them 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 betrayal of the prince. Vasily III refused to tolerate the accuser and the monk was forcibly imprisoned in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery among the Josephites, where he died (according to some reports, he was poisoned).
As the official reason for Vassian’s arrest, it was announced that he had allegedly fallen into heresy and rejected the doctrine of the dual – divine and human – nature of Jesus Christ, recognizing only His divine essence. After this, the ideology of the Josephites established itself as dominant in the Russian Orthodox Church.
Final victory of the Josephites
In 1551, at the Council of the Stoglavy, the priest Sylvester tried to make a proposal to limit the land plots of churches and monasteries, but the Josephites, who occupied leading positions at the council, did not accept this statement. Also Josephites became one of the ideologists of the introduction of oprichnina in the second half of the 16th century. Subsequently, this led to the fact that the repressions of Ivan the Terrible turned 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 the guardsmen.
It was the Josephites who shrouded the institution of princely power in Rus' with an aura of divine origin (which was then assigned to the royal family of the Romanovs). Reasoning that after the death of Byzantium and the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Rus' remained the only stronghold of Orthodoxy in the world, the followers of Joseph Volotsky in 1589 managed to achieve the acquisition of the status of a patriarchate by the Moscow Metropolis. They also contributed to the emergence of the ideological concept of “Moscow – the Third Rome”. This was able to increase the authority of the state in the international arena.
