Start of work of the local cathedral 1917 1918. Library of religious articles

08/15/1917 (08/28). – Opening of the Local Council of the All-Russian Orthodox Church 1917-1918.

Local Council 1917-1918

August 15, 1917 in Moscow, on holiday, solemn worship the long-prepared All-Russian Local Council opened (ended on September 7/20, 1918). The decisions of the Council were prepared by the work of the Pre-Conciliar Presence of 1906 and the Pre-Conciliar Conference of 1912-1913.

564 members took part in the activities of the Council: 80 bishops and 185 clergy, the majority were laymen. The Council approved the honorary chairman. He was elected chairman. The following were elected as comrades of the chairman: from the episcopate - Archbishops of Novgorod Arseny (Stadnitsky) and Kharkov, from the clergy - Protopresbyters N.A. Lyubimov and G.I. Shavelsky, from the laity - and the Chairman of the State Duma M. Rodzianko, replaced after his departure by the former Chief Prosecutor of the Synod A.D. Samarin.

The Council, in addition to the ruling bishops and five elected members from each diocese, included: protopresbyters of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, military and maritime clergy, governors of the Lavra (Kievo-Pechersk, Trinity-Sergius, Pochaev, Alexander Nevsky), abbots of the monasteries (Solovetsky, Valaam, Optina Monastery, Sarov), members of the Pre-Conciliar Council. By election, the members of the Council were: ten people from the monastics, ten from fellow believers, three from each of the four Theological Academies, one from eleven Universities, fifteen people from the State Council and the State Duma.

In addition, representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs and Orthodox Autocephalous Churches were members. By the first meeting, the following arrived at the Council: 4 metropolitans (Kiev, Moscow, Petrograd and Tiflis), 21 archbishops, 43 bishops, over 375 other members of the Council.

The council had two sessions, each lasting about six months. The main issues to be decided by the Council were:

1. Development of regulations on the Supreme Church Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church, on diocesan administration, on the parish Charter.

2. Restoration of the Patriarchate.

The grand opening of the Cathedral - with the removal of relics from the Kremlin and crowded religious processions on Red Square - coincided with the rapidly growing turmoil, news of which was constantly heard at the meetings. The provisional government was losing control not only over the country, but also over the army. Soldiers fled from the front, killing officers, causing riots and robberies, and instilling fear in civilians. In the wake of this chaos, fueled by German money, rapidly.

Local cathedral 1917-1918 entered the history of the Russian Church as an extreme manifestation of liberal-modernist sentiments generated by Februaryism

On the eve of the end of the Dormition Lent of 2017, the Orthodox clergy and flock learned about the Patriarchal decree on August 28, 2017: on the feast of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in all churches of the Russian Orthodox Church to hold a “prayer singing for the canonized members of the Church Council of 1917-1918.” and a funeral prayer commemoration of other members of the Council (without listing by name).” The corresponding circular was sent to all diocesan eminences. During the festive Liturgy in churches, the Patriarchal message was also read on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the Church Council of 1917-1918, which said that “many of the ideas expressed then would be useful and in demand today,” and “the spiritual heir This body, conciliar in nature (the Pre-Conciliar Presence), is the currently active Inter-Council Presence.”

If we take into account the modernist course of the modern hierarchy, then in the future the “spiritual heirs” of this council can include numerous conferences, rhodes, meetings, synaxis, which took place from the middle of the 20th century with no less thorough pre-conciliar preparation for them on the part of the ecumenists of the Russian Orthodox Church and ended the still incomplete “Pan-Orthodox Council” in Crete in June 2016.

So, what was the Local Council of 1917-1918, and what might the glorification of its actions entail in the context of the modern church situation?

Commenting on the decision of the Patriarch and the Holy Synod on innovation, Deacon Vladimir Vasilik notes:

“The Local Council itself of 1917-1918. was a rather complex phenomenon. It was attended by different elements, including revolutionary and radical ones, at times proposing completely absurd things that could simply destroy the Russian Orthodox Church. For example, a married episcopate, complete Russification and reform of worship were seriously proposed. The most ardent modernist projects were put forward that could destroy our Church.”

“As for practice,” writes Fr. Vladimir, - as far as I remember, the Russian Orthodox Church has not yet proclaimed the memory of any church councils. There have been many serious councils in history that contributed to the prosperity of the Church and were held by holy men. For example, the cathedral of 1274, which adopted the “Helmsman’s Book” of St. Sava of Serbia, Stoglavy Cathedral, or a series of important councils of the 17th century, which protected the Church from Latinism, Protestantism and the Old Believers.”

“As for the practice of the Universal Church, Local Councils, which have important dogmatic significance, were glorified. For example, the Council of 536, which overthrew the heresy of the Monophysites. But, to be honest, I don’t remember that its members were glorified as saints. This is a kind of innovation that has no analogues,” says Fr. Vladimir Vasilik.

We have to admit that according to the agenda of the Local Council of 1917–1918. did not correspond to church tradition, because the composition of the participants and the agenda were determined mainly by revolutionary-democratic tendencies and the revolutionary situation in the country.

The main idea of ​​the Local Council of 1917 was to focus on reforms, mainly canonical and liturgical, which could lead to secularization and the gradual withering away of the Russian Church.

As Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin writes, “some of the members of the Council, mainly church and public figures from the laity, professors of the Theological Academies, especially Petrograd, were carried away by the revolutionary February phraseology and looked at the great cause church construction as part of the transformations that had begun in the country, which some of the council members, even in August 1917, still saw in a rosy light. From these circles there were attempts to carry out far-reaching modernization of church structure and worship at the council.”

It is known that, inspired by the liberal-democratic transformations in the Church, the participants of the Local Council of 1917–1918, carried away by parliamentary techniques that were inappropriate in church work, very soon began to divide into groups and factions, some of which opposed the restoration of the patriarchate, others advocated the introduction of a married episcopate , others - for the Russification of worship, the introduction of organ music in churches and other radical modernist innovations, which were very soon brought to life by the renovationists and living churchmen.

For example, at the cathedral the revolutionary priest Grigory Petrov, who was deprived of his holy orders by the Holy Synod at the beginning of the twentieth century for his revolutionary activities, was “rehabilitated”.

As in a multi-party parliament, polemics over trifles did not subside at the Council; voting and re-voting were held if something did not suit one of the factions.

The atmosphere at the Council was so tense that Metropolitan Tikhon, the future Patriarch, was forced to make the remark: “The speakers forget that we are not having a rally, not a friendly meeting, but the Holy Council of the Orthodox Church.”

Instead of conciliar reason, the order of decision-making at the Local Council of 1917–1918. resembled the work of a secular legislative body, the State Duma, with its commissions, departments and subdivisions. And although the right of final decision on all issues remained with the bishops, resolutions were developed in an environment typical of democratic talking rooms: chairman, secretary, reports, debate on the report, theses, voting, protocol. It is quite obvious that no one thought about the conciliar reason and the will of the Holy Spirit in these departments and subdivisions, wanting to express their own opinion and insist on it.

Discussion at the Local Council of 1917–1918. The question of the language of worship, the change of which for many seemed to be just the replacement of one “linguistic shell” with another, entailed a whole train of blasphemous proposals, monstrous for the consciousness of believers, that were voiced at this revolutionary council. Here are a few such proposals.

Candidate of Law P.V. Popovich: “We should not ignore the interests of the intelligentsia, who have forgotten the Church and do not attend divine services due to the incomprehensibility of the Slavic language.”

Priest M.S. Elabuga: “The translation of liturgical books into Russian is necessary due to the absurdity of the Slavic text... The intelligentsia complains more about the incomprehensibility of the Slavic language, because they are accustomed to always being conscious of the matter.”

Archpriest A. Ustinsky (Novgorod) sent theses to Chief Prosecutor A.V. Kartashev “to update everyday life on the religious side of life”:

Thesis 1. “It is necessary without any delay to introduce Russian poetic speech into worship and sermons... Why not sometimes, instead of reading kathisma and six psalms, not sing the ode “God” set to notes or something similar? After all, we have a lot of religious poems, and they all perish without any use. It really should have been, as soon as we, in Rus', had tonic verse, and now the first experiments in tonic versification should be given as a gift to the Lord God, including them in the liturgy”...

Thesis 5. “Give bishops the right to compose new liturgies... Where is the Russian religious inspiration? We need to create something of our own, Russian... to create new rites of the liturgy that will captivate both the soul and the heart.”

Finally, Archpriest S. Shchukin demanded to “open the door to the free creativity of the priest”: “The personal creativity of the priest and, in general, the free creativity of the native Russian word should be allowed into our services. Let not the religious people be afraid.”

The archpriest, apparently, no longer considered himself one of those people, and therefore was no longer afraid of anything. Therefore, having graciously agreed to leave the Liturgy, Vespers and Matins as they were, he called for “to create a new service along with them” and conduct it on the evening of a Sunday or holiday. At these prayer meetings, “allow the personal prayer of the priest and the performance of religious poetic chants in Russian... If for some reason the organization of such meetings is not allowed in the church, allow them to be organized in a school or in some other building.”

Opponents at the Local Council Church Slavonic language no longer hesitated to call its defenders “aesthetes.” The clergy, obsessed with hatred of the “former regime,” that is, the Orthodox monarchy, and the “conservative clergy,” that is, the episcopate and monastics, greeted the reprisal against the “regime” with glee and at the Local Council allowed themselves to go wild. They chose the topic of liturgical language in order to destroy the ancient building of Orthodox worship in the wake of revolutionary madness, to burst into it with their “creativity,” this demonic obsession of civilized humanity, wanting to prove to themselves and those around them their independence from the true Creator.

Culture burst into the church and spoke its own language at the Council: “Our age of enlightenment and culture... the interests of the intelligentsia... modern life... the Russian people are moving with giant strides... under the previous regime, with that conservatism of the clergy... renewal of everyday life of the religious side of life... we will compose new liturgies... open the door to free creativity." “We will compose new liturgies - each bishop has his own! Give every priest the right to compose hymns and prayers! Down with the Slavic aesthetes, let’s set to music the poems of Derzhavin, Pushkin and other poets, countless of them, and fill the churches with them.”

It is unknown how such a modernist Council would have ended if the Bolsheviks, who seized power in the country, had not dispersed it. And this was, without a doubt, God’s good providence: if all the decisions of the Local Council of 1917–1918. were accepted, then now our Church would live according to a new style - the Western Gregorian calendar, and services would be held in Russian. And the council members decided on the main decision of the Local Council - the restoration of the patriarchate and the election of an All-Russian Patriarch - only after long debates, when on October 28, 1917, revolutionary salvos rang out in Moscow under the walls of the Kremlin...

Based on all of the above, the call of Patriarch Kirill, as it were, to fill this gap: “Prayerfully comprehend the results of the conciliar acts, answer the question of why, despite many obstacles, some conciliar decrees were implemented and found their place in the life of the Church, while others, on the contrary, turned out to be unviable and were not assimilated by the church consciousness” (from a message read out on August 28, 2017 in all monasteries and parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church) sounds at least strange.

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

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

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

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

On July 13, he adopted a draft of the main provisions on the position of the Orthodox Church in the state.After consideration at the Local Council, its assumptionwas about to be submitted to the Constituent Assembly. According to thisproject, the Orthodox Church was supposed to occupy the firstamong religious organizations of the country, public lawposition. She had to become completely independentfrom state power: “in matters of its structure, legislation, administration, court, teaching of faith and morals, worship, internal church discipline and external relations with other churches.” Actions of someor church bodies were subject to state supervisionsolely in relation to their compliance with the laws of the countryus. According to the church project, especially revered OrthodoxNew holidays were to be erected by the state on non-public days, the head of the country and the minister of confessionshad to belong to the Orthodox religionnu. Among other things, the Russian Orthodox Church was supposed to receive subsidies from the state treasury annually within the limits of its needs “under the condition of reporting in the sums receivedswing on a common basis."

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

Four days before the opening of the Local Council, on August 11, a decree of the Provisional Government on his rights was published. The bill “On a new order of free self-government of the Russian Church” developed by the Council was to be submitted “to the respect” of the state authorities. Those. theoretically, the Provisional Government could refuse to sanction the conciliar resolution on the form of intra-church government. In this sense, the Local Council was legally unfree.

The pre-conciliar council developed a draft “Charter of the Local Council”. On August 10–11, it was approved by the Holy Synod and adopted as a “guiding rule” - pending the final decision at the council on the issue of its “Charter”. This document, in particular, stated that the Local Council has full ecclesiastical power to organize church life “on the basis of the Word of God, dogmas, canons and tradition of the Church,” and that it establishes the image of the highest administration of the Russian Orthodox Church. The opening of the Local Council was to be performed by the first member of the Holy Synod, and in his absence - by the first present member. Any participation of the emperor (as well as any persons from the royal house) in the activities of the cathedral was not expected. However, in historical practice, church councils were held with the direct participation of Orthodox basileus. Moreover, the participation of emperors was so significant that, for example, Ecumenical Councils, according to some theologians, are “inconceivable without royal leadership.”

The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (the highest governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church, which has full ecclesiastical power) opened in Moscow on August 15, 1917, attracted public attention. “The entirety of the Russian Church – bishops, clergy and laity” – took part in its work. 564 church leaders were elected and appointed to the council: 80 bishops, 129 presbyters, 10 deacons from the white (married) clergy, 26 psalm-readers, 20 monastics (archimandrites, abbots and hieromonks) and 299 laity. It was perceived as the Church Constituent Assembly. To coordinate the activities of the cathedral, resolve “general issues internal regulations and unification of all activities”, a Council Council was established consisting of the chairman of the Local Council (also the head of the Council), six deputies, the secretary of the cathedral and his assistants, as well as three members elected by the council: one bishop, one cleric and one layman.

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

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

The central issue, regarding which in the summer of 1917 the Pre-Conciliar Council did not reach a definite decision, was the question of the form of government of the Russian Orthodox Church. To resolve it, the departments “On Higher Church Administration” (6th) and “On the Legal Status of the Russian Church in the State” (13th) were formed. The latter was led by Novgorod Arseny (Stadnitsky).

So, the main product of this epoch-making Council was the so-called “Definitions”, which were published in four editions in 1918. These are the "Definitions by general provisions on the highest administration of the Orthodox Russian Church" (11/4/1917), "Definitions on the teaching of the Law of God in school" (09/28/1917), "Definitions on church preaching" (12/1/1917), "Definitions on the legal status of the Orthodox Russian Church" ( 2.12.1917), “Definition on the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council” (7.12.1917), “Definition of the powers and responsibilities of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia” (8.12.1917), “Definition on the range of affairs subject to the jurisdiction of the bodies of the highest church government "(12/8/1917), "Decree on the Diocesan Administration" (02/22/03/7/1918), "Decree on the formation of the general church treasury and provision of maintenance for teachers and employees of Theological Institutions on September 1/14, 1918" (19/28. 03.1918) and others.

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

On November 13 (26), the Council began discussing a report on the legal status of the Church in the state. On behalf of the Council, Professor S. N. Bulgakov drew up a Declaration on the relationship between the Church and the state, which preceded the “Definition on the legal status of the Church in the state.” In it, the demand for the complete separation of Church and state is compared with the wish “that the sun should not shine and the fire should not warm. “The Church, by the internal law of its existence, cannot refuse the calling to enlighten, to transform the entire life of humanity, to penetrate it with its rays. In particular, it seeks to fulfill statehood with its spirit, to transform it in its own image.” “And now,” the declaration further says, “when, by the will of Providence, the tsarist autocracy has collapsed in Russia, and new state forms are replacing it, the Orthodox Church has no judgment about these forms from the point of view of their political expediency, but it invariably stands on this understanding authority, according to which all power must be a Christian service... As in the past, the Orthodox Church considers itself called to rule in the hearts of the Russian people and wants this to be expressed in its state self-determination." Measures of external coercion that violate the religious conscience of people of other faiths are recognized in the declaration as incompatible with the dignity of the Church. However, the state, if it does not want to tear itself away from its spiritual and historical roots, must itself protect the primacy of the Orthodox Church in Russia. In accordance with the declaration, the Council adopts provisions by virtue of which “the Church must be in union with the state, but under the condition of its free internal self-determination.” Archbishop Eulogius and Council member A.V. Vasiliev proposed replacing the word “primary” with the stronger word “dominant,” but the Council retained the wording proposed by the department.

Particular attention was paid to the issue of the “obligatory Orthodoxy of the head of the Russian state and the minister of confessions” assumed in the draft. The Council accepted the proposal of A.V. Vasilyev on the obligatory practice of Orthodoxy not only for the Minister of Confessions, but also for the Minister of Education and for the deputies of both ministers. Council member P. A. Rossiev proposed to clarify the wording by introducing the definition of “Orthodox by birth.” But this opinion, quite understandable given the circumstances of the pre-revolutionary period, when Orthodoxy was sometimes accepted not as a result of religious conversion, still did not come into force for dogmatic reasons. According to Orthodox doctrine, the baptism of an adult is as complete and perfect as the baptism of an infant. A heated dispute arose around the question of the compulsory Orthodoxy of the Head of State and the Minister of Confessions, which was assumed in the draft “Definition”. Council member Professor N.D. Kuznetsov made a reasonable remark: “In Russia, complete freedom of conscience has been proclaimed and it has been declared that the position of every citizen in the state... does not depend on belonging to one or another religion or even to religion in general... Count on success is impossible in this matter.” But this warning was not taken into account.

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

In its final form, the Council’s definition read: 1. The Orthodox Russian Church, forming part of the one Ecumenical Church of Christ, occupies in the Russian state a leading public legal position among other confessions, befitting it as the greatest shrine of the vast majority of the population and as a great historical force that created the Russian state ... 2. The Orthodox Church in Russia is independent of state power in the teaching of faith and morals, worship, internal church discipline and relations with other autocephalous Churches. 3. Decrees and laws issued for itself by the Orthodox Church... as well as acts of church administration and court, are recognized by the state as having legal force and significance, since they do not violate state laws. 4. State laws concerning the Orthodox Church are issued only by agreement with the church authorities... 6. The actions of the bodies of the Orthodox Church are subject to supervision by the state authorities only from the point of view of their compliance state laws, in judicial-administrative and judicial procedure. 7. The head of the Russian state, the minister of confessions and the minister of public education and their comrades must be Orthodox. 8. In all cases of public life in which the state turns to religion, the Orthodox Church enjoys advantage. The last point of the definition concerned property relations. Everything that belonged to “the institutions of the Orthodox Church is not subject to confiscation and confiscation, and the institutions themselves cannot be abolished without the consent of the church authorities.” Certain articles of the “Definition” were anachronistic in nature, not corresponding to the constitutional foundations of the new state, new state legal conditions, and could not be implemented. However, this “Definition” contains the indisputable provision that in matters of faith, in its internal life, the Church is independent of state power and is guided by its dogmatic teaching and canons.

The Russian Orthodox Church was supposed to be given public legal status as the “leading” denomination in the country, to ensure the right to self-determination and self-government, to provide the opportunity for legislative government activities(in cases where government decrees affected church interests). The property of the Russian Orthodox Church was recognized as not subject to confiscation and taxation, and the state was expected to receive annual allocations within the limits of church needs. It was supposed to exempt clergy and full-time clergymen from various duties (primarily from military service), raise the Orthodox calendar to the rank of the state calendar, recognize church holidays as non-public (weekend) days, leave to the church the right to maintain metric books, and make teaching the Law of God mandatory for Orthodox students during everyone educational institutions and so on. In general, the concept of church-state relations developed by the Local Council did not take into account the presence in the state of a monarch - an “external bishop”, a “ktitor” of the church.

Moreover, one of the points of the conciliar definition was literally a challenge to the new government. It read: “The Head of the Russian State, the Minister of Confessions and the Minister of Public Education and their comrades (deputies) must be Orthodox.” Despite the fact that the head of the Soviet government formed on October 26 (November 8), 1917 - the Council of People's Commissars V. I. Ulyanov (Lenin) and the People's Commissar of Education A. V. Lunacharsky were atheists, and the Ministry of Confession was not formed, and even in the plans did not envisage its establishment. In general, the conciliar project directly contradicted the program of the Bolshevik party that seized power, which spoke of the need to separate church from state and school from church. Just a few weeks later, the clergy expected not the ones they had planned, but a fundamentally new relationship with the authorities.

On December 7, 1917, the Local Council adopted a definition concerning church governance: “On the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council” (the title of the Synod was changed: the previous one passed to the patriarch). These two bodies, together with the patriarch, were given the right to manage church affairs. All of them were responsible to the periodically convened All-Russian Local Councils, to which they were obliged to submit a report on their activities during the inter-council period. The next day, December 8, the council adopted a definition “On the range of affairs subject to the jurisdiction of the bodies of the highest church government.” According to it, the decisions of the Holy Synod were subject to matters primarily related to the internal life of the Russian Orthodox Church: doctrine, worship, church education, church administration and church discipline. And in particular: “the highest supervision and care for the inviolable preservation of the dogmas of faith and their correct interpretation in the sense of the teachings of the Orthodox Church; ...protection of the text of the liturgical books, monitoring its correction and translation.” Before the revolution, “the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas of the ruling faith, the guardian of orthodoxy and all holy deanery in the Church,” as God’s anointed one, was the emperor. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Church Council, according to the conciliar definition, began to include foreign affairs: church administration, church management, school education, audit and control, as well as legal advisory (previously largely performed by the chief prosecutor's office).

Thus, the king's ecclesiastical powers are in fullleast moved to the clergy. Due to the fact that the houseThe Romanovs did not actually abdicate the throne (which has already been discussed in detail), then it can be argued that this was not a “natural” transfer of the church rights of the tsar to the clergy,and almost a violent seizure carried out undercover for the revolutionary secular authorities. In other wordsyou, at the Local Council, the clergy carried out a legal “seizure” in favor of the highest bodies of the churchnew power of the emperor's prerogatives in the field of church and government administration (jurisdiction), protection of religious doctrine and control over church deanery.

The instructions of the People's Commissariat of Justice on the procedure for implementing the decree “On the separation of the Church and the state” were discussed with particular urgency at the Council. According to this instruction, the clergy was deprived of all rights to manage church property. The only legal body entitled to receive from the state the lease of church buildings and other church property was declared to be groups of lay people - consisting of no less than 20 people - the “twenty”. The Council participants were concerned that the transfer of all rights to the laity would lead to the penetration of atheists into church communities, whose activities would be aimed at corrupting the Church from within. Such fears were dispelled by the speech of Metropolitan Sergius, who had just returned from a trip to his Vladimir diocese. Speaking at the meeting of the Council, he drew everyone's attention to the fact that in the conditions of unfolding persecution, only laymen devoted to the Mother Church would agree to take over the temple from the state as their responsibility. “Members of the “twenties,” said the bishop, “will be the first to take the blow of the godless government.” Metropolitan Sergius called on the bishops, instead of endless debates at the Council, to go to their dioceses and begin to develop local instructions for the application of new laws.

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

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

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

Guarding unity / Russian Orthodox Church 988 – 1988. Issue 2. Essays on history 1917 – 1988. – M., 1988. – P. 43.

Firsov S.L. The Orthodox Church and the state in the last decade of the existence of autocracy in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 506.

The local cathedral of 1917–1918, famous mainly for the fact that it in the Russian Orthodox Church(ROC) the patriarchate was restored, and a lot of historical literature was devoted. However, with regard to issues related in one way or another to the overthrow of the monarchy, the position of the Council continues to remain practically unexplored. The purpose of this article is to partially fill this gap.

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

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

To coordinate the activities of the cathedral, resolve “general issues of internal regulations and unify all activities,” a Cathedral Council was established, which did not cease its activities even during breaks between sessions of the cathedral.

On August 30, 19 departments were formed as part of the Local Council. They were in charge of preliminary consideration and preparation of a wide range of conciliar bills. Each department included bishops, clergy and laity. To consider highly specialized issues, the named structural divisions of the cathedral could form subdepartments. According to the Charter of the Council, the procedure for considering cases at it was as follows. To present their materials to the Council, departments could nominate one or more speakers. Without instructions or permission from the department, no issues discussed could be reported at the council meeting. To adopt a council resolution, a written report had to be received from the relevant department, as well as (at the request of the participants in its meetings) special opinions. The department's conclusion should have been presented in the form of a proposed conciliar resolution. Written minutes were drawn up about department meetings, which recorded the time of the meeting, the names of those present, issues considered, proposals made, resolutions and conclusions.

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

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

Thus, according to the authors of the letters, the people of Russia from the first days of the spring of 1917 were burdened with the sin of perjury. And this sin needed a certain collective act of repentance. The Orthodox asked the church authorities to clear their conscience from perjury.

However, despite the long period of its work, the Council did not take any response to the mentioned letters: no information about this was found in the minutes of its meetings. There is every reason to believe that Metropolitans Tikhon and Vladimir, considering these letters “unsuitable” for publication and “useless” for discussion, put them, as they say, “under the carpet.” This position of the hierarchs becomes all the more understandable if we consider that both bishops in February-March 1917 were members of the Holy Synod, with Metropolitan Vladimir being the leader. And the questions raised in the letters of the monarchists, one way or another, prompted a revision and reassessment of the political line of the Russian Church in relation to the overthrow of the autocracy, asked by members of the Holy Synod in the first days and weeks of the spring of 1917.

Nevertheless, one of the letters, similar to those mentioned, was given the go-ahead at the Local Council. It was written on November 15, 1917 by the peasant of the Tver province M.E. Nikonov and addressed to Archbishop of Tver Seraphim (Chichagov). The letter began with the words: “Your Eminence Vladyka, I ask for your Hierarch’s blessing for transmitting this message to the Most Holy All-Russian Council.” Thus, in fact, it was a message to the Local Council. Vladyka Seraphim, accordingly, submitted it for consideration by the highest body of the Russian Church.

In a letter to M.E. Nikonov, among other things, also contained assessments of the actions of the hierarchy during the period of February 1917. The author said: "[...] We think that the Holy Synod made an irreparable mistake, that the Eminences went towards the revolution. We do not know this reason. Was it for fear of the Jews? Or out of the desire of their hearts, or for some good reason, but all- However, their act produced a great temptation among the believers, and not only among the Orthodox, but even among the Old Believers. Forgive me for touching on this issue - it is not our business to discuss this: this is the matter of the Council, I just raised the opinion of the people among them. people such speeches that the alleged act of the Synod has misled many sensible people, as well as many among the clergy [...] The Orthodox Russian people are confident that the Holy Council is in the interests of the Holy Mother of our Church, the Fatherland and Father the Tsar, impostors and all traitors. , who scoffed at the oath, will be anathematized and cursed with their satanic idea of ​​revolution. And the Holy Council will indicate to its flock who should take the helm of government in the great State [...] The act of the Holy Coronation and anointing of our kings with the Holy Chrism in the Assumption is not a simple comedy. The Council [of the Moscow Kremlin], which received from God the power to govern the people and give answers to the One, but not to the constitution or any parliament." The message ended with the words: “All of the above that I wrote here is not just my personal composition, but the voice of the Orthodox Russian people, a hundred million rural Russia, in whose midst I am.”

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

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

“The revolution caused such phenomena that, while remaining on the church-civil plane, extremely confuse the conscience of believers. Such phenomena, first of all, include the oath of allegiance to the former Emperor Nicholas II. That this issue really worries the conscience of believers and puts pastors in a difficult position, it can be seen from the following facts: in the first half of March, one of the teachers of the zemstvo schools approached the writer with a demand for a categorical answer to the question of whether she was free from the oath given to Emperor Nicholas II. If not, then she asked to be released. so that she is given the opportunity to work in peace with a clear conscience new Russia. In May, the writer of these lines had a public conversation with one of the Old Believers, who called all Orthodox Christians oathbreakers because they, without being released from their oath to Emperor Nicholas II, recognized the Provisional Government. Finally, in the month of September, the author of the report received the following letter from one of the priests: “I dare to ask you, as a delegate of our diocese, whether it is possible for you to raise a question before the members of the Council about the release of Orthodox believers from the oath given to Nicholas II upon his accession to the throne, since the true believers are in doubt regarding this matter."

Indeed, the question of the oath is one of the cardinal issues of church discipline, as a matter of conscience in connection with the practical implementation of civil rights and obligations. The attitude of an Orthodox Christian to politics, the attitude towards the creators of politics, no matter who they are: emperors or presidents?.. And it is absolutely necessary for the Orthodox Christian consciousness to resolve the questions:

1) Is an oath of allegiance to rulers generally acceptable?

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

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

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

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

7) And if we have the sin of perjury, shouldn’t the Council free the conscience of believers?”

Following the report of Fr. Vasily’s letter to M.E. was read out. Nikonova. A discussion arose. During it, it was said that the Local Council really needed to exempt the flock from the oath of allegiance, since in March 1917 the Holy Synod did not issue a corresponding act. However, judgments of a different kind were also expressed: that the solution to the issues raised should be postponed until the socio-political life of the country returns to normal. The question of anointing was considered by some members of the subdepartment to be a “private issue,” that is, not worthy of conciliar attention, while by others it was considered a very complex problem, the solution of which requires great intellectual effort and time of discussion. Skeptics voiced the point of view that the permission of priest V.A. Belyaev and peasant M.E. Nikonov’s questions are beyond the capabilities of the subdepartment, since it requires comprehensive research with canonical, legal and historical sides that these questions relate not to church discipline, but to the field of theology. Accordingly, a proposal was made to abandon their development. Nevertheless, the subdepartment decided to continue the discussion at further meetings. It was necessary to involve scientists from the participants of the Local Council.

The next consideration of the identified issues took place at the fourth meeting of the IV subdivision, held on July 20 (August 2). There were 20 people present - a record number for the IV subsection, including two bishops (for some reason the bishops did not register as participants in the meeting). The report “On the oath of allegiance to the government in general and in particular to the former Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II” was made by Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy S.S. Glagolev. After brief overview concepts about the oath and its meaning from ancient times until the beginning of the 20th century. the speaker summarized his vision of the problem in six points. The last one sounded like this:

“When discussing the issue of violating the oath to the former sovereign Emperor Nicholas II, one must keep in mind that it was not the abdication of Nicholas II that occurred, but his overthrow from the Throne, and not only the overthrow of him, but also the Throne itself (principles: Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality). If the sovereign had retired of his own free will, then there could have been no talk of perjury, but for many it is certain that there was no moment of free will in the act of abdication of Nicholas II.

The fact of violating the oath in a revolutionary way was calmly accepted: 1) out of fear - undoubted conservatives - some part of the clergy and nobility, 2) out of calculation - merchants who dreamed of putting capital in the place of the aristocracy of the clan, 3) people of different professions and classes, who believed to varying degrees in good consequences of the coup. These people (from their point of view), for the sake of the supposed good, committed real evil - they broke their word given with an oath. Their guilt is undoubted; we can only talk about mitigating circumstances, if any. […] [Apostle] Peter also denied, but he bore worthy fruits of repentance. We also need to come to our senses and bear the worthy fruits of repentance."

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

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

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

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

“It’s better to have at least some kind of power than the chaos of anarchy.” The people must fulfill those demands of the rulers that do not contradict their religious beliefs. Any government will demand that the people take an oath to themselves. The Church must decide whether the oath should be restored as it was or not. The oath to the anti-Christian government is illegal and undesirable;

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

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

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

– Any oath is aimed at protecting peace and security. After the restoration of order in state and public life in Russia, the pastors of the Russian Church must fight left-wing radicals who propagate the idea of ​​​​the unnecessaryness of taking any oaths. It is necessary to instill loyalty to the oath among the people;

– The Holy Synod back in March 1917 should have issued an act on removing the Anointing from the former Sovereign. But who dares to raise his hand against the Anointed One of God?

– The Church, having ordered that prayers for the emperor be replaced by commemoration of the Provisional Government, did not say anything about the grace of royal anointing. The people were thus confused. He was waiting for instructions and appropriate explanations from the highest church authorities, but still had not heard anything about it;

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

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

In the speech of the Archbishop of Astrakhan Mitrofan (Krasnopolsky), the point of view, common since the spring of 1917, was voiced that by abdicating the throne, the sovereign thereby freed everyone from the oath of loyalty. At the end of the debate, Bishop Anatoly (Grisyuk) of Chistopol took the floor. He said that the Local Council needed to make its authoritative opinion on the issue of the oath to Emperor Nicholas II, since the conscience of believers should be calmed. And for this, the issue of the oath must be comprehensively studied at the Council.

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

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

During a small debate, Bishop Anatoly of Chistopol said: “The renunciation took place in a situation that did not correspond to the importance of the act. I received letters stating that the renunciation, especially voluntary, should have taken place in the Assumption Cathedral, for example, where the wedding took place to the kingdom. Abdication in favor of a brother rather than a son is a discrepancy with the Basic Laws: it contradicts the law of succession to the throne.” In another of his remarks, the Eminence pointed out that the highest act of March 2 stated that the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II was carried out “in agreement with the State Duma.” However, after some time, “the Emperor was deprived of his freedom by the government that arose at the initiative of the same Duma.” Such “inconsistency” of the Duma members served, in the opinion of Bishop Anatoly, as evidence of the violent nature of the transfer of power.

During the discussion, some members of the subdepartment were inclined to believe that the abdication was illegal. To which Shidlovsky noted: “Before the State Duma, given the situation created at that time, two paths were open: either, remaining on the basis of strict formal legality, to completely distance itself from ongoing events that in no way fell within its legal competence; or, by breaking the law, to try to direct the revolutionary movement along the least destructive path. She chose the second path and, of course, she was right. And why her attempt failed, all this will be revealed by impartial history.”

In response to a proposal from one of the participants in the discussion (V.A. Demidov) to the Local Council to declare that the Orthodox have the right to consider themselves exempt from the oath of allegiance, the chairman of the subdepartment, Archpriest D.V. Rozhdestvensky noted: “When the Law of God was expelled from the school or one of the priests was sent to Butyrka prison, the Council reacted to this in one way or another. Why did the Council not protest when the mockery of the sovereign began; isn’t breaking the oath criminal?” . Bishop Anatoly supported him, pointing out that the highest acts of March 2 and 3, 1917 were far from being legally flawless. In particular, they do not talk about the reasons for the transfer of power. In addition, the bishop made it clear to those present that by the beginning Constituent Assembly Grand Duke (uncrowned emperor? - M.B.) Mikhail Alexandrovich could abdicate in favor of further successors from the House of Romanov. “The team to which the power transferred by Mikhail Alexandrovich passed,” continued Bishop Anatoly about the Provisional Government, “changed in its composition, and meanwhile the oath was given to the Provisional Government. It is very important to find out what we sinned in this case and what we need to repent of ".

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

To what extent does Mr. S.I. Shidlovsky, the rapporteur of the Subdepartment on “royal issues” and a member of the corresponding commission, mastered the topic under discussion, one can conclude from his question asked on August 9 (22) at a meeting of the Subdepartment to priest V.A. Belyaev: “I’m interested in knowing what the coronation (of an emperor – M.B.) is and whether there is a special rank[?].” To which from Professor S.S. Glagolev received the answer: “The coronation is not a prayer service, but a sacred rite of high importance and significance, performed according to a special rite.”

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

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

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

Other questions were also proposed for discussion: can the coronation of a ruler take place under conditions of separation of church and state? and the same - but with the liberation of the church from enslavement by the state? or should the coronation be canceled under these conditions? Is coronation acceptable if the obligatory church oath is abolished?

One of the speakers, speaking about the relationship between the church and the state, puzzled the listeners by posing a new problem: “We can expect that we will have to go through another five or six [state] coups. The current government has decisively severed all ties with the Church; but another one is possible, and even more so.” of the dubious dignity of the authorities who wish to restore the union of the state with the Church. What to do then?

There were arguments both for and against almost all the issues discussed. Overall, the discussion resembled “mind games.” It is clear that the realities of intra-church, as well as socio-political life, were far from the new problems that began to be discussed in the subdepartment.

Very noteworthy are some of the statements made at that time by one of the “masters of thought” of the IV subsection - S.I. Shidlovsky. For example: “Now we live in such conditions that the question of the oath is untimely, and it is better not to raise it. The question of obligations towards Emperor Nicholas II can be considered completely eliminated. Before the coup, the sovereign was the head of the Church: he had an institution which he used to exercise his power over the Church, as well as all other state institutions. Truly church people have always protested against the fact that the Orthodox Church was a body. government controlled. ...The separation of Church and state has been completed, and there is no need to return to the previous state of affairs." In his last remark, questioning the "old regime" view of the oath of allegiance, he summed up the general discussion of the issue as follows: "Now the atmosphere [in the country] is such that does not give the opportunity to concentrate and engage in an abstract examination of this issue (about the oath in general and the oath of loyalty in particular. - M.B.). Therefore, it is better to refrain from a direct categorical answer to it." Immediately after these words, the subdepartment decided: "To continue the discussion at the next meeting."

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

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

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

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

However, questions about perjury and the need to free Orthodox Christians from the oath of allegiance remained important and of concern to the flock as the years passed. This can be concluded from the contents of the “Note” of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas (from September 12, 1943 - Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'). Dated December 20, 1924, it was called: “The Orthodox Russian Church and Soviet Power (towards the convening of the Local Council of the Orthodox Russian Church).” In it, Bishop Sergius shared his thoughts on issues that, in his opinion, needed to be submitted for consideration to the next Local Council. Among other things, he wrote: “Conciliar reasoning […], I think, must certainly touch on that extremely important fact for believers that the vast majority of the current citizens of the USSR who are Orthodox believers were bound by an oath of allegiance to the tsar at that time (until March 1917 - M.B.) to the emperor and his heir. For an unbeliever, of course, there is no question about this, but a believer cannot (and should not) take this so lightly. An oath in the name of God for us is the greatest obligation that we can. No wonder Christ commanded us: “not to swear in every way,” so as not to run the risk of lying to God. True, the last emperor (Michael) (sic! – M.B.), having abdicated the throne in favor of the people, thereby freed his own. subjects from the oath. But this fact remained somehow in the shadows, was not indicated with sufficient clarity and certainty either in conciliar decrees, or in archpastoral messages, or in any other official church speeches of that time. Many believing souls, perhaps. , and now they are painfully perplexed by the question of what to do with the oath. Many, forced by circumstances to serve in the Red Army or in Soviet service in general, may be experiencing a very tragic duality [between] their current civic duty and the previously given oath. There may be many who, out of the sheer need to break the oath, later gave up on faith. Obviously, our Council would not have fulfilled its pastoral duty if it had passed over questions about the oath in silence, leaving the believers to figure it out themselves, who knows.”

However, none of the subsequent local or bishops' councils of the Russian Orthodox Church addressed the issues of the oath, which began to be discussed in the IV subsection of the department "On Church Discipline" of the Local Council of 1917–1918. and repeated in the said “Note” of Metropolitan and future Patriarch Sergius. The clergy, as they say, “put the brakes on” these issues.

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

In the “Code of Laws of the Russian Empire” and in other official documents up to 1936 (in particular, in the materials of the Local Council of 1917–1918 and in the famous “Declaration” of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) dated July 16 (29), 1927 .) the name "Orthodox Russian Church" was mainly used. However, the names “Russian Orthodox”, “All-Russian Orthodox”, “Orthodox Catholic Greek-Russian” and “Russian Orthodox” church were often used. Due to the fact that on September 8, 1943, by a resolution of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, the title of the Patriarch of Moscow was changed (instead of “... and all Russia” it became “... and all Rus'”), the Orthodox Church received its modern name, called “Russian” (ROC). Accordingly, in historiography the use of the abbreviation “ROC” and not “PRC” has been established.

See for example: Kartashev A.V. Revolution and Council 1917–1918 (Sketches for the history of the Russian Church of our days) // Theological Thought. Paris, 1942. Issue. IV. pp. 75–101; Tarasov K.K. Acts of the Holy Council of 1917–1918 as a historical primary source // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1993. No. 1. P. 7–10; Kravetsky A.G. The problem of liturgical language at the Council of 1917–1918. and in subsequent decades // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1994. No. 2. P.68–87; It's him. Holy Cathedral 1917–1918 about the execution of Nicholas II // Scientific notes. Russian Orthodox University ap. John the Theologian. Vol. 1. M., 1995. P. 102–124; Odintsov M.I. All-Russian Local Council 1917–1918: disputes about church reforms, main decisions, relationships with authorities // Church Historical Bulletin. 2001. No. 8. P. 121–138; Tsypin Vladislav, archpriest. The question of diocesan administration at the Local Council of 1917–1918 // Church and Time. 2003. No. 1 (22). pp. 156–167; Solovyov Ilya, deacon. The Cathedral and the Patriarch. Discussion about higher church governance // Church and Time. 2004. No. 1 (26). pp. 168–180; Svetozarsky A.K. Local Council and the October Revolution in Moscow // Ibid. pp. 181–197; Peter (Eremeev), hieromonk. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917–1918. and reform of theological education // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2004. No. 3. P. 68–71; Belyakova E.V. Church court and problems of church life. Discussions in the Russian Orthodox Church at the beginning of the 20th century. Local Council 1917–1918 and the pre-conciliar period. M., b/i. 2004; Kovyrzin K.V. Local Council of 1917–1918 and the search for principles of church-state relations after the February Revolution // National history. M., 2008. No. 4. P. 88–97; Iakinthos (Destivel), priest, monk. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917–1918. and the principle of conciliarity /Trans. from French Hieromonk Alexander (Sinyakov). M., Ed. Krutitsky Patriarchal Metochion. 2008.

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

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

Holy Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church. Acts. M., Ed. Cathedral Council. 1918. Book. 1. Issue. 1. P. 42;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ibid., l. 35.

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

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

Among the other 10 questions planned for discussion of the IV subsection, the following were: “On the reverent performance of divine services”, “On penitential discipline”, “On trampling the images of the Cross”, “On trade in the temple”, “On the behavior of the laity in the temple”, “ About the behavior of singers in the temple," etc. (GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 1).

Ibid., l. 13.

Ibid., l. 33–34.

In the records of the IV subdivision of the church department “On Church Discipline” preserved in the GARF funds, another letter (message) was preserved, similar in content and timing of sending to the letter from the peasant M.E. discussed above. Nikonova. Its authors were listed anonymously: “Patriots and zealots of Orthodoxy of the city of Nikolaev [Kherson province].” In this message addressed to the Local Council, much was said about the need to restore Russian throne Emperor Nicholas II, that the patriarchate “is good and very pleasant, but at the same time it is incongruous with the Christian Spirit.” The authors developed their idea as follows: “For where the Holy Patriarch is, there must be the Most Autocratic Monarch. A large Ship needs a Helmsman. But the Ship must also have a Compass, because the Helmsman cannot steer the Ship without a Compass. Likewise, the Patriarch without a Monarch cannot do anything on his own.” will set [...] Where the legal Monarchy does not reign, lawless anarchy rages. This is where the Patriarchy will not help us."

On the original of the message, at the top of the sheet, a resolution was written by an unidentified person: “To the department on church discipline. 1/XII. 1917” (Ibid., l. 20–22v.). Along the office corridors it ended up in the IV subdepartment of the named structural unit Local cathedral. But judging by the transcripts of the meetings of the IV subsection, the message was neither read out nor mentioned in any way. That is, it actually “went under the carpet”, thereby sharing the fate with a dozen other similar above-mentioned letters from monarchists to the highest body of church power.

Ibid., l. 4–5.

The third meeting in the presence of 6 people took place on March 29 (April 11). It was entirely devoted to discussing the issue “On trade in the temple.” After a short discussion, the subdepartment developed an appropriate conclusion, submitted to the “head” department (Ibid., l. 6–7).

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

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

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

This refers to the words of the Holy Scripture: “Touch not My anointed” and “Who, raising his hand against the Lord’s anointed, will remain unpunished?” .

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

Ibid., l. 42–44, 54–55.

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

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

During the 238 days of its existence, the Provisional Government changed 4 compositions: homogeneous bourgeois (02.03–02.05), 1st coalition (05.05–02.07), 2nd coalition (24.07–26.08) and 3rd coalition (25.09–25.10) ( see for more details: Higher and central state institutions of Russia (1801–1917) / Author: D.I. Raskin, 4 vols., Publ., 1998. Vol. 1. Higher state institutions. .232).

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

Ibid., l. 45–49.

Ibid., l. 52.

Obviously, this means the Holy Synod and the Chief Prosecutor's Office.

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

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

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

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

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

What interested me most in this whole matter was what should be considered forced and what should be considered voluntary: is a renunciation made under the pressure of circumstances tantamount to forced; or those who were forced were to recognize only such renunciation that was made under the influence of direct violence. This kind of casuistic reasoning, in general, always found many lovers in the cathedral, although practical significance they, of course, had nothing.

A characteristic feature of the council, I don’t know whether in general or just this composition, was a great tendency to discuss such purely theoretical issues that have no significance; the current of life in his works was felt very little." ( Shidlovsky S.I. Memories. Berlin, Ed. Otto Kirchner and Co. 1923. Part 2. pp. 180–181).

Acts of the Holy Council ... 2000. T. 11. Protocol 170. P. 218.

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

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

For example, at the council meetings held in last decades March and July (old style) 1918, there were from 237 to 279 present (of which in the episcopal rank - from 34 to 41), as well as from 164 and to 178 (in the bishopric - from 24 to 31) people, respectively. Similar figures for the first ten days of August (Old Art.) 1918: minimum - 169 meeting participants and maximum - 180 (among which bishops - from 28 to 32) (Acts of the Holy Council ... 1999. Vol. 8, 2000. Vol. 10).

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

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

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

The full version of the article is published on the website"ReligioPolis"

Whose actions and legalizations were directly condemned by the Council (or personally by the Patriarch) did not pose direct obstacles to the conduct of the Council’s sessions.

The council, preparations for which had been underway since the early 1900s, opened during a period of dominance of anti-monarchist sentiments in society and the Church. The Council included 564 members, including 227 from the hierarchy and clergy, 299 from the laity. Present were the head of the Provisional Government Alexander Kerensky, the Minister of Internal Affairs Nikolai Avksentyev, representatives of the press and the diplomatic corps.

Preparation of the Council

Convocation of the Council

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

Composition, powers and bodies of the Council

According to the “Regulations on the convocation of the Local Council of the Orthodox All-Russian Church in Moscow on August 15, 1917” adopted by the Pre-Conciliar Council on July 4, 1917, the Council included members by election, by office and by invitation of the Holy Synod. The basis of the Council was formed by diocesan delegations, which consisted of the ruling bishop, two clergy and three laymen. One of the two clerics had to be a priest, and the second could be anything from a psalm-reader to a suffragan bishop. Clergy and laity were elected at a special diocesan meeting, and electors for this meeting were elected at the parish level, at parish meetings. Diocesan delegations made up the bulk of the cathedral members.

The following were called to participate in the sessions of the Holy Council ex officio: members of the Holy Governing Synod and the Pre-Conciliar Council, all diocesan bishops (regular bishops of the Russian Church, vicar bishops - by invitation), two protopresbyters of the Assumption Cathedral and military clergy, vicars of the four laurels, abbots of Solovetsky and Valaam Monasteries, Sarov and Optina Monasteries; also by election: from each diocese two clergy and three laymen, representatives of monastics, co-religionists, theological academies, warriors active army, representatives of the Academy of Sciences, universities, the State Council and the State Duma. Elections from the dioceses, according to the “Rules” developed by the Pre-Conciliar Council, were three-stage: on July 23, 1917, electors were elected in parishes, on July 30, electors at meetings in deanery districts elected members of diocesan electoral assemblies, on August 8, diocesan assemblies elected delegates to the Local Council. A total of 564 members were elected and appointed to the Council: 80 bishops, 129 presbyters, 10 deacons and 26 psalmists from the white clergy, 20 monks (archimandrites, abbots and hieromonks) and 299 laity. Thus, the laity made up the majority of the members of the Council, which was a reflection of the then prevailing aspirations for the restoration of “conciliarity” in the Russian Church. However, the statute of the Holy Council provided for a special role and powers of the episcopate: issues of a dogmatic and canonical nature, upon consideration by the Council, were subject to approval at a meeting of bishops.

The Council approved the oldest hierarch of the Russian Church, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv, as its Honorary Chairman; Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow was elected Chairman of the Council. The Cathedral Council was formed; 22 departments were established that previously prepared reports and draft Definitions submitted to plenary sessions.

Progress of the Council

First session of the Council. Election of the Patriarch

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

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

On October 11, the question of the patriarchate was brought to the plenary sessions of the Council. By the evening of October 25, Moscow already knew about the Bolshevik victory in Petrograd.

On October 28, 1917, the debate was closed. In his final speech, Bishop Mitrofan of Astrakhan said: “The matter of restoring the patriarchate cannot be postponed: Russia is burning, everything is perishing. And is it now possible to argue for a long time that we need a tool for collecting, for unifying Rus'? When there is a war, you need a single leader, without whom the army is scattered." On the same day, it was adopted, and on November 4, the episcopal conference approved the “Definition on the General Provisions on the Higher Administration of the Orthodox Russian Church” (the first provision was adopted as amended by Professor Peter Kudryavtsev):

At about 13:15 on the same October 28, Chairman Metropolitan Tikhon announced that “a statement has been received signed by 79 Members of the Council about the immediate, at the next meeting, election by notes of three candidates for the rank of Patriarch.”

At the meeting on October 30, the question of immediately starting the election of candidates for patriarchs was put to a vote and received 141 votes in favor and 121 against (12 abstained). A procedure for electing the patriarch was developed in two stages: by secret ballot and by lot: each member of the Council submitted a note with one name; a list of candidates was compiled based on the submitted entries; upon announcement of the list, the Council elected three candidates by submitting notes indicating three names from those indicated on the list; the names of the first three to obtain an absolute majority of the votes were relied upon by the Holy See; the election from among the three was decided by drawing lots. Despite objections from a number of members of the Council, a decision was made “this time to choose the patriarch from among the persons of the holy order”; immediately then the proposal of Professor Pavel Prokoshev was adopted, which allowed voting for any person who did not have canonical obstacles to doing so.

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

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

At the meeting on November 2, the Council listened to spontaneous stories from people who, led by Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky) of Tiflis, formed an embassy from the Council to the Moscow Military Revolutionary Committee for negotiations on ending the bloodshed on the streets of Moscow (Plato managed to have a conversation with a person who introduced himself as “Solovyov”) . A proposal was received from thirty members (the first signatory was Archbishop Eulogius (Georgievsky)) “today make a procession of the cross with the whole Council,<…>around the area where the bloodshed is taking place." A number of speakers, including Nikolai Lyubimov, called on the Council not to rush into the election of the Patriarch (scheduled for November 5); but the scheduled date was adopted at the meeting on November 4th.

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

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

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

On December 8, the “Definition on the rights and obligations of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia” was adopted (December 8, 1917), which read:

"1. The Patriarch of the Russian Church is its First Hierarch and bears the title “His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.” 2. The Patriarch a) has concern for the internal and external welfare of the Russian Church, in necessary cases proposes appropriate measures for this to the Holy Synod or the Supreme Church Council and is the representative of the Church before the state authorities; b) convenes Church Councils, in accordance with the regulations on them, and presides over the Councils: c) presides over the Holy Synod, the Supreme Church Council and the joint presence of both institutions;<…>» .

Second session of the Council

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

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

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

“The enemies of the church are seizing power over it and its property by the force of deadly weapons, and you oppose them with the power of faith of your nationwide cry, which will stop the madmen and show them that they do not have the right to call themselves champions of the people's good, builders of a new life at the behest of the people's mind, for they even act directly contrary to the people’s conscience. And if you need to suffer for the cause of Christ, we call you, beloved children of the church, we call you to this suffering along with us in the words of the Holy Apostle: “ Who will separate us from the love of God? Is it tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or trouble, or a sword?“(Rom.). And you, brothers, archpastors and shepherds, without delaying a single hour in your spiritual work, with fiery zeal call your children to defend the now trampled rights of the Orthodox Church, immediately arrange spiritual alliances, call not by necessity, but by good will to join the ranks of spiritual fighters, who will oppose external forces with the power of their holy inspiration, and we firmly hope that the enemies of the church will be put to shame and scattered by the power of the cross of Christ, for the promise of the Divine Crusader Himself is immutable: “I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” .

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

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

On January 25, the Holy Council issued a “Conciliar resolution regarding the decree of the Council of People’s Commissars on the separation of the Church and the state”:

"1. The decree on the separation of Church and state issued by the Council of People's Commissars represents, under the guise of a law on freedom of conscience, a malicious attack on the entire structure of life of the Orthodox Church and an act of open persecution against it.

2. Any participation both in the publication of this legislation hostile to the Church and in attempts to implement it is incompatible with belonging to the Orthodox Church and brings upon the guilty persons punishment up to and including excommunication from the Church (in accordance with the 73rd canon of the saints and the 13th canon of the VII Ecumenical Council) . »

In addition, on January 27, the Council issued the “Appeal of the Holy Council to the Orthodox people regarding the decree of the people’s commissars on freedom of conscience,” which read:

"Orthodox Christians! For centuries, something unheard of has been happening in our Holy Rus'. People who came to power and named themselves people's commissars, themselves alien to the Christian, and some of them, to any faith, issued a decree (law) called “on freedom of conscience,” but in fact establishing complete violence against the conscience of believers.<…>»

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

“The determination of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church on the events caused by the ongoing persecution of the Orthodox Church” dated April 5 (18), 2018 read:

"1. Establish the offering in churches during Divine services of special petitions for those now persecuted for the Orthodox Faith and the Church and for confessors and martyrs who have died.

2. Perform solemn prayers: a) a memorial prayer for the repose of the departed with the saints and b) a prayer of gratitude for the salvation of the survivors.<…>

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

The Holy Council, in addition, considered the question of the status of Edinoverie, which existed in the Russian Church since 1800; The adopted “Definition” of February 22 (March 7), 1918 read:

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

Third session of the Council

The agenda of the third session, held from June 19 (July 2) to September 7 (20), 1918, was intended to develop conciliar Determinations on the activities of the highest bodies of church government, on the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne; about monasteries and monastics; on attracting women to active participation in various fields church ministry; on the protection of church shrines from blasphemous seizure and desecration.

On the same day, addressing those gathered, Patriarch Tikhon announced the cessation of the work of the Council.

Chronology of the 1917 revolution in Russia
Before: State meeting in Moscow, Kornilov speech, see also Kazan disaster	Opening on August 15 (28), 1917 of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Bykhov seat ( September 11 - November 19)	After: Bolshevization of the Soviets See also Directory, All-Russian Democratic Conference, Provisional Council of the Russian Republic

Memory

Based on the decision of the Holy Synod of December 27, 2016 (journal No. 104), the “Organizing Committee for the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the opening of the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church and the restoration of the Patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church” was formed under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Barsanuphius. During meetings on February 21, March 15 and April 5, 2017, the organizing committee determined a plan for anniversary events of 39 points and a separate plan for anniversary events in religious educational institutions of 178 points. Event plans included holding conferences, lectures and exhibitions in Moscow and other cities, a number of scientific and popular publishing projects, as well as coverage of anniversary topics in media mass media. The central celebrations are scheduled for August 28 - the 100th anniversary of the opening of the Council, November 18 - the 100th anniversary of the election of Patriarch Tikhon and December 4 - the day of his Patriarchal enthronement.

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

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

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

Publication of the proceedings of the Council

In 1917-1918, the Council Council published about a hundred Acts of the Council. The publication was incomplete; it did not include many preliminary materials concerning the preparation and work of the meetings of the Council. From 1993 to 2000, through the efforts of the Moscow Novospassky Monastery, the first reprint publications of the acts and resolutions of the Local Council of 1917-1918 were prepared. In 2000, at the Society of Amateurs church history A three-volume “Review of the Acts of the Council” was published. On October 14, 2011, a scientific and editorial council for the scientific and academic publication of the works of the Council was created in the Novospassky Monastery. Currently, eight volumes out of a planned 36 have been published.

Numismatics

On October 25, 2018, the Bank of Russia issued a commemorative silver coin with a face value of 100 rubles “100th anniversary of the All-Russian Church Council of 1917–1918 and the restoration of the Patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church.”

Notes

1. Notes of St. Petersburg religious and philosophical meetings. - St. Petersburg, 1906.
2. Church Gazette. - 1906. - P. 38-39, 470.
3. Verkhovskoy P.V. On the need to change Russian fundamental laws in favor of the legislative independence of the Orthodox Russian Church.
4. Government Gazette. - March 2 (15), 1912. - No. 50. - P. 4.
5. Church Gazette. - 1912. - No. 9. - P. 54.