Autocratic monarchy. From principality to autocratic monarchy

First we need to decide what we understand and mean by the term "autocracy". IN early XIX V. MM. Speransky gave this interpretation to this word. “In relation to the state,” he noted, “it is synonymous with the word “sovereign.” That is, any independent state there is an autocratic state. When applied to a sovereign, it also means undivided power with someone.” The same feature of the autocratic monarchy is also pointed out by the largest statesman of Russia B.N. Chicherin. In his famous “Course of State Science”, he noted that autocracy is an unlimited monarchy, and that “the totality of rights belonging to it is absolute power.” “Any restrictions on it,” he noted, “can only be moral, not legal. Being unlimited, the supreme power finds its limit in its own consciousness and in the conscience of citizens.” In his work “Monarchical Statehood,” former revolutionary populist L.A. Tikhomirov, noting the difference between despotism and autocratic monarchy, emphasized that “despotic monarchy or autocracy differs from true Monarchy in that in it the will of the monarch does not have objective guidance. In a true Monarchy, the will of the monarch is subordinated to God, and, moreover, very clearly. It is guided by Divine teaching, a moral ideal, a clear duty...” Strictly speaking, autocracy is a form monarchical power, which is limited only by the religious and ethical norms of Orthodoxy. For conscience, from the point of view of Orthodoxy, is the correlation between human desires and aspirations and divine instructions (“Co-Message”). By the way, the famous publicist of Russian diaspora I.L. Solonevich defined autocracy as a “dictatorship of conscience.” Strictly speaking, we see deep Orthodox origins in the phenomenon of autocracy. There is no trace of the influence on this political institution of traditions coming from the Golden Horde statehood.

As is known, in ancient Rus', due to a number of circumstances, conditions and traditions, monarchy, as a form state power, didn’t work out. Speaking strictly legally, representatives of the Rurik dynasty can hardly even be called early feudal monarchs, as pre-revolutionary and Soviet researchers often did. Talk about princes of the period specific Rus', as about monarchs, there is also no reason. IN medieval Rus' the prince was only the supreme representative of legality, but not its source, and legality itself was a set of social norms, the archetype of which was “old times,” custom. The power of the prince, by its nature, was not sovereign, but functional. The prince was only a ruler, but not a monarch. Remember for what purpose the Slavs called Rurik and his squad “from across the sea” and formed a line with him. Society expected the prince to “protect widows and orphans.” If the prince in his actions deviated from the norms and customs accepted by society, acted “not according to the old times,” then this caused legitimate discontent and gave the people the right not only not to obey, but also to overthrow such a “judicial prince.”

The primary elements of autocratic power, as is known, also arose in the lands North-Eastern Rus'. The first such ruler who tried to put the princes in the position of “subjects” (subjects) was Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky.

Several circumstances and factors favored the formation of the institution of monarchy in the Moscow principality. In the second half of the 15th century. The Moscow prince, with the growth of economic and military-political power, more and more acquired in the eyes of people the significance of not only the supreme ruler, but also became a personified source of power and legitimacy.

In this aspiration and justification of the new nature of power, a significant role belongs to the church, which also sought to raise its authority and influence. Thus, the interests of the two authorities, secular and spiritual, coincided and intertwined here.

When analyzing the development of the Moscow state and the institution of autocracy, one cannot ignore the presence of a number of external factors and circumstances. By the middle of the 15th century. The situation around Rus' changed quite quickly. This was due to the dramatically changed conditions that occurred in the geopolitical space around Rus', which had a serious impact on the processes of gathering lands around Moscow and on the nature of the emerging Moscow statehood.

In the 40s XV century the final collapse of the Golden Horde occurred, and in its place arose Kazan, Astrakhan and Crimean Khanate and other, smaller uluses. New state entities They were not peaceful, which is why the borders of the Moscow state found themselves under severe threat from the east and south. To this should be added the aggravation of relations between Moscow and Lithuania for leadership in uniting the entire Russian space.

In 1453, Byzantium fell under the attack of the Ottoman Turks. This led to a dramatic change in the geopolitical space in Europe. For the Moscow principality, this had serious historical consequences, which left an indelible mark on the development of the Russian Orthodox Church and Moscow statehood. Since 1448, the Russian Orthodox Church became autocephalous, i.e. independent from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 1453, the Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople itself and, thus, in the eyes of the church, Moscow became the successor of the second Rome, and the autocephalous church, in the presence of a sovereign ruler, received more higher value and independence.

The Moscow prince, thanks to the efforts of the church, turned, in the eyes of his subjects, into a mediator between God and people. From now on, his power was declared divine, and he himself became “God’s anointed,” to whom God entrusted to rule his subjects. From that moment on, the Grand Duke of Moscow turned into a monarch and ruled not by “human will, but by God’s command.” Thus, the factors that determined the emergence of autocratic power in Russia were the following:

1) the growing economic and military-political power of the Moscow princes;

2) the interests of the Russian Orthodox Church and Orthodox ideology, which had deep traditions in Russian medieval, traditional society;

3) external circumstances - the transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church into an autocephalous one, the fall of Constantinople, which undoubtedly accelerated this process.

Autocracy, as a power established by God, was accepted by the main part of the population of the Moscow state. In public legal consciousness, she was increasingly personified with order and justice. This is very important to emphasize and note. Power, if it is based only on naked violence, cannot be durable.

The formation of autocratic power was inextricably linked with the emergence of a new state ideology. The core ideologies of the autocracy were:

· the idea of ​​continuity between the Moscow state and ancient Kievan Rus. Hence the desire of Ivan III, Vasily III and Ivan IV to collect all the lands of “fathers and grandfathers” around Moscow;

· the idea of ​​religious continuity between Moscow and Constantinople. The fall of Byzantium contributed to the emergence and formalization of such an important doctrine as “Moscow - III Rome,” which played an important role in the history of our country in the 16th-17th centuries.

Autocracy was the political completion and crowning achievement of the centralized structure of the Russian state, based on the principles of service and tax. Autocracy, expressing the principle of conciliarity, representing a special system of institutions, contributed to the concentration of the resources of the emerging nation for protection from external enemies and was a positive condition for its internal development.

The autocracy acted as the antipode of the “bad infinity” of princely squabbles and unrest of the time, from which all social strata of society were tired. From the very beginning, it demonstrated the advantages of organized power over the veche lawlessness that covered up the dictatorship of the Novgorod ruler, which increasingly dragged Novgorod into the swamp of political chaos and social conflict.

Emperor) had supreme rights in the legislative, administrative and judicial spheres. Despite the appearance in 1905-1906. elements of a constitutional monarchy, S. in Russia existed until February Revolution 1917

Large legal dictionary. - M.: Infra-M. A. Ya. Sukharev, V. E. Krutskikh, A. Ya. Sukharev. 2003 .

Synonyms:

See what “AUTOCERATE” is in other dictionaries:

Autocracy... Spelling dictionary-reference book

Autocracy, absolutism, autocracy; unlimited monarchy, absolute monarchy, tsarist regime, tsarism, power Dictionary of Russian synonyms. autocracy absolutism, unlimited (or absolute) monarchy, autocracy; autocracy... ... Dictionary of synonyms

Autocracy, a monarchical form of government in Russia, under which the tsar (from 1721 emperor) had supreme rights in legislation, government of the country, command of the army and navy, etc. From the middle of the 16th century. in Russia it developed according to class... ...Russian history

Monarchical form of government in Russia. In the 16th and 17th centuries. the tsar ruled together with the boyar duma, in the 18th beginning. 20th centuries absolute monarchy. (see Absolutism, Autocracy) ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Autocracy, autocracy, many. no, cf. (polit.). System public administration with unlimited power of the monarch. “More and more broad masses of the people came to the conviction that the only way out of the intolerable situation was the overthrow of the tsar... ... Dictionary Ushakova

AUTOCONCERENCE, I, cf. In pre-revolutionary Russia: monarchy. Overthrow of the autocracy. | adj. autocratic, oh, oh. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

Wed. autocracy and autocracy of women. or old autocracy, autocratic government, monarchical, sovereign, unlimited, independent of state institutions, councils, or elected councils, zemstvos and officials; or | this very power... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

English autocracy; German Selbstherrschaft. A form of government in which supreme power entirely and indivisibly belongs to one person, the monarch. see ABSOLUTISM, AUTOCRACY. Antinazi. Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2009 ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

Monarchical form of government in Russia. In the 16th and 17th centuries. the tsar ruled together with the boyar duma, in the 18th beginning. 20th centuries absolute monarchy. (Absolutism, Autocracy). Political science: Dictionary reference book. comp. Prof. Science Sanzharevsky I.I.. 2010 ... Political science. Dictionary.

Autocracy- (English autocracy) the name of the monarchical form of government in Russia, when the holder of the supreme state power (tsar, emperor) had supreme rights in legislation (approval of bills), in supreme administration (appointment and ... ... Encyclopedia of Law

Books

• Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, S. V. Mironenko. The monograph, based on new archival material, examines the attempts of the autocracy to reform its fundamental foundations (to begin the emancipation of serfs and limit the autocracy...
• Autocracy and the Constitution. Political everyday life in 1906-1917, Soloviev Kirill Alekseevich. On April 23, 1906, Russia was granted a constitution by the highest decision. The State Duma, which the reformer Mikhail Speransky proposed to establish back in 1809, began to function. Accepted...

Autocracy is a form of government specific to Russia, in which the highest holder of power in the country had all the rights to lead the state. The Tsar, and subsequently the Russian Emperor, had supreme rights in governance, legislation and supreme court.

The autocrat himself could approve bills, appoint and dismiss senior dignitaries from positions. He also exercised command of the army and navy, and was in charge of all the finances of the country. Even the appointment of heads of local authorities was within the competence of the ruler, and in judicial terms only he could approve sentences and grant pardons.

Autocracy in Russia in its development successively passed through two stages. From the 16th to the 17th centuries, it was a monarchy based on the class-representative principle, when the tsar led the country together with the boyar aristocracy. From the 18th to the beginning of the 20th century, an absolute, unlimited monarchy reigned in Russia. The last Russian autocrat, Nicholas II, abdicated the throne in early March 1917, during the February bourgeois revolution.

Features of autocracy

Autocracy in Russia developed from the patrimonial system, and therefore bore the imprint of the country's economic traditions. Its peculiarity was the reluctance of the reigning persons to distinguish between various types property. By the end of the era of autocracy, the sovereign practically alone controlled not only trade, but also all the country’s resources.

One of the foundations of autocracy was the Orthodox Church, which was directly involved in developing the principles of individual rule of the state. It was believed that the Russian tsars were the direct heirs of the Roman emperor, and their dynasty traced its history back to the oldest family in the world. To confirm this position, a corresponding document was created, in the development of which Metropolitan Macarius was directly involved. Over time, the idea of ​​the divine origin of autocratic power became stronger in society.

Some researchers believe that the introduction and strengthening of autocracy in Russia is directly related to the characteristics of the Russian national character. It's about that the people in Rus' were not distinguished by the ability to self-organize, were prone to conflicts and needed a strong central government. However, the understanding of the issue cannot be considered correct. The formation of autocracy in Russia took place in accordance with the characteristic features of the country's economic and social structure. At a certain stage in the development of the state, autocratic power was completely justified.

Constitutional monarchies

Constitutional monarchy too, as you can easily see, grows out of the idea of ​​a social contract. Only here the citizens do not delegate everything to Leviathan, but write on paper: this is still the king, and then not, here you stick the royal nose here, and then not, this is how much money you, the king, have, and then you don’t.

That is, in essence, this is the same rationalism of the New Age, this is the same the idea of ​​a social contract, but this is the next stage, when citizens, having already destroyed the historical dependence of the state on society, destroyed the system in which society gives rise to the state, begin to build a system of barriers protecting the citizen from the state.

From there, the principle of separation of powers, which is quite imaginable for all of you - society began to defend itself from the state! But class society did not defend itself from the state - it commanded the state.

An example of an autocratic monarchy is Christian Rome (and then the Second Rome - Byzantium, by direct succession), where there were Roman (late Roman) state institutions. It must be said that we very often do not understand what it is. Most often in literature, an autocratic monarchy is perceived as absolutist, as absolute. In addition, the very term “autocracy” in Russia has undergone very serious changes. When our first king, John III, called himself an autocrat, it only meant that he became sovereign that he is more not a vassal of the Horde Khan. But already in the next century, in the 16th century, this began to be perceived as a kind of analogue of Byzantine autocracy.

What was the classic example of Christian autocracy - late Roman, starting with Constantine the Great, and Byzantine, starting with Justinian the Great?

Byzantine Emperor (in Greek, actually, Vasileus Romeev) theoretically (at the level of theology and legal thought) was assumed autocrat(autocratic, more precisely, arbitrary) and source of laws. However, how unrestricted was the Roman basileus really, and by what, otherwise, was he limited?

1. Christian king, Basileus of the Romans, was supposed acting in relation to the symphony(“symphony” - “consonance”, in Greek) - relationships Christian Church and states in which the state receives its power from the Church. From there "two swords" concept: a sword symbolizing secular power and a sword symbolizing spiritual power, both of them are in the hands of the Church, for she is supreme authority in the material world and its Head is Christ Himself. The sword of secular power is handed over to the Christian sovereign, and then the Church does not interfere in the affairs of government, but has the right of moral judgment on the slightest decision of state power. This is what a symphony is. And if you are interested in detailed development, I recommend you the work of the major historian Anton Vladimirovich Kartashov "Recreation of Holy Rus'"(M., 1991).

The idea for the symphony was developed gradually. The king's function is Holding back the world's evil, was noted in his Epistle by the Apostle Paul, which the Apostle, naturally, did not understand - this can be seen in the context. He was amazed by this knowledge - by the fact that the Holder of the world's evil is still pagan Roman Emperor. At the theological level, this was developed in detail by John Chrysostom, in his Commentaries on the Epistles of the Apostle Paul.

And finally, the symphony acquired its legal form under the greatest Byzantine ruler of the 6th century, Emperor Justinian the Great: the duty to protect the Universal Church (and not the Church within the empire) is the emperor’s performance of his functions in the symphony (see his Sixth novella).

It is incorrect to understand the symphony (as some modern publicists understand it) in the sense that it is a friendly interaction between the Tsar and the Patriarch. The king can personify the state, but the patriarch - the chairman of the council of bishops - does not personify the Church, for the Church is personified by Christ Himself. And if a conflict situation arose (there were quite a few of them in the millennium Byzantine history), the situation was a losing one for the emperor. Any emperor is stronger than a patriarch, there is no doubt about that. But in a serious way conflict situation the emperor was opposed not by the patriarch, but by several hundred bishops of the empire - a force absolutely irresistible for a Christian ruler, unless at the cost of renouncing Christianity, but then this means renouncing power.

2. The limitation of the emperor's power is the Symbol of Faith read by him at the royal dedication, like an oath. In fact, the Basic Laws Russian Empire They commanded not out of fear, but out of conscience, to obey the emperor. But there was one condition that exempted one from taking the oath: renunciation of the Creed. For example, when any emperor converted to Catholicism, he ceased to be an emperor automatically. Just like the Queen of England, unlike all her subjects, cannot convert to another confession: renunciation of Anglicanism means the loss of the crown (in modern, free times).

3. The Byzantine emperor was dependent on the opinion and will of the synclite- the council of senior dignitaries, like the Russian Tsar, was dependent on the opinion of the Boyar Duma. Of course, the basileus himself appointed the synclitists, and the boyars were appointed by the tsar himself (and before him, the grand duke). However, the mechanisms here are quite rigid. Alexander Petrovich Kazhdan proved (in his work “The Social Composition of the Ruling Class of Byzantium in the 11th-12th Centuries”) that the same surnames make up the highest dignitaries of the empire. It’s the same in Russia - the aristocracy (“rule of the best”) was real. It goes without saying that the Russian Tsar of the 17th century could not have made Prince Odoevsky a boyar who was personally unsympathetic to him (not only incapable, but unsympathetic), and he would have died as a steward. He could not do anything else: he could not make Khryushkin a boyar instead of Odoevsky! Just as Basileus of the Romans could not. And the next emperor was proclaimed by the Synclite.

4. Vasilevs Romeev was, to some extent, dependent on the opinion of the troops, which is an armed people, or an armed part of the people, for the ancient Roman custom of the military initiation of the king was preserved, when the new basileus was placed on a shield placed on crossed spears and raised above the heads of the troops. This is such a military and, at the same time, sacred custom (here is an example of the intersection of different monarchical traditions) that it is captured in the daily liturgy Orthodox Church. This is the text of the Cherubic song: “For the King we will raise everyone.” There this is transferred, of course, to Christ, but the order of the royal proclamation is described.

5. Finally, Vasileus the Romans was and democratically limited, although by no means the will of the peoples of the empire, but by the will of the capital's citizens- Constantinople, citizens organized into “dimas” (corporations). In the medieval language, instead of “demos” they began to say “dimos”, so the corporation is “dima”, and the head of the corporation is “dimarch”. The Dimarchs expressed their opinion to the basileus, and the basileus, in general, listened. Basileus Anastasius considered it best to abolish one of the taxes when all the Dimarchs at the hippodrome unanimously demanded this, and the Dimarchs began to stomp their feet, chanting the demand for the abolition of the tax. Basileus considered it best not to spoil relations with the capital.

Autocratic (or autocratic) monarchy is a complex but very important form. It exists only in a single version - Christian. However, keep in mind: it existed in an unusually developed legal system(after all, even Roman law was codified in Byzantium under Justinian the Great). And at all times, the entire population of the empire (and, consequently, possible heirs to the throne) were brought up in this understanding legal system, that although the autocrat is the source of the law, as long as the law exists, it is, first of all, written for the autocrat himself.

Attempt to transfer to pure form autocracy on Russian soil, with its features (and these features are simple: we, unfortunately, are much less than the Byzantines in the Middle Ages, and now we have a developed sense of justice, but significantly to a greater extent we have a democratic consciousness) gave first tyranny Ivan IV. After the death of the first tyrant in 1584, the estates, restoring balance, “stomped their feet,” and, despite the well-known good character of Tsar Fedor and the legality of his birth, he had to go through the election. This is how subsequent Russian tsars were elected. Therefore, in the 17th century, autocracy in Russia is essentially called estate-representative monarchy with parliament- Zemsky Sobor, which nevertheless preserves idea for a symphony in its essence.

Holy Royal Martyrs

- Sergei Vladimirovich, what do you think are the reasons for the fall of the monarchy in Russia?

The collapse of the monarchy in Russia in 1917 is a multidimensional phenomenon. Many reasons led to this, including spiritual, social, political and economic.

I see spiritual reasons in the impoverishment of faith and piety among the people and, above all, among the elite of society, the widespread dissemination of ritual belief, the extreme derogation of love and obedience to the reigning monarch, the desacralization of the image of God’s Anointed in the minds of people. Just as every sin is born from a sinful thought, so the revolution took place first in human hearts. However, in fairness, it must be admitted that not all monarchs rose to the occasion of their calling.

It should be noted that the revolution of 1917 was led by deep social reasons. Peter I's reforms early XVIII centuries, aimed at demolishing the patriarchal way of life of the Russian people, the abolition of the patriarchate, and the persecution of Old Believers, led to a gigantic surge of anti-monarchist sentiment among the people; part of Russian society even considered Peter the Antichrist. In the future the era palace coups, regicide, favoritism, and the dominance of foreigners in power did not at all contribute to the strengthening of monarchical consciousness.

At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th century, a significant part of the elite Russian society was involved in Freemasonry, which was patronized by Emperor Alexander I for a long time. At that time, constitutionalist ideas became widespread, which resulted in an anti-monarchist conspiracy, which went down in history as the Decembrist uprising.

By the middle of the 19th century, apostasy processes were gaining strength, an educated layer of Russian society was formed - the intelligentsia, which served as a breeding ground for cultivating the ideas of liberalism and Westernism. Among the intelligentsia, populism arose, driven by a thirst for the overthrow of the monarchical system, a terrorist underground was created, which set as its task the physical destruction of the Emperor and carried out the murder of Alexander II, as well as many high-ranking royal dignitaries.

Until the revolution of 1917, Russia was predominantly an agrarian country, the vast majority of whose population were peasants. The land issue was vitally important to them. The reform of 1861 was of a half-hearted nature, in Nekrasov’s figurative expression, “it hit the master with one end, and the peasant with the other,” i.e. gave the peasants freedom, but not land. Subsequently, despite the measures taken by the authorities, the land issue was never satisfactorily resolved.

Economically, Russia by the beginning of 1917, although there were observed high rates growth industrial production, was very weakened. In order to attract foreign investment for an industrial breakthrough at the end of the 19th century, S.Yu. Witte was held financial reform, the meaning of which was to link the issue of money to gold and introduce convertibility of the ruble. This reform caused exponential growth external debt, which by March 1917 reached an astronomical amount - 13 billion gold rubles.

Regarding political reasons, then the leading Western powers did not want the emergence of a powerful competitor in the person of Russia on the world stage and did everything to weaken it from the outside and from the inside. The world behind the scenes financed the Russian revolutionary movement, which organized mass riots, strikes and terror against tsarist officials. The country was drawn into a bloody world war which hastened its collapse.

Thus, by 1917, almost all layers of society were opposed to the autocracy: the elite, and above all the emerging bourgeoisie, wanted power and the opportunity to form a government, the clergy wanted independence in governing the Church, the peasantry wanted land, the people were excited by provocative rumors about the enormous influence of G. E. Rasputin at court and the betrayal of the Empress.

The autocracy fell as a result of an extensive conspiracy, which involved the top of the generals, the backbone of the Duma opposition, which expressed the interests of the big bourgeoisie, and members of the reigning House. Everything was accomplished with the silent support of the people.

- How do you feel about the opinion that in 1917 the bishops and priesthood betrayed the Tsar?

Based on the analysis of the documentary sources of that time available to us today, it is legitimate to conclude that the highest church hierarchs were indirectly involved in the conspiracy against the Emperor. It is reliably known about the negotiations that took place between a number of members of the Holy Synod and the Provisional Committee State Duma even before his overthrow. Is it necessary to explain that any contacts with this self-proclaimed body, which performed the functions of the headquarters of the anti-monarchist conspiracy, were a serious crime?

The content of the agreements reached can be judged from the “Statement” of six members of the Holy Synod, published on March 8, 1917, which stated: “The Provisional Government<…>announced to us that the Orthodox Russian Church will be given complete freedom in Her governance, reserving only the right to stop decisions of the Holy Synod that are in any way inconsistent with the law and undesirable from a political point of view. The Holy Synod fully complied with these promises, issued a calming message to the Orthodox people and carried out other acts necessary, in the opinion of the Government, to calm minds.” By the decision of the Holy Synod, prayers for the Tsar and the Reigning House were excluded from the rites of the services, the text of the oath was changed, and it was blessed to pray for the “Blessed Provisional Government,” which consisted entirely of Masons and liberals. Those. in exchange for freedom to govern, the Holy Synod played a crucial role in legitimizing the conspirators in conditions of uncertainty of the state system.

Here we must keep in mind the conflict of circumstances that existed at that time. The emperor was overthrown and transferred supreme power to his younger brother Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, who expressed his readiness to accept it only if there is the will of the people. He transferred power to the Provisional Government, charging it with the responsibility of preparing the speedy convocation Constituent Assembly, which was supposed to determine the way of government in Russia. Of course, this could not be an autocratic monarchy; no one agreed to this. The question, I think, was: will it be a constitutional monarchy or will it be a republic. Thus, the issue of the monarchy was not finally resolved by the act of non-acceptance of power by Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. However, having replaced the commemoration of tsarist power in all places of worship with a prayerful commemoration of democracy, the Holy Synod actually proclaimed Russia a republic.

How could this happen? When you read historical documents- one is taken aback by the joy with which many bishops and priesthood accepted the overthrow of the Emperor. From this we can conclude that a significant part of the clergy latently formed a liberal anti-monarchist consciousness, which, when favorable conditions showed itself. At that time, euphoria reigned in society that, finally, we had thrown off the shackles of the hated autocracy, now it would come new life, champagne was uncorked all over the country. This euphoria also gripped the priesthood; it was present both in the speeches of the bishops and in the decisions of the Synod.

In my opinion, in many ways this growth and spread of anti-monarchical sentiments among the priesthood was facilitated by the violation of the principle of the symphony of authorities, expressed in the nationalization of the Church, which was turned into the Office of the Orthodox Faith. The institution of the Chief Prosecutor's Office played a huge role in the affairs of church administration; not a single decision of the Synod could come into force without the approval of the Emperor. This was not to the liking of the hierarchs, and when the opportunity presented itself to change the existing order of things, they did not fail to take advantage of it.
Subsequently, none of the highest hierarchs, neither the Synod nor the Local Council, showed any interest in the fate of the deposed and imprisoned Emperor and His family, or petitioned for relief of their fate.

Some zealous monarchists defend the opinion that the convening of the Local Council of 1917-1918, which restored the Patriarchate, took place without the will of the Tsar and therefore this decision was not pleasing to God. How do you feel about this point of view?

This is a very strange point of view, because the Tsar did not exist at that time. The possibility of convening a Local Council to carry out reform of church government has been widely discussed since 1905. The Emperor was not against this idea, but considered it expedient to postpone the Council until more favorable times. It is known that the Sovereign proposed himself as Patriarch, but did not find understanding among the bishops.

In my opinion, the restoration of the Patriarchate was the only possible and absolutely correct decision for the Church at that time. According to canon law, the administration of the Church is entrusted to the First Hierarch, whose name is exalted during divine services within the relevant ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The Church was deprived of the legal right to have its own Primate for more than 200 years, so the election can be considered Local Council in 1917 by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' as an act of restoration of historical justice.

Let's remember the symbolism of our state emblem- a double-headed eagle inherited by Russia from Byzantium. Two equal heads of an eagle, crowned, symbolize the church and royal authorities, which are equal in dignity, but perform different ministries according to the will of God. Above them is a common large crown, a symbol of power from God. Thus, the double-headed eagle visibly expresses the ideal government structure- a symphony of God-given powers - the Priesthood and the Kingdom. Therefore, the restoration of the Patriarchate, as the most important spiritual anchor, in conditions of anarchy was an undoubted blessing.

Many Orthodox Christians are convinced that the current unsatisfactory spiritual and material state of our country is due to the violation of the 1613 conciliar oath of allegiance to the Romanov family, the betrayal of Tsar Nicholas II by the Russian people and the connivance of his murder. What do you think about this?

Of course, the oath, like the oath to the reigning monarch, was broken, but for the sake of objectivity, it should be noted that in history it was violated more than once. It is known that after 1613 there were several regicides, but none of them, by the grace of God, led to such catastrophic consequences like murder Royal Family.

Speaking about the Council Oath of 1613, it is necessary to note one important detail. Since the beginning of the 1990s, an abbreviated apocryphal version of the oath with a false insert containing a curse and excommunication from the Holy Trinity of all those who violated the conciliar vow has become widespread among the monarchy. A well-known historian working on the royal theme, Leonid Evgenievich Bolotin, admitted his guilt in putting this apocrypha into circulation in his speech at the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Conference in Moscow in October 2012. For those wishing to read the original text Cathedral Oath I recommend turning to the “Approved Certificate of Election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the Moscow State, with a foreword by S.A. Belokurov".

- Is it correct, in your opinion, to talk about the violation of the oath by the entire people?

Yes, in my opinion, that is correct. After all, the overwhelming majority of the people rejected the Autocratic Monarchy - power from God - and desired a different form of government, indulging human passions. No one opposed the overthrow of the Emperor, no one stood up for those in prison Royal Family, not a single serious attempt was made to free them, and with the tacit consent of the majority they were given to slaughter.

What do you think about the need for repentance in connection with the royal theme? Do you share the opinion that today in Russia it is necessary to hold the Chin national repentance, similar to what took place in Time of Troubles? How do you feel about modern attempts to hold such a Rite, in particular, meetings of believers in the village of Taininskoye near Moscow?

We certainly need repentance. The question is how to repent and of what. Repentance is a Sacrament that presupposes the personal participation of a person, therefore it is impossible to repent for the sins of our ancestors, including against Tsarist power, you can only pray to the Lord for their mercy and forgiveness. We can only repent for ourselves, for example, that we believed communist propaganda about “Bloody Nicholas”, that we were Octoberists, pioneers, were members of the Komsomol and the party, that we deified regicides and the greatest criminals, such as Lenin.

The Church glorified the Royal Family in the guise of the holy passion-bearers - this is also an act of repentance. Now we can pray to them for the restoration of the Orthodox Kingdom.

The years 2017 and 2018 are approaching - the centuries of the overthrow of Emperor Nicholas II and the ritual murder of the Royal Family. A huge event in spiritual life could be the Rite of repentance for sins against the Tsar's power, following the model of 1607, performed by the Patriarch with a host of bishops and priesthood in the presence of representatives of all dioceses and in the presence of many people, for example, on Poklonnaya Hill. This would be a truly great spiritual act of cleansing from the filth of the theomachism and kingship of the Soviet era.

As for what is happening in Taininsky, from the very beginning an anti-canonical rite was used there, which emphasized repentance for the sins of their ancestors. It contains absolutely crazy things, it is proposed to repent not only for your deceased relatives, but even for the atheists, for the Freemasons. In addition, schismatics have been ruling there for several years now. I completely agree with the late Patriarch Alexy II, who, shortly before his death, assessed what was happening in Taininsky, calling this action anti-church.

How do you feel about the idea of ​​restoring the Autocratic Monarchy in Russia? What conditions, in your opinion, are necessary for this?

I regard it as the only hope for saving Russia. We must pray that the Lord will give us a Tsar, but for this, of course, it is necessary to strengthen faith among the people and revive the monarchical consciousness. How can this happen? Apparently, only through great sorrow. For now, unfortunately, it is difficult to talk about this. Even if we imagine that a Tsar will appear now, who will he rely on and how will he rule? After all, the basis of monarchical rule is people’s recognition of the sacred power of the Emperor, given by God, and voluntary submission to him as God’s Anointed.

I believe that in the end we will come to the restoration of the autocratic monarchy, there are prophecies of the Holy Fathers about this. At one time, the prophecy conveyed from the spirit-bearing elders by Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, confessor of the Royal Family, was very much on my heart, that future Tsar pre-elected by God and he will be a man of fiery faith, a brilliant mind and an iron will, he will come from the Romanov family through the female line. Everything is in God’s hands, and God grant that this prophecy be fulfilled!