Поместный Собор Православной Российской Церкви 1917–1918 ГГ.

After May 1, 1917, when, through the efforts of the chief prosecutor of the Synod, V.N. Lvov, Bishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky) was relieved of his post as rector of the MDA 256, Archimandrite Hilarion had to take on the temporary duties of rector of the academy. On September 10, 1917, Professor A.P. Orlov 257 was elected to the position of rector, who in the same year “was ordained a deacon on October 5, a priest on the 8th, and elevated to the rank of archpriest on the 9th” 258. Archimandrite Hilarion, now relieved of his rector's duties, submits a letter of resignation, since the position of inspector has been abolished, and the position of assistant rector, introduced in its place, has become elective 259. On October 17, 1917, by decree of the Holy Synod, he was relieved of his position, and on October 29 of the same year, by “almost unanimous election” of the Academy Council, he became assistant to the rector of the MDA, that is, the same inspector. 260 The main activity of Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) in 1917 was connected with his participation in the Local Council and preparation for it, and the main task of this activity was the election of the patriarch. The issue of electing a patriarch aroused quite active opposition at that time, mainly from the clergy and laity, who later joined the renovationist schism. In June 1917, “at the Moscow Congress of Clergy and Laity, Archimandrite Hilarion’s report on this issue was not allowed” 261. The Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church opened in Moscow on August 15 on the feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God. Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) was elected to the Council from the Moscow Theological Academy along with Professor I.V. Popov and Archpriest D.V. Rozhdestvensky 262. Prior to this, Archimandrite Hilarion was elected deputy delegate (Professor I.V. Popov) from the MDA to the Pre-Conciliar Council, but was unable to take part in its work due to being busy organizing monastic congresses. 263 Archimandrite Hilarion may not be the most active, but he is a constant and active participant in the Council. We find him participating in the organizational work of the Council. He observes the voting 264, participates in the counting of votes 265, reads out the draft appeal of the Patriarch and the Council to the Council of People's Deputies 266. Father Hilarion's speeches evoke a lively response from members of the Council and are distinguished by their laconicism, specificity, and churchly nature of the position they defend. The range of issues in which Archimandrite Hilarion took part was determined by his area of ​​interest. These are topics of church government and church life, related to questions about the unity and boundaries of the Church. In addition, he participates in polemics on issues of theological school and relations with the new government. Archimandrite Hilarion proposes to characterize the Bolshevik socialization of church property as “blasphemous violence” 267, and therefore, in a statement to the Council of People’s Commissars, the Council is obliged to “declare that our churches and shrines cannot be socialized.” At the same time, Father Hilarion realizes that this kind of declaration will not affect the attitude of the Soviet authorities towards the Russian Church and its property: “Such a statement of ours, of course, will not convince the Soviet government, and the socialization of churches and shrines will probably be carried out against our will” 268. As assistant rector of the MDA, Archimandrite Hilarion could not be indifferent to the issues of spiritual education raised at the Council. We see him participating in an exchange of views on the report of the Department on religious educational institutions “On the type and management of religious educational institutions” 269. After the Department's report on monasteries and monastics, Father Hilarion proposes an amendment legitimizing that a learned monk remain in academic service for twenty years. The amendment aroused the sympathy of some members of the Council, in particular, Bishop Anatoly of Chistopol and Professor I.V. Popov, but was rejected 270. The amendment proposed by Archimandrite Hilarion regarding the inadmissibility of electing to the episcopate directly from the laity 271 was also rejected. Fr did not agree. Hilarion and with the introduction into law of the principle of election when replacing abbots of monasteries: “This is not election, but a game of elections” 272. But, probably, the spirit of the times did not allow the Council to accept his arguments 273. The members of the Council had greater success with Archimandrite Hilarion’s arguments about the inadmissibility of creating a parallel co-religious hierarchy within the Russian Church, which would conceal the possibility of a new schism 274. Bishop Seraphim of Chelyabinsk defined Archimandrite Hilarion’s response to the arguments of his co-religionists as “wise” 275. The resolution of the Council adopted a compromise option, according to which the election of a suffragan bishop of the same faith was allowed 276. Archimandrite Hilarion also takes part in the discussion of the issue of autonomy of the Ukrainian Church, defending the principle of correspondence between church and state administrative divisions, which is consistent with the canons 277. The discussion at the Council of the reasons for divorce naturally resulted in a theological debate about the boundaries of the Church. Archimandrite Hilarion’s position on this issue is unchanged: “The division into heterodoxy and heterodoxy is unacceptable and it is impossible to distinguish between the degrees of falling away... We need to talk here about falling away from the Church; external falling away is also combined with internal separation from the Church” 278 . [Popov I.V.] Living life: I. At the Academy // Theological Bulletin. 1917. No. 6/7. P. 120 (1st page) His own. Living Life: III. At the Academy // Theological Bulletin. 1917. No. 8/9. P. 280 (2nd page). His own. Living life: P. At the Academy // Theological Bulletin. 1917. No. 10/11/12. P. 434 (2nd page) His own. Living Life: I. At the Academy // Theological Bulletin. 1917. No. 6/7. P. 121 (1st page). His own. Living life: P. At the Academy // Theological Bulletin. 1917. No. 10/11/12. P. 434 (2nd page). Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917–1918: T. 1: Book. I, no. 3: Acts VI-XVI. Rep. ed. – M.: Novospassky Monastery, 1994. P. 140. Acts of the Holy Council... Vol. 2. Acts XVII-XXX. pp. 7–8. Acts of the Holy Council... T. 1: Book. I, no. I: Preface, documents and materials on the convening and activities of the Pre-Conciliar Council and the Council. P. 9. Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917–1918. Rep. ed. T. 5. – M.: Novospassky Monastery. 1996. P. 367. Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917–1918: T. 1: Book. I, no. 2: Acts I-V. P. 71; Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917–1918. T. 5. P. 23, 367. Acts of the Holy Council... Acts 152–170. – M.: GARF, Novospassky Monastery. 2000. T. 11. pp. 119–120. Acts of the Holy Council... Acts 118–136. T. 9. P. 100. Acts of the Holy Council... Acts 137–151. T. 10. pp. 85–86, 89–90. Acts of the Holy Council... T. 6: Book. VI: Acts LXVI-LXXVII. pp. 96, 109, 114. Acts of the Holy Council... Acts 118–136. T. 9. P. 259. Acts of the Holy Council... T. 6: Book. VII, no. I: Acts LXXVIII-LXXXII. T. 6. pp. 44–46, 94–96. Acts of the Holy Council... Acts 152–170. T. 11. pp. 168–169, 181, 183. Acts of the Holy Council... Acts 102–117. – M.: GARF, Novospassky Monastery, 1999. T. 8. P. 109.