Тихон и Иларион

Vladyka Hilarion at this time (1923) was the patriarch’s closest assistant, managing the Moscow diocese. Their names are often used collectively as common nouns to designate the Orthodox episcopate: “No riots of the Belavins and Hilarions, yearning for their former power, will change the situation in the church” (Vvedensky) 347. All kinds of schismatic insults and slander are also directed primarily at these two hierarchs: “Tikhon and Hilarion” “fatten up” on the innocence of the Church of Christ; “priests and Levites - Tikhons and Hilarions” brought nothing to the Church of God “except grief and troubles”; “The ‘blessed’ Tikhons and Hilarions did nothing but... incite hostility against the revolution”; “Tikhon and Hilarion produced ‘blessed’ suffocating gases against the revolution” (Antonin Granovsky) 348. In another way, this unity of saints remained in the grateful memory of the Church: “To the all-honorable duo, Saint Tikhon, patriarch and confessor, blessed Hilarion, his companion and martyr, you showed the image of Christ crucified in this world.” “The angel and the archangel are still rejoicing in heaven, seeing two earthly angels, Tikhon and Hilarion, glorified by the Church” (troparia from the 6th song of the canon to Hieromartyr Hilarion) 349. However, the renovationists had serious reasons for hatred. Archbishop Hilarion, with the blessing of the patriarch, consecrated churches returned from the schism with the same rite as those desecrated by heretics, which infuriated the schismatics. In his message dated July 2 (15), 1923, compiled jointly with Bishop Hilarion, Patriarch Tikhon wrote about those who broke away: “...They separated themselves from the unity of the body of the Universal Church and lost the grace of God that abides in the Church of Christ... And all the actions and sacraments performed by bishops and priests who have fallen away from the Church are without grace, and the believers who participate with them in prayer and sacraments, not only do not receive sanctification, but are condemned for participating in sin” 350. What the renovationists “called the Holy Gifts was burned and no grace was recognized for them” 351. Despite such a strict position of Archbishop Hilarion in relation to renovationism, there was nothing in it except concern for the Church, which is confirmed by his active negotiations with the OGPU Commissioner for Religious Affairs E. A. Tuchkov, as well as as part of the Temporary Holy Synod under the Patriarch (together with Archbishop Seraphim (Alexandrov) of Tver and Archbishop Tikhon of the Urals (Obolensky)) - with the Renovationist Synod, headed by Archbishop (in Renovationism - Metropolitan) Evdokim (Meshchersky). At the same time, Bishop Hilarion firmly knows the boundaries of what is permissible in relations with the authorities and schismatics. Having supported the policy of His Holiness aimed at “dissociating the Church from the counter-revolution” 352 and recognizing Soviet power (which made it possible for many lost to return to the Church), Archbishop Hilarion, in negotiations with Tuchkov, was able to achieve significant concessions for the Church, in particular, reducing taxes for parishes and the clergy, and abolishing the requirement for mandatory registration of parishes, the legal existence of which was made dependent on the arbitrariness of local authorities. He managed to convince Tuchkov that it was impossible to insert the words “Soviet” into the formulation of the commemoration of the authorities. As for the opinion that Archbishop Hilarion, in negotiations with the leaders of the Renovationist schism, agreed to discuss the possibility of removing Patriarch Tikhon from church administration, this opinion (quite widespread in our time) is nothing more than a provocation of the OGPU, committed through Archbishop Evdokim (Meshchersky). The newspaper Izvestia dated September 23, 1923 published a letter from the latter to Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky). The letter contained false information about the relationship between His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and his closest assistants-bishops: “The Mixed Commission,” stated the author of the letter, “through the mouths of even his ardent defenders (Bishop Hilarion) handed down to him [the Patriarch. – Note. author] the following resolution: resign all powers, retire to a monastery, await the judgment of the Council of Bishops” 353. The main tricky thing about this outright lie was that it could not be refuted publicly and the answer of the slandered could only be spread in narrow circles. For this reason, Bishop Hilarion was attacked not only from the neck, but also from the gum side. A group of bishops who rallied around Archbishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky), nicknamed by the patriarch the “secret Synod,” accused the Patriarchal Synod of unacceptable compromises. Bishop Gervasy (Malinin), who converted to Renovationism in 1925, recalled: “Archbishop Theodore told me, scolding Hilarion, that he would destroy Patriarch Tikhon and the Church, and all salvation lies in the patriarch. If there is no Patriarch Tikhon, then the authorities will not allow a patriarchate in Russia at all, and without a patriarchate the Church will collapse.”354 Levitin-Krasnov A., Shavrov V. Essays on the history of Russian church unrest. P. 377. Quote by: Regelson L. Tragedy of the Russian Church: 1917–1945. – M.: Krutitskoye Patriarchal Compound, 1996. P. 77–78. Hieromartyr Hilarion: Service and Life. – M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2001. P. 24. Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon... P. 291. Shchelkachev A.V. New and recent history of the Orthodox Church: Continued. P. 92 Krivosheeva N. A. Who is the distributor of “false rumors?” // Scientific notes: Vol. 6: Church history of the 20th century and the Renovationist turmoil. – M.: Indrik, 2000. P. 115. Levitin-Krasnov A., Shavrov V. Essays on the history of Russian church unrest. P. 352.