Борьба за церковное единство

In conclusion, as before in freedom, the main concern and, unfortunately, sorrow of Bishop Hilarion was his concern for the Church, especially for its unity, so relevant in the twenties of the 20th century, notorious for many schisms. And here the ecclesiological concept of the Hieromartyr Hilarion especially clearly demonstrated its vitality. His firm position in relation to schisms, his unshakable faith, deep knowledge, sincerity and ability to persuade, based on high moral qualities, made him an indisputable authority for many. With his ardent faith, the bishop had a clear mind and sober judgment. Quickly understanding schismatic errors, he defended his position so confidently and convincingly that his confidence was involuntarily transmitted to those around him, having an encouraging effect on both the clergy and the laity. “We must believe that the Church will stand,” he convinced his friends in misfortune. “You cannot live without this faith.” Let at least the tiny, barely glowing lights remain - someday from them everything will go again...” “And the short conversation with Hilarion was encouraging,” recalled one of the prisoners of ELEPHANT 371, Oleg Volkov. – This happens when you communicate with a person who is convinced, intelligent and courageous. And so persistent..." 372 Archbishop Hilarion himself, despite his limited capabilities, did a lot to ensure that the Church survived with as few losses as possible, resolutely rejecting treacherous temptations. The new schismatic community organized by the authorities, headed by Archbishop Gregory (Yatskovsky) of Nizhny Novgorod, lacked authority in the eyes of Church members. To make up for this deficiency, an attempt was made to bring Archbishop Hilarion into the schism. For this purpose, in July 1925, he was transferred to Yaroslavl for conversations with Tuchkov, where he stayed until April 1926, first in a political isolation cell, and then in a general cell in Korovniki. Here Archbishop Hilarion makes attempts to return to “his first and constant love - science” and continue his theological work. “I set myself a huge theme,” he wrote from the Yaroslavl detention center, “which could only be fully developed in ten years. The biggest question, of course, is bookish” 373. Every month he receives a box of books from friends in Moscow, and every month he sends back the literature he has worked through. But, alas, hopes are in vain. He doesn’t have not only ten years, but even ten months left for scientific research. The uncompromising position deprives the confessor of conditions favorable for practicing theology. “Three years for Hilarion?! So little? - after a series of failed conversations, Tuchkov is theatrically surprised at the term received by Archbishop Hilarion, and adds three more 374. To capital services with schismatics, Bishop Hilarion prefers a secret Easter service in an unfinished bakery building in the Popov Island transit camp, which he, Bishop Nektary (Trezvinsky) and priest Pavel Chekhranov not so much sang as whispered in the spring of 1926 375 . There are some references to the fact that in June 1927, the persuasion of Archbishop Hilarion, who had been brought to Moscow, to head the Gregorian VCU was renewed with the promise of a white hood and complete freedom of action 376. The negotiations were conducted by the leader of the split, Archbishop Gregory himself. The bishop's answer was unchanged. However, Tuchkov managed, most likely in February 1926, to convince Archbishop Hilarion to write a letter to Metropolitan Sergius about the conditions of a possible Council 377. Not knowing well the current situation around the Church, the bishop unwittingly expressed thoughts that the schismatic Migrigorians used in their favor. “The Grigorievites, of course, rejoiced a lot about this, and Arch. Hilarion, returning to Solovki, mourned. Often, interrupting some of his thoughts, he told us out loud: “Well, the Grigorievites say that Hilarion is for us, and Hilarion is again in Solovki.” 378 The extent of Bishop Hilarion’s involvement in the writing of the “Solovetsky Epistle” is not clear enough. One can only assume that it was unlikely to be significant, since after lengthy negotiations with Tuchkov, it is doubtful whether His Eminence Hilarion had any hope of trying to understand the position of the Church on the part of the authorities, whose attitude towards which the Bishop at about this time expressed with the words: “This is Satan himself with his own eyes...” 379 . Hegumen Damascene writes the following about this: “When the ruler arrived on the island [from Yaroslavl in the beginning. summer 1926 - Note. author], the text of the declaration has already been approved by the majority of bishops. Archbishop Hilarion was of the same mind with them, he only expressed doubt whether it would be incorrect to lecture the deputy locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergius, but upon reflection he agreed that this message would have the meaning of advice for the metropolitan, which he is free to accept or not” 380. We know about the energetic activity of Hieromartyr Hilarion, aimed at pacifying the unrest that arose in the Russian Church and especially in its episcopate in 1927 regarding the actions of the deputy locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). The main subject of controversy was the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius of July 16/27, 1927 on the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to Soviet power. In the autumn of the same year, the danger of separation from the deputy locum tenens was increased by the actions of Metropolitan Joseph (Petrov), dissatisfied with the transfer from the Leningrad episcopal see to Odessa. Confusion, hesitation and division began to penetrate among the hierarchs imprisoned on Solovki. Already in November 1927, “Archbishop Hilarion managed to gather up to fifteen bishops in the cell of Archimandrite Theophan, where everyone unanimously decided to remain faithful to the Orthodox Church, headed by Metropolitan Sergius. “No split!” – Archbishop Hilarion proclaimed. “No matter what they tell us, we will look at it as a provocation!” 381 How important this initiative of the ruler was later can be seen from the following incident. His contemporary, comrade-in-arms in the fight against the Renovationists and fellow prisoner, Bishop Manuil (Lemeshevsky), after being released from the camp upon his arrival in Moscow on February 10/23, 1928, Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh) was made an offer to join the schism with the promise of immediate elevation to the rank of metropolitan, to which Bishop Manuil gave the following answer: “I am a representative "Solovetsky" episcopate. All of us, unanimously and unanimously, seventeen people under the chairmanship of Archbishop Hilarion, swore an oath not to separate from Metropolitan Sergius, to maintain church unity and not to join any group of dissenters. I was instructed by the "Solovetsky" episcopate to report all this to Metropolitan Sergius" 382. In a letter dated July 8/21, 1928, Bishop Hilarion wrote: “I see absolutely nothing in the actions of Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod that would exceed the measure of leniency or patience... Nonsense is written everywhere, whoever writes on the contrary. What kind of thing did they come up with? He's supposedly an apostate. And as they write, it’s like they’re crazy. They themselves fall into the pit and drag others along with them” 383. About Metropolitan Joseph, he almost prophesied: “It’s like he has some kind of malice... You can’t do anything with him, even if you hit the wall with your forehead, everything will be the same” 384 . As for the letter dated October 22 (November 4), 1927, in which Metropolitan Sergius and the bishops collaborating with him are called “church adulterers” and the words of a certain “blessed” are quoted that Metropolitan Sergius is “worse than a heretic,” its authorship is erroneously attributed to Bishop Hilarion. In style, structure, main ideas and themes, in characteristic terms, expressions and images used, this letter should be recognized as belonging to the pen of the martyr Mikhail Novoselov 385. Archbishop Hilarion made a lot of efforts to admonish Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov), who had separated from Metropolitan Sergius, formerly of Glazov, and then of Izhevsk and Botkin, who temporarily ruled the Vyatka diocese, and in 1928 ended up in Solovki. This task was very difficult. Many hierarchs had not been able to solve it before. Here is what Bishop Hilarion himself said about this: “Who is Glazov, well, this is just one temptation. God forbid you talk to him. It’s as if everything is topsy-turvy for him, and he keeps saying that all his relatives are for him, and doesn’t want to listen to anything... Well, the man has completely gone astray and considers himself alone to be right” 386 . Metropolitan John (Snychev), referring to a document from the archives of Metropolitan Manuel (Lemeshevsky) 387, writes that through the efforts of Archbishop Hilarion, Bishop Victor was reconciled and entered into communication with Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), about which he notified the Orthodox of the Vyatka diocese in writing, calling on them to follow his example, after which a schism in the Vyatka land would soon came to naught 388 . SLON - Solovetsky special purpose camp. Volkov Oleg. Plunge into darkness: from the experience. – M.: [B. i.], 2009. P. 92, 93. Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop. Letter from L.P. Arkhangelskaya dated February 3. 1926 – Archive of A.V. Nikitsky. Polish M. Protopres. New Russian martyrs: First collection of materials. – Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1949. P. 131. Chekhranov Pavel, priest. Two prison Easters. From memoirs // Memoirs of Solovetsky prisoners / editorial board: priest V. Umnyagin (chief editor) and others - Solovki, 2013. T. 1: 1923–1939. pp. 711–715. John (Snychev), Metropolitan. Church schisms of the Russian Church in the 20s and 30s of the XX century... - Samara: [B.I.], 1997. P. 86, 87. Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon... P. 494–495. Polish M. Protopres. New Russian martyrs: First collection of materials. – Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1949. P. 131. Damascene (Orlovsky), abbot. Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereisky, vicar of the Moscow diocese // Damascene (Orlovsky), abbot. Martyrs, confessors and devotees of piety of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century: Lives and materials for them. – Tver: Bulat, 2005. P. 438. John (Snychev), Metropolitan. St. Petersburg and Ladoga. Hieromartyr Hilarion, Archbishop of Verei: Life and Testimonies. – M.: Publishing house. Sretensky Monastery, 1999. P. 20. His own. Metropolitan Manuel (Lemeshevsky): Biographical sketch. – St. Petersburg: [B. i.], 1993. P. 104. His own. Church schisms of the Russian Church in the 20s and 30s of the XX century... P. 272–273. For more information about the authorship of this letter, see: Andrey Gorbachev. On the authorship of one letter attributed to the Hieromartyr Hilarion. URL: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/arhiv/7l868. htm John (Snychev), Metropolitan. Church schisms of the Russian Church in the 20s and 30s of the XX century... P.325–326. Ibid., S. 326. S.A., prot. A new division in the Orthodox Church, the so-called. Josephite or Dimitrianism and autocephalists. – Archive of Metropolitan Manuel (Lemeshevsky), No. 15. Ibid., P. 326. More about this: Gorbachev Andrey. Saints Hilarion (Troitsky) and Victor (Ostrovidov): on the question of their attitude to the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). URL: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/sm/79180.htm