Глава III. Поместный собор Российской Православной Церкви 1917–1918 годов

Moscow. Kremlin. The cathedral is open! On August 15, the day of the feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God, church and public events began, timed to coincide with the opening of the Local Council. From early morning, religious processions began from Moscow churches to the city center. A crowd of thousands gathered on Red Square - a forest of banners, icons, crosses, polyphonic singing, tense anticipation. On the morning of the same day, Archbishop Sergius celebrated the early liturgy at the Chudov Monastery. And then, like those who served him and the pilgrims, he, along with everyone else, rushed to Cathedral Square, to the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. It was impossible to get through to the Assumption Cathedral, but Archpriest Nikolai Lyubimov led Sergius, along with other arriving bishops, into the cathedral through the altar. In the church they took places on a specially constructed dais. Among the eighty bishops who gathered together for the first time after the two-hundred-year “captivity of the Church,” the white hoods of four metropolitans stood out: Vladimir of Kyiv, Plato, Exarch of the Caucasus, and two newly elected ones—Tikhon of Moscow and Veniamin of Petrograd. The latter put on their white hoods (insignia of metropolitan insignia) only the day before, after the Provisional Government, by a special legislative act, renounced in favor of the Synod the inherited royal privilege of bestowing white hoods and miters. Sergius, the newly elected Archbishop of Vladimir and Shuisky, also took his place among the bishops. Among the members of the Provisional Government, Prime Minister A.F. Kerensky, Minister of Internal Affairs N.D. Avksentyev, and Minister of Confessions A.V. Kartashev were present. From the State Duma - its Chairman M.V. Rodzianko. There were many representatives of the diplomatic corps, Russian and foreign press. After the end of the liturgy, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev read out from the pulpit the charter of the Synod on the opening of the All-Russian Church Council. Those present sang the Creed in chorus. A powerful choir of several hundred male voices created a special mood and prayerful upsurge. Then, through the western doors, with chants, in pairs, with the pealing of Ivan the Great and all the Kremlin churches, the clergy slowly walked to the Chudov Monastery to venerate the relics of Metropolitan Alexy. The Kremlin's Cathedral Square was a picturesque sight. The church people surrounded it with a wide ribbon, in two rows. The tiers of the bell tower of Ivan the Great were full of people, whose bells solemnly buzzed over Moscow. The clergy in festive clothes flowed from the church like a golden stream. The shrines of the Assumption Cathedral were carried ahead. The crowd, seeing Kerensky among the hierarchs in the procession, gave him an ovation and burst into thunderous “hurray” for the possible “savior of Russia.” From the Chudov Monastery everyone went to the Nikolaevsky Palace, leaving which they headed to the Spassky Gate and through them entered Red Square. By this time it was already crowded with people who came with their religious processions from all Moscow churches. It was as if continuous living walls stretched from the Spassky Gate to the Nikolsky Gate, and between them, as if along a wide corridor, the procession of the cross of the All-Russian Church Council moved, greeted and accompanied by church chants. Through the St. Nicholas Gate he returned back to the Assumption Cathedral. A little later, a special festive prayer service was held at Lobnoye Mesto on Red Square. The next day, a sea of ​​people gathered in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, where the festive service was to take place. In the middle of the church, from the bishop's pulpit, on which stood a row of stools covered with brocade, two rows of benches with a passage in the middle, covered with red cloth, stretched to the sole. On the solea, near the right choir, there was a pulpit for speakers. A majestic, unforgettable and completely unusual picture was presented by the huge Cathedral of Christ the Savior, when, at the end of the liturgy and prayer service led by Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow, the saints of the Russian land began to emerge from the altar through the Royal Doors in pairs in omophorions and mitres, in purple robes, the melodic bells of which only broke the ensuing silence, and take places in the pews and on the bishop’s pulpit according to seniority. Throughout the church there was a thick and dense crowd of people. When everyone took their places, various people began to ascend to the oratorical pulpit one after another, bringing congratulations to the Council. The first to greet those gathered on behalf of the government was A. V. Kartashev, who pathetically ended his speech with the words: “I cross myself with you with a wide Orthodox cross.” This was followed by greetings to the opening Council from the Synod, the Moscow Metropolitan See, various church institutions, academies, universities, corporations, the army, navy, etc. and so on. While the greetings continued, many glances were drawn to the strange figure that stood on the salt near the Royal Doors - a gentleman in a tight house jacket, in a casual pose and with his hands thrust into his pockets. He kept looking around, unceremoniously, as if at home, looking at the worshipers. It was V.N. Lvov, the former chief prosecutor, not without whose efforts the Local Council opened. The cathedral opened in a difficult political situation. Moreover, public sentiment was far from in favor of the Council. The authoritative newspaper Russkie Vedomosti at that time noted the “decline of faith,” the lack of public interest in the Church Council, the decline in the authority of the Russian Church, which was dominated by “dead ritualism and police repression.” The reason for this, the press claimed, was the fact that “the Orthodox clergy occupied a privileged position, but its moral authority among the population had fallen to an extremely low degree. At the top stood the bishops, who were infinitely far from the laity, on whom Rasputinism had cast its shadow, and at the bottom were the “priests,” towards whom the people treated with obvious hostility” 35 . On August 17, in the building of the Diocesan House (Likhov Lane, 6), members of the Local Council began business meetings. Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow and Kolomna was elected Chairman of the Council, and Archbishops of Novgorod Arseny (Stadnitsky) and Archbishops of Kharkov Anthony (Khrapovitsky) were elected as his deputies; protopresbyters of the Assumption Kremlin Cathedral Nikolai Lyubimov and army and navy Georgy Shavelsky; as well as E. N. Trubetskoy and M. V. Rodzianko. Sergius immediately found himself among those who “winded the spring” of the Cathedral, heading one of the departments of the Cathedral Council, the governing body of the Cathedral. The activities of the Department for the Reform of Higher Church Administration attracted particular attention from councilors, the church and secular press. Here again, as in the months preceding the Council, discussions about the restoration of the patriarchate took place fiercely and furiously. Moreover, the sharpness and thoroughness with which the supporters of the patriarchate defended their positions actually crossed out the draft church-wide documents prepared the day before, aimed at placing a “collegial body” at the head of the church. In the council meetings, when discussing this issue, passions continued to rage, and it was difficult to give preference to supporters or opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate, it was difficult to predict what decision the Council would come to. Although the focus of the Local Council from the moment of its opening was on issues of “church renewal” itself, its activities also had a very definite political character. In the messages and appeals adopted by the Council in August-October to the “Russian people”, “army and navy”, “children of the Orthodox Church” and others, the church declared its support for the Provisional Government, calling on believers “without distinction of position, class and party” to participate in the “new construction of Russian life”. But this “new Russian life” did not develop at all as it was imagined by the civil authorities and the conciliar majority. In the diary of A.I. Denisov, an employee of the Moscow Synodal Office, she appears as follows: “Defeats in the war. Deserters. Refugees. Agrarian unrest, fires, robberies, murders. Rising prices, scarce goods, monetary crisis, complete internal collapse. And at the same time, hysterical cries are coming from Petrograd: “To the victorious end!”... Kerensky appears here and there. In one place he screams, in another he is silent. Stuffy atmosphere of worthless fussy disorder. The figure of Lenin emerges. One can feel the approach of some decisive turn of events. This whole nightmare must somehow disperse, dissipate, collapse, like the scaffolding of a house under construction... October is coming. The nightmare took on a protracted form. The collapse has become extremely intense. Russia is bursting at the seams. Autonomy of Poland. Independence of Ukraine. New short-term republics in Siberia, the Volga region, and the Black Sea. Germans in Russia. Desperate struggle of parties. The Provisional Government has been completely compromised: its authority is no longer recognized by anyone” 36. In the fall of 1917, the church actively became involved in the political life of the country, conducting intense polemics with socialist parties, calling on believers to vote in the elections to the Constituent Assembly for “Orthodox-minded” and “church-minded” citizens. The official publication of the Council, “The All-Russian Church and Public Bulletin,” on its pages, for example, characterized the Bolsheviks, who were increasingly gaining strength: “What is Bolshevism? This is a mixture of internationalist poison with old Russian fusel. This terrible drink is being fed to the Russian people by several incorrigible fanatics, supported by a bunch of German agents. And it’s high time to put this poisonous drink in a jar according to all the rules of pharmaceutical art, put a death’s head on it and the inscription “poison” 37. But the church did not have any tangible success. It is not without reason that the pages of the secular and church press noted that voters cast their votes, focusing not so much on the religion of the candidates, but on their political program. And here the leadership was clearly seized by representatives of socialist-oriented parties, which was later confirmed by the final results of the elections to the Constituent Assembly. And at meetings of the Council, words were repeatedly heard about the increasing “distance” of peasants and workers from religion and the church. The emissaries of the Council, who carried religious and church literature, appeals and addresses of the Council to the warring troops, spoke with particular regret about the cooling of religious and patriotic feelings among the soldiers. ...The day arrived on October 25, 1917. At the morning plenary session of the Council, a heated debate continued on the issue of restoring the patriarchate. Both those who were “for” and those who were “against” spoke. Among the latter was the professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy P. P. Kudryavtsev, who spoke about the “dangers” awaiting the church and the country in the event of the restoration of the patriarchate. Unfortunately, his words were not heeded, while some of them turned out to be prophetic. In particular, addressing the “patriarchists,” he said: “You are introducing the patriarchate at a time when the struggle between the Church and the state is ready to begin. In the person of the patriarch you want to have a leader in this struggle. But if the future patriarch accepts your program, he will have no choice but to become the leader of a certain political party, something like a Catholic center in Germany. In other words: the establishment of the patriarchate may lead to the growth of that phenomenon called clericalism. I don’t know about you, but we consider this phenomenon as harmful for the Church as for the state, and therefore we are afraid to introduce an institution fraught with such consequences. But that's not all. You are establishing the patriarchate at a moment in our history when new forms of our state life have not yet been determined. In any case, our centrifugal currents are now immeasurably stronger than centripetal ones, and the possibility of transforming our state into a federal republic or, at least, into a republic consisting of a number of autonomous regions is not excluded. You think that the patriarchate will serve to unify Russia not only in church, but also politically, but we think quite the opposite: we think that the patriarchate will only strengthen the action of centrifugal forces” 38. At the end of the plenary session, members of the Council who arrived from Petrograd reported on the storming of the Winter and the overthrow of the Provisional Government, on the transfer of political power into the hands of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets - the only remaining legitimate government body in the country at that time; about his first decrees on peace and land, on the formation of the first provisional Soviet government. A break was declared in the work of the Council. Armed uprising in Moscow By the evening of October 25, all of Moscow already knew about the events in Petrograd, about the victory of the Bolsheviks. A wave of rallies, demonstrations, and meetings swept through factories, educational institutions, and military units. Crowds of people took to the streets and flocked to the city center. Spontaneous rallies arose here and there. Newspapers that had arrived from Petrograd, as well as Moscow Social Democratic publications with reports about the revolution, were passed from hand to hand. Cars appeared in city squares, from which leaflets with slogans were scattered: “Long live the power of the revolutionary proletariat!”, “All power to the Soviets!”, “Long live the proletarian-peasant republic!” Two centers of power were formed in the city. On the one hand, there is the Committee of Public Safety under the City Duma, headed by the Socialist-Revolutionary V.V. Rudnev and the commander of the Moscow Military District, Colonel K.I. Ryabtsev. Officers, warrant officers and cadets who remained loyal to the Provisional Government arrived at the building of the City Duma, where this body met. On the other side are the Council of Workers' Deputies and the Military Revolutionary Committee, located in the former house of the Governor General on Skobelevskaya Square. Detachments of the Red Guard and volunteers moved here from the working outskirts, occupying the post office, telegraph office, and telephone exchange along the way. On the night of October 26, troops loyal to Ryabtsev went on the offensive. Moving towards the Kremlin, in the area of ​​​​Gostiny Dvor, they were the first to open fire on detachments of forces opposing them, who suffered serious losses. In fact, it was these military actions that unleashed the subsequent violent clashes in Moscow. Then the cadets blocked the Kremlin, where a detachment of Red Guards and soldiers of the 56th Infantry Regiment were taken hostage, and occupied the Manege and the streets and squares adjacent to the city center. Moscow was declared under martial law. The Military Revolutionary Committee was presented with an ultimatum to surrender their weapons and stop opposing government forces. But since he was rejected, the siege of the Kremlin began. Rifle and machine gun shots were heard, and blood was shed again. Colonel Ryabtsev's troops managed to penetrate the Kremlin, where they brutally dealt with the soldiers and Red Guards, shooting unarmed prisoners and dumping the corpses in a common pit. Information about this leaked beyond the walls of the Kremlin, causing anger and bitterness among the Bolsheviks and their sympathizers. The diocesan house, where the meetings of the Council were held, and the building of the theological seminary, where the members of the Council lived, found themselves in the zone of direct armed conflict. In addition, many hierarchs and priests lived in the Kremlin at various church institutions, and now they were actually blocked there. Under such conditions, the Council members could not gather for plenary sessions, and the activities of the Council were paralyzed. Only on the morning of October 28, although not in full force, were the cathedral members able to gather again. The main issue put up for discussion was the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Church. During the difficult discussion, supporters of the patriarchate managed to convince those present to stop the debate and move on to discussing practical measures to restore the patriarchate. On October 30, during the plenary session, only one issue was supposed to be discussed: the procedure for electing the patriarch. Voices were heard from the seats: – Follow the regulations, give the floor to both those who are “for” and those who are “against” the proposal. Professor of the Kiev Theological Academy F. Mishchenko ascended the department: “I find that it is inappropriate to begin electing a patriarch today.” This is not only a major church, but also a political event... The election of a patriarch is the surest step towards the separation of church and state. We must not act headlong, otherwise a church schism will occur. I urge the rulers not to take a rash step. Member of the Moscow District Court P.I. Astrov spoke on behalf of those who signed the statement to terminate the debate and immediately elect the patriarch. He literally shouted right off the bat: – You can’t wait, the formal conditions for the correctness of the elections are obvious! And if so, then we are obliged to take this step and have no right to refuse it. Emotional excitement seemed to begin to grip the council members again, which threatened a new wave of discussions and a delay in the decision. Sensing this, the presiding Metropolitan Tikhon decided to take the initiative into his own hands: – I inform the members of the Council that there is a quorum for voting. Let me put one question to the vote: should we begin the election of the patriarch today? I ask those who do not want elections for patriarchal candidates to take place today to stand and stand until the count is made. The counting men approached the dais where the presidium of the Cathedral and the seats for the bishops were located. No one stood up in the presidium, only a few people from the episcopate rose up, while in the hall priests, laity, representatives of the professorship of theological schools, and monastics began to rise. “Now I ask,” the voice of Metropolitan Tikhon sounded, “to stand up those who wish to immediately elect candidates for patriarchs.” Archbishop Sergius quickly rose from his chair. He saw that Metropolitan Tikhon remained standing, that other members of the presidium were also rising, and behind them, with rare exceptions, the bishops present rose from their places unanimously. He saw that in the amphitheater of the hall, one after another, the members of the Council stood up. “A lot,” he thought, “but will they be enough to cover the previous vote?” Sergius began from his seat to count at least the approximate number of people standing, but did not have time, as the chairman announced: - I ask those who abstained to stand up. A few minutes later, the secretary of the Council announced the results: 141 people spoke in favor of immediate election; There were 112 against and 12 abstained. It was a victory. The Council decided to proceed with the immediate election of a patriarch. While at the meetings of the Council there were heated debates on the restoration of the patriarchate, the question of the procedure for electing the patriarch was debated and candidates for this post were outlined, bloody battles continued in the city. At night one could see the glow of fires in various areas of the city. The Bolsheviks stormed the Kremlin and other buildings occupied by cadets and voluntary defenders of the Provisional Government. Gradually, the preponderance of forces developed in their favor; the population of Moscow remained deaf to the calls of supporters of the fallen Provisional Government. Excitement reigned among the cathedral members. From the evening of October 31 and throughout the day of November 1, not being able to gather in the Diocesan House, they discussed the current situation at private meetings in the dormitory. Many of the speakers demanded to intervene in the internecine struggle and stop the bloodshed. Archbishop Sergius was constantly at the Valaam courtyard these days. Towards the evening of November 1, a messenger from the Cathedral made its way into the courtyard. The note he brought contained a request to Sergius and Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who lived nearby, to come to an emergency meeting at the seminary. After consulting, the bishops followed the guide into the city - dark, cold, deserted. By ten o'clock in the evening they managed to reach their goal safely. In the assembly hall, as one could judge from the situation, passions had been boiling for several hours. Archbishop of Volyn Evlogy (Georgievsky) presided. Sergius and Anthony arrived in time for the final stage of the dispute. The question was put to a vote: should the entire Council go to the warring parties or send a delegation from the Council? The bishops spoke in favor of the delegation. Its composition was immediately determined. ...Early in the morning, the deputation formed the day before to the Military Revolutionary Committee was literally seen off with tears in their eyes, not hoping to see these people again. All together the cathedral members crossed the Garden Ring and reached the Diocesan House. It was dangerous to go further in a crowd, and the deputation set off alone. Two peasants walked ahead with flags in their hands and skufeikas on their heads. Behind them are three priests and two bishops with the Gospels and an icon, with Red Cross armbands on their sleeves. Behind him walked Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky) - wearing a white hood on his head and an omophorion on his shoulders. The streets were deserted. A few rare passers-by moved from house to house, clinging to buildings; the shooting did not subside, and it was dangerous to walk. Seeing the unusual procession, they zealously crossed themselves. Here is the house of the Governor General, where they were immediately surrounded by embittered soldiers and people in civilian clothes. Shouts rang out: - Hey, devils with a cross, what do you want? Get lost to the cadets! Go to the Kremlin, to your whites! With shouts of “Why stand on ceremony with them!” - The crowd, becoming increasingly incensed, pressed the deputation against the wall of the house. The situation was threatening. The situation was saved by the appearance of a Red Guard with a rifle, who shouted: – Who is the Metropolitan from the Council?! Come on in! Metropolitan Platon walked through the line of soldiers, who, seeing the Red Army soldier accompanying him, silently parted. “I ask,” Plato addressed the envoy of the Military Revolutionary Committee, “to give places in the house for the rest of my companions.” The Council sent us all, and I am responsible for their lives. “Go, go, we’ll take care of it,” answered the Red Guard. The Metropolitan followed the guide, squeezing his way among all kinds of armed people. Many of them had pale faces and bloodshot eyes from sleepless nights. After walking through several rooms, the Red Guard stopped and gestured that he needed to wait. And he himself disappeared behind the doors, near which there were guards. A few minutes later, one of the members of the Military Revolutionary Committee, V. I. Solovyov, came out to see Metropolitan Platon. The conversation with him was short. “Hello,” he began, “the Military Revolutionary Committee instructed me to talk with you.” Anything? – I came with greetings... with God, with Christ. Christ is between us... I want to talk about love,” the Metropolitan began, worried. Taking a breath, he continued: “At the present time, when blood is shed here, when a groan sweeps across our land, when the country is filled with horror, the Holy Council cannot remain silent, and it sent me to you in the name of brotherly love, in the name of the Moscow shrines, on which bombs are now flying.” In the name of innocent people, women and children, I urge you to brotherly love, to stop fratricide. Soloviev listened coldly, sitting down on the nearest chair and inviting the Metropolitan to sit. After a pause, he said: – The Committee of Public Safety is to blame for the bloodshed. He does not want to admit his defeat and submit to the only legitimate power - the power of the Soviets, the power of the people. Go to them and talk to them. As soon as the cadets lay down their arms, we will stop shelling. “I ask you, I ask you,” the Metropolitan said excitedly, slowly dropping to his knees, “cease the fire, stop the bloodshed... There is no need for deaths... There is horror in the city... When will all this end? Solovyov picked up the Metropolitan and sat him down on a chair. “Calm down,” he said. – We offered the cadets to surrender, we are waiting for an answer... “But they,” interrupted the Metropolitan, “can they not give up?” May they be afraid of reprisals? What then? “There will be no reprisals from our side.” And this is what the cadets do: for days they captured soldiers in the Kremlin, took them to the monument to Alexander II, dug a hole, shot them and threw them there. Our Red Guards and soldiers are embittered. But we promise: if the cadets surrender, we will not touch them. – What about the Kremlin? They say he was methodically shot from guns. Shrines were destroyed, desecrated, looted. – No special attacks were aimed at the Assumption Cathedral. Only the Chudov Monastery was damaged. – Can we go to the Kremlin? “It would be possible, but on the way there you would be in danger of being shot.” - So... should we go back? “Yes, go home,” came the answer, and the conversation was over. Upon returning from the Military Revolutionary Committee, the delegation arrived at the Council, where a plenary session was held. The story of what they saw and heard only confirmed the council’s idea that they must hasten to restore the patriarchate. Over the next few days, the members of the Council managed to work out the procedure for electing the patriarch and, through secret voting in three rounds, determine three candidates for the patriarchal throne. Sergius's name was included in the notes of the council, but he did not receive any significant number of votes in any of the rounds and dropped out of the competition long before the final. The winners of the preliminary voting were Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop Arseny (Stadnitsky) and Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin). On November 4, 1917, when the Bolsheviks finally won in Moscow and occupied the Kremlin, the Council adopted a Decree on the restoration of the patriarchate. The next day, Sunday, a solemn service was scheduled and the selection of the patriarch by lot from three designated candidates was scheduled. By the way, in this case, the councilors used the method and ritual of electing the patriarch proposed by Bishop Sergius back in 1905, when he wrote: “After identifying three candidates... and approving them by the Council, three names are written - each on a separate piece of paper, the leaves are placed in a bowl on the patriarchal throne. The elder, respected by everyone, takes out one note from the bowl with one name. The name of the chosen one is loudly proclaimed before those gathered.” Since access to the Kremlin was closed and it was impossible to hold elections in the Assumption Cathedral, where Russian patriarchs were traditionally elected, it was decided to do this in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. On November 5, Sunday, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the cathedral and the believing people, who, although with apprehension and fear, came to the celebration, were present at the act of electing the patriarch. On the table in front of the highly revered shrine of Russia - the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God, brought the day before from the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, they placed a sealed reliquary, in which there were notes with the names of candidates for patriarch. With the blessing of Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv, who led the service, Elder Alexy of Zosimova Hermitage, making the sign of the cross three times, takes out a note and hands it to Vladimir. He opens the lot, reads it, and then loudly says: “Tikhon, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna!” The elevation (enthronement) of Metropolitan Tikhon to the rank of Patriarch of All Russia was scheduled for November 21, the day of the Feast of the Entry of the Virgin Mary into the Church, but already in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, for which permission was given by the new civil authorities. At the request of the Council, for the enthronement of Patriarch Tikhon, the authorities issued the mantle and cross of Patriarch Nikon and the cassock of Patriarch Hermogenes from the storerooms of the Patriarchal sacristy. On the appointed day, which turned out to be cold, wet and windy, all those invited to the celebration drove up and approached the Kutafya Tower of the Kremlin. Here in the guardhouse there were lists that were used only to let people into the Kremlin. Archbishop Sergius, together with Archbishop Anthony Khrapovitsky, drove up to the tower in the same carriage. It turned out that it was impossible to go further and it was necessary to go on foot beyond the Kremlin walls to the Assumption Cathedral. On the bridge connecting the Kutafya Tower with the Trinity Gate, noise and screams were heard, some groups of people appeared black, and here and there bonfires were burning. It turned out that the bridge was completely filled with horse and foot soldiers, rude and unceremonious. Up the hill, to the Trinity Gate, the archbishops, along with all the other participants in the enthronement celebration, had to walk along a slippery road, falling and stumbling through this formation, often receiving pokes from the guards. At the gate of the Trinity Gate they checked the admission tickets again and finally let us into the Kremlin. Inside, the Kremlin resembled a fortress taken in battle: everywhere there were traces of destruction from recent battles, piles of stones, rubble, garbage, scraps of papers... The closer to Cathedral Square, the more destruction there was. There was a large hole in the dome of the middle chapter of the Assumption Cathedral, the porch of the Annunciation Cathedral was broken, and the Archangel Cathedral was damaged by shells and bullets. The Cathedral of the Twelve Apostles, which suffered more than others, gave the impression of ruins that were held together only by some miracle. Ivan the Great was also damaged by the shell... By nine o'clock in the morning, members of the Council, led by bishops, had gathered in the Peace Chamber; members of the Synod gathered in the Church of the Twelve Apostles, where the patriarch was also expected. It's cold in the church. The western wall has been pierced by a shell, and the wind is blowing freely through the church. On the opposite wall of the church is the Crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ with his hands knocked off by a shell. People enter the church, pray reverently, then approach the crucifix and look at it for a long time. Deep sorrow engulfs the soul at the sight of a desecrated shrine. Nine o'clock. The anticipation is growing. Now the patriarch should appear. Suddenly there are exclamations: “He’s coming, he’s coming!..” Awe covers those present, everyone turns their gaze to the entrance, where the newly christened patriarch appears. And a feeling of deepest reverence covers everyone. Having meekly thanked for the greeting and congratulations that Metropolitan Platon of the Rozhdestvensky brought him on behalf of the Synod, the Patriarch goes to the Peace Chamber to perform a short prayer service, and from there, with everyone who met him, goes to the Assumption Cathedral. The procession was solemn. A choir of synodal singers walked ahead, followed by lay members of the Council, followed by priests in vestments and bishops in robes, and the Patriarch brought up the rear of the entire procession. He was wearing a blue robe, a white metropolitan hood with a diamond cross on his head, and a bishop’s staff in his hands. Humbly, with his eyes downcast, he walked to the Assumption Cathedral, where he was to take into his hands the holy staff of Metropolitan Peter, and with it the whole burden of patriarchal service. The Liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral was served by the four oldest bishops. Sergius, like the rest of the hierarchs, stood on the pulpit of the Assumption Cathedral. They dressed the patriarch in the middle of the church. On top of the cassock they put on a paraman - a shoulder pad in the shape of a cross. While singing “Holy God,” the patriarch was led to the high place where the patriarchal throne stood. The bishops seat the patriarch with the exclamation “Axios!” (“Worthy!” – Greek). The Patriarch stands up, is seated again and again they shout “Axios!” And so three times. At the end of the liturgy and the unmasking of the patriarch, they put on him a green patriarchal robe, embroidered with pearls, placed on his head the white patriarchal doll of Patriarch Nikon, decorated with a cross made of precious stones, and put a cross and two panagias on top as a distinction of the patriarchal rank. When His Holiness left the altar on the solea, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev approached him and handed him a simple black wooden staff, without any decoration, of St. Peter, Metropolitan of Moscow. In his speech addressed to the newly elected patriarch, Metropolitan Vladimir spoke about the storm that is raging in Rus', about the waves that want to swallow the ship of the church. The Patriarch, in his response, humbly confessed the feelings that worried him, spoke about a lack of wisdom, lack of confidence in his own abilities, and about trust in the help of the Mother of God. While the choir sang “Come up to Mount Zion and preach the good news,” the patriarch ascended to the ancient patriarchal seat under the canopy with a cross at the top near the right pillar supporting the main dome of the church. Around a place that no one has climbed for over two hundred years, people stand with lit candles, as if on Easter. Sergius Stragorodsky, who was standing in close proximity at that moment, could see Tikhon’s face: a large nose, gray eyes, an ashen beard... He thought: “An ordinary peasant face. But what seriousness and calmness emanates from him and the entire appearance of the patriarch, irresistibly evoking the image of Nicholas the Pleasant, the village Russian saint.” There was no complete joy on the faces of those who were lucky enough to be in the church. And it couldn’t have happened, because everyone was shackled by the consciousness that there, behind the walls, a cruel reality reigned, depressing Orthodox hearts. At the end of the service, according to ancient tradition, the newly installed patriarch had to go around the Kremlin, sprinkling holy water on its walls, pilgrims and people simply meeting along the way. At about two o'clock in the afternoon a procession left the Trinity Gate of the Kremlin. Ahead, in the first cab, rode the patriarchal subdeacon with the patriarchal cross. Behind him, on the second cab, was Patriarch Tikhon, flanked by two archimandrites. Countless crowds fell to their knees at the approach of the patriarch, who was following around the Kremlin. The soldiers took off their hats. The Patriarch blessed the people. But... no greetings from the crowd - reverent silence. The Kremlin sentries looked askance at the procession, but did not dare express displeasure. Sergius Stragorodsky followed the patriarch with his gaze until he, walking along Neglinnaya (now Manezhnaya) street, disappeared around the turn towards the descent towards the Kremlin embankment. Then Sergius found his carriage and, together with his father Nikolai Lyubimov, whom he met at the Kutafya Tower, went to the Trinity Compound to participate in the solemn meeting of the patriarch. In his pocket was an invitation card, on which was written in calligraphic handwriting: “Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow, named Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, asks you, dear Sovereign, to welcome him to a fraternal meal on the day of the Patriarchal Enthronement on November 21, 1917 after the service in the Metropolitan Trinity Compound.” Meanwhile, the patriarchal cortege continued its movement, greeted by the assembled people. Having gone around the Kremlin fortress and driving along the embankment, the motorcade between the Kremlin wall and St. Basil's Cathedral entered the square. There was a stop near the Spassky Gate: the patriarch entered the Chapel of the Savior located here, where he served a short prayer service. A few tens of meters from the Spassky Gate, where Red Guards, soldiers and other Bolshevik supporters who died during the civil war in Moscow were buried in mass graves, stood a large group of soldiers. The Patriarch wanted to sprinkle them with holy water, but they suddenly defiantly turned their backs to him, and the orchestra that was with them played the “Marseillaise”... This was Patriarch Tikhon’s first meeting with the new Russia unknown to him. Further the path lay along Red Square. At Iverskaya the patriarch stopped again, entered the chapel and venerated the revered image. Upon leaving, he blessed the pilgrims who had gathered here to see their new spiritual leader. Next, the patriarch's carriage moved along Voskresenskaya and Teatralnaya squares, along Petrovka and Kuznetsky Most, along Neglinny Proezd and Trubnaya Square, through Samoteka - to the Trinity Compound, where Tikhon lived for the last six months as the Moscow Metropolitan and where he was now located as the All-Russian Patriarch. A week after the enthronement, by decree of Patriarch Tikhon, five of the most prominent and well-known hierarchs throughout Russia were elevated to the rank of metropolitan. Following Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kharkov, Arseny (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod, Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) of Yaroslavl, Jacob (Pyatnitsky) of Kazan, Sergius Stragorodsky was named. The appearance of five new metropolitans in white hoods at the very first meeting of the Council after enthronement gave rise to a catchphrase that came from the lips of Archbishop of Tver Seraphim (Chichagov): “What a harvest of porcini mushrooms!” - who walked among the cathedral members for a long time. ...The restoration of the patriarchate changed the previous system of the highest bodies of church government. On December 9, 1917, the first session of the Council completed its work. One of the last acts to be adopted were those relating to the activities of the highest bodies of church authority. The rights and responsibilities of the patriarch were clearly spelled out, who was given the right to convene church councils and preside over them, communicate with other autocephalous Orthodox churches, send messages, visit dioceses and take care of replacing bishops' sees, and bring guilty bishops to church court. The responsibility of the patriarch was also established in case of violation of his duties. The Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council became permanent bodies of the highest church government under the patriarch and under his direct leadership. The Holy Synod consisted of twelve hierarchs. Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorodsky also became a member of the Synod. The competence of the Synod included matters of a doctrinal, canonical and liturgical nature. The Synod took care “of the inviolable preservation of the dogmas of faith and their correct interpretation,” and controlled the translation and printing of liturgical literature. The Supreme Church Council consisted of fifteen members (hierarchs, priests, laity). He was in charge of establishing and changing central and diocesan church institutions, appointing officials in them, and providing pensions for the clergy and clergy. At the end of the first session, its participants went to their dioceses for the holidays. The second session was expected at the end of January of the new year, 1918. "Church is separated from the state..." By the beginning of the second session, opening on January 20, 1918, just over a hundred delegates had gathered in Moscow, and among them only 24 bishops. According to the charter adopted at the first session, the Council could make binding decisions only if at least half of its members were present. The solution was found simply: it was decided to hold meetings with any number of members and consider the decisions made to be binding. It was planned to bring up issues related to diocesan administration, parish life and the structure of co-religious parishes for consideration at the session. However, the problems of the church structure were relegated to the background, and political issues came first - the attitude of the church to Soviet power, to the foreign and domestic policies of the government, and especially to regulatory legal acts concerning the position of the Orthodox Church. The fact is that during November - December 1917, the Council of People's Commissars (Sovnarkom) repeatedly addressed the issue of separation of church and state. The course towards building a secular state was confirmed in the subsequent decrees “On Divorce” and “On Civil Marriage, on Children and on the Conduct of Civil Registries”, which established that from now on a church marriage had no legal force, and the relationship between spouses was regulated by state laws. According to the decree “On the transfer of the matter of upbringing and education from the spiritual department to the jurisdiction of the People's Commissariat for Education,” the positions of teachers of the law were abolished in all state educational institutions. At the same time, the central press published information about the imminent adoption of a decree on the separation of church and state, which would take into account all the provisions of previously adopted acts on the “religious issue.” Since December 11, a special commission formed by the Council of People's Commissars worked to develop a draft decree on the separation of church and state. It included P. I. Stuchka - Deputy People's Commissar of Justice, A. V. Lunacharsky - People's Commissar of Education, P. A. Krasikov - member of the board of the People's Commissariat of Justice (People's Commissariat of Justice), M. A. Reisner - Professor of Law at St. Petersburg University, M. V. Galkin - Petrograd priest. Of course, both the Bolsheviks as a whole and the commission were largely dependent on the mood of the masses, who persistently demanded “complete freedom of conscience.” The central government and local authorities received numerous petitions from soldiers' and peasants' congresses, from collectives of factories and factories demanding the separation of church from state and school from church, the introduction of universal compulsory secular education, the declaration of religion as a private matter for every citizen, the nationalization of monastic and church property, the establishment of equality of citizens regardless of their attitude to religion, and ensuring the legal equality of all religious associations. The editors of central and local newspapers received numerous letters from various regions of Russia, which sharply condemned the political position of the church not only in the past, but also at the present time. “For hundreds of years,” one can read in one of them, “a handful of nobles and landowners oppressed millions of peasants and workers. For hundreds of years they drank blood and plundered people's labor. And you then blessed this system, saying that this power was legitimate. And now, when the people themselves have come to power, the working people who strive for peace, brotherhood, equality, you, “spiritual fathers,” do not want to recognize their power. The people know who needs your precious mitres, golden crosses and expensive clothes” 39. On December 31, 1917, the draft decree developed by the commission was published in the newspaper of the Socialist Revolutionary Party “Delo Naroda,” whose representatives were members of the Council of People’s Commissars. In it, religion was declared “a private matter of every citizen of the Russian Republic,” and therefore everyone could profess any religion or not profess any; it was forbidden to issue laws restricting freedom of conscience; religious societies were equal to private societies and could not have the rights of a legal entity and the rights to own property; the property of “church and religious societies” was nationalized; religious oaths and oaths were abolished, as well as the teaching of “religious subjects” in state educational institutions, etc. 40 The church press also published the draft decree in full or in a statement with corresponding negative comments. Thus, in questions about the essence of freedom of conscience, about the nature of state-church relations in the new Russia, a confrontation between church power and secular power emerged. Each side understood that the answer and final decision in this dispute lay with the people, and each hoped that they would be on its side. The Church assumed that it could still rely on its multimillion-dollar flock, which would be on its side even when discussing the fate of its legal status in the new political conditions. It is no coincidence that at the opening of the second session, Patriarch Tikhon, in his opening speech, called on the members of the Council to discuss and decide how to treat government decrees that “violate the position of the Church” and “how to resist them” 41 . At the same time, a personal message from the patriarch was announced, outlining his position on the “current moment.” The key phrase in it was the following phrase, addressed, as the patriarch wrote, “to the open and secret enemies of the truth of Christ,” to those who sow “the seeds of malice, hatred and fratricidal warfare”: “Come to your senses, madmen, stop your bloody reprisals. After all, what you are doing is not only a cruel deed: it is truly a satanic deed, for which you are subject to the fire of Gehenna in your future life - the afterlife and the terrible curse of your offspring in your present life - earthly. By the authority given to us by God, we forbid you to approach the Mysteries of Christ, we anathematize you, if only you still bear Christian names and although by birth you belong to the Orthodox Church. We also implore 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: “remove the evil from you, samekh”” 42. Both the patriarch’s opening speech and his message were perceived by those present as an expression of the church-wide political position, as a general rejection of the power of the Bolsheviks and as a challenge to their “church policy.” In order to acquaint the parish clergy and believers with the patriarch’s point of view on the events taking place in the country, the text of the message was hastily printed, rewritten and distributed throughout Moscow churches and monasteries, and was delivered by special messengers to the largest cities. The clergy were obliged to read it during services and explain it to the flock. The political meaning and direction of the message were so clear to the parish clergy that not all of them dared to carry out the order, realizing that this could be followed by punishment for anti-government propaganda. In the diary entries of the famous Moscow literary critic N. M. Mendelson, dating back to January 1918, it was noted: “Yesterday I asked Father Mikhailovsky at the Khvostovs: “Well, will you read Tikhon’s letter in church, anathematizing the Bolsheviks?” - “No, it’s scary, dangerous.” And this is still a decent dad!” 43 The message of Patriarch Tikhon and the draft decree on the separation of church and state were the focus of the Local Council. The speakers recognized the timeliness of the patriarchal message. At the same time, they all agreed that it was necessary to specifically indicate the “enemies of the Church and the Motherland” (“Masons” and “Jews,” as some council speakers put it), to name by name those who are cursed and with whom the Orthodox should not enter into communication, and, finally, to bring to the attention of believers that the Council does not recognize “the servants of the Antichrist who have now taken possession of Russia.” ...Late in the evening of January 20, 1918, V.D. Bonch-Bruevich, the manager of the Council of People's Commissars, entered the office of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.I. Lenin in Smolny hastily and, as always, without a report. In his hands he had a folder with materials for the government meeting. “Vladimir Ilyich,” he began without introduction, “there’s a meeting in half an hour.” Almost everything is already assembled. Uritsky, Peters, Krasikov are delayed. The Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars looked up from reading the papers on the table and raised his head. There was a question and wariness in the eyes. “They called,” Bonch-Bruevich reported, anticipating his boss. – Bad news from Moscow. There the Church Council cursed us and declared war on us. Lenin silently selected several sheets of paper from a common folder that lay on a cabinet pushed close to the table. He looked quickly and, pointing his index finger at the chair at the table, said: – If nothing has changed, then under item thirty-two on the agenda for today’s meeting is the question “On the separation of church and state,” right? – Yes, that’s right, and nothing new was proposed or introduced by anyone. - You say: the comrades are delayed... Then we will do the following... Let's start work without them. But as soon as they arrive, we will immediately give them the floor. The meeting of the government - the Council of People's Commissars - began on time and proceeded as usual: reports and debates, questions and answers, emotional remarks and minutes of tense silence. Half an hour later a note fell on Lenin’s desk: “Uritsky and others have arrived. Bonch." “We are starting to discuss the issue of separation of church and state and the draft decree “On Freedom of Conscience and on Church and Religious Societies,” Lenin announced. And he continued: “You and I have this item scheduled almost at the end of the agenda, but circumstances have changed. In the materials distributed the day before, the speakers were identified as People's Commissar of Justice Steinberg and head of the department of the same People's Commissariat Reisner. But first, let's hear about the latest events that took place today in Moscow... - The Council of People's Commissars looked questioningly at the latecomers. “Let me report,” P. A. Krasikov, a member of the People’s Commissariat of Justice board, stood up. - Well, please, Pyotr Ananyevich. – Obviously, those present remember that back in August last year, under Kerensky, the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church began work in Moscow. I think everyone is familiar with his political face. All kinds of appeals, messages and speeches against socialism, the Bolsheviks and Soviet power. On the other hand, there is support for the Provisional Government, and sometimes openly monarchical statements. The second session of the Council opened this morning. Patriarch Tikhon spoke and called on them to unite and come to the defense of the “Church of God.” And the entire church leadership supported him... The church went on the offensive,” continued Krasikov, “it is a political enemy.” We must not remain inactive; this is a crime against the revolution. A painful silence reigned in the hall. Interrupting him, Lenin asked a question: Deputy Chairman of the Cheka Jan Peters rose from his seat: “We have repeatedly reported on the counter-revolutionary nature of this gathering. They proposed to close it, and the reason was at the end of last year after the end of the first session... The second might not have started, and we would not have listened now to what Comrade Krasikov said. But they objected to us: “Don’t rush, wait, this is a delicate, scrupulous matter.” Now our truth is obvious. I propose to close the Cathedral and destroy its counter-revolutionary nest - the Diocesan House. Tikhon, the Orthodox Pope, should be arrested, but it would be nice to also grab a couple of church people for whom there is material... Until they escape. - Well, have you waited? - Lenin said addressing everyone and turned to Steinberg and his deputy Stuchka. - Isaac Zakharovich, Pyotr Ivanovich, I told you, I wrote and handed over all sorts of documents, I hurried with the decree. What from you? Just delays and procrastination... And now what do you want to do? “Vladimir Ilyich,” Steinberg put in the word, “the draft decree is final, approved by the board of the People’s Commissariat of Justice.” Today some comrades made comments, we took them into account. Let's affirm it. “It’s always like this,” Lenin said, as if he hadn’t heard him. - Yes, we are not playing chess, where time pressure threatens only the falling of the flag... Our heads, our heads, can fly! Dissatisfiedly turning away from the People's Commissar of Justice, Lenin addressed those present: – Any opinions or suggestions? “Today and accept,” unfriendly voices rang out. - Fine. Allow me to make some comments. The fishy text of the first paragraph “Religion is a private matter of every citizen of the Russian Republic” - down with it! We write simply and clearly: “The Church is separated from the state.” To point three we will add: “From all official acts, any indication of the religious affiliation or non-affiliation of citizens is eliminated.” And the last thing, about religious buildings, let’s write it this way: “Buildings and objects intended specifically for liturgical purposes are given, according to special resolutions of local or central government authorities, for the free use of the respective religious societies.” The People's Commissar of Justice rose again from his place to object. “Isaak Zakharovich, we’ve listened to you, that’s enough,” Lenin sat him down. “Vladimir Ilyich,” Pyotr Stuchka entered the conversation, “Tikhon’s message is already circulating in Moscow on lists.” By morning it will be in St. Petersburg. We need to quickly issue a decree en masse so that tomorrow its text can be distributed throughout factories, factories, and troops. Give it to agitators for rallies and meetings. “That’s right... Comrade Volodichev,” Lenin turned to the secretary who was taking the transcript of the meeting, “here is my text of the draft decree with amendments.” Go around the members of the Council of People's Commissars, have them sign it, and urgently give it to Izvestia and Pravda by phone with the order that it be in the morning issues tomorrow! Published on the morning of January 21, 1918 in central newspapers as a response “to the challenge of the church,” the decree of the Council of People’s Commissars on the separation of church and state only added fuel to the fire of heated discussions at the Council of the patriarch’s message and the measures necessary, in the opinion of the church, to counteract the authorities. The general opinion and mood of those gathered was expressed by the archpriest of one of the Moscow churches N.V. Tsvetkov, who stated: “The most powerful point in the patriarch’s message is the anathematization of the enemies of the homeland and the Church and the prohibition of entering into communication with them. Although this passage, for all its brevity, is very expressive, it still requires explanation... The Council should find out who is being anathematized by His Holiness the Patriarch. I would speak out... for the fact that the current existing authorities who plotted to treacherously destroy the Motherland and the Church should be anathematized. But it must be borne in mind that there are persons in the government who, according to their faith and nationality, cannot be anathematized. The Council should express its attitude towards these non-Christian persons who play a large and harmful role. Then the conscious executors of the commands of the government and the unconscious elements who, out of ill will and cowardice, carry out the commands of this government should be anathematized” 44. The unity of opinions of the members of the Council was also evident when developing a resolution regarding the decree on the separation of church and state. S. N. Bulgakov, at a meeting of one of the cathedral departments, proposed to take into account the following: “We have two provisions before us: to declare the people’s commissars enemies of the Church and the people, and it is necessary to declare the very actions anti-Christian, the conscious perpetrators of which are subject to excommunication. The point about disobedience to the decree requires serpentine wisdom: some points of the decree (freedom of conscience, secular registration) are acceptable, and one can agree with them.” The discussion was put to an end by the Local Council, which, in a council resolution adopted on January 25, characterized the decree of the Council of People's Commissars as “a malicious attack on the entire system of life of the Orthodox Church and an act of open persecution against it.” At the same time, any participation “both in the publication of this legislation hostile to the Church and in attempts to implement it” was regarded as incompatible with belonging to the church, punishable up to excommunication. On the same day, in the evening, at a closed meeting, the Council passed a special resolution that “in case of illness, death and other sad opportunities for the patriarch, we propose to him to elect several locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, who, in order of seniority, will guard the power of the patriarch and succeed him.” Patriarch Tikhon carried out this decree, which later became salutary for the preservation of the canonical highest church authority in the Russian Church. The reaction of the church to the political situation in the country, to government decisions and acts regarding the position and activities of religious associations showed that both the Patriarch and the Council, in essence, refused to recognize as obligatory for the church the implementation of the main legal act of the Soviet government in relation to religious organizations - the decree on the separation of church from the state and schools from the church. This was perceived by the authorities as open intervention of the church in the difficult political situation in the country, as an act that destabilizes it, as a call to believers to move to open disobedience and resistance to existing authorities. This was confirmed by the wave of opposition to the attempts of local authorities to implement the decree that swept across the European part of Russia in February–March 1918. Mass religious processions and services were organized in squares in support of the “persecuted church.” In some places, clashes occurred near churches, and acts of violence, including deaths, were committed against Soviet government officials. Collective petitions demanding the repeal of the decree and threats of mass resistance were sent to the government. Leaflets, proclamations and appeals were distributed everywhere with calls to support the position of the Patriarch and the Council in confronting the “self-proclaimed government.” For example, in one of the leaflets published by the Local Council under the eloquent title “Anathema of Patriarch Tikhon of the Bolsheviks,” it was explained to believers against whom the measures of church punishment were directed. In particular, you can read in it: “The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, in his message to his beloved archpastors, pastors and all the faithful children of the Orthodox Church of Christ, drew his spiritual sword against the monsters of the human race - the Bolsheviks and anathematized them. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church conjures all her faithful children not to enter into any communication with these monsters.” A mandatory line of conduct for all believers in relation to those anathematized was also proposed: “Parents, if your children are Bolsheviks, demand with authority that they renounce their errors, that they repent of their great sin, and if they do not listen to you, renounce them. Wives, if your husbands are Bolsheviks and persist in serving Satan, leave your husbands, save yourself and your children from the infection that destroys the soul. An Orthodox Christian cannot have fellowship with the servants of the devil in heaven. The Church of Christ calls you to defend the Orthodox faith” 45. The patriarch's anathema was proclaimed at almost every service in existing churches in Russia. In the winter and spring of 1918, the confrontation between the Orthodox Church and the state was obvious, and yet both sides took some steps towards finding a compromise. Many appeals from Patriarch Tikhon, the Local Council, individual hierarchs and priests were considered by the Council of People's Commissars and other departments and institutions, and positive decisions were made on them. By the way, the work of the Council, although there was a desire to close it more than once among members of the government and among prominent and influential Bolsheviks, did not stop. The authorities allowed religious services to be held in Kremlin churches. The second session of the Local Council, which continued its work until April 20, 1918, also considered a number of problems of the internal church structure. Among them are issues of diocesan administration, the structure and life of the parish community, the establishment of departments of the same faith, the activities of religious educational institutions, and the expansion of the external and internal mission of the church. Sophronius of Irkutsk and Joseph of Astrakhan were canonized. During the work of the second session of the Local Council, the first news began to arrive in Moscow about clashes around Orthodox churches and monasteries, about the arrests and executions of bishops, priests, and the most active laity. Responding to them, the Council adopted a definition “On events caused by the ongoing persecution of the Orthodox Church” (dated April 18) 46 . It established the procedure for pronouncing in churches during services “special petitions for those now persecuted for the Orthodox faith and the Church and for confessors and martyrs who have ended their lives,” as well as “annual prayerful commemoration ... of all confessors and martyrs who have died in this fierce time of persecution.” Diocesan authorities were charged with collecting information about confiscated church property, arrested clergy and parishioners. The Council also expressed its attitude towards that part of the church members who accepted the new government and actively supported the decree on the separation of church and state. The definition “On measures to put an end to disorder in church life” (dated April 19) 47 provided for specific punishments for laity, priests and bishops who “disobey and resist church authority and turn in church affairs to civil authorities hostile to the Church and thereby bring various misfortunes upon the Church, her ministers, her children and property.” The “ungodly” cases included: appealing to civil authorities and civil courts, fulfilling or participating in the implementation of the requirements of the decree on freedom of conscience and other acts of state power related to the activities of religious associations, confiscation of land and other property from monasteries and churches. Accordingly, possible church punishment was determined: prohibition from the priesthood, defrocking, deprivation of clergy, bringing to a church court, excommunication. Both definitions were a direct reaction of the church to the political events taking place in the country, an attempt to involve believers in confrontation with the authorities, and to attract them to active participation in anti-government actions. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the church took an openly negative position regarding not only the “church policy” of the Soviet state, but also its entire domestic and foreign policy. For example, Patriarch Tikhon and the Council, in special messages, condemned the government’s desire to get out of the global carnage and conclude a peace treaty with Germany. The pseudo-patriotic rhetoric they contained, calls to continue the war “until a victorious end”, to protect the “Russian Land”, no matter what, essentially doomed the population to additional hardships and hardships, and in the future made it quite possible for a quick defeat in the fight against a superior enemy, which could be followed by the collapse of the Russian state. Although in Soviet historical literature the spring months of 1918 were considered a period of “peaceful respite,” this name is conditional. It is understood that from the conclusion of the Brest Peace (March) to the emergence of fronts in Siberia, the Volga and the North Caucasus (June) there were no large-scale military operations. However, there was no peace, there were local battles, the formation of armed forces both white and red, underground anti-government armed groups were active, riots and uprisings broke out, and a process of spontaneous nationalization of church and monastic property was underway. There was an escalation of violence, cruelty, class and social confrontation, and each side, considering itself “right” and in defense of this “truth,” went into clashes that were even more cruel and merciless. All this could not but affect the mood of the Orthodox flock. In its ranks, there was an accelerated polarization of political views, and this, in turn, was reflected in the attitude towards the decree on the separation of church and state. The editors of many central and local newspapers and magazines received many letters from parish priests and ordinary believers, in which they reported support for the decree and called on the church to stop confronting the authorities. For example, in a letter to the newspaper “Banner of Christ,” a village priest called on the clergy: “It is our duty, our duty not to stir up the dark masses. Not to create those riots, of which there are already many in Russia, but to explain to everyone that... the separation of church and state and other prohibitions in this regard do not in the least humiliate Christianity... When you look closely at everything that is happening, the question involuntarily arises: from whom and from what are our hierarchs calling to save the Christian faith?” 48 Yet the events of the winter and spring of 1918 were to some extent unexpected for the Bolsheviks, who were counting on the quick and relatively painless introduction of the decree on the separation of church and state. The key to this was the confidence in the complete discrediting of the “political face” of the clergy and church government, the growth of anti-clerical sentiments among the masses and the growing support for the ideas of a secular state under the Provisional Government. It is no coincidence that the Bolsheviks did not even plan to create a special state body responsible for the implementation of their program guidelines in the field of separation of church from state and school from church. But it turned out to be impossible to implement the decree, as they say, right away. The political opposition of church authorities and leaders of religious organizations was joined by hidden, and sometimes open, discontent on the part of the multimillion-dollar peasantry. If, in general, it supported measures of expropriation of church and monastic property, the proclamation of the equality of citizens, regardless of their attitude to religion, the dissolution of the “union” of the Orthodox Church and the state, the introduction of civil metrication, then regarding such measures, and even those carried out by a “cavalry charge”, such as the removal of the Law of God from the school, deprivation of the parish property and some others, its position was not so clear. And it would be a simplification to say that only representatives of the “overthrown classes” and individual “fanatical believers” sided with the church. At that moment, the peasantry opposed, as it seemed to them, the forced “secularization” of their traditional way of life, against the breaking of the “immutable” foundations of life “according to faith” in the Russian village, including due to their “sanctification” by Orthodox canons. Confirmation of this can be found in the correspondence of party leaders. For example, Emelyan Yaroslavsky noted in a letter to V.I. Lenin: “The decree on the separation of church from state and school from church met with especially stubborn resistance in the village. A number of sometimes bloody clashes occur because the population opposes the removal of icons and religious objects from schools. Local Soviets do not take into account at all the will of the overwhelming majority, and sometimes even the unanimous will of the co-religious Orthodox population. In almost all workers' and peasants' meetings in the provinces, notes about this are given to speakers. On this basis, agitation is being waged against Soviet power in general and falls on susceptible soil. At the women's congress in Moscow, I was given 16 notes of an almost homogeneous nature: why are icons being forcibly removed? There were notes and statements: we agree with the Bolsheviks in everything, but this issue pushes us away from them” 49. This was discussed emotionally and openly in one of the letters (April 1918) from the Petrograd priest M.V. Galkin to the manager of the Council of People's Commissars V.D. Bonch-Bruevich: “Due to the issuance of the decree, excesses arose in some places, human blood was already shed, which could have been avoided... I feel part of the blame for this blood on myself. Maybe I haven’t knocked persistently enough on your doors to repeat to you something that you still won’t escape from - the need to coordinate the actions of various commissariats aimed at eliminating the centuries-old connection between church and state, in some special apparatus, which should be a special liquidation board, certainly in Moscow... The unification around clerical circles of the political elements of the country is proceeding with such rapid steps that you would be horrified to see this the picture in full menacing growth. Your political opponents are already cleverly taking advantage of the lack of clarifying provisions... An organization is being created and has already been created, right up to parish, provincial and all-Russian church “commissars”. Organization must be opposed to organization. To the word - a convinced word. Force, if you like, that legal force that could force the altar servers to stand at the altars and not invade with a specific “Vostorgovsky” spirit into the area of ​​​​pure politics, unrelated to their rank and dignity” 50. It cannot be said that the new government “did not see” these processes. It seems that it is not at all by chance that the Central Committee of the RCP (b), considering at its meeting on May 19, 1918, the issue of “agitation of the clergy,” proposed the following measures for use: “Intensified written agitation against the clergy. Entrust its management to vol. Sosnovsky, Em. Yaroslavsky and Demyan Bedny, allocating the necessary amount from the treasury of the Central Committee. At the same time, instruct vol. from the Presidium of the Moscow Council to take measures to move the urban poor into monasteries and other spiritual houses. Inform about this decision of the Central Committee to party workers going to the places to implement it” 51. The authorities realized the need to create a special body in the public administration system that would coordinate actions at the center and locally to implement the norms and provisions of the decree. Initially, these responsibilities were assigned to the interdepartmental commission under the People's Commissariat of Justice, formed in April 1918. It included representatives of the commissariats of internal affairs, education, charity, as well as from the Orthodox, Old Believer, Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic and other churches. Somewhat later, on May 8, 1918, on behalf of the Council of People's Commissars, the People's Commissariat of Justice formed a special department (the serial number among departments is VIII) to implement the decree on the separation of church from state and school from church, headed by P. A. Krasikov. Another name was assigned to it - “liquidation department”. What was meant, of course, was not the “liquidation of religions and churches,” but those legal relations between church communities and the state—“traditional” for the clerical state—that existed for centuries in Tsarist Russia. The department was supposed to rely in its work on a commission consisting of representatives of interested government departments and religious organizations and having the character of an advisory body. On May 14, the first meeting of the VIII department was held, at which the plan for its immediate activities was discussed. Its leader, V.D. Bonch-Bruevich, noted that the department’s activities affect “the intimate interests of millions of citizens of the Russian Federative Soviet Republic, and, despite the observed weakening of the influence of religion on the population, it continues to be painfully sensitive to any illegal attacks on the freedom of religious beliefs and the exercise of religious worship.” Therefore, the department was tasked with managing “the activities of the localities and authorities of the Russian Federative Soviet Republic, aimed at establishing new, created by the October Revolution, relations between the state and confessions on the principles of freedom of conscience and religious rites ensured by the decree of the Council of People's Commissars” 52. From now on, all issues related to the relationship of the state with the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as other religious associations and requiring government decision, were previously discussed in this department. Until September 1918, the department's explanations and instructions were the only legal documents regulating the procedure for resolving practical issues related to the separation of church and state. The department was entrusted with the task of combating violations of the legislation on cults by both the clergy and church organizations, and local authorities 53 . Completion of the work of the Local Council On July 2, 1918, the third session of the Council began. Only 150 people gathered, including only 16 bishops. Since by this time the building of the Moscow Theological Seminary had been nationalized and the delegates of the V All-Russian Congress of Soviets lived there, the participants of the Council were placed at Moscow churches and monasteries. Conciliar meetings were held either in the Diocesan House or in the Trinity Compound, where the patriarch and the bodies of the highest church government were located. The Council continued work on developing definitions on the activities of the highest bodies of church government. The question of the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne was considered. His election in the event of the “vacation of the patriarchal throne” was expected at a joint meeting of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council. The locum tenens heads the church during the interpatriarchal period and his main duty is to hold a Local Council within three months to elect a patriarch. A special resolution dated August 13, 1918 established the procedure for electing the patriarch. In general terms, it corresponded to the procedure for electing Patriarch Tikhon. Some of the Council's definitions concerned issues of organizational and administrative order and structure of the church, financial and economic activities. Among them: about the temporary Higher Church Administration in Ukraine, about the structure of the Warsaw diocese, about church districts, about the establishment of new dioceses and vicariates, about monasteries and monastics, about attracting women to church service, about the glorification of local saints and the restoration of the celebration of the Day of Remembrance of All Russian Saints, about church collections, property, household management, etc. While at the cathedral meetings decisions were discussed and made on the internal structure of the church, behind the walls of the Diocesan House in Likhov Lane, the process of state development of a new country - the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic - was going on. A draft constitution was published in the central and local press, submitted for discussion at the All-Russian Congress of Soviets. The draft included a special article on freedom of conscience. It read: “In order to ensure freedom of conscience for workers, the church is separated from the state, religion is declared a matter of conscience of each individual citizen, and no funds are allocated from the state treasury for the maintenance of the church and its ministers. The right to complete freedom of religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens” 54 . During the discussion of this article, both within the ruling party itself and among the delegates of the congress, different points of view regarding the content of “freedom of conscience” and measures to ensure it collided. Some, for example, People's Commissar of Justice P. I. Stuchka, argued that the proposed wording of the article was a blind copying of the programs of European social democratic parties, which on the “religious issue” did not go beyond the proclamation of freedom of conscience in its bourgeois understanding. Therefore, it was proposed to exclude from the draft the provision on religion as a “matter of conscience of a citizen” and on “complete freedom of religious propaganda.” “Indeed,” the People’s Commissar reasoned in connection with the latest provisions, “Soviet lawyers will have to think about how to combine some articles of the decree on the separation of church and state with this complete freedom of religious propaganda. It seems to me that real freedom of conscience, as Marx understands it, is ensured by the freedom of anti-religious propaganda alone, and that’s all.” 55 In the final text of the constitution, adopted on July 10, the article on freedom of conscience (Article 13) looked like this: “In order to ensure real freedom of conscience for workers, the church is separated from the state and the school from the church, and the freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens” 56 . The adopted first Constitution of the RSFSR (at the same time the first in the history of Russia) also contained some other articles relating to the “religious issue”: it provided for the possibility of granting the “right of asylum” to foreign citizens persecuted for religious beliefs (Article 12), restrictions on political rights were introduced in relation to monastics and clergy (Article 65). With the adoption of the Constitution, the main provisions of the decree on the separation of church and state became the norm of constitutional law, and the VIII Department of the People's Commissariat of Justice was now called upon, along with the implementation of the decree, to ensure and monitor compliance with the 13th article of the Constitution of the RSFSR. To achieve this, the People's Commissariat of Justice developed a special instruction “On the procedure for implementing the decree on the separation of church from state and school from church,” which was published as a resolution of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD) of the RSFSR on August 30, 1918 57 . The work of the third session of the Council occurred during the bloodiest stage of the Civil War. In the summer and autumn of 1918, the country finally split, large-scale military actions by the warring parties began, and the arsenal of the Civil War was replenished with another form of struggle - mutual terror. Believers and non-believers, priests and commissars, communists and non-party people, red and white, perished. It aggravated the situation in Russia and contributed to the increase in victims and suffering of the people, made the outcome of the struggle uncertain and thereby prolonged the Civil War - the intervention of foreign states, the invasion of Russian territory by German, British, Japanese, Romanian troops. Let’s add here the establishment of a military-economic blockade of Soviet Russia by the Entente, which was a gross violation of international law, an essentially terrorist, merciless, barbaric action, which contributed to the intensification of hunger and the spread of epidemics in Russia, resulting in the death of a significant mass of the country’s population. That is why the entire work of the third session of the Council took place in a nervous, sometimes rally-like atmosphere. The council members internally could not and did not want to accept the new government, in relation to which they considered themselves opponents. Political rejection of everything and everything Soviet inevitably transferred to all state acts relating to the Orthodox Church. This was clearly evident during the discussion of the instructions of the People's Commissariat of Justice of August 30. At a private meeting on September 1 with Patriarch Tikhon in the Trinity Compound, it was proposed to introduce an interdict in the country as a response: to close all churches, to stop the performance of all religious rites and services everywhere. Many speakers - bishops and influential laymen - ardently advocated for him. However, there were many who objected, pointing out that ordinary believers would not support the church’s decision on the interdict. Here is a fragment from the surviving minutes of the meeting, conveying the severity of the situation and the tragedy of the church’s position: " A. V. Kartashev. The instructions force us to take the fight to the chest. And although it is not necessary to extinguish the spirit before battle, I do not consider it a sin in this case to somewhat restrain the ardor of our speeches. Open battle is accepted by strategists when there is a proper spirit in the troops and all the technical means are available. If this is not the case, then you have to fight a more evasive, more difficult battle. There is no reason to expect that upsurge of spirit among the people, in which it would be possible to take a direct battle on the basis of principle. So, I recommend not relying on the Orthodox people. I do not consider the interdict feasible, but I propose to move on to a uniform and orderly struggle in private positions, and in this form it is quite difficult and responsible. Joasaph, Bishop of Kolomna. The clergy subordinate to me were already gathering parishioners and talking with them. “They took away our land,” said the priests, “interest on capital and mowing, and firewood. We have nothing to live on, we will leave you!” And they answered: “Well, go away. We’ll ban the churches, and we’ll get by.” Therefore, I believe that the closure of churches can only cause sighs from old people and women’s cries. It would be better to make sure that the lists of founders do not include cold and indifferent people, but to include proven laymen and monks with their worldly names. E. N. Trubetskoy. If we say that the interdict is being issued because church property is being taken away, bishops’ houses are being taken away, then the people will not understand us, just as they will not understand the true meaning of this measure.”58 It seems that these words contain an involuntary and forced recognition that the ordinary Orthodox flock for the most part did not support the political position of the church and did not see the need to fight the authorities for church property. In the end, the decision on the interdict did not take place. On the contrary, it was considered desirable to “warm up” the religious feelings of believers in every possible way through public services, the canonization of new Russian saints, and religious processions. At the same time, a commission was elected, which was tasked with developing a special program of measures to counter “anti-Christian” government acts. On September 6, in an appeal to the Council of People's Commissars, the Council declared its non-recognition of the instructions of the People's Commissariat of Justice and demanded its cancellation. On September 12, the Council discussed and adopted the definition “On the protection of church shrines from blasphemous seizure and desecration.” In it, “under pain of church excommunication,” believers were prohibited from participating in any measures to confiscate former church property. It was another desperate attempt to prevent the nationalization of church property, to “put a lock” on cathedrals, churches, chapels, monasteries, and other church buildings, to prevent any of the “sacred objects” stored in the church from passing into the hands of the state. Each of the believers was obliged to fulfill these requirements under pain of church punishment: excommunication, curse or closure of the church. The participation of many, many thousands of believers in religious ceremonies and other events organized by the church was mistakenly perceived by Patriarch Tikhon and his entourage, who consisted mainly of supporters of absolute, unrestricted freedom of religion and the church, as support for their political course, as a demonstration of disagreement with the new government. In this euphoria, in anticipation of the imminent collapse of Soviet power (from internal or external circumstances), they did not want to listen to the voice of more prudent people, who were both in the church itself and among those who sympathized with it. And they warned that the politicization of the Orthodox Church would inevitably “classify” it as an “anti-government”, “counter-revolutionary” organization, which would inevitably lead to a clash with the authorities; pointed out that the “white terror” with its murders and assassinations against “Bolshevik leaders” or ordinary citizens, with other similar actions destabilizing the political situation in the country, would inevitably give rise to retaliatory measures from the state. And their character could already be judged by the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of September 5, 1918, “On the Red Terror,” according to which “all persons connected with White Guard organizations, conspiracies and rebellions” were subject to execution. The nationalization of church property continued in regions and provinces, monasteries were closed, the Law of God was expelled from schools, and any attempt by the clergy to speak out in defense of the interests of the church was increasingly interpreted as a “counter-revolution.” The complex and contradictory environment in which the provisions of the decree on the separation of church and state and constitutional norms on freedom of conscience were approved can be found in numerous evidence in the reports of employees of the VIII Department. One of the most active, former Orthodox priest M.V. Galkin, having made a trip to the Northern region in the fall of 1918, wrote: “The monasteries are still prospering... the clergy, as a caste and as a well-known political force, is currently... crushed. There were no major counter-revolutionary actions inspired by clergy... Church attendance has dropped to a minimum, the clergy is losing its influence on the people, especially since the greedy actions of some of its representatives provide rich food for agitation and finally bring down the clergy in the eyes of the people.” It is worth recognizing Galkin’s desire for objectivity when he writes about the “flaws” of the Soviet regime: negligence in relation to church archives and documentation when evicting church institutions from the premises they previously occupied; confiscation of religious objects and other property without drawing up inventories; conducting searches and arrests without any sanctions; executions of the clergy and church activists on suspicion of counter-revolutionism, etc. 59 According to daily reports from the field arriving in Moscow, the number of people “suffering for the faith and the church” was increasing. Persistent rumors predicted that the Council itself was about to be closed, and the participants were arrested and expelled from Moscow. And although one of the council decisions proposed convening the next Local Council in the spring of 1921, few believed in this. On September 20, members of the Council (a little over a hundred people) gathered in the Diocesan House for their last meeting. The mood was depressed. Attempts in the previous days to contact the Council of People's Commissars to resolve controversial issues about the position of the church in the new conditions and regarding certain points of the decree on the separation of church and state were futile. The Council of People's Commissars wrote in its official document that it did not see any need for receiving any delegations from the Council, and suggested that in the future, written appeals should be submitted in a manner common to all citizens. Hopes for a revision of the instructions of August 30, 1918 disappeared. Patriarch Tikhon addressed the audience with his closing remarks. He thanked all members of the Council and other persons who took part in its activities, and announced the closure of the Council. Soon, a considerable number of former members of the Council found themselves in the south of Russia, joined the White movement, creating church structures here, becoming “ideologists” of the fight against the Soviets and the Reds, calling their flock to it. The authorities in Moscow responded to this by confiscating the Diocesan House from the church and confiscating the archives of the Local Council, placing Patriarch Tikhon under house arrest in the Trinity Compound on Samotek. And on the eve of the first anniversary of the October Revolution, Patriarch Tikhon addressed a special message to the authorities. “You divided the entire people,” it said, “into hostile camps and plunged them into fratricide of unprecedented cruelty. You have openly replaced the love of Christ with hatred and, instead of peace, you have artificially incited class enmity, and the end of the war you have generated is not in sight, since you are striving with the hands of Russian workers and peasants to bring triumph to the specter of the world revolution.” The Patriarch exhorted: “Celebrate the anniversary of your stay in power with the release of prisoners, the cessation of bloodshed, violence, ruin, oppression of faith; turn not to destruction, but to the establishment of order and legality, give the people the desired and well-deserved rest from the internecine carnage” 60. This message became an action that finally and irrevocably divided the church and the government. There was no turning back for either side, but ahead were clashes and struggles with an ending unpredictable for each side... Quote From: All-Russian Church and Public Bulletin. 1917. No. 95. Denisov A.I. The first days of the February and October revolutions in 1917 in the Moscow Kremlin // Historical archive. 1997. No. 3. P.72, 73. All-Russian Church and Public Bulletin. 1917. No. 29. See: Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church: Acts. P., 1918. Book II. Vol. 1. pp. 418, 419. Quote by: Emelyakh L.I. Peasants and the Church on the Eve of October. L., 1976. P. 154. See: Business of the people. 1917. December 31st. See: Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church: Acts. M., 1918. Book. VI. S. 3. See: Mendelssohn H. M. Pro those: Diary. OR RSL. F. 165. Cardboard 1. D. 1. L. 50 vol. // Mendelsohn N. M. Diary: Favorites. 1917–1928 /Freedom of conscience in Russia: historical and modern aspects: Collection of articles / Publication by M. I. Odintsov. M.; St. Petersburg, 2008. Issue. 6. pp. 348–375. Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church: Acts. M., 1918. Book. VI. pp. 38, 39. GA RF. F. 1235. Op.1. D. 10. L. 205, 205 vol. See: Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church: Collection of definitions and decrees. M., 1918. Issue. 3. pp. 55–57. Quote from: Science and Religion. 1987. No. 11. P. 7. GA RF. F. A-353. Op. 2. D. 696. L. 216. Brushlinskaya O. I feel the truth of your movement // Science and religion. 1987. No. 11. P. 7, 8. News of the CPSU Central Committee. 1989. No. 4. P. 147. GA RF. F. A-353. Op. 2. D. 689. L. 4, 5. See more about the work of the VIII Department of the People's Commissariat of Justice: Persia, M. M. Separation of Church and State. M., 1959; Odintsov M.I. State and Church in Russia: History of Relationships. 1917–1939 M., 1991. Stuchka P. I. Selected works on the Marxist theory of law. Riga, 1964. P. 254. Soviet Constitutions: A Handbook. M., 1963. P. 133. Izvestia. 1918. August 30. See: Spitsberg I.A. The Church during the Civil War: Typescript. M., 1933. P. 85–87. See: The Church is separated from the state: Reports of the expert of the People's Commissariat of Justice M.V. Galkin. 1918 //Historical archive. 1993. No. 6. P. 162–170. GA RF. F. 130. Op. 2. D. 162. L. 33–36.