Глава V. На родной нижегородчине. 1924–1934 годы

After repentance and return to the Patriarchal Church, Sergius continued to live in Moscow for some time. After everything that happened in the summer of 1922 and in the following months, it was not easy to start a relationship again, and the patriarch was in no hurry to bring him closer to himself. However, now Sergius was in church, communicating with members of the Synod, the Moscow clergy, at whose request he began to go to services. The flock accepted him and thereby strengthened his strength and instilled hope for the future. At the very beginning of 1924, the life circumstances of Sergius Stragorodsky also changed. From Metropolitan Seraphim of Tver, a member of the Synod under Patriarch Tikhon, he received a letter with the following content: “Due to the deviation into the so-called Renovationist schism of the Nizhny Novgorod Archbishop Evdokim, consider the Nizhny Novgorod See as free, and transfer His Eminence Metropolitan Sergius of Vladimir to it” 93 . In Nizhny Novgorod, Bishop Sergius settled in an apartment in one of the buildings on the territory of the Holy Cross Convent. After the closure of the monastery in 1919, the nuns, its former nuns, were forced to henceforth call themselves a “labor artel” and rent the buildings of their monastery. In 1923, they had to unite with the parish community, which was urgently created around the monastery, so that the authorities would not seize the premises. 347 nuns applied to join “the community of believers at the Holy Cross Monastery,” and on April 27, 1923, the “Charter of the Holy Cross Autonomous Orthodox Society at the former Holy Cross Monastery and Cemetery in Nizhny Novgorod” was registered. It was to this community that Metropolitan Sergius was assigned after arriving in Nizhny Novgorod. By this time, the Nizhny Novgorod Cathedral of the Transfiguration of the Savior in the Kremlin was already closed. Vladyka Sergius, registered by local authorities as a “representative of the cult class” in the parish of the Spassky Church in Nizhny Novgorod, most often performed bishop’s services in this church. During Sergius's stay in Nizhny Novgorod, he was constantly visited by pilgrims heading to the Sarov Hermitage to venerate the relics of St. Seraphim of Sarov. They came to Sergius’s simple cell to receive his blessing and continue on their way. The monastics, who by force of circumstances found themselves in Nizhny, also strove to see the venerable elder. And the Metropolitan received everyone, equally bestowing attention and love. He provided some kind of financial assistance to many of them. Although he was not able to travel to Moscow regularly, he was aware of all the main church events. I knew how persistently the patriarch looked for opportunities to improve relations with the authorities; knocks on the doors of the People's Commissariat of Justice and the GPU, standing up for hierarchs who find themselves in exile in Solovki, in Siberia, or under arrest or expelled administratively. Without hesitation, Sergius accepts and implements the patriarch’s decree of January 1924 on the prayerful commemoration of state power during divine services according to the formula: “About the Russian country and its authorities.” He rejoices with everyone at the decision of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of March 1924 to terminate the “court case” of Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitans Nikandr (Fenomenov) and Arseny (Stadnitsky), as well as P.V. Guryev. Patriarch Tikhon’s telegram to the Soviet government expressing condolences over the death of the Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, V.I. Lenin, does not cause any protest in him either. Sergius, as well as all Tikhonov’s hierarchs, was given particular hope by information about the patriarch’s meetings in the spring of 1924 with the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee M.I. Kalinin and Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars A.I. Rykov. The authorities complied with the patriarch's request and allowed him to live outside the Donskoy Monastery. For this purpose, in Sokolniki, in a dacha area near Moscow, a small two-story wooden building was rented on Korolenko Street, 3/5. It was assumed that church government bodies would be located here, and hierarchs returning from exile would also stay. It seemed that the time of confrontation between the church and the authorities was ending and that a little more - and it would be replaced by a “peaceful time”. The very fact that for the first time since the Civil War the right to legal existence of the “Tikhon’s” church was recognized was encouraging. In practice, this meant that believers of the patriarchal orientation, in accordance with the decree on societies and unions, could apply for permission to hold a congress, at which church governing bodies could be elected, which were subsequently registered by the NKVD of the RSFSR, that is, received official legal status. Under the conditions of that time, the general requirement for all societies and unions upon their registration was the obligation to submit a declaration (statement) about their attitude to the state and social structure of the USSR and recognizing their loyalty to the existing government. These demands were brought to the attention of the patriarch. The still unofficial first meeting of the Synod is scheduled for the end of May 1924. Forming its composition, the patriarch makes a proposal to Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorodsky to join it. Essentially, this moment meant the final forgiveness of Sergius and his calling to the most important affairs of the church. The Synod unanimously decided to begin drawing up the documents required for registration and, above all, to develop a declaration. In February 1925, the composition of the Synod was recognized by the authorities. It included: Nizhny Novgorod Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), Ural Metropolitan Tikhon (Obolensky), St. Petersburg Metropolitan Seraphim (Alexandrov), Krutitsky Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), Kherson Bishop Procopius (Titov) and Melitopol Bishop Sergius (Zverev). Metropolitan Sergius, who had more experience than others in dealing with the authorities and was recognized as one of the best theologians of the church, also contributed his zeal and skill to the development of the draft declaration. By the fall of 1924, the first version of the declaration was drawn up. In the house on Korolenko, in the hall where it has already become a tradition to hold meetings of the Synod and the most important meetings, a meeting was held in a narrow format under the leadership of Patriarch Tikhon. Metropolitans Sergius, Tikhon and Peter were present. – I welcome you, your Eminences, to our new home. In the evening I even spent the night here, and in the morning I became familiar with the main principles of the document you prepared. I cannot help but admit that I have become familiar with the feeling of satisfaction from the work you have done, although there is something suitable for correction. But it is advisable for us not to delay with this document and therefore let’s begin the discussion. Metropolitan Tikhon of the Urals began the conversation: – I would like to highlight several points around which, in fact, the draft declaration was built. Firstly, it was necessary to indicate our attitude to state order in the USSR and to the civil responsibilities of believers. Secondly, to condemn all those outside the USSR whose actions complicate our situation and create a mediastinum between us and the state. Thirdly, declare that both the patriarch and the church are free in their inner life. Fourthly, express our wishes regarding government permissions for us, the churchmen. “Yes,” Metropolitan Sergius echoed warmly. - everything that has happened to us since the revolution of the seventeenth year is an expression of God’s will about the fate of our Fatherland... We can and must fulfill our civic and social duty in the new conditions of our state life, if only everyone at the same time preserves his Orthodox faith and fidelity to the vows we made in Holy Baptism. “Vladyka,” said Metropolitan Peter, “aren’t we, how can I put it more precisely, adjusting too much?” – And I agree with how this is written down in the project. Namely: “Without sinning at all against our faith and church, we can be completely loyal to the Soviet government in civil terms and, without holding a stone in our bosom, work in the USSR for the common good.” “I think that this provision is key and we need to spell it out as accurately and completely as possible,” said Metropolitan Tikhon. – But it would be advisable to express your proposals immediately after this. “We need,” added Metropolitan Sergius, “to write down the idea of ​​the need for us to have a Church Council, for without its decisions there is no church improvement.” “May they not allow the Council to be held,” Metropolitan Peter said somehow bitterly and with a hint of hopelessness. “We must insist,” Sergius urged, “to convince us that without it it is impossible to heal the schisms—renovationist, self-saintly, Penza—within the country and beyond its borders—in Georgia, Romania, Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia.” “I would also support,” Patriarch Tikhon entered into the discussion, “especially since it is written here: “The principle of freedom of conscience, proclaimed by the Constitution of the USSR, provides every religious society with the right and opportunity to live and conduct its religious affairs in accordance with the requirements of its faith, as long as this does not violate public order and the rights of other citizens.” “Yes, yes,” Peter inserted the word, “if congresses were allowed to sectarians, Mohammedans, and Renovationists, then we have the right to do so.” “By the way,” added Metropolitan Tikhon, “you will agree that we would not mind if “agents of the government” were present at the Council, let them see and hear what we are talking about, what we are discussing. Summing up the protracted discussion, Patriarch Tikhon concluded: – Our main idea should be in everything, and it should be simple: the church accepts the earthly Fatherland and lives in it, serving its flock; condemns any ill-intention of church communities within the country and the politicking of external ones, those pastors and archpastors who, for various reasons, found themselves outside the borders of their homeland... Yes, we condemn the Karlovac Council and would like the authorities to treat us with confidence and grant us freedom within the framework of the current constitution. At the end of the meeting, the Patriarch instructed Metropolitans Peter and Tikhon, as permanent residents of Moscow, to conduct all further necessary negotiations and discuss the adopted text with the relevant authorities. At the end of 1924, the patriarch's health deteriorated sharply. In mid-January 1925, he moved to Bakunina’s clinic on Ostozhenka. As if anticipating the worst, the Patriarch instructed the Synod to complete work as quickly as possible on a message to the flock, which was supposed to express a general description of everything that happened to the church in the post-October period, and its current attitude to power and society. On the Feast of the Annunciation, April 7, one of the regular joint meetings of the Synod with the Patriarch took place. Tikhon signed the finalized text agreed with the authorities. That night the patriarch died. Sergius Stragorodsky urgently leaves for Moscow. Throughout the week of farewell to the Patriarch, he was almost constantly in the Donskoy Monastery, alternately, together with other hierarchs, serving at the tomb of His Holiness. And now, on Saturday, April 11, Sergius came to the cathedral a little earlier than the hour of service appointed for him. As he put on his clothes, he heard how the memorial service was being served, how the powerful and at the same time warm voice of Bishop Boris (Rukin), the main director of the farewell ceremony, sounded. The words that were spoken echoed with pain in my heart: “On the repose of the servant of God, our Great Master and Father, His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.” Memories came flooding back, everything that connected Sergius with the deceased surfaced in his consciousness. The Liturgy was served by 12 bishops and 24 priests. A united choir of singers sang. Hierarchs, clerics, learned monks, and laypeople took turns delivering words of farewell. The first among them was Sergius Stragorodsky, who especially emphasized that the patriarch “carried the entire burden of the Church in recent years... He had a special breadth of vision, was able to understand everyone and forgive everyone. And we very often did not understand him, often upset him with our misunderstanding, disobedience, and apostasy. He alone fearlessly walked the straight path of serving Christ and His Church” 94. The last day of farewell was April 12, Palm Sunday. Without haste, the funeral service was performed gracefully. The mood was quiet, rather sad... The bishops in white robes and golden miters lifted the coffin and carried it out of the doors of the cathedral. The funeral procession proceeded around the cathedral, to the cell of the patriarch, where he spent the last two-plus years, then the bishops carried the coffin into the Small Cathedral. The doors closed. People stood in silence in front of the closed doors of the church. There was a lithium there. “Eternal Memory” was heard from the cathedral. This coffin was lowered into the grave. The sad ringing of the bells is like crying over an open grave. The bishops who participated in the funeral of the patriarch gathered in the empty cell of the patriarch to fulfill his last will. The will of the deceased, drawn up on Christmas Day 1925, was opened and read out. In it, Metropolitans Kirill (Smirnov), Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) and Peter (Polyansky) were named as possible candidates for the temporary execution of “patriarchal rights and duties” until the Local Council. Since the first two were in exile, the meeting (in fact, the Council of Bishops) decided: “Metropolitan Peter has no right to evade the obedience entrusted to him.” The consolidation of his rights as a patriarchal locum tenens was formalized by the act “On the perception of power by Metropolitan Peter,” which was signed by fifty-eight bishops, the first of which was Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorodsky. On the same day, Metropolitan Peter, in a message to the believers, announced the death and burial of Patriarch Tikhon, and his election, in accordance with the will of Patriarch Tikhon, as Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. Metropolitan Peter also informed the authorities about his assumption of a new position. At the same time, he emphasized that he maintained the continuity of Patriarch Tikhon’s course of loyalty to the church, confirmed the patriarch’s previously submitted applications for registration of the highest and diocesan bodies of church government, and was ready for negotiations with the authorities on all issues relating to the position of the church in the Soviet Union. After the death of Patriarch Tikhon, the patriarchal locum tenens Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) of Krutitsky was forced to move his residence from the Donskoy Monastery to a house on Korolenko Street. The Moscow Diocesan Council and diocesan administration are also located here. Every day, many visitors filled the small reception room of Metropolitan Peter in Sokolniki to capacity. At that time, a limited circle of people knew about the existence and content of Patriarch Tikhon’s message, signed by him on April 7. After the death of the patriarch, being the last of the documents signed by him, it acquired special significance, becoming a kind of testament of Tikhon to believers, the clergy and the church as a whole. Under these conditions, it was very important for the patriarchal locum tenens to bring his support to the multi-million flock, for it became a kind of boundary line in the relationship between the Soviet state and the church. For these purposes, on April 15, 1925, Metropolitan Peter, together with Metropolitan Tikhon (Obolensky), sent the text of the message to the editorial office of the newspaper Izvestia, where it was published. The final lines of Patriarch Tikhon’s address to the believers read: “Invoking the blessing of God on the archpastors, shepherds and our faithful children, we beg you with a calm conscience, without fear of sinning against the holy faith, to submit to Soviet power not out of fear, but for conscience, remembering the words of the Apostle: “Let the earthly soul be submissive to the higher authorities; for there is no authority not from God, but the existing authorities have been established by God.” At the same time, we express our firm confidence that the establishment of pure, sincere relations will encourage our authorities to treat us with complete confidence, give us the opportunity to teach the Law of God in our own way, have theological schools for training pastors, and publish books and magazines in defense of the Orthodox faith” 95. Upon assuming his new church position, Metropolitan Peter gave an interview to the Izvestia newspaper. Answering a reporter’s question about rumors in the church world about the inauthenticity of Patriarch Tikhon’s will, Metropolitan Peter said: “These rumors have no basis. If they talk about this, then it’s two or three cliques from Sukharevka. As for believers, they have no doubt about the authenticity of the will.” There is no reason for us to doubt the sincerity of the statements of Metropolitan Peter, who with all his activities, especially in the subsequent difficult years for him, confirmed his loyalty to Patriarch Tikhon and the Orthodox Church. Statements appearing today in church writings about the alleged authenticity of rumors once spread by “hysterics from Sukharevka” have no real basis, but are the fruit of either a politicized church consciousness, or an insufficiently objective study and selective approach to the study of the body of documents associated with the appearance of Tikhon’s message. The fight against church schisms The death of Patriarch Tikhon again awakened among the renovationist leadership hopes for the reunification of the “Tikhonites” with them. The convening of a “reconciliation council” was scheduled for the summer of 1925. The renovationists tried with all their might to invite Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) and the “Tikhon” bishops to join him. Metropolitan Peter did not reject contacts with the Renovationists, but set a condition - no reunification. We can only talk about joining the Orthodox Church of those who have fallen away from it, and only if they repent. In July 1925, in a special message from Metropolitan Peter, the Council assembled by the Renovationists was declared a false council, participation in which was strictly forbidden. Naturally, such a tough position of Metropolitan Peter was rejected by the renovationist hierarchs, among whom Metropolitan Alexander Vvedensky began to play the first violin, who, in turn, also did not recognize any compromises with the “Tikhonovites.” The response of the renovationists to the course of Metropolitan Peter was a widespread campaign accusing the “Tikhonovites” of “anti-Sovietism and politicking.” One of the renewal documents on the situation in the church world in Russia reported: “The Synod does not trust Tikhonshchina, it has in its hands facts that prove the admixture of a political element in the work of Tikhonovshchina. Despite Tikhon’s will, Tikhon’s party has not yet organized a commission to investigate foreign monarchist and anti-Soviet bishops. The leadership of Tikhonovism not only does not weaken its political activity, but is engaged in inciting the masses” 96. Thus, the very idea of ​​convening a “conciliatory council” turned out to be impossible. In the summer of 1925, the representative of the OGPU, Yevgeny Aleksandrovich Tuchkov, was instructed to negotiate with Metropolitan Peter on the position of the Orthodox Church and the fundamental principles of its relationship with the authorities. Tuchkov repeatedly invited the metropolitan to his place and negotiated with him about the position of the church in society and about the fundamental principles of possible relations between it and the state. As conditions for possible legal recognition (legalization) of the Orthodox Church as an integral organism, the following demands were put forward: exclusion (removal from the staff, retirement, prohibition from the priesthood, etc.) from the hierarchy of “politically unreliable” bishops; condemnation of foreign (Karlovak) clergy; issuing a declaration of loyalty to the church; coordination with the authorities on issues relating to the appointment of the episcopate and other most important internal church issues. Although nothing new was put forward by the authorities and Patriarch Tikhon had previously given his agreement in principle on all these points, Peter Polyansky failed to establish acceptable relations with the authorities. Moreover, the OGPU authorities viewed him as a “politically unreliable” figure and “unsuitable” for the post of head of the church. Peter, for his part, was burdened by contacts with the OGPU. He believed that the church should and has the right to communicate directly with the leaders of the Soviet state, insisted on a meeting with Rykov and Kalinin, advocating the continuation of the line that was laid down during the meeting with both Patriarch Tikhon. Peter was neither a diplomat nor a politician, so some of his actions were perceived very painfully by the authorities. The main goal for a locum tenens, Peter believed, was to be with Christ and the church people, that is, to lead the church and be with the majority of the flock. When resolving church issues, Peter often consulted with Archbishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky), the abbot of the Danilov Monastery, who took a rather tough position regarding the Soviet “godless” government and generally did not approve of contacts with it. He also sought advice from the prominent pre-revolutionary public and church figure A.D. Samarin, who had previously been convicted by the Revolutionary Tribunal. And these contacts with unreliable, according to the OGPU, persons caused irritation. In addition, which also did not please the OGPU, Peter rejected the Renovationists’ accusations that the Patriarchal Church was “counter-revolutionary.” He expressed his personal opinion in a special message dated July 27, 1925: “We will remain in union, peace and love among ourselves, we will be united, helping each other, protecting our Orthodox faith, showing everywhere and everywhere an example of good life, love, meekness, humility and obedience to the existing civil authority, in accordance with the commandments of God, remembering that the Church of Christ leads believers only to spiritual and moral improvement and there is no place in it for political struggle, so that the authorities would see this, and through it the Spirit of God would speak good things about the Holy Church” 97 . A number of bishops, among them Sergius of Stragorodsky, fraternally advised Peter to more clearly explain his position and that of the church in relation to the state. This was necessary, they emphasized, because the theme of “Tikhonovism’s politicking” was picked up by the Soviet press, following the renovationists. Peter agreed and even began to draw up a special declaration dedicated exclusively to this topic. Its necessity stemmed from the fact that the state saw its current leader, that is, Metropolitan Peter, as a possible negotiator on the legalization of the Orthodox Church, as it recognized him. The message (testament) of Patriarch Tikhon was considered at that time by the state only as a document, although extremely important, but now having intra-church significance and could not be accepted by it, since the head of the church who signed it died and his rights were transferred to another representative of the church. But it was too late. In the depths of the 6th branch of the OGPU, they began preparing an “operation” to replace Peter with a more pliable and loyal person. During this period, the OGPU still remained the force shaping Soviet state religious policy and was the main “curator” of religious organizations. The direct function of supervision was carried out by the 6th department of the secret operational department, headed by E. A. Tuchkov, who received the nickname “abbot” in the church environment. He considered Patriarch Tikhon’s choice in relation to Peter unsuccessful and had long proposed replacing him with a more flexible figure. In the spring and summer of 1925, he began to search among the bishops for a suitable candidate. And he is thinking through possible measures to depose Metropolitan Peter. ...In the early hours of June 3, 1925, Tuchkov was sitting at his desk. The day promised to be troublesome and responsible: a new game against the Orthodox Church was beginning. All the necessary intelligence reports, certificates and reports were on his desk. The only thing missing was someone who, according to the plan of the special agencies, was supposed to play the role of an “explosive device.” But he already had an agreement about this with the Vladimir Central, which sent “daddy” to Moscow, as the security officers privately called their possible new negotiator. Finally there was a knock on the door. The guard who entered handed over the package. Having quickly checked its safety, reading the inscription: “Owl. secret. With personality. Moscow. SO OGPU. Comrade Tuchkova,” opened it. A note in several lines stated: “The Vladimir provincial department of the OGPU is sending Bishop Yatskovsky under escort, in accordance with your order, and in addition we inform you that some delay in departure is due to Yatskovsky’s illness.” “Bring in,” Tuchkov ordered the guard, who had been standing at attention all this time. A tall, heavy man entered the office, leaning heavily on a stick. Shortness of breath, watery eyes - everything testified to his painful condition. His pale complexion, which is called “not a bit of blood,” showed him to be an experienced prison inmate, unaccustomed to the sun, air and freedom. For the experienced Tuchkov, one glance was enough to understand the state of mind of his interlocutor. He already knew how he would lead the conversation. “Sit down closer to the table,” the owner of the office said without raising his head and without taking his eyes off his papers. The invitee sat down, looking around hauntedly: a government-issued table and chairs, gray walls, a tightly curtained window, a stenographer and a sentry in the corner. After a long pause, leisurely turning over the pages of the plump file, Tuchkov finally drew attention to the newcomer. – Well, let’s introduce ourselves, I’m Evgeniy Aleksandrovich Tuchkov. What about you? – Archbishop of Yekaterinburg Gregory, in the world Yatskovsky Grigory Iulianovich. - That's all right. – Tuchkov began to write something down in the document lying in front of him. “Don’t worry so much,” he said without looking up from the papers, “I’m not writing a sentence, but I’m sending out a questionnaire about you... for formality.” The investigator's gentle manner calmed the arrested man a little. I thought that everything would work out if I explained everything at once. - Why am I here? My term ends in two months. I need to go home... – I will answer, I will answer... However, we will fill out the form. What is your nationality? – When, where and by whom were you arrested? - August 2, 1922, according to a GPU warrant, in the city of Yekaterinburg, in his apartment. – Under what article were you accused? What was the decision of the Revolutionary Tribunal? – In the case of resistance to the decree on the confiscation of church valuables... Three years in prison. With a feeling of fulfilled duty, Tuchkov slammed the case and pushed it away from him, as if showing: everything unpleasant is already behind us, now we’ll just talk. Smiling benevolently, he leaned back in his chair, stretched and said, completely out of place: - Summer has come. I was going to work - the sun, the birds, the warmth... Oh, I wish I could go to the river now, in nature... How is the weather for you? The interrogated person, clearly discouraged by the mood and words of the “boss,” hesitantly drawled: - Y-a-a-k... I didn’t even see all this. You know, a prison, a carriage... But... God willing, it’s still warm and I’ll be lucky enough to get out. - But this: “God willing” and “Oh my God” - is not necessary in front of me! I don't like it. We have a serious conversation ahead of us. New circumstances have come to light indicating your anti-Soviet activities. The bishop, taken aback, said: - For mercy’s sake, I’ve been in a correctional home for three years. In solitary confinement, mice and lice are my neighbors, what kind of anti-Soviet activity is there?! “My dear,” when Tuchkov “started up,” he switched to a familiar tone, “don’t take us for fools.” This refers to what you didn’t mention during interrogations - about your affairs in 1922. – I don’t know what you’re talking about. – The old man’s voice trembled. - They gave me a sentence... And is it possible that they punish twice for the same offense? - Yes! He and his people pushed us against the wall during the hungry year, started a rebellion, but we couldn’t remember anything about him! You served time for one thing, and now, lo and behold, you’ll do time for something else—for something you hid from us. With his last words, Tuchkov stood up abruptly. Bishop Gregory, looking hauntedly at his interlocutor, involuntarily thought: “Uh-oh, a healthy man, he has eaten up on government grub.” Tuchkov walked to the window - there was a decanter of water on the table nearby, poured himself a full glass and, turning towards the archbishop, drank in large sips. At the same time, the archbishop imagined that through the glass of his glass the prickly gaze of the man in uniform, who at first seemed so sweet, was boring into him. Tuchkov approached him and, looking into his eyes, said: – My word is this: tell me with whom, where and when you prepared the troubles against the Soviet regime, please. If you don’t tell me, I’ll give you three years of exile in Narym. And now... - Tuchkov turned to the sentry and beckoned him with his finger. - To Butyrka, alone, on a bunk! Dejected and confused, “Citizen Yatskovsky” left the office. My churches were pounding, my face was burning, and nausea was creeping up. “Strengthen, Lord,” he called, “give me strength so as not to fall before the satrap... But what is this for? I thought they would talk to me about the approaching freedom, but here..." The sentry, firmly taking him by the elbow, led him out the door. Tuchkov stood in the back of the office, silently observing what was happening. In his heart he triumphed - the first act of the action he had planned was a great success. The old man is broken and disoriented. The expectation of imminent freedom has been dealt a blow. A sharp phone call tore him from his thoughts. - Zhenya, is that you? – the voice of the head of the department, Taras Deribas, was heard over the phone. - We agreed to meet... Five minutes later, Tuchkov was already in the boss’s office. - What is it, old man? – Deribas immediately began. “I think he’s feeling bad and is unlikely to recover.” - Wait, wait... we need him alive. - Figuratively? You, Evgeny, love sharp forms. No matter how much I teach you that you need to take with gentleness, you bend everything. So you're scaring me. Read the medical certificate that the doctors write about our client. Tuchkov was in a good mood after the morning “warm-up” and did not pay attention to the boss’s grumbling. He knew that it would still be as he had planned. Taking out the medical certificate of Grigory Yatskovsky from the case he had taken with him, he began to read: “During an examination of the chest, an enlargement of the heart was found, and the heart sounds were clear, but dull, by two fingers to the right. Moderately developed arteriosclerosis, blurred vision, edema and chronic skinny rash on the legs...” - Enough is enough, it’s clear - he will live! Now about the matter. I read your proposals. In general I agree. Let’s do this: we keep “dad” in Butyrki for a couple of weeks, you approached him as a whisperer, let him unobtrusively denigrate Peter, develop the idea that we need to overthrow the intractable locum tenens, who makes everyone in the church feel bad, and for this, they say, smart bishops need to unite. Yes, let him hint that he should lead them. – When will we interrogate again? - Let's wait. Let him wait and suffer: why and why are they holding him? And let him be afraid that you are digging under him, you are sewing a new political cause. “Perhaps, while there is still time, we can choose someone else from among the bishops?” - No need, we’ll put it on “daddy.” In two weeks - for interrogation. And offer, offer: legalization, the Council, the patriarchate... – What about Vvedensky and his company? - Keep him on a leash, let him wait. Promise the same Council, but on the condition that at it they will continue their denunciations of Peter. - Yes, they won’t find what they need... - If they don’t find it, you find it! Two weeks later, Grigory Yatskovsky was again summoned for questioning. By that time, he already understood what they wanted from him. The meeting was short-lived. Having received consent from the archbishop to lead the opposition to the “counter-revolutionary” locum tenens, Tuchkov reported that, by order of the OGPU chairman V.R. Menzhinsky, Grigory was given seven days of freedom to find supporters in the conspiracy against Peter. At the agreed time, the archbishop fulfilled the order and brought a list, which, in addition to him, included Archbishop Konstantin (Bulychev), Bishop Boris (Rukin) ... only seven people who were ready to oppose the locum tenens. The list was taken, and the archbishop was sent to Vladimir to serve out the remaining couple of months, so as not to arouse suspicion in the church community. They were ordered to appear in Moscow at the beginning of autumn and wait for a call. This is how the “Gregorian schism” began in the Orthodox Church. Meanwhile, the renovationists spent the entire summer of 1925 intensively preparing for their Third Local Council. Its opening in the presence of the representative of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Archimandrite Vasily (Dimopulo), took place on October 1 in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. The working sessions were held in the III House of Soviets on Delegatskaya Street, where the “robber” Renovationist Council that deposed Patriarch Tikhon was held in 1923. More than three hundred people took part in them, among them more than a hundred bishops. A Synod of thirty-five people was elected, and it included a presidium of five members headed by Metropolitan Veniamin (Muratovsky). But the real head of renovationism was A. Vvedensky, who by that time had accepted the title of metropolitan. He also gave the main report “On the current situation in Orthodoxy,” in which there was nothing new, and they had become accustomed to the Metropolitan’s style of public speaking. But this time the speaker saved the “highlight” for the end of the speech. When everyone was already preparing for the now obligatory stormy applause after the report of the leader of the Renovationism, he stunned the cathedral with a sensational statement, reading a letter from the Renovationist Bishop Nikolai Soloveichik, who was sent to Uruguay more than a year ago with the title of Bishop of South America. He admitted that before leaving, in May 1924, he secretly met with Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Peter and received from the patriarch a personally signed message addressed to the Karlovac clergy. In it, Tikhon wrote that the church “cannot bless Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, since there is a legitimate and direct heir to the throne - Grand Duke Kirill.” Thus, it turned out that the patriarch maintained a secret connection with the foreign clergy, and therefore supported their anti-Soviet position, despite his own repeated public statements about loyalty to the Soviet regime. There is no doubt that this was a pre-prepared political provocation, a precisely calculated cynical blow “below the belt” against the leadership of the Patriarchal Church. It was a shameful episode in the life of Alexander Vvedensky, who voluntarily carried out the move planned by Lubyanka, designed to give the appearance of validity to the prepared repressions against Metropolitan Peter and his supporters, and at the same time to intimidate the most intractable “Tikhonovites” and thereby push them towards reconciliation with the renovationists. The cathedral exploded. In a special resolution it was written: “The Council recognizes the ongoing connection between the Tikhonshchina and the monarchists, which threatens the Church with dire consequences, and refuses peace with the top of the Tikhonshchina.” The Renovationists begin persecuting Metropolitan Peter. Izvestia publishes a derogatory description given to him by Metropolitan Alexander Vvedensky: “An inveterate bureaucrat of the Sablerov publication who has not forgotten the old methods of church administration. It relies on people organically connected with the old system, dissatisfied with the revolution, former homeowners and merchants who are still thinking of reckoning with the modern government.” It was obvious that the actions of the renovationists were not spontaneous, but were part of a plan aimed at removing Metropolitan Peter and introducing schism and disorganization into the “Tikhon” church. After waiting for some time for the sake of decency, the repressive authorities accepted the information provided by Vvedensky for verification. On November 11, the Anti-Religious Commission under the Central Committee of the RCP(b) heard Tuchkov’s report on the situation in the Patriarchal Church and gave him instructions to “accelerate the emerging split among the Tikhonites. In order to support the group in opposition to Peter, publish in Izvestia a number of articles discrediting Peter, using for this purpose the materials of the recently ended Renovation Council. Request viewing of articles to vol. Steklov I. I., Krasikov P. A. and Tuchkov. They are also tasked with reviewing the declarations against Peter being prepared by the opposition group. Simultaneously with the publication of the articles, instruct the OGPU to begin an investigation against Peter.” By the end of October, almost all of the most authoritative hierarchs living in Moscow and the immediate Moscow region were arrested. It became obvious that the ring around the locum was shrinking. Fearing and anticipating the worst, Metropolitan Peter writes a will on December 5, in which, in the event of his death, he orders the temporary granting of the rights and duties of a locum tenens. Once again, as in the order of Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitan Kirill of Kazan and Metropolitan Agafangel of Yaroslavl are indicated, but a third candidate is also added - Metropolitan Arseny (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod. At the same time, Peter indicates another possible candidate for substitution, in the event that none of the previously indicated bishops is able to take over the exercise of locum tenens rights. This is Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod. The next day, Peter draws up another order. It provides that if it is impossible for him to perform the duties of a locum tenens, their temporary fulfillment is entrusted successively to Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod, Metropolitan Mikhail (Ermakov) of Kiev and Archbishop Joseph (Petrovykh) of Rostov. Peter's fate was decided at a meeting of the Anti-Religious Commission on December 9, 1925. The church policy pursued by Peter was recognized as “obviously hostile to the Soviet government,” and the evidence collected by the OGPU was determined to be sufficient for an arrest and the beginning of an investigation. The next day, the patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) of Krutitsky, was arrested on suspicion of “political unreliability”, taken to Lubyanka, and a few days later his intensive interrogations began. His words that he had never been an opponent of Soviet power, that he recognized Soviet power and obeyed its orders, were not taken into account, and he was exiled to Siberia. “I temporarily entrust the performance of the duties of a locum tenens...” In connection with the arrest of Metropolitan Peter, his order to assign temporary duties to the Deputy Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne came into force. At that moment, of the indicated persons, only Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), who was in Nizhny Novgorod, could do this. On December 14, a regular postal envelope was delivered to him. Unfolding it and seeing the familiar handwriting of Metropolitan Peter, Sergius realized that something important had happened. While reading, he came to the words: “If for some reason it is impossible to assign me the duties of a patriarchal locum tenens, I temporarily entrust the performance of such duties to His Eminence Sergius (Stragorodsky), Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod” - and realized that a time of new difficult trials was beginning for him. On the same day, he sends a letter to Bishop Gabriel (Krasnovsky) of Klin, who temporarily ruled the Moscow diocese, in which he informs about his assumption of the position of temporary (deputy) locum tenens and asks to notify bishops living in Moscow and, if possible, outside Moscow. Before his arrival in Moscow, he asks that matters and materials related to the responsibility of the locum tenens be sent to Nizhny Novgorod. Realizing that much depends on his actions in the life of the church, Sergius rushes to Moscow, asking for permission to leave from the relevant civil authorities. But his efforts encounter an invisible and unknown obstacle to him - permission to travel to Moscow is not given. The reason soon became clear. The NKVD of the RSFSR and the OGPU isolated Sergius under “house arrest” in the Holy Cross Monastery in Nizhny Novgorod to enable a group of hierarchs led by Archbishop Gregory (Yatskovsky) of Yekaterinburg to claim their rights to power. He, in pursuance of an agreement with E. Tuchkov, arrived in Moscow at the beginning of autumn, led an inconspicuous lifestyle and at the same time secretly continued to put together a group of conspirators. As soon as Metropolitan Peter found himself isolated, Gregory emerged from the shadows, asking permission from the authorities to convene bishops in connection with emergency circumstances in the church. On December 22, a group of bishops led by Gregory Yatskovsky gathered in the former chambers of Patriarch Tikhon in the Donskoy Monastery. Having discussed the current situation: the arrest of the locum tenens, the absence of a publicly announced successor, confusion and vacillation among the clergy and believers, they announced the creation of a collegial body to govern the church at such a critical time for it. It became the Supreme Provisional Church Council (SVTsS), headed by Archbishop of Yekaterinburg Gregory (Yatskovsky). In the prepared documents, the members of the council sharply dissociated themselves from the renovationists and from renovationism “in all its forms,” as well as from Metropolitan Peter, under whose sole rule, in their opinion, “the disorder and disasters of the Holy Church only worsened.” For the legalization of the newly formed church body, the meeting participants sent a special message to the authorities. It also contained the following words: “We consider it our duty to testify to our complete law-abidingness to the ruling power of the Government of the USSR and faith in His good will and the purity of His intentions in serving the good of the people. In return, we ask you to trust in our loyalty and readiness to serve for the good of the same people to the best of our strength, understanding and ability" 98 . On January 2, 1926, the All-Russia Central Council received a notification from the NKVD of the RSFSR about the registration of the council as the only officially operating church body of the “Tikhonovites”. A few days later, the newspaper Izvestia reported about the coup in the “Tikhonovskaya” church. From the same source, Metropolitan Sergius also learns about the events. On January 14, he hastily writes a letter to Archbishop Gregory asking for an explanation. On the twentieth of January, Sergius receives an answer. As he read the letter, Sergius became more and more convinced that “it was not the good of the Church and concern for the purity of Orthodoxy” that motivated the “Gregorians,” but the thirst for church power. The schismatics did not openly recognize the rights of the deputy locum tenens. Moreover, the procedure for transferring church administration and church authority “by individual letter” was rejected as not corresponding to the canons. In other words, the order of Metropolitan Peter was, in their opinion, illegal and unnecessary. At the same time, members of the All-Russia Central Council, “appreciating the wisdom and experience in church affairs” of Metropolitan Sergius, invited him to join the council. Sergius had little opportunity to fight the newly opened schism. He sends letters and appeals to various bishops, in which he sets out his position regarding the “Gregorians”. Several people faithful to Sergius were sent to the dioceses to inform the bishops about the situation in the church. It was possible to summon to Nizhny Novgorod those bishops who were not deprived of the opportunity to move around the country. More than two dozen assembled bishops confirmed the legality of Sergius’s rights in the absence of a locum tenens. By a special decree, Sergius banned from the priesthood all those who followed Gregory, and removed both the archbishop himself and his supporters from the administration of dioceses and vicariates, while simultaneously recognizing all their actions (ordinations, awards, appointments, etc.) as invalid. But the Gregorians did not give up. In February 1926, taking advantage of the special relationship with the OGPU, Archbishop Gregory met with Metropolitan Peter at the place of his imprisonment - the internal prison on Lubyanka. The schismatic deliberately misled Peter about the “unfreedom” of Sergius in Nizhny Novgorod and, as a result, obtained from Peter a resolution (though drawn up in a conditional form) on the removal of Sergius and the transfer of power to the “troika” (collegium): Archbishop Gregory, as well as Archbishop Nikolai (Dobronravov) of Vladimir and Archbishop Dimitri of Tomsk (To Belikov). Let us add: Gregory hid the fact that the candidates he proposed were languishing in prison, and, in essence, usurped power in the church. Having familiarized himself with the resolution, Sergius did not recognize it, pointing out that Metropolitan Peter was not aware of the actual situation in the church. Sergius, before the OGPU, insisted on a personal meeting with the locum tenens to resolve pressing issues of intra-church life. In March, the authorities promised to arrange this meeting. However, although Sergius came to Moscow, and there were rumors in church circles that Peter was also there, in Moscow, they were never destined to meet. It was only allowed to exchange letters. Sergius informs the Metropolitan about Gregory’s fraudulent actions and unseemly actions. In his response letter, Peter condemned the actions of Gregory, recognized his resolution on the formation of the “collegium” as invalid and reaffirmed the authority of Metropolitan Sergius as his deputy. Soon it became clear to the “Gregorians” themselves that they would not be able to win over either Sergius of Stragorodsky or other authoritative hierarchs, despite all their promises, including promises of release from prisons and exile. As information about Gregory's actions spread throughout the church world, so did the protest against them. The Gregorian schism was slowly dying. It seemed that Metropolitan Sergius managed to achieve some calm in the church; no less than forty bishops announced their acceptance of the deputy’s side. But unexpectedly for him, in April 1926, Metropolitan Agafangel, who had been released, announced his claims to church power. Returning from exile to his Yaroslavl diocese, he made a stop in Perm. Here E. A. Tuchkov met with him, who reported on the reasons for the arrest of Metropolitan Peter, suspected, according to him, of political crimes. At the same time, the idea was expressed that, in fact, Agafangel, whom “the authorities treat with confidence,” has more rights to lead the church than Metropolitan Sergius, who, moreover, is under suspicion from the authorities. Agafangel heeded Tuchkov’s “advice” and on April 18 published a message to his flock, announcing his assumption of the post of patriarchal locum tenens on the basis of the will of Patriarch Tikhon. Metropolitan Peter, informed by Metropolitan Sergius of Agafangel’s decision on April 22, indicated in a letter to the latter: “I transfer the rights of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens to Your Eminence, and I take away the rights from Metropolitan Sergius so that he immediately issues to the Soviet authorities his written renunciation of the rights of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens.” Tuchkov could rejoice: his plan for the decentralization of the church was fully realized. The legitimate head of the church, Metropolitan Peter, is in prison. The rights of Metropolitan Sergius are disputed by Metropolitan Gregory and Metropolitan Agathangel. In addition, the church ship, rocked by these hierarchs, is being prepared to be boarded by the renovationists. Tuchkov sought to give his initiatives to “decompose” the church the appearance of directives approved and approved by the “top.” For this purpose, he asked Em. Yaroslavsky to include in the agenda of the April meeting (24th) of the Anti-Religious Commission the issue of approving the OGPU line regarding the “Tikhonovites”. Tuchkov himself determined the direction of the resolution: “The line pursued by the OGPU to disintegrate the Tikhonov part of the clergy is recognized as correct and expedient. To pursue a line of schism between Metropolitan Sergius (appointed temporary locum tenens by Peter) and Metropolitan Agafangel, who claims to be the patriarchal locum tenens, while simultaneously strengthening the third Tikhon hierarchy - the Temporary Supreme Church Council, headed by Archbishop Gregory, as an independent unit. Agafangel’s speech with an appeal to believers to accept the responsibility of locum tenens is considered timely and appropriate” 99. At first, Sergius agreed with the decision of Metropolitan Peter. But he soon became convinced that many bishops considered Agafangel’s actions to be unfounded, and his message was regarded as a conspiracy, possibly forced, with the organs of the OGPU. Based on these opinions, Sergius entered into correspondence with Agafangel, proving the incorrectness of the step he had taken. Gradually, the correspondence became known to the episcopate; most of it considered Agafangel’s actions to be wrong and sided with Sergius. Another attempt by the OGPU to maintain the confrontation between Agafangel and Sergius was the meeting of the two hierarchs within the walls of the Lubyanka in mid-May 1926, which, however, did not lead to any clear decision and agreement. The ongoing correspondence between the hierarchs convincingly showed that Agafangel's arguments about church authority were untenable. The circle of supporters of Metropolitan Sergius among the episcopate expanded. An interesting recognition of this can also be found in the OGPU review of the situation in the country for April 1926: “Agafangel is not recognized by the All-Russian All-Russian Central Council. His speech caused confusion among the ordinary clergy of Moscow, and indignation among the Black Hundreds. Sergius's position in Moscow is strong. The illegal college of Sergius bishops continues to govern the Moscow diocese, developing its activities. Sergius is supported by the Danilovites, who prefer him to the imprisoned Peter, and the Black Hundred Metropolitan Seraphim Chichagov” 100. It is quite obvious that the contents of this particular secret source were broadcast to the broad Orthodox masses through official publications, completely confusing them. For example, the Izvestia newspaper, in an article under the heading “Struggle for Power,” reported the appearance of three candidates for the Patriarchal throne: Archbishop Gregory (Yatskovsky), Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky). The situation becomes even more confusing and at the same time aggravates when, on June 3, the All-Russia Central Council opens its first congress and unexpectedly announces the recognition of Agafangel’s rights to primacy in the church and invites him to head the All-Russian Central Council. The “Tikhon” church, whose leader for the majority of the episcopate and clergy, of course, remained Metropolitan Sergius, found it difficult to fight Gregorianism and Renovationism - they were officially recognized by the state. Demonstrating their loyalty, cursing the enemies of the state (including “church counter-revolutionaries”), they could act, strengthening their church-administrative structures, receiving support from believers and, importantly, taking advantage of their financial assistance. Sergius and those loyal to him had nothing of the kind; they were outside the law. Based on the legislation that existed at that time, the authorities could ruin their church bodies, parishes and churches at any moment. In fact, Metropolitan Sergius had the only chance to maintain his priority in the church environment and, moreover, to knock out the main trump card from the hands of his opponents, who accused him of “illegality.” Its form was also predetermined by the circumstances of the era and the nature of the relationship between the state and the church - to come into contact with the OGPU on the issue of forming a legal supreme body of church government. The People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the RSFSR, which was in charge of these issues, set Sergius the same conditions for legalization that had once been given to Patriarch Tikhon: condemnation of the counter-revolutionary past of the church; refusal to participate in “politics”; proclamation of a course of loyalty and recognition of state acts regulating the activities of religious organizations; condemnation of the "Karlovak split". On June 10, 1926, Metropolitan Sergius transferred two documents to the NKVD on a preliminary basis for review. The first is a program for the proposed organizational activities of the “Old Churchmen”, the second is a draft message to the flock. The main content of the documents boiled down to the following: a request for legal recognition of local and central bodies of church government, confirmation of the continuity of Patriarch Tikhon’s course of loyalty, an appeal to all believers to be law-abiding citizens; condemnation of the politicking of the “Karlovak split” 101. At the same time, the documents are distributed among the episcopate. As bishops, clergy and church activists become familiar with the ideas they contain, the number of Sergius’s supporters grows. This gives him reason to send a lengthy letter to Agafangel on June 13, putting an end to the long-running dispute for power between them. Sergius did not know at that moment that Agafangel himself had already admitted himself “defeated”, having sent letters renouncing his claims to the position of patriarchal locum tenens both to the authorities and to Metropolitan Peter. On June 17, a similar letter with references to “advanced age and extremely poor health” was sent to Metropolitan Sergius. Without knowing it, Agafangel dealt a serious blow to Tuchkov’s plans. He, trying to somehow save them, seeks to incite a conflict between Metropolitan Peter and Metropolitan Sergius, remove the latter from church affairs and thereby ensure revenge for Archbishop Gregory. Tuchkov visited Peter, who was in the Suzdal political detention center, and suggested that he take a number of measures regarding the church structure. In particular, they talked about the establishment of the Orthodox Synod as the highest body of church authority with the obligatory inclusion of Archbishop Gregory in its composition. In relation to Metropolitan Sergius, the following measures were proposed: to deprive him of his rights as a deputy locum tenens and move him to the Krasnoyarsk diocese, that is, in fact, send him into “honorable exile.” Tuchkov in every possible way incited Peter against Sergius, telling tales about him, passing on rumors and gossip, accusing him of intrigue and politicking. However, Peter did not succumb to persuasion and intimidation, declaring: “In relation to Metropolitan Sergius, one of the honored, enlightened and most authoritative bishops, who enjoys the respect of the hierarchs and flock, such a measure would be unfair and would be an attack on his dignity and an unheard-of insult.” Regarding the possibility of including Archbishop Gregory in the Synod, Peter stated that a bishop deprived of his cathedra and subject to prohibition cannot be a member of the Synod. So Tuchkov left for Moscow with nothing. Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius and the Provisional Patriarchal Synod. July 29, 1927 The draft documents that Metropolitan Sergius submitted to the NKVD of the RSFSR in June 1926 were vigorously discussed in the church community, and their fundamental provisions received support. It is significant that similar ideas, independently of Metropolitan Sergius, were set forth by the hierarchs who were in the Solovetsky concentration camp in the Memorandum “To the Government of the USSR” (June 7, 1926). It recognized the need to “put an end to the regrettable misunderstandings between the Church and the Soviet government”; build their relationship on the principles set out in the decree on the separation of church and state, loyalty of both the clergy and believers to civil authority. At the same time, it was pointed out that there were “deep differences in the very foundations of the worldview between the communist state and the Orthodox Church” 102. Both documents became known to the flock of the Foreign Orthodox Church. In general, they were received positively, and the primacy of Metropolitan Sergius in the church was not disputed by anyone. In the conclusion of the Council of Bishops on September 9, 1926, regarding the draft Message to the flock, it was stated: “In the message of Metropolitan Sergius, we have a completely free (almost the first in five years) written expression of the will of the highest church authority, which is completely binding for us.” That is why the message of Sergius was proposed to be “accepted for guidance and execution, without ceasing the spiritual connection and exaltation of the name of the patriarchal locum tenens” 103. On July 10, 1926, Metropolitan Sergius, convinced of the support of the episcopate, clergy and believers, officially submitted to the NKVD of the RSFSR an application for the legalization of the highest church administration and his Message to the flock. The victory of Metropolitan Sergius, who managed to defend the unity and integrity of the Patriarchal Church, forced Tuchkov to negotiate with the deputy locum tenens. However, they were conducted with unusual difficulty, and more than once things came to the point of acute conflicts. At times it seemed to Sergius that it was impossible to reach any compromise at all. The most intractable issue was the question of power in the church. Sergius insisted on holding a Local Council to elect a patriarch, linking the rest with a positive solution to this issue: a declaration of loyalty, the normalization of church-state relations. Tuchkov adhered to directly opposite positions - the convening of the Council and the election of the patriarch should depend on the fulfillment of the legalization conditions put forward by the NKVD. The lack of positive results in negotiations with the authorities, the unknown fate of Metropolitan Peter, whose order was the only support and basis for the powers of Sergius of Stragorod, pushed the hierarchs to search for measures that, under all unexpected circumstances, would preserve the continuity of the canonical highest church authority. The idea was born to elect a patriarch through a written survey of as many hierarchs as possible, including those in exile and imprisonment. It was directly initiated by Archbishop Korniliy (Sobolev) of Sverdlovsk, a former student and tonsure of Metropolitan Sergius at the St. Petersburg Academy, and Bishop Pavlin (Kroshechkin). Later others joined them. By November 1926, responses from more than seventy hierarchs surveyed had been received. The majority spoke in favor of Metropolitan Kirill of Kazan, the first of the number of hierarchs appointed in the will of Patriarch Tikhon as possible locums. The written survey of the bishops took place with the knowledge of Sergius. This is evidenced by the following circumstances. At the beginning of October 1926, Bishop Pavlin (Kroshechkin) came to him in Nizhny, informing him of plans for a written survey and asking for advice on what to do. Sergius stated that, as the deputy patriarchal locum tenens, he would be able to support this plan only if authoritative bishops approached him. A month and a half later, Peacock returned and presented the signatures of a number of authoritative bishops. Having familiarized himself with the text and seeing that about twenty-five people, including the Solovetsky bishops, had already spoken out in favor of conducting a written survey, Sergius wrote an appeal to the hierarchs with a proposal to speak out on the merits and gave this document to Pavlin. Sergius' appeal was also distributed along with other documents about the survey of hierarchs. But... the OGPU did not sleep and was soon on the trail. Mass arrests of bishops began on a hastily fabricated case “about a counter-revolutionary group led by Metropolitan Sergius.” According to contemporaries, at that time at least forty Russian bishops were sentenced to various terms of exile and prison. Metropolitan Kirill, who was serving exile in the Zyryansky region, whose term was about to end, was also thrown into the Vyatka prison. Finally, by mid-November they approached Metropolitan Sergius. He was accused not only of organizing the “illegal collection” of bishops’ signatures on a proposal not sanctioned by the Soviet authorities, but also of maintaining “illegal” correspondence with foreign clergy. Sergius was arrested and taken from Nizhny Novgorod to Moscow, to the Lubyanka. ...Moscow townsfolk and guests, crowding at the early hour on the platform of the Kursky railway station, watched in surprise a strange picture. A black “funnel” rolled up close to the last carriage of the train, which had just arrived from Nizhny Novgorod. A young soldier with a rifle at the ready jumped onto the step and quickly walked into the carriage, two more stood on both sides of the door. A few minutes later, a tall old man appeared with his head uncovered, with a long black beard thickly streaked with gray. Having descended heavily, Sergius Stragorodsky, and it was he, took a step and, taken by the guards on both sides, was put into the car. The guards were also stationed nearby. The car rushed into the city center, not stopping at intersections and not paying attention to traffic lights, and even at this early Sunday hour there were almost no pedestrians or cars. The black curtains, which let in virtually no light, made it impossible to see where they were going. “But,” Sergius thought, “the choice is not particularly great. Either Lubyanka or Butyrka, what else can the authorities offer me again?” Finally a stop, abrupt commands, the heavy grinding of iron gates... And again movement. And again a stop. Probably this time it’s final. The door opened and it immediately became clear: Lubyanka. Sergius was allowed inside. There is a corridor in front of him. Suddenly two accompanying people appeared. One went ahead, the other behind. Abrupt command: “Go!” – and so they moved along the darkened corridor. The silence was interrupted only by the commands “Stop!” at each of the turns where the guards replaced each other. At the next turn, while the guards were talking about something, Sergius looked a little to the side and was stunned. He recognized this gray door... It was the cell where Patriarch Tikhon languished in prison. “So we’ve met…” I thought. Unnoticed by the guards, he crossed himself. Taking a few steps forward on command, he found himself in front of another door. A few more agonizing seconds... the door opened, and he was pushed into the cell... The door closed. Little by little his eyes got used to the semi-darkness, and Sergius saw that he was not alone in the cell. The second prisoner was Bishop Afanasy (Sakharov) of Kovrov. The meeting was unexpected and, despite the place, even joyful - they had not seen each other for a long time. On this day, they were able to talk about a lot and, most importantly, clarify that the reason for their imprisonment was an attempt to elect a new patriarch through a secret collection of votes. Having gathered a significant group of Russian hierarchs in the internal prison at Lubyanka, special agencies began interrogating them. The first were Archbishop Cornelius and Bishop Paulinus. It is known from the protocol what the conversation was about on December 19, 1926. The investigator, addressing Archbishop Cornelius: – Who owns the initiative for the written survey? “She belongs to me, and I won’t name others, because I think it’s dishonest.” – Why was the election done in secret? - So that the OGPU does not find out and interfere with us. On the same day, Pavlin was also interrogated. The investigator already knew the first testimony of Cornelius, and therefore began to conduct a conversation around Metropolitan Kirill, elected by the hierarchs: – How did you decide to elect Kirill without asking his consent? – I didn’t talk about it. – Why was the election carried out in secret, taking everyone’s word not to tell anyone about it? – Because the matter concerns only the church and everything was done in private. – In your opinion, the church as a whole should monitor the trustworthiness of its members? - You shouldn't. She pursues religious goals and, if a church member approaches her from a religious point of view, she does not care about his political physiognomy. The latter is a personal matter for everyone, and it is the business of the state to monitor his political activities. Summarizing the first results obtained, the investigators considered it necessary to inform their superiors about the extremely important circumstances they uncovered during the interrogation. A secret memorandum went to the top saying: “A group of Black Hundred churchmen involved in investigative case No. 36,960, led by Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorod, the patriarchal locum tenens, decided to give the Church the definitive character of a certain anti-Soviet organization and, for this purpose, to head it as a patriarch, having elected him illegally, and identified an anti-Soviet person as a candidate for such. As the most desirable candidate, the group identified Konstantin Ilarionovich Smirnov, Metropolitan Kirill, the most Black Hundred and active counter-revolutionary churchman, from 1919 to the present, with several interruptions, subject to repression for active anti-Soviet activities, with whom he communicated on this issue. At this time, Smirnov was assigned to the city of Kotelnich to complete his administrative expulsion. Immediately, Kirill began receiving receptions like a patriarch. Moreover, they were furnished in an extremely secretive manner, the doors were locked and conversations were conducted in whispers. Church visits became widespread; up to five people came to see him at a time” 104. The command was immediately given to interrogate Metropolitan Sergius. On December 20, he, like others, was asked the same questions. The goal was obvious: to find “inconsistencies” in the testimony. – Why was the matter of electing the patriarch conducted so secretly? – Firstly, we did not want to publicize the issue of electing a patriarch ahead of time. Secondly, they proceeded from the consideration that the civil authorities could see some kind of conspiracy in the very technique of work (traveling, etc.), and they preferred that they find out about this later, when the issue had become practically serious. Sergius’s cellmate, Bishop Athanasius, was interrogated with the same persistence. Already in January 1927, the investigator began another interrogation with the words: – Do you know Bishop Pavlin? - I know well. In October or November, I can’t say for sure now, he was with me in Vladimir. - Why did he come to you? – As far as I can imagine, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure I have the right not to testify. “Did Peacock make you swear that you wouldn’t tell anyone about his arrival?” – We don’t use oaths at all. But what we talked about was not said in order to become public knowledge. – What is your personal opinion about the election of Metropolitan Kirill to patriarch? – I consider him the most worthy candidate. – Isn’t it, in your opinion, somewhat inconvenient for the candidate that he was subjected to repression for anti-Soviet activities? – With the separation of church and state, I believe, it makes no difference to the state who will be at the head of the church... And, as far as I know, recently Kirill’s situation has been significantly eased, but previously the authorities generally spoke positively about him. At that time, namely the end of 1926 - the beginning of 1927, several dozen bishops were arrested at once in connection with the election of Metropolitan Kirill to the patriarchate. Taking into account those who had previously been arrested, convicted or expelled for various reasons, we can say that only a very, very small part of the episcopate remained at large. According to the previously given order of Metropolitan Peter, after the arrest of Metropolitan Sergius, Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh) of Leningrad took temporary control of the church. But since he himself was “in a cramped position” - he was serving an administrative exile in one of the remote places of the Yaroslavl region, on December 8 he made an order about the possible transfer of his rights to three more “temporary deputies of the patriarchal locum tenens” - Archbishops Korniliy (Sobolev), Thaddeus (Uspensky) and Seraphim (Samoilovich). Only the latter was still free at that time and therefore was able to carry out Joseph’s orders. For four months, the church was ruled by Archbishop Seraphim of Uglich, vicar of the Yaroslavl diocese. But he could not really influence the situation in the church, because the authorities forbade him to leave the confines of his vicarate. There was neither a Synod nor any other body under him that could provide a stable connection with the bishops who remained at large. And Seraphim had too little experience and authority to become a force uniting the Patriarchal Church. It is curious that Tuchkov also looked closely at this hierarch, summoned him to Moscow and even offered negotiations on “legalization.” But since Seraphim himself did not consider it possible for himself to discuss problems on a church-wide scale, Tuchkov “did not see” in him a worthy candidate for continued contacts and sent him off in peace to Uglich. At the beginning of 1927, the situation in the highest church administration of the “Tikhonovites” turned out to be extremely confusing and difficult to resolve. The names of thirteen hierarchs who claimed primacy were known. A significant part of the episcopate was in prison and exile. In addition to the pressure of external circumstances, the church was torn apart by internal contradictions and increasing numbers of schisms, each of which wanted to be called the “true Church.” The disunity between the church center and the dioceses, on the one hand, and the parishes and diocesan administrations, on the other, was almost complete. All this provided ample opportunities for the renovationist schism to finally subjugate all the patriarchates, parishes that had become almost ownerless throughout the entire Soviet Union. The “Tikhonovskaya” church looked more and more like a ship without a rudder and sails, carried by storms towards rocks that were fatal to it. While in prison, Metropolitan Sergius was still in the sights of the OGPU. He was offered to begin negotiations on the legalization of the church on the terms previously put forward to Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Peter. Chief among them is a declaration of loyalty to the Soviet state and condemnation of the “Karlovak split.” To some extent, the proposal is unexpected, because it was obvious that all the previous time this organization professed a course towards a split and decentralization of the Patriarchal Church. It was impossible not to take into account that Sergius also ended up in prison while taking measures to unite the church. At that time, Metropolitan Sergius was seen as the only person who could “gather” the Patriarchal Church. Metropolitan Sergius did not know that the emphasis in the church policy of the special services was somewhat shifted. The state now needed not a “fragmented” but an “integral” organization. The Soviet state was preparing to celebrate its tenth anniversary. The political leadership of the country wanted to demonstrate to its citizens and abroad that not only ordinary believers, but also the Orthodox Church as a whole were loyal to the Soviet regime and the previous conflicts and confrontations between them had disappeared, and therefore the tasks before the security forces were set differently. A painful question arose before Metropolitan Sergius: what to do? Of course, he could refuse negotiations, but this would certainly entail further pressure from the repressive apparatus on the church and, most likely, would completely liquidate it. And then the authorities could report on their anniversary, if not about complete political loyalty to the Orthodox Church, then about the “overcoming” of religious remnants and the “natural” collapse of its administrative and managerial structures. Sergius did not want this and understood that only one thing could save the church with all its liturgical structure, local and central government bodies, save it from being absorbed by the renovationists, save it as an integral institution and thereby give it hope for a favorable future - the settlement of relations with the state. If the church had not been divided, if there had not been a struggle for power in it, Sergius during the negotiations could have put forward and defended more favorable conditions than those that were offered to him. But this was not the case, and the conditions dictated to him. He could only hope for the fulfillment of the promises given to him, the main thing among which was to allow the speedy convening of the Local Council. It was impossible not to take into account one more, perhaps decisive, political factor: for the most part, ordinary believers recognized themselves as citizens of the Soviet Union, working not out of fear, but out of conscience for its benefit. If today we want to be honest with this bygone generation, we must admit the obvious and indisputable: their political sympathies were on the side of the Soviet regime. Ignoring this, the church would have set itself in opposition to both the authorities and its multimillion-dollar flock, for whom it was difficult to understand why the church leadership did not recognize the real political situation in the country and did not express its political views openly and publicly. Moreover, Patriarch Tikhon did this and he called on his supporters to do so in his will. In this situation, Sergius, like Patriarch Tikhon earlier, did not shy away from the heavy lot sent to him by fate. He took a step towards power consciously, and not in a cowardly desire to extract any personal benefits. He took a step that personally could not bring him glory and honor, but gave a chance to survive to all those who were next to him, who came to the church in these and subsequent years, and at the same time would not allow the thousand-year thread of Orthodoxy in Rus' to be interrupted. Surely he more than once recalled Patriarch Tikhon, who said during the search for a compromise with the Soviet state: “Let my name perish in history, as long as the church is useful.” With a written undertaking not to leave Moscow, on March 30, 1927, Sergius was released from his fourth prison sentence in the post-October period. He lived in Moscow, in Sokolniki, in the very house that was looked after for Patriarch Tikhon and the highest church authorities under him. The building of the patriarchal residence in Sokolniki again became the center of the reviving church. On May 7, after Archbishop Seraphim transferred his unexpected powers, Sergius again took the reins of church government. The spring and summer of 1927 were spent completing work on last year's project of addressing the flock and obtaining permission for the legal action of the Synod. On May 7, Sergius petitioned the NKVD to legalize church administration. May 16 - requests permission to hold a meeting of bishops to discuss the composition of the Synod and the text of the declaration. …On the evening of May 18, the hierarchs invited by Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorodsk gathered in a house on Korolenko Street: Metropolitan Seraphim (Alexandrov) of Tver, Archbishop of Vologda Sylvester (Bratanovsky), Archbishop of Khutyn Alexy (Simansky), Archbishop of Kostroma Sevastian (Vesti), Archbishop of Zvenigorod Philip (Gumilevsky), Bishop of Sumy Konstantin (Dyakov). “Archpastors and shepherds,” the owner of the house took the floor, “I asked you to gather due to an emergency.” Before our eyes there is disorder in the life of the church. After the death of our humble Patriarch Tikhon, there is no peace either among the laity, or among the shepherds, or among the hierarchs. Metropolitan Peter is far from us... the church is falling apart, and something needs to be done. I propose to form under me, as the temporary deputy of the first bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, an auxiliary body - the Synod. I hope for your support and that you will not refuse to join the Synod. – But is it necessary to return to synodal times? – Archbishop Sylvester was the first to ask the question. “Vladyka Sergius,” Metropolitan Seraphim spoke, “you mentioned Metropolitan Peter, but does he know about your intention?” “How can it be,” Archbishop Philip said, “why is there not among us Metropolitan Agathangel of Yaroslavl, who in the twenty-second year was named the first locum tenens by the deceased patriarch himself?” “Allow me to ask a question,” said Archbishop Alexy. – It is known that Metropolitan Peter founded a special board to govern the church, which included His Eminence Arseny of Novgorod and His Eminence Gregory, who has now caused a schism. And what should we do here?.. Won’t we, on the one hand, look like usurpers of church authority, and on the other, panderers to schismatics? Questions were asked, and all those present turned their gaze to Sergius of Stragorodsky, expecting answers, clarifications and clarifications. “Indeed,” Sergius began his response, rising from the table, “we have a lot of difficulties.” But I would not have convened you if I did not have solid grounds and confidence that we were embarking on the right thing. Recently I received a letter from Metropolitan Peter from the Perm prison. He recovers from a serious illness and reports that the college he had previously created was abolished, since Metropolitan Agafangel, due to his weakness, did not assume the duties of the patriarchal locum tenens. And Archbishop Gregory, the instigator of the troubles, is no longer in canonical and prayerful communion with the church. As for Metropolitan Arseny, I ask His Eminence Alexy to clarify. – But why was the synodal form of government chosen? Can't we return to the decisions of the Moscow Council of 1917–1918? – Archbishop Sylvester raised his voice again. - Yes, sir, we can’t. Let me remind you that at that time the civil authorities, even if no longer autocratic, gave their permission to hold the Council. The current government, the Soviet government, has a negative attitude towards this form of church structure. Therefore, any attempt of ours to follow this path will turn us into “illegal counter-revolutionaries” and result in repressions against hierarchs, clergy and laity. “Vladyka,” Metropolitan Alexy Simansky entered the conversation, “do I understand you correctly that the current chosen form of government is, in your opinion, neither the best nor the final?” - That's right. And please note that it is no coincidence that the name of the emerging body indicates the “patriarchal” Synod. It is important for us that a stable central governing body be organized, known and accepted locally and meeting several times a session for its plenums. Since church life does not wait and sometimes requires immediate orders from the center, they will be received by the deputy patriarchal locum tenens together with those hierarchs who can be attracted at a given specific time. “This reminds me of the order that existed among us in pre-Petrine times and that still exists today in some autocephalous Orthodox churches,” Metropolitan Seraphim said. “You are absolutely right,” Sergius Stragorodsky continued his explanation. – Where the first bishop attracts to church governance those whom he can, and thereby brings church governance closer to a conciliar form, to the joint participation of the hierarchy in general church affairs. God willing, the time will come when we can easily move from this form to the patriarchate. At your request, I wrote a letter to Metropolitan Arseny at his place of exile in Turkmenistan. However, the letter was returned indicating that the addressee had left for an unknown destination. But according to my previous correspondence from last year, it is established that Arseny gave his consent in principle to join the Synod being planned at that time. So we can assume that he is with us. As soon as contact is established with him, we will receive written confirmation from him. “The Synod,” Sergius continued, “is not authorized to replace the sole leadership of the Russian Church. He performs an auxiliary function, being with me, and his powers stem from mine and end with mine. Let me clarify once again about the position of Metropolitan Peter regarding Metropolitan Agafangel. Here... - Sergius sorted through the sheets of paper lying in front of him and took one of them in his hands - I will quote the words from Metropolitan Peter’s letter: “I confirmed to Metropolitan Agafangel the transfer of locum tenens rights and responsibilities to him, and stipulated that in the event of Metropolitan Agafangel’s refusal to accept power or the impossibility of exercising it, the rights and responsibilities of the patriarchal locum tenens return again to me, and the deputy position - to Metropolitan Sergius." “Now everything is clear... We understand... We accept,” was heard from all sides. After consulting for some more time, the participants came to the general conclusion that they should agree with Metropolitan Sergius’s proposal and submit an application to the NKVD to register the Synod. At the same time, it was decided to ask for permission to register diocesan bishops with their auxiliary bodies. The first composition of the Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod was formed, into which, along with those present, the candidacy of Metropolitan Arseny (Stadnitsky) was included. On May 20, the NKVD sent “Citizen Stragorodsky I.N.” an official certificate stating that his statement and the list of members of the Synod proposed by him were “taken into account” and “there are no obstacles to the activities of this body until it is approved” 105. This served as the basis for the Synod to adopt a resolution on the organization of temporary diocesan councils on May 25. It was sent to local hierarchs with instructions to apply for their registration to the local bodies of the NKVD, which began to be actively implemented everywhere. By the end of July, taking into account the opinion of the episcopate, work on the draft of last year's appeal to the flock was completed and the final composition of the Synod was determined. July 29, 1927 Sergius and eight members of the Provisional Patriarchal Synod: Metropolitan Seraphim (Alexandrov); Archbishops Sylvester (Bratanovsky), Alexy (Simansky), Anatoly (Grisyuk), Pavel (Borisovsky), Philip (Gumilevsky); Bishops Konstantin (Dyakov), Sergius (Voskresensky) - sign the “Message to Shepherds and Flocks,” which later became known as the declaration. On August 19, the message is published in the Izvestia newspaper and also distributed throughout the dioceses in the form of leaflets. Handing over the declaration for publication, Metropolitan Sergius, in a conversation with a correspondent of the Izvestia newspaper, emphasized: “We recognize Soviet power as a normal and legitimate power. And we obey all its decisions quite sincerely. In the event of war, our sympathies are entirely on the side of the Soviet Union: after all, we serve our homeland, and all sorts of interventionists fight only in their own interests, in order to exploit the Russian people and Russian land” 106. Sergius also did not ignore the issue of the “Karlovak Church”. He stated that this church cannot make any statements on behalf of the entire Orthodox Church, since it does not reflect the position of the church in its homeland. Because of this, the hierarchs of the Church Abroad were required to give a written commitment to loyalty in church and public activities in relation to the Soviet government. Those who disobeyed were threatened with dismissal, which meant for them a complete severance of any ties with the Patriarchal Church. A comparison of the declaration of July 29, 1927 with its draft dated June 10, 1926 shows that it retains the basic fundamental provisions accepted by all hierarchs both in the USSR and beyond - loyalty, legalization, condemnation of the “church counter-revolution.” But there were also some adjustments. In particular, the provisions on the “law-abidingness” of believers and the attitude of the church leadership towards the government of the USSR are given in more detail; the activities of the “Karlovites” are assessed more sharply; The discussions about the “contradictions” between the “Orthodox” and the “Communist-Bolsheviks” are not so categorical. And the hope is especially emphasized that the government will nevertheless allow the convening of a Local Council to resolve the issue of higher church governance. The declaration evoked different responses among the episcopate, clergy and believers. One of the reviews of the OGPU wrote about this: “Many churchmen do not agree with the position put forward by Metropolitan Sergius: “Loyalty to the Soviet regime is not a betrayal of Orthodoxy,” such as, for example, the “irreconcilables,” Agafangel’s group, exiled bishops, Novoselov’s group. These groups are holding on wait-and-see for now” 107 . The episcopate gradually divided into three unequal groups. One, the smaller one, sharply condemned Sergius and broke with him. In one of his messages, Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh) of Leningrad stated: “To condemn and neutralize the latest actions of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), contrary to the spirit and good of the Holy Church of Christ, due to external circumstances there are no other means except a decisive departure from him and ignoring his orders. Let these orders be received only by the all-bearing paper and the all-containing, insensitive air” 108. Another group, although they did not publicly protest, avoided cooperation with Sergius, refusing new appointments, asking under plausible pretexts for “retirement” and “vacation,” and some, without rejecting the authority of Sergius, at the same time did not remember his name as a deputy locum tenens during divine services and continued to proclaim the name of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky). It is significant that even modern church authors who take a subjectively politicized, rejecting position regarding the activities of Metropolitan Sergius and his declaration are forced to admit that “the circle of bishops who did not depart from Metropolitan Sergius was very wide” 109 . They entered the third group, which included up to half of the available bishops, including such authoritative ones as Metropolitans Arseny (Stadnitsky), Nikandr (Fenomenov), Mikhail (Ermakov), Seraphim (Chichagov); Archbishops Hilarion (Troitsky), Evgeniy (Zernov), Peter (Zverev), Procopius (Titov), ​​Ambrose (Polyansky), Feofan (Tulyakov), Vasily (Zelentsov), Boris (Shipulin); bishops Manuil (Lemeshevsky), Nikolai (Yarushevich), Venedikt (Plotnikov), Luka (Voino-Yasenetsky) and others. The hierarchs, based on the objective circumstances in Soviet Russia, believed that only by eliminating the political confrontation between the church and the state, removing the “omissions” and “inconsistencies” regarding the social and governmental structure in the USSR, could one hope that the “Tikhonov” church would “survive” in the new socio-political conditions. It is no coincidence that, years later, recalling the then situation, Patriarch Alexy (Simansky) said: “When His Grace Sergius took over the management of the Church, he empirically approached the position of the Church in the surrounding world and then proceeded from the existing reality. All of us, the bishops around him, agreed with him. All of us, by the Provisional Synod, signed the Declaration of 1927 with him in the full conviction that we were fulfilling our duty to the Church and her flock” 110. Another close comrade-in-arms of Sergius at that time, Bishop Sergius (Voskresensky) of Serpukhov, spoke even more clearly: “At the price of the political Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, the legalization of the Patriarchate and the liberation of the Church from renovationist dominance was purchased” 111 . All subsequent generations of Russian bishops in Russia and abroad will turn to the Declaration of Sergius of Stragorodsky. For example, in 1989, in the year of the 400th anniversary of the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia, Archbishop Ioann (Snychev) of Kuibyshev, speaking at an international scientific-church conference, highlighted two tasks that Sergius sought to solve with the help of the declaration: first, to achieve legalization in the conditions of the Soviet state and society; secondly, to overcome church schisms and preserve the successive canonical structure of the Supreme Church Administration. And he gave the following answer: “Both tasks were difficult. The first difficulty was that not all Orthodox Christians had yet reached a clear understanding of legalization itself. For many, it was thought of as nothing other than the submission of God to Caesar, as a betrayal of Orthodoxy. Hence, naturally, every step directed by anyone towards bringing the Church and the State closer was already regarded as a deviation from the truth. The difficulty of the second task was to overcome incorrect thoughts about the canonical dignity of successive church authority, transferred from one person to another by will, and not by definition of the Council, and in suppressing the illegal claims of those who sought to arbitrarily usurp the rights of the High Hierarch of the Russian Church and become the head of the administration" 112. And in his other works devoted to the church schisms of the 1920s and 1930s, Bishop John denounced: “No personal shortcomings of Metropolitan Sergius can serve as an excuse for opponents of “Sergianism.” The Church recognizes the only reason the presence of which can justify separation from the primacy of the bishop - publicly preached heresy... The personal good intentions of the leaders of the schism in no case can serve as a justification for their illegal actions. “Jealousy beyond reason,” as centuries-old church history shows, has repeatedly brought those who fell under its influence to a sad and disastrous end.” 113 One can also cite the testimony of the modern official church historian Archpriest V. Tsypin, pointing to the fact that “the decisive majority of bishops and church people were sympathetic to the church policy of Metropolitan Sergius and supported him. The locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, in two letters addressed to his deputy, although with reservations, agreed with the inevitability of his church policy and, most importantly, confirmed the powers of the deputy patriarchal locum tenens” 114. Sergius, together with the Synod, is taking steps to develop a policy of loyalty to the authorities. In October, a decree was issued on the resumption of commemoration of state power during divine services with the addition of the formula: “We also pray for our God-protected country, its authorities and army. Let us live a quiet and silent life in all piety and purity.” In essence, an interrupted tradition dating back to Patriarch Tikhon has been resumed. By the way, Metropolitan Sergius said to those who were especially stubborn in their reluctance to say it during the service: “I was forced to do what I did, but if these prayers do not give you peace, do not say them.” At the same time, a statement was sent to the OGPU requesting an amnesty and easing the fate of previously repressed clergy. It emphasized that they “turned out to be victims (perhaps not without their fault) of the former illegal position of our Church and its former abnormal relations with the Soviet government.” In response, some of them were indeed released: Archbishops Zakhary (Lobov), Juvenaly (Mashkovsky), Bishops Arkady (Ershov) and Manuil (Lemeshevsky). Sergius himself, in correspondence and negotiations with “dissenters,” repeatedly explained and defended his position. Among the evidence that has reached us is his meeting with the delegation of the Petrograd diocese that visited Sergius in December 1927. ...Bishop Dimitri (Lyubimov) and the members of the delegation accompanying him entered the room where Metropolitan Sergius was. They silently approached for the blessing. Then they handed over letters, appeals, documents that they had brought with them... Sergius slowly and carefully read what was given to him, from time to time he asked, clarified, and expressed his opinion. Slowly a conversation began. “You are protesting,” said the Metropolitan, “but many other groups recognize me and express their approval.” I can’t take into account everyone and please everyone, every group. You each judge from your own bell tower, but I act for the good of the Russian Church. “We, Vladyka,” the St. Petersburg residents object, “we also want to work for the good of the church.” We are not a small group, but express the church and public opinion of the Leningrad diocese of eight bishops, part of the clergy, and thousands of like-minded believers. “You are being prevented from accepting my appeal by political counter-revolutionary ideology, which,” Sergius took out one of Patriarch Tikhon’s messages and showed his signature, “which he condemned.” - No, Vladyka, we agree with the message of Patriarch Tikhon. It is not our political convictions, but our religious conscience that does not allow us to accept what your conscience accepts... We stand on the point of view of Solovetsky condemnation... “Excuse me,” interrupted Sergius, “what you are talking about was written by one person, Bishop Vasily (Zelentsov) ... Other Solovetsky inmates support me. And what’s special that we remember the authorities? Since we recognize it, that means we pray for it. – Is it possible to pray for the Antichrist? – Do you guarantee that this is not the power of the Antichrist? “I guarantee it,” Metropolitan Sergius said, suddenly becoming serious. – The Antichrist should have been around for three and a half years, but now ten years have passed. - And the spirit of antichrist: not confessing Christ who came in the flesh. – This spirit has always existed from the time of Christ to the present day... What kind of Antichrist is this, I don’t recognize him! “Forgive me, Vladyka, you don’t recognize him,” only the elder can answer. And since there is a danger that this is the Antichrist, then we don’t pray... And from a religious point of view, our rulers are not the government. – This position of yours is called confession. – We did not come to you to argue, but to declare from many who sent us that our religious conscience does not allow us to accept the course that you are pursuing... Stop, for Christ’s sake! - No... There are confessors, martyrs, and there are lawyers, helmsmen... Every sacrifice is accepted. Remember Cyprian of Carthage... – The Church does not need saving... - Yes. The universal church is indestructible. But where is the famous Carthage church? Are there Orthodox believers in Caledonia, in Asia Minor, where Gregory the Theologian and Basil the Great became famous? – The Church is saved by Christ, not people... – This is true, but it is also true that without human effort God’s help does not save... You cannot take all the people into the catacombs. What will you leave these little ones with? Without churches? Without sacraments? Without the Eucharist? Do you have an answer to this question? – The members of the delegation were silent. “And if so,” concluded the Metropolitan, “then we need to make some compromises.” From his impetuous movement, from the tone of the words spoken, it was felt that, in fact, he had nothing to talk about with the delegates. But still, in the end, he reproached them: “To abandon the course of church policy, which I recognized as correct and obligatory for a Christian and meeting the needs of the church, would be not only reckless on my part, but also criminal. I am ready to tell you this today. And if necessary, then tomorrow, and to others who come to me, write and say the same thing.” After the delegation left the hall, Sergius sat at the table, looking over and over again the documents she had left behind. Archpriest Nikolai Kolchitsky entered quietly: - Your Eminence, did you call? “Yes, Father Nikolai, take all this,” Sergius pointed to the table, “and put it into action.” Let it be a material memory of today's affairs, and for the future - material for understanding our doing. – Will history forgive you, Your Eminence? - suddenly burst out from the lips of the young priest. “Will history forgive me?.. I don’t know,” Sergius answered and, after hesitating, added: “History may forgive me, but the main thing is that the Lord forgives me.” Metropolitan Sergius, of course, understood that the declaration caused great confusion among the clergy and flock. But he was a real monk. He stood before God, and the main thing for him was not the judgment of history, but the judgment of God. Let us add that the declaration, which became the basis for legalization, that is, legal recognition by the state of local and central governing bodies of the “Tikhon” church, in many of its fundamental points repeated, developing and specifying, the ideas expressed orally and in writing by Patriarch Tikhon in the last years of his patriarchate, and did not contradict them in any way. Naturally, the position of those who gradually sided with Sergius was not uniform in everything. While supporting everything related to a loyal attitude to the state, they simultaneously pointed out a certain “incompleteness” and “understatement” of the message. This approach was especially clearly manifested in the message of the hierarchs who were in the Solovetsky camp 115. While agreeing on the issue of loyalty, they stated unequivocally: “We accept quite sincerely the purely political part of the message.” They also disapproved of the omission to the effect that responsibility for the previous “regrettable clashes between the Church and the state” also lay with the “church policy” of the state. They rejected as “insincere” a statement about offering “gratitude” to the authorities for their attention “to the spiritual needs of the Orthodox population”; they considered the form in which the statement of the church’s loyalty to the civil authorities was too “categorical”. It was noted that the church should more definitely demand non-interference by the state in internal church affairs. The difference of opinion among the hierarchy, naturally, was reflected in the views of the parish clergy and believers, dividing them into supporters and opponents of the declaration. However, the absolute majority of them sided with Metropolitan Sergius. The statement that is constantly found in church and parachurch literature that 90 percent of parishes returned the text of the declaration to the Synod, without reading and not wanting to read it in churches because of their disagreement with it, has no documentary evidence. It's just a fantasy. While evidence of a different kind - statements in support of the declaration and the church course of Metropolitan Sergius as a whole - is abundantly present in the archives. Today they can be found on the pages of historical literature, the authors of which strive to objectively present the situation in the church in connection with the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius and are actively searching for archival documents. At the end of December 1927, Metropolitan Sergius and the Provisional Synod again addressed a message to the flock, again and again explaining the reasons why church life was being built in accordance with the declaration published in the summer of 1927. Describing the “church devastation” of 1926–1927, the authors pointed out: “The center was little informed about the life of the dioceses, and the dioceses often knew about the center only by rumors. There were dioceses and even parishes that, wandering as if groping among ignorance, lived a separate life and often did not know whom to follow in order to preserve Orthodoxy. What a fertile ground for the spread of all sorts of fables, deliberate deceptions and harmful misconceptions, what a vast field for all sorts of arbitrariness” 116. At the same time, it was reported about the first changes that took place in the life of the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union: diocesan councils were opened locally, ties between the Synod and dioceses were established, empty cathedras were replaced, ties with the Eastern Churches and Orthodox parishes in various countries of Europe and Japan were restored, and “church schisms” in the country were overcome. Metropolitan Sergius and the Synod again and again speak about the inadmissibility of a “break with one’s legitimate bishop,” which can be justified only in one case: when condemned by the Council or when one begins to preach a known heresy, also already condemned. But since this is not the case, then the joint work of the Synod, Orthodox dioceses and parishes is required for the benefit of the Church of Christ. Monastic communities and their abbots also spoke out in support of the declaration and the resumption of commemoration. For example, in the Moscow Vysoko-Petrovsky Monastery, where Archbishop Bartholomew (Remov) was the rector, the declaration was accepted from the moment it was promulgated. The monks of the Petrovsky Monastery commemorated those in power at the direction of St. Tikhon and before the publication of the declaration. Thus, the apostolic covenant was fulfilled: “I pray, first of all, to make prayers, supplications, petitions, thanksgivings for all people, for the king and for all those in power, so that we may live a quiet and silent life in all piety and purity” (1 Tim. 2:1-2). The inspirer of this prayer was the elder of Zosima Hermitage, Hieroschemamonk Alexy, the same one who, during the Local Council, “by drawing lots” determined the name of the eleventh Patriarch of All Rus' - Tikhon. Many of the monastics specially went to Father Alexy in Sergiev Posad, where he lived after the closure of the Zosimova Hermitage, with the question: is he really blessing to adhere to Metropolitan Sergius? And the elder directed every questioner to remember Metropolitan Sergius. “Christians,” said the elder, “should not have enmity towards anyone. There must be love, love and prayer. Metropolitan Sergius is legitimate, he does the right thing, you need to listen to him... I don’t find any sin in praying for the authorities. I should have prayed for them a long time ago and intensified my prayers. Only the grace of prayer can destroy the wall of hostility and hatred that has arisen between the Church and the Soviet government. Pray, maybe the grace of prayer will break through this wall... Tell everyone who knows me in Moscow that the elder did not doubt or hesitate for a minute and stands on the side of those who accept power and obey Metropolitan Sergius” 117. In January 1928, Sergius and the Provisional Synod sent a decree to the diocesan bishops to convene the Second Local Council with a request to send proposals to them regarding the time, composition, procedure for convening and issues to be discussed. At the same time, Sergius, in ways accessible to him—by letters and during meetings—tirelessly explained to the authorities the reasons for such a decision and proved its vital necessity. A little later, on March 29, 1928, the “Act” was published, which outlined in detail the position of the highest church authorities regarding the accusations brought against Sergius by the part of the episcopate that did not obey him. The justification for the powers of the deputy locum tenens, including in terms of the dismissal and removal of bishops, which caused particular rejection and protest, was derived from the fact that Metropolitan Peter transferred to him his rights and responsibilities “without any restrictions.” One can quote the words of a prominent church figure of that era, Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) of Vereya, who wrote from the Solovetsky camp: “They are transferring others, so what can they do, they are doing it willy-nilly, as they cannot live at home. Before, for some trifle, positions were changed - and they were still happy, but now they created a scandal" 118 . Those who were “confused” by the words of the declaration: “We want to be Orthodox and at the same time recognize the Soviet Union as our civil homeland, whose joys and successes are our joys and successes, and whose failures are our failures,” it was specially explained that they relate to the external well-being and disasters of people’s life, but not at all to the “spread of unbelief,” as some pervertedly interpreted them. Years later, in 1942, recalling the era of the late 1920s and the church unrest associated with the publication of the declaration, Sergius testified: “An unimaginable chaos reigned in our Church, reminiscent of the state of the Universal Church during the Arian Troubles, as described by Basil the Great... We could only count on the moral power of canonical truth, which in the old days more than once saved the Church from ultimate disintegration. And in our hope we were not put to shame. Our Orthodox Church was not carried away and overwhelmed by the whirlwind of everything that was happening. She retained clear her canonical consciousness, and at the same time her canonically legitimate leadership, that is, the grace-filled continuity of the Universal Church and her rightful place in the choir of autocephalous churches” 119. In the Renovationist Church, the attitude towards the declaration was also ambiguous. Some bishops and parish clergy, and even more so ordinary believers, accepted the idea of ​​loyalty to the state positively expressed in it. Therefore, local flocks left renovationist churches, moving to patriarchal parishes. The renovationist leadership, in its public speeches and on the pages of the church press, presented the declaration as “an act of hypocrisy, ingratiation and flirtation” with the authorities of Metropolitan Sergius and his supporters. Alexander Vvedensky, speaking in November 1927 at the plenum of the Renovation Synod, said: “I am afraid that this is only a new disguise for Old Churchism, a new re-casting as a Soviet lion, which, in fact, remains a plucked White Guard eaglet” 120. Russian emigration and the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorod The declaration also caused heated debate among the Russian emigration. Split into two camps, it was united in its rejection of “Bolshevism” and longed for the fall of the Soviet of Deputies, but had different ideas about the future political and social structure of Russia (monarchy or bourgeois republic), and had different attitudes towards the idea and possibility of a new intervention against Soviet Russia. Both camps sought to rely on church structures formed in the West, in which they saw their possible allies. With the publication of the declaration, relations also worsened between various groups of the church community that were affiliated with various political groupings. The discussion of the declaration immediately grew beyond the scope of the church problem. This, for example, is well conveyed by a leaflet-appeal of a group of Russian officers to the manager of Orthodox parishes in Western Europe, Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievsky): “We did not interfere in the church issue, we do not know whether it was correct or not, as long as it was considered in the field of canons, which, we confess, are still little known to us. But now the church question has acquired a purely political character. And here for us, political fighters for our homeland, there can be no omissions. Respect for the personalities of pastors fades into the background. We want to know who is ready to fight with us against the Bolsheviks and who is not inclined to this fight” 121. Metropolitan Evlogy focused on maintaining connections with the Moscow Patriarchate and sought to avoid the penetration of “politics” into the church. He and his supporters perceived the declaration as a logical continuation of the actions of Patriarch Tikhon aimed at regulating relations with the state. However, even in this environment, its discussion did not proceed quietly and peacefully. The controversy spilled onto the pages of emigrant publications: newspapers “Rul”, “Last News”, “Russia”, magazines, collections, leaflets, appeals, appeals. There was unanimity on one thing - not to give a written signature of loyalty to the Soviet government, which Sergius demanded from the foreign clergy. Diametrically opposed opinions were expressed regarding the declaration and its significance for the church both in the USSR and abroad. Such authoritative leaders of the Russian diaspora as D.S. Merezhkovsky, A.V. Kartashev, G.P. Fedotov, G.N. Trubetskoy, called, conjured and demanded to reject Sergius’s message, to break all and any ties with him. But no less authoritative - N. N. Glubokovsky, N. A. Berdyaev, N. O. Lossky, Metropolitan Eleutherius (Epiphany) and others - spoke out in support of the declaration. Thus, N.N. Glubokovsky stated: “The message, it seems to me, pursues good goals both for the Church in Russia and for us, and I see no reason to look at it pessimistically.” This point of view is summarized and convincingly presented in Berdyaev’s eloquently titled article “The Cry of the Russian Church.” He concluded it with the following words: “To practically meet the call of Metropolitan Sergius means from now on completely stopping grand ducal and royal prayer services in foreign churches that are in the nature of political demonstrations, that sermons in churches or speeches at diocesan congresses that are political in nature should not be allowed. This is the liquidation in the foreign church of the period associated with the civil war. Metropolitan Sergius has already embarked on this path, and this path must be completed. And this will only free the church from those agreements and compromises to which it was forced in the past. And this will be our spiritual return to our homeland" 122. The sharp, sometimes bitter and impartial polemics that sounded at the meetings of parish assemblies and diocesan congresses, which swept like a wave through European countries where Russian emigrants lived compactly, nevertheless ended in the victory of Metropolitan Eulogius and his supporters. To sum it up, Metropolitan Evlogy, in his message to Metropolitan Sergius, reported that the demand to sign a pledge of loyalty to the Soviet state is rejected, while the policy of “non-interference of the Church in political life” remains unchanged, and strong organizational and spiritual ties with the Moscow Patriarchate are maintained. By the way, Eulogius’s position was supported by some other foreign hierarchs. For example, Archbishop of Sevastopol Veniamin (Fedchenkov) wrote in his diary: “What a great thing Metropolitan Sergius did! Truly historical... Even world-wide - to change the thoughts of everyone... This is the work of a huge Christian soul! A matter of the deepest mind! The fruit of great suffering! May the Lord help him in this apostolic feat! How difficult it is for him now, given the general misunderstanding! I need to serve him with all readiness, without refusing to perform any obedience, no matter how difficult it may seem to me! We need to support him! You don’t need to listen to one or the other, but to him alone” 123. The hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad took a different position. At the Council of Bishops, which met in early September 1927, the declaration was categorically rejected as a document of a purely political nature, and not church-canonical, and therefore has no basis for mandatory execution. At the same time, it was announced that all ties with Metropolitan Sergius had been broken, who, according to the “Karlovites,” was striving to establish “a union of the holy Orthodox Church with the government that is destroying both the church and every religion” 124. At the same time, Metropolitan Eulogius was condemned by the Council for “schismatic activities,” banned from the priesthood and removed from the management of Orthodox parishes in Western Europe. Metropolitan Sergius, having received information about this, by his decree canceled this prohibition. The reaction of this part of the Russian emigration can be explained, on the one hand, by its political attitude, the essence of which was, as the newspaper Latest News wrote, “in opposition to the Soviet government as a secular power and in calls to fight for the restoration of the monarchy in Russia.” On the other hand, the gravitation of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), the head of the Church Abroad, towards “independence” had an effect. Back in the summer of 1923, the Synod adopted a secret (both for believers abroad and for Patriarch Tikhon) resolution on the non-execution of Patriarch Tikhon’s decrees concerning the activities of foreign parishes. Both before this time and later, Metropolitan Anthony repeatedly turned to Patriarch Tikhon with a request to grant “independence” to the Church Abroad, that is, he led the way towards actual separation from the Moscow Patriarchate. Thus, the appearance of the declaration became for this part of the Orthodox hierarchy a convenient reason for an open break with the Moscow Patriarchate and the proclamation of their political credo - the restoration of the monarchy in Russia. It was also important that the situation in the summer of 1927 in Europe was significantly different from last year, when the Synod discussed the draft message of Metropolitan Sergius and supported it: the wave of anti-Sovietism was growing, violent actions were committed against foreign Soviet institutions and individuals, calls for an economic blockade were made, and the possibility of a new military campaign against the USSR seemed quite real. That is why the text of Sergius’s declaration explains the essence of the patriotic position of the church, when “every blow directed at the Union, be it a war, a boycott, some kind of social action, or simply a murder from around the corner, like Warsaw 125, is recognized by us as a blow aimed at us.” ...On November 23, 1928, the Riga-Moscow train slowly approached the platform of the Rzhevsky station. Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) intensely peered into the windows of the cars passing by... One, two, three... I thought: “Will I recognize him after such a long separation?.. And will he, Eleutherius, recognize me as his former acquaintance?..” There was a knock in the compartment, and the porter's head poked his head through the slightly opened door. He said: “The bishop is waiting for you on the platform.” It seemed that I had misheard. "What did he say?" – Metropolitan Eleutherius addressed the accompanying person. “The bishop is waiting for you.” A thought flashed: “He’s probably wearing some kind of bishop’s decoration, and I’m in a warm cassock... an ordinary autumn hat, without a staff, with an umbrella in my hands... But there’s nothing to do. We have to go out." Indeed, standing opposite the opened door of the carriage was Metropolitan Alexy in a fur cassock with a beaver collar, a hood and a bishop’s staff in his hand. After mutual greetings, Alexy addressed the guest: – Metropolitan Sergius asked to meet you, and he himself is waiting for you at his apartment. Taxi at the station. Please. On the way, a casual conversation began. - And you, Vladyka, seem surprised to see me in a cassock, in a hood and with a staff? “You probably thought that we, bishops, walk around with shaved beards, cropped hair, and in secular suits,” said Alexy. – Yes... You guessed it, almost so. – As you can see, we have kept everything intact and appear everywhere in such attire. - Well, thank God, this is very good. Half an hour later the car stopped near an unremarkable gate. In the background is a manor house with an outbuilding. We walked to him along a four-plank path through the entire orchard. In the entrance hall Eleutherius was met by Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorod, Archbishop Philip, administrator of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Pitirim of Volokolamsk, administrator of the patriarchate, and Metropolitan Seraphim of Saratov. After greetings, joyful exclamations and smiles, we went to Sergius’s cell - a room with two windows, with the simplest furnishings: a bed to the right, a desk to the left, a small icon case in the holy corner, a small bookcase next to it, a telephone hanging on the opposite wall. On the desk is a portrait of Patriarch Tikhon. We sat down at the tea table. As always in such a situation, the conversation did not start right away. The meeting was like an obsession, despite the storms of life raging around. A meeting of aliens... “from the other world,” who silently looked at each other and rejoiced at the opportunity to see each other before their death. A feeling of joy expanded in Eleutherius’s heart, his thoughts dissolved into feelings, and he didn’t want to speak... It was pleasant to look at Metropolitan Sergius, whom, it seemed, the foreign press had long buried, declaring him broken, sick, with a shaking head and hands. In front of Eleutherius sat the slightly grayer and plumper bishop, who had undergone four-time imprisonment, the de facto head of the church. It was clear that he was full of strength and energy. The same smart, kind, affectionate eyes, not a shadow of mental fatigue or sorrow in them. The same smile, replaced by a familiar good-natured laugh. By twelve o'clock the remaining members of the Synod arrived, and everyone went into the hall with four windows, where synodal meetings usually took place. In the corner there was a glowing lamp under the image of the Mother of God, in the middle there was a table covered with green cloth, with twelve chairs, at the entrance to the right there was a small soft sofa, to the left of the entrance on the wall there was a well-executed portrait of Patriarch Tikhon. At the meeting, Metropolitan Eleutherius made a report on the state of church affairs abroad and especially in Poland, where the non-canonical autocephalous Polish Orthodox Church was proclaimed. Those present were interested in everything down to the smallest detail that a direct eyewitness to the unfortunate events in the Orthodox Church life could report. Then there was lunch, after which there was a trip to the Church of Blessed Maxim. For the first upcoming Moscow week, Metropolitan Eleutherius had every day and every hour scheduled: visits to cathedrals, churches and monasteries, participation in Synod meetings, episcopal consecrations and services, excursions around Moscow and the near Moscow region, meetings with hierarchs, official visits and visits to old acquaintances. The next day we went to the Donskoy Monastery together with its rector, Bishop Innocent. We entered the Holy Gate... At first glance, the monastery seemed to be the same, but life in it was no longer the same. The two main churches are run by the monastery, and the monks have the keys to them, but they live somewhere far outside its walls. The monastery buildings were taken by the authorities for their own needs. No one was visible, only two beggars were dragging along the distant path. We approached the high stairs leading to the Great Monastery Church. It seemed that the darkness of godlessness had touched this monastery too... A little later, an elderly man with a thin, unfriendly face appeared - a novice. He opened the door, and everyone entered the church, so dear and familiar to Eleutherius, because he had once lived in the Donskoy Monastery for almost a year. The first impression is that there are no services at all in the church anymore. Some neglect is noticeable; the former shine of the vestments on the icons is missing. And no wonder: there are few monks left, they live outside the monastery and are unable to maintain proper order. Eleutherius and those accompanying him venerated the miraculous Don image of the Mother of God - it is in the same place, in a metal frame. At the left choir there is a wonderful Vilna image of the Mother of God without a precious robe... But maybe that’s why she is even more striking in this cooled church. We stood silently... Then we went to the warm church of the monastery, where Patriarch Tikhon was buried. When the guests arrived, the liturgy had just ended. There were five or six pilgrims. There were fresh flowers on the steps on three sides of the tomb. At the top of the tomb is the patriarchal miter, with a lamp burning near it. Having robed themselves at the altar, the guests came out, accompanied by two hieromonks and two hierodeacons who served them. Three novices are singers. The memorial service was served in complete darkness, with the entire canon being read. I felt blessed communication with the deceased saint. From Donskoy, Eleutherius and Bishop Innocent went to the Danilov Monastery. Near the monastery gate they were met by the abbot of the monastery, Hieromonk Sergius, since the abbot, Bishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky), was in exile. The brethren still lived in their cells, but there were rumors about the imminent closure of the monastery. We went to the main church, where the revered relics of Grand Duke Daniel rested, without meeting a single monk. The service is over. The nun sprinkled sawdust on the floor. Seeing the hierarchs, she opened part of the holy relics. Everyone stood silently for a few minutes and prayed. Upon returning to the Patriarchate, Eleutherius learned with regret that his stay in Moscow had been shortened by the OGPU until December 1. Extensive plans were falling apart, there was still so much I wanted to discuss. In the evening he met with Metropolitan Sergius, the conversation turned to the 1927 declaration. “You cannot imagine, Vladyka, how your words excited the emigration: “The joys and successes of the government are our joys and successes, and failures are our failures!” -Have you read my declaration? – Sergius asked with a barely noticeable smile. “But the words that are attributed to me are not there.” It says: “The joys and successes of our homeland are our joys and successes, its failures are our failures.” “But, forgive me, sir,” said Eleutherius, embarrassed, “is this so?” – Read it yourself if in doubt. – Sergius took out the text of the declaration, found the right place, and handed it to Eleutherius. - Read. Indeed, it was written: “We want to be Orthodox and at the same time recognize the Soviet Union as our civil homeland, whose joys and successes are our joys and successes, and whose failures are our failures.” After waiting until the marked fragment was read, Sergius continued: – And not only you abroad read this part of the declaration in your own way, there were others here, too. People approached me with questions: what does this mean? And I had to explain the same to them. “Then this changes things, and there is no reason for rejection... – Yes, and I’m sure that everyone will understand this soon. True, except for those who deliberately do not want to read what is written. – Do you mean the foreign clergy, Karlovac Cathedral? – I agree with you. It seems to me that your appeals to them are calls not to interfere with religion and the church in politics and thus not give reasons for repressions against it in Russia. Although others said that you are forcing foreign clergy and flocks to recognize themselves as almost subjects of Soviet Russia, with all the ensuing consequences for them. – In our words about loyalty, we wanted only one thing: for the clergy to behave correctly in relation to the Soviet government, not to vilify it in their public speeches. Of course, in his memoirs of a trip to the USSR, which Metropolitan Eleutherius published in Paris in 1933, he could not help but touch on the insinuations that were spreading abroad about the violent death of Patriarch Tikhon and the forgery of his Message to the flock of April 7, 1925. The first, with reference to his meetings and conversations in Moscow, the Metropolitan categorically rejects, and regarding the message, he writes: “If you read the message without prejudice, then neither in content, nor in style, much less in spirit, it can in no way be recognized as the work of a godless mind. It is morally and psychologically beyond the power of a proud, atheistic mind to write it. And should those who deny the authenticity of the patriarchal message, in contradiction to their view of the Soviet government, give it undue honor by attributing to it the authorship of the message? 126 Resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR “On Religious Associations.” XIV All-Russian Congress of Soviets. April-May 1929 The publication of the declaration by Metropolitan Sergius occurred not only during the period of “church ruin” within the country and “church turmoil” in the Church Abroad, but also during that difficult time when the struggle between two tendencies in the implementation of church policy intensified in the party and state circles of the USSR. M. I. Kalinin, P. G. Smidovich, P. A. Krasikov, A. I. Rykov, A. V. Lunacharsky advocated a relative softening of the harsh policy towards religious organizations, although with varying degrees of consistency. The position of I.V. Stalin, N.I. Bukharin, E.M. Yaroslavsky, V.M. Molotov, who advocated an authoritarian solution to religious problems, was different. When negotiations were underway with Metropolitan Sergius, there was an approximate equality of forces directly involved in church politics - the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the NKVD of the RSFSR, the OGPU. As a result, the participation of religious organizations in the public life of the country was still possible; they could show their initiative in the sphere of economic life. There was even an increase in the number of religious organizations. If on January 1, 1926, 34,796 associations were registered in the RSFSR (without autonomous republics), including 27,126 “Tikhonov’s,” then on January 1, 1928, respectively, 38,442 and 29,584. The table compiled by NKVD employees gives an idea of ​​the confessional picture in the RSFSR: But from the second half of 1927, at first, a barely noticeable, and then increasingly obvious reorientation took place towards the displacement of religious organizations to the periphery of public life, reducing their activities only directly to the worship within the walls of prayer buildings. This course was clearly evident on the eve of the adoption of the declaration, and then when deciding the issue of registering the “Sergius” diocesan departments. The position of the OGPU again turned out to be decisive and boiled down to the following: 1) to refuse official registration of newly formed departments and 2) not to officially register existing de facto departments, but not to interfere with their activities. This position was confirmed by the secret circular of the NKVD of the RSFSR “On the “Sergius” diocesan administrations.” Very soon, another feature of the line of administrative bodies in relation to the diocesan administrations of the “Tikhon” church was revealed. For the NKVD of the RSFSR and the OGPU, the term “registration” did not have any legal meaning. For example, the central apparatus of the NKVD of the RSFSR, in an explanation dated January 6, 1928 to the Administrative Department of the Far Eastern Territory, indicated: “The term “registration” is used due to the fact that both the so-called Patriarchal Synod and the so-called diocesan departments in their statements, presenting lists of these organizations in the prescribed form, raise the question of “registration” of them as official institutions, about which, Of course, that's out of the question. It is completely inappropriate to explain to them their error in any way for purely political reasons.” 127 This attitude was also translated into all other “clarifications” of the NKVD of the RSFSR, sent to local authorities in connection with their inquiries about their attitude to the activities of the Patriarchal Synod. In other words, for the NKVD of the RSFSR and the OGPU, their entire line of behavior in 1925–1927 in relation to the leadership of the “Tikhon” church was just a tactical step that did not change the essence of the relationship of these bodies to “religion and the church.” Church governing bodies, like religious communities in general, were in their understanding “political organizations” opposed to socialism and “undesirable” in a socialist society. They were not and could not be recognized as a legal entity and were only tolerated as an inevitable consequence of the conjuncture of sympathies and antipathies towards “religion and the church” that had developed in the state-party apparatus by that time. And very soon that fragile “truce” between the church and the state, which was achieved on the principles set out in the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, collapsed. The starting point for this process here should be taken in 1929, when the hopes and intentions of not only Metropolitan Sergius, but also those forces in the Communist Party and the Soviet state who declared the need to democratize state religious policy finally collapsed. The XIV All-Russian Congress of Soviets was scheduled for May 1929. It was expected that the congress would make changes to the articles of the Constitution of the RSFSR concerning issues of freedom of conscience. And the day before, in April 1929, it was planned to adopt a new republican legal act regulating the activities of religious associations. The entire pre-congress period was used by the authorities to whip up anti-religious hysteria. Particularly active was the Anti-Religious Commission under the Central Committee of the RCP(b), whose chairman, Em. Yaroslavsky, called in his pogrom anti-religious articles to “rip the ground out from under the feet of every church and religious preacher” 128. To the accompaniment of such statements on the ground, the practice of holding gatherings, meetings, and rallies became increasingly popular, at which a simple majority of votes, often in the absence of an “interested party,” made a decision: whether or not churches, mosques, synagogues, and houses of worship in populated areas should be operational. Here is an extract, typical for those years, from the minutes of the working meeting of the Red October factory (Middle Volga region), held on March 15, 1929: “We heard: About the closure of the church. We decided: We believe that we do not need the church as a breeding ground for religious intoxication. We instruct the city council and other organizations to immediately close the church and use the church premises for a school.”129 The background against which the preparation of the new law on religious associations took place is also well conveyed by the content of numerous analytical materials of the NKVD of the RSFSR, transmitted by it to the central party and Soviet bodies. Thus, on April 6, 1929, literally on the eve of the adoption of a new law on religious organizations, the NKVD of the RSFSR wrote that “religious people” everywhere and always join those forces that oppose measures aimed at “strengthening the power of the Soviet Union and weakening the capitalist sector,” organizing anti-Soviet mass protests. At the same time, the document emphasized that the “increased anti-Soviet activity of religious people” was becoming increasingly diverse: “pressure” on lower local authorities during re-elections to the Soviets, the creation of underground counter-revolutionary organizations, the distribution of anti-Soviet leaflets, terror against atheist activists, organizing a movement for the opening and construction of churches and preventing their closure 130 . On April 8, 1929, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR adopted a resolution “On Religious Associations,” which, although it was later subjected to some clarification, editing and additions, was generally maintained as valid until the early 90s of the 20th century. It legislated the opinion, which by that time had become dominant, that religious organizations do not have the right to engage in any other activity other than satisfying the religious needs of believers primarily within the framework of a prayer building, and that religious organizations should be “ousted” from all spheres of society where until that time they had the right to operate, and they should be prohibited from having any “exit” into society at all. At the same time, the activities of religious associations in terms of meeting the religious needs of citizens were limited by many strict regulatory conditions. Thus, they were forbidden to create mutual aid funds, cooperatives, production associations, and generally use the property at their disposal for any other purpose than to satisfy religious needs; provide financial support to its members; organize both special children's, youth, women's prayer and other meetings, as well as general biblical, literary, handicraft, labor, religious teaching, etc. meetings, groups, circles, departments, as well as arrange excursions and playgrounds, open libraries and reading rooms, organize sanatoriums and medical care. In prayer buildings and premises it was allowed to store only books necessary for the practice of a given cult; It was not allowed to teach any religious doctrines in state, public and private educational and educational institutions. Such teaching could only be allowed at special theological courses opened by citizens of the USSR with the special permission of the NKVD of the RSFSR, and on the territory of the autonomous republics - with the permission of the Central Executive Committee of the corresponding autonomous republic. In fact, religious associations in the RSFSR turned into some kind of “reservations” for citizens professing certain religious beliefs. Naturally, this approach, through the general party-ideological leadership of the country, automatically extended to all other union republics and became all-union. To be fair, it should be noted that the resolution also contained positive content, rejecting some erroneous proposals included in the draft union legislation on cults, in the instructions of the NKVD of the RSFSR, the OGPU and the Anti-Religious Commission of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, defining the conditions for the formation and functioning of religious societies, performing rituals and requirements, etc. But, unfortunately, it soon became clear that many of these positive articles were in the context of an unfolding process “expulsion of religion” from society was not implemented in practice. At the same meeting, a Standing Commission on Cult Issues was formed under the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, replacing the Secretariat on Cults. She was entrusted with considering issues related to the activities of religious organizations and submitting draft decisions on them to the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The commission included representatives of the republican people's commissariats of justice, internal affairs, education, as well as the OGPU, the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. The commission was headed by P. G. Smidovich, and it began its activities in May 1929. April 8, 1929 became a milestone in Soviet state-church relations. On the one hand, it meant that in the dispute that was waged in 1926–1929 in the power structures (union and republican), about the need to adopt an all-Union law on religious associations and the creation of an all-Union body “for religious affairs,” those who opposed it won. From now on, it was considered expedient to resolve all issues of “religious policy” in accordance with the opinion of party and state bodies in each of the union republics separately. On the other hand, the adopted resolution testified that in the RSFSR, in the highest party-Soviet apparatus, that part of it (I.V. Stalin, V.M. Molotov, N.I. Bukharin and others) that advocated tightening the religious course of the state and rejecting the “relaxations” of the NEP period turned out to be stronger. The XIV All-Russian Congress of Soviets, held in May 1929, along with the tasks of economic, cultural, and social development of the country, paid a lot of attention to the “religious issue.” Moreover, its discussion proceeded on a predetermined topic, in line with the “theory” established in the public consciousness about the aggravation of the class struggle in a socialist society. In the reports of A. I. Rykov on the five-year development plan of the RSFSR and A. V. Lunacharsky on the current tasks of cultural construction, special attention was paid to religious issues. Both proceeded from the premise that in the class struggle “religion and the church” find themselves on the side of the forces that hinder socialist construction. A.I. Rykov, characterizing the situation in society, said: “The remnants of the capitalist classes - kulaks in the countryside, Nepmen in the city and representatives of the old ideology, the ideology of religious dope and private property among the intelligentsia - are and will continue to offer all possible resistance to the organization of a new society. Hence the intensification of the class struggle that we are experiencing at the present time. The class enemy, of course, uses any difficulty that comes our way to fight the dictatorship of the proletariat and to create a gap and discord in the alliance of the working class with the peasantry” 131. A. V. Lunacharsky spoke even more sharply about the place and role of religion and the church. In his opinion, cultural construction must be accompanied by a struggle “with our two main cultural enemies, with all kinds of churches and religions, in whatever forms. This is the enemy of socialist construction, and he is fighting us on cultural grounds. Schools and all cultural institutions are batteries that are turned against religion with all its horrors, dirty tricks, with all the shame of narrow nationalism, especially reflected in anti-Semitism” 132. Such statements found warm support among the listeners, because they corresponded to the sentiments of the delegates, and they, for their part, called for: intensifying the fight for the closure of churches, confiscating religious buildings for socio-cultural needs, fighting patronal holidays, “priestly” and “religious dope”, reducing the circulation of religious literature, supporting the collective appeals of “activists” to close churches, not allowing religious buildings to be repaired, not supporting the requests of believers to remain in their use of such buildings, remove the bells. But the speeches of Rykov and Lunacharsky contained not only the necessary tribute to the conjuncture of the ideological guidelines of the Politburo and the Central Committee. They warned against haste in anti-religious work, against being carried away by coercive administrative measures, and insisted on the need to comply with the recently adopted law “On Religious Associations.” Essentially, it was a hidden polemic with the victorious opinion of the majority in the party-Soviet leadership of the country, an attempt to convey to the party masses the fallacy of the new course in matters of religious policy. Warning about the danger and futility of administration, A. V. Lunacharsky said: “The Gubernia Executive Committee has the right to terminate any agreement, any contract with a group of believers, but if they complain about this, then according to our Constitution, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee is obliged to consider this matter in relation to local conditions. We, of course, are all in favor of getting rid of the religious dope as quickly as possible, but we must not forget for a single minute that drastic administrative measures without preliminary anti-religious propaganda, which in a given area would prepare the ground for them, will create a situation of rupture between the advanced workers and their party and Soviet bodies and the huge masses of believing peasants and the (admittedly relatively small) backward part of the working class. I attended meetings in Moscow where proposals to close churches were not only rejected by a majority of workers, but even caused indignation. We should try to close churches, but only after preparing public opinion. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee is showing necessary and correct caution here” 133. And this part of the speeches of Rykov and Lunacharsky in defense of believers, religious organizations and the rule of law caused grumbling and even acute rejection among the delegates of the congress. For example, Nikitin, a representative of the delegation from the Vladimir province, polemicizing with Rykov, who called for not rushing to close churches, said the following: “Now I want to say about the closing of churches. Yesterday Comrade Rykov spoke on this issue, but, in my opinion, he did not interpret it entirely successfully. Take, for example, the Vladimir province: a number of churches were closed there. What happened? Apart from greetings, nothing happened... I think that the core of the workers will always unanimously speak out for the closure of churches... In general, the question is that not only agitation alone is needed, but maybe a working proletarian hand is also needed, maybe in some places we need to hit this dope harder and whip it better" 134 . It is significant that A.I. Rykov, answering questions, notes and proposals in conclusion, specifically focused on criticizing the position of administrative pressure on religion, calls to close churches, “to hit the dope harder.” This was the last, until the era of “perestroika and glasnost,” publicly expressed disagreement with the policy of the party center regarding religion on the part of party-Soviet leaders of this level. From now on, such a position will become the prerogative of dissidents and foreign Sovietologists and Kremlinologists. Rykov remarked: “I confess that I am afraid of this kind of ideology. What does it mean? It means that Comrade Nikitin cannot prove the harmfulness of religion to the population and is thinking of replacing the ideological struggle with a stick. Where is this dope, where does it need to be destroyed? It needs to be destroyed in people's heads. What kind of people are we talking about? About those peasants and workers who have not yet parted with religion. This is not a fight against Nepman here. We are talking about work among the working classes of the population. Of course, the Nepmen and kulaks support religion and are in alliance with the priest. In relation to the NEPman and the kulak, we have taken and are taking very decisive measures of struggle, but in relation to significant groups of the working population they are hardly noticeable. Therefore, it is wrong when in the fight against religious intoxication they resort to unnecessary administrative measures. Then sometimes they end up in the wrong place. They may fall, for example, on those middle- and poor-peasant groups who, although they support the Soviet government, have not yet broken with religious remnants. It is not at all convenient for us to quarrel with such strata, thanks to administrative “hobbies,” 135. Following the closed decisions of the Politburo on the “religious issue,” the congress took another step towards legislative consolidation of administrative dictates regarding religious organizations: it changed Article 4 of the Constitution of the RSFSR. Instead of the previously stated right of citizens to “freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda,” this article now guaranteed only “freedom of religious confession and anti-religious propaganda.” In practice, this meant that the authorities only “tolerated” religious activity limited to the prayer building, and harshly suppressed all other possible forms of religious activity. The transcripts of the congress do not contain any detailed or convincing explanation of the reasons that prompted this change. It only states that the amendment “is being introduced in order to limit the spread of religious prejudices through propaganda, which is often used for counter-revolutionary purposes.” The delegates not only “accepted” this rationale, but many of them during the discussion cited examples of “hostile” activities of religious organizations in their regions. It is worth emphasizing once again that this thesis was deliberately incorrect. Needless to say, there were individual facts of violations of laws by believers and the clergy (in parentheses, we note that there were much more of them on the part of government officials), but the documentary materials of those years themselves, preserved in the archival funds of the NKVD and studied by us, do not give grounds to talk about the presence of any organized and purposeful political opposition to the Soviet government on the part of religious organizations. There was no organization among them that would set the task of overthrowing her. On the contrary, religious organizations of almost all denominations made repeated statements of political loyalty. The authorities deliberately classified the demands of believers to provide them with normal conditions for the exercise of their religious needs as “counter-revolutionary acts.” The leaders of all religious organizations reacted very painfully to the change in Article 4 of the Constitution of the RSFSR; they perceived it as an attack on the rights and freedoms of believers. That is why, immediately after the congress, a lot of materials appeared on the pages of newspapers and magazines, in anti-religious literature, aimed at convincing readers of the legitimacy of the actions of the authorities. Let us refer to the article by N. Orleans. “The replacement in the law of the concept of “freedom of religious propaganda” with the words “freedom of religious confession” indicates,” the author emphasized, “that the activity of believers in professing their religious dogmas is limited among believers and is considered as closely related to the practice of religious worship of one or another religion tolerated in our state. Attracting new workers, especially children, into the ranks of religious supporters... which activity is undoubtedly harmful from the point of view of the interests of the proletariat and the conscious peasantry, of course, can in no way be protected by law and covered by the concept of “freedom of religious belief.” Consequently, any propaganda and agitation activity of churchmen and religious people - and especially missionary - cannot be considered as activity permitted by the law on religious associations; on the contrary, it is considered as going beyond the limits of freedom of religion protected by law and subject to criminal and civil laws, since it contradicts them" 136. Subsequent events also served to intensify hostility towards “religion and the church”: the work of the Second Congress of the Union of Militant Atheists (June 1929). In his decisions, the “anti-religious struggle” was considered as one of the most important areas of the class struggle, as one of the most important aspects of the socialist offensive in both the city and the countryside. The slogan of the anti-religious movement was the call: “The fight against religion is a fight for socialism.” The content side of it can be judged, in particular, by the speech of N.I. Bukharin at this congress. “The fight against religion,” he said, “is on the order of the day, it is urgent. It is also relevant from the point of view of the entire reconstructive period as a whole. But it is also relevant from the point of view of that special, specific original period in which we live, when the sharpening of the class struggle has emerged along the entire front and when our opponents use the forms of a religious slogan, a religious password, a religious human organization, starting with the church and ending with various types of sectarian organizations, to fight the socialist middle of our economy, to fiercely resist the daily advancement of the socialist forms of our economy, to use our difficulties, our gaps, our illnesses. The peculiarity of the current period lies, among other things, in the fact that every shade of our class enemy wants to gain a foothold in a number of organizations of a religious type. The anti-religious front is blatantly clearly visible as the front of the class struggle” 137. In the summer of 1929, the situation regarding the “religious issue” deteriorated sharply. The most impatient Soviet workers, activists of the “anti-religious movement” carried out mass closures of churches locally, even in violation of the newly adopted law, ignoring the moods and desires of believers, mocking the feelings of believers and desecrating objects of worship. And all this was presented as a “manifestation of revolutionary activity,” as the fulfillment of the desire of the masses to “put an end to everything that reminds of religion.” And the right and desire of the majority was considered as a sufficient basis for pursuing such a course. After all, it is impossible, in fact, the activists argued, to take into account the mood of the minority, and even, as a rule, representing an “alien element”, “enemies”, people who do not want to go to the collective farm. The explosion of religious intolerance seriously affected the socio-political situation in the country, especially in the countryside: discontent, disobedience on the part of the religious part of the population, and in a number of areas, armed clashes escalating into local uprisings. In an effort to rectify the situation, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks sent another letter (signed by Molotov) to local party bodies, entitled “On a tactful approach to the closure of churches” (June 5, 1929). It directly stated that “many party organizations underestimate the size of the believing population, the degree of its persisting religious superstitions, exaggerate the growth of the anti-religious movement among the masses and rely exclusively on anti-religious and Komsomol organizations in the fight against religious organizations and, in particular, on the issue of closing churches and other houses of worship. In such cases, the closing of churches takes place without the necessary and really well-conducted preliminary mass work among workers and peasants, without compliance with Soviet laws, and sometimes with direct and most harmful mockery of objects of worship for the cause of anti-religious propaganda.” And although further in the letter the Central Committee “categorically” invited all party bodies to “wage a decisive struggle against ... perversions in the practice of closing churches and other houses of worship,” the correct calls, instructions and proposals contained in it did not significantly improve the situation in the “religious issue.” Locally they preferred to be criticized for the hasty closure of prayer buildings in violation of the law, rather than to be caught deviating from the party’s “ideological guidelines” for “confrontation” with religion. Since this automatically included “doubters” and “hesitant” in the category of people who reject the “general line” of the party, threatening them with inclusion in the category of “internal enemies” of the party who show “opportunism” and “conciliation” in the fight against “religious ideology” - “the most important obstacle to the socialist reconstruction and overcoming the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois influence on the working masses” 138. Under these conditions, few dared to argue with those who advocated an “attack on religion.” But they were, and P. G. Smidovich should be named first. In a letter to E.M. Yaroslavsky in connection with the discussion of the results of the Second Congress of the Union of Militant Atheists, he expressed his vision of the nature of “anti-religious activity” as follows: “To attribute tolerance to religion and religious remnants to right-wing opportunism means to cause a whole series of misunderstandings. To determine the course of the party by intolerance towards religion is to make it possible to come to the conclusion that the course of the party is changing, that a period of open persecution of “religious beliefs” is beginning. This course of “intolerance” will ... be carried out by the multimillion-dollar mass organization of the League of Militant Atheists, which must “transform anti-religious work into a broad mass movement.” Meanwhile, it is precisely in anti-religious work that, first of all, quality is important, and yet it is the quality of the work of the Union of Militant Atheists that undercuts our policy. The prospects described above threaten such a decline in quality that politics in this matter will completely go to hell, not to mention tactics. The Central Committee Circular “On a Tactical Approach of June 5, 2029,” which is rarely implemented by atheists even now, until the above-mentioned prospects are realized. And now the movement of the Militant Atheists often develops into spontaneous forms and does not take into account the framework of revolutionary legality” 139. Very soon, P. G. Smidovich’s fears and foresights came true. The difficulties that emerged in the fall of 1929 during the grain procurement campaign and as collectivization unfolded were attributed to “kulak elements” and “clergy.” By organizing and conducting campaigns of mass closure and demolition of religious buildings, resorting to measures of administrative restriction of the activities of religious organizations and the clergy, local party and Soviet bodies sought to enlist the support of the center. They send numerous appeals to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and its commission, to the NKVD of the RSFSR, in which they demand changes to the 1929 law, simplification of the procedure for closing religious buildings and deregistration of religious societies, granting regional (territory) executive committees the right to finalize these issues, especially and, above all, in areas of “mass collectivization.” We can judge the argumentation and mood of those years from the letter of the Administrative Department of the Far Eastern Regional Executive Committee to the NKVD of the RSFSR (October 12, 1929): “There is no doubt that there is a struggle between believers and non-believers during the discussion of the issue of building a church, and sometimes quite significant. Most often, at general meetings, it ends with the victory of non-believers and the matter moves on. This is where it is especially important that matters be resolved as quickly as possible and thereby create and strengthen the position in the eyes of the working people that the Soviet government immediately comes to meet them halfway in all their cultural endeavors. From this it is clear that the delay in resolving cases creates exactly the opposite situation and gives the opportunity for churchmen to demonstrate to the population their supposed strength and importance in the eyes of the authorities. How beneficial this is is self-evident” 140. In their appeals to higher authorities, local authorities, in addition to simplifying the procedure for closing churches, also demanded the introduction of such measures as limiting the travel of clergy, prohibiting door-to-door canvassing to collect money, holding religious congresses and meetings outside houses of worship, closing “church libraries” and confiscating “extra” literature for recycling, limiting the activities of diocesan (and similar) departments with their gradual closure. We emphasize that both these and other similar proposals were submitted to the central bodies, often with reference to the amended Article 4 of the Constitution of the RSFSR. According to Soviet local workers, if the “freedom of religious propaganda” previously guaranteed by the constitution included the recognition of religious organizations of this kind of activity, then the “freedom of confession” no longer allowed it. Moreover, information from the field constantly emphasized that “Article 4 of the Constitution purports to destroy religion,” and that “freedom of worship” should be seen only as “tolerance” for religious activities limited to the church building. The People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs supported such sentiments and, in its instructions to local administrative bodies and Soviet workers, pointed out the need to intensify work on the “religious front.” One of the circulars (November 16, 1929) to the chairmen of the executive committees of Soviets at all levels noted: “With the emerging intensification of religious associations, often merging with counter-revolutionary elements and using for these purposes their influence on certain sections of the working people, serious attention should be paid to the supervision of the activities of these associations. Meanwhile, in administrative bodies this matter is often in the hands of technical employees who are not sufficiently oriented in the most important political tasks that are pursued by this work. As a result, administrative authorities allow a situation in which religious associations in their activities go beyond the limits established for them by law, showing a tendency to participate in public life, sometimes covering up violations of the law with a “desire to promote the activities of the Soviet government.” Every mistake made by the administrative authorities in this matter is widely used by the churches to strengthen their influence on the masses and undermine the authority of the Soviet government” 141. In December 1929, by decision of the Politburo, the Anti-Religious Commission of the Central Committee was abolished. From now on, the issue of anti-religious propaganda was to be dealt with directly by the Secretariat of the Central Committee. There was a kind of separation between the ideological and state lines on the religious issue. But the external removal of the Standing Commission on Religious Issues from the direct jurisdiction of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks essentially did not change anything. For the Secretariat of the Central Committee was just as “interested” in the affairs of P. G. Smidovich, who was forced to coordinate all fundamental decisions with him. So its dependence on party bodies did not decrease, but even increased. Thus ended 1929, which buried the idea of ​​democratization and improvement of legislation on cults. Early Deaf 1930s The year 1930 opened the decade during which the Soviet state took the toughest position in relation to all religious associations, when the center of religious policy was the task of maximally narrowing the “field” for religion and the church in society, fighting them as “anti-Soviet and counter-revolutionary” phenomena and organizations. Therefore, administrative and criminal measures, extrajudicial acts and repression became the “usual” means of carrying it out. In general, this policy became a manifestation of the general political course chosen by I. Stalin and his associates, which in the most general form can be characterized as the construction of “barracks socialism” with a minimum of personal rights and freedoms for citizens of the USSR. Locally, party and Soviet workers, trying to speed up the process of “eliminating religion,” resorted everywhere to illegal administrative measures: they closed churches, confiscated religious and other property, arrested clergy and did not allow them into “their” territory, removed bells and confiscated icons from believers’ houses, intimidating them with the introduction of a special tax on them. The P. G. Smidovich Commission, created in April 1929, could not ignore for long the demands of local party and Soviet bodies, to which even the 1929 law seemed insufficiently tough. Under the pressure of the prevailing circumstances, at a meeting on February 6, 1930, the commission decided: “To recognize that in connection with the unfolding of the campaign to close prayer buildings, the law on the separation of church and state of April 8, 1929 is subject to revision in the direction of simplifying the closure process and increasing the radius of the parish.” At the same time, the right to make a final decision on the closure of religious buildings was transferred to the regional and regional councils, which, of course, unleashed “local initiative” and at the same time significantly limited the capabilities of the commission for monitoring compliance with laws, turning it into a “registrar” and “witness” of the process of “elimination of religiosity.” Another response to the topic of the day was the resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR “On the fight against counter-revolutionary elements in the governing bodies of religious associations” (February 11, 1930), adopted, as stated in the document, “for the purpose of combating attempts by hostile elements to use religious associations to conduct counter-revolutionary work.” The governments of the union republics were asked, when registering church administration bodies, to exclude from them “kulaks, deprived people and other persons hostile to Soviet power” and to refuse registration to those religious associations where this condition was not met. There was no one inside the USSR to oppose such a policy or object to anything. Or, let’s say, only a few could dare to do this. But in the West, the anti-religious activities of the Communist Party and the Soviet state were publicly and demonstratively condemned in both secular and church circles. At the beginning of February 1930, a letter from Pope Pius XI was leaked to the press condemning persecution in the USSR and the Soviet policy against religion. It was obvious that a large-scale campaign was unfolding throughout the Catholic world, a kind of “crusade” in defense of the faith and believers in the USSR. In order to somehow smooth out the unfavorable impression, the Soviet authorities undertook a “response” - they organized statements by a number of leaders of religious organizations protesting against the “insinuations of the Vatican.” Among them was Sergius Stragorodsky. ... On February 15, an unusual delegation - representatives of the Soviet press - came to the house of Metropolitan Sergius in Sokolniki. Warned the day before about the visit and the nature of possible questions, Metropolitan Sergius, together with four members of the Provisional Synod, met them in the hall where the Synod meetings usually took place, sat them down at the table and, according to Russian tradition, offered tea. The journalists were somewhat embarrassed and tried to look around unnoticed by the owner in order to remember the situation, as well as the photographs and portraits hanging on the walls. After a short “small talk”, what the guests came for actually began. – Is freedom of religious propaganda allowed in the USSR and who runs the church? - was the first question. “Here are the members of the Synod,” Sergius entered the conversation, “who represent and guide the religious life of many millions of citizens of the USSR. Each of them can talk about their diocese, about many, many churches, about the sacraments and rituals performed in them. “I’ll add,” Archbishop Alexy (Simansky) spoke. “We preach sermons and instruct parishioners.” And if necessary and desired on the part of adult youth, we instruct them in the fundamentals of faith. “Yes, yes,” other members of the Synod unanimously confirmed, “we have parish councils, we have diocesan councils.” And here, in Moscow, is the central church administration - the patriarchy... And all issues of church life are in charge of the deputy patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergius. – Who can comment on the question of the need or, if you like, the need for the church to receive material support from abroad? “Let me tell you,” Metropolitan Seraphim (Alexandrov) of Saratov rose from the table and continued: “The support that believers provide us is completely and completely sufficient.” We, the clergy, have everything we need. For ourselves, we consider it morally acceptable to be kept as religious citizens. Other, foreign, heterodox or heterodox material assistance is morally unacceptable for us. Moreover, very often such assistance is provided not disinterestedly, but for the sake of political dividends. This, I repeat, is unacceptable for us, no matter what church the help comes from - Catholic, Anglican or any other. Unacceptable, that's all! “By the way, I want to add,” Metropolitan Sergius took the floor again, “we are extremely surprised by the recent speech of the Pope against Soviet power. It is not for the Catholic Church to talk about persecution of other believers. Yes, and it is strange that a host of church voices simultaneously from England, Italy, France, Germany came out “in defense” of the Orthodox Church, which did not ask anyone to do so. “I can’t help but ask,” another journalist decided to ask, “is there now persecution of religion in the USSR, are churches closed, are priests subjected to repression?” Archbishop Philip (Gumilevsky) of Zvenigorod stood up. “Yes,” he said, “the churches are being closed.” But this is not so much an initiative of the state as a consequence of the insufficient activity of believers, who either cannot or do not want to support churches, and non-believers raise the question of turning religious buildings into places “useful” for society - museums, libraries, schools... It seemed that the journalists wanted to ask more than one question, but Metropolitan Sergius, citing the need to prepare for the evening service in one of the Moscow churches, ended the meeting. Journalists were asked to leave their questions in writing so that the leadership of the Orthodox Church could answer them in detail. And so they did. A short time later, the phone rang in Sergius’s house. Evgeny Tuchkov called, asked not to delay the provision of written answers to journalists and persistently reminded that all members of the Synod at that time must sign the text. Alexy (Simansky) brought together the text of the conversation that took place and added to it the answers to the questions left by curious journalists. The document was prepared in two copies, both of them were signed by all the hierarchs. One was left for the trustee Tuchkov, who was supposed to appear any minute, the second was filed in synodal affairs. Before we had time to finish one task, a second call came from “outsiders”. This time they called from the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, from P. G. Smidovich. They reported that they had received a Memorandum from Metropolitan Sergius by express, and promised to review and respond as quickly as possible. The note consisted of twenty-one points, including issues of insurance taxation of church buildings; the procedure for protecting copyright in relation to musical works played in churches; imposition of various taxes and fines; seizure of community property; providing the opportunity to perform religious services in the homes of believers; refusal to close churches at the request of non-believers; re-registration of communities; equating the clergy with members of the liberal professions, and not with kulaks; streamlining all kinds of taxes and local taxes in relation to the clergy, so that they have the opportunity to have apartments within the parish; allowing children of the clergy to study in schools and universities; protection from expulsion from the trade union “for participation in a church choir”; opening of religious educational institutions; publication of a monthly magazine. Several days passed, and the bell rang again in Sergius’s apartment, and again it was a representative of the OGPU. And again, albeit in a mild form, it was proposed to accept journalists, this time foreign. Sergius’ attempt to find out about the fate of his note was followed by a question: “To the All-Russian Central Executive Committee,” answered Sergius. “This way,” they pointed out to him, “and contact us, we have no information about this.” – But what positive changes can I say in this case? – Sergius asked. – Don’t worry, they will bring you both the text and the answers. Indeed, half an hour later they brought the package. Sergius accepted it and was just about to familiarize himself with its contents when the doorbell rang again... They were foreign correspondents. - How can I serve you? – the owner said as he greeted the guests. – We want to know about the situation of the Russian Church. - Come in, please, let's discuss it. The Metropolitan led the visitors into the hall, invited them to sit down, sat down himself and placed in front of him the sheets of paper that had just been brought to him. – Could you provide us with statistical data about the church for the post-revolutionary period: the number of churches, monasteries, parishes, parishioners... – Until the seventeenth year, the church was not separated from the state and all statistics were kept by state bodies. For us this is not of significant importance, and we do not have the data... And many former Orthodox churches passed to sectarians... Who will count them now? – But the Union of Atheists claims that the number of believers is minimal... - No, this is an exaggeration of the regular atheists, they want to seem like “winners.” The Church is supported by tens of millions... According to our data, the number of Orthodox “twenties” reaches approximately thirty thousand. Naturally, there are more priests, since communities have two or three priests... And we also have more than one and a half hundred hierarchs, there are churches and clergy of our church in Lithuania, China, Japan, France... - Sergius answered, checking the digital data on the sheets of paper lying in front of him. But finally, the correspondents decided to ask, apparently, the main questions for them: what can you say about the repressions against the Orthodox clergy, how did you perceive the statements of the Pope and the heads of other churches in defense of the faith in the USSR? – Basically, we, the members of the Synod, answered these questions in a conversation with Soviet journalists published the other day. I will add that we consider the pope to be an “enemy of Orthodoxy”... For example, in Poland alone, five hundred churches were taken away from Orthodox Christians last year, and we have not heard of any religious leaders being indignant. As for repressions, there has never been and is not persecution of religion in the USSR. The content of conversations between Russian hierarchs and journalists was brought to the attention of the population of the USSR through newspapers. It must be said that the Russian diaspora also reacted to it with great interest. The reluctance of the hierarchs of the Russian Church to aggravate relations with the authorities and publicly accuse them of “persecution and persecution” could not but be reflected in the growth of antipathy and protest among the episcopate towards Metropolitan Sergius. Known for his intolerance of any schisms in the Russian Church, Bishop Manuel (Lemeshevsky) even went over for a while to the side of the “non-rememberers” as a sign of protest. Outside the USSR, an interview with Metropolitan Sergius gave rise to a new wave of criticism against him, accusations of “selling out to a godless state.” Few people could understand the reasons that prompted him to take this step. But still, despite the attacks from “externals” and even in spite of them, Sergius’s position in the church environment is gradually strengthening. Those who have recently been in “schisms”, who have broken off relations with him, who were among those who “do not remember” his name during worship are uniting around him - some earlier, some later. And they did this, sometimes being in tragic circumstances for themselves. Thus, the famous Moscow priest V.P. Sventsitsky wrote in his suicide letter from prison (September 1931): “I am dying. For a long time now, my conscience has been troubling me that I have gravely sinned against the Holy Church, and in the face of death this became undeniable to me. I beg you to forgive my sin and reunite me with the Holy Orthodox Church. I repent that, contrary to the holy canons, I took pride in not recognizing you as the legitimate first bishop, having placed my personal reason and personal feeling above the conciliar reason of the Church, I dared not to obey the holy canons.” He also called on his parishioners to reconcile and return to Metropolitan Sergius 142. By the way, we note that representatives of not only the Russian Church gave similar interviews during these months about the situation of their churches and religions in the USSR. This is what, for example, the apostolic administrator of the Minsk region, Monsignor Avglo, answered the question: “Are you aware of cases of persecution of Catholic clergy for performing religious rites?”: “I must state that I am not aware of a single case of this kind. I know that priests were arrested who, to my great regret, were engaged in anti-government activities incompatible with their direct duties, some of them were even agents of foreign states. Under these conditions, the perpetrators were called to account along with all other citizens, which is fully consistent with Soviet laws. I cannot consider these arrests as persecution for faith in the Soviet Union" 143. Pope Pius XI, having learned about the act of his vicar, did not express his censure and did not remove him, but sent him an order to remain in his place. ...On one of the last days of February 1930, from the very morning in the office of Pyotr Germogenovich Smidovich, Chairman of the Standing Commission on Religious Issues at the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, it was crowded. The commission met in its entirety, and “observers” from the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, scientific, trade union, and anti-religious organizations also came up. And it is not surprising: it was supposed to discuss the issue of the catastrophic situation that had developed around religious associations. The members of the commission and those invited silently listened to Smidovich, who read dry, and therefore even more menacing, information about thousands of closed churches, about the confiscation of property from them, about the dispossession of clergy, about clergy and religious activists arrested administratively, about those exiled to logging, about the excessive taxation of the clergy, about the mockery of Orthodox shrines and the clergy... “Peter Germogenovich,” Evgeniy Tuchkov was the first to join the discussion, “there is no need to perceive the situation so excitedly.” I responsibly declare that the harshness of the actions affected only counter-revolutionaries and anti-Soviet rabble, who were identified in the Orthodox and sectarian-church environment... – What are you talking about, Evgeniy Alexandrovich! – interrupted Smidovich. - What, there are enemies lurking in each of the many thousands of villages? “It seems to me,” NKVD representative Vladimirova stood up, “we need to give a special strict order there, in the outback, where the disgrace is happening...” “Nina Petrovna,” Smidovich spoke hotly, “according to the information I received,” he lifted a piece of paper with numbers over the table, “in the Moscow region alone, more than six hundred Orthodox churches have been closed over the past three months.” And this, excuse me, is not a province or some kind of bear corner. The discussion clearly did not work out. Those present sat with downcast eyes, sorted through papers and showed no desire to engage in conversation. Smidovich looked around at those gathered. He seemed to sense the unspoken general mood, so he suggested: “We can do only one thing: honestly put on paper what we know, and with an official report enter the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, asking to stop the lawlessness... And now everyone is free.” A few minutes later, two people remained in the room: Smidovich and Pyotr Ananyevich Krasikov. For a good 30 years, from the time of the underground and exile, their friendship continued, they had no secrets from each other. Smidovich was the first to speak: – What is happening in the country, Peter? Everything is on its hind legs. You know, I just arrived from the national districts of the Far North... And it’s restless there. - What's happening? – Krasikov repeated dully. “I think you know better than me.” They say the owner told you about this yesterday. “I didn’t ask to see him.” I met him by chance at the Bolshoi, where he arrived already in the second act. I go out during intermission and look - it’s standing. He began to tell him about his trip to the North, how reindeer husbandry was declining, due to the fact that “kulaks” were being sought out and eliminated everywhere, how the camps and villages were depopulated, how hunger was creeping up on the nomadic people there... - He listened silently, lowering his head and looking at his boots, and then said: “Your, Pyotr Hermogenovich, bosom friends Rykov and Bukharin played a cruel joke on you - they infected you with the kulak spirit!” – So, you and I are “right-wing deviationists and opportunists”? - Perhaps so... And we will be beaten. However, as you can guess, that’s not why I kept you. - I remember, I remember. Metropolitan Sergius will come to see you today, and you must answer according to your own... Smidovich made a dissatisfied gesture, and Krasikov caught its meaning. “I understand that you made promises that were not yours, but the state made them through your lips.” Smidovich nodded affirmatively: - But I have no good news. Almost nothing was achieved for him. The office door opened slightly, and the secretary reported: – They just called: Metropolitan Sergius has left. – Leave the documents, I’ll still have time to look... But, Peter, what will I tell him?! The car smoothly slowed down at a busy intersection of two Moscow streets - Mokhovaya and Comintern. Through the glass, Metropolitan Sergius saw the Kutafya Tower, and in the distance, behind a veil of falling snow, the Trinity Tower. Getting out of the car and turning towards the holy Kremlin, he slowly crossed himself. An employee who came out of the front door opposite him gently took the Metropolitan by the elbow and, bypassing the crowd of curious people that was beginning to gather, led him into the building. Here, in the reception room of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, on the third floor, a member of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, and, more recently, the Chairman of the Commission on Religious Issues, Pyotr Germogenovich Smidovich, was waiting for him. The interlocutors had known each other for several years, and they did not need a diplomatic overture to the conversation. Moreover, the date of today’s meeting was determined a week ago. Then, on February 15, 1930, Metropolitan Sergius agreed to talk with journalists and declare that “there has never been and is not persecution of religion in the USSR,” only subject to a positive resolution of the issues stated by him in the “Memoir on the needs of the Orthodox Patriarchal Church in the USSR” submitted to the government. The agreed period expired, and Sergius came to find out about the results. “Ivan Nikolaevich,” Smidovich began, “I think we’ll succeed with a monthly newsletter.” The political authorities have given their consent in principle, the circulation is set at three thousand copies, you will personally act as the publisher and finance the publication yourself. – Pyotr Germogenovich, here is my additional statement about the nature and content of the proposed magazine. By the way, we propose to give it a name – “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate”. - Fine. Now about the opening of Higher Theological Courses in Leningrad. As it turned out, the Theological Institute that previously existed there was closed in 1928 due to violations of the law by its administration. Inventory has been lost since the elapsed time. True, they say that some part was taken away by the former rector Boris Titlinov. Maybe you can write to him? - This is impossible. There is and cannot be any connection with renovationism. – I will also say that the buildings themselves have been refurbished. There are now workers' dormitories there, and the local authorities do not want and will not evict people. As a result... Leningrad disappears... I'm waiting for your new proposals. “It turns out that we are left with nothing in this matter,” said Metropolitan Sergius. – What about taxes and taxes on the clergy and churches? – Narkomfin is “concerned” about us with this request. But everything turned out to be more complicated than previously thought. Financiers need numbers and reports. So they delve into the financial jungle. They promise to draw up draft instructions on all monetary issues by spring and summer. – As we wrote in the “Note,” I and the ruling bishops continue to receive complaints that local Orthodox societies are not being re-registered, as required by the law of April 1929. – Here we are entirely on your side. All societies operating before April last year must be re-registered if they wish. But sometimes it’s hard for us to fight local rule-making. – Pyotr Germogenovich, don’t get me wrong. How little has been done! And all the delays, delays, excuses... Where is the promised “understanding” and “benevolence” towards the needs of the church? I remember you said that each side will have to go its own part of the way to meet each other. But in reality... On our part, it seems that we have gone through so much... And how hard it was for us! Smidovich nervously fiddled with the pencil in his fingers, tapping it on the table. There was irritation on his gloomy face. The conversation clearly took on a different, unpleasant character for him, and it was clear that he was looking for an opportunity to interrupt the Metropolitan. – Ivan Nikolaevich, let’s not be so categorical. The state is doing a lot to normalize relations with the church. I agree that not everything that was agreed upon has been done. But you should also take into account: the old ideas about the church as an ally of the autocracy, as a counter-revolutionary force during the years of the Civil War and the confiscation of church values ​​are not so easily eradicated. Yes, add to this the participation of a considerable number of clergy in protests against collectivization, complicity in anti-Soviet conspiracies, and espionage. I hope you understand that not everything depends on me. I knock on all doors, warn, urge... But there are political spheres... inaccessible to me... And it is not I who determine the course of the church policy of the state, but I am commanded. Let's learn to wait and hope for the best, no matter how difficult and painful it may be at times. - For goodness sake, how can I wait! After all, how many years have I been hearing this from you and other statesmen? Read what they write to me! Sergius laid out a pile of letters from the folder he had brought in front of Smidovich. The departure points flashed on the envelopes: Moscow, Kiev, Pskov, Uralsk, Murom, Barnaul... Fearing that the interlocutor would interrupt an unpleasant conversation for him, and hastening to convince him that he was right, the Metropolitan read from a letter taken at random: – “In the Izhevsk diocese, ministers of religion are crushed by unbearable taxes, in some places completely strangled by forced labor. They impose taxes on meat, eggs, livestock, game and other things. And all in extremely large quantities. And behind this come monetary taxes: agricultural tax, government bonds, taxes on industrialization, tractorization, purchase of equipment, and also self-taxation. Failure to fulfill these duties on time, often calculated in just a few hours, results in an inventory of property, eviction from houses, trial, and exile.” Sergius put the letter aside, picked up another at random and continued: - “...In the Saratov diocese, local authorities prohibit funeral services for the dead, baptizing infants in the homes of believers, and also deny priests apartments, threatening the apartment owners with an inventory of property and its confiscation for keeping a priest in the apartment”... Smidovich stood up, indicating that the conversation was over. Saying goodbye, he said: “I can promise you only one thing: I will do what depends on me.” The completed meeting left a bitter aftertaste in the souls of both participants. Heavy thoughts overwhelmed Metropolitan Sergius the entire time he was traveling to his place in Sokolniki. It was painful to realize that that short period of “pacification” between the state and the church, which began in 1927, was coming to an end. The Metropolitan felt that the cold alienation of the new Soviet state towards church organizations could not be overcome. As before, the church remained under political suspicion, and the clergy was included in the category of “socially alien elements”... “Are the efforts of recent years in vain and the hopes that arose in vain,” Sergius asked himself?! Or maybe those who condemned and rejected me, saw me as an apostate are right... No, no, he drove away the dark thoughts. – You can be disappointed in yourself because of your mistakes and weaknesses. But what he did not do for himself?.. Stop halfway? Even if external conditions have changed... the world is ruled by God's Providence, and everything is in the power of the Divine will. Let the earthly world change, the Church alone will remain unchanged, unshakable, faithful to its task - to kindle in the heart of man, under any historical circumstances, the Divine fire that descended on the day of Pentecost on the apostles... But for this, the Church must be, must exist, be visible, it cannot be allowed to disappear ... " Left alone in the office, Pyotr Smidovich, without lighting the fire, sat down in his favorite easy chair and thought, reliving the conversation with Metropolitan Sergius again and again. Pyotr Smidovich, a Bolshevik with pre-revolutionary experience, who survived prison, exile and emigration, one of the “revolutionary romantics” who rushed into the struggle for the sake of bright ideals and pure goals... And now, in the thirteenth year of Soviet power, he experienced a feeling of dissatisfaction and duality. The ideals of human liberation and emancipation have been trampled upon. Promises, including freedom of conscience for every citizen, have not been fulfilled. The feeling of guilt and even betrayal before Metropolitan Sergius did not go away either. Three days before his meeting with journalists, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted a resolution “On the fight against counter-revolutionary elements in the governing bodies of religious associations,” which actually again began the “war” with religion and the church. “Enemies, enemies,” there was a pounding in my churches, “enemies of hierarchs, enemies of priests, enemies of believers... Why are they persecuting them, torturing them?” – he asked himself a question. For a long time, Smidovich saw the futility and dead end of such a course, and honestly fought against it as best he could. But now he felt that he was powerless in the face of a new wave of violence. And yet he did not give up, and those five years that he had left to live, he was among those few who dared to protest and oppose the administrative Moloch, who was devouring another victim in the face of the church and religion. And even the circumstances of his death remain a mystery: what led to it - a heart attack or a fatal shot? By the spring of 1930, the situation on the “religious issue” was critical. It was no longer possible not to “not notice” that collectivization was everywhere accompanied by the “dekulakization” of clergy and the unlawful closure of churches and houses of worship. Judicial and extrajudicial reprisals fell upon the clergy and the most active believers. This caused a wave of discontent and indignation among both believers and non-believers in a number of regions of the country. As noted in the information from local workers of the NKVD of the RSFSR, they often had the “character of mass protests” in which “middle peasants, poor peasants, women, demobilized Red Army soldiers and even representatives of rural authorities” took part. In particular, in one of the NKVD reports in the spring of 1930 it was reported: “Information received from the administrative departments of the territories and regions about the rise of anti-religious sentiment associated with the message about the extremely rapid pace of collectivization of agriculture has the opposite situation: reports from a number of places indicate an outflow of middle peasants from collective farms, accompanied by a serious movement for the opening of churches, the return of removed bells, the release of exiled clergy. If before this the administrative departments received a large number of requests to formalize the closure of churches, now the number of applications requesting the opening of churches, permission for religious processions, etc. has increased.” 144. In order to somehow reduce the severity of the problems on the “religious front,” on March 5, 1930, the Politburo considered the issue “On distortions of the party line in the field of collective farm construction,” and on March 14, the well-known resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was adopted “On the fight against distortions of the party line in the collective farm movement.” The document demands “a decisive end to the practice of closing churches administratively.” The All-Russian Central Executive Committee did not stand aside, sending a secret circular to local authorities condemning administrative excesses. Based on these documents, the Commission on Religious Affairs also seeks to intensify its activities, which during the first year of its existence, in the conditions of the “great turning point” in the religious policy of the Soviet state, was practically paralyzed. At the same time, she relied on the “instructions” of the Politburo to the presidiums of the Central Executive Committee of the union republics to “listen to complaints on religious matters and correct the distortions and excesses that have been made,” as well as to party committees at various levels to “decisively stop the practice of closing churches administratively, fictitiously covered up by the public and voluntary desire of the population. Allow the closure of churches only if the overwhelming majority of peasants really desire it, and only with the approval of the resolutions of the assemblies by the regional executive committees. For mocking antics against the religious feelings of peasants and peasant women, bring the perpetrators to the strictest responsibility.” And indeed, for some time the process of closing churches and houses of worship was somewhat suspended. The commission overturned previously made unfair decisions. In the Moscow region alone, by June 1930, 545 religious buildings were returned to believers. By the end of the year, many Orthodox and Old Believer churches, churches, synagogues and mosques were returned in the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Moscow, Yaroslavl, Bryansk, Ryazan, Ural, Vologda, Vyatka, Kamchatka, Lipetsk, Chita, Nizhny Novgorod, Leningrad and other regions. Often the commission obliged local authorities to bring to criminal or administrative liability officials who violated the law. And there were such precedents. The role of the commission in eliminating “excesses” in the religious issue especially increased after in December 1930, by decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, the People's Commissariats of Internal Affairs in the union and autonomous republics were abolished. According to the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR (December 31, 1930), from now on the commission remained the only federal (central) state body, which was entrusted with “the responsibility of general management and monitoring the correct implementation of the policy of the party and government in the field of application of laws on cults throughout the entire territory of the RSFSR.” In December 1932, at a meeting of the commission, Sergius Stragorodsky’s “native” Nizhny Novgorod region, the Gorky Regional Executive Committee, reported. It turned out that 305 prayer buildings, mostly Orthodox, were closed here during 1930–1932. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee, having considered the appeals of believers, decided to return 119 buildings as illegally closed. In an effort to improve accounting and control over the use of prayer buildings available in the republic, as well as to stop manipulations with statistics, which were widely used in the territories and regions of the republic in order to conceal the facts of the administrative reduction in the number of religious societies, the commission demanded that local commissions provide relevant information, but encountered difficulties. Local authorities, under all sorts of pretexts, did not submit reports, or the statistics they presented raised serious doubts about its reliability; most often, they did not show those religious buildings that were occupied administratively, bypassing the existing order. With great difficulties, the commission was only able to collect information and submit it to higher authorities by the beginning of 1933. The situation looked like this: Informing the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks about the statistical confusion, the commission gave the following example. In 1931, 2343 societies were registered in the Leningrad region, and in 1932 there were already 1988 of them left. That is, the decrease was 355 units, while during this period the All-Russian Central Executive Committee approved the closure of only thirty-two churches. Thus, in just one year, 323 prayer buildings were closed in the region, essentially illegally. Unfortunately, this ratio of “legal” and “illegal” practices was typical for many other regions of the RSFSR. The collected reporting data from local commissions showed that the number one problem in their activities remained the issue of closing prayer buildings and their confiscation from religious societies. Moreover, only a very small part of the protests they received from believers received positive resolution. For example, in 1931–1932 in the Voronezh region, out of 113 cases considered regarding the closure of religious buildings, only 13 were decided in favor of believers; in the Middle Volga region, respectively, out of 248 - 49; in the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic out of 65 - 2. And this picture was typical throughout the republic. The commission was a body that received numerous complaints and appeals from believers and clergy in connection with violations of the legislation on cults. Their dynamics are reflected in the following table: As a rule, a third of these complaints were related to the illegal closure of religious buildings. And yet, no matter how much the commission tried to rectify the situation in the religious sphere, it failed. Since 1933, its human rights actions have increasingly become only episodes, which are immediately covered by more and more retreats (often forced) to those forces in the state-party apparatus that were guided by administrative dictates in resolving the religious issue. For example, in February 1933, the commission, under pressure from a representative of the OGPU, adopted a resolution “On the state of religious organizations.” It argued that in the face of “consolidating counter-revolutionary activists within religious organizations,” it is necessary to “double vigilance” and “pursue a decisive line to reduce the possibility of influence of clergy among the masses of the working people.” Such calls were “translated” by local authorities into actions to reduce the number of religious societies and groups, monasteries, religious educational institutions, and to further limit the activities of clergy. These same calls served as justification for instilling suspicion and hostility in society towards the clergy and believers. In the speeches of the People's Commissar of Justice of the RSFSR N.V. Krylenko, who popularized the idea of ​​intensifying the class struggle in the USSR, the following forms were highlighted as its main forms: “1) counter-revolutionary organizations; 2) elements of banditry and corruption in and outside our institutions; 3) speculative trading; 4) kulak resistance. In all these four forms the class enemy appears, so to speak, in its pure form.” According to the logic of the People's Commissar, religious organizations were classified as “counter-revolutionary organizations,” which justified the application of the most severe measures against them. In the reports coming from the localities to the commission, a clear thread runs through the idea that local authorities consider it possible to “simplify” issues related to the activities of religious associations, without any documentation of them, without taking into account “the real need of the population for the performance of religious rites.” Thus, the commission of the Gorky Executive Committee reported numerous cases of violations of the legislation on cults, in particular in the field of imposing administrative penalties. It was stated that “fines are imposed by village councils in amounts of up to 500 rubles - for non-compliance with fire safety measures, unsanitary conditions, failure to carry out repairs, etc.; The terms for payment are set from “immediately” to three days. As it turned out in some cases, such fines are obtained because the fine for the same violation is calculated by multiplying the fine rate (usually at the maximum established by law or even higher) by the number of members of the church council or by the number of believers who make up the so-called. church parish. The same principle is used when collecting fees for submitted applications for permission to all kinds of processions and ceremonies: the fee rate of three rubles is multiplied by the number of signatures on the application, in other places - by the number of villages and villages that make up the “parish”, and even by the number of participants in a particular procession, for which the necessary information is first selected from the church council.” The only possible way out of this situation was, in the opinion of P. G. Smidovich, the creation of an all-Union body responsible for “church policy” and the adoption of an all-Union act to regulate the activities of religious organizations. In January 1934, in a note to the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, he noted the abnormality of the current situation, when the republics did not have unity in resolving the same issues related to legislation on religious cults, just as there was no single system of bodies responsible for carrying out this area of ​​Soviet work. And he proposes “to expand the activities of the Permanent Religious Commission under the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, expanding it into a body of union significance under the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR.” ...In conditions of anti-religious and administrative revelry, it became increasingly difficult for Sergius to keep the church ship “afloat”, which was dealt blows over and over again. At the beginning of 1930, 37 bishops refused administrative subordination to his church authority. In churches in a number of regions, the clergy “did not remember” his name during services as a deputy locum tenens. He was forced to remove from their cathedras those bishops whom the authorities, accusing them of political or criminal acts, condemned to prison. There was no one to replace them, for few in those years decided to take up pastoral service. On the pages of the “anti-religious” press, calls to crack down on religious organizations that are doing “enemy work” and spreading “reactionary ideas hostile to socialism” have once again appeared. The flywheel of repression unwinding in the country did not bypass the Orthodox clergy. More than thirty people were arrested among the church hierarchs alone in 1931–1934. As a rule, they were charged with “counter-revolutionary and espionage activities.” The further fate of most of them is tragic. During these years, Metropolitan Sergius himself suffered too. Either they are threatening him with prosecution for “daring” to allow voluntary donations to help those affected by natural disasters, or they are trying to take away the building of the Elokhov Cathedral in Moscow, or they are putting forward on the pages of “anti-religious” literature the absurd accusation of espionage in favor of the Japanese intelligence services. And yet, the Soviet state, in fact also forced, made some concessions: the process of closing churches was temporarily suspended, previously closed ones were partially returned; the publication of the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate” and the performance of episcopal consecrations were permitted: from 1930 to 1934, 22 people were ordained as bishops, in 1932 Sergius was awarded the presentation of the cross during worship, and in 1933 all members of the Provisional Patriarchal Synod were elevated to the rank of metropolitans. The authorities often justified their attacks on the church with references to the activities of the “Karlovak schism,” whose leaders professed and introduced into the ranks of the Russian emigration the ideas of restoring the monarchy and fighting “Bolshevism and the Soviets.” In one of his messages in February 1930, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) said, addressing those who were in Russia: “Go boldly, friends, for the faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland!.. Russian people, I again call on you to fight the enemies of Christ - the Bolsheviks and other fighters against God; ready to be the first to die in this fight.” But among the emigrants themselves, there was strong opposition to this political course, and even more so, it was not shared by Metropolitan Sergius, who repeatedly called on the “Karlovites” not to confuse the church pulpit with the political platform. In June 1934, considering that the time of exhortations, expectations and delays was over, the Patriarchal Synod adopted a resolution to bring to the church court the foreign clergy of the “Karlovak group” as having rebelled against their legitimate clergy and persisting in schism, and removed them from church positions pending trial. From that time on, no connections were maintained between Metropolitan Sergius and the “Karlovites”. Some time later, an envelope was brought to an inconspicuous house in Baumansky Lane, where the Moscow Patriarchate was located in those years, completely covered with stamps: apparently, it had passed through more than one post office in search of the addressee. Inside was a sheet of paper. An unknown person, hiding behind the pseudonym Observer, reported what a grave impression was made on Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) when he was brought before the ecclesiastical court. “I visited Vladyka,” the stranger wrote, “and in a conversation with me he mentioned you exclusively in kind words: “bright head,” “kind heart”; I recalled your joint work at the St. Petersburg Academy, your many years of friendship. And although, he said, in recent years Sergius has become too wise and I cannot accept his political course, I still retain good feelings for him to this day. And at the end of the conversation, Anthony showed the panagia you had once given him with the engraved inscription: “To my dear teacher and friend!” And the mysterious correspondent also wrote about some kind of saving “oil”, which, in the threatening hour for the Orthodox Church, Anthony offers to his former student and friend, exhorting him to reject cooperation with the atheist Bolsheviks and go to martyrdom. Zatekin T., abbot, Degteva O. V. Hierarchs of the Nizhny Novgorod Land. Nizhny Novgorod, 2003. P. 232. Quote by: Regelson L. Tragedy of the Russian Church. M., 1996. S. 376, 377. Izvestia. 1925. April 15. Science and religion. 1998. No. 2. P. 8. Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia: Later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the highest church authority. 1917–1943. M., 1994. P. 420. Gregory (Yatskovsky), archbishop. Documents related to the formation of the Supreme Provisional Church Council in Moscow. M., 1926. P. 5. Odintsov M.I. Russian patriarchs of the 20th century: The fate of the Fatherland and the Church on the pages of archival documents. M., 1999. S. 176, 177. Top Secret: Lubyanka to Stalin about the situation in the country. 1922–1934 M., 2001. T. 4.4. 1. 1926, p. 251. See: GA RF. F. 6343. Op.1. D. 263. L. 18–21. See: Odintsov M.I. Russian patriarchs of the 20th century: The fate of the Fatherland and the Church on the pages of archival documents. M., 1999. pp. 224–236. GA RF. F. 6343. Op. 1. D. 2. L. 94–96. Quote by: Guardian of the House of the Lord: Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Sergius (Stragorodsky) / Comp. S. Fomin. M., 2003. P. 237. Odintsov M.I. Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky): Documents and testimonies of contemporaries // Dispute. 1992. No. 1. P. 191, 192. Izvestia. 1927. August 19. Top Secret: Lubyanka to Stalin about the situation in the country. 1922–1934 M., 2001. T. 5. Quote by: Polsky M. New Russian martyrs. Jordanville, 1957. T. 2. P. 5. Mazyrin A., priest. Higher hierarchs on the succession of power in the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1920s–1930s. M., 2006. P. 173. Quote by: Kazem-bek A.L. His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy. Zagorsk, 1973. P. 173. (Typescript.) Odintsov M.I. Russian patriarchs of the 20th century: The fate of the Fatherland and the Church on the pages of archival documents. M., 1999. P. 185. The period of locum tenens of the patriarchal throne in the Russian Orthodox Church. 1925–1943: Report of Archbishop John of Kuibyshev and Syzran. (Personal archive of the author.) Quote by: Guardian of the House of the Lord: Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Sergius (Stragorodsky) / Comp. S. Fomin. M., 2003. P. 170. Tsypin V., archpriest. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal period. Recent period. M., 2004. P. 433. See: Odintsov M.I. Russian patriarchs of the 20th century: The fate of the Fatherland and the Church on the pages of archival documents. M., 1999. pp. 255–258. Quote by: Guardian of the House of the Lord: Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Sergius (Stragorodsky) / Comp. S. Fomin. M., 2003. P. 371. Chetverukhin I., archpriest, Chetverukhina E. Hieroschemamonk Alexy, hermit elder of the Smolensk Zosimova hermitage. Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1995. P. 173, 174. Tsypin V., archpriest. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal period. Recent period. M., 2004. P. 434 Quote by: Shishkin A. A. The essence and critical assessment of the “renovationist” schism in the Russian Orthodox Church. Kazan, 1970. P. 339. Odintsov M.I. Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky): Documents and testimonies of contemporaries // Dispute. 1992. No. 2. P. 175. Latest news. Paris, 1927. September 13. Quote from: Science and Religion. 1998. No. 5. P. 31. GA RF. F. 6342. Op. 1. D. 2. L. 97 vol. This refers to the murder of Soviet plenipotentiary P. Voikov in Warsaw on June 7, 1927. Eleutherius, Metropolitan. A week in the Patriarchate: Impressions and observations from a trip to Moscow. Paris, 1933. P. 75. GA RF. F. 393. Op. 2. D. 1633. L. 3. See: Yaroslavsky Em. The next task on the anti-religious front // Anti-religious collection for 1929. M., 1929. S. 4, 5. Quote by: Odintsov M.I. State and Church in Russia. XX century M., 1994. S. 74, 75. See: GA RF. F. 393. Op. 2. D. 1868. L. 34 vol. XIV All-Russian Congress of Soviets of the RSFSR: Bulletins. M., 1929. Bulletin No. 1. P. 20. Right there. Bulletin No. 12. pp. 24, 25. Right there. Bulletin No. 14. P. 49. Right there. Bulletin No. 4. P. 13. Orleansky I. Law on religious associations of the RSFSR. M., 1930. pp. 46–48. Bukharin N.I. Reconstruction period and the fight against religion: Report at the 2nd All-Union Congress of Atheists. M., 1929. S. 6, 7. GA RF. F. 5263. Op. 1. D. 7. L. 9. Right there. F. 393. Op. 2. D. 1799. L. 67. Quote by: Odintsov M.I. State and Church: History of Relationships. 1917–1938 M., 1991. P. 45. Quote by: Odintsov M.I. Russian patriarchs of the 20th century: The fate of the Fatherland and the Church on the pages of archival documents. M., 1999. P. 194. Quote by: Guardian of the House of the Lord: Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Sergius (Stragorodsky) / Comp. S. Fomin. M., 2003. P. 350. See ..Odintsov M.I. State and Church in Russia. XX century M., 1994. P. 83.