Глава VIII. На патриаршей кафедре. 1943–1944 годы

Stalin and the Church: the politics of reconciliation and compromise Gradually, in the first two years of the war, it became a tradition to publish greetings from I.V. Stalin in the press in response to appeals from the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Sergius and other Orthodox hierarchs. On January 5, 1943, the newspaper Pravda published another telegram from Metropolitan Sergius to Stalin with the words: “I cordially greet you on behalf of the Orthodox Church. In the New Year, I prayerfully wish you health and success in all your endeavors for the benefit of your native country entrusted to you. With our special message I invite the clergy and believers to donate for the construction of a column of tanks named after Dmitry Donskoy. To begin with, the Patriarchate contributes 100 thousand rubles, the Yelokhovsky Cathedral in Moscow - 300 thousand, the rector of the cathedral, Nikolai Fedorovich Kolchitsky - 100 thousand. We ask you to open a special account at the State Bank. May the national feat led by you end in victory over the dark forces of fascism." 219 Permission was given, which was also reported in the central press, and Orthodox parishes began to transfer funds to patriotic funds. Subsequently, information about patriotic contributions began to regularly flow to the Moscow Patriarchate. In a telegram to the commander-in-chief of the Red Army, J.V. Stalin, on the occasion of its 25th anniversary, the patriarchal locum tenens reported that six million rubles had been collected in a short time for the construction of a tank column and that the collection of the necessary funds was continuing 220. At the beginning of 1943, the general political situation in the country and the situation at the fronts, the broad patriotic activities of religious organizations pushed the leadership of the Soviet Union to take more decisive steps to further normalize state-church relations. Internal and external factors that had developed by the summer of 1943 predetermined the government’s steps in the further development of state-church relations. The authorities needed to determine which religious organization would take the first step in establishing official public relations. Actually, we could only talk about Russian Orthodoxy, but either about the “Sergiev” (“Tikhonov”) church, or about the Renovationist church. Stalin approached the choice from a pragmatic position. The Renovationist Church, led by Metropolitan Alexander (Vvedensky), did not enjoy widespread support from believers. And even abroad, among the autocephalous Orthodox churches, the Renovationists were not recognized; they were perceived as “schismatics” and “usurpers of church power.” In contrast, the “Tikhon” church had widespread support among believers. Foreign Orthodox churches viewed her as the heir to thousand-year-old Russian Orthodoxy and wanted to restore relations with her. They also took into account the fact that in the occupied territories the Germans closed Renovationist churches, accusing the clergy of political support of the Soviet authorities. And at the same time, they did not interfere with the opening of “Tikhon’s” churches and monasteries, believing that the priests and ordinary believers of this church, experiencing strong antipathy towards the Bolsheviks, would positively perceive the occupation regime. Thus, the political and religious situation in the country and abroad dictated Stalin’s choice in favor of the “Tikhon” church. Among those whom Stalin allowed to discuss the issue of relations between the state and the church were V. M. Molotov, deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR; G. M. Malenkov, head of the personnel department of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks; L.P. Beria, People's Commissar of Internal Affairs; V. N. Merkulov, People's Commissar of State Security. During the same period, it was decided which body would be entrusted with carrying out the new religious policy. Initially, it was decided to leave this right to the newly recreated (April 1943) People's Commissariat of State Security of the USSR (NKGB). Even at the very beginning of the war, this People's Commissariat carried out special operations among church organizations. For example, already on June 22, 1941, the plan for intelligence and operational activities included the task of arresting “anti-war sectarians and various anti-Soviet elements, internment of all German citizens.” There is no doubt that among those arrested under this plan were representatives of a wide variety of religious organizations. The People's Commissariat also came up with ideas about the advisability of distributing leaflets, messages, and appeals from various religious organizations to believers in the USSR and beyond. But very soon it became clear that he was clearly not succeeding in this activity (the traditions of the 1930s affected him). For example, it was at the request of the People's Commissariat in May 1943 that such a form of patriotic service of the Russian Church as the patronage of dioceses over military hospitals, supplying them with food, holding concerts and visiting wounded soldiers by representatives of parishes and the clergy was prohibited. This was regarded as unacceptable attempts “on the part of the clergy to enter into direct relations with the command of hospitals and the wounded under the guise of patronage” 221. In addition, among religious organizations the People's Commissariat was perceived as the “successor” of the Cheka-GPU-OGPU. For the foreign policy image of the USSR, it was also better to remove (if not completely, then at least externally) religious organizations from the control of the special services. In the end, it was decided to create a special body to connect the government with the Russian Orthodox Church. It was then that the idea of ​​a meeting between Stalin and the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church was born. They began to prepare intensively for it. On the eve of the planned meeting, People's Commissar of State Security V.N. Merkulov actively raised the issue of the return to Moscow from evacuation of the leaders of religious centers who were at that moment in Ulyanovsk. In appeals to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the People's Commissar, on the one hand, noted the “dissatisfaction” of Metropolitan Sergius with his long stay away from Moscow, his “fear” of being removed from the leadership of the church, on the other hand, he associated the need to move church centers to Moscow with the expected arrival of a delegation of the Anglican Church in the USSR and the need to intensify patriotic work through church structures in the occupied territories, where many religious buildings were opened 222. State security agencies collected detailed materials about the state of the church, information about its living hierarchs, the patriotic activities of the clergy, etc. Stalin carefully familiarized himself with them, who was interested not only in the socio-political views of church leaders, but also in the details of their personal destinies, everyday life and life during the war years. Let us give a brief excerpt from the biographical information on Metropolitan Sergius, prepared in the bowels of special agencies: “As a major church figure, he is widely known in the USSR and abroad. Speaks several foreign languages ​​(Japanese, Finnish, English, Greek, Hebrew). Having assumed the post of patriarchal locum tenens, not much different from his predecessors in his anti-Soviet views, he, however, sharply departed from the policy of demonstrative and open struggle with Soviet power, proclaiming a new church policy based on the so-called. loyal attitude towards Soviet power. This reflected some of the progressiveness of Metropolitan Sergius. Implementing this principle, he at the same time strives to revive the church on its former scale. Since the beginning of the war, he himself took a patriotic position, organized patriotic activities throughout the church and currently leads these activities” 223. Apparently, the upcoming meeting was supposed to be the first step towards establishing permanent relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet state. At the same time, there was a search for someone who could be appointed to the post of the newly created state body for relations with the Moscow Patriarchate. ...The plane flew right over the forest, almost touching the treetops. Rain and clouds that hid the moon forced the pilots to curse and peer intensely into the darkness. However, there was still no conventional fire. But then a gust of wind dispersed the clouds for a short time, and fires appeared below, to the right. A few minutes later, in the dugout where the headquarters of the partisan detachments in Ukraine was located, an envoy from the mainland was handing over mail - just one package. Having opened it and quickly skimmed the text, the commander said to the messenger: - Colonel Karpov to headquarters! - Turning to the pilot present here, he added: - Dry off by the fire, drink some partisan tea. Soon a young-looking, tightly built military man with a pleasant, open face hurriedly descended into the dugout. “Comrade commander, Colonel Karpov has arrived on your orders,” he reported. - Sit down, Colonel. I know that you and your group have just returned from a mission, but,” the commander pointed to the pilot, “the situation has changed dramatically.” In short, an order came - you need to be in Moscow urgently. “Comrade commander,” the pilot said, “the night is drawing to a close... we’d better be on our way, we’re running out of time, and the weather is bad too...” - Well, let's say goodbye, Georgy Grigorievich, maybe we'll meet again someday. At the end of the day on August 5, 1943, Karpov entered the building of the People's Commissariat of State Security. They were already waiting for him at the reception and immediately took him to the People's Commissar V.N. Merkulov. The conversation was brief. – Colonel, you have to return to the central apparatus of the People’s Commissariat and once again head the department for the fight against church-sectarian counter-revolution. Although, I admit, I’ll have to think about the name, and the direction of the work... will be somewhat different. But more on that another time. Now about the main thing. The decision-making bodies have decided to officially legalize religious and church life in the country. For this purpose, a special body is created under the government. What kind of body this is and what its powers are have not yet been fully determined. Although the essence is clear: to be a mediating link between the government and the Orthodox Church. But you will lead it and finalize everything that is necessary. You are given exactly a month to delve into all the problems of the Orthodox Church in the country and abroad. In thirty days you will be presented to the Supreme Commander and give all the necessary explanations about the church and the work of the new body. Having laid out the prospects in one breath, the People's Commissar finally stopped. After a pause he asked: – Who will I be directly subordinate to? – Will I be assigned an operational staff? – To begin with, you can select three for yourself. We'll see later. – Access to current information and to the archive? – Without restrictions, your office, car and everything you need for the first time are already waiting for you. - The People's Commissar stood up and, firmly shaking his subordinate's hand, said at the end: - To work, Colonel Karpov. This is your chance. I wish you good luck! Perhaps never before in his 45-year life has Karpov worked so hard. Search, collection and synthesis of information about the situation of the Orthodox Church in the country and abroad, in occupied territory, in European countries, in the Middle East. Processing of information received by the NKGB from partisan detachments, the active army, and from a variety of sources of information abroad. Interceptions of radio transmissions from German radio stations and their allies. Reading church publications, Soviet and foreign press. And meetings, meetings, meetings - with everyone who could provide any useful information about the Orthodox Church, hierarchs, clergy, and lay activists. Karpov and his employees secretly visited all the churches operating in Moscow and the Moscow region - both Orthodox and Renovationist. He also visited all the more or less famous Orthodox cathedrals and monasteries that had been closed over the years, checking the information collected about their condition and use. At the very end of August, Karpov carried out his first “operation” - Metropolitan Sergius returned to Moscow from evacuation. By that time, Metropolitans of Leningrad Alexy and Kyiv Nikolay were in the capital. It seemed that everything was prepared for the decisive step of the state towards the Orthodox Church. On the afternoon of September 4, 1943, as planned, Karpov was summoned to Stalin’s Near Dacha in Kuntsevo and presented to the chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars as a possible candidate for the post of chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was being created under the Council of People’s Commissars. Before Stalin lay documents from Karpov’s personal file, as well as materials about the Orthodox Church and its leaders. And although the question of the appointment was practically resolved, he still asked his questions: – What are Metropolitan Sergius and other bishops like? What is their authority among Orthodox believers, their attitude towards authorities? – The eldest of all, Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorod: both in age and in authority. Lives modestly. Loyal. The rest are guided by him in everything. During their services the churches are full of people. They speak a lot of patriotic sermons and collect money. They are agitating the flock for this. – Who was our last patriarch? – Tikhon – Moscow and all Russia. - At the Local Council, in November of the seventeenth year. – How do Orthodox churches live in the Balkans and the Middle East? Does our church have a connection with them? – There is no sufficient connection. Individual messages and information are being received. But it is necessary to establish this, since Orthodoxy in these areas has a strong historically determined position in society and in government spheres. The Russian Orthodox Church was well represented there before the revolution. The memory of her is alive, and many would like to revive the relationship on a permanent basis. The leader’s interest in “foreign Orthodoxy” was quite understandable. It was explained by the upcoming meeting of the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition countries in Tehran. Stalin was informed that the allies would again address the problems of religious freedom in the USSR, and he wanted to have his “trump cards” at this meeting. Stalin inquired about the opinion of Beria and Molotov, who were also present, regarding his intention to receive Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nicholas in the near future. Everyone agreed. Stalin looked questioningly at Karpov, who, remembering Molotov’s instructions to show understanding and initiative and not to be shy, realized that the moment of his “baptism of fire” in his new position was coming. He went to the telephone and dialed the telephone number already known to him in the apartment of Metropolitan Sergius: – A representative of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Union is speaking to you. The government has a desire to receive you, as well as Metropolitans Alexy and Nikolay, to listen to your needs and resolve your questions. The government can receive you today, in an hour and a half. If this does not suit you, then the appointment can be organized tomorrow, Sunday or any day of the next week. On the other side of the telephone wire, it seemed that they had been waiting for a long time for the call and the proposal to be made, and therefore the answer was an agreement to come to the meeting. Late in the evening of September 4, 1943, a government limousine drove into the Kremlin. Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolai were there. In the office of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, where they came accompanied by Poskrebyshev, Stalin, Molotov and Karpov were waiting for them. Stalin began the conversation by saying that he was well aware of the patriotic work of the church, and that in numerous letters coming to the government from the front and rear, Soviet citizens, believers and non-believers, approved of this position of the church. And he himself and the government give a very high assessment to church patriotic initiatives. After such an introduction, Stalin invited the hierarchs to speak out. Metropolitan Sergius was the first to enter the conversation: – The most important question for us is about the central leadership of the church, since the Synod has not functioned since 1935, and the church is governed by a patriarchal locum tenens. It is necessary to convene a Council of Bishops to elect a patriarch. – What will the patriarch be called? – Stalin asked, not at all surprised by the request. “We previously discussed the issue of the title and believe it is correct for it to sound like this: “Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.” – When will it be possible to assemble the Council? - Stalin continued. - I think we can do it in a month. Smiling, Stalin asked: – Is it possible to show Bolshevik tempos? – Turning to Karpov, he added: – What do you think? “If we help the church with transport, primarily by plane, then I think that in three or four days we can assemble the Cathedral,” answered Karpov. “So let’s set the date for September 8... If you need any help from the government: money, transport, premises, then tell me, and we will provide everything,” Stalin concluded the discussion of the first question. “No, no,” Metropolitan Sergius hastened to answer, “no money is needed, we have everything.” The positive resolution of the main request of the church added courage to the companions of Metropolitan Sergius. They also began to raise before the head of state questions about the opening of theological schools, churches and monasteries, about the publication of church literature and the organization of candle factories and other workshops necessary for the church, about providing the clergy with deferments from the army and reducing taxation... Stalin answered everything in the affirmative and only repeated: “The Church can count on the full support of the government in all matters related to its organizational strengthening and development within the USSR.” “Here,” Stalin said, turning to Sergius, “comrade Karpov reported that you live very poorly: your apartment is cramped, you buy food at the market, you have no transport.” This is wrong, and the government would like to help you in these and other issues. – If this is possible, then we would ask to provide the abbot’s building in the former Novodevichy Monastery for the placement of the patriarchate and the residence of the patriarch. - No, that won't do. Comrade Karpov was there and examined everything. The building is poorly equipped, damp, cold, and requires major repairs. And we would like to provide you with equipped and prepared premises immediately. Therefore, tomorrow the mansion at Chisty Lane, building five, will come under your jurisdiction to house the Patriarchate. “Noticing a shadow of bewilderment and anxiety on the faces of his interlocutors, Stalin, understanding what caused this, said: “This is a Soviet building; the German ambassador to the USSR, Schulenburg, was only temporarily housed in it before the war.” And besides, you will be provided with all the property located in it, and the territory adjacent to the house. At that moment, Stalin’s assistant A.N. Poskrebyshev entered the office and put a plan of the estate in question on the table. He wanted to leave, but Stalin stopped him with the words: – Alexander Nikolaevich, give us a little explanation of the plan. – Joseph Vissarionovich, archivists have prepared a detailed note for the plan. If you allow me, may I read an excerpt? Poskrebyshev found the sheets of paper he needed in a stack of documents and read out: – “The main building of the estate is a one-story wooden house on a stone foundation, with a mezzanine and mezzanines. On the ground floor there are thirteen bright rooms, four dark closets and a corridor. A wooden staircase leads to a mezzanine, which has a dark room and three light ones. The usable area of ​​the mansion was increased by installing mezzanines - low rooms in the mezzanine above the ground floor premises. The mezzanine has four bright rooms with eleven windows facing the courtyard. In the stone basement there are rooms for people, a kitchen, a dining room and a cook's room. The house has stove heating, water supply and sewerage. Behind the main building there is a small garden and a utility yard with two stone barns and service buildings: stables, cellars, storerooms, gatehouses and janitors'. - So, is it suitable? – Stalin asked, smiling and addressing all the hierarchs. “Then we will add two or three cars for the needs of the patriarchy.” Rolling up the plan and collecting documents and materials, Poskrebyshev casually said: – One of the last owners of the estate was Maria Protopopova, and the pediment of the façade of the main house, facing the alley, is decorated with her monogram, but now it can receive a different interpretation. At the end of the conversation, “inconvenient questions” also surfaced: about the fate of hierarchs who were convicted and imprisoned in different years, about the lifting of restrictions on registration and the choice of place of residence for clergy who had served their sentences. Stalin promised to look into each individual case and instructed Karpov to personally deal with these problems. When the requests and wishes from the invitees were exhausted, Stalin announced that for constant communication between the government and the church, a special body would be formed - the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, and G. G. Karpov would be appointed its chairman. He stood up. Addressing him, Stalin said: – Select two or three assistants who will be members of your council, form an apparatus. But just, firstly, remember that you are not the chief prosecutor, and secondly, give more independence to the church in your activities. V. M. Molotov, who had been silent until now, entered the conversation: – When could the leadership of the Russian Church receive a delegation from the Anglican Church wishing to pay a visit to Moscow? “I think this could be done immediately after the Council of Bishops,” answered Sergius. Let us note that the very idea of ​​this visit arose back in March 1943 during a meeting between Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) and Advisor to the British Embassy in the USSR Baggaley. It was actively supported and implemented by the British Ambassador to the USSR A. Kerr. The Soviet authorities linked the timing of the visit of the Anglican Church delegation to foreign policy circumstances, in particular, to the Tehran Conference in November-December 1943, where the issue of opening a second front was to be discussed, and the opinion of the Anglican Church on religious freedom in Russia created a favorable background for negotiations. “Then let’s compile information for tomorrow’s newspapers,” Molotov suggested. After completing the draft text of the statement, Metropolitan Sergius delivered a speech of gratitude to the government and Stalin personally. At two o'clock in the morning, having said a warm farewell to the owner of the Kremlin office, the metropolitans returned to Yelokhovo. The late hour and fatigue made themselves felt, but everyone was excited, joyful and full of bright hopes. Metropolitan Sergius was impressed by the meeting. As usual, despite the late hour, he walked around his small room and thought about something. Cell attendant John (Razumov) suddenly heard: “How kind he is! How kind he is!” The cell attendant either said to himself or asked: - So he’s an unbeliever? Can you expect any good from this? “You know, John,” Sergius said, stopping opposite, “whoever is good has God living in his soul.” After a short rest, early in the morning of September 5, Metropolitan Sergius arrived at the Epiphany Cathedral. This was his first meeting with the Moscow flock after almost two years. The Muscovites greeted their ruler with bread and salt. Despite the early hour, the church was crowded. Vague rumors and assumptions about the Bishop’s night trip to the Kremlin were already in the air. Everyone was waiting for clarification. At the end of the service, Metropolitan Sergius briefly reported on the conversation with Stalin and on the Council of Bishops, which is scheduled to convene in the very next few days, as well as on the move of the Patriarchal institutions to a new building, where work was already in full swing on its re-conservation and necessary repairs. The morning newspapers came out with a TASS report about Stalin's meeting with the metropolitans of the Russian Church. From it, readers not only in the USSR, but also abroad, understood that new times were beginning for the church in Soviet Russia. On the same day, Metropolitans Sergius, Nikolai and Alexy wrote a letter to “dear Joseph Vissarionovich” with “gratitude” for the “historic day of rendezvous” and emphasized that “the Russian Church will never forget that the Leader recognized by the whole world, not only by the Stalin Constitution, but also by personal participation in the destinies of the church, raised the spirit of all church people to even more intense work for the benefit of the dear Fatherland” 224. It is obvious that the events of the past night and the steps that needed to be taken to revive the church were discussed again and again between the hierarchs and together with other clergy. It is clear that the most difficult thing was to outline the line of practical relations with the state that would make it possible to implement the agreements that had taken place and at the same time maintain the internal freedom of the church. Leading the Church Revival Immediately after the meeting of church leaders with Stalin, the practical implementation of the agreements reached began. On September 8, in the new building of the Patriarchate, which had already been hastily transformed - first of all, in the main house of the estate a cross church was built in honor of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God, a meeting room of the Synod (Red Hall), other representative premises and the personal chambers of His Holiness Bishop Sergius - the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church gathered. 19 hierarchs gathered: three metropolitans, 11 archbishops and five bishops. Surprise and excitement were visible on the faces of those gathered, many of whom had not seen each other for many years and even decades, being in prison, and besides, they had literally just stepped off the planes or trains that took them to Moscow. At 11 am, the sessions of the Council opened with the singing of the troparion to the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God “Today the most glorious city of Moscow shines brightly.” His agenda included seven issues related to the organization of church life, but everyone understood that the main issue would be the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. The cathedral was opened by the patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergius. He read a report on the patriotic activities of the church in wartime, recalled the twenty-three messages he issued and a number of messages from the ruling bishops; about collecting funds and other donations for the country's defense. Separately, information was given about the meeting with Stalin and the agreements reached during it. The key phrases that explained the patriotic position of the church were the following words of the metropolitan to those gathered: “We did not have to think about what position our Church should take during the war, because before we had time to somehow determine our position, it had already been determined - the Nazis attacked our country, they devastated it, took our compatriots captive, tortured and robbed them in every possible way... So even simple decency would not allow we should take some other position than the one we have taken, that is, unconditionally negative towards everything that bears the stamp of fascism, the stamp of hostility towards our country” 225. Then Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) delivered a report to the hierarchs on “The Duty of a Christian to the Church and Motherland in the Era of the Patriotic War.” The entire content of the report was devoted to answering the question that the Metropolitan posed to himself: “Where and how is victory forged?” His answer was that victory requires not only “improved weapons of struggle: air fighters and bombers, armored trains and tanks, machine guns and artillery,” but also “moral conditions of victory,” which give inspiration to the army and the people, help them endure hardships and sacrifices, and call them to Victory. And this is a firm faith in God, a religious uplift of spirit, an awareness of the truth of the war, an awareness of duty to God and the Motherland 226. At the end of the report, he turned to the main topic for which, in fact, the hierarchs had gathered - the election of the patriarch. Alexy said: “We are currently meeting here as a Council of Bishops to elect His Holiness the Patriarch. I think that this question is infinitely easier for us by the fact that we already have a bearer of patriarchal powers... I believe that none of us bishops can imagine another candidate other than the one who put in so much work for the church in the rank of patriarchal locum tenens. The Metropolitan’s address was greeted with delight, and cries were heard: - Please, please! Axios! (Worthy!) – Maybe there is another opinion? – Metropolitan Sergius asked, rising from the table. – We have complete unity, the episcopate is unanimous in its opinion. Everyone stood up and sang three times: Having heard the unanimous opinion of the Council, Metropolitan Sergius responded with a short, heartfelt word: – This election of me as a patriarch will be a continuation of the service that fell to me many years ago. But now it only becomes more responsible, because it is accompanied by such an unusual honor, which also requires an extraordinary performance of this service. I thank you for choosing me and entrusting me with continued service in a new title. I ask everyone for prayers and all possible assistance. Metropolitan Alexy announced the formula for commemorating the Most Holy Patriarch, which from now on sounded like this: “Our Holy Father Sergius, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.” In general enthusiasm, the members of the Council stood up and sang the troparion to the Holy Trinity, “Blessed art thou, O Christ our God.” The protodeacon pronounced the first official public anniversary: ​​“To His Beatitude Sergius, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, elected Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.” Thus the main work of the Council was accomplished. The church has found its leader. On the same day, the Holy Synod under the patriarch was elected, consisting of three permanent and three temporary members. Metropolitans Alexy (Simansky) and Nikolai (Yarushevich), Archbishop of Gorky Sergius (Grishin) became permanent members. Temporary members were to be chosen in order of seniority for semi-annual sessions from each of the three groups of dioceses: northeastern, central and southern. The first to be invited were Archbishops Alexy (Palitsyn) of Kuibyshev, Luka (Voino-Yasenetsky) of Krasnoyarsk, and Ioann (Sokolov) of Yaroslavl. At the same time, the Council adopted a number of important church and social documents: a declaration on the condemnation of traitors to the faith and the Fatherland from among the clergy and believers who have stained themselves with betrayal and collaboration with the occupiers; an appeal to the Soviet government expressing gratitude for its attention to the “needs of the Russian Orthodox Church” and blessing for the works of the USSR government; an appeal to all Christians of the world with a call to “unite amicably, fraternally, firmly and powerfully in the name of Christ for the final victory over the common enemy.” On September 12, on the Day of Remembrance of Saint Prince Alexander Nevsky, patron saint of the Russian land, the enthronement of the newly elected patriarch took place in the Epiphany Cathedral. Greeted by the entire Council of Bishops and representatives of the Moscow clergy and flock, the Patriarch, venerating the cross presented by the cathedral archpriest, ascended the pulpit in the middle of the church. Archpriest Kolchitsky announced the Act of the Council on the election of Metropolitan Sergius and on conferring on him the title of His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. The entire host of clergy, and behind them the entire church full of people, proclaimed the threefold “Axios!” Metropolitan Nicholas of Kiev presented the kukol to the patriarch, who placed it on himself. Following this, Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad presented His Holiness with the patriarchal staff. The archdeacon again proclaimed many years. This was followed by speeches by venerable hierarchs, from their speeches the life path of the patriarch, an outstanding theologian and church leader, was clearly revealed. His activities especially stood out during the times of “discord and confusion in the Church” in the 1920s–1930s, and his merits as a “church helmsman” during the period of locum tenens. Archbishop Gregory (Chukov) expressed the general mood this way: “A heavy cross fell to the lot of Metropolitan Sergius; The path that he, the second locum tenens, had to follow was sorrowful, and the bishops did not all recognize him, and among the people the enemies of the Church tried to stir up evil rumors against him, but he, a deeply convinced Orthodox canonist, firmly dissociated himself from any work disloyal to the state, which some of his fellow bishops pushed him into. He remembered the words of Christ: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” and these divine words formed the basis of his activity as a patriarchal locum tenens. He devoted himself exclusively to the organization of the Church and firmly adhered to the strict church line” 227. On the day of enthronement, Sergius addressed the flock with his first patriarchal message. Informing believers about the “acceptance of the patriarchal rank,” Sergius called on them to “work to cleanse the church fence of all disorder,” organize church life according to church rules, protect the Orthodox faith, and participate in every possible way in the church-wide feat of resisting the invaders 228. With his election to the Patriarchal throne, Patriarch Sergius received many telegrams, letters, messages from the clergy and believers of the Soviet Union, as well as from abroad: from Istanbul, Damascus, Jerusalem, Lebanon, London. A congratulatory letter arrived from New York from Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov), who wrote: “... although the forms of your election did not correspond to the letter of the resolution of the Moscow Council of 1917–18. (we mean the path of lot from three candidates), but, as you yourself deigned to teach us, the Church is God’s organ, and, as such, She is free, just as the Holy Spirit Himself, acting in her, is free, and the Church is free to take the forms that please it. In this case, the will of the Church in electing Your Holiness was completely obvious. And therefore, even if the letter was not observed, then the will of the same Church, which at one time chose a different form, was fulfilled. Blessed be the name of the Church of God, Execute Your Holiness and all your brethren, co-bishops, who truly unanimously fulfilled the will of the Church.” A telegram also arrived from the patriarch’s homeland, from Arzamas, from priest Nikolai Popov, who wrote: “On behalf of all the believers of Arzamas, I congratulate you on your election to a high post. Many years to the Patriarch of All Russia." It seemed that in the life of Sergius after his election as patriarch, nothing outwardly changed. But if in the rank of locum tenens he could hope that his human weaknesses and mistakes would be corrected by the legally elected patriarch, now, invested with new rights and responsibilities, Sergius, having no right to make a mistake, had to act according to the “truth of God” in order to lead people to “eternal salvation”... Another difficult and responsible role fell on him - to appear before the state for the entire church. The election of the Patriarch of Moscow was received with approval not only in the Soviet Union by millions of believers, but also by the majority of foreign autocephalous Orthodox and other Christian churches. Sergius received congratulatory messages on the occasion of his election from the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. These evidences of the restoration, so far in absentia, of ties with foreign religious centers gave hope that in the very near future, visits to Moscow by heads and delegations of Christian churches, and trips of delegations of the Russian Church abroad would become possible. The first foreign church delegation to visit the USSR in many years was a delegation from the Anglican Church: Archbishop of York Dr. S. F. Garbett, priests F. G. House and G. M. Waddams 229 . During those ten days of September 1943, during which the delegation was in the Soviet Union, its members met with the patriarch and hierarchs of the Russian Church, visited Moscow churches, participated in services in the cathedral, went to the New Jerusalem Monastery in the city of Istra and to the village of Kolomenskoye. The delegation was interested in various aspects of religious life in the USSR, be it the presence of existing churches, the restoration of destroyed ones and the opening of new churches, the mobilization of the clergy into the army, the possibility of studying religion in schools, the presence of religious educational institutions and open monasteries, and the activities of the “Living Church”. At a farewell meeting with Patriarch Sergius, Archbishop of York S. F. Garbett, expressing gratitude for the hospitality, invited a delegation of the Russian Church to visit Great Britain. Speaking about his impressions of Moscow, the meetings that took place and the reviving church life, he stated: “Upon my arrival in England, I will be besieged by correspondents, they will ask me: “Is there freedom of religious worship in Russia,” and I will answer that, of course, yes.” 230 And so it happened. Upon his return, Archbishop S. F. Garbett repeatedly spoke publicly and on the pages of printed publications, sharing his impressions of church life in the USSR. In one of his articles he wrote: “There can be no doubt that the church service is not limited in any way. Orthodox clergy told us about this categorically. Stalin is a wise statesman who realizes that the Church no longer supports the old regime, she loyally accepts the existing system, she began to help the national cause with soul and body, she offers prayers and works in the name of victory, and she did this immediately, without the slightest hesitation, on the very first day that war was declared" 231. The foreign policy effect of the visit was enormous and undoubtedly had an impact on the position of the allies, who were preparing these days for a meeting in Tehran to discuss the pressing issue of opening a second front. The election of the patriarch, having become a logical point in the policy of the authorities in choosing the “main partner” from two Orthodox branches – the “Tikhon” and the Renovationist, had a disastrous effect on the position of the Renovationist Church. Increasingly, the clergy and believers encountered problems when opening churches, registering clergy at their place of service, and publishing religious literature. There have been, so far, isolated cases of the return of renovationist churches to the Patriarchal Church. Some of the renovationist hierarchs entered into secret negotiations with the hierarchs of the Patriarchal Church about the conditions for a possible return to the Patriarchal Church. As the historian of renovationism put it, “at the turn of September 1943, this word (“renovationism” – M.O.) loses its meaning even for the most active figures of renovationism, and they flee from this camp like mice from a sinking ship” 232. Evidence of this can be found in the correspondence of the renovationist hierarchs. In particular, Metropolitan Vasily (Kozhin) reported back in March 1943 to Metropolitan Vitaly (Vvedensky): “I cannot hide from you the fact that the publication by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1942 of the book “The Truth about Religion in Russia” and newspaper reports about the donations of Tikhonov’s hierarchs created the impression as if Renovationism was leaving the historical stage and therefore a certain attraction was noticed among believers and clergy to “Sergievism”" 233. And in a note from Archbishop Anatoly (Sinitsyn) to the renovationist Bishop of Tashkent Sergius (Larin) it was said: “In our renovationism we don’t feel any leadership, the last parishes are being lost. In the Moscow region, the Old Church members already have 109 parishes, and we have no more than 9. A murderous balance of forces. Our archbishops and bishops, instead of being appointed to departments, receive positions of rectorship or remain out of work. Renovationism is losing its face" 234. Let us add that in mid-1943 there were only 13 hierarchs in the Renovationist Church and 10 were retired. Whereas five years ago, in 1938, the renovationist episcopate numbered 60 people. A number of hierarchs of the Renovationist Church sought to find ways to save the church ship, for which a meeting was convened in Tashkent, at the residence of the Renovationist Bishop of Tashkent and Samarkand Sergius (Larin), in early October. It was planned to bypass Alexander Vvedensky to elect a collegial governing body of the church, which was supposed to enter into communication with the Patriarchal Church about the possibility of reunification. However, both among those gathered and among the written reviews received, pessimism prevailed. Metropolitan of Yaroslavl and Kostroma Korniliy (Popov) wrote: “Personally, I am pessimistic about the state of the First Hierarch and renewal; with the appointment of the patriarch, the First Hierarch’s affairs in renewal are far from brilliant. It is true, of course, that the believing masses, especially here, near Moscow, gravitate towards the patriarch: this word “patriarch” is some kind of charming word for our people, all the holiness is in it, they think.”235 The recognition of this hierarch is especially significant, since for a long time he was one of the long-standing and ardent supporters of renovationism. Having summarized the materials received by the council, Karpov in mid-October 1943, in a memo addressed to Stalin, asking for his instructions, wrote: “The Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, based on the fact that the renovationist movement played its positive role at a certain stage and in recent years no longer has the same significance and basis, and taking into account the patriotic positions of the Sergius Church, considers it advisable not to prevent the collapse the renovationist church and the transition of the renovationist clergy and parishes to the Patriarchal Sergius Church" 236. Stalin liked the note. He drew it with a red pencil: “Correct. I agree with you." V. M. Molotov shared the same opinion. On October 16, the following secret instruction was sent to local authorities in the republics, territories and regions of the Soviet Union: “The Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR reports for information that in cases where the renovationist clergy, at their own request, transfers from the renovationist orientation to the Patriarchal Sergius Church, they should not be interfered with. Also, one should not interfere with the transition of groups of believers or parishes as a whole, at the request of believers, from the Renovationist Church to the St. Sergius Church. The conditions for the reception of metropolitans, bishops and priests of the renovationist orientation are established by Patriarch Sergius and his episcopate in place” 237. The question of the possibility of returning the Renovationist episcopate and clergy to the fold of the Orthodox Church was discussed in the Synod already in October - December 1943. According to Patriarch Sergius, the moment has come when the church “comes out to meet the prodigal son and contributes to his conversion.” At the same time, the renovationist episcopate could not count on “automatic” forgiveness of its sins before the church. The Patriarch, in his resolution, superimposed on one of the many notes of the Renovationist bishop, strictly outlined the essence of Renovationism as an “arbitrary gathering” that broke away from the Holy Church “and erected another altar” (St. App. Right. 31). And she not only erected an altar for herself, but also fought in every possible way against the Holy Church, trying to tear away the church sheep behind her. This is a sin that is not washed away, according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers, “even by the blood of martyrdom.” Only through repentance, awareness of this sin and repentance, Patriarch Sergius emphasized, is it possible to ask for “communion with the Holy Orthodox Church” 238. At the same time, rules for receiving renovationists were developed. According to them, each of those returning had to repent before the confessor indicated by the church authorities and renounce all awards received in the schism. It was stipulated that those clergy who “were seen to contribute to the reunification of others and were appointed canonical bishops could be accepted into their existing rank” and they would have to repent before Easter 1944. For some of the renovationists, “individual exceptions” were also provided. The only one who did not fall under all the rules and exceptions was Alexander Vvedensky, who could not be accepted not only as a bishop, but also as a priest, since he was married three times. On November 5, 1943, in the meeting hall of the Holy Synod in Moscow, the ceremony of receiving the first renovationist bishop, Archbishop Mikhail (Postnikov), into the Patriarchal Church was performed. He publicly repented for deviating from the Renovationist schism. “Having come to the consciousness of everything I have done,” he read the text of his repentance, “I deeply regret that I was with the renovationist corporation, and I sincerely repent of it. I do not lay claim to any ranks received as a reward; I only humbly ask to be accepted into communion with the Holy Orthodox Church, and I declare that I am breaking off all relations with renovationism.”239 Mikhail was received as a bishop, having been ordained back in 1922 before the Renovationist schism arose. A month later, other renovationist bishops followed the path of repentance: Metropolitan Korniliy (Popov), Archbishop Andrei (Rumyantsev), Bishop Sergius (Larin). The repentance of the bishops took place, as a rule, in the meeting hall of the Synod. In total, 38 renovationist bishops brought it. The repentance of the ordinary clergy was carried out privately - in the altar of the church. Dioceses that were especially “affected by renovationism” were accepted into the Patriarchal Church by bishops specially appointed by the Patriarchate, who made the final decision after a thorough “revision”. After some time, a wave of liquidation of renovationist communities and the return of the clergy and believers to the Patriarchal Church swept across the country. In the late autumn of 1943, Alexander Vvedensky returned to Moscow from Ulyanovsk. He took over the administration of the Moscow Renovationist diocese and served every Sunday in the few Renovationist churches, holding magnificent services, enjoying patriarchal honors, preaching, calling on the clergy and flock to strengthen the church. According to established tradition, Vvedensky sent a congratulatory telegram to I.V. Stalin on the anniversary of the October Revolution. The response telegram was published in central newspapers, but the head of state addressed Vvedensky with words of gratitude not as a church leader, but as a private individual. It was an unfavorable symptom. In December 1943, Vvedensky had a daughter. He obtained a pass for himself to Ulyanovsk, where his family had been until that time, and went there in the hope of a quick return and intensified efforts to save the Renovationist Church. The Council continued to monitor the situation in the renovationist environment. Karpov regularly informed Molotov about the progress of the collapse of renovationism. At a meeting in January 1944, the chairman of the council announced the transfer of renovationist parishes and hierarchs to the Patriarchal Church in the Leningrad, Moscow, Tula regions, in the Krasnodar and Stavropol territories, and in Central Asia. According to him, renovationism was experiencing a deep crisis, but at the same time he was interested in whether “special events” should be held, primarily in the Krasnodar and Stavropol territories, which remained “strongholds of renovationism.” It seems that one of the “special events” was precisely connected with A. Vvedensky’s stay in Ulyanovsk. When trying to return to Moscow, already at the Ulyanovsk railway station, there was a hitch when checking documents: the pass to enter Moscow was declared invalid, and Vvedensky had to stay in Ulyanovsk longer than planned. Every day he called Moscow and from conversations with Archbishop Andrei (Rastorguev) he learned more and more depressing news: Moscow churches, one after another, were moving away from renovationism and returning to the Patriarchal Church. Things were no better in the provinces, in Central Asia, the Kuban and the North Caucasus. When the issue of travel to Moscow was settled and Vvedensky returned to the capital, sad news awaited him: in Moscow only two bishops remained faithful to him - Metropolitan Vitaly (Vvedensky) and Metropolitan Filaret (Yatsenko) of the North Ural. In fact, all the renovationist dioceses collapsed, and in Moscow itself there was only one renovationist church. In February 1944, Vvedensky, on his own initiative, came to the council to meet with Karpov. He raised the question of providing him with one of the non-functional religious buildings in Moscow or the return of the Resurrection Church in Sokolniki, of moving bishops and appointing new bishops to renovation departments. Karpov’s answer was already standard: buildings are transferred at the request of believers, but none have been received from renovationist communities, and the appointment of bishops to regions of the USSR where there are no active renovationist communities is unacceptable 240 . Vvedensky is still trying to somehow revive the church, he is working with the hierarchs and clergy who remain loyal to him, imploring them to remain faithful to the true Orthodox Church - the Renovationist Church. But this didn't help much. The return of hierarchs to the Patriarchal Church continued, and after them the clergy and parishes. At times, renovationist hierarchs were simply expelled from the diocese as “deceivers and liars of the church” by believers returning to the Patriarchal Church. Alexander Vvedensky took it especially hard when he left Renovationism in March 1944 and accepted, through repentance, into the Patriarchal Church the former first hierarch of the Renovation Church, Metropolitan Vitaly (Vvedensky), who with his authority, as a legitimate bishop by ordination, was the ideological support of the Renovationists. This was painful, since Vvedensky remembered how a month ago he had convinced Karpov of the vitality of the renovationist Pimenov Church in Moscow, where Vitaly served and where a huge number of pilgrims flocked to his services, and his words that Metropolitan Vitaly “would rather die than go over to the Patriarchal Church.” Left alone, pressed from all sides, Vvedensky makes attempts at reconciliation with the Patriarchal Church, especially since there was almost no time left before the end of the period for receiving Renovationist bishops. We learn about the first of them from a letter from Patriarch Sergius to Bishop Alexander (Tolstopyatov) dated April 20, 1944: “A. Vvedensky decided to do something great, or at least loud. He sent me a telegram for Easter: “Let’s hug each other!” He calls me a representative of the Russian majority in our Orthodoxy, and calls himself a representative of the minority. And he ended with some kind of harlequinade, signed himself as First Hierarch, Doctor of Theology and Doctor of Philosophy. I answered: “Vvedensky A.I. Truly Christ is Risen! Patriarch Sergius.” The matter, they say, is serious and there is absolutely no place for fooling around. By the way, on the second day I served in Sokolniki, in the former nest of renovationists. Among the concelebrants was Bishop Vitaly, their first hierarch, and the rector of Rastorguev, the archpriest, was a former archbishop" 241 . This attempt at “personal reunification” of Vvedensky with the Russian Church ended in vain. Patriarch Sergius categorically refused to “reunite” and insisted that the Renovationists fully acknowledge their “sin of apostasy.” The Renovationist first hierarch served in the only Renovationist church in Moscow, the Pimenovsky Church, together with Metropolitan Philaret (Yatsenko). The church made an eerie impression: it had not been repaired for a long time, with crumbling plaster, faded paintings, the walls had a reddish tint from the moisture that penetrated inside through the leaking roof. The church bore the mark of the “abomination of desolation.” Gradually, bishops and clergy began to return to the bosom of the Patriarchal Church, who were among the so-called “non-rememberers”, those who separated from it in the late 1920s after Metropolitan Sergius signed the 1927 declaration. The most authoritative among the “non-rememberers,” Bishop Afanasy (Sakharov) from the Mariinsky camps sent Sergius congratulations on the occasion of his election to the Patriarchal throne and asked to be accepted into communion with the church. Following him, other bishops from among the “non-rememberers” took this path. The congregation followed them. Only a small part of it, calling themselves “true Orthodox Christians,” remained outside the Patriarchal Church. Their few groups were located in the Voronezh and Tambov regions, in the North Caucasus and Siberia. The authorities considered them as “anti-Soviet organizations”, against which administrative and repressive measures were permissible, including arrests and exile. As the church was revived, Sergius strove to ensure that every church had a priest. Great hopes were placed on theological educational institutions, the management of which was to be taken over by the Educational Committee headed by Metropolitan of Leningrad Grigory (Chukov) consisting of N. F. Kolchitsky and Professor S. V. Savinsky. The committee, realizing that it would not be able to find a sufficient number of teachers in a short time, asked for permission for several theological professors from abroad to enter the USSR, but this request did not find support. Already at the end of October 1943, basic documents related to the activities of the theological institute and theological and pastoral courses in Moscow were developed. They were actively discussed both in the Synod and in the council. The Church initially hoped that the buildings of former religious educational institutions would be returned for the needs of schools: on Kharitonyevsky Lane, on Ordynka Street or on the territory of the former Novodevichy Convent. The programs of theological schools were based on the corresponding programs of pre-revolutionary academies and seminaries. On Karpov’s initiative, a course devoted to the study of the USSR Constitution and legislation on religious cults was introduced into the program. The list of educational subjects supposed to be studied in theological schools was as follows 242: Theological Institute: Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments, History of the Christian Church, History of the Russian Church, Christian apologetics, Liturgics, Church preaching and teaching the truths of faith, History and analysis of Russian sectarianism and schism, Reading liturgical books in Church Slavonic, Moral theology, Pastoral theology, History of religion, Church singing, Asceticism, Constitution of the USSR. Theological and pastoral courses: Reading and explanation of selected passages from the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, History of the Christian Church, History of the Russian Church, Christian apologetics, Liturgics, Church preaching, Sect studies and schism, Church Slavonic language, Orthodox faith and moral teaching, Practical guidance for church pastors, Biblical history, Church singing and choir studies, Orthodox catechism, Constitution of the USSR. The chairman of the council contributed in every possible way to speeding up the process of opening theological schools. He had to overcome the resistance of certain employees of the council apparatus, who “did not see the need” for the opening of theological schools. Speaking at a meeting of council members, Karpov said: “To refuse this question means to emphasize the opposite, and not the declared freedom of conscience. The church needs personnel. The training of new clergy will be somewhat refreshing and will provide the opportunity to have a young composition that was born and settled in the modern Soviet environment. They did not taste the psychology, morality, and politics that existed during the period of monarchism” 243. As it was agreed at the September meeting in the Kremlin, with all issues on which a government decision was required, the church had to first contact the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. So this time, in the dead autumn of 1943, the patriarch came to the council and entered Karpov’s office. “Georgy Grigorievich,” Sergius began after the greeting, “at the Council of Bishops we agreed to begin practical work on opening a theological institute. I would like to hear your opinion about the candidacy of Archpriest Bogolyubov, whom we would like to put at the head of the institute. “Ivan Nikolaevich,” according to established tradition, Karpov most often addressed the patriarch in this way, “it’s up to you...” The Chairman stood up, went to the bookcase in the back of his office and continued: “Here I have volumes of the “Acts” of the Local Council of 1917–1918. Bookmarks are different... I can read what Bogolyubov said about the Bolsheviks, about Soviet power, his calls for struggle... “But that’s all in the past,” Sergius assured. – Now is a different time, different conditions. What is there to reproach with this? - That's right. But we would not want the younger generation of Orthodox clergy to begin their education with this man. “Well, if so,” the patriarch said with a sigh, “let it be your way.” But it will be difficult for us to find another... There are no church personnel. “Your Holiness,” Karpov suddenly asked, “have you heard anything about Metropolitan Alexander Vvedensky?” – It’s unheard of, the other day I asked for an audience. I didn't accept it. I have nothing to talk to him about. - That’s how it is, in the church way, maybe it’s not about anything. But what should we do? In some places, renovationist churches operate and believers support them. Although, to tell the truth, they are often “breathing on their last legs.” It is reported from the ground that some priests and believers are talking about returning to the Patriarchal Church. – As for Vvedensky himself, no matter how much he wants, he cannot be accepted into the Orthodox Church, not only as a bishop, but also as a simple priest. As far as possible, we will accept ordinary priests and believers into the church fold, subject to certain statements and actions on their part. – And I also have a question for you. Our friends asked to find out: is it possible... - Karpov paused, searching for words - ... to train, examine and instruct several Serbian and Romanian prisoners of war who called themselves priests? It is planned to send them as regimental priests to the emerging national military units. - Why not? They are even very happy to help fraternal churches. The chairman, as a rule, reported on all his meetings with the patriarch to the deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, V.M. Molotov, and in some cases, at the latter's prompting, he wrote official reports addressed to Stalin. Receiving written or oral orders from these leaders, Karpov built his line of behavior. He did not shy away from personal relations with Patriarch Sergius, although in the party spheres they were treated very unkindly and ambiguously. The archives preserved many “signals” from those who did not approve of the “council line” for normalizing relations with the church and would like to return to the old days, to firmness, determination and offensiveness towards the “priests”. Karpov had to maneuver, hiding his actions from “curious” people under the heading “secret” or “for official use.” History decreed that only at the very end of the 1980s the publication of these interesting documents became possible. In the autumn of 1943, a revival of monastic life began. At that time, there were more than thirty monasteries, most of them opened during the occupation. In all the monasteries there were more than three thousand monks. On religious holidays, the monasteries were visited by a huge number of pilgrims. Almost all the monasteries ran their own economy: agriculture, crafts, various trades. The Moscow Patriarchate petitioned the government not to interfere with their activities. The council took the same position. According to his proposal, the USSR government, by its special resolution, invited the Councils of People's Commissars of the republics on whose territory the monasteries were located, “until special instructions are given, not to interfere with their activities and to retain the residential and office premises they occupy, the lands in their use, livestock, agricultural implements and subsidiary workshops.” The publishing activity of the Russian Church intensified in 1943–1944. Desk and wall calendars, prayer books, and liturgical literature were produced. To the book “The Truth about Religion in Russia” published in 1942, a new one was added - “The Russian Orthodox Church and the Great Patriotic War” (1943). For many years, the main official publication of the Russian Orthodox Church became the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. The first issue of the magazine, as indicated on the cover, was published on September 12, 1943, in an appeal from the editors to readers: “With the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch, the Moscow Patriarchate, with God’s help, is beginning to publish a printed organ that will contain the official orders of the Holy Patriarch on church issues, his messages, decrees and definitions of the Holy Patriarch and the Holy Synod, patriotic speeches of the Holy Patriarch and other church figures, articles of a theological nature, calendar information and various notes concerning the life of the Church. The need for the publication of such a printed organ has long been ripe, and therefore the editors hope that its appearance will be greeted by the clergy and the entire church society with the liveliest sympathy” 244. Sergius was a very picky editor of materials submitted to the Patriarchate for publication. The pages of the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate” published articles about the patriotic activities of the church, about the heroism of the Red Army and the Soviet people, about the crimes of the Nazis against the peoples of the Soviet Union and religious associations, information about the participation of the clergy in the work of the Extraordinary State Commission to identify and investigate German atrocities. Materials on historical topics and the cultural heritage of the Slavic peoples, on written monuments, icon painting, and church construction were constantly present. The church informed its flock through the magazine about the anti-Christian essence of fascism. Articles were published condemning the efforts of Nazi ideologists to build a “new religion.” For example, its content and orientation were characterized as follows by Archpriest Alexander Smirnov in the article “Opponents of the Cross of Christ”: “Instead of Christ - the Fuhrer; instead of a cross - a pagan swastika; instead of the eternal book of life of the Bible - the fascist little book “My Struggle”; instead of Sunday - Saturday evening; instead of priests, pastors, chaplains, readers - there is only one lecturer; instead of baptism, communion, repentance, wedding - pronouncing a fascist oath with the right hand touching the sword, etc. With such new rituals, the fascists set out to create a new national church in Germany, which should, according to their plans, serve only the doctrine: “People and Race” and not allow any other forms of church associations in the territory subject to it, especially those in which, according to the covenant of Christ and His Apostles, the spirit of Christian internationality is carried out, that is, where there is no difference in spiritual rights either for the Greek, or for the Jew, or for others nationalities (Col. 3:11)" 245. Many materials on the pages of the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate” were devoted to the attitude of the occupiers towards historical and church monuments. The article by Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) “Fascists are the worst enemies of culture” captures his impressions of what he saw during a trip in the summer of 1943 to the areas of the Kalinin, Tula, Kaluga, and Smolensk regions liberated by the Red Army. He testified to the looting and destruction of historical, religious and cultural monuments in the territories that were formerly occupied 246. Not only Metropolitan Nicholas, but also other hierarchs and clergy of the Orthodox Church participated in the work of the territorial commissions to investigate the atrocities of the fascists. Their observations, testimonies and conclusions were transferred to government bodies and published on the pages of church literature. For example, Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) of Leningrad, having visited liberated Peterhof and Pushkin in January 1944, wrote: “The beautiful Peterhof Cathedral stands with dismantled domes, from which the Germans tore off the gilded sheets, with broken walls, gaping windows. They say they fired pistols at the icons in the Peterhof Cathedral. Other churches present an even more depressing sight. The church of the former Seraphim-Diveevsky metochion was destroyed, and the cemetery church in Old Peterhof was completely destroyed. Believers and everyone who could reach her - old people, children - gathered there to escape the bombing. In incredible cramped conditions - there were more than one thousand of them - suffocating in the stale air, for several days and nights, running out to take a breath of fresh air, these unfortunate people sat in the church. But this did not save them: the Germans persistently bombed the church, then fired at it with guns and eventually turned it into piles of ruins, under which the unfortunate Peterhof residents met their terrible end. Now, as a monument to shameful fascist atrocity, a huge pile of red bricks, soaked in the blood of Russian victims of German atrocity, lies on the ground” 247. With the election of Metropolitan Sergius to the Moscow Patriarchal See, the patriotic activities of the church acquired a particularly large-scale and organized character. On March 7, 1944, a tank column, built with church funds, was transferred to the Red Army - the 38th and 516th tank regiments near the village of Gorelki, five kilometers northwest of Tula. Speaking to the tank crews, Metropolitan Nikolai said: “On behalf of Patriarch Sergius, on behalf of our entire Church, I want to tell you, brother warriors, from the depths of my heart: God will help you in your bright cause to protect the Motherland! Let these fighting machines, led by your will to victory, strong as granite, bring vengeance and death to the fascist executioners of our people, who tormented and drenched part of our sacred Motherland with blood, to the Satanists - the enemies of culture and national happiness, the enemies of humanity, unworthy to bear the human name, unworthy to live on earth! 248 On this occasion, the council held a special reception, which was attended by the leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate, headed by Patriarch Sergius, military leaders, and senior officials of the council. In less than two months, the 38th regiment as part of the 2nd Ukrainian Front in the battles for the liberation of the southwestern regions of Ukraine and part of Bessarabia destroyed up to one and a half thousand Nazis, 40 various guns, 10 machine guns, knocked out and captured 38 tanks and 17 armored personnel carriers of the Nazis, 101 transport vehicles, captured three fuel depots, 84 soldiers were captured and officer. On April 24, 1944, during the liberation of the Moldavian village of Zherven and crossing the Reut River, the regiment took its last battle. Two vehicles survived and continued their combat journey as part of rifle units. For their courage and heroism, 49 tank crews were awarded orders and medals of the USSR. 21 soldiers and 10 officers died brave deaths in battle, 19 of them were burned in combat vehicles 249. Fundraising for the Alexander Nevsky air squadron continued everywhere. Collections and contributions to the National Defense Fund and other patriotic funds have increased, and local bishops and local communities have become more active. As the Red Army advanced westward, Orthodox communities in the liberated areas were involved in church-wide patriotic activities, helping the Motherland with food, money, valuables, and their labor. The total amount of money collected by Orthodox believers during the war years amounted to more than 300 million rubles. To this should be added a significant number of jewelry, non-ferrous metals, and bonds donated by believers to other patriotic funds. At the same time, facts of patriotic actions of the clergy and believers in the previously occupied territories become known. They were reported in letters received by the Moscow Patriarchate from believers and in reports of clergy sent to the liberated territory to organize church life. The restoration of dioceses and the formation of new ones required an increasing number of hierarchs. From the surviving records of Karpov’s conversations with Patriarch Sergius, it is clear that this issue was one of the most discussed. Some of the vacancies were filled either by bishops reunited with the Patriarchal Church or ordained from among the dowagered white clergy. The efforts of Patriarch Sergius yielded results: by the end of 1943, the episcopate consisted of 25 ruling bishops, and in March 1944 there were 29 archpastors. But this was not enough. And if, as a matter of priority, bishops were appointed to dioceses in the territory liberated from the occupiers, then episcopal sees in the “rear” regions of the country remained unfilled for a long time, or bishops had to care for parishes in two or even three dioceses. Another attempt to solve the “personnel shortage” was the desire of Patriarch Sergius to achieve the release of hierarchs who at various times were convicted and served sentences in camps and prisons. Remembering Stalin’s words at the September meeting that every such appeal would be considered, the patriarch in October 1943 sent a letter to Karpov asking for an amnesty for a number of hierarchs whom he wanted to involve in church work. As the church was revived, meetings between Karpov and Patriarch Sergius became more and more frequent. They were especially intense in the spring of 1944. This time, on May 5, Karpov received the patriarch at his request... “Forgive me for my insistence, Georgy Grigorievich, but I asked for a meeting on an issue that worries me extremely.” - Please, Your Holiness, I am at your disposal. – Firstly, it is necessary to agree on proposals for the relocation of hierarchs. Archbishop Luka (Voino-Yasenetsky) of Tambov should be appointed to Tula, Archbishop Photius (Topiro) of Krasnodar - to some vacant see, Archbishop Anthony (Romanovsky) of Stavropol - to Krasnodar. – As for Archbishops Photius and Anthony, I don’t have any objections; as for Luke, we’ll have to wait. – Karpov pulled out a document from the table and placed it in front of him. – I will read out a fragment of the message that we received: “Archbishop Luke hung an icon in his office in the surgical hospital, and before performing operations he performs prayers. At a meeting of doctors from evacuation hospitals, he was at the presidium table in bishop’s vestments. During the days of Easter 1944, he made attempts to perform divine services in non-functioning churches, made statements slanderous towards the renovationist clergy...” - Karpov put the document aside and continued: - Further in the same spirit. There are obvious violations of existing legislation on cults. I can't ignore this. And therefore, perhaps, it’s worth working not about transferring him to another diocese, but about retiring him? – Are the sins of Vladika Luka really that serious? – the patriarch intervened. – If he violates something, we will draw his attention to it. But Luke wants and can serve the church for many more years. We are happy about this. And what motivates us to transfer him to a new place of service is that in Tula the People’s Commissariat of Health promises him a position as a surgeon in a hospital. – If there is such an agreement, we will clarify all the details with the People’s Commissariat, and then we will make a final decision. – Considering that the question about Luka was over, Karpov began to present his proposals. – I have a small request for you. The release of the third State War Loan will be announced in the coming days. It would be desirable for the Moscow Patriarchate and the clergy to take part in signing up for the loan in a timely and organized manner. “Georgy Grigorievich,” the patriarch smiled, “don’t doubt it, we will respond to the needs of the Fatherland... There is one more question that torments me. I remember last fall I submitted a petition to the government for an amnesty for the hierarchs. So much time has passed, and still no news. The Patriarch spoke while he looked at Karpov, trying to guess the expected answer from his facial expression. He seemed to be waiting for this question. And it seemed to the patriarch that the interlocutor wanted to answer negatively. Hastening to forestall him on this and fully explain his position on such a sensitive issue, the patriarch continued: “I do not take upon myself to decide the extent to which these persons deserved punishment, but I am confident that if the government shows them mercy, this will encourage them to show their complete loyalty to the civil authorities and make amends for their guilt.” – Ivan Nikolaevich, the council tried to collect complete information about the persons you mentioned in the letter. But we managed to find out little, and only this circumstance forced us not to rush into an answer. But since you insist... Karpov stood up, walked to the corner of the office and pulled back the curtain, behind which was a safe - the key was already sticking out of its door. Turning it over, the chairman took out a skinny gray folder. Returning to the table, he placed it on the table and opened it. “Since you insist,” he repeated, “I will read out the information obtained from the archives of the NKGB.” - He began to read slowly, as if reluctantly: - “According to inquiries made, the following died in places of detention at different times: Pavel Petrovich Borisovsky - Metropolitan Pavel of Yaroslavl; Nikolai Fedorovich Kuznetsov - Archbishop Alexei of Sarapul; Pyotr Kuzmich Kroshechkin - Archbishop of Mogilev Pavlin; Vladimir Sergeevich Kozlov – Bishop Gregory of Ufa; Andrey Alekseevich Shirokov – Bishop John of Volokolamsk; Vladimir Sergeevich Smirnov - Bishop Feodosius of Penza. They served their sentence and were released, but their current place of residence is unknown: Sergei Alekseevich Kozyrev - Bishop Grigory of Bezhetsk; Ilya Konstantinovich Popov - Bishop of Buguruslan Irakli..." Karpov fell silent. The patriarch also remained dejectedly silent. He knew many of them personally, and now the tragic news put an end to the fate of many who disappeared without a trace in the dark 1930s. – What about the rest? – the patriarch finally raised his voice. - With the others? There is no information about them. But we do not give up hope of finding out anything and will notify you of the results in the near future. Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Moscow Patriarchate: a time of interaction and mutual understanding In parallel with the church events that became possible after the meeting of the metropolitans of the Russian Church with the head of the USSR government, Stalin, the organization and formation of a new state body took place - the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. Its location was initially an old mansion on Kropotkinskaya Street (house 20), and at the end of 1943 - a two-story brick mansion in one of the neighboring quiet alleys of old Moscow. This house behind an openwork cast-iron grille, standing in the shade of tall trees, became for many 20 years a meeting and negotiation place for representatives of the state and the Russian Church, and receptions for various international church delegations. Sergius Stragorodsky visited here almost every month during his patriarchate. The Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church became part of the system of central government institutions and was placed under the direct jurisdiction of the USSR government. All central institutions and departments were obliged to pre-coordinate the activities they carried out related to issues within the jurisdiction of the council and to provide the requested materials and information. At the beginning of October 1943, the regulation “On the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR” was approved. The list of his powers included: “preliminary consideration of issues raised by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and requiring permission from the Government of the USSR; developing draft legislative acts and resolutions on issues of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as instructions and other instructions for their application and submitting them for consideration by the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR; monitoring the correct and timely implementation throughout the entire territory of the USSR of laws and regulations of the USSR Government related to the Russian Orthodox Church; presentation of conclusions on issues of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR; timely informing the USSR Government about the state of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USSR, its position and activities on the ground; general registration of churches and compilation of statistical summaries based on data provided by local authorities” 250. It is worth noting that Stalin, for the first few years after reaching the “concordat,” personally considered church problems and demanded the provision of regular information about the situation in the Orthodox and other churches. All fundamental decisions on church policy were made exclusively with his personal sanction. In the very first month after the Kremlin meeting, Stalin could draw a conclusion about the correctness of his course on the religious issue and its impact on the foreign policy situation in Europe based on numerous responses in the foreign media. On the pages of the Journal de Geneve on September 13, 1943, the article “Stalin and the Russian Church” was published, it admitted: “From now on, all Orthodox Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians, part of the Poles, Greeks and peoples of the Baltic countries turn their gaze to Metropolitan Sergius. As a result of this major maneuver, restoring the old alliance of the Orthodox Church with tsarist politics, Stalin may have thwarted all attempts to create that very “cordon sanitaire” that constantly irritates him. In this way, he is preparing for himself an important exit to the south and giving new content to Russia's traditional intentions. Feeling that military happiness strengthens its internal position and favors its foreign policy plans, the Soviet regime can now allow itself the luxury of allowing freedom of religion.”251 The press of the allies in the anti-Hitler coalition wrote in the same spirit. The Times newspaper, in an editorial dated September 17, 1943, noted: “The main significance of the revival of the Patriarchate and the Synod must be seen in the national life within Russia. Over the past 7-8 years, Soviet leaders have critically reexamined the ideas that were accepted as dogma during the 1917 revolution, reinforcing and strengthening some of them, changing and abandoning others. The idea of ​​patriotism and devotion to the homeland has been freed from the disdain with which it was treated in the early years of Bolshevism; it is now deeply revered. The sanctity of the family and family ties, which was desecrated and ridiculed in its time, has been restored... Part of this general process is the new recognition of religion as an idea with which the new political order must be taken into account and in which mutual loyalty is completely compatible. The election of the patriarch... can be understood as recognition by Russians of freedom of religion” 252. At the end of October 1943, Stalin was able to obtain positive results from a meeting with the leadership of the Russian Church, the election of a patriarch, and a visit to Moscow by a delegation of the Anglican Church in relation to the foreign policy circumstances of the USSR's position in negotiations with its allies. At a conference of the foreign ministers of the USA, Great Britain and the USSR, held in Moscow, in response to yet another concern voiced by the allies regarding the existence of religious freedom in the Soviet Union, he had something to provide as evidence of the changes that had taken place in the country. The words from the report of J.V. Stalin, spoken on the day of the 26th anniversary of the October Revolution, can also be considered recognition of the contribution of religious organizations in confronting the enemy: “All the peoples of the Soviet Union unanimously rose to defend their Motherland, rightly considering the current Patriotic War a common cause of all working people without distinction of nationality or religion.” The election of the patriarch had another foreign policy effect, influencing the religious policy of the Germans in the occupied Soviet territory. In order to downplay the significance of the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church had acquired its canonical head, a conference of bishops of the Central European Metropolitan District (formerly the German and Berlin Diocese) met in Vienna in October 1943, with the participation of bishops from the Synod of the Church Abroad. Metropolitan Seraphim presided. The conference announced its non-recognition of the decisions of the Council of Bishops in Moscow, unequivocally condemning the newly elected Patriarch Sergius for collaborating with the Bolsheviks. And the fact of election itself was recognized as “not only non-canonical, but also non-ecclesiastical, but political, caused by the interests of the Soviet party communist power.” At the same time, a resolution was sent to the German authorities on “necessary measures to combat godlessness.” Its 13 points boiled down to requests to lift restrictions on the activities of the clergy of the Church Abroad in the occupied Soviet territory, to lift the ban on the inclusion of Orthodox parishes in the occupied territories in the Church Abroad. At the same time, in the fall of 1943, the position of Metropolitan Sergius of the Resurrection in the Baltic States became very complicated. The occupation authorities were increasingly inclined to believe that their support for Sergius did not bring the expected political benefits. They openly hinted to him that they could easily do without his services. The Imperial Security Service, together with the Ministry of the Occupied Eastern Regions, insisted on holding a meeting of representatives of Orthodox churches operating in the occupied territories in November 1943. Sergius was expected to publicly condemn the Council of Bishops in Moscow, invalidate the election of the patriarch, adopt a statement against the persecution of religion in the USSR and proclaim an anathema to the Soviet government. However, Sergius and the bishops of the exarchate did not fulfill what was required of them in full. The canonical connection with the Russian Church was again confirmed, although this was done in a very florid way: “Which affiliation retains all its significance, despite the fact that at the present time there is no possibility of elevating the name of its primate simply because it remains unknown for the time being whether the recently held election of the patriarch is not subject to canonical challenge.” The Metropolitan rejected more condemning decisions, citing the lack of materials from the Council, without which decisions could not be made. Moreover, the “Karlovka” bishops were called schismatics. The Gestapo was unhappy with Sergius' behavior. The collection of materials began to question the political loyalty of this metropolitan 253. Under pressure from the German occupation authorities, the bishops of Belarus also expressed their opinion about the uncanonical nature of the election of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) as Patriarch of Moscow in Moscow. However, their opinion and voice did not have any significance for the Christian world. For the majority of autocephalous Orthodox churches and other Christian organizations recognized the canonicity of the election of Metropolitan Sergius as head of the Russian Orthodox Church and sought to renew ties with him. On the part of the government, the activities of the council in 1943–1945 were supervised by V. M. Molotov, deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs. He examined the reports, notes, reports, and letters presented by Karpov. As a rule, decisions were made during personal meetings between Molotov and Karpov, which were quite regular. Karpov carefully prepared for them, drawing up the day before a list of issues that he intended to discuss, and based on the results of the meetings, final notes that served as a kind of guideline in the practical activities of the council. In the autumn-winter of 1942/43, Karpov was faced with a primary task - the formation of the central apparatus of the Council and its local representatives. The members of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, in addition to its chairman G. G. Karpov, included four people: a deputy chairman, two members and an executive secretary. Candidates for these posts were approved directly by the Council of People's Commissars on the recommendation of Karpov. Note that the posts of chairman and deputy chairman of the council were classified as nomenklatura positions and their approval took place at a meeting of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. With the consent of V. M. Molotov, Karpov also retained the position of head of the department in the NKGB structure. The combination of two positions, initially conceived as short-term, dragged on until March 1955, until Karpov’s dismissal from the KGB of the USSR. The staff of the central apparatus of the council - reference, instructor and service personnel - was formed through the efforts of the personnel department of the Administration of the Council of People's Commissars. Although Molotov ordered “to place all personnel in a privileged position,” which meant providing a deferment for mobilization into the active army, increased official salaries, medical and food services, its recruitment was slow and difficult. In 1943–1944, the central apparatus employed 25–27 people, approximately 60–70 percent of the staff. The slowness with which the process of filling vacancies took place is explained by the lack of the required number of trained personnel. The structure of the central apparatus was also formed by trial and error. During September - October 1943, Karpov was considering a system for forming bodies in the republics of the USSR representing the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. It seemed to him that in Belarus and Ukraine, where a significant number of churches operated and the religious situation was extremely difficult, it would be advisable to form councils on the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church directly under the Councils of People's Commissars of these republics. But the proposal was not accepted, and there, as elsewhere, the positions of commissioners of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the executive authorities were introduced. The formation of the institution of local representatives was not easy. At the direction of V.M. Molotov, as a matter of priority, commissioners were appointed to the regions liberated from the temporary Nazi occupation, and priority in the selection of candidates was given to employees of the security agencies. Local party bodies were also involved in the selection of personnel. The process was slow and difficult, since there were not enough personnel with the appropriate qualifications. By the beginning of 1944, only half of the allocated vacancies were filled - 43. Sometimes Karpov was faced with the reluctance or sluggishness of local authorities, or even deliberate red tape in the matter of finding personnel for appointment to the position of commissioners. Hence the constant “threatening” telegrams from the council to Soviet bodies and complaints to party authorities. Let us note that the organizational and material support of the commissioners, in comparison with other employees of the relevant Soviet bodies, was clearly disadvantaged. All this led to staff turnover among the commissioners and affected the authority of the council as a whole and its activities to normalize state-church relations. According to the statute of the council, its commissioners “oversaw” the correct and timely implementation of government regulations and other instructions relating to the activities of the church; “represented” conclusions to the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on issues within the competence of the council; “kept” general records of prayer buildings. In accordance with this, the commissioners in the republics, territories and regions of the USSR were entrusted with: establishing relations with diocesan bishops and deans; registration of clergy, clergy and other service personnel; consideration of applications from believers for the opening (closing) of religious buildings and registration of religious societies and preparation of the necessary documentation for the central office of the council; accounting and registration of all active and inactive Orthodox churches and houses of worship; informing the council about the activities of religious associations and local authorities in compliance with legislation on religious cults; implementation and monitoring of execution of decisions made by the council. From archival materials it is clear that the order in carrying out this work was extremely difficult to establish. Many commissioners violated these rules. It is no coincidence that, at its meetings, considering the results of inspectors’ trips to Gorky, Kursk, Molotov, Penza, Yaroslavl and some other regions in the first quarter of 1944, the council noted that the registration of churches and religious property was in an unsatisfactory state, applications from believers for registration of communities were not considered on time and properly, and records of the clergy had not been established. Council commissioners were required to submit quarterly reports on the status of religious associations and the practices of government authorities. Already their first information to the council testified to the gradual revival of religious life on the territory of the USSR, including in previously occupied areas. The commissioners reported on the number of applications from believers about the opening of churches, the progress and results of their consideration by local authorities, the attitude of the clergy and believers to the new church course of the state, conflict situations on the ground, the facts of administration in relation to religious communities, the patriotic activities of the clergy and believers. The materials of the commissioners served as the basis for the central apparatus of the council in drawing up memos and other documents to the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and other departments. Let us point out that in them Karpov did not shy away from pressing problems and wrote about arbitrariness towards believers and the clergy on the part of party and state bodies, non-compliance with local legislation on religious organizations, and the desire in some places to evade the implementation of the state’s new course in church matters. One of the most important problems for the council and its commissioners was the issue of opening Orthodox churches both in the interior of the country and in the territories liberated from occupation. There was no doubt that, as information about the normalization of state-church relations and the work of the council would spread among believers and religious associations, the number of requests regarding the opening of churches would increase. According to the council, in October 1943 alone, 517 applications were received from 39 regions of the Soviet Union. Most of all - from the Gorky, Ivanovo, Kalinin, Kirov, Moscow, Ryazan and Yaroslavl regions. It was expected that the number of appeals would increase as previously occupied territories of the USSR were liberated. Initially, Karpov proposed several options for the procedure for considering applications for the opening of prayer buildings: a) considered and decided locally, in the executive committees of regional and regional councils of workers' deputies; b) are considered by the patriarch; c) are considered preliminary by the council; a protocol on the decision is submitted to the Council of People's Commissars and then sent to the local authorities for execution; d) are considered and decided by the council. Karpov seemed most preferable to the procedure for considering applications, determined by paragraph “c”. In one of the memos to the party-Soviet bodies, he reveals it this way: “Applications received from the Patriarch, the Synod or from believers are considered by the Council apparatus, the local executive committee is asked about the condition of the church, about the civil rights of the applicants and their opinion on the advisability of opening the church. After this, the case is considered at a meeting of the Council and a preliminary decision is made. The minutes of the meeting are approved by the Council of People's Commissars (Deputy Chairman). Upon approval of the protocol, the Council gives instructions to the local executive body about this decision and the right to registration, and notifies the applicant” 254. In mid-October 1943, at a reception with Molotov, Karpov asked to finally determine the procedure for considering applications from believers to open churches, as well as the “line of work” in this direction. Molotov admitted that churches would have to be opened, but there should be no particular rush to do so. His practical instructions boiled down to the following: “For now, do not give any permission to open churches, but carry out the following: send the applications available in the Council for the opening of churches to the localities for conclusion, understand the situation, find out where, how many applications, which churches specifically are being discussed, find out the opinion of the Patriarch and then submit a letter to the government, showing the situation and your proposals, where the Council considers it appropriate to open churches. Subsequently, on the issue of opening churches, go to the government for approval and only after that send instructions to the regional executive committees” 255. A month later, during which the initial registration of religious buildings was carried out, Karpov turned to Molotov with a special note dedicated to the opening of churches. In it, he said that the flow of requests from believers is increasing, that local authorities, although they can independently resolve this issue in accordance with the current legislation, are, being on the safe side, forwarding applications to higher authorities. Hence the unjustified red tape when considering applications to open churches. The Council proposed to speed up the adoption of a legal act that would clarify the issue of opening churches and define the responsibilities of all parties involved in this. The commissioners were supposed to be entrusted with all the work of receiving, recording and preliminary consideration of applications, conducting checks and drawing up draft conclusions on them. In November 1943, a draft resolution developed by the council “On the procedure for opening churches” was submitted to the Council of People's Commissars for consideration. On November 28 it was accepted. A unique combined system of consideration and decision-making on issues of opening churches has emerged, in which the initial and most important decision on accepting applications from believers for consideration remains with local authorities. Although the commissioners were directly involved in the preliminary work of considering citizens' applications, they did not have the necessary powers to review or cancel decisions of local authorities. Thus, most of the statements did not reach the council and it could not influence their fate. The new procedure for opening churches, set out in a decree of the USSR government, also assumed the possibility of diocesan bishops participating in resolving these problems. Bishops could accept applications from believers to open churches and independently determine which ones needed to be supported. In this case, they handed them over to the authorized representatives. Patriarch Sergius also expressed his proposals for opening churches during his meetings with Karpov. In particular, at his request, issues of opening churches in the Udmurt Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, in Arzamas, Gorky Region, in Tashkent and other places were considered. In accordance with the new procedure for opening churches, the council already in February - March 1944 presented to the Council of People's Commissars a list of more than fifty churches, the opening of which it supported: in Arkhangelsk, Gorky, Ivanovo, Kirov, Kursk, Molotov, Moscow, Novosibirsk, Tambov, Stalingrad, Chelyabinsk regions, in Vladivostok and in the Uzbek SSR. As expected, the flow of applications increased, and the persistence of believers also increased, while the number of churches opened remained very small - less than half of the number requested by believers. It should be noted that Karpov was very alarmed about this, believing that the percentage of satisfied applications should be higher. Since the council could not “order” or “oblige” local authorities to increase the number of churches being opened, its chairman resorted to a unique form of “pressure” on Molotov, bombarding him with numbers, facts and pushing him to the “necessary” decision. So, during their meeting in May 1944, after Karpov’s extensive report on the progress of considering citizens’ appeals for the opening of churches, Molotov said what the chairman of the council expected from him: “Issues about the opening of churches will need to be considered more boldly and, accordingly, places to be targeted through their representatives, and in necessary cases, to talk on behalf of the Council of People’s Commissars with the chairmen of the Councils of People’s Commissars of the republics and with the chairmen of the regional (regional) executive committees.” 256. The statistics for the first half of 1944 were also not encouraging. The council received 3,045 petitions. From the table compiled according to the council’s data, those areas that were “leaders” in this process are visible: Considering that each of the statements had the signatures of tens, hundreds, and sometimes thousands of believers, it should be recognized that the appeals for the opening of churches were persistent and massive. Of the total number of applications received, the regional (regional) executive committees considered 1,432, of which 1,280 were rejected, and only 152 decisions were made to open churches. In the Mari Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, in the Penza, Saratov, Tambov and Tula regions, almost all appeals of believers were rejected. This was often done rudely, with insult to the feelings of believers and even with the help of deception. For example, in the Kursk region in the Oktyabrsky district, the Zhernovetsky village council, as a condition for opening a church, demanded that believers repair the premises of the village council and club free of charge. The believers carried out complete repairs of both buildings, but were denied the return of the church. Often this attitude of the authorities towards the requests of believers pushed them to act without registration. And the number of such religious communities increased from month to month, sometimes significantly exceeding the number of registered Orthodox communities, thereby complicating the situation in the regions and between believers and local authorities. All this irrefutably proves that local authorities - from village councils to regional councils of workers' deputies and to councils of people's commissars of autonomous and union republics - have in most cases taken a position of ignoring the requests of believers, open and hidden opposition. As Soviet territory was liberated, the issue of churches and houses of worship opened during the years of occupation became acute. In many cases, they occupied buildings that previously housed public and government institutions - clubs, schools, shops, museums, local councils, and institutional administrations. In Ukraine, for example in the Stalin region, up to 60 percent of churches were located in former state and public buildings; in the Kharkov region – up to 50; Kievskaya - 30, in Poltava - up to 40 percent. The chairmen of collective farms and village councils, without waiting for instructions from the center and based on their practical interests and needs, began to “expel” religious societies. In some regions, for example, in a number of regions of Ukraine (Vinnitsa, Voroshilovgrad, Dnepropetrovsk, Sumy, Chernigov), in the Stavropol Territory, these actions took on the character of harsh administrative campaigns, often accompanied by the throwing of church property into the street and the prohibition of the clergy from performing divine services. In the spring of 1944, the Chairman of the Stavropol Regional Council issued an order to vacate all occupied buildings in which prayer meetings were held, and if there were no other buildings available to religious associations, then these communities should be dissolved. Such decisions and actions caused discontent among believers, gave rise to conflict situations, undermined the political loyalty of people in the liberated territories, and sometimes resulted in clashes between believers and the police. The council's appeals directly to the leaders of the party and Soviet bodies of these regions, calls to those authorized to counteract this kind of church policy did not bring positive results. Karpov was forced to contact the government, pointing out the possible political consequences in case of inaction of the central authorities, and proposed measures to mitigate the situation. The paradox of the situation was that, while expelling believers from public buildings, the authorities did not return them standard religious buildings, almost three thousand of which at the end of the war remained not converted or rebuilt for any economic or other non-religious needs. And this despite the fact that believers actively sought their return to religious communities. Problems with prayer buildings for religious associations were complicated by the fact that in the liberated territory many of them were rebuilt, lost their church appearance, or were simply destroyed. Hundreds of new losses were added to the religious buildings destroyed in the 1930s. According to the (far from complete) data of the Extraordinary State Commission to establish and investigate the atrocities of the Nazi invaders in the temporarily occupied territory, 1,670 churches, 237 churches, 69 chapels, 59 synagogues and 258 other buildings of religious organizations were burned or completely destroyed, looted or desecrated. Among them are priceless monuments of history, culture and architecture dating back to the 11th–17th centuries in Novgorod, Chernigov, Smolensk, Polotsk, Kyiv, Pskov. In the Moscow region alone, 50 Orthodox churches were destroyed, and in Lithuania – 40 churches. The churches and monasteries of Peterhof and Pushkin in the Leningrad region, ancient monasteries in the Novgorod region, the New Jerusalem Monastery in Istra, and the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in Kyiv have been turned into piles of ruins. (Note that these and many other monuments were subsequently restored by the “godless” state.) Many religious buildings were turned by the occupiers into prisons and places of torture, into stables and slaughterhouses, cabarets and barracks, garages and public restrooms. All this was reported in numerous reports by the Orthodox clergy and believers in the Moscow Patriarchate. Some of this information was later published in the book “The Truth about Religion in Russia,” and these facts of barbarity became public knowledge, including abroad. During the retreat, the occupiers removed religious utensils, icons, paintings, books, and items made of precious metals from the prayer buildings. They were identified, collected and prepared for shipment by special military, paramilitary and civilian institutions and organizations - “Fine Arts”, “Heritage”, “Vostok”, “Kunstkomission”, “Ostland” and others. They were given the right to “inspect libraries, archives and other cultural organizations of all kinds” and confiscate valuables found there for subsequent export to Germany. The ideologists of the robbery were the Minister for the Occupied Territories in the East A. Rosenberg, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Ribbentrop, and the Reichsfuehrer G. Himmler 257 . Note that the return of the stolen goods, with the exception of isolated cases, never took place. In the very first months of the council’s work, it became obvious that the government’s new course towards religion and the church required a change in its legal framework – the legislation on religious cults. As early as December 1943, the council's legal adviser was instructed to prepare appropriate proposals, which were as follows: "1. a) review the 1929 law as a whole, study what is being repealed completely, what is being modified, what remains in its original form; b) based on this work, draw up a draft of a new resolution of the Council of People's Commissars. 2. Prepare a question about the legal rights of the church. Amend Part II. paragraph 6; Part III. clause 9 and entirely in clauses. 10 and 12 of the decree “On the separation of church from state and school from church.” Based on the results of the work done, in January 1944, Karpov presented to the Council of People's Commissars a draft of a new union law “On the position of the church in the USSR.” In the memorandum, he justified this step by the fact that the decree on the separation of church and state (1918) and the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR “On religious associations” (1929) were outdated and required correction. In his opinion, the laws of the union republics on religious associations should be replaced by an all-Union law, which would make it possible to pursue a single national line in matters of the relationship of the state with religious associations. At the same time, it was proposed to submit for consideration by the government instructions for the council’s commissioners, which would specify their practical activities on supervision, control, accounting, registration and reporting on the activities of associations of the Russian Orthodox Church. However, G. G. Karpov’s hopes were not destined to come true: the government never agreed to adopt a union-wide law on religious associations. The chairman of the council, Karpov, was assigned the role of a mediator between the government and the church and at the same time a “guide” to the life of the Stalinist model of freedom of conscience. Unfortunately, we still know very little about this man, who, by the will of fate, found himself in a difficult, contradictory, and at times tragic situation. But what we know allows us to speak of him as a realistically thinking person, whose merits in the revival of the church and the normalization of state-church relations have not yet been objectively assessed, and in recent years have been deliberately downplayed. Karpov developed a business, and in some ways even trusting, relationship with Patriarch Sergius. Their first official meeting took place on October 29, 1943, and the last on May 5, 1944. During the meetings, the patriarch and the chairman could calmly discuss all the most difficult problems of the life of the Russian Church in the USSR and beyond. This can be judged from the surviving recordings of conversations made by Karpov, and this, of course, made it easier for both to find a way out of the most difficult and confusing situations. Of course, in his actions, Karpov was not free either from the powers that be, or from his own misconceptions and mistakes in his views on the role and place of the church in society, on the forms and methods allowed to the state in regulating the activities of religious organizations. But still he sought to pursue a policy favorable to the activities of the church. Karpov did not shy away from personal relations with the patriarch. In this he was supported by Molotov, who suggested, in particular, the idea of ​​celebrating the birthdays and anniversaries of the patriarch and other church figures. On January 24, 1944, the patriarch turned 77 years old. He rejected proposals for celebrations on this occasion in the Elokhov Cathedral and received only his closest collaborators at his home. The liturgy was served in the patriarch's home church. Concelebrating with him were Archpriest Nikolai Kolchitsky and cell attendant Archimandrite John (Razumov). All employees of the Moscow Patriarchate, former hierarchs in Moscow, as well as Moscow deans gathered to pray. Despite all the simplicity and modesty of the atmosphere, those gathered were in a solemn and prayerful mood. They prayed fervently, heartfeltly and asked the Lord to extend the years of life of the elder patriarch. The conversation progressed slowly over a modest meal. Suddenly, voices and noise were heard in the hallway, and an unexpected guest entered the hall - the chairman of the council, Karpov. On behalf of the government and on his own behalf, he came to congratulate the patriarch on his birthday and presented simply royal gifts for that time - almost 30 thousand rubles - gifts: various materials and fabrics for sewing clothes and vestments for the patriarch. Sergius was touched. The guests smiled and animatedly discussed what had happened. Karpov presented the patriarch with a watch with a gold chain in front of everyone and wished him health. The cognac, champagne, caviar, and fruit brought for the hero of the day came at a very opportune time. It was G. G. Karpov, highly appreciating the patriotic activities of the Russian Church, who proposed to nominate hierarchs, clergy, and religious activists for state awards. The first big award took place in the fall of 1943, when the activities of the Leningrad clergy during the days of the siege of the city were noted. A year later, in 1944, representatives of the Moscow and Tula clergy were awarded medals “For the Defense of Moscow”. On Sunday, May 14, 1944, in the Moscow Church of the Deposition of the Robe, which is located not far from the Donskoy Monastery, there was a special crowd of believers - a patriarchal service was underway. As always, she left the impression of great churchliness, spirituality and at the same time simplicity. All those gathered experienced feelings of goodness, sincerity, and conciliarity. There were many concelebrants serving the patriarch, and a wonderful choir sang. And all this gave rise to the feeling of a great family celebration, from which warmth and faith emanated. And a natural continuation of the service was the elevation to Bishop of Mozhaisk of the second vicar of the Moscow diocese, Archimandrite Macarius (Daev). Patriarch Sergius cheerfully conducted the entire solemn service and, when presenting the newly installed bishop with the staff, said an inspired word. Sergius returned to his place in Chisty Lane joyful and cheerful. Right from the threshold, he declared to his neighbors that he did not need and had no desire or need for rest, but invited the priests and hierarchs who were in his house to the garden. They walked through the garden, where the trees and bushes were already green. Choosing a bench in the shade, His Holiness invited his companions to sit with him. His Eminence Ilarius, sitting down more comfortably, damaged the back of the bench, and it almost fell off. This amused Sergius, and his harmless irony accompanied the “catastrophe.” Sitting on a bench, His Holiness stated that throughout the entire spring he had not felt as good as he did today: neither tired nor weak. Then Sergius cordially treated the household to dinner, and in the evening he returned to the garden with Archpriest N. Kolchitsky to talk with him about business. ...At half past seven in the morning on May 15, 1944, a bell rang in Karpov’s apartment in the House on the Embankment. Accustomed to unexpected morning news, Karpov picked up the phone and heard the tragic news. The sudden death of Patriarch Sergius was reported. Half an hour later, Karpov arrived at Chisty Lane. The house was crowded with the patriarch's relatives and friends. Members of the Holy Synod gathered at the deceased's bedside. Metropolitan Nikolai of Krutitsky performed the first memorial service. The exclamations and general singing were quiet, mournful, every now and then interrupted by tears and sighs of those present, which could not be restrained and which no one was embarrassed by. Karpov went into his office. There were hierarchs and clergy here. They called the cell attendant of Patriarch Archimandrite John, who spoke about the last hours of the life of Sergius of Stragorod. “The Patriarch woke up early in the morning,” he said, “and since there was still a lot of time left before the appointed time for the visit of the family doctor, Sergius decided to lie down. When I returned an hour later and entered the bedroom, I was struck by the extraordinary pallor of the patriarch’s face. I ran up and called out, but he didn’t answer... The doctor arrived and diagnosed a cerebral hemorrhage.” Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) quietly entered the room and made a sign, asking to follow him. Karpov went to the patriarch’s private chambers. Metropolitans Alexy and Nikolay, who were here, together with the manager of the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate, Archpriest N.F. Kolchitsky, examined the desk. In one of the boxes a package was found, sealed with Sergius's wax seal and with the date - October 12, 1941. It was the will of the patriarch, drawn up on the eve of the evacuation to Ulyanovsk. Its first point read: “In the event of my death or inability to fulfill the position of patriarchal locum tenens, this position, in the full scope of the patriarchal rights and responsibilities assigned to it, passes to His Grace Metropolitan Alexy Simansky of Leningrad.” At an emergency meeting of the Synod, it was decided to carry out the will of the patriarch. According to church regulations, the patriarch was dressed by the subdeacons in full bishop's vestments and a miter. The body of the deceased was transferred to the hall adjacent to the house church. The patriarch's coffin was covered with a patriarchal mantle, overshadowed by ripids, and surrounded by accessories of the patriarchal service: a doll, a staff, a trikiri and a dikiri. Started by Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad, the reading of the Gospel was continuously performed by the Moscow clergy according to a special schedule all day and all night. Karpov returned to the council, to Ostrovsky Lane, where employees were already anxiously scurrying around the offices, carrying out the instructions of the chairman about the necessary measures to prepare for the funeral of the patriarch. Having gone to his office, Karpov literally wrote an urgent secret letter to Stalin in just a few minutes with a report on the death of Patriarch Sergius, his will and information about the locum tenens. Here the idea was expressed about the possibility of burying the deceased patriarch in the Epiphany Cathedral. On Tuesday, May 16, at two o'clock in the afternoon, the coffin with the deceased patriarch was solemnly transported to the cathedral, accompanied by the bishops. A large crowd of believers had already gathered in the cathedral, wanting to say goodbye to their patriarch. The coffin was placed in the middle of the cathedral. Half of it was covered with a green patriarchal mantle; a wreath of fresh white roses was placed on it. An icon and a snow-white patriarchal doll are placed at the feet on a special elevation. There is also a patriarchal cross and a staff, and around the coffin there are many fresh flowers. In the left Nikolsky chapel of the cathedral, a grave was prepared for the patriarch. For two days, May 16 and 17, Moscow said goodbye to the patriarch. Thousands and thousands of believers, delegations of dioceses and parishes flocked to the Epiphany Cathedral. ...The dawn of the third day dawned. A long line of people poured into the cathedral. The pilgrims filled the huge hall. Representatives of the diplomatic corps and military missions were located on the right solea. Here G. G. Karpov stood up as a representative of the Soviet government. At one o'clock in the afternoon the funeral service began. All participating clergy lined up in two rows, stretching from the middle of the church around the coffin and into the altar. And a third row formed around the throne. The funeral eulogy was delivered by the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad: “Not only did we lose our father with the death of His Holiness the Patriarch, we lost in him a good shepherd and a wise helmsman of the church ship. The Orthodox Church mourns his loss. He entirely belongs to the Church of God... For a short time, the Lord destined him to receive the high title of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', head of the Russian Church, as if only to give him the fullness of church glory in reward for his great church merits, and in order to crown his church merits. Not only the Russian Church, but the entire Orthodox East welcomed his election and testified to his high merits... When our country suffered the test of an enemy invasion, then the ardent love for the Motherland inherent in him manifested itself with special force in the deceased patriarch. In numerous messages and appeals to pastors and flocks, he called on all Russian people to defend their beloved Motherland... The Lord did not destined him to live to the victorious end, but he constantly prayed for our victory, foresaw it and confidently said in one of his messages that “the dawn of victory is already clearly dawning and with it the joy of liberation from the German yoke of all who had the misfortune of falling into the hands of the fascists.” The patriotism and activity in God of our late Holy Father will place him in the ranks of the continuers of the work of the sorrowful people of the Russian land - Patriarch Hermogenes and St. Sergius 258. After a tearful kiss—a farewell to the deceased—the priests lifted the coffin and carried it in a majestic religious procession around the church through the streets filled with crowds of people. In front were carried the patriarchal cross, banners and altar icons. In long rows in white vestments, two in a row, walked deacons, priests, archpriests and archimandrites, followed by bishops. The procession was closed by the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Alexy. Through the western doors the procession returned to the cathedral, and the coffin was brought to the grave. The bishops closed the coffin with a lid and lowered it into the grave. They installed a gravestone, arranged candlesticks, and among them placed on a lectern the icon of the deceased patriarch, with which he had not parted throughout his life - the image of St. Sergius and Herman of Valaam. Countless candles glowed over the deceased - a prayerful sacrifice of loving hearts... [v] We cry, we all grieve and weep bitterly, [v] Our beloved father, dear, [v] We see you off with great sadness [v] Into the heavenly, blessed, holy, unearthly world... Russian Orthodox Church and the Great Patriotic War. M., 1943. P. 94. See: RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 125. D. 188. L. 13. Odintsov M.I. Religious organizations in the USSR on the eve and during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945 M., 1995. P. 78, 79. Dispute. 1992. No. 3. P. 145. Church historical bulletin. 2002. No. 9. P. 77. Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1943. No. 1. P. 7, 8. Right there. 1943. No. 1.S. 9, 10. See: Stay of the delegation of the Anglican Church in Moscow // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1943. No. 2. P. 18–23; Odintsov M.I. London - Moscow: interchurch dialogue: Exchange of delegations of the Anglican and Russian Orthodox churches. 1943–1945 //Historical archive. 1995. No. 1. P. 95–109. See: Historical archive. 1994. No. 3. P. 143. RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 117. D. 946. L. 81–122. See: Kuznetsov A.I. Renovation schism in the Russian Church / “Renewal” schism: Materials for church-historical and canonical characteristics. M., 2002. P. 590. GA RF. F. R-6991. Op. 1. D. 3. L. 8. Published: Odintsov M.I. The Russian Orthodox Church has taken the right path: Reports from the Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR G.G. Karpov to I.V. Stalin. 1943–1946 //Historical archive. 1994. No. 3. P. 143–145. GA RF. F. R-6991. Op. 1.D. 3.L. 11. Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1943. No. 3. P. 7. See: Odintsov M.I. Certificate of reception by the Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR G.G. Karpov, Metropolitan (Renovationist) Alexander Vvedensky // Church Historical Bulletin. 2002. No. 9. P. 79, 80. Patriarch Sergius and his spiritual heritage. M., 1947. S. 228, 229. In addition, additional subjects were taught at the Theological Institute: comparative theology, hagiology, canon law, history of Christian art, Christian hymnology, ancient languages (Greek, Latin, Hebrew), dogmatic theology, reading foreign theological, apologetic and polemical literature (Catholic, Protestant, Anglican), patristics, history of Russian religious thought, introduction to the circle of theological sciences. GA RF. F. R-6991. Op. 1.D. 2. L. 12. Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1943. No. 1. P. 3. Right there. 1944. No. 2. P. 20. See: Odintsov M.I. Religious organizations in the USSR during the Great Patriotic War. 1943–1945 //Domestic archives. 1995. No. 3. P. 50, 51. See: Vasilyeva O. Yu. With the name of Dimitri Donskoy // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1990. No. 5. GA RF. F. 5446. Op. 1. D. 219. L. 90, 91. Quote by: Volokitina T.V. Moscow and the Orthodox autocephalies of Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia: On the problem of perception of the Soviet model of state-church relations in the 40s of the XX century. /Power and the Church in the USSR and Eastern European countries. 1939–1958. M., 2003. P. 106. Quote by: Yakunin V.N. The position and activities of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945. Samara, 2001. P. 262. Available documentary materials give reason to believe that the decision to deal with the Metropolitan was made by the chief of the Main Directorate of Imperial Security, E. Kaltenbrunner. On April 28, 1944, on the road from Vilnius to Riga near Kaunas, the car in which Sergius and his companions were was fired upon by unknown persons. Everyone in it was killed. The authorities did not conduct a proper investigation, and the incident was attributed to “certain Soviet terrorists” dressed in German army uniforms. See: GA RF. F. R-6991. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 21, 22. Quote by: Odintsov M.I. Religious organizations in the USSR on the eve and during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945. M., 1995. P. 84. See: GA RF. F. R-6991. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 31. See: Kudrina T. A. Spiritual potential of the Great Victory / Religious organizations of the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945. M., 1995. pp. 143–153. Patriarch Sergius and his spiritual heritage. M., 1947. S. 170, 171.