Public disputes between the Hieromartyr Hilarion and the Renovationists in 1923.

One of the main tasks that Hieromartyr Hilarion set for himself was the fight against the Renovationist schism. He began to implement this task after returning from Arkhangelsk exile in early July 1923. Public lectures and debates in which Vladyka took part were of particular importance. He gained experience in such activities back in 1920–1922, when he often held debates with anti-religious propagandists. The very possibility of Archbishop Hilarion’s public appearances was the result of a certain tactical maneuver carried out by the authorities in relation to the Church and lasting from the end of June 1923, when, by decision of the Politburo, Patriarch Tikhon was released. However, already from April 1923, documents of the Politburo of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Anti-Religious Commission under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (ARC) indicate some tactical change in the government’s policy towards the Church. This was largely due to the fact that the main organizers of the anti-church campaign of 1922, Lenin and Trotsky, for various reasons, were losing influence on the formation of the party course. The XII Congress of the RCP(b), which took place in Moscow from April 17 to April 25, 1923, adopted a special resolution “On the organization of anti-religious agitation and propaganda.” Here, “deliberately rude methods” and insulting the feelings of believers are condemned 1 . The government's tactical maneuver consisted of abandoning excessive measures to eradicate religion. It was recognized that in such a religious country as Russia it is impossible to eradicate religion in a short time, so more flexible long-term measures were proposed. June 21, 1923 The Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks accepts the proposal of the Anti-Religious Commission to change the preventive measure for Patriarch Tikhon; At the same time, a decision was made “not to start the process yet” 2. It is interesting to note that the next day the Arkhangelsk Regional Department of the GPU adopted a resolution to release Bishop Hilarion from custody 3 . Of particular importance was the circular letter of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) No. 30 “On the attitude towards religious organizations,” which was dated August 16, 1923 and signed by I. Stalin. The circular stated: “The Central Committee invites all party organizations to pay the most serious attention to a number of serious violations committed by some organizations in the field of anti-religious propaganda and, in general, in the field of relations with believers and their cults.” The circular prohibited the closure of churches “for reasons of failure to comply with administrative orders for registration,” for non-payment of taxes, and arrests of a “religious nature,” if they were not related to counter-revolutionary acts. The circular warned against persecution of believers, since “persecution only strengthens religious prejudices” 4 . As Academician N.N. Pokrovsky rightly notes, “one should in no way exaggerate the significance of this short-lived tactical maneuver for the fate of the church and religion” 5 . The GPU was not interested in easing pressure on the Church, but was forced to submit to party policy. However, this did not mean a weakening of control over the activities of the Church, especially its leaders, one of whom was Archbishop Hilarion. At every public lecture or debate where Saint Hilarion took part, there were two or three employees of the GPU, whose reports have been preserved and give an idea of ​​these events. When reading these documents, one must take into account that they were compiled by people who have a negative and biased attitude towards the Patriarchal Church, who are illiterate and incompetent in church matters. Their task was to collect “compromising material” on Archbishop Hilarion so that the GPU could justify his arrest and detention. The most important were the disputes between Archbishop Hilarion and the married “Archbishop of Krutitsky” Alexander Vvedensky. Vvedensky was considered by the authorities during this period as the most active and active renovationist; his activities were directed by the sixth department of the Secret Department of the GPU and the Anti-Religious Commission under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. In March 1923, it was Vvedensky’s notes that formed the basis for E. Tuchkov’s reports to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea on policy regarding renovationism 6 . At the Renovation Council, the secret employee of the GPU, “Metropolitan of Siberia” Pyotr Blinov, carried out the decision to appoint Alexander Vvedensky as “Archbishop of Krutitsky”, bypassing the necessary procedures 7 . After the removal of Antonin (Granovsky) in June 1923, the management of the Moscow diocese passed into the hands of Vvedensky; he was also a member of the renovationist Supreme Church Council. At the beginning of August 1923, he joined the Renovationist “Holy Synod” as the second deputy chairman, and headed the administrative and educational departments and the missionary council in the “synod” 8 . His debates and speeches were organized by the sixth department of the Secret Department of the GPU with the approval of the Anti-Religious Commission. So, on May 22, 1923, at its meeting, the ARC heard the question raised by its secretary E. A. Tuchkov, “On the admission of Vvedensky as a lecturer at one of the educational institutions” and made the decision: “Send Vvedensky to the State University of Culture, proposing to use him on a general basis” 9 . July 31, 1923 Bishop Hilarion was supposed to speak at a debate with Vvedensky in the Great Hall of the Conservatory. However, Archbishop Hilarion was unable to attend this debate, or, more likely, was not allowed. A message from a GPU employee who was present at this debate says: “The audience is approximately 1,500 people. ILLARION did not appear at the debate, sending citizen POTOTSKY to speak in his place; noise, knocking and screams did not allow VVEDENSKY to speak. The speaker, Archimandrite Evgeniy (Kobranov), was touched by such “tightly united behavior of the public,” which proves, in his opinion, that Tikhon’s church is alive, not dead, and that this gives him the strength to suffer for it, even to the point of bleeding. However, he did not speak, because, according to him, the patriarch did not allow him to speak. VVEDENSKY managed to talk very briefly about TIKHON, his repentance, the attitude of the emigration towards him; now POTOTSKY spoke about the usurpation of power by the renovationists from the imprisoned patriarch, about the wrongness of removing the dignity from him; in conclusion, he asks how many believers would like to pray with you” 10. The words of the rector of the Novospassky Monastery, Archimandrite Evgeniy (Kobranov), about Patriarch Tikhon prohibiting him from speaking at the debate, obviously implied that the right to speak at the debates with the Renovationists was given by the Patriarch only to Archbishop Hilarion or his representatives. However, as noted, Archbishop Hilarion did not have the opportunity to participate in the dispute with Vvedensky on July 31; this allowed Vvedensky to increase his influence. The GPU report from August 1 to August 14, 1923 said: “VVEDENSKY’s debates are going satisfactorily, the number of Tikhonov’s speakers and obstructions is decreasing” 11 . Under these conditions, Archbishop Hilarion had to confront Vvedensky. On August 17, 1923, a public speech by Archbishop Hilarion took place at the Polytechnic Museum on the topic “Tikhonovites and Renovationists,” in which he condemned all renovationist groups as schismatic and anti-canonical; in addition, he condemned the decision of the Renovation Council of 1923 to remove the dignity of Patriarch Tikhon. The report of an employee of GPU 12 said: “I would like to inform you that the lecture began at 9 o’clock. Evening and ended at 12 o'clock. nights. The topic of the lecture was: Tikhonovites and Renovationists and what separates them? The audience was full. They listened with great attention, and there were no objections from them. The lecture was given by one Fr. Hilarion with a break of 15 minutes. In the first half of his lecture, he spoke exclusively about the Renovationists, criticized in every possible way, argued about the goal of the Renovationists, whom, as he put it, he called “invaders,” where he cited the facts of how the Renovationists carried out their idea, so that there would be no persecution of the clergy by the Soviet Government, then they decided to separate from the Tikhonovites. After the revolution in 17, they decided to convene the first council, the purpose of which was to elect the head of the church “patriarch” and at the end of the council the October Revolution suddenly began; the Bolsheviks came to power, who immediately described all the values ​​that should belong to the Government, because During the selection, conflicts occurred, but this happened due to the lack of consciousness of the citizen, and he gave an example: Tikhon, seeing all this, issued an appeal so that believers would not organize bloody clashes during the confiscation of valuables 13. After the schism, the renovationists, that is, the “EAGLES,” indulged in all sorts of meanness, such as: the chosen VVEDENSKY went to the Petrograd bishop for negotiations. The Petrograd bishop asked him: was there a mandate, he showed him documents from the VCU, which indicated that he was being authorized at the same time, and also from Tikhon, the mandates were with a large seal, supposedly from Noah’s flood, on the seal it was written in ink from the VCU. The Petrograd bishop had doubts and sent two people to Tikhon to find out; when it became clear that the Renovationists were mean, they began to consider Tikhon’s counter-revolutionaries 14. The public applauded every ridiculous opinion of the renovationists. In the second half, he touched upon the “congress of white bishops in the Trinity Compound in 1922. 15 the opinion about this congress is as follows: Hilarion says that we bishops of the Orthodox Church do not recognize this congress because almost the clergy of the Renovation movement gathered there, as not all of them were ordained bishops according to all the statutes of the Orthodox Church 16. Having listened to the lecture to the end, where all that was heard was about the wrong actions of the renovationists and about all kinds of dirt and anti-Soviet propaganda poured out at the lectures, Illarion was not noticed” 17. Another employee of the GPU, who attended the debate, reported: “17/VIII - a debate took place at the Polytechnic Museum by Bishop Hilarion on the topic “Tikhonovites and Renovationists.” Hilarion's speech was divided into 2 parts: the first was directed against the renovationists, whom Hilarion described as invaders of the patriarch's power. Hilarion ended this part with criticism of renovationists of all directions. The audience liked this part of the speech extremely. The second part of the speech consisted of Hilarion’s recognition of counter-revolutionary policies and activities not only of himself, but of the Orthodox Church in general. In conclusion, Hilarion pointed to a large number of reactionaries - b. officials, officers and others who took an active part in church affairs during the revolution, from which the church will have to try to cleanse itself” 18. Another employee of the GPU also attended the debate, whose report has also been preserved: "I report that on the 17th/VIII of this year, the scheduled report of Illarion Tikhonovtsy and Renovationists took place. The meeting was opened at 9 o'clock in the evening in the auditorium of the Polytechnic Museum No. 1. There were a lot of listeners, all the seats and aisles were filled. The audience was almost predominantly intelligent-bourgeois. - well dressed and not bad well-fed, 95% Tikhonovites. At the beginning of the speech, the rise in the spirit of the Tikhonovites was enthusiastically high. When gr. Hilarion hurled accusations at all those who broke away from their church, expressing anger and hatred, like the new renovationists led by VVEDENSKY, as well as other Krasshcheki 19 and others. Half of his report came down precisely to accusing all groups that broke away from their church, proving their innocence according to church rules and dogmas. Refuting the local Moscow Council 20 and the abdication of Patriarch Tikhon. In the second part of his speech, he publicly admitted in his speech all the counter-revolutionary acts during the October Revolution /coup/. During the Revolutionary Hurricane of the Social Revolution, the highest hierarchy, led by Tikhon, and against the order of government in 1918, when the shameful Brest-Litovsk Peace was concluded, also stated that at present, starting from the October Revolution, a huge influx of intelligentsia, officers and all sorts of White Guard persons to the church began to join their churchmen. At present, the church will try to cleanse itself of this counter-revolutionary policy, persecuted by those individuals who have now entered church life." 21. The next known speech of Archbishop Hilarion took place on September 4, 1923, its topic was the Renovation Council of 1923. A message from a GPU employee who attended the debate says: "At the debate Hilarion 4/IX at the Polytechnic Museum, all seats in auditorium No. 1 were occupied. The audience consists of intellectuals, co-workers, a few NEP men, and some workers. The audience in the first rows tends to dress more simply. During the debate, groups emerged in the public that were constantly making noise as soon as it came to the renovationists. Hilarion was received well. The topic of the debate is the Council of 23 years. From Hilarion’s entire speech, in which he criticized the council, it should be noted that Hilarion, to a large extent, does not consider the council of 17 counter-revolutionary; The hostility of the council's actions in 17 towards the revolution is explained by the council's lack of confidence in the strength of revolutionary power. He thinks that the restoration of the patriarch was not a counter-revolutionary act in relation to the February revolution. They listened to the renovationists who spoke. Leo 22 and BEAUTY 23 were interrupted by noise. The renovationist Seraphim Kostromsky 24 was sometimes even applauded. Tikhon’s supporters only mocked the renovationists and did not say anything significant.”25 A message from another GPU employee who attended this debate with Bishop Hilarion said: “The topic of the debate is the 1923 Council. Speaker - Bishop Hilarion. In a brief preface, Hilarion referred to his previous lectures on issues of church renewal. He only pointed out the characteristic features of church renewal in his opinion, which should cause even those who observed church life from the outside and had little interest in the affairs of the church to recoil from this purely schismatic group. These characteristic features are the following: 1/ The forgery of their powers, with which the initiative group of white clergy “Living Church” began - the appropriation of administrative church [power] to themselves, while the patriarch agreed only to the mediation of these persons in the transfer of his, the patriarch, office - to his intended deputy, which did not prevent these persons from usurping power to themselves and misleading others 26. 2/ Fraud of public opinion - printing of victorious reports about supposedly universal renovationism, the transition of a number of bishops to renovationists, etc. 3/ Fraud of the hierarchy - expressed in the installation of arbitrary bishops, ordering and pushing around the rest of the bishops. 4/ Uncanonical and unacceptable from the point of view of the Orthodox Church behavior of the congress of the Living Church, which took place in August 1922. At the congress, a narrow party congress that did not represent the majority of the church, a number of decisions of a major nature were adopted, which were then carried out by hook or by crook. In general, the sharply professional nature of the congress is noted: a single church fund 27, the issue of secondary marriages clergy 28, etc. These moments revealed with sufficient clarity the essence of the entire renewal. Gradually, people are leaving, either those who joined him as a result of their passion for this movement, or those who joined him “for the sake of the Jews” (the real words of the speaker - there was a chuckle in the audience). Then Hilarion outlined the situation that had developed at the time of the convening of the council in 23, and proceeded to the instructions for election to the council 29, characterizing them as boldly and deftly drawn up, but still too straightforward: there is also apprehension in it about the council, what direction it will take; in general, it should be admitted that the instructions did everything to ensure the majority and success of the renovationists 30: 1/ Prohibition to attend the council of persons brought to the church court for anti-renovation activities during 1922. 2/ Mandatory presence at the council of the Central Committees of the Renovationists, authorized by the VCU, of the VCU itself - which gave a total figure of 180 appointees out of 180, it seems, present. 3/ regulations – allowing one for and one against to speak out on this issue. Then Hilarion moves on to the very opening of the cathedral. It proceeded far from being as simple and not at all as solemn as the “actions of the council” describe it. From the very beginning, major misunderstandings arose with the Siberian hierarchy. In Siberia, three bishops, rejected by Tikhon 31, ordained two married bishops 32, under an oath: not to make ordination themselves. This did not, however, stop them from ordaining Peter BLINOV as bishop, 33 who then ordained 16 bishops. All these bishops came to the council and, in the opinion of even the so-called renovationist bishops, did not have the slightest right to take part in the divine service that preceded the opening of the council 34. Antonin even protested against Blinov’s own participation in the service 35 . According to the laws of the Church, only two bishops can appoint someone as a bishop. Antonin found a way out of the situation: since Blinov dedicated 16 people alone, that means half of the grace was given to them. Antonin, during the service in the Zaikonospassky Monastery 36, rededicated them. Hilarion then moves on to the cathedral itself. For comparison, he cites the 2nd Council of Ephesus, led by the Greek Dioscurus 37, who led it contrary to all the rules and regulations of the church. This cathedral is called a robber's cathedral. What should the cathedral of '23 be called? The central issue, in Hilarion's opinion, was the question of defrocking the patriarch and his trial. The trial itself was incorrect simply because no summons was sent to the defendant. He wasn't even notified about it. Then Hilarion clarifies his attitude to the resolution adopted by the council on this issue: The resolution recognizes the council of 17 as consisting entirely of nobles, former people, outspoken counter-revolutionaries. This supposedly explains why Hilarion declares that the council was far from being counter-revolutionary. That of course there were many of the people mentioned above, but that they did not constitute the overwhelming majority. That the very holding of the council in relation to the October revolution and the revolutionary government took on such a negative character mainly due to the fact that the entire society, having seen the formidable face of the revolution, was frightened and could not give itself a clear account of what was happening. In addition, / asks Hilarion/ who could imagine that this government would last so long? The cathedral could not flirt with a government whose long-term existence it was not sure of. The very formation of the institution of the patriarchate - Hilarion explains the fact not as a counter-revolutionary one, but on the contrary as a fact of the revival of church life, therefore - a progressive phenomenon. Since Peter the Great, the church fell under the power of the state. The patriarchate was demolished by the despotism of the state, and it (patriarchate - D.S.) was only an expression of the meaning of the Russian Church. The Patriarch is the first-present hierarch and not more. Therefore - as soon as the revolution took place, the church sensed its wings - the patriarchate was restored. As evidence, he refers to his lectures on the history of the church, / printed during tsarism 38 / - in which he demands the restoration of the patriarchate in the church as it should be. Therefore / the original words of Hilarion / the restoration of the patriarchate to the February revolution cannot be considered counter-revolutionary. were not allowed to speak out 39 . A conference of bishops recognized the defrocking of the patriarch, and a meeting of the entire council with believers removed the patriarch’s monastic rank 40 . The best response to this decree is the complete disregard of it by almost all believers. Then the rest of the resolutions of the council are criticized - they are of a petty and, in Hilarion’s opinion, unworthy of the council, narrowly professional in nature - married episcopate and so on. In general, this council played a very ugly role - it sanctioned all the crimes against the church committed at different times by representatives of the Living Church and other renovationists. But with councils the same thing is always repeated: there is some mysterious force that forces believers to accept the decisions of some councils and reject the decisions of others. This force is against the council of 23 years. Friendly applause, break 10 minutes. Opponents were given 10 minutes each, and they also spoke on the report. All opponents can be divided into three categories: 1/ Really opponents from the Renovationists 2/ defenders of Tikhon and Tikhonites and 3/ non-members of the Orthodox Church. The defenders of the renewal were the former chief prosecutor of the Synod of LVOV, who was met with strong thunder and noise from the public. Repeatedly interrupted, he managed to very briefly say that the roots of the renewal are deeper, that it has been going on since 1906, that the cathedral of 1917 owes its existence only to the renovation. Living Church Bishop SERAPHIM OF KOSTROMA – 70 years old, in a red cassock /tattered/. The audience listened to this and even sometimes applauded. He pointed out that, starting from the 4th century, administrative church power, having fallen under the influence of the state, was always delivered incorrectly. Unworthy minions of power were installed. The same story repeated itself here, starting with Peter. Therefore, the bishops appointed by the Synod are even less worthy than the living church bishops / The public does not object. / As for the sacramental power, it has not been violated. Time is running out, the chairman does not allow Seraphim to speak, although a small part of the audience demands this, the rest are silent. Archpriest Pavel KRASOTIN points out the impossibility of saying anything briefly within ten minutes. Points to the intolerance of believers, to the fact that the bishops who are now clinging to Tikhon, before that clinging to the VCU - I won’t name them, but from among those present here there are such - /turns his face to one of the priests on the presidium/. In general, the fact is clear - the representative of the Synod spoke. What we managed to say is another matter. Speech was often interrupted by noise. Tikhon's supporters - Mr. Trofimov - an intellectual, wears glasses, his speech is very short, he begins by mimicking Antonin's speech, he makes jokes all the time. Most of the public demands a more respectful attitude towards opponents. Trofimov reluctantly obeys. In the end - he just said what ANTONIN himself said about the renovationists - they are scammers. St. Borzenkov, a district official, introduced the public to the methods of “bringing rural clergy into the living church” 41 . This speech became one of the reasons for the arrest of the Saint. In the conclusion on the case of Archbishop Hilarion, drawn up in the sixth department of the SO GPU on October 30, 1923, it was said: “At the debate of 4/9 -23, TROITSKY time,” clarifying the attitude towards the resolution adopted by the council in 17. people "outspoken counter-revolutionaries stated that it was far from being counter-revolutionary; the behavior of the Council in relation to the October Revolution took on such a negative character mainly due to the fact that they saw the formidable face of the Revolution. In addition / appeals Hilarion / who could imagine that the Government would last so long. The Council could not flirt with the power, of whose long-term existence it was not sure" 42 . Archbishop Hilarion was not free in his statements at debates and public lectures. He was forced to provide notes of his lectures to the GPU. In the investigative file, a typewritten document was preserved, which is a copy made by the GPU, apparently from the handwritten text of Bishop Hilarion. It has the title “Lecture notes of Bishop Hilarion, which he plans to deliver on September 4 and 6, 43, 1923.” These were theses, among which were: “The Church and modern White Guard emigration”, “The “repentance” of Patriarch Tikhon and its political significance as a break with any counter-revolution” 44. The September 6 lecture apparently did not take place. It is not listed in the GPU reports; the ban on its holding was obviously related to the content of the Bishop’s speech on September 4. Archbishop Hilarion’s last public appearance took place on October 13, 1923, during a debate with A. Vvedensky on the topic “Enemies of the Church.” Two reports of GPU employees who attended this debate have been preserved, from which we can judge the content of Archbishop Hilarion’s speech. Here is the content of the first report: “I would like to bring to your attention that the debate on the topic “Enemies of the Church” on 13/10-23 took place in the presence of a full audience. The report was given by Vvedensky, and then Illarion was his aponete. Vvedensky, stopping where the renovationist movement originated and the role of the clergy under the old system, he says that the clergy were nothing more than secret police officials /noisy feet/, and then talks about what work the renovationist clergy of the last period did / the speaker is not allowed to speak and is making noise/, after calmness the speaker moves on to the 1917 cathedral and the patriarchate, citing the very composition of that cathedral and what role it played played against the revolution /the public makes noise and does not let them speak/. Moving on to the role of Patriarch Tikhon as counter. revolutionary, the speaker stops that Tikhon was associated with foreign counter-revolution and was against helping the starving / noise, screams /, when Vvedensky says “Tikhon”, the audience shouts “patriarch”, continues this screaming for about 15 minutes, then they calm down and the speaker finishes the report. Hilarion, speaking as an apponent / when he appears on the podium with applause that envelops the entire hall / says that the clergy were bad under this system, but not all of them were, who served exclusively the church, citing themselves as an example. Speaking about the cathedral of 1917, that the cathedral was not the same as it was in 1923, there were real bishops, but here there were impostors, legally consecrated according to the laws of the canons, incorrectly, and 46 bishops were consecrated again by proteges of the VCU and 16 old bishops /calling this cathedral a cathedral of impostors/. He says that the so-called Renovationists say that they are against all politics, a free church for itself, he gives an example that he served 15 versts from Moscow and there the Renovationist priest threatened that if Hilarion served, the parish Council and Hilarion would be arrested, I don’t think, says Hilarion, that the government gives them such powers, and they arrogate political power to themselves. The Renovationists say Hilarion, they say that the 1917 Council made an appeal against the separation of church and state, refuting this, he says, he says that the Renovationists sent a delegation to Comrade. KALININ, so that he would allow them to take church property into their own hands, of course KALININ refused to do this / all the time there was applause and approving noise /. Moving on to the patriarchate and Tikhon, he says that the patriarchate is not a counter-revolution, it was destroyed by Peter I and when the church received freedom, then the question of the patriarchate was again raised and at the council of 1917 he was elected. Speaking about Tikhon, he says that Tikhon is not a counter-revolutionary and that he was not against confiscations, it was possible to give away non-sacred values 45. About the Karlovitsky 46th Cathedral he says that Tikhon gave a blessing, but when he found out that political issues were being decided there, he left him and has nothing to do with him 47. Further, Hilarion says that they have never been enemies of the church, and if we are enemies, then we are not church, but the schismatic-renovationist church, why do we consecrate cathedrals after the renovationists? This is because married bishops serve there and this is against the canon laws. Concluding his speech, he says that Tikhon will never back down and will not agree with the renovationists, and if he had compromised, then he, Hilarion, would have recoiled from him. In the debate, when they opposed Tikhon, they were not allowed to speak and made noise. Speaking against the renovationists, Tikhonov’s supporters did not say anything special, but repeated what Illarion said. Speaking his final words, Vvedensky tried to break Illarion, but he was not allowed to speak all the time and part of the audience began to leave. Note: among the audience present there was a citizen who tried not to let Vvedensky speak and when he knocked his feet, the audience also knocked, he went upstairs and talked with the public, probably persuading them. This citizen was taken under surveillance” 48. The second report was also deposited in the investigative file of Archbishop Hilarion: “I would like to inform you that on October 13-23, in the building of the Polytechnic Museum, from 8 pm to 12 am, a debate took place between Vvedensky and Hilarion as his opponent. The topic of the debate was “Who are the enemies of the church.” Vvedensky began his report from the period of the 5th year, when a split began between various so-called. theological teachings. It must be said that Vvedensky is a good speaker, but despite this, there were numerous attempts to disrupt the dispute. Of course, this can be explained by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the public are reactionary elements, i.e. Sukharev’s traders 49 and speculators, one might argue ardent monarchists. When Vvedensky reached the revolutionary period, that is, when he began to accuse Tikhon of counter-revolution and a number of other crimes, of course referring to documents and very strong evidence, then when Vvedensky began to say that Tikhon, in contrast to the teachings of Christ, called on the Orthodox not to help the hungry 50, then from that moment attempts began to disrupt the dispute. One of the most subtle organizers of this disruption, that is, the one who most intended to disrupt the dispute, who once went to the top and persuaded the public to disrupt, I assert, is the most ardent reactionary. Not the one who was detained by the police, the latter, of course, was just a fool, not a politician, he shouted the most, but carelessly, and the first played the role of an organizer, as can be seen from his behavior, they did not allow VVEDENSKY to fully finish his sentence. Then, as Hilarion appeared, the latter was met with incessant applause, of course, because the overwhelming majority were Tikhonites. Hilarion answered in his words that everything that VVEDENSKY said was by no means new. He says that we also preached for a free church, i.e., he referred to the words of Vvedensky, who, according to Hilarion, says that we were in the hands of the monarchical state an instrument of investigation, i.e., a political department and were members of a number of monarchical organizations. Of course, in general, Hilarion did not deny this fact and say that these were separate elements. Hilarion also says that the church for the church is by no means the slogan of the renovationists; it is also our slogan. Then Illarion reproaches Vvedensky for the fact that the latter allegedly turned to the Soviet government in the person of Kalinin, whom he asked for help to help him kick the Tikhonites out of the church. Hilarion ended his speech with the slogan of fighting the split. Schism, according to Hilarion, is a renovationist idea. When VVEDENSKY made his final remarks, he would have smashed him to smithereens. It goes without saying that if Vvedensky had been allowed to speak[.] VVEDENSKY finished his final speech, you and I would quarrel and will continue to quarrel for a number of years.”51 The interest of the GPU employees in winning the Vvedensky dispute is understandable, but could he really turn out to be more eloquent than Archbishop Hilarion? Let us turn to how Vvedensky behaved during the debates. Transcripts of disputes between Vvedensky and A.V. Lunacharsky have been published. In Moscow they were held at the Bolshoi Theater, in the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions, at the Polytechnic Museum, even in the circus on Tsvetnoy Boulevard. A. Ch. Kozarzhevsky wrote: "Vvedensky is still famous as an extraordinary orator, who easily defeated the leaders of the atheistic front and almost drove even Lunacharsky himself into a dead end. Let us, however, be objective. It was really not difficult to refute the primitive anti-religious agitators, the generalized image of which was created by I. Ilf and E. Petrov. But just read carefully two or three transcripts of disputes with A.V. Lunacharsky, in order to make sure that the renovationist leader possessed not so much oratory as eloquence, and the People's Commissar of Education contrasted clattering phrases designed for an emotional effect with logical arguments and simple common sense. A. I. Vvedensky was always and everywhere, first of all, a narcissistic poser. Both in church sermons and in public debates, he flirted with his erudition, unleashed a stream of foreign names on his listeners (often out of place). In general, the eloquence of A. I. Vvedensky cannot in any way be regarded as strictly ecclesiastical and put on a par with the preaching art of Philaret Drozdov, John of Kronstadt, Illarion of the Trinity.”52 The outward appearance was extravagant the appearance of A. I. Vvedensky: a fashionable square mustache in the 20s, a Mephistophelian beard, a nose with a characteristic hump, black hair sticking up, an always half-open mouth, a guttural voice, abrupt speech, sharp movements. It was this debate in which Archbishop Hilarion inflicted a crushing defeat on the leader of the renovationists A. I. Vvedensky, served as one of the reasons for the arrest of the Saint. On October 25, 1923, an employee of the 6th department, Yakimova, summoned the Saint for interrogation to the Lubyanka on October 26, but the interrogation took place only on October 27. During the interrogation, Vladyka was asked: “Didn’t you speak at the debate with information that the VCU are GPU agents and informers?” To which Archbishop Hilarion replied: “I did not make such speeches, but said that sometimes they portrayed a purely church phenomenon as political, informing the state authorities about it and thereby casting suspicion on innocent people” 53 . On the same day, an undertaking not to leave the place was taken from him, and on November 15, Saint Hilarion was arrested. Public debates and lectures by Archbishop Hilarion played a huge role in the fight against renovationism. The saint, with his characteristic eloquence and persuasiveness, was able to prove the absolutely non-canonical, schismatic nature of the renovationist movement. He tore off the false masks from the Renovationists and revealed their true face, which sobered up many, facilitating their return to the fold of the Patriarchal Church. His arguments were also used by other representatives of the Orthodox clergy. Furiously denouncing the renovationists, he understood that he was thereby speeding up his new arrest and imprisonment, but he did this consciously, sacrificing himself for the sake of the Church of Christ. For in his words: “If you do not serve the Church, there is no point in any activity and then there is no need to live in God’s light.” CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. T. 2. M., 1970. pp. 469–472. Kremlin archives. Politburo and the Church. 1922–1925 Book 1. M.–Novosibirsk, 1997. pp. 244–245 (hereinafter referred to as the Kremlin Archives). Central Election Commission FSB. D. R-43193. T. 2. L. 70. Kremlin archives. Book 1. pp. 414–417. Pokrovsky N. N. Preface // Kremlin Archives. Book 1. P. 104. See about this: Petrov S. G. New data on the renovation Local Council of 1923 // Materials of the conference “History of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century (1917–1933)”, Szentendre (Hungary) November 13–16, 2001 (Russian Church of the 20th century. Book 1). M., 2002. pp. 259–284. RGASPI. F. 89. Op. 4. D. 180. L. 5. Priest G. Orekhanov, Shkarovsky M. V. Vvedensky A. I. // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. VII. M., 2004. P. 351. RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 112. D. 565a. L. 5; F. 89. Op. 4. D. 115. L. 17. Central Election Commission FSB. D. N-1780. T. 4. L. 339 vol. Central Election Commission FSB. D. N-1780. T. 4. L. 342. The texts of this and subsequent documents compiled by the GPU are given while preserving the features of the original. On April 9, 1922, Patriarch Tikhon issued an “Appeal to the Diocesan Bishops,” in which he pointed out the inadmissibility of resistance to the seizure of valuables, see: Investigative file of Patriarch Tikhon. Collection of documents based on materials from the Central Election Commission of the FSB. M., 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Investigative Case). pp. 124–125; Kremlin archives. Book 2. pp. 177–178. We are talking about the visit of a group of representatives of the renovationist VCU, led by A. I. Vvedensky, to Metropolitan Veniamin (Kazan) of Petrograd and Gdov, which took place on May 26, 1922. Vvedensky demanded that the Metropolitan recognize the VCU. In his message of May 28, 1922, Metropolitan Benjamin excommunicated Archpriest. A. Vvedensky and priests V. Krasnitsky and E. Belkov from the Church. We are talking about the congress of the “Living Church” group, which took place in Moscow from August 3 to 17, 1922. Up to 200 delegates were present at the congress. The congress decided to close all monasteries, set the task of seeking a trial of Patriarch Tikhon and depriving him of his dignity; all bishop-monks who did not support renovationism were ordered to be removed from their cathedras. At the last plenary session on August 15, the congress adopted a resolution according to which the future council was to lift the excommunication from Leo Tolstoy. The congress was prepared and controlled by the sixth department of the SO GPU, see reports by E. A. Tuchkov on the progress of the congress: Kremlin Archives. Book 1. pp. 315–318. The congress was attended by bishops ordained by the Renovationist bishops of the old installation, Antonin (Granovsky) and Leonid (Skobeev), although the newly ordained ones were not married, but did not take vows of monasticism, as Orthodox tradition requires of candidates for bishops. Central Election Commission FSB. D. R-43193. T. 2. L. 138 vol. Central Election Commission FSB. D. N-1780. T. 4. L. 345. Obviously, this means Rev. V. D. Krasnitsky, leader of the renovationist group “Living Church”. Krasnitsky is listed separately from the “new renovationists” led by Vvedensky due to the fact that after the renovationist council of 1923, the “Living Church” group, which was at the head of the renovationist movement, lost its importance. The “Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church” was held in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior from April 29 to May 9, 1923. According to E. A. Tuchkov, about 500 delegates came to the council, including 67 bishops. The 22 bishops who arrived at the cathedral had the old appointment. The main decision of the council, from the point of view of the authorities, was to declare Patriarch Tikhon “deprived of his dignity and monasticism and returned to his primitive worldly position.” The work of the congress was directed by E. A. Tuchkov, who, according to him, had “up to 50% of his knowledge” at the council, see: Kremlin Archives. Book 2. pp. 399–400. Central Election Commission FSB. D. R-43193. T. 2. L. 139. Renovationist bishops with the name Leo are not known to us. Perhaps we are talking about V.N. Lvov. Lvov Vladimir Nikolaevich (1872–1934). 03/02/1917–07/24/1917 – Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. In January 1920 he emigrated. In July 1922, with the permission of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), he returned to Russia and joined the “Living Church”. Manager of the renovationist VCU until May 1923. Active propagandist of renovationism. In 1927 he was arrested and exiled to Tomsk for three years. Krasotin Pavel, archpriest. He served as a priest in the Yaroslavl diocese. In the summer of 1922 he joined the renovation movement. He headed the SODATS group in the Yaroslavl diocese. Nominated as a delegate to the council in 1923. In May 1923 he became a member of the Renovationist All-Russian Central Council, and in August 1923 - a member of the Renovation Synod. Seraphim (Meshcheryakov; 1860–1933), archbishop. In 1898 he was consecrated bishop. In 1922 - Archbishop of Kostroma and Galich. On June 16, 1922, under pressure from the GPU, together with Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and Archbishop Evdokim (Meshchersky), he signed the “Memorandum of Three” on the recognition of the VCU. In 1922, the renovationist Metropolitan of Mogilev. In 1924, Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod. On September 11, 1924, he brought public repentance for deviating from the schism and was accepted by Patriarch Tikhon in his current rank. In 1925 he was arrested and sent to Solovki, where Archbishop Hilarion was located. From July 15, 1927 – Archbishop of Tambov. Since 1932 - Metropolitan of Stavropol and Caucasus. Shot on 05/07/1933. Central Election Commission FSB. D. N-1780. T. 4. L. 347. On May 18, 1922, a group of members of the “Living Church” led by A. Vvedensky and V. Krasnitsky came to Patriarch Tikhon. The Patriarch himself described these events as follows: “We yielded to their solicitations and put the following resolution on their statement: “the persons named below, that is, the priests who signed the statement, are entrusted with accepting and transferring to His Eminence Agafangel, upon his arrival in Moscow, synodal affairs with the participation of Secretary Numerov.” By virtue of this resolution, they were instructed to accept the cases and transfer them to Metropolitan Agafangel as soon as he arrived in Moscow. We did not make any orders about what they should do with the accepted affairs if Metropolitan Agafangel had not appeared in Moscow, because we could not foresee the very possibility of this then, and the fact that they themselves in such a case would have to replace the metropolitan and become the head of church administration could not be blessed in the resolution, since the powers associated with the rank of bishop cannot be transferred to the elders." On May 19, the renovationist VCU was formed, usurping the highest church authority. At the congress, a resolution on a unified church fund was approved. The renovation movement was experiencing an acute financial crisis, and the funds received from the GPU were not enough. The main source of money was to be churches in cemeteries and candle factories; half of all funds received through them was to go to the VCU. Each parish was required to transfer 5 million rubles to the VCU by October 1, 1922; by October 6, 1922, all monastic funds, except the most necessary, were ordered to be transferred to the VCU. At the congress of the “Living Church” a resolution was adopted, according to which the VCU was required, even before the convening of the Council, to allow the consecration of married presbyters as bishops, to allow the second marriage of clergy, to allow monks in holy orders to marry without removing their rank, to allow the clergy and bishops to marry widows, and some canonical restrictions on marriage were also abolished: marriages were allowed in the case of a fourth blood relationship degree, between godfather and mother. This means “Regulations on the convening of a local council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1923.” dated February 1, 1923 Published: Local Council. Simbirsk, 1923. pp. 3–7. This was a consequence of the policy of the GPU. E. Tuchkov pointed out that it was necessary “to conduct a pre-conciliar campaign so that the majority of Black Hundred churchmen of Tikhonov’s persuasion do not attend the cathedral.” - Central Election Commission of the FSB. F. 2. Op. 4. D. 372. L. 92; Kremlin archives. Book 2. P. 345. In September 1922, Bishop Sophrony (Arefyev) of Novonikolaevsk went over to the side of the VCU, see Priest Mikhail Fast. History of the Tomsk diocese (1917–1944). Diss... cand. theology. MDA. Sergiev Posad, 2000. P. 99. At the same time, the renovationists were supported by the former bishop of Akmola, vicar of the Tomsk diocese, Gabriel (Voevodin), who was retired and lived in Tomsk, see Ibid. pp. 98–99. The third bishop mentioned by Archbishop Hilarion is obviously the former Bishop of Krasnoyarsk and Yenisei Nazariy (Andreev), who in September 1922, under pressure from the GPU, left the department and went to Tomsk at the disposal of the renovationist Siberian Church Administration, see RGIA. F. 831. Op. 1. D. 218. L. 40. On September 21, 1922, the above three bishops ordained the widowed Archpriest John Zavadovsky as a suffragan bishop of the Biysk-Altai diocese. On September 24, 1922, the widowed Archpriest Nikolai Chizhov was promoted to Bishop of Irkutsk, see Priest Mikhail Fast. Decree. op. P. 48; Renovationist schism (Materials for church-historical and canonical characteristics) / Comp. I. V. Soloviev. M., 2002. S. 768, 877–878). Blinov Petr Fedorovich (born about 1890 - repressed about 1938), one of the leaders of the renovationist movement, the organizer of the “Siberian Living Church” and the renovationist “Siberian Church Administration” (SibTSU or “Sib Church”), among the renovationists he bore the titles “Metropolitan of All Siberia”, “Chairman of the Siberian Church”. The false consecration, carried out by Ioann Zavadovsky and Nikolai Chizhov, took place on October 8, 1923 in Tomsk. The pinnacle of P. Blinov’s renovationist activity was presiding over the All-Russian Local Council of Renovationists held in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior (April 29–May 9, 1923) and heading the deputation of this false council to His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, to whom P. Blinov announced and presented the conciliar resolution. At the council in 1923, P. Blinov led a group of 60 deputies of Siberian renovationists called the “Siberian Living Church Group.” The service was held on April 29, 1923 in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior before the opening of the cathedral. Antonin (Granovsky) was an opponent of the married episcopate. In a letter to Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in September 1922, he wrote: "I still stopped the married bishop. They did the naming. I had to resort to external influence, which this time was successful." – Theological collection. M., 2000. No. 6. P. 62. The Zaikonospassky Monastery on Nikolskaya Street in Moscow was at the disposal of Antonin, see Archpriest V. Tsypin, Abbot Innocent (Pavlov). Antonin (Granovsky) // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. II. M., 2001. P. 683. We are talking about the heretical Monophysite Council of Ephesus in 449, headed by the Patriarch of Alexandria Dioscorus. See Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky). Russian Orthodox Church from ancient times to the present day // Russia in its past and present. M., b/g. There is no information in published sources and historiography about which of the participants in the council protested against the defrocking of Patriarch Tikhon. It is known that Bishop Leonty (Matusevich) of Volyn tried to object to the introduction of a married episcopate, but was deprived of the word by the presiding “metropolitan” Peter Blinov. On May 3, 1923, based on the report of A. Vvedensky and V. Krasnitsky, the cathedral adopted a resolution that stated: “The cathedral considers Tikhon an apostate from the true covenants of Christ and a traitor to the Church, and on the basis of church canons, hereby declares him deprived of the order and monasticism and returned to his primitive worldly position. From now on, Patriarch Tikhon is a layman Vasily Bellavin." - Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1923 (Bulletins). M., 1923. P. 12. Central Election Commission FSB. D. R-43193. T. 2. L. 140–140 vol. Central Election Commission FSB. D. R-43193. T. 2. L. 166 vol. Corrected by hand from the original: “August 17 and 21.” Central Election Commission FSB. D. R-43193. T. 2. L. 152. In his message dated February 28, 1922, Patriarch Tikhon wrote: “But We cannot approve the removal from churches, even through voluntary donation, of sacred objects, the use of which is not for liturgical purposes is prohibited by the canons of the Universal Church and is punishable by It as sacrilege.” – Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the highest church authority. 1917–1943 / Comp. M. E. Gubonin. M., 1994. P. 190. On April 9, 1922, this message became the subject of discussion during the interrogation of the Patriarch in the GPU, which His Holiness himself described as follows: “Samsonov and Krasikov explained to me, they are angry with my 2nd message, they should not attach much importance, I don’t want anything at all, but I don’t allow one thing. The sacred vessels are put in a box and trampled underfoot to compact them.” - Central Election Commission of the FSB. D.N. 1780. T. 4. L. 247. The Russian All-Foreign Church Council in Karlovtsy opened on November 21, 1921. It decided to restore the Romanov dynasty in Russia and addressed the Genoa Conference with a call to begin a crusade against Bolshevism. By their actions of a political nature, the Karlovac hierarchy created a convenient pretext for the authorities to destroy the Church in Russia as a counter-revolutionary organization associated with White Guard emigration. The Patriarch understood this very well; he had to either condemn the activities of the Karlovac hierarchy, or expose the Church to the threat of complete destruction. On May 5, 1922, the Patriarch, in order to save the Church from destruction, makes the only possible decision - he convenes a meeting of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council in the Trinity Compound, which decide to abolish the VCU abroad. The monarchical anti-Soviet acts of the Karlovac Council were recognized as “acts that do not express the official voice of the Russian Orthodox Church,” and the Holy Synod, if it could function fully, was asked to make a judgment about the “ecclesiastical responsibility of some clergy.” – Acts of His Holiness Tikhon... P. 193–194. Central Election Commission FSB. D. R-43193. T. 2. L. 142. Traders from Sukharevskaya Square in Moscow. Back in 1921, Patriarch Tikhon and other Orthodox hierarchs began to look for opportunities for religious organizations, communities and parishes to participate in helping the hungry. By the end of the summer of 1921, Patriarch Tikhon came to the conclusion that the special Church Committee for Famine Relief would be the best way to overcome the consequences of the famine. Members of the Presidium of the All-Russian Committee for Famine Relief under the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, chaired by M.I. Kalinin, considered it expedient to create a Church Committee. On August 31, 1921, the Patriarch again turned to M.I. Kalinin: “I ask you to expedite, if possible, the approval of the Regulations on the Church Committee and make it public for the widespread collection of donations and the opening of local assistance efforts.” Considering that monetary donations were clearly not enough to help the starving, the Patriarch and the Holy Synod issued on February 19, 1922, after approval by the government, a special message to the clergy and believers, which called for donating, in addition to personal items, also church jewelry that does not have important liturgical significance. On February 23, 1922, a decree was issued on the confiscation of church valuables. Later, during interrogations, Patriarch Tikhon confirmed that while he was negotiating with PomGol, “a decree was issued behind his back.” Central Election Commission FSB. D. R-43193. T. 2. L. 143. Kozarzhevsky A. Ch. A. I. Vvedensky and Renovationist schism in Moscow // Bulletin of Moscow State University. 1989. Series 8. No. 1. P. 62–63. Central Election Commission FSB. D. R-43193. T. 2. L. 145.