Academic ministry of the Holy Martyr. Hilarion (Troitsky) and his struggle against renovationism

Contents 1. Service in the MDA 2. Hierarchical service and the fight against the renovationist schism 3. Disputes with renovationists 4. Arrest and imprisonment Cited literature List of abbreviations Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), in the world Vladimir Alekseevich Troitsky, was born on September 13, 1886 in the village of Lipitsy, Kashira district, Tula province, into the family of a priest. In 1906, after graduating from the Tula Theological School and the Tula Seminary, he entered the Moscow Theological Academy. In 1910, he graduated from the Academy with a candidate of theology degree and was left here as a professorial fellow. From that time on, V.A. Troitsky began his teaching activities within the walls of Moscow theological schools. In 1912, he defended his master’s thesis on the topic: “Essays on the history of the dogma of the Church,” and on March 28, 1913, he took monastic vows with the name Hilarion. On April 11 of the same year he was ordained a hierodeacon, and on June 2 – to the rank of hieromonk. On July 5, 1913, he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite and in the same year became an extraordinary professor at the Moscow Academy of Sciences in the Department of New Testament. He became the youngest archimandrite and professor of the Academy for his time. The Rector of the Academy, Bishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky), who played a special role in the life of the Hieromartyr Hilarion, entrusted him with many administrative obediences in the MDA. In the summer of 1913, during the absence of the rector, Archimandrite Hilarion performed the duties of rector, inspector and assistant inspector simultaneously 1. As an inspector, Archimandrite Hilarion was primarily concerned with instilling churchliness in students and involved them in active church, educational and preaching activities. He also took care of external discipline. In the spring of 1917, the leadership of the Academy had to withstand a series of sharp attacks from “progressive” figures: the new chief prosecutor V.N. Lvov and prof. B.V. Titlinov, future renovationists who called for the destruction of the canonical system of the Church. On April 20, 1917, students of the Academy, captured by the revolutionary spirit, even “censed” Archimandrite Hilarion as the Chairman of the Academy Council for “ignoring the rights of students to participate in the management of the Academy” 2 . On April 14, 1917, by decree of the Provisional Government, bishops - members of the Holy Synod were exempted from participation in its work. On May 1, the Holy Synod, in its new composition, removed Bishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky) from the post of rector of the MDA, and inspector Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) was appointed acting rector. He performed these duties for several months until, at the beginning of the 1917/1918 academic year, a new rector of the MDA was elected, who became Archpriest Anatoly Orlov. Hieromartyr Hilarion did not share some of the views of Bishop Theodore. This manifested itself, for example, in June 1917, when a congress of learned monasticism was convened, at which, on the initiative of Bishop Theodore, a resolution was adopted according to which the MDA professorship should be formed from monastic professors. Archimandrite Hilarion voted against this resolution. “The history of academic science in general makes it necessary to be very cautious in accusing Academy professors of unorthodoxy, since there are well-known facts when the provisions of scientific works, hastily declared harmful to Orthodoxy, soon became generally accepted truths,” believed Archimandrite Hilarion 3. At the Local Council of 1917 - 1918. Archimandrite Hilarion was an active supporter of the restoration of the patriarchate and was even one of the candidates during the first round of voting for the election of the Patriarch. Despite the difficult times and various hardships, Archimandrite Hilarion spent a significant part of his time in the 1917/1918 academic year lecturing at the Academy and performing the duties of inspector and assistant rector of the Academy. In 1918, the question of the ordination of Archimandrite Hilarion as bishop first arose. On April 1, 1918, Bishop Seraphim (Ostroumov) of Oryol and Sevsk, in his report to the Holy Synod, asked to organize a suffragan see of Bryansk and proposed to make Archimandrite Hilarion the vicar bishop of his diocese, however, these plans did not come true. Archimandrite Hilarion continued to devote his main attention to the MDA, for which difficult times were coming. The resolution of the Holy Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council of October 12/25 stated the lack of funds for the maintenance of the Academy in 1919 4 . On January 8/21, 1919, a resolution of the Holy Synod and the All-Russian Central Council was issued, which stated: “It was decided not to open classes at the Moscow Theological Academy for students due to the small number of students and the high cost of their maintenance. It was decided to invite professors to give public lectures on religious topics in Moscow and compile popular brochures as a counterweight to false teachers, in particular anti-religious ones” 5 . Archimandrite Hilarion had previously been known as a preacher and missionary outside the Academy. It was he who, on December 1, 1918, was invited by the Missionary Council at the Holy Synod to its meeting when discussing the topic of “organizing the fight against growing unbelief” 6 . On August 3, 1919, the Missionary Council at the Holy Synod appointed him as a lecturer on the New Testament at the six-month courses being organized 7 . Since the 1918/1919 academic year, Archimandrite Hilarion was the vice-rector of the MDA, however, from 1919. lived mainly in Moscow. On February 1, 1919, he wrote to N.N. Glubokovsky: “I live in Moscow... I am more involved in worship and preaching. The Academy drags out its life barely, but still drags out its life” 8. The active work of Archimandrite Hilarion did not go unnoticed by the Cheka. In February 1919, a secret department of the Cheka was formed, whose responsibilities included “the fight against the hostile activities of the clergy”; Among its special units was the 7th department, which oversaw church issues 9. It was this department that arrested Archimandrite Hilarion on March 10, 1919. From that day on, he was in Butyrka prison in Moscow. The accusation, as Archimandrite Hilarion wrote, seemed ridiculous even to the investigator, 10 however, the investigation dragged on for almost four months. Members of the MDA corporation petitioned the authorities for his release 11 . May 3, 1919 prof. S.S. Glagolev wrote: “Oh. Hilarion was arrested and is now in Butyrka prison. There really is no case against him, but it seems they are not going to release him soon.” 12 Archimandrite Hilarion was released on June 7, 1919. The Academy was ending its existence at this time. On May 9, 1919, the VCU, having considered the proposal of the acting. The rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Professor S.S. Glagolev, about the resumption of classes there on August 29 (16), notified the Academy Council that “it cannot undertake the obligation to provide its contents from next year” and proposed to establish a special liquidation commission at the Academy 13. On July 1, 1919, the Academy library came under the jurisdiction of the People's Commissariat for Education. The Academy Council moved classes to Moscow in the fall of 1919. To organize educational classes in Moscow and resolve current academic affairs, the Council elected an Executive Commission headed by the rector, Archpriest A.P. Orlov. By the beginning of the 1919/1920 academic year, the academic corporation was still quite fully represented: a rector, a vice-rector (Archimandrite Hilarion), 9 ordinary and 14 extraordinary professors, 2 associate professors and 1 lecturer. The classes began with a solemn prayer service, served on September 27 (October 10), 1919 in the Prince Vladimir Church of the Diocesan House by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. Academic classes took place: until November 1919. - in the premises of the Usachevskaya exchange artel (Myasnitskaya, no. 8), from November - in the new premises of the same artel, in Spaso-Glinishchevsky lane, no. 4, from the spring of 1920 - in the Diocesan House. In the 1920/1921 academic year, classes continued: from October to December - in the church of St. John the Warrior in Bozhedomka, from January 1, 1920 (1921?) - in the Church of the Holy Trinity in Listy. From the middle of the 1919/1920 academic year, the Academy switched to classes based on a subject system (i.e., lectures on certain subjects were given to students of all courses). However, enrollment in new academic courses and the awarding of candidate degrees to graduates continued. On May 24, 1920, in the Trinity Church of the Patriarchal Metochion in Moscow, during the naming of bishop, which was performed by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, Archimandrite Hilarion said: “Before I read books, now I must read human hearts, these wisest and often completely incomprehensible letters. Then I wrote with ink on paper, from now on I will have the grace to write the image of God in human souls. Before I taught, from now on I must lead to salvation. Previously, I could have remained hidden - now you place me in the church candlestick. Previously, I could hide from people and be in pleasant obscurity - from now on I must shine the light of good deeds on people. With all my soul I loved the academic life, detached from the world, elevated above the world, solitary, as if deserted. Now you are taking away the hope of returning to this desert again and completely. A bishop must always be in the circle of human life. Having become accustomed to my previous ministry and having loved it with all my soul, I was afraid of the bishopric and always spoke a lot against my bishopric. And now I stand before you, Archpastors, having accepted your title and in no way contrary to the verb, for my hope in the Lord is firm. I see now clearly that there is a great need for workers in God’s field, I now know firmly that the will of God governs the Church and it is not without God’s will that bishops are installed in the Church” 14 . On May 25, 1920, he was consecrated by Patriarch Tikhon as Bishop of Vereisky, vicar of the Moscow diocese. At the same time, Bishop Hilarion was appointed abbot of the Moscow Sretensky Monastery. In 1921 and early 1922, Bishop Hilarion became Patriarch Tikhon's closest assistant in the management of the Moscow diocese, especially after the arrest and exile of Bishop Peter (Polyansky) of Podolsk in the summer of 1921. The administrative experience gained at the Academy allowed him to brilliantly cope with many burdensome matters. Until his arrest in March 1922, Bishop Hilarion continued to lecture to MDA students. In a report on the state of the MDA in the 1919/1920 and 1920/1921 academic years, it was reported that on April 21, 1920, the vice-rector of the MDA, extraordinary professor Archimandrite Hilarion, was relieved of his vice-rector position as a result of his appointment as Bishop of Vereisky 15. The academic year 1921/1922 began on August 2 (15) in the premises of the Vysoko-Petrovsky Monastery in Moscow. On June 9, 1921, Bishop Hilarion wrote to prof. N.N. Glubokovsky: “The Academy is now being dissolved. Classes are being conducted, but barely, because students are physically unable to study. Yes, and professors too... I am a professor, too, but a bad one. True, I have the advantage that I still live without worrying at all about daily food. But I'm obsessed with people and things. Services are almost daily, traveling around Moscow and the province, and at home there are people, people, people. I always have audiences of thousands in front of me, but more in churches where we give lectures, but in relation to the public” 16. The existence of the MDA seriously worried the authorities in connection with the spread of the renovationist schism. On March 6, 1923, the Anti-Religious Commission under the Central Committee of the RCP (b), headed by E. Yaroslavsky, considered the issue of “closing theological academies” and made the decision: “Theological academies should be liquidated, both Tikhonov’s in Moscow and the Evangelical ones in St. Petersburg” 17. After this, only a few professors in private apartments continued to teach some students illegally. 2. Hierarchical service and the fight against the renovationist schism During the first year of his hierarchal service in the parishes of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Hilarion served 142 Liturgies, more than 142 all-night vigils and delivered 330 sermons. That same year, he suffered from typhus for two months; this disease affected his heart and seriously undermined his health. But almost every day Bishop Hilarion worked and received visitors at the Trinity Metochion in Moscow, where the Patriarchal Administration was located. Saint Hilarion, with the blessing of Patriarch Tikhon, actively performed ordinations for churches in Moscow and the Moscow province. Thus, in 1921, Bishop Hilarion ordained the future hieromartyr John Khrenov as a deacon at the Church of the Forty Martyrs 18. In 1920–1921 Bishop Hilarion often served in the churches of Vereisky district. During one of his trips to Vereisky district, Bishop Hilarion, together with Archpriest Peter Pushkinsky, took part in a dispute with anti-religious agitators, who suffered complete defeat. Local authorities decided to arrest the bishop. Archpriest Peter led the bishop out by the back door and brought him to his house, from where the next morning the bishop left for Moscow 19 . The active activities of Bishop Hilarion and other suffragan bishops of the Moscow diocese caused serious concern to the Cheka. In September 1921, Bishop Hilarion was subjected to short-term arrest. This was due to the fact that he obtained permission from the director of the Tretyakov Gallery and one of the leaders of the Main Museum of the People's Commissariat for Education, I.Ya. Grabar, to take the miraculous image to the Sretensky Monastery on the feast of the Vladimir Icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary (August 26/September 8). A trial took place, but again no evidence was found 20. However, even after this the saint was under the close attention of the Cheka. On November 26, 1921, the commissioner of the Secret Department of the Moscow Cheka, Mikhail Shmelev, compiled a list of persons included in the Holy Synod and the Moscow Diocesan Administration who were to be arrested. This list also included Bishop Hilarion 21. On January 18, 1922, Eusebius (Nikolsky), Metropolitan of Krutitsky, administrator of the Moscow diocese, died. Bishop Hilarion (Trinity) was considered as one of the candidates for this post. This is stated in the conclusion on his case, dated June 7, 1922: “Among the highest clergy, TRINITY was earmarked for the post of Moscow Metropolitan” 22 . However, Metropolitan Nikandr (Fenomenov), who was older and had greater episcopal seniority than Bishop Hilarion, was appointed to this post. The decree on the confiscation of church valuables, adopted in February 1922, practically excluded the Church from participating in the organization and donation of valuables for the benefit of the hungry, and prohibited the replacement of precious items for liturgical use with an equivalent amount of gold and silver. The actions of the authorities caused extreme bewilderment to Patriarch Tikhon; in a letter to M.I. Kalinin dated February 25, 1922, he called on the authorities to abandon such a decision, which was fraught with unpredictable consequences 23 . The authorities understood that it was the Patriarch, as the head of the Church, who was the main obstacle to the destruction of the church organization. Therefore, the main blow was directed against the Patriarch. The GPU closely monitored the activities of the Patriarch and his entourage. Thus, at a meeting in the GPU on March 8, 1922, it was said: “... the apparatus of the clergy, headed by Tikhon, is expanding its work more and more widely” 24 . All actions of the clergy who condemned the seizure were recorded in the information reports of the GPU. They were compiled in the Information Department and in the 6th department of the GPU SO. The “Information report on the issue of confiscation of church valuables” prepared by the commissioner of the 6th branch of the Moscow provincial department of the GPU for March 4 and 5, 1922, spoke about the sermon of Bishop Hilarion 25. This information formed the basis of a special message sent from the GPU to the Central Committee of the RCP (b) specifically for V.I. Lenin: “On March 4, in the Church of Sergius (Ulyanovskaya Street), during the all-night vigil, Bishop Hilarion delivered a sermon on the issue of confiscation of church valuables for the benefit of the hungry. The sermon had a clear tendency to create a hostile mood among the religious masses against the seizure of valuables” 26. The report sent to the head of the Secret Department of the GPU, T.P. Samsonov, reported on a meeting of Moscow deans held on February 28 under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Nikandr (Fenomenov), at which he called for “to be on guard” 27 . In the case of Patriarch Tikhon there is a “List of persons subject to seizure in the sixth department,” which included the Patriarch’s closest assistants: Bishop Hilarion (Troitsky), as well as Metropolitan Nikandr (Fenomenov), the Patriarch’s cell attendant Yakov Polozov, priest Ilya Gromoglasov, Archpriest Alexander Khotovitsky, Protopresbyter Nikolai Lyubimov. The same document also contains the motives for the arrest. Thus, Metropolitan Nikandr was accused of “organizing illegal meetings of the clergy and stirring up the masses at these meetings in order to speak out against the authorities,” Bishop Hilarion was accused of “organizing disputes on religious topics in order to discredit the Soviet government” 28 . The GPU understood that the organization of renovationist opposition groups was extremely hampered by the activities of active bishops and priests from the circle of Patriarch Tikhon, so repressions began against them. On March 22, 1922, Bishop Hilarion was arrested at the apartment where he lived (Sretenka St., 9, apt. 1), and before being sent into exile in the Arkhangelsk region, he was kept in the GPU Internal Prison on Lubyanka. On April 9, 1922, the head of the 6th department of the Secret Department of the GPU, A. Rutkovsky, issued a resolution on the selection of a preventive measure. The conclusion on the “case of Mr. TROITSKY Hilarion Alekseevich” stated: ... “He is not a member of the so-called Synod and the Supreme Church Council, but carries out individual orders of the Patriarch and Metropolitan. He is present in the patriarchal courtyard, where he receives all kinds of walkers and visitors who come on church business. Conducting business negotiations with them. In addition, TRINITY is listed as the Bishop of Vereya, where he essentially should be. His stay in Moscow was explained by the enormous benefit that he brings to the church and its ruler, the Patriarch. After Tikhon issued an appeal to prevent the confiscation of church valuables, Troitsky received a business trip to the districts of the Moscow province. The purpose of the trip is explained by Troitsky as the tonsure of some individuals into monasticism, but according to intelligence information, the business trip was in the nature of instructing and explaining methods of resisting confiscation. Among the highest clergy, TROITSKY was earmarked for the post of Moscow Metropolitan. Based on the above, I find: TROITSKY I.A. involved in the criminal monarchist group carried out by the patriarch and metropolitan and therefore I believe: Send TROITSKY, Hilarion Alekseevich to Arkhangelsk province. for a period of 1 year" 29. On June 22, 1922, at a court hearing of the GPU Collegium, it was decided: “Deport to Arkhangelsk province. for a period of 1 year until June 7, 1923.” 30. On June 28, 1922, the Political Red Cross addressed the GPU: “Mr. Hilarion Alekseevich Troitsky (Bishop Hilarion) by Resolution of the Presidium of the GPU dated 22/VI. was sentenced to deportation to Arkhangelsk for a period of 1 year. TROITSKY's sister turned to the Moscow Political Red Cross with a request to petition the GPU for permission to release Hilarion TROITSKY for 5 days for personal matters and preparations for departure. The Moscow Political Red Cross asks to satisfy the request of TROITSKY’s sister and release him until he leaves for Arkhangelsk for 5 days” 31. On July 4, Bishop Hilarion, along with a group of prisoners, arrived in Arkhangelsk and on July 10, he was released from prison. The house in which Bishop Hilarion lived was located almost in the center of Arkhangelsk; the owners gave him a large room with windows facing the sunny side 32. He served his exile near the place where Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov) lived in a settlement. On June 16, 1923, the Patriarch made a statement to the Supreme Court of the RSFSR, in which he expressed his loyalty to the Soviet regime. On June 26, the ARC at its meeting decided to release the Patriarch on June 27 33 . In addition, the GPU was instructed to “carry out a gradual liquidation of cases related to the confiscation of valuables, Tikhon’s appeals, releasing from punishment those Tikhonites who publicly declare their repentance,” as well as “over the next three months, review all the cases of expelled churchmen with a view to amnestying the least harmful of them” 34 . The release of Bishop Hilarion was connected with this. Bishop Hilarion arrived in Moscow, apparently, in early July 1923 and immediately went to the Donskoy Monastery to see Patriarch Tikhon. From that time until his last arrest in November 1923, Bishop Hilarion was the closest assistant to His Holiness the Patriarch. It is to him that the Patriarch entrusts the most important task - eradicating the renovationist schism. The first step on this path was the reconsecration of the Cathedral of the Sretensky Monastery, where since 1922 there were followers of one of the leaders of the renovationism, “Metropolitan” Antonin (Granovsky). Even earlier, the Renovationists switched to the Russian language in worship and the Gregorian calendar. Antoninus went even further and moved the throne from the altar to the middle of the church. He began to celebrate the Liturgy according to a special rite he compiled and published, “reviewed according to the rites of ancient liturgies.” Being a supporter of the “diversity of the liturgical life of the Church,” he actively “improvised” in this area, for example, introducing poems by modern poets into the liturgical sequences. Similar “divine services” were performed by Antonin and his minions in the Sretensky Monastery; even the leaders of the renovation movement, like Vvedensky and Krasnitsky, did not reach such a distortion of worship. Already on the afternoon of July 5, on the eve of the holiday in honor of the Presentation of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God, announcements with the following content appeared on the streets of Moscow: “June 23 [Art. style. – D.S. ] on the day of the Icon of the Vladimir Mother of God, the Divine Liturgy at 10 o’clock in the morning will be performed by HIS HOLINESS OF THE HOLINESS TIKHON, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, in concelebration with: Archbishop Tikhon of the Urals, Bishop Hilarion and [Bishop. – D.S. ] Guria, Archbishop Parthenius. The All-Night Vigil the day before at 6 o’clock will be celebrated by His Eminence Bishop Hilarion.” One of these announcements was torn down and was preserved in the investigative file of Patriarch Tikhon 35. On the eve of the holiday in honor of the icon of the Vladimir Mother of God, July 5, 1923, Bishop Hilarion consecrated the cathedral of the Sretensky Monastery with a great ceremony. A similar consecration takes place in the event of desecration of the church; the saint considered the Renovationist “divine services” to be such desecration. To appreciate the significance of this event, one must remember that at that moment the Renovationists owned the majority of churches, about half of the episcopate, and ten thousand priests. Saint Hilarion showed with all clarity that renovationism is not just a schism in the Church, it is defilement before God. This sobered up a lot of people. After this, hundreds of renovationist bishops and priests flocked to the Donskoy Monastery to Patriarch Tikhon and Archbishop Hilarion to repent in order to return to the Church of Christ. Already by the autumn of 1923, a huge number of former renovationist bishops and priests repented and returned to the Church, and the influence of renovationist centers was significantly weakened. Bishop Hilarion “delivered a sermon” in which he appealed to the priesthood who had joined the renovationist groups so that they would repent publicly in the church. Otherwise, he will not allow them to serve at the altar. The clergy present publicly repented, and Hilarion sanctified the church from the desecration of heretics.” One of the employees of the GPU characterized the saint himself as follows: “A famous preacher, superior in his abilities to the famous preacher Khrapovitsky (Metropolitan Anthony - D.S.), Hilarion enjoys enormous popularity among believers and is loved for his sermons, imbued with the purest Tikhonshchina.” Another GPU agent reports that, according to his estimates, more than 1,000 people were present at the service, so that people filled not only the church, but also the monastery courtyard.”36 On July 6, the saint took part in a divine service in the same monastery together with Patriarch Tikhon and delivered a bright speech directed against the renovationists, which greatly agitated the latter. Thus, Krasnitsky, in his letter to the GPU dated July 9, wrote: “I earnestly ask you to pay attention to the extremely provocative, counter-revolutionary activities of the Tikhovnovsky essent [sic! – D.S. ] Hilarion, 6/VII, preaching in the Sretensky Monastery, he made such a pogrom speech... there was physical pushing in the crowd, in the fence and on the street and the matter ended with arrests. Over the past 10 days, Tikhon’s followers have become extremely insolent, they behave defiantly and are ready to move on to beatings - and this mood, definitely pogrom and clearly anti-Soviet, is created by him, Bishop Hilarion. If a limit is not put on his clearly counter-revolutionary activities, then public unrest and the beating of renovationist churchmen are inevitable” 37 . The service on July 6 was performed according to the Easter rite, it began exactly at 10.00, and ended only at 18.00. The service was performed not only in the church, but also in the courtyard, because the church could not accommodate everyone who came. Filming was carried out during the service. During his sermon, Saint Tikhon called the former “owners” of the Antoninov monastery “impostors.” The Patriarch asked the people what Church they were for. “For the old one! Down with the Antonov impostors!” - was the answer. It is also reported that during the service some “comrades” in hats tried to enter the church, “but then the public began to whisper: “communist,” and there were cases that the hats were thrown off the heads of those who came.” The reports say that men, women and teenagers were present during the service; many could not enter the church, “due to this, crowds stood in the monastery garden near the church. Another priest was officiating in the garden.” During the Liturgy, the deacon remembered Patriarch Tikhon and sang many years to him. Before the communion of the laity, Saint Hilarion delivered a sermon, which was dedicated to the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God and the schism in the Church. The saint spoke about the gracelessness of the schism and called the schismatics to repentance. During the saint’s sermon there were shouts from the crowd: “We stand for the old Church!” Many were crying. After the Liturgy, Patriarch Tikhon delivered a sermon, but, according to eyewitnesses, he spoke about the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God. After this, the Patriarch left the church and began to bless the people, this happened for three hours in a row. After that, “almost in their arms the crowd carried him to Lubyanka, where he got into a cab waiting for him and drove towards Lubyanka Square.” It was on July 6, 1923 that the Patriarch announced the elevation of Bishop Hilarion to the rank of archbishop. 3. Disputes with renovationists Of particular importance were public lectures and debates in which the Bishop took part. He accumulated experience in such activities back in 1920–1922, when he held debates, including with the People’s Commissar of Education A.V. Lunacharsky. At every public lecture or debate where Saint Hilarion took part, there were two or three employees of the GPU, whose reports were preserved in the investigative file of Bishop Hilarion and give ideas about these events. The most important were the disputes between Archbishop Hilarion and the married “Archbishop of Krutitsky” Alexander Vvedensky. His debates and speeches were organized by the 6th department of the Secret Department of the GPU with the approval of the Anti-Religious Commission (ARC). Thus, on May 22, 1923, at its meeting, the ARC heard the question raised by its secretary E.A. Tuchkov “On admitting 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” 38 . On July 31, Bishop Hilarion was scheduled 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. This allowed Vvedensky to strengthen his influence. The GPU report from August 1 to 14, 1923 said: “VVEDENSKY’s debates are going satisfactorily, the number of Tikhonov’s speakers and obstructions is decreasing” 39. Under these conditions, Archbishop Hilarion had to confront Vvedensky. A message from a GPU employee who was present at the debate, which nevertheless took place, says: “The audience was approximately 1,500 people. HILARION 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 Evgeny (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 Eugene 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” 40. 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 Bishop Hilarion or his representatives. On August 17, 1923, at the Polytechnic Museum, Archbishop Hilarion gave a public speech on the topic: “Tikhonites and Renovationists,” in which he condemned all renovationist groups as schismatic and anti-canonical, in addition, he condemned the decision of the Renovationist Council of 1923 to remove Patriarch Tikhon from office. The report of GPU 41 stated: “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. 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 facts about 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 of 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 42 . After the split, the renovationists, i.e. “EAGLES” indulged in all sorts of meanness, such as, for example, 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, and also from Tikhon, the mandates were with a large seal, supposedly from Noah's flood, on the seal, according to the printed one, the VCU was written in ink. The Petrograd bishop had doubts and sent two people to Tikhon to find out, when the meanness of the renovationists became clear, they began to consider Tikhon’s counter-revolutionaries 43. 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 44 . The opinion about this congress is as follows: Hilarion says that we, the bishops of the Orthodox Church, do not recognize this congress, since almost all 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 45 . Having listened to the lecture to the end, where all we could hear was about the wrong actions of the renovationists and about all kinds of dirt poured out at the lectures, we did not notice any anti-Soviet propaganda on Hilarion’s part” 46 . Another GPU employee who attended the debate reported: “17/VIII - at the Polytechnic Museum a debate took place between 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” 47. Another GPU employee also attended the debate, whose report has also been preserved: “I inform you that 17/VIII this year. Hilarion’s scheduled report “Tikhonovites and Renovationists” took place. The meeting was opened at 9 pm 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 well-fed, 95% Tikhonovites. At the beginning of the speech, the rise in 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 red-cheeked 48 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 49 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 with the October Revolution, a huge influx of intelligentsia, officers and all sorts of White Guard persons to the church began to come to their churchmen. At present, the church will try to cleanse itself of this counter-revolutionary policy...” 50. The next speech of Archbishop Hilarion that we know of took place on September 4, 1923, the theme of which was the Renovation Cathedral of 1923. A message from a GPU employee who attended the dispute says: “At the debate of Hilarion 4/IX at the Polytechnic Museum, all the 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 front 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 uncertainty in the strength of the counter-revolutionary power. He thinks that the decree of the patriarchy was not a counter-revolutionary act in relation to the February revolution. They listened to the renovationists who spoke. Lev 51 and BEAUTY 52 were interrupted by noise. The renovationist Seraphim Kostromsky 53 was sometimes even applauded. Tikhon’s supporters only mocked the renovationists and did not say anything significant” 54. A message from another GPU employee who attended Bishop Hilarion’s debate 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, in his opinion, features of church renewal, 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: 1) The forgery of their powers, which the initiative group of white clergy “Living Church” began with - the appropriation of administrative church [power] to themselves, while the patriarch agreed only to the mediation of these persons in transferring him, the patriarch, the office - to his intended deputy, which did not prevent these persons from usurping power to themselves and misleading others 55. 2) Fraud of public opinion - printing victorious reports about supposedly universal renovationism, about the transition of a number of bishops to renovationists, etc. 3) Fraud of the hierarchy - expressed in the decree 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 56, the question of secondary marriages of the clergy, 57 etc. These moments revealed with sufficient clarity the essence of the entire update. Gradually, people who joined him because of their passion for this movement, or who joined him “for the sake of the Jews” (the real words of the speaker - chuckles in the audience) are leaving. 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 choosing members of the council 58, characterizing it as boldly and deftly delivered, but still too straightforward: it also reveals fear 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 59: 1) Prohibition to attend the council for persons brought to the church court for anti-renovation activities during 1922. 2) The obligatory 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 to speak for and one against on this issue. Hilarion then 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 diocese. In Siberia, three bishops, rejected by Tikhon 60, ordained two married bishops 61, under an oath: not to make ordination themselves. This did not prevent them, however, from ordaining Peter BLINOV 62 as bishop, 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 63. Antonin even protested against Blinov’s own participation in the service 64. 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 65, rededicated them. Hilarion then moves on to the cathedral itself. For comparison, he cites the 2nd Council of Ephesus, led by the Greek Dioscurus 66, 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. Hilarion then explains 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, notorious counter-revolutionaries. This supposedly explains... Hilarion declares that the council was far from counter-revolutionary. That, of course, there were many of the people listed above, but 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. Besides (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. Hilarion explains the very formation of the institution of the patriarchate not as a counter-revolutionary fact, but, on the contrary, as a fact of the revival of church life, and therefore as a progressive phenomenon. Since Peter the Great, the church fell under the authority of the state. The patriarchate was demolished by the despotism of the state, and it (the patriarchate - D.S.) was only an expression of the meaning of the Russian Church. The patriarch is the first-present hierarch and nothing more. Therefore, as soon as the revolution took place, the church, sensing its wings, restored the patriarchate. As evidence, he refers to his lectures on the history of the church (printed during tsarism 67) - in which he demands the restoration of the patriarchate in the church as proper. Therefore (the original words of Hilarion) the restoration of the patriarchate for the February revolution cannot be considered counter-revolutionary. The defrocking of the patriarch itself took place in a very confusing manner: those who spoke in defense were not allowed to speak out 68 . The conference of bishops recognized the defrocking of the patriarch, and the meeting of the entire council with believers removed the monastic rank from the patriarch 69 . The best response to this restoration is for almost all believers to completely ignore it. 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 Tikhon’s followers; and 3) those who do not belong to the Orthodox Church...” 70 This speech became one of the reasons for the arrest of the saint. The conclusion on the case of Archbishop Hilarion, drawn up in the 6th department of the SO GPU on October 30, 1923, stated: “At the debate on 4/9/23, Mr. TROITSKY, explaining the attitude of notorious counter-revolutionaries to the resolution adopted by the Council in 17, stated that 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. Besides (hilarion calls out) who could imagine that the Government would last so long. The Council could not flirt with a government whose long-term existence it was not sure of.” 71 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” of 13/X-23 took place in the presence of a full audience of the public. The report was given by Vvedensky, and then Hilarion was his opponent. 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 (noise with their feet), and then talks about what work the renovationist clergy of the last period did (the speaker is not allowed to speak and they make 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 against 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 is connected with foreign counter-revolution and was against helping the starving (noise, screams), when Vvedensky says “Tikhon”, the audience shouts “patriarch”, such shouting continues for about 15 minutes, so they calm down and the speaker finishes the report. Hilarion, speaking as an opponent (when he appears on the podium with applause that covers the entire hall), says that the clergy were bad under this system, but not all of them, there were those 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 self-proclaimed ones, consecrated legally 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 (...) 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, 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 them 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 ​​72. About the Karlovac 73 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 in common with him 74 . Further, Hilarion says that they have never been enemies of the church, and if we are enemies, then not of the church, but of the schismatic-renovationist church, why do we consecrate cathedrals after the renovationists. This is because married bishops serve there and this is against canon laws. He ends his speech by saying, but if he had compromised, he, Hilarion, would have recoiled from him...” 75 The second report was also deposited in the investigative file of Archbishop Hilarion: “I would like to inform you that on 13/X-23, in the building of the Polytechnic Museum from 8 o’clock in the evening to 12 o’clock at night, Vvedensky’s debate took place. The opponent was Hilarion. 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 debate. Of course, this can be explained by the fact that the public is overwhelmingly reactionary elements, i.e. Sukharev's traders 76 and speculators, one might argue, are ardent monarchists. When Vvedensky reached the revolutionary period, i.e. when he began to accuse Tikhon of counter-revolution and a number of other crimes, of course he referred 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 77, then from that moment attempts began to disrupt the dispute. One of the most subtle organizers of this disruption, i.e. Most of all, he intended to disrupt the dispute, who once went to the top and incited the public to breakdown, I say 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, when Hilarion appeared, the latter was met with incessant applause, of course, because the overwhelming majority were Tikhonovites. Hilarion answered in his words that everything that VVEDENSKY said was by no means new. He says we also preached for a free church, i.e. 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. political department and were members of a number of monarchist organizations. Of course, in general, Hilarion did not deny this fact and says 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 Hilarion 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 schism. The schism, according to Hilarion, is renovationist. ideas. 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” 78 . It was this debate, at which Archbishop Hilarion inflicted a crushing defeat on the leader of the renovationists A.I. Vvedensky, that served as the reason for preparing 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. However, the interrogation took place only on October 27. During the interrogation, the bishop was asked: “Didn’t you speak at the debate with information that the VCU are agents of the GPU 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” 79 . On the same day, a written undertaking not to leave was taken from him. 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 by doing so he was 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.” The activities of Archbishop Hilarion as administrator of the Moscow diocese brought significant results. In Moscow, the renovationists lost their position; by the fall of 1923, according to E.A. Tuchkov, only 30 churches remained under the control of the “Holy Synod” in Moscow, including the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and 10–20% of the churches in the Moscow province. Tuchkov also noted that this movement does not enjoy the support of the laity, and admitted that in Moscow and the region the “Tikhonovskaya” church enjoys the greatest authority. The followers of Antonin Granovsky in Moscow owned 3 churches, but in the districts of the Moscow province there were no 80 of them. In October 1923, the commissioner of the Moscow city department of the GPU, Kazansky, wrote: “In Moscow, Tikhonovism more or less successfully dealt with renovationism” 81 . In addition to the administration of the Verean vicariate, Archbishop Hilarion was entrusted with the administration of the Sergius vicariate, due to the illness of Bishop Bartholomew (Remov) 82 . Archbishop Hilarion was arrested on November 15, 1923, according to a warrant signed by the notorious Genrikh Yagoda, while his correspondence was confiscated, and on December 7, the NKVD Commission on Administrative Expulsions made the following decision: “Trinity should be imprisoned in a concentration camp for a period of three years” 83 . The saint was sent to the Solovetsky special purpose camp. In 1926, when his term of imprisonment expired, a new criminal case was opened against the saint. This time the saint was accused of “informing various people about his conversation that took place in the Yaroslavl detention center with the head of the 6th department of the Secret Department of the OGPU Tuchkov, giving it publicity, which aroused a hostile attitude towards the policies of the Soviet Power among the population.” The point was that the saint made no secret of the fact that he sharply refused Tuchkov’s offer to become an informant for the OGPU. On October 14, 1929, a special meeting at the OGPU board sentenced the archbishop to three years of exile to Kazakhstan. During this stage, the bishop fell ill with typhus and died in a prison hospital in Leningrad on December 28, 1929. Saint Hilarion was glorified as a locally revered Moscow saint on May 10, 1999, and at the Jubilee Council of Bishops in 2000 he was numbered among the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. Orlovsky 1996 – Damascene (Orlovsky), abbot. Martyrs, confessors and devotees of piety of the Russian Orthodox Church of the twentieth century: biographies and materials for them. Tver: Bulat, 2000. Vessel 1994 – Chosen Vessel: Collection of documents on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church / Comp. M. Sklyarova. St. Petersburg, 1994. Investigative case 2000 – Investigative case of Patriarch Tikhon. Collection of documents and materials from the Central Archive of the FSB of the Russian Federation. M., 2000. Kremlin archives. Book 1. – Kremlin Archives: In 2 books. Politburo and the Church 1922–1925 Book 1. M.; Novosibirsk, ROSSPEN; Siberian Chronograph, 1997. Kremlin archives. Book 2. – Kremlin Archives: In 2 books. Politburo and the Church 1922–1925 Book 2. M.; Novosibirsk, ROSSPEN; Siberian Chronograph, 1998. Fast 2000 – Fast M., priest. History of the Tomsk diocese (1917–1944). MDA. SP, 2000. (PhD thesis). Acts of 1994 – 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. ARK = Anti-Religious Commission under the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) VCS = Supreme Church Council VCU = Higher Church Administration (from 1917 to 1921 the canonical VCU operated, and in 1922–1923 – the renovationist one) VChK = All-Russian Extraordinary Commission GARF = State Archives of the Russian Federation GPU = State Political Administration GUS = State Academic Council of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR NKVD = People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs OGPU = United State Political Administration under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR RGASPI = Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History RGIA = Russian State Archives SO GPU = Secret Department of the GPU CA FSB = Central Archive of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation Central Committee of the RCP (b) = Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) Orlovsky 1996. Book 4. P. 391. Golubtsov S., protodeacon. MDA in the revolutionary era. M., 1999. P. 63 See: All-Russian Congress of Scientific Monasticism // BV. 7. 1917. pp. 143–144. RGIA. F. 831. Op. 1. D. 21. L. 30. RGIA. F. 831. Op. 1. D. 22. L. 13. RGIA. F. 831. Op. 1. D. 63. L. 18–19. RGIA. F. 831. Op. 1. D. 63. L. 58. Lubyanka. Cheka-OGPU-NKVD-MGB-KGB. 1917–1960. Directory / Comp. A.I. Kokurin, N.V. Petrov. M.: Publishing house MFD, 1997. P. 9. Orlovsky. 1996. Book. 4. P. 403. Investigative case 2000. P. 485. CA FSB D. R-43193. T. 1. L. 9. Orlov A.P., prot. Report on the state of the MDA FOR 1919/1920 AND 1920/1921. // VRKhD 147. 1986. P. 198. RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 112. D. 443a. L. 32; F. 89. Op. 4. D. 115. L. 8. Orlovsky 1996. Book 5. P. 300. Hieromartyr Hilarion, Archbishop of Vereisky // Moscow Diocesan Gazette. 1999. No. 5–6. P. 52. Central Election Commission FSB. F. 1. Op. 5. D. 363. L. 8–9 vol. Central Election Commission FSB. D. R-43193. T. 1. L. 50. (hereinafter, the features of writing documents from Soviet bodies are preserved). GARF F. 1235. Op. 97. D. 54a. L. 38–39; publ.: Domestic archives 1993. No. 6. P. 115–116. Kremlin archives. Book 1. pp. 115–116. Central Election Commission FSB. F. 1. Op. 6. D. 11. L. 13. RGASPI. F. 5. Op. 2. D. 48. L. 74; publ.: Kremlin Archives. Book 2. P. 28. Central Election Commission FSB. D. N-1780. T. 4. L. 256. Central Election Commission FSB. D. N-1780. T. 4. L. 259. Central Election Commission FSB. D. R-43193. T. 1. L. 50. Central Election Commission FSB. D. R-43193. T. 1. L. 57. GARF. F. 8419. Op. 1. D. 259. L. 121; publ.: Church Historical Bulletin. 1999. No. 2–3. P. 71. Orlovsky 1996. Book. 4. P. 408. Kremlin archives. Book 1. P. 528. CA FSB D. R-43193. T. 2. L. 114. 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. 342. Central Election Commission FSB. D. N-1780. T. 4. L. 399 vol. The text of this and subsequent documents compiled by the GPU is given with partial preservation of the features of the original. On April 9, 1922, Patriarch Tikhon issued an “Address to the Diocesan Bishops,” in which he pointed out the inadmissibility of resistance to the seizure of valuables. (Investigation case 2000, 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 on May 26, 1922. Vvedensky demanded that the Metropolitan recognize the VCU. In his message of May 28, 1922, Metropolitan Veniamin 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 6th branch of the SO GPU. (See E.A. Tuchkov’s reports on the progress of the congress; publ.: Kremlin Archives. Book 1. pp. 315–318). The congress was attended by bishops ordained by the renovationist bishops of the old decree 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. CA FSB D. R-43193. T. 2. L. 138 vol. CA FSB D. N-1780. T. 4. L. 345. Obviously, this refers to Archpriest V.D. Krasnitsky, the 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, 1923. According to E.A. Tuchkov, about 500 delegates came to the council, including 67 bishops. The 22 bishops who arrived at the council had the old resolution. 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. 388–400). CA 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 P., 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, the renovationist Holy 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 harassment and put the following resolution on their statement: “It is entrusted to the persons named below, i.e. to the priests who signed the statement, to accept and transfer to His Eminence Agafangel, upon his arrival in Moscow, the 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 ones, 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 the rank, to allow the clergy and bishops to marry widows, and some canonical restrictions on marriage were also abolished: consanguinity of the fourth degree was also allowed marriages between godfather and mother. This refers to the “Regulations on the convening of a local council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1923.” dated February 1, 1923; publ.: 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 carry out a pre-conciliar campaign so that the majority of clergy of the Black Hundred-Tikhonov persuasion would not attend the cathedral.” (CA FSB. F. 2. Op. 4. D. 372. L. 92; publ.: Kremlin Archives. Book 2. P. 345). In September 1922, Bishop Sophrony (Arefyev) of Novonikolaevsk went over to the side of the VCU. (See: Fast. 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: Fast. 2000, 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 of government. (RGIA. F. 831. Op. 1. D. 218. L. 40). On September 21, 1922, the above three bishops ordained widowed Archpriest Ionann Zavadovsky as suffragan bishop of the Biysk-Altai diocese. On September 24, 1922, the widowed Archpriest Nikolai Chizhov was promoted to Bishop of Irkutsk. (See: Fast. 2000. P. 48; Renovationist schism. (Materials for church-historical and canonical characteristics) / Compiled by I.V. Solovyov. M.: Krutitsky Compound Publishing House, 2002. P. 768, 877–878) Blinov Petr Fedorovich (born about 1890 - repressed about 1938), one of the leaders of the renovation 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 read and presented the conciliar resolution. At the council in 1923, P. Blinov led a group of 60 deputies of Siberian renovationists called the “Siberian Group Living Church.” 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 6. 2000. P. 62.) The Zaikonospassky Monastery on Nikolskaya Street in Moscow was at the disposal of Antonin (see: Tsypin V., Archpriest Innocent (Pavlov), Abbot Antonin (Granovsky) // PE. T. II. 2001. P. 683). We are talking about the heretical “robber” Council of Ephesus in 449, headed by the Patriarch of Alexandria Dioscorus. See: Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. Russian Orthodox Church from ancient times to the present day // Russia in its past and present. M., BG. 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.: Publishing house of Archpriest V.D. Krasnitsky, 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. 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 1994. p. 190). On April 9, 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 second message, there is no need to attach much importance... I don’t want anything at all, but I don’t allow one thing. Sacred vessels, how they are put in a box and trampled underfoot to seal it..." (TsA 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 foreign 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 “Karlovak 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 Cathedral 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 1994, pp. 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 best cope with 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 actions... to provide assistance locally.” 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. 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. Central Election Commission FSB. D. R-43193. T. 2. L. 145. Central Election Commission FSB. F. 2. Op. 4. D. 372. L. 41. Central Election Commission FSB. D. N-1780. T. 5. L. 212 vol. Central Election Commission FSB. D. N-1780. T. 4. L. 348. Central Election Commission FSB. D. N-1780. T. 4. L. 164.