History of the burial of St. Ave. John of Kronstadt in 1920–1940.

Around the fate of the tomb of St. John of Kronstadt in the crypt church of the Ioannovsky Monastery in St. Petersburg, many legends have developed. The opinion that there are no relics in the tomb prevails in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. The blasphemous atheist N. Yudin wrote something similar in 1966, describing the events of the 1920s almost 40 years later. However, in both cases no documentary evidence was provided. Another legend, with references, among others, to the memoirs of N. D. Zhevakhov and the nun Veronica (Vrasskaya-Kotlyarevskaya), is given by M. V. Shkarovsky in his fundamental monograph on the history of the monastery. According to T.I. Ornatskaya, it also existed among the relatives of the Kronstadt shepherd. It seems that the documents discussed below confirm the truth of the evidence that the relics of St. John, throughout all the hard times, rested at the place of his original resting place and were the key to the current revival of the Ioannovsky monastery. This work covers the period 1923–1926. and is based on three groups of sources: archival files from the Central State Administration of St. Petersburg (funds of the Leningrad Executive Committee, f. 1000, secret department; Leningrad City Executive Committee, f. 7384, church table; Management Department of the Petrograd Executive Committee, f. 1001; Executive Committee of the Petrograd District Council, f. 151) - previously known (1923) and, first of all, relatively recently declassified (1926), as well as on newspapers of that time. The importance of the issue forces us to return to it again after the publication of M. V. Shkarovsky’s book and consider in more detail the fate of the relics of St. right John of Kronstadt. As you know, Fr. John, back in 1904, through a petition to Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky), received permission to be buried in the crypt of the St. John's Monastery - as an exception to the existing legislation. On December 23, 1908, the Kronstadt shepherd found peace in front of the right choir of the tomb church in the name of the saints Prophet Elijah and Queen Theodora. Over his grave, which, it is important to note, was located at a very shallow depth, was placed a massive marble slab with an image of the Cross, the Holy Gospel and a carved marble miter. In 1911, an image of Rev. was placed on the tomb. John of Rylsky by academician of painting N.P. Shakhovsky. An unquenchable lamp burned in front of him. The grave enjoyed universal veneration - members of the Royal House, more than eighty bishops (in 1909 alone), and many thousands of pilgrims from all over Russia prayed at it. In addition, at the relics of Fr. John, healings occurred (in 1909, 12 healings were noted). On August 15, 1919, the Petrograd District Council issued a temporary certificate of registration of the parish community of the Ioannovsky Monastery. After the death on June 13, 1921, Prot. Dimitri Fedorov, the husband of Fr.’s niece became the rector of the monastery churches. John of Kronstadt, Archpriest John Nikolaevich Ornatsky, chairman of the parish council since July 1920. In August 1922, the parish joined the Petrograd autocephaly, which opposed the spread of renovationism in the diocese. Perhaps in this regard, on April 10, 1923, the management department of the Petrograd District Council informed the parish council about the immediate termination of the contract with the “twenty” as “violating public order.” On May 12, the cases were transferred to a new community, closer to the authorities, headed by Archpriest. Jacob Zhuravsky. It belonged to the radical renovationist group “Petrograd Diocesan Committee of the group of Orthodox white clergy “Living Church”. The monastery, which remained faithful to the “old church members,” found itself in a self-governing position; the new “twenty” subsequently even asked to wall up the passage between the church and the monastery. The keys to the tomb were held by the elder A. G. Timofeev. According to the secret resolution of the Petroguys Executive Committee (PGI) dated May 19–25, 1923, the monastery was to be closed and its buildings used “for public needs.” At this time, the authorities had not yet determined their policy regarding the burial of Fr. John of Kronstadt: apparently, in connection with the upcoming closure of the monastery, the Petrograd regional executive committee proposed reburying the remains in the Novodevichy Convent, which was opposed by members of the Living Church. A special representative of the “Living Church” committee is Archpriest himself. I. Zhuravsky - was sent to “resolve this issue” “to the highest government authorities in Moscow.” Renovationist Petrograd Diocesan Administration (PEU) represented by Archpriest. A. Boyarsky took a less clear-cut position. The Gubernia Executive Committee sought to highlight the disagreements among the renovationists and pointed out that the PEU, on the contrary, “fully met the Gubernia Executive Committee halfway on the issue of dismantling the nuns who were reactionary against church renewal, who had built themselves a fairly strong nest of the so-called within the walls of the St. John’s Monastery. autocephalous movement." According to the Chairman of the Petroguys Executive Committee, the PEU “also offered its services” “in the matter of transferring the ashes of Archpriest Sergiev, identifying a burial place” now “at the cemetery b. Alexander Nevsky Lavra. Prot. Zhuravsky, “having recently seized into his own hands the operation of the Ioannovsky Monastery in the sense of serving the religious needs of believers,” felt “that with its liquidation colossal incomes are slipping away from the hands... going against the wishes of Petrogr. Diocesan Administration, began to artificially incite believers to express dissatisfaction with the decision of the Petroguys Executive Committee.” However, Rev. On June 4, A. Boyarsky petitioned the Supreme Church Council to leave the monastery active, pointing out that “the renovationist movement will have to endure enormous criticism from numerous admirers of the deceased shepherd.” The relics remained in place, but statements about the suspension of the PGI decision “in the interests of the renovation movement” had no effect. As M.V. Shkarovsky suggests, “the strengthening in 1923 of the influence of the chairman of the Petrograd authorities of the Comintern G.E. Zinoviev, who with his closest associate G. Evdokimov personally advocated the closure of the St. John’s Monastery,” also had an impact. On July 31, the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee decided to approve the decision of the PGI. On November 14, according to believers, “for unknown reasons, the churches were closed and to all attempts to find out about the reasons there was one answer - “by order of the Executive Committee.” Anticipating the imminent ruin, Rev. John of Ornatsky, retired lieutenant E.V. Fidelin (nephew of St. John) and his other relatives - Hartz and Ozerova - on November 20 petitioned “to give them the coffin of the late Fr. John for transportation and burial in one of the cemeteries of Petrograd or its suburbs, among other deceased citizens; and also indicate how to do this: secretly, without announcement, or openly.” In the repeated petition “to remove the body of the deceased shepherd from the St. John’s Church,” which dates back literally to the same day, the Smolensk cemetery “or wherever relatives and close ones wish” already appears: “We remain in the hope that the Provincial Executive Petrograd Committee will treat our humble request favorably and allow us to remove the body of Citizen R.S.F.S.R.I.I. Sergiev.” The community also asks that a tomb and a church in the name of St. Petersburg be left for them in the monastery. John of Rylsky. They began to collect money “for the removal of Father.” Maria Trynkina donated 10,000 rubles, “Exchange Church” – 3,050 rubles. November 26 Fr. I. Ornatsky describes the expected procedure for the transfer of the remains, scheduled for December 1: “All work on removing the marble slab and removing the galvanized coffin to the top will be carried out in the presence of representatives of the authorities, relatives and friends of the deceased the day before at 8 o’clock in the evening... Officially... the day of transfer of the body will not be announced... The procession will move in the following order: in front is a cross and a lantern, then some priests in vestments (which I will be...) then a chariot with coffin It is very desirable that at 8 o’clock in the morning... he is sent to the bay. monastery a small police detachment to avoid possible events. unwanted excesses. The procession will pass through the most sparsely populated streets: Geslerovsky lane, Maly pr. P.S., 8th line, Kamskaya street. The body of the deceased Fr. John will be buried in a row of common graves... a marble tombstone will be transferred from the former grave together with a marble monument in which the icon of St. John of Rila is inserted...” The PGI management department issued Fr. John of Ornatsky a paper with permission for reburial. The transfer of the remains, however, was postponed until December 8 (“The mourners will be no more than 100 people,” again trying to reassure the authorities, writes Father John of Ornatsky), then until March 28. In March, instead of the crossed out “Smolensk Cemetery”, the permit mandate reads “Theological Cemetery”. Under the personal responsibility of Fr. John of Ornatsky, he, the only clergyman, was allowed to accompany the procession across the Grenadier Bridge along the street on March 24. Brotherhood, Karl Marx Ave., Baburin Lane, Lesnoy St., 1st Murinsky Ave., Alekseevskaya and Ioanno-Bogoslovskaya streets. to the Theological Cemetery. The authorities, it seems, were extremely afraid of publicity and the accumulation of Father’s admirers: the Administrative Department of the Leningrad Executive Committee, represented by the head of the subdepartment Ilyin, again proposed “to make an order to take decisive measures to prevent more than the specified 100 people from seeing off.” However, the reburial never happened. On March 27, on the eve of the expected date, Ilyin reported to the Petrograd and Vyborg district executive committees that “the burial of the corpse of John of Kronstadt will not take place due to the application received on 26/III by the latter’s relatives, in which, for reasons beyond their control, they refuse to receive the corpse and its burial in the cemetery indicated in relation.” The reburial was probably prevented by both the sisters of the monastery (judging by their position in the future), and the renovationist former “twenty”, who assured in letters to Smolny that “on the Leningrad side, the Tikhonov priesthood united with the White Guards of the Denikin and Kolchak regime churchmen” (meaning the community of Father John of Ornatsky) and with the money from the sale of the monastery property “they want ... the father of the father Dragging Ioan to Smolensk is not supposed to be done and what the workers are protesting against. Opposite the removal of the priest from his place to Smolensk, the Putilovites and all the workers at other factories will march. And they will also write at Smolny...” It is also possible that this could not have happened without the support of the authorities, who by that time realized that the transfer would make the shrine accessible to people. According to I.K. Sursky, “the servants of the Antichrist realized that in the cemetery the pilgrimage to the grave of the great righteous man and wonderworker could not be stopped and chose to close access to the tomb of Fr. John. Then the pilgrims began to bow to the ground at the front corner of the building of the Ioannovsky Monastery.” Meanwhile, an unbridled campaign against the veneration of the All-Russian Shepherd and his relics was in full swing. Krasnaya Gazeta was especially zealous. “Last year the workers of the Electric plant took over the dormitory house of the Ioannovsky Monastery,” she wrote on May 24, 1924. “The house of the black pack of parasites turned into a red barracks of workers. Everything would be fine, but not quite. The black shadows of St. John and the white handkerchiefs of St. John still hover near the former monastery. There in the basement lies their father - John of Kronstadt. In their opinion, his power is there, and that’s why they go there to cry and lick the dusty walls of the basement. Isn’t it time to destroy the old nest of black crows?” Two days later it was reported that “a joint meeting of the team of the RKP and RKSM of the Elektrik plant named after. Comrade Skorokhodova puts forward the question of a hostel in the village. Ivanovo Monastery. “To us,” says Comrade. Chizhov, they send menacing letters, supposedly from the workers of the Putilov and Baltic factories, in which they scold us for expelling their “sisters” from the monastery. Of course, no one will believe that our workers had sisters in monasteries, and essentially this is because of the premises, or rather, because of the “relics” of Ivan of Kronstadt. They are located in the basement and a whole pilgrimage is made to the windows of this basement in the evenings. The team definitely states: it’s time to remove old unnecessary trash from there and destroy obscurantism.” The immediate step towards the authorities making a final decision on the fate of the burial was the fact that the veneration of the holy remains of Fr. John continued, as did attempts to save them from desecration. In a statement dated February 9, 1926 to the Leningrad Provincial Executive Committee, signed by the chairman of the parish council of St. Andrew's Cathedral in Kronstadt I. Tyulkin, it was stated: “In view of the closure of the Leningrad Ioannovsky, which is on the river. Karpovka convent, in the basement church of which the remains of Archpriest John Ilyich Sergiev are buried, the Parish Council of the Kronstadt St. Andrew's Cathedral appeals to the provincial Executive Committee with a petition for permission to transfer the remains of the deceased Kronstadt Archpriest to the city of Kronstadt for burial in St. Andrew's Cathedral, in its basement. Archpriest John Ilyich Sergiev began his service in the Kronstadt St. Andrew's Cathedral and ended it in the same cathedral, having served there for 53 years. Among the believing masses, the deceased archpriest was known under the name of Kronstadt, and now in the memory of believers he retained the title of Kronstadt. If circumstances force you to disturb the tomb of Rev. John Sergiev and transfer his remains from the tomb of the abolished monastery, then the parish council of the Kronstadt St. Andrew’s Cathedral, being the spokesman for the opinion of the entire parish, considers it fair that the remains of the Kronstadt archpriest be given to the believers of the cathedral where the deceased archpriest served for 53 years, and be buried in it.” The authorities again felt the threat of the appearance of a revered shrine in a functioning church and decided to act quickly. The first resolution on the Kronstadt statement read: “I consider it completely impossible to satisfy the request. Stepanov. 10/II-26.” However, Stepanov proposed submitting the final decision on this issue to the presidium of the District Executive Committee. This decision was not found in the archive, but it is obvious that the Presidium decided to wall up the tomb. Almost simultaneously, the Petrograd District Executive Committee called the GPU and on February 12 sent there a copy of the parish council’s statement. The GPU was already dealing with this “politically important” issue. Already on February 4, the authorized representative of the 3rd department of the investigative and operational unit, Alexey Makarov, visited the walls of the closed tomb. By February 16, he prepared a report for the head of the unit, Leonov, with the following content (the factual side and spelling are up to the author): “Ivanovo Monastery is closed, based on the resolution of the Gubernia Executive Committee. For 2 years the church building of the monastery was not used. The former inhabitants of the monastery - nuns, for 2 years, with the assistance of a small group of believers led by an anti-Soviet element, tried to reopen the monastery and again begin the exploitation of believers at the grave of Ivan of Kronstadt. All efforts were made to ensure that the tomb of Ivan of Kronstadt was preserved at the monastery. They were also against Ivan of Kronstadt being moved to one of the mountain cemeteries. Leningrad, and when relatives of Iv. They already intended to do this - the nuns protested to the point of threatening to kill anyone who touched Ivan of Kronstadt. As a result, the appointed transportation of Iv. Kronstadt to the Theological Cemetery was suspended due to the refusal of St. Ornatsky, out of fear. Currently, the church and monastery buildings are rented by the State Scientific and Reclamation Institute. A major renovation is being carried out and the premises are being adapted to the institute (crosses, bells, etc. are removed). It remains to resolve the issue with the grave of Ivan of Kronstadt. On the part of the institute, apparently with the knowledge of the Petrograd Regional Executive Committee, it was proposed to wall up the grave of Ivan of Kronstadt (the passages should be blocked with bricks). February 4th g., I, having examined the room where Ivan’s grave is located. Kronstadtsky, found that as a result of such a proposal from the Institute, first of all: 1) up to 200 soots are lost. good basement with concrete floor; 2) when bricking up, part of the steam heating pipes will be bricked up, and if the steam heating is damaged, it may be necessary to break the brickwork. In addition, leaving the grave untouched, and even walled up, is tantamount to preserving the grave. At present, the nuns, and even that fanatical mass of believers, having felt that with the occupation of the monastery by the institute, all possibility of exploiting the believing masses with the grave of Ivan of Kronstadt disappears, they are again raising a petition to transfer the coffin of Ivan of Kronstadt to one of the Leningrad cemeteries in order to have the opportunity for exploitation. Meanwhile, with the occupation of the monastery by the Institute, there is an opportunity to put an end to the grave of Kronstadt once and for all. Why dismantle the marble tomb, lower the Kronstadt coffin to a depth of 2 meters, and concrete the floor, leaving the entire basement room for the Institute. With the transfer of the coffin Iv. Kronstadt to one of the cemeteries - a new worship will appear and within a few years a church will be built at the burial site.” Meanwhile, at the initiative of the district authorities, the walling up of the tomb began. “Novaya Vechernyaya Gazeta” reported on February 18: “After the transfer of the former St. John’s Monastery to the Scientific and Reclamation Institute, among religiously minded inhabitants, for whom the name of St. John of Kronstadt is still surrounded by an aura of holiness, a rumor spread that the grave of the “elder” in the monastery would be destroyed, and the body itself... taken to an unknown location. From some of the admirers of the “holy father” there were even proposals to give them the right to take out the ashes at their discretion. Meanwhile, the grave... remained intact and the basement where it is located is currently walled up and the entrance to it is closed (my italics - A.B.). It is curious that many of the “father’s” admirers, passing by the basement windows, ... threw copper money. The surrounding boys, having set up a vigil to observe the St. John’s, then calmly collected these pennies and turned them into candy and movie tickets.” The newspaper kept silent about the fact that between February 13 and 23, the marble iconostasis and throne were removed from the tomb for sale, and such zealousness of the district authorities was not approved by the Administrative Department of the Gubis Executive Committee. On February 16, the following documents were sent to the Secretariat of the Presidium of the Leningrad Executive Committee with the stamp “Secret”: Makarov’s report with Leonov’s resolution: “Personally, Comrade. Kondratiev. I believe that permission to move the coffin should not be given, especially to Kronstadt. Please let me know your opinion,” the attitude of the executive committee of the Petrograd district council (probably with the decision to wall up the entrance to the crypt) and a copy of the statement of the parish council of St. Andrew’s Cathedral. February 23rd Deputy Head of the Administrative Department of the Leningrad Executive Committee Trushin and Head. church table Smirnov “due to the fact that this issue is of a political nature,” they ask the Petrograd Regional Executive Committee to suspend the sale of the marble iconostasis and altar that it seized from the tomb, “and also to confirm the correctness of the note that appeared in the Novaya Vechernyaya Gazeta about the walling up of this tomb.” Soon the case became the subject of secret consideration by the Small Presidium - after other questions, and with the participation of a representative of the Petrograd District Executive Committee. The most important document for us is dated February 26, signed by the Chairman of the Gubernia Executive Committee himself, which should be quoted in full: “In secret. case. M (scarlet) Prez (edium of the Gubernia Executive Committee). 26/II p. without entering into the protocol, it was decided to wall up the tomb of John of Kronstadt and, after two or three months, lower the coffin two or three arshins lower, and concrete the floor above the grave. 27/II 26. Larionov.” Larionov's order was of a compromise nature and corresponded to the proposal of the GPU. It provided for the concealment of the relics in two stages, which should have been carried out at different times - immediately walling up the tomb (which was previously proposed by the Petrograd regional executive committee, and which was already being carried out de facto), but in such a way that after two or three months it would be opened, the coffin would be reburied at a greater depth and the floor would be concreted (which the authorized representative of the GPU A. Makarov considered necessary to do). What alternatives could there be? Transporting the remains, as already indicated, meant creating a new center of veneration for the Kronstadt shepherd (in 1926, when, for example, most house churches had already been closed and churches had not been built for several years, a GPU employee was seriously afraid of building a church over the relics!). The authorities were probably afraid to simply take out and destroy the relics. “The sisters could not prevent the tomb from being walled up, but continued to guard it. According to novice Tatyana Shchegolikhina, they “vigilantly guarded the honest holy relics of our dear father John of Kronstadt, although they were walled up in the tomb by satanic hands.” Relatives of St. were also alive. John - it is no coincidence that the authorities were forced to involve them in cases of attempts to reburial or “wall up” the tomb. It should be taken into account that the tomb in the Ioannovsky Monastery was a grave, quite recent and visited by loved ones. No imaginary exposure of the “deception of the clergy”, which was used to justify the opening of the relics, could be expected here - except for the remains of Fr. John, nothing else could be in the tomb. Destruction of the burial site would also create legal problems for the lawless government. Even with the widespread looting and demolition of necropolises (and in 1926, the era of this kind of blasphemy had not yet arrived), a formal deadline was always set for relatives to transfer the remains to active cemeteries. Here, within the confines of the crypt, without attracting additional attention, it was planned to externally destroy the tomb, and, when passions had subsided, to use the tomb for practical needs, which was what the GPU insisted on and what happened during its subsequent conversion into a bomb shelter. It cannot be ruled out that a spark of God was smoldering in the hearts of the enemies of the Church; we cannot deny that other motives could be hidden behind the blasphemous words. In any case, here God’s Providence acted through the “Solomon’s decision” of the authorities. The very quick completion of the implementation of the first part of the decision is evidenced by the surviving document - “Act of Elimination of the Passage to the Tomb of John of Kronstadt” dated March 1, 1926, which states: “On this date, the final walling of the arch of the passage to the tomb on the left side at the descent from the stairs... two bricks thick (12 vershoks) was carried out. Before the final sealing, the relatives of priest John Sergiev were allowed into the tomb premises - priest Ornatsky, Ornatskaya, Makeeva. When examining the tomb, it turned out to be intact. There were no things or objects in the tomb room at the time of final walling up, with the exception of the tomb itself and a small icon of simple work in a marble frame lying on it” (my italics - A.B.). The fact that “the tomb is indeed walled up” was confirmed on March 11 by the secretary of the Petrograd District Executive Committee. No documents were found on the implementation of the second part of the order,3 but the likelihood that this happened is very high. Secret orders of this level, especially those agreed upon with the OGPU, were subject to mandatory execution and in this regard they, as a matter of course, may not have been documented (although the search for the relevant document should be continued). The act of performing the first part of the work - “walling up” - is associated with the presence of the relatives of St. John. These works have already been reflected in the press and should have received wide publicity. The authorities seemed to calm down after March 1926 - no other, later decisions regarding the tomb were found. Confirmation of the presence of St. relics in the tomb in the early 30s, is the document discovered by M.V. Shkarovsky and cited by him - the indictment in the case of the sisters of the Ioannovsky Monastery dated March 19, 1932, which, in particular, said: “The walled tomb of John of Kronstadt in the basement of the former monastery was glorified as “holy honest relics” and deliberately false rumors were spread that allegedly this coffin will be destroyed by the soviet government, thereby maliciously misleading the believers, who went in crowds to the coffin and, praying at it through the “window”, reviled the soviet government in every possible way” (my italics - A.B.). About the fate of the tomb in the 1930s. no information was found, but probably at that time the shrine remained undisturbed. Open veneration of the relics of Fr. John, as was the case in the mid-20s, then it was no longer possible and there was no point in desecrating the tomb again for the purposes of “anti-religious propaganda” for the atheists. It is difficult to imagine the looting of a walled tomb by looters within the walls of a functioning state institution - there was nothing valuable there anymore, and the relics were difficult to access. During the Great Patriotic War, “the church-tomb was demolished and a bomb shelter was built in it. During this period, the tomb no longer existed, and the floor in its place was concreted (as was decided on February 26, 1926 by the Small Presidium of the Leningrad City Council)... Already in the post-war period, representatives of the district executive committee, when asked about the fate of the relics, answered that since the soil on the site of the tomb was swampy, the relics probably sank lower (in such a distorted form information about the secret reburial of them could have been conveyed 2 meters deep under the floor of the church),” points out M. V. Shkarovsky. Today it can be argued that in the period from the end of April to the beginning of June 1926, the relics of St. John in a galvanized coffin (according to Father I. Ornatsky) were hidden under the floor of the tomb at a depth of 0.8–1.6 m (by order of Larionov, Makarov recommended 2 m) and the floor was concreted. There is an analogy with the burial of St. Patriarch Tikhon, only there the relics were hidden by the Orthodox themselves. At the Council of Bishops in 1990, June 8, Fr. John was canonized. It was determined that “the bodily remains of holy righteous John, resting under cover in the Ioannovsky Monastery he founded, should be considered holy relics.” “There is a prophecy from the saint himself that his relics will be lost and then found at a difficult time for the Russian people. And a lot of people will gather: the line to venerate the relics will stretch from Karpovka to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.” If it is the will of the Lord, this information at the appropriate time may help to achieve the acquisition of the holy relics of the greatest Russian righteous man of the last century.